;)
Is Inerrancy in Error?
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology
There are many voices telling us that the enforcement of the doctrine of inerrancy was a huge mistake made by the SBC that has led to a lot of the problems we have seen lately in our statistics.
Frankly, I find the whole discussion a little shocking. Why are we still discussing this (or perhaps returning to the subject?) I had thought that in the 80’s and 90’s, we as a denomination had settled this issue pretty definitively. Southern Baptists have are a denomination that believes that the Bible is truth without mixture of error. So shall it be written; so shall it be done! But now, the discussion is being raised again by some bloggers. “It is the discussion that never ends, it just goes on and on, my friends…”
I have no illusion that my word here will be the final word. But I would like to throw my thoughts out there anyway in hopes of, in some small way, advancing the discussion.
I am absolutely, passionately, completely and irrevocably committed to the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. I believe that God made the world, that Noah built a boat and was saved from a worldwide flood, that the Death Angel passed through Egypt, that God parted the Red Sea so Israel could go through on dry ground, that Jonah was swallowed by a fish, that Jesus (and Peter) walked on water and that the lame walked and the blind saw when Jesus touched them. I believe that Jesus’ mother Mary had never been with a man when she conceived Jesus by the Spirit and that he was the Son of God in a human body. I believe that Jesus died on the Cross for my sins and that that he rose again on the third day, that he ascended into heaven and that he is seated at the right hand of the Father interceding for us. I believe that one day he will return in glory, judge the world and that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
I believe all of this because it is in the Bible, which I believe to be the infallible and inerrant Word of God.
I believe this is an essential and important doctrine; one that our denomination should hold without compromise and demand of our employees and representatives universally.
I believe that while people can be Christians without holding to inerrancy, orthodox Christianity cannot long survive without holding dear this doctrine. If we compromise the absolute truth of the Word, we will begin to compromise its authority. We will replace the authority of the Word with the authority of human reason. We will abandon biblical standards for ethics that are subjective and situational. We will turn from the belief that Jesus is the only way to the Father and embrace diverse paths to God.
Objections to Inerrancy
I sometimes wonder why those who object to the doctrine of inerrancy remain a part of the SBC. It is their right to do so, and I am not questioning that. They are certainly in the minority, but there are still some among us who have not bought into the doctrine of inerrancy. I have tried to understand what they say and why they do not accept the doctrine the SBC has decisively embraced.
Here are some of the reasons I have seen. My list is certainly not exhaustive.
1) “It is just a political ploy.” This is a common refrain – that the leadership of the Conservative Resurgence did not really care so much about the doctrine of inerrancy as they did about the accumulation and consolidation of power.
To be honest, this is an impossible argument to prove or disprove. I have had lengthy discussions with people opposed to the CR who have spoken with absolute surety about the motives and methods of the leaders of the movement.
However, I have my own experience. I experienced liberalism firsthand in my Baptist college. I saw what it did to young Christians. I was certainly never part of any power group, but I was a loyal foot soldier. I was there at Houston in ’79, and at several of the other important conventions, voting for men I believed would hold the line on inerrancy.
Some have one experience. I have another. Some interpret events one way. I see them another.
This much I know to my own satisfaction.
- I saw liberalism and its horrible effects on young Christians firsthand in college.
- I engaged in the CR because I believed in inerrancy and because I thought the future of our denomination was at stake. I didn’t know any of the power players, so I cannot speak for them. I only know my own heart and intent.
I would make one point here that needs to be made. Not everyone who believed in inerrancy supported the SBC CR. There are those who believe the Bible but did not support Adrian Rogers, Bailey Smith, Jerry Vines, Morris Chapman and the rest.
2) “It’s no big deal.” Some prominent bloggers have made attempts to rebuild bridges with those who have left the SBC fold. Even some who claim to believe in inerrancy seem to indicate it is not a hill worthy fighting for or dying on. Simply put, I disagree. There are a lot of denominations, schools and institutions out there that people can be a part of. My desire is to be a part of a denomination that profoundly and unapologetically inerrantist. You don’t have to be SBC to be a Christian, I hope you will always need to be an inerrantist to work in the SBC.
3) “It’s the CR’s fault.” This is more a political argument than a theological one, but the current statistical issues of the SBC have opened to door to this charge. “Bold Mission Thrust” was poised to reach the world for Christ, bring revival to America, solve world hunger, cure disease and bring world peace, but the CR came along and derailed all the good that could have happened. I think this is fantasy and historical revisionism, but it is an argument made often against the importance of the CR, which championed inerrancy.
4) “No one has Paul’s Autograph” This is one of the more significant arguments made. Inerrantists generally say that it was the original manuscripts to which inerrancy attached. Obviously, we don’t have those. So, if we don’t have the autographs, why should we try to enforce the doctrine of inerrancy?
I think this is a specious argument. First of all, with the science of textual criticism, we can restore the original text to a high degree, and no significant doctrine or assertion of inerrancy hangs in the balance of textual variants.
Those who believe in the doctrine of inerrancy also tend to believe in the doctrine of the supernatural preservation of the inerrant word. The God who inspired the Word saw to it that the text and its message was adequately transmitted so that the revelation of God was unhindered.
We may not know whether the genitive or dative was used in certain verses, but the message of God’s truth is clearly and authoritatively recorded in scripture.
5) “Errors Exist” This would be the most forceful argument against inerrancy – the argument that the Bible does have errors and contradictions. There are some who believe that. I think the problem is with their understanding of the Word more than with the Word’s veracity, but obviously, if you believe there are errors, you do not believe in inerrancy.
6) Inerrancy is “Bibliolatry” This criticism is one of the most common. The accusation is made that inerrantists, instead of having their faith in God, place their faith in the Bible – making sacred Scriptures into an idol. I do not know if it is a sincere argument or just another way of trying to paint inerrantists into a bad light. But I think it is a fallacious one.
We do not worship the Bible. But what we believe is that it is impossible to abandon the foundation of a true Word and maintain an orthodox faith in the God of the Bible. Denominations have demonstrated that process over and over again. Abandon inerrancy first an watch the fundamentals of the faith fall one by one.
“My faith is not so weak that it is shaken by finding a few errors in the Bible.” My faith is in a God of pure and unadulterated truth. If his Word is full of errors and untruths, then my faith is shattered. I believe that “the Spirit of God uses the Word of God to do the Work of God in the People of God.” If that foundation is shaky, then yes, my faith is shaky.
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul said that if the resurrection of Christ was not an historical fact, then our faith is empty and useless and we are the most miserable of men. That is the nature of fundamental doctrine. If it is abandoned, the foundations of our faith are shaken. I believe inerrancy to be such a doctrine. When you abandon it, the foundations begin to shake.
Defining Inerrancy
One of the problems with inerrancy is the failure to accurately define the doctrine – a strange occurrence since the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy gave a comprehensive statement of the Doctrine. It is still available online. Essentially, biblical inerrancy is the doctrine that scripture is the Word of God and has no errors of any sort. The statement also has 19 affirmations and denials that explain what we believe and what we do not and it includes extensive exposition which gives the biblical basis of the doctrine.
Those who believe inerrancy would do well to study this document to refine their belief and understand it better. Those who deny inerrancy should demonstrate the integrity to make sure they understand the doctrine they deny.
Why It Matters to Me
1) Because it is the Word of God and God cannot lie.
Jesus is “the Truth.” He cannot and does not lie. If God communicated to us, that communication must be true, as true and perfect as the God who gave it. If God cannot lie, how can his Word contain that which is not true?
2) Because inerrancy is a watershed and errancy is a slippery slope.
Slippery slope arguments are always a little slippery. But the simple fact is that the admission of small amounts of error without calling into question all that the Bible says. Everything in our faith is rooted in the acts of God in history as recorded in the Word of God. If those acts are not true, how can we believe in the truth behind them?
If Paul’s teachings are based on his own prejudices and perspectives, how do we know what part of the Bible is real and true and what part isn’t?
There is a history in denominations and organizations. When inerrancy is compromised, even in small ways, there seems to be an inexorable tendency to reject the exclusivity of Christ and to deny the fundamental doctrines of the faith.
No, I’m not saying that everyone who denies inerrancy also denies the deity of Christ or the substitutionary atonement. I am saying that when inerrancy is sacrificed, there is a movement in that direction.
This is a line we need to hold, a hill for which we need to battle.
3) Because inerrancy puts authority in God’s hands, not man’s.
Inerrantists believe that God’s Word is absolutely true and absolutely authoritative. Many who reject inerrancy say that the Bible “contains” the Word of God, or that it becomes the Word when it enters our souls. However they state it, they do not believe that every word of the Bible is God’s authoritative instruction to us.
That puts the interpreter in the position of deciding what is inspired truth and what is not. It puts humans in the position of judging the Word instead of having our hearts judged by the Word. Scripture is my authority, not my opinions, reason or culture. To be brutal, I think inerrancy humbles us as we submit to the authority of Word. The rejection of inerrancy emboldens pride as we place ourselves in the position of judging the Word and discerning what is true.
4) Because the Bible claims inspiration and implies inerrancy.
Certainly, there is no simple statement in scripture about inerrancy. But the indication of scripture is toward the full veracity of the biblical text. The New Testament writers treated the Old Testament as absolute truth. And the New Testament makes claims that affirm its truth.
Of course, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the most important. It says,
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
2 Peter 1:20-21 tells us how the Word of God came.
“…knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
The Scriptures came not by the will of man but by the power of Holy Spirit, who protected it from the intrusion of error.
Matthew 5:18 speaks of “the Law and the Prophets” – a reference to the Old Testament and says,
“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
Note that the Old Testament is not just preserved in its overall message or theology, but even the smallest letter or marking is perfect.
No, like the Trinity, inerrancy is not mentioned in the Bible, but its teaching is completely faithful to the intent of biblical passages about itself.
5) Because the orthodox church has always submitted to the absolute inerrancy of Scripture.
Much has been made that “inerrancy” is a recent doctrine. I am not going to hold myself as an expert in church history, but what I have read and studied has lead me to this conclusion. The doctrine of inerrancy may be recent, but the concept of the absolute trustworthiness of scripture is ancient. Bush and Nettles convinced me of this many years ago in their book, “Baptists and the Bible.”
Discussion Notes
I will probably add a few more points, but frankly, I procrastinated again (I’m a professional at that) and I’m tired. I’m going to post this and you guys can have at it. I reserve the right to “revise and extend” my remarks as desired.
Let me point out a couple of things.
1) Feel free to oppose inerrancy for whatever reasons you believe, or to express your reasons for supporting it.
2) I realize I have opened the door and so I can hardly tell you not to talk about the CR. But I hope we will discuss the doctrine more than the history. I’m not interested in another tired rehashing of ancient grudges about the CR. I am trying to focus on the CR.
3) I simply will not put up with slander on either side. I will edit or delete comments that slander people. I will try to be fair, but I can moderate, delete or even edit comments and will use that privilege.
4) Some would say there is no way that Baptists can have a calm and productive debate on inerrancy. Let’s prove them wrong.
David: I have not read the argument that you have on the CR being at fault. I do believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. That I believe with deep, deep conviction. No swaying back and forth on this one. This is number one with me personally.
I do not have a problem with the ideals that the CR dealt with, it had to be dealt with. I have a problem with the methods used and the fact that innocents were also shoved out the door in what I would consider an aggressive and almost violent way. We could and should have done it differently. If you have quotes or links that would support your point #3 I am open to correction.
That should be addressed to Dave Miller, not David. Sorry.
Dave:
I agree with you that inerrancy (or accuracy or correctness of the Biblical texts) is a foundational doctrine.
If I hold that the Bible has “errors” then I’d need an appartus to be able to differentiate the “correct” sections from the “incorrect” sections.
As it relates to the CR: I believe the CR was necessary. But that doesn’t mean the battle was perfectly waged.
I use the words “correct” or “accurate” to describe the nature of scripture because “innerrancy” is a term that is historically loaded with meanings based upon the fight during the CR.
Here is an example of why the use of the term “inerrancy” stirs up so much emotion: Certain professors stated that they did not hold to the idea that various passages in the Bible described historical events. I think that one could reasonably say they did not hold to “inerrancy” as the term is generally understood. However, if administrators at the seminary where these professors taught didn’t take action to fire those professors that doesn’t necessarily mean the administration doesn’t hold to “inerrancy”. It only means that the administration is not enforcing a “zero tolerance” policy regarding adherance to “inerrancy”.
So the word “inerrancy” morphed from a term describing the attributes of the Bible to a term describing ones adherance to an agenda — namely the CR. Clear thinking requires that we separate our understanding of the Biblical text from whatever agenda was going on to purge the schools of certain professors.
I belive the agenda was necessary but it was poorly implemented in some cases and there was way too much collateral damage.
However, I’m not retreating from my high view of the Biblical text just because there was some kind of “fight” in the SBC in the late 20th Century — regardless of the purpose of the fight or how well it was fought.
I think you are right Roger, the term carries a lot of baggage. Like the term “Calvinist.” I am Reformed in my theological leanings, thus a Calvinist. But I rarely use the c-word because of the baggage. Most of the baggage has been placed upon it by those who don’t understand Reformed theology or by people who have intentionally misrepresented or caricatured it.
“Inerrency” is in the same camp. I hold to it, I agree with Dave totally that it is a vital doctrine. Perhaps we need to find ways and words to express our convictions so as to not load people with unnecessary baggage.
Inerrancy will keep our ship on course. It will be the basis of how our charting process will keep the main thing the main thing. More than the inerrancy issue is that we who believe it so earnestly have the greatest responsibility of the results that come from the impact of what it says. If I believe in exercise, and I do, my appearance will evolve into exactly what I believe, however, my body simply does not reflect what I truly believe at this writing. I think that is how some, if not most, of us who believe in inerrancy really appear sometimes. That is my confession today.
Steve,
The problem is that those new words will then create and carry their own baggage. One thing I’ve mentioned and Dave has too in his post, is that we believe in inerrancy as defined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
As a younger person who wasn’t around at the time, I get kind of fed up to see people arguing about the politics of CR so much. Likewise, it is hard to have a conversation on what the Bible says about Mary with a Catholic because any kind of disagreement with official Catholic dogma is sin, so there’s baggage with that as well. Even if I invented or used another term for “immaculate conception,” that baggage would still be there.
One needs to spend some time reading the Church fathers if they’ve bought into this notion that inerrancy is somehow a “modern, Post-enlightenment” reaction. The church fathers may not have used the term “inerrancy” (apparently they didn’t speak English, for one thing, though we know Jesus and Paul did– 1611-style!), but they said things like “without error”…which is the same thing.
There are probably some who wrongly use “inerrancy” to mean the same interpretation of Scripture that they come to, but by and large it’s still a useful term and the Chicago statement defines it well, I think.
It is no secret that I am outspoken in the Negative; I am think Inerrancy as it was used in the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC was a disaster, used deceitfully, and doesn’t stand up.
I cannot see where DAve Miller from my encounters with him on this board and SBC Voices has done much reading to challenge his preconceptions and allegiances over the last ten years.
Most Baptist affiliated colleges, either currently or before the great earthquake in SBC life of the 80′s, have a strong shelf of volumes The BX 6400′s. I am footnoted in three of those books.
And here in the last week the rupture at the ARP’s Erskine College in Due West, SC demonstrates once anew to me Inerrancy is a faulty tool.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/03/01/erskine
And NT Wright, the great Orthodox Anglican scholar says at a minimum Inerrancy is a Distraction.
Check on your local Barnes and NOble. His latest work is spotlighted, prominently displayed in the Religion Section.
David: I know nothing of the science of textual criticism. Is there any way to explain to a laymen how scientists can claim 99% accuracy in reproducing the autographs?
Here’s another question, and this is just me playing Devil’s advocate. How do we know the 66 books we have are all inspired and that we didn’t miss any?
I know nothing of the CR other than what I’ve read in the SBC blogosphere, and the other thing I can gather from that is that the SBC was just fine, or hovering on the brink of ruin, and that Patterson and Pressler where either fiends in human shape, or were practically messianic.
I’m not a fan of the word inerrant. I believe God got what he wanted in the autographs and preserved what He wanted in the transmission and translation.
Bill:
Find a good college library and spend a couple hours looking in the BX 6400′s.
David Morgan’s book on the Crusaders, Nancy Ammerman’s Battle For the Bible, and Baylor’s Barry Hankins Uneasy in Babylon will get you substantively into this matter pretty quickly.
In Hankins go to the Index and see what Carey Newman says. That capsulizes the thing for me.
Even better Harold Bloom’s chapters on Baptists in The American Religion.
I may come back with Bloom’s eloquent conclusion soon.
I believe that those who believe the CR with its return to a belief in inerrancy was essential to keep us from following the path of Methodism.
I further believe about those who continue to resist the requirement of denominational workers signing a statement supporting inerrancy several things are guilty of one or more of the following:
(1) They misunderstand the veracity of God’s Word.
(2) They do not know, or remember, the atmosphere in churches prior to the CR where Conservative Pastors did not trust the literature, or the Seminaries. The most common statement about sending a young man to seminary was that it was 50/50 whether he would come dedicated agnostic.
(3) They measure success in numbers, and are willing to do most anything to accumulate those numbers.
(4) They had a personal friend, or acquaintance, who lost his position because of his teachings. [This seems most often the case, because good conservative people can also become blinded by the curse of personal affection. Time and again I've spoken with folks who knew someone who knew someone who supposedly was dedicated, but lost his position.]
(5) They just don’t think controversy has a place in the church. I was once told by a fine old deacon that I need to study Jesus more and Paul less, because Jesus was less radical and more loving than Paul. I reminded him that Jesus was so loving, they crucified Him.
Time and again God chastised His leaders for the associations they formed. The good king, Jehoshaphat was admonished for his dalliances with the pagan kings, not because what they did was bad, but because it was not His way.
We Southern Baptists want preachers to call sin by its right name, to preach sin black, hell hot, eternity long, and salvation free, but we don’t want to make the practical applications of those teachings in our lives, or in our denomination.
Just my two bits worth, and like Dave, I don’t expect everyone to agree.
Dave!
You spoke elegant truth when you said:
“Those who believe inerrancy would do well to study this document to refine their belief and understand it better.
“Those who deny inerrancy should demonstrate the integrity to make sure they understand the doctrine they deny.”
God bless you for calling the REAL issue on the carpet. And both sides are at fault.
I understand that inerrancy in SBC life is entangled in the CR. I also understand that “inerrancy” is wrongly understood by many in the pomo/emergent crowd. Since about 2000, I have been challanged and challenge in turn those who want to argue either side to read The Chicago Statement in its entirety, especially:
Article XIII.
WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
I affirm that discussions on topics such as this: http://www.biblical-literacy.com/lessons/old-testament-survey/genesis-authorship-issues/
can occur without undermining in the least our affirmation of the Chicago Statement. I believe that such discussions are fine points that do not negate:
Article XVIII.
WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.
In essence, it is a discussion of the mechanics of transmission rather than the veracity of the Bible itself. Sadly, these discussions can get into hair-splitting arguments that are neither profitable nor instructive. As we have seen on this blog.
What happens though, is that informed discussions of transmission mechanics and details are wrongly assumed and interpreted to be assualts on authorship when observed by the wrong people. This is unfortunate and exposes and essential ignorance of such partisans who have never read the full exposition or even any of the articles in the Chicago Statement. This then leads to a form of Bibliolatry where the Book becomes more important than either the content or the Author of the Book. Such is the KJVO school of inerrancy and is an extreme we would do well to avoid.
You did well, Dave, in admonishing those who would argue to read the Chicago Statement themselves so they know what they are talking about. Excellent job.
Richard Land’s Booklist in the WAshington Post.
Searching for my Harold Bloom quote I came across this rough paraphrase I had forgotten when I commented in a Washingtonpost online Forum in 2008 about Richard Land and his booklist:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_land/2008/06/a_few_of_my_favorite_books.html
I obviously have not mastered the art of editing yet. My first line should read: I believe the CR with its return to a belief in inerrancy was essential to keep us from following the path of Methodism.
Thank you for clarifying Mike. Honestly, as I read your comment above, I was trying for the life of me to figure out that opening line. I think I had it worked out, but the clarification was appreciated.
I agree with Bill in this statement:
“I believe God got what he wanted in the autographs and preserved what He wanted in the transmission and translation.”
Bill, you are not errant in your statement here in the least.
God did get what He wanted in the autographs and in the extant, preserved manuscripts: An inerrant Bible to reveal His perfect will to all of humanity who read it under the influence of the Holy Spirit as he directs us to the truth of the Good Story of Jesus Christ.
Rick Presley,
How can a person who believes the inerrant Word of God is a divinely preserved work of the perfectly unified Trinity be at fault?
BTW, are you the brother of that actor named Jason Presley? I have been wanting to ask you that. You guys look a lot alike. I saw him in a western not long back.
I added this to the original document – late night “IMPACT” party made me forgetful. I may be “adding and editing” but will note that in the comment stream. This is the sixth of the reasons why some reject inerrancy.
6) Inerrancy is “Bibliolatry” This criticism is one of the most common. The accusation is made that inerrantists, instead of having their faith in God, place their faith in the Bible – making sacred Scriptures into an idol. I do not know if it is a sincere argument or just another way of trying to paint inerrantists into a bad light. But I think it is a fallacious one.
We do not worship the Bible. But what we believe is that it is impossible to abandon the foundation of a true Word and maintain an orthodox faith in the God of the Bible. Denominations have demonstrated that process over and over again. Abandon inerrancy first an watch the fundamentals of the faith fall one by one.
“My faith is not so weak that it is shaken by finding a few errors in the Bible.” My faith is in a God of pure and unadulterated truth. If his Word is full of errors and untruths, then my faith is shattered. I believe that “the Spirit of God uses the Word of God to do the Work of God in the People of God.” If that foundation is shaky, then yes, my faith is shaky.
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul said that if the resurrection of Christ was not an historical fact, then our faith is empty and useless and we are the most miserable of men. That is the nature of fundamental doctrine. If it is abandoned, the foundations of our faith are shaken. I believe inerrancy to be such a doctrine. When you abandon it, the foundations begin to shake.
CB, I think its Jason Priestly, if we are think of the same actor.
This is a most excellent statement:
“One needs to spend some time reading the Church fathers if they’ve bought into this notion that inerrancy is somehow a “modern, Post-enlightenment” reaction.”
BTW, Josh C., what is that stuff you keep eating?
Dave,
Well, are they cousins then?
The spelling does not diminish the fact they look alike. 
Of course I could be “errant” in vision. I am not as clear eyed as I once was. 
It seems to me that, for one to think there were “errors” in the Bible, in light of what they’ve read in it, is to think that one can perfectly understand what God has said.
When we yell “contradictions”, I attribute that to our lack of ability to understand. To understand perfectly.
I don’t do nothin’ perfectly.
Hey Bob,
We are leaving right now. See you at O’Charley’s in 30 minutes.
Debbie, were you part of an SBC church during the 70′s and 80′s? I don’t say that as an insult, but you have such strong and authoritative views of the CR. What was your involvement in it.
The “its the CR’s fault” point is a common one on blogs. There is a handful of anti-CR bloggers who make this argument often.
Roger, (comment 3) I agree completely. I wish there was a way to discuss inerrancy without discussing the CR, but those two things are inextricably linked in SBC life. But I completely agree with your view.
*The CR was necessary. My “Baptist” college had profs who were teaching that “Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed are just different flags under which God flies his name.” this same prof told me and another person to watch the movie, “Oh, God” to get my theology straightened out. (You young folks just won’t understand.) More than anything, I watched my friends in the 3 years I was there as they turned from vibrant Christians to jaded skeptics.
*Mistakes were made. To me, the most significant mistake was painting those who believed in inerrancy but did not support the CR as somehow biblically suspect.
Also, I think some had a “the ends justify the means” mentality.
But the mistakes that might have been made in the CR do not negate the good that was done by it. My nephew graduated from Southern and my son was considering attending Southeastern before he was hired by Liberty. And I was HAPPY about those schools. My college profs all came from Southern and Southeastern and I would not have wanted anyone I loved to go to those schools in the 70′s.
I’m glad for the CR, but not everything that took place in its conduct.
Steve Doyle, agreed. A couple of points.
1) this is not about Calvinism today, but I usually don’t call myself either Reformed or Calvinist. I believe in the Sovereignty of God in salvation and everything else. But I do not accept the Reformed system. Some there would call Reformed Baptist an oxymoron. And I don’t like the word Calvinist because I don’t follow his entire system either. So, I just say I believe that God is sovereign and let the rest go.
2) As to the CR, the word inerrancy came about because of the tendency of moderate/liberals to use known terms with redefined meanings. At one points, “inspired” meant you believed the Bible to be the Word of God without mixture of error. But that term was redefined. So was “infallible.” Inerrant was a term that became popular because it is hard to redefine.
CB
Is that a fat joke, a compliment to the writing, or a mixture of both? (for the record, I’m not offended in any case!)
Bruce Harp, well-said. I mean, REALLY well-said. Everyone be sure to read comment 5.
Andrew, here’s the thing. Whether you believed that the CR was good or bad, it was a traumatic and defining moment for the SBC. Those of us who lived through it will probably be reliving it for the rest of our lives. And, of course, for those who “lost” the battle, and thus lost positions of power and influence, and lost jobs, it is an even more traumatic moment.
All that to say we will probably be performing this autopsy until all of us who lived through it are gone.
Why I believe that The Bible is literally true.
39 men wrote
66 books in
3 different languages in
3 different continents over
1600 years
and it all fit together!
IT HAS TO BE THE WORD OF GOD!
W.A. Criswell
Pastor, FBC Dallas, TX
1983
Josh C,
Really apt and strong comment (#7). Thank you for that! I have no idea what CB was trying to say to you. I think, maybe, (and CB can clarify) that he was saying you had been eating something that made you strong, because your comment was so solid.
We will keep on believing that until disabused of the notion.
Stephen Fox, wow – I am shocked you showed up to comment on this. As Gomer Pyle used to say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise.”
1) Just because I do not follow the links you leave on nearly every comment you make does not mean I have not read on this topic. If you ever linked to something that was germane to the topic at hand, I might go there.
2) I am going to lay down the gauntlet to you here. Answer the following questions (not with quotes from others or links to their articles, and we will engage in real discussion. Refuse to answer, and I will pretty much decide that you are not interested in real discussion and operate on that basis.
Questions for Mr Fox,
1) Do you believe that the Bible has errors of history, perspective or theology? (ie. Is your problem with inerrancy or the CR?)
2) Do you believe that Jesus was born to a mother who had never been with a man, that Jesus’ mother was virgin when she gave birth to him?
3) Do you believe in the physical, real-world resurrection of Jesus?
4) Do you believe that Jesus’ death on the Cross and his resurrection to new life is the only hope of salvation for all mankind?
5) Do you believe that the miracles of the Bible actually took place?
Answer these questions and we will talk. Please, no links or quotes. I want to hear what you believe.
Stephen, if you believe there are errors, please give examples.
Thank you, Mary Ellen.
CB Scott,
You asked, “How can a person who believes the inerrant Word of God is a divinely preserved work of the perfectly unified Trinity be at fault?”
Easy. I do not believe affirmation of ANY single point of doctrine is guarantee that one is in agreement on all remaining points of doctrine. KJVO’s will assent to inerrancy and then proceed to define it so narrowly as to apply only to the 1611 KJV (while failing to affirm the inerrancy of the apocrypha with the 1611 KJV contained or the astrological tables).
Beyond that, even one who affirms intellectual assent to doctrinal positions still need a vital faith in accordance with the epistle of James that puts the scriptures into practice. To paraphase: You believe that the Bible is the very word of God? You do well. The demons also believe and tremble….
rick
Debbie,
The problem with “innocents” called “moderates” was that while most believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, they did not believe that inerrancy should be a litmus test for people maintaining their positions in denominational leadership.
Many fine folk took a stand, which I believe to be in error, and their stand cost them their position. I believe we MUST require those who serve in denominational positions to reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of Southern Baptists. And, Debbie, inerrancy was and remains the belief of the vast majority of Southern Baptists, not just those who attend conventions.
I respect those whose personal convictions cost them positions. There remain those who really don’t believe, who sign anyway just to maintain a position. Those are the ones worthy of our disgust, those wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Dave,
I’m glad you provided a forum to talk about a certain someone’s favorite topics. maybe if this kind offer on your behalf doesn’t get some real dialogue, we should all just play by the “don’t feed the troll” policy of the blogosphere.
and that wasn’t a fat joke, for those who aren’t familiar with the Internet usage of “troll.” (I don’t want to set CB up for a brilliant response to my earlier question! I, like you, assume he meant something nice by his original comment btw.)
I am sad that this thread didn’t go the direction of discussing Jason Priestly a little more. Was he like a teen icon or something?? Does Dave Miller really have a poster of Jason next in between his Derek Jeter and Babe Ruth posters? These are questions that must be answered!!!!
Bill, I’m not a textual expert, but a lot of work has been done in it. Here’s the thing. People talk about textual variants as if the extant texts have major differences that complicate our ability to figure out what the original said.
Most of the variants are minor things like noun case (genitive, dative, etc) – that type of thing.
There are a few big issues – is the pericope on adultery (John 8 – woman taken in adultery) part of the original manuscript? The trinitarian verse in 1 John 5? The ending of the gospel of Mar?
Most of these can be defined with a fair degree of certainty. The 1 John 5 verse did not appear until the 1400′s/1500′s and is certainly not part of the original. The adultery is story is more problematic as is the ending of the gospel of Mark.
But none of these affect major doctrines or essential biblical issues.
There are two primary forms of textual criticism – “critical text” and “majority” text. Each one uses certain principles to guide the process. The idea is sometimes given that these two processes produce quite different results.
But I went through one of Paul’s Letters (Philippians) and compared the majority text and the critical text. The differences are so minor.
Textual criticism and the discovery of manuscripts over the last 100 years or so has given us the ability to recreate the inerrant autographa to a high degree.
Josh C – I do not have any of the posters mentioned. However, I do have a life-sized cardboard cutout of Babe Ruth in my office at the church. It absolutely freaks people out. A janitor we used to have would hide it because it freaked him out so badly.
Dave, I need your Babe Ruth Cutout to stand next to my John Wayne.
Mike Raspberry, (by the way, I love your tea)
You said, “(4) They had a personal friend, or acquaintance, who lost his position because of his teachings. [This seems most often the case, because good conservative people can also become blinded by the curse of personal affection. Time and again I’ve spoken with folks who knew someone who knew someone who supposedly was dedicated, but lost his position.”
I think that is at the heart of much of this. If someone you loved got axed by a college or seminary because of the CR, you would have a negative view of it. This kind of gets back to my response to Andrew above. People got hurt in the CR and it was traumatic, so people have a hard time letting it go.
I think much of the current discussion roots in the hard feelings left by the CR. The CR was a war. Was it a just war? I think so, others do not. But even in a just war, sometimes the innocent get caught in the crossfire. It is hard to convince them that the need for the war justifies the pain and hurt they feel.
I have given you a flagrant error before.
WA Criswell’s 1956 speech to a Joint Session of the SC Legislature.
Please explain to me how inerrancy would’ve become so central to the SBC without the work and witness of WA Criswell.
Inerrancy has a sinister and wanton history in the SBC.
You fellows want to argue Inerrancy out of Historical Context.
My concern is how it was used demagogically in the political crusade in the SBC.
I cannot make you read the BX 6400′s. But examples abound there and the disastrous implementation is recorded there.
AGain here, is one church’s pilgrimage through the inerrancy
struggle:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6661536/I-don-t-let-nobody.html
CB, I don’t see the resemblance between Rick Presley and Jason Priestley, but I do wonder if Rick named any of his kids Elvis.
Dave,
Sorry to rain on your parade, but my name is “Rasberry” not “Raspberry.” The latter is a fruit and just a mite tart. I’m not a fruit, but extremely sweet.
Stephen, see my comment #31. Answer the questions.
Mike, disappointing.
Dave,
My feed reader missed a few of the comments, so I didn’t realize you’d resonded to me. I do like to hear more about the CR, and the banter is helpful in drafting my own opinions, but I also recognize that it can get out of hand, especially when we’re trying to discuss doctrine or something else.
Like I said, some terms and words won’t drop their baggage just because we change them. Kinda like changing the name of the SBC, eh?
Dave, your statement
5) Because the orthodox church has always submitted to the absolute inerrancy of Scripture.
… simply can’t be true. The church survived more than 300 years without the canon as we have it now. Numerous lists were floating around in those early centuries that omitted some books we now regard as inspired, and included others we reject. Yet somehow Christianity survived and thrived.
Here are the conclusions a Contemporary of Adrian Rogers at NOBTS came to on June 18, 1990 in an address to his deacons at 2nd Ponce in Atlanta.
In your Intro Rev Miller you spoke a lot about your experience.
Here is the experience of Robert Marsh who witnessed the same things you did to paraphrase a line from No Country for Old Men.
I want to say this as objectively as possible and simply give the facts as they have been given to me, not from reading the AJC or the Christian Index; but these items on the agenda have been given to me eye to eye conversation with dear friends with whom I may disagree very thoroughly but who have been clear enough to state the political agenda of the conservative movement.
1)Since 79 The Conservative Resurgence among SBC has tried to move us to a righ wing political philosophy and insisted that a conservative believer would be a political conservative….
2)I have had it stated to me very clearly eye to eye; “If you don’t vote for Ronald Reagan or George Bush there is no way you can claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ.
3) A strong military build up is a very important item on the political agenda….You are going to be supportive of what we did in Granda and Panama. If not, then there is something wrong with your commitment to the Word of God
4)If you favored giving away the Panama Canal, there is no way you can call yourself a Bible Believer
5) Capitalism is the only economic system to be found in the Word of God
6)If you believe the Bible, you will oppose the Equal rights Amendment
7)If you are a Bible believer, you will be Pro NRA…
Question is should these positions become a litmus test for participation in the Kingdom of God
More frightening, Should this agenda be the basis which determines whether a person can teach or serve on a board of trustees for one of our Baptist Institutions?
As for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
I saw it more in the life and witness of Martin Luther King, Jr. than I saw it in the inerrantists Paul Pressler and Jesse Helms.
I saw it more in the life and witness of George Truett than I saw it in J Frank Norris.
I saw it more in the witness of Fleming Rutledge, Barbara Brown Taylor and Will Willimon than I saw it in Jerry Falwell.
And in the flesh I heard it from Stewart Newman in 1977 at a Shoney’s in Gaffney, South Carolina about his experience in 56 with Criswell in Columbia South Carolina.
Marian Wright Edelman’s legacy in South Carolina is much more evidence of faith sculpted by Jesus and the authority of the New Testament than the legacy of Richard Land and Karl Rove in the SC Primary 2000
So I tell you what I have seen, what has been God Breathed to me and it tells me something is lacking in the strictures you placed on what was best about a tradition as it came down to me.
Would be nice if Fisher Humphreys and Timothy George would join us here and tell us what they saw in this error, I mean era of the SBC as Inerrancy would used to foul the SBC and turn the United STates to a more Pharasaical character.
Can you tell me about Sam Currin, andBarry McCarty and their witness in the Southern Baptist Convention???
Google up the poem Maybe by Mary Oliver
“You know how it is
When Something different
crosses the Threshold.
The Older Brother begins
to Sharpen his Knife…”
Dave,
Good think you didn’t say you liked his wine
That would derail this conversation 
Patrick,
The church always regarded the apostolic writings as truth without mixture of error. The only question that ever arose was to which writings did that truth extend.
The God was inspired the scriptures also, by his Holy Spirit, guided the Body of Christ to understand, over time, which books were true and which were not. The gathering of the Canon of scripture is a testament to the faithfulness of God in bringing scriptures together, and does not undermine inerrancy in any way.
the issue was never the concept of absolute truthfulness, but to which writings that truthfulness applied.
Rick/Jason Presley/Priestley,
I looked at your link about the authorship of Genesis. I have to admit to some reservations about questioning the authorship of Genesis, since there seems to be adequate testimony in scripture that Moses is the author – especially in the NT.
But I will agree in principle that scholarship does not negate inerrancy.
I do think we all need to understand the definitive statement of inerrancy, whether we agree or disagree with it.
Stephen, you have made your last comment on this subject unless you answer my questions in #31. I will put your comments into moderation. Tell me what you think, not what someone else thinks.
Stephen,
If your post were not so tragic, it would be hilarious. In one excerpt you say, “I saw it more in the life and witness of Martin Luther King, Jr. than I saw it in the inerrantists Paul Pressler and Jesse Helms.”
Martin Luther King, the serial adulterer, who lost his way when the adulation of the crowd insulated him from the need to walk with God, is used as an example of witnessing the resurrection of Christ in a life.
Please pardon me while I expunge this roiling mass of stomach content through a facial cavity.
The personal anecdotes of disaffected individuals usually are derived from a perceived loss of influence and/or opportunity. Simply said, your example is of one who seemed on the rise only to discover the train was leaving without him and his baggage.
Andrew, I just saw an article that wine can help in weight loss – that’s a tough one!
Patrick Watson – Comment 47
Could it possibly be that the Spiritual Gifts didn’t cease until after the 300 years? Or do we have verification that they ceased before then? Personally, I cannot find in scripture where it said they ever ceased. Our assumption is that they did and I don’t exactly buy into that. I don’t buy into the Pentecostal way, either. I just don’t know, to be honest, and only believe they are static until necessary somewhere.
For the Record: I am not a near kin to Elvis, although I am finding out that I am very distantly related to a goodly portion of the state of Tennessee and part of northern Mississippi.
While I appreciate your efforts to engage, Dave, I would echo the sentiment of Josh and advise all: “Do Not Feed The Troll”
I will also suggest that there were casualties among the defectors from the CR war too. The church I grew up in would rather switch than fight, so instead of remaining SBC, they became Big I Independent Baptists (as opposed to the little i Independent Baptists we know today as IFB’s, e.g. Hyles, Rice, etc.) and made pot shots from without. What happened in the 1990′s after it was pretty clear that the CR was going to stick, some of the defectors decided to reaffirm their SBC roots. This led to a lot of rancor in some circles, particularly in Lexington, KY. I am grateful that my friends who attended Lexington Baptist College were able to land safely in the SBC, some of whom are now seminary profs. However, there remain yet a good many ill feelings against those who remained faithful to the defection. Sad to see this sort of thing as I think it does nothing to build up the Body.
I just got caught up on all the comments. Good discussion so far. I would love to hear from a few more anti-inerrantists on their reasons to deny inerrancy.
I would love (pipe-dream, Dave) to focus on inerrancy the doctrine more than inerrancy the political movement. Again, I understand the two are pretty much linked in SBC life.
I’ll be back after while.
Thank you to those who have warned me about feeding the troll.
Here’s my heart – I see blogs where anyone who disagrees with the author is told to pack their bags and go elsewhere, where contrary opinions are viewed with skepticism. I try to engage people and get them talking. But sometimes, as is the case here, my patience wears thin. I want to be gracious and redemptive, as much as possible. But if he does not answer my questions, he has made his last comment on this stream (well, the last one that will stay out of moderation).
Rick, as to your comment, it is in line with what I have said above. The CR was traumatic no matter whose side you were on, no matter whether you were the victor or the vanquished. It certainly changed the direction of the SBC. Comment 56 is spot on.
Bruce Harp referenced Patrick Watson in comment 47 and explained that perhaps it was because the “Spiritual Gifts” had not ceased. I agree with you, Bruce, that spiritual gifts continue to this day.
I think we often try to argue against Pentecostalism by saying that when Scripture was established the gifts ceased. 1 Cor 13 becomes the proof text for those who believe such. If we are to maintain our belief in inerrancy we must use a consistent hermaneutic.
Patrick Watson – Comment 47
Could it possibly be that the Spiritual Gifts didn’t cease until after the 300 years? Or do we have verification that they ceased before then? Personally, I cannot find in scripture where it said they ever ceased. Our assumption is that they did and I don’t exactly buy into that. I don’t buy into the Pentecostal way, either. I just don’t know, to be honest, and only believe they are static until necessary somewhere.
Mike Rasberry,
I don’t claim that this is consistent hermeneutics, but, it seems to me that the acts of God throughout the Bible were not identical in every case. I know I was not saved like Paul and I do not know any who were, yet, it was a transformation in me that had the same result and affect as with Paul, only on my level. When it comes to the Spiritual Gifts, for me and my little world, I see a softness that the Holy Spirit uses to convey and translate the truth of the Word to me and those around. Even when someone is preaching, I am picking up on something that may be off-topic and specifically for me. I don’t want to try to attach my experiences to some of the Spiritual Gifts in scripture because that isn’t my purpose, however, hearing in my language along with the interpretations go deeper than the surface as I mature as a Christian.
Thanks for your encouragement.
Removed for policy violation.
Ron, I am going to put your comment in moderation. If you would like to reword it without personal attacks and slander, please feel free to do so.
Folks, I am normally an advocate for open exchange, but I recognize that this is a volatile topic. If I allow one person to say unkind things on one side, someone else is going to come along and respond, and then we will be in a mess.
So, here’s the ground rules
1) Discuss and express your opinion about inerrancy.
2) If you want to discuss the CR, fine. But avoid personal attacks.
I am going to be a little more proactive than normal in the comment stream.
Mike,
I removed the comment to which this one referred, so it seemed right and best to remove your response as well.
Hope you understand.
Josh C.,
Sorry if in any way my question was taken as an offense. it was not. I was in reference to your picture. It looks as if you are eating peanuts or something.
And your statement was a good statement. The Apostolic Fathers are one of the best historic references we have to anchor the belief of in an inerrant Bible to more than an argument among Southern Baptists. It can be argued rather successfully that Southern Baptists were rather to that contemporary battle also.
Again, I apologize if my comment about your blog picture was offensive. That was not my intent. And I would have said so earlier, but I was out at lunch with my wife and the famous blogger, Bob Cleveland and his wife Peg.
CB, I don’t know if it was Bob Cleveland or eating that did it, but you seem positively mellow.
Rick,
In reference to your response in comment #34.
I am trying to stick to the issue of inerrancy (Except for your family tree and Josh C’s food choices:-)
Therefore I am speaking to the doctrinal position of the inerrancy alone. To believe the Bible to be inerrant is not a fault. Do you believe the Bible to be inerrant?
Rick, I am making an effort not to tie this to the CR which most people who were not actually involved have no true understanding of anyway. I was in the belly of the beast of the CR from the beginning and frankly, I get rather tired of people talking so much of what they know nothing of in the first place. Rick, I am not aiming that at you. I don’t know you from Elvis or your cousin Jason. I just know there is ample material to use in a discussion of inerrancy without so many references to the CR by people like Steve and Debbie who really know nothing of it other than left-wing, latter day propaganda told them by CR non-combatants and Johnny-come-latelys.
If I am understanding Rick, and open myself to his correction of my perceptions, he accepts inerrancy, but is asserting that some scholarship that would be called “liberal” by some is actually within the boundaries of inerrantist interpretation.
Anywhere close, Rick?
I am a lowly youth pastor and although my vocabulary may not be as extensive as some of you fine theological giants, I’m gonna dip my ladle in this pot as well.
I ask anyone this, how big is God? I serve a God that will not fit into any box. It is my faith in His limitlessness that allows me to be assured in the fact that “ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God”. I don’t want to serve a God that is not big enough to see His scriptures maintained in perfection exactly as they need be to accomplish His will. Why would anyone? My Creator is big enough to see through the strands of time and realize that this exact conversation would be taking place at this exact time.
I think sometimes we get so caught up in trying to argue and prove our points we sometimes forget the most basic truths. It is by grace and through faith that we come to salvation. It is through that salvation that we come to understanding.
If you think that God cannot handle something as simple as maintaining His scripture. Or you simply can’t understand these scriptures as to how they apply to your life, Maybe you need to reevaluate your relationship with God and quite possibly reevaluate what God you serve.
In His Service,
Kevin Rasberry
Welcome to the discussion, Kevin. Good thoughts.
You ever met Mike?
Kevin, I’m going to show your comment to my youth pastor to demonstrate the level of deference and respect he should show me. Sound good?
Dave, Kevin was supposed to post under an alias.
lol Yes he’s my father but please keep it to yourself and don’t hold it against me.
FYI,
Everyone has their own “history” of the inerrancy battle and the CR. There are several books that I would recommend to those who are interested. I have no idea which ones are in print, but they are always available at online sources.
“Truth in Crisis” by James C Hefley – there are at least 6 volumes in the series. He documents the CR from sources within the CR. He is definitely pro-CR, but he does pretty good research.
“Baptist and the Bible” by Tom Nettles and L Russ Bush. A history of the attitudes of Baptists toward the Bible (duh?)
Of course, many folks who were involved wrote memoirs on both sides.
Kevin, so far your dad has behaved pretty well, so you’re safe. Unfortunately, with a name like yours, its gonna be hard to hide.
Stephen, please see comment 31.
David,
There you go again. You start off your topic as you have so many times in the past with a discussion of the CR. You then say you endorse it, support it, believe it was necessary, yada yada, yada, and then say you don’t want to make the discussion about the CR.
You want to talk about inerrancy. Okay, let’s talk about it. I believe word for word everything you say in the four paragraphs on inerrancy that you say are advancing the discussion. None of my friends who oppose the CR would disagree with those statements. We do not oppose the CR because of inerrancy but because of the actions taken in the name of the CR.
The easiest proof that the CR is about power and control and not inerrancy is given by looking at the results. If it had been about the Bible, it would have united us. Instead it divided us. If it had been about theology instead of power and control the litmus test for being appointed to a trustee board would have been “what do you believe about the Bible” and not “do you support the CR.” If it had been about theology, we would not be needing to call for a Great Commission Resurgence today.
Under #1 you repeat the same statements you always use when you say you saw it first hand in your Baptist college with some liberal professors. I had never heard of that college. How can that justify your condemnation of the entire SBC over one small college. You never talk about your experience as an MK in Taiwan in the 70s. What about the missionaries there? I am taking about Carl Hunker, Harlan Spurgeon, Ken Varner, and many others. Were they conservative or liberal? They were graduates of all 6 SBC seminaries and from many parts of our convention. That would be a much better indication to me of theological problems in our convention than one little college somewhere in the east. IMB trustee and CR leader, Ron Wilson, has said your these men were controlled by liberals and were exporting heresy all over the world. Is that true??? Of course not! It is because of actions like these that I cannot support the CR. Why do you support an organization like the CR that continues to spread this type of slander? I have heard you and David Rogers endorse many viewpoints here that would have caused you to be labeled liberals and been exorcised from SBC leadership by CR leaders back in the 80s.
Under #3 you claim it is fantasy and historical revisionism that the CR derailed Bold Missions Thrust. I think it was fact and historically accurate that the CR derailed Bold Missions Thrust. I have spent 30 years speaking in churches telling them they can trust our missionaries and should support the cooperative program while trying to make up for the SBC presidents and CR leaders who have cast doubt on our missionary’s integrity and been poor supporters of the cooperative program. Why do you feel it necessary to make light of Bold Missions Thrust by saying it was suppose to solve world hunger, cure disease and bring world peace. You know that wasn’t true. Was it always a just a joke to you and your CR friends?
Actually the whole idea of there having been a conservative resurgence in the SBC is a myth. What is the SBC? It may be that there were a few seminary professors and even others in position of authority in some entities that need to be fired in 1979. Praise God if that happened. The SBC is composed of several national entities, state conventions, associations, churches and people. No part of the SBC I was associated with had a conservative resurgence. They were already conservative. That did not keep the CR leaders from attacking and in some cases slandering these entities. Almost nothing done in the name of the CR had anything to do with inerrancy or theology. I am talking about the purges that took place at Baptist Press, most state conventions, Southwestern seminary and the IMB. They were all about putting “our people” in charge. Even after 30 years you still have to refer back to the CR constantly to try and excuse the actions that our SBC leaders take today.
David, you say, “Some have one experience. I have another. Some interpret events one way. I see them another.” Because I respect your ability to see the truth, I believe if you had been in Arkansas with me when Ronnie Floyd and Joe Atchison were making their attempt to take it over for the CR you would agree with my opinion of the CR. I believe if you had been serving with the IMB with me when a parade of trustees were passing through attacking the integrity of our mission force you would agree with me on the nature of the CR. If you had known the seminary professors I have known at SWBTS, you would understand my objections to those who claim the attacks on SWBTS were about theology.
CB – Yes, I believe in inerrancy as defined by the Chicago Statement. I think the term is unfortunate because I believe the Bible can be ‘inerrant’ while still accurately communicating ill-conceived advice like in the book of Job and that we need a discerning mind to understand the sweep of scripture.
Not only that, I believe that the Bible can use literary forms that to strict literalists look like lies or exaggerations but are within the bounds of figures of speech and don’t qualify as errors.
I believe that the Bible is without error by the standards of those who wrote it. I do not believe they adhered to a level of precision in all matters that we do. I believe that it is possible for someone to affirm inerrancy and to affirm that Genesis 1 and 2 are creation myths that use narrative imagery and poetry to describe God’s relationship to creation, not necessarily historical events (I’m not saying this is my position, but I am saying that the tent of ‘inerrancy’ is big enough to allow for non-literal interpretations where such interpretations are appropriate. The hermeneutical question that we debate WITHIN the tent of inerrancy is where those interpretations belong.).
I believe that we can dispute authorship of books without doing any harm to inerrancy because the Bible, especially the OT, places so little emphasis on authorship. Personally, I think Ezra wrote I & II Chronicles, but guess what? He did it by compiling a variety of historical texts including the books of Kings, Samuel, Jasher, and other books that no longer exist. In other words, when we say the Bible was “inspired in the autographs” I really don’t try to get hung up on which documents of an editorial compilation are the actual “autographs.” For a more tangible example, ask a rigid inerrantist to tell you where the autograph is for Daniel 4 – Is it when Nebuchadnezzar dictated his words to the scribe or when Daniel copied them into his book or when Ezra assembled the writings of the exiles and put together the OT canon? Or what of the book of Jeremiah that Passhur ben-Immer cut up with a penknife and burned? Were those the autographs or the ones that Baruch re-wrote?
All of these are questions that are NOT HELPFUL because they detract from the main point of the book. Do I think we need to be aware of them? Sure. Do we need to speak knowledgeably about them? You bet. Should we allow them to undermine our statements about inerrancy? Never. Why not? Becuase they are irrelevant. They are getting down to a level of detail that our doctine of inerrancy is not intended to address. I affirm the inerrancy of the scriptures in general. When it comes to particulars I tend to be a lot less enthused or interested.
Dave is correct. The fact that I acknowledge the existence of the issues listed above makes hard-line inerrantists, particularly of the KJVO variety, tell me that I am undermining the faith. Good for them. They are, in my opinion bibleolators who worship an idea more than the Author. I believe there is ground for us to affirm inerrancy while “disputing genealogies” as it were.
Stephen, here are the questions I asked you to answer. I am asking you for your opinions. I made a clear statement that the next comment you made that stood would have to answer these questions.
Here they are again:
Questions for Mr Fox,
1) Do you believe that the Bible has errors of history, perspective or theology? (ie. Is your problem with inerrancy or the CR?)
2) Do you believe that Jesus was born to a mother who had never been with a man, that Jesus’ mother was virgin when she gave birth to him?
3) Do you believe in the physical, real-world resurrection of Jesus?
4) Do you believe that Jesus’ death on the Cross and his resurrection to new life is the only hope of salvation for all mankind?
5) Do you believe that the miracles of the Bible actually took place?
Answer these questions and we will talk. Please, no links or quotes. I want to hear what you believe.
These are not difficult questions. Yes or no answers to most of them. I am inviting you to answer these questions. But I am also going to be firm.
answer these simple questions and we will talk.
Thank-you Ron West:
Excellent!!!!!!!
Rick,
If the New Testament regards Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, wouldn’t inerrancy require that we do so as well?
I know that paper you linked to raised doubts about whether Mosaic authorship is the necessary inference of all these statements, but I think I would lean toward still regarding them as indications that the Prophets and Jesus believed Moses was the author.
That, if true, would make this an inerrancy issue, right?
My very first memory .. and I REALLY mean my very first memory of the Bible, is of a big black KJV lying on a coffee table in our living room, when I was so young I have no idea how young I really was. I don’t think I could even read, as I asked Dad what it was. I recall his answer as if it were today:
“That’s the Bible. It’s all true.”
I don’t guess that’s a good enough description any more, but it’s the one I’m stickin’ to anyway.
CB,
I wasn’t offended. I think my hand is in front of my face so I looked pensive.
Hey, Dave now that Ron is back up, do I get back up also?
Ron,
1) I only addressed the CR because it is impossible to address the issue of inerrancy without it. I am not ashamed of the CR. I did not say we should not in any way address the CR. I just said it would be my desire to focus on the importance of the doctrine of inerrancy rather than the political ramifications. My concern is that we would get bogged down in subjective rants about the CR rather than dealing with importance of holding the doctrinal line.
2) It seems to me that our chief difference is whether the actions that angered you and turned you against the CR (which you once supported) were systemic to the CR or whether they were simply unfortunate acts by imperfect people. I have never said that everything done in the name of the CR was good.
I know a man who a “moderate” leader who had a moral failing. Does that besmirch the whole movement? Of course not. I think CR leaders made mistakes, but all in all I believe that the call to doctrinal fidelity was worth it.
3) You said, “If it had been about theology, we would not be needing to call for a Great Commission Resurgence today.” That statement flies in the face of human history. Israel was “revived” by God over and over again, then slipped away again. Henry Blackaby used to say that people have a tendency to drift away from God and must constantly draw back toward him. The CR drew us back to God theologically. Now we need a CR to refocus us on our evangelical purpose. If God is gracious and restores us again, we will get off track again in a few years and need to be renewed again.
The idea that for the CR to be legitimate it would have had to restore us to a place of perfection or something like that is ludicrous.
4) The liberalism (by every account) was focused in Southern, Southeastern and Midwesttern. The Professor who made the comments I referenced left my college and went to be a professor at Midwestern. Does it bother you that we had a professor at Midwestern who believed that Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed were equal ways to God? It did me.
I don’t know Ron Wilson, but it is clear he has offended you and you should talk to him about what he did that has hurt you. You should not come on blogs and say these kinds of things about him.
5) We will never know if BMT was just another useless Baptist slogan or the thing that was going to usher in the millennium.
I will say this – there is no indication anywhere in the world of a denomination that embraced moderate/liberal theology and continued to grow. Maybe BMT was a great idea, but it would have been undermined by a theology that undercut the gospel and would have been derailed. Actually, I would wager that our statistics now are much better than they would be if we hadn’t had the CR. We’ll know in heaven.
6) I will have to be straight with you. If you really believe that there has not been a CR, I’m not sure you are in touch with reality. Even the leaders of the CR agreed that only a small percentage of our profs and leaders were liberal. But they believed that it needed to be handled, to be dealt with.
Many people were like you – believed in inerrancy but did not see a problem. I disagreed with them and with you. But, because these people defended the status quo that we believed had to be changed, they got caught in the crossfire.
7) I graduated from SWBTS. My homiletics prof wrote his doctoral dissertation on why inerrancy is not true. So, while SWBTS was not in the same situation as the others, it had its problems as well.
Look, Ron, you and I have gone over this again and again for a long time. I believe what I believe because of my study of scripture, because of my own experience, and because of what I have read and seen firsthand. You aren’t going to convince me to join you in believing that the CR was a despicable act of wickedness. Not going to happen.
The real point of this post is simple: The SBC is a conservative, inerrantist denomination. There are bloggers – voices trying to reverse history and bring non-inerrantists back into the fold. I am happy we are a denomination that demands inerrancy of our professors. I do not want that to change.
May I ask you some specific questions:
1) Do you agree with our current statement of Faith in general?
2) Do you want our denominational servants to be in general assent to that document?
3) Do you want our professors at our seminaries to teach in accord with the BF&M?
I answer all three of those questions yes. I think, if you can get past your feelings about the CR, that you would answer these questions yes as well, wouldn’t you?
Ron rewrote his article and edited it for me. If I repost yours, it will appear well before his current post.
Please understand that I didn’t edit yours because I thought it was offensive. I edited it because since I took down Ron’s post, I thought it best to also take down your response. I hope you understand.
I saved your comment and sent it to you, if you would like to repost.
Dave, you asked, “If the New Testament regards Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, wouldn’t inerrancy require that we do so as well?”
Do you believe Moses is the author of this passage: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+34&version=ESV
Did the NT authors? I’m guessing not, even though we can find no statement to affirm such in either the gospels or NT. I believe that the NT authors generally attributed authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses. I do not believe that the authors of the NT would dispute that Moses compiled the contents of the book of Genesis rather than writing them down himself. For that matter, I would not be surprised if the NT saints, when pinned into a corner, might even admit that none of the words of Genesis were actually WRITTEN by Moses, just collected, collated, and transmitted by Moses. At the same time, though they would say such a concern is irrelevant as the veracity of the Bible does not rest in its authorship. (This is merely speculation, though.) Keep in mind that the phrase “Moses and the prophets” was commonly used to refer to the entire OT, even though there is more to it than that. You know this, I’m sure.
Let me affirm that I believe such issues are a distraction from the substance of a coherent doctrine of inerrancy. We can affirm it in principle without getting all bogged down in the tall grass because authorship is not an issue that seems to really worry the Bible’s authors. If it were, we would see author attributions in Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, etc.
1) I agree that an honest look at scholarly issues should not be villified.
2) There seems to be little doubt that assuming Mosaic authorship of the the Law, there were certainly edits made by folks after (the “meek” statement, the death notice at the end of Deuteronomy).
I think the fear is that some have used the denial of Mosaic authorship as a springboard to question the historicity of the events. That leaves people to react in a pavlovian way when they hear the authorship questions raised.
I’m just speculating, too.
Rick Presley,
I am going to give you some good advice. Stop hanging out with KJV Only Guys. And stay away from guys who say 1&2 Genesis are creation myth stories.
Those are the guys on who live on the borders of orthodoxy selling foreign made goods claiming them to be authentic.
The main point in response to Ron’s post in what was obviously the most erudite and profound piece yet to grace the blogosphere only to be lost, thereby robbing future generations of my expansive wisdom, was that there is a profound misunderstanding concerning the CR. History shows us that whenever theological truth becomes the issue around which men gather, a great division inevitably ensues.
Truth does not garner large crowds, it rather rather prunes the crowds. As soon as Jesus began to teach the requirements of followship, the crowds left.
Those who opposed the CR were either:
1. liberal
2. moderate [A conservative unwilling to implement what he says he believes]
3. opportunists [Building a professional life within the denominational structure]
4. ignorant [lacked understanding of the implications of being Biblicists]
5. emotionally attached to someone affected by the demands accompanying the CR.
Now there may be other reasons that cannot be categorized in the above, but in more than forty years of ministry, I’ve not seen them.
Problems with the Conservative Resurgence
I was part of the CR and am thankful that I can be part of denomination that values inerrancy and enforces it in our schools and agencies. Adrian Rogers is my hero (and I would have said that before I became part of a blogging team with his son).
On the other hand, I do not believe that everything done in CR was good. There were faults in the conduct of the “war” that I wish could have been done differently. If I could go back and change things, I would.
I will say that while I supported the CR as it was going on, I also said the things I am about to say then to my CR friends.
1) The CR was conducted by sinful men. No, that’s not an insult. It is a truth. All have sinned… including Adrian Rogers, Bailey Smith, Jerry Vines and every one of these men. There is no such thing as a perfect man.
One of the interesting things about the Bible is that it does not make heroes out of its leaders, but shows their flaws and weaknesses. If leaders of the CR did things we’d like to undo, that does not negate the value of the CR, it just means the CR was a work of God among sinful men.
And the mythology that the moderate side was innocent, godly victims of the wicked CR was not my experience. Inflated rhetoric, party spirit, assigning motives, demonization – there was plenty of this to go around on all sides.
2) Some in the CR adopted a “ends justifies the means” mentality. That is so common in a battle like this. We justify the things we do because we have to do them to prevent the other side from doing something worse.
God’s work must be done God’s way. The weapons of our warfare are spiritual and have the power to bring down strongholds. It is easy to forget that in the trenches.
3) Some in the CR drew the lines in the wrong places. I think there were three basic groups in the CR days.
*Conservatives – believed in inerrancy and supported the CR.
*Liberals – some deny they existed, but they did, and their presence was growing and they needed to be dealt with. They were concentrated mostly in some of our seminaries.
*Theological Conservatives/Political moderates – they were theologically faithful but they either did not see the problem of liberalism, did not think it needed to be dealt with or (as with men like Jackson, Vestal and Winfred Moore) did not like the way the Conservatives were going about things.
The biggest mistake that was made in the CR was the fact that many in the Conservative camp painted those in the “moderate” group as liberals. If you did not vote with us, you must not really love Jesus or his Word.
If we had worked harder to reach out to these folks, if we had tried harder to convince them of what we were doing, perhaps the war could have had fewer casualties.
But, in spite of all this, I remain convinced that the CR was necessary, a blessing of God, and that in spite of its flaws, we are better off for its occurrence.
Yes, I saw that point, Mike, and thought it was very true.
Ron said that the CR was not of God because it divided us. But truth always divides.
Rick,
I would debate you on the issue that the veracity of Scripture DOES indeed rest upon authorship IF that authorship is supported in Scripture. If the New Testament writers attributed the words to Moses, and they were wrong, what else were they wrong about?
Certainly Moses did not “write” everything anymore than Paul “wrote” everything, but that which came through Moses was attributed to him, and preserved by God for us to have.
I don’t know just how the account of Moses’ death came about, I would imagine Joshua accompanied Moses and received from him and God, that which we needed to know.
But to make a blanket statement that authorship does not affect veracity is problematic.
Wow, this has been interesting to read. I was very young in the late 70′s as the CR happened, and shortly thereafter my parents went to Ecuador as missionaries. I do remember seeing the anguish my parents when through as they had friends who were “casualties” of the fallout surrounding the CR. My dad would have been labeled a moderate (or liberal by the more combatative conservatives). He was theologically liberal, but politically he was a Democrat, and he took a much more inclusive, big tent view of the SBC. He graduated from SBTS in the 70′s in the midst of it’s liberal worst, yet he maintained his theological conservatism. He was deeply saddened by the political methods that accompanied the theological corrections that were much needed. I personally remember the CR tearing apart friendship on the mission field. My parents stuck with it and remained committed to the SBC and my dad continues denominational work to this day as a DOM in NC.
As I sprouted my own theological wings I sympathized with the CR and definatly recognized the need for it. While I was at SBTS I heard many of the stories of what professors had been teaching and thus I believe the battles were necessary, yet I do think in retrospect all things could have been handled better.
It did seem to me that there were many CR insiders and combatants (those who waged the war) that continued, and continue, to look for fights when in reality the battle is over. One particular pastor who was teaching one of my extension courses I was taking in Northwest Arkansas would come each night to class bragging about the latest liberal family or deacon he has gotten rid of. He was always looking for a fight and anyone who didn’t see eye to eye with him on every non-essential issue or methodology was “liberal.” This pastor later was appointed to the board of trustees for the IMB and I predicted when I heard of his nomination that he would start stirring things up and running off missionaries…sure enough that’s when the prayer language stuff began. It’s pastors like him that have left a bad taste in the mouths of many of us who agree with what the CR was trying to accomplish yet grieve over how it was done the lingering anger that some of its proponents still carry.
Dave,
I’d like to add a caveat to your three types of people during the CR. There was at least one other type. The person who was “used” for political reasons.
Richard Jackson had no dog in the fight. At the time he was the pastor of the largest SBC church West of the Pecos. The Allen/Moore faction of the SBC saw him as the best chance to steal an election. Jackson was not only disengaged from national SBC politics, he was disengaged from Arizona Baptist politics.
Jealousy toward him in the Arizona Baptist Convention offices was as real as daylight. He was approached and offered an opportunity to have the weight of a significant portion of the SBC behind his presidential bid. He acquiesced and the rest is history. He was never the same. The difference between him and Daniel Vestal is that Vestal seemed to embrace the ever widening chasm between mainstream Southern Baptists and the moderate/liberal wing, eventually forming them into a quasi-denomination while absconding with numerous Baptist entities in a very unethical manner.
Jackson sort of faded into the night and after stepping down from North Phoenix, did some teaching at Grand Canyon and some evangelism. Don’t know what he’s doing today.
These are two theological conservatives who were “used” by the moderate/liberal wing in a vain attempt to regain control.
Mike, I think I’m going to be wishy-washy here and agree with both of you.
I agree with you that issues of authorship can be pretty important.
I also agree with Rick that we should be careful about condemning folks who have slightly different views on some of these things.
Rick might be willing to go a little farther than you and I, but that’s okay. As long as we hold to inerrancy of God’s Word, there are areas in which we can still disagree.
Please, Stephen, answer my questions. Simple questions, simple answers. I am saving your responses. If you will answer my questions, I will go back and repost what you have written.
Questions are still pending, Stephen.
is there some reason you will not answer simple questions?
Steve Doyle, lots of wisdom in your comment, in my opinion.
“…thus I believe the battles were necessary, yet I do think in retrospect all things could have been handled better.”
That pretty much sums it up for me.
Mike Rasberry,
I must say of your comment on Richard Jackson; He did have some personal ambitions. He was not “blindly” used. He went into some things eyes wide open as a means to an end.
The Hefley book series I mentioned above deals with some of the Richard Jackson saga. In 79, at the pastor’s conference, he was one of the firebrand conservatives. Then, a few years later he switched sides. Honor? Power? I don’t know. I’ve heard different views, but I guess I will probably never know for sure.
Please answer the questions. Do you need me to post them again?
Ron,
You said, “They were graduates of all 6 SBC seminaries and from many parts of our convention. That would be a much better indication to me of theological problems in our convention than one little college somewhere in the east. IMB trustee and CR leader, Ron Wilson, has said your these men were controlled by liberals and were exporting heresy all over the world. Is that true??? Of course not! It is because of actions like these that I cannot support the CR. Why do you support an organization like the CR that continues to spread this type of slander?”
Well let me tell you that the seminaries at Rushlikon and Taejon if not teaching heresy were not fighting it. I’ve been blessed to have been able to be in more than thirty countries, and I’ve seen the consequences of both those schools. Western Europe has untold numbers of pastors who deny the authenticity of the original autographs and deny the miracles of Scripture. Who much more closely resemble William Barclay in their theology than Adrian Rogers, or George W. Truett.
In Korea, I’ve had seminary graduates of the seminary at Taejon tell me they were dedicated to God while in the womb and therefore had no need of making a personal commitment to Christ, for such would dishonor the commitment the parents made.
Prior to the CR, the FMB dissuaded people from taking mission teams to countries without going under the auspices of the FMB. On one occasion we were in Argentina, and the FMB forbid the missionaries to serve as translators for our teams. We were there at the invitation of the Argentine Baptist Convention and eventually the President of that convention had to threaten to dissolve relationships with the FMB in order to get the FMB regime to relent and allow them to assist.
I can give you accounts of how they tried to intimidate teams from going to Africa, and other places because they couldn’t control what we did.
The point of all that is to say that the teachings and policies of the FMB and the theological institutions were severely lacking. Were there very good missionaries, of course. Great, selfless, and dedicated individuals, but could one say less of Albert Schweitzer? He of an extremely liberal theology?
That is not to say that there were not conservatives there, but most were moderate to liberal theologically, not just in methods, during the late 1950′s to late 1970′s, I believe.
On the authorship debate; There are great problems that cannot be reconciled for those who believe in an inerrant Scripture if such Books as Daniel were not dependent on a specific writer having written them. Authorship is of a definite consequence to inerrancy in most cases.
Then of course, there is the Book of Hebrews…..
Stephen, I guess we are in a battle of wills. I think I am being reasonable. I am asking you to answer some simple questions that are part of the debate, and to refrain from “left-field” comments, quotes and links until you do so.
I’m just trying to figure out what you believe.
Mike Rasberry,
Do I know you and have forgotten you in my older days?
I agree with every word you have said in comment #103. Only vets of the CR know those things you say so easily to be true. And they are true. Every thing you said in 103 is true, especially about the FMB. Relating to the seminary in Korea, I heard exactly the same thing when I was in Taejon in ’86 and ’87.
CB, I think we need to Mike to Orlando and sit and swap stories a while.
Dave,
I am game for that. I will see if Steve Fox will meet me at the Birmingham Airport and we will fly down together. I would really like for you to have lunch with him. Of course, he has to agree to eat lunch with me for the first time also.
What say ye Steve? Are you ready to eat lunch with me yet? The offer still stands and on my dime also.
Does the “on my dime” offer extend to Mike and me as well?
Maybe we should even invite your favorite actor – Jason Priestley, aka Rick Presley.
Sure Dave,
But I do not have much use for Florida B-B-Q so we will have to eat a lesser quality food because all FL food is of a lesser quality anyway than SABANATION food. That is why the GATOR NATION can’t run with us in the fourth quarter.
But I guess anything in the Southland will be a step up for you, huh; BUZZARD EYE NATION boy?
Sure. Bring Elvis.
They have peanut butter & banana sandwiches in the GATOR NATION. He can sing for his supper.
We need to have a “bloggers buffet” during the SBC. We’ve got to pick a restaurant and see who shows up. We could even invite some of your favorite wild geese. My folks lived in Kissimmee for a long time and I went to high school there, but I don’t know any restaurants near the convention center. Maybe we should just gather on site and pay 27 bucks for a burger and fellowship.
Yeah, CB, Bama BBQ is famous. Wait, no…
Dave, I believe you are correct when you speculate that the response is a pavlovian knee-jerk reaction, and I personally suspect it is often an over-reaction.
Mike, you said, “I would debate you on the issue that the veracity of Scripture DOES indeed rest upon authorship IF that authorship is supported in Scripture. If the New Testament writers attributed the words to Moses, and they were wrong, what else were they wrong about?”
OK. Maybe I was a bit careless and overstated the case. However, the NT authors are incredibly careless in their attribution of authorship (by our standards of authorship). I would encourage you to look at every NT instance of “Moses” and see how it treats attribution of authorship. What you will find is that the name “Moses” is very often used euphemistically to refer either to the OT as a whole (synecdoche where the part is used for the whole) or just the historical portions of the OT as opposed to the prophets, or when Jesus divides the OT into thirds, Luke 24:44 – Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
By our strict division according to authorship, this covers only 24 of the 39 OT books. Clearly the NT authors were never very precise about authorship if even our Lord can casually summarize the canon so cavalierly. If you are going to counter that maybe Jesus was only referring to 24 of the 39 books, I would refer you back a few verses to: Luke 24:27 “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”
So let me agree with you that the veracity of scripture does rest in authorship IF authorship is supported in scripture. However, I believe I can show a clear pattern of a loose (by our standards) attribution by the NT writers. For instance, who is the Author of the 10 Commandments and the Civil Law? Would any modern inerrantist claim that Moses was the author or would they say that God was the author and Moses just wrote them down? Unless your Bible college was different than mine, they’d say the latter. For a fun exercise, let’s see who the NT authors attribute the authorship of the 10 Commandments and the Civil Law to:
Matthew 8:4
And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”
rp: Was it Moses’ command, or God’s command? Jesus seems to think it was Moses’ command unless he was using the name of Moses as a metonomy to refer to the Law that came from God.
Mark 7:10
For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’
John 7:19
Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?”
I like this one:
1 Corinthians 9:9
For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?
Note: He says it is in the law of Moses, but not necessarily that Moses wrote it. A distinction we make in our day and age but one the NT authors didn’t seem to make themselves that often.
Another metonomy:
2 Corinthians 3:15
Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts.
Surely, Paul is referring to the entire OT and not just the Pentateuch.
It seems abundantly clear from the evidence in the NT that the veracity of the scriptures did not rest in the man who put the pen to the paper but in the scriptures themselves. Remember, that the apostle Paul affirmed the inspiration of the SCRIPTURES, not the inspiration of the authors. Peter is the one who gives us the detail on holy men of God speaking as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that the Law will stand forever and not one dot or brush stroke would pass away. He did not say anything about the mechanics of how those words got from God the author to the paper we are reading.
My concern is that when we get into discussions on inerrancy, we get sidetracked by issues that were not concerns of the Bible’s authors. They affirmed the SCRIPTURES as being inspired. They assigned great value to the Word of God, not necessarily to the person who penned the words of God. If authorship were that important we would know who wrote Job or the Judges or who the contributors were to the historical books at every step along the way.
I am sure the disciples all knew how the OT came to be. They all knew how Ezra had assembled it into its (more or less) present form. But they seem incredibly unconcerned about whether Moses REALLY wrote Genesis. Or if they were, I see nowhere in the OT or the NT that they ever defended the issue or argued about it. It always seemed to be assumed and never in doubt.
So to put the question back to you, Mike, was Jesus wrong when he said Moses commanded you to give an offering for the purification of a leper? Was Jesus wrong when he asked, “Has not Moses given you the law?” since it was really God who gave the law? Was Jesus wrong when he described the entire OT canon as “Moses and the Prophets”?
So if Jesus attributed the words to Moses and he is “wrong,” (at least by our modern standards of attribution) that seems to indicate to me any of the following:
A. Jesus was careless in his attribution.
B. Jesus was using a well understood commonly used metonymy and was not expecting to be taken literally.
C. Jesus never intended to affirm the authenticity of authorship in his attributions, only the authenticity and veracity of the scriptures.
You tell me, Mike. If Jesus is not wrong (and I’m sure he is not) why then this casual use of attribution if not for the fact that authenticity in authorship was not as big a deal then as it seems to be today.
rick
You could all come to the SEBTS luncheon. It is always the best one. They have a rule against serving rubber chicken.
Full disclosure:
I would be happy to sing for my supper if it wouldn’t put everyone’s appetite off.
By popular family request, I have been asked to sing When We All Get to Heaven….
….and not until then.
rick
Steve Doyle,
If you really want to learn about the CR, obtain some issues of the “Southern Baptist Journal.” It was the monthly periodical produced by Bill Powell, the real force behind the CR. It was Adrian Rogers’ decision to join the Baptist Faith & Message Fellowship, headed by Bill Powell, formerly of the HMB; which validated the CR movement.
I assume they are possibly available online. But any seminary would have them.
It seems that some people still insist on putting God in a box and insisting that humanity has more control over what is put into His word than He does. We either believe that he is in control or we don’t. If God can raise an army of Skeletons to do His bidding I figure He has pretty good control over the contents of His Word.
There were people teaching error in our Schools and Seminaries, God used the CR to Stop it. Some of you say well they could of gone about it another way and there would have been less casualties. Well, How many times has God told his leaders to possess the land and destroy Their enemy entirely. (Deuteronomy 7 is a good example of this)
I wasn’t there for the CR but even the skeptics admit that there were errant teachings going on at the time. God had some of His devout men to stand against this evil. Yes, anytime we start to teach the mind of man over the will of God it is evil. If you believe you were a casualty of this war then you obviously don’t believe that God is in control.
In His Service
Kevin Rasberry
Well Rick,
I’m glad that after all these years, you’re learning to agree with your elders…that was a concession speech wasn’t it??? I just disregarded the last paragraph as you attempting to save face in light of my one round knock out punch.
Mike, you must subscribe to the Delmar Smith Method of horse and bird dog training. He said that the best way to go about it is to create situations where the horse or the bird dog trains themselves. No point in the trainer wrestling with the dog or horse trying to lead train ‘em. Just tie em to a post and let ‘em tussle with that for a while. Eventually, they learn struggling gets ‘em nowhere. After that, using the lead is like power steering – they know there’s no point in fighting it.
Dave: I say this respectfully, but I get really tired of the question were you there. I wasn’t at the McCarthy hearings, but I know they were wrong. I wasn’t at any war,nor did I belong to a Southern Baptist church when we broke away due to being for slavery, but I know that position was wrong.It’s a weak argument to ask were you there. I have an opinion after studying and reading, talking to people. To say I had to be there is ridiculous. OK now back to our regular program.
Debbie, I’m new here. Can you tell me why you think the CR was wrong?
Debbie, you speak with such an absolute and dogmatic certainty that you are right, I just wonder where your expertise comes from. Its odd that someone who wasn’t even Southern Baptist during that time speaks with such authority about what was right and wrong.
Mike,
Oh no, now you’ve done it.
David
On that, at least, Mr. Worley, we agree.
Dave,
I think you wrote a great post here. The comments in this thread by people have been very interesting, and they show me more and more and more how thankful to God that the CR took place.
Dave, you know, and CB knows, and I know how things were 15 to 28 years ago and further. It was bad, and it was getting badder. I know badder aint good English, but it was getting badder.
David
David, I sure hope your vols didn’t knock my Rebs out of the NCAA’s today. However, you can’t win in the SEC when you shoot 50% from the charity stipe. I would have those guys shoot free throws through out the Summer. Ugh!!!!!!
If the CR had not happened, I am quite sure I would not be Southern Baptist. The doctrine of inerrancy is a defining one for me David.
So, you know, you and I can argue about the stuff we debate all day long. But as long as you hold to inerrancy and I hold to inerrancy, I’m good to go. We have a standard from which to debate and firm foundation for our faith.
Ron West has nothing good to say about the CR, but he affirms inerrancy. So, I am content to share a denomination with him and let the rest go unresolved.
But inerrancy matters to me. I believe it was threatened and we needed to act.
On this one I have to say, “Here I stand.”
Tennessee 76, Miss 65.
I’m going to bed.
CB said: “On the authorship debate; There are great problems that cannot be reconciled for those who believe in an inerrant Scripture if such Books as Daniel were not dependent on a specific writer having written them. Authorship is of a definite consequence to inerrancy in most cases.”
I think that is somewhat the point I was making but from the other side of the coin. I think. I’m not certain where you’re coming from on that, but allow me to elaborate.
As you mentioned, books like Hebrews, I & II Kings, the unattributed Psalms, etc. have disputes about authorship all the time. The fact that the issue remains uncertain has never undermined the inspiration of these scriptures because it is the SCRIPTURES that are the inspired word of God.
My wish is that we could apply the same level of detachment to books where we “know” who the authors are such as Daniel. I think this is a question worthy of investigation, debate, and study. Does the question have any bearing on it’s inerrancy? In no wise. Certainly no more than the disputed authorship of Hebrews.
Same for any book. The search for the author or authors is a worthy pursuit. But it is a worthy pursuit ONLY if we agree that the findings have no bearing on its veracity, its authenticity as scripture, its inerrancy, its inspiration.
I have seen too many instances where an inerrantist will go into a debate willing to go to the mat for authorship because they have made a fatal connection between “autograph” and “author” and they get pinned on it. I believe it is a trick of our opponents to find this chink in our armor and exploit it. So, CB, when you say, “There are great problems that cannot be reconciled for those who believe in an inerrant scripture if books … were not dependent on a specific writer having written them. Authorship is of definite consequence to inerrancy in most cases,” I would reply that it need not be. And if we entangle inerrancy in an authorship debate, the consequences to inerrancy, even if we win, are likely to be fatal.
Or look at it this way (and this is my favorite, I have to admit, because deep down I am evil and love doing this): An errantist comes up to me and says, “Here is absolute definitive proof that the book of Hezekiah was NOT actually written by Hezekiah, but instead was written 150 years later by the scribe Neriah. HA!”
“Yeah? So?”
“Doesn’t that destroy the doctrine of inerrancy? You guys have claimed that Hezekiah was the author of the book. Here’s proof that he’s not.”
“I’ve known that for years. This is merely confirmation of scholarship that Hofstedermeister speculated back in the 1950′s but had no archaelogical proof to back up. If you recall, we’ve never insisted that Hezekiah is the author of the book that bears his name. Next thing you know, you’ll want us to claim that Samuel was the author of II Samuel even though the last half of it takes place after he died.”
See what happens when we detach authorship from inerrancy? The attack vanishes in a puff of smoke. Leaves them looking like a guy who brought a knife to a gunfight.
In my opinion this is one of the best ways to defang some of the demons out there like Marcus Borg or even the winsome Bart Ehrman. Ehrman, I believe, is a casualty stemming from someone who had a misplaced faith in authorship and when that was undermined by authorial disputes his whole system came crumbling down. There’s more to it than that, of course, but in listening to Ehrman’s “objections” to the faith, he cites authorship as one of the issues where he lost it. Had he been trained in his conservative upbringing to say, “Yeah, so?” to the authorship debates, I don’t know that he would still be a faithful conservative, but he certainly would have had a lot less to write about.
Debbie,
You go by only what you are told by your heroes in most cases. And the problem is that your heroes are wrong a great deal of the time.
You once heard the tired and old argument that Blood Atonement was not necessary for salvation and you went to Tim G’s blog and posted your newly found fallacy.
(I am sure Tim G. still has the post so don’t argue that you did not do this.)
We corrected you. You then demanded Textual proof. We gave it to you. Then you claimed we were being abusive to you. That is your constant pattern.
The truth is, you really don’t know about the CR. You seek to hear what you want to hear. You do that because you are on a crusade to avenge a “cause” shall we say.
Now, I am not saying you can not know. But you will have to take a couple of years of your spare time and begin reading all sides of the issue and talk to a few people who were actually involved.
But in the meantime, you need to cease to claim to know what you do not. Because in doing so, you actually become guilty of exactly what you charged a couple of other people with just recently.
Debbie, I really don’t enjoy being hard on you, but sometimes you simply say more than is bearable with such an assumed authority about things of which you honestly know very little.
Rick,
If the Book of Daniel was not written by the Daniel who was taken into captivity by Babylon as the Book states, then the prophetic nature of the Book of Daniel is void.
You are wrong to think otherwise. If Daniel is credited to a “later writing Hebrew” then the Book itself is false.
We know it is not false. Right?
Between CB Scott and Miller and Debbie Kaufmann this board is hard to follow.
Miller holds up a new bar for participation not stated heretofore, and then SCott wants to buy me some BBW in the Bham airport and then says Kauffmann hasn’t read enough about the CR to have an opinion.
I offer the shelf at Samford Library near CB Scott, the BX 6400′s in which I am footnoted in several volumes.
So CB as an authority on these matters, how many of the BX 6400′s have you read.
Just trying to understand you fellows.
As for the book of Daniel, I think our friend John Killian’s friend, the successor to Jerry Vines at West Rome, Larry Draper, is the authority on the Book of Daniel.
Pardon the typo
BBQ; not BBW
Thank-you
Steve,
I have not spent much time in Samford’s library, but I have spent some. I will spend some more time there if you meet me there and then we will go to lunch. I have spent a great deal of time in other libraries in SBC life and much more in my own.
But I have spent a great deal of time with Samford’s president and Steve, he agrees with me on the matters you discuss here and not you. Of course, so will Killian, Draper and Vines agree with me as to the authorship of Daniel and its importance to the Book’s credibility.
BTW, I can meet you in Jackson County just as well as Jefferson. I would greatly enjoy hearing you speak on the political history of Alabama. Killian tells you that you are rather knowledgeable in such matters. Therefore, I trust you plan to vote for Tim James as our next governor?
CB:
At the top of the Marble stairs, take a left and go back toward the front door.
The BX 6400′s are on your right about where the bottom stairs begin once you retrace your ascent on the 2nd floor as it were.
Wealth of material there for you and Debbie Kaufmann.
Stephen, I’m up and at em. The rules from yesterday apply. Since your exchange with CB was harmless, I will leave it up.
But answer my questions. Or stop commenting.
By the way, there is very little difference between what I believe and what most inerrantists believe. I have not raised the bar at all – some would say I have lowered it.
CB,
This is why I think it is important that we read and affirm the Chicago Statement.
Article XVIII.
WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.
If it were a common practice to attribute works to well know personages and we see evidence of such taking place in contemporaneous writings and that this was not only a widely held practice, but one that was generally accepted at the time, then why should we inisist that authorship claims be measured by the standards of our time? If there was an expectation that the work was compiled by a later editor who remained nameless, then why should we be surprised to find such? Why would we feel that it undermines inerrancy? Why would we not have the same authorship expectations as the book’s contemporaries?
We know this was common in the ancient world in part because of Biblical evidence such as Paul’s assertion in Galatians that he was not only the one who dictated the book, but that its size was evidence that he wrote it with his own hand.
As for the book of Daniel, please show me the verse similar to the greetings or salutations of Paul’s letters, that attributes authorship to Daniel. The internal structure of the book itself is evidence that it is a compilation. Look at Daniel 4. This is a first person account from Nebuchadnezzar. There is no way Daniel could have “authored” this. At best he was a scribe who wrote down what Nebuchadnezzar dictated. More likely, if you insist on Daniel being the author, Daniel copied this from the official chronicles of the Babylonians. Most likely, in my opinion, Daniel directed the assembly of his book by aids or even by amanuenses probably late in his life and in anticipation of their soon return to Jerusalem. Answer this, if the first person account in chapter 4 is a compilation, why then cannot Daniel’s first person accounts in the other chapters also be a compilation?
Salient point: NONE of this has an impact on inerrancy.
Why do you insist that the prophetic nature of the book is void if it wasn’t actually penned by the very Daniel of whom the events speak? I can see where liberal detractors try to insist on a late authorship to negate fulfilled prophecy, but I don’t see how a later assembly and editing of “the collected works regarding the prophet Daniel” does anything to negate the inspiration or the prophecy of the book. Can you explain to me by connecting the dots of how such a process would destroy its credibility?
Let me give you an example from the modern world. Robert Ludlum books are no longer being written by Robert Ludlum since he had the monstrous effrontery to die in 2001. People don’t get hung up about this because their interest in the books is not the authorship but the style of writing, the type of adventures the book describes, etc. By the same token, R. L. Stine books (juvenile fiction) are not written by anyone with that name. There is a whole stable of authors who write them for Scholastic books. The reason is because the author name is used as a “brand” to identify a particular genre and formula for the stories. No one is looking for a historical R. L. Stine.
In the ancient world where “intellectual property” is not even a concept, it is intemperate for us to get hung up on authorship when the authors themselves (with notable exceptions like Paul and John) don’t get hung up on it.
Steve,
Please remember, there is more than one library in more than one school in SBC life. Thus far, I have been a student in four of them and worked almost ten years in another.
I have read the material. And more importantly, I actively lived through the CR. Notice the operative word “actively” if you will.
Rick,
This is going to take longer than I have here today. But let me be sure of something. Do you or do you not believe that the Daniel who was taken captive as a teenage boy by the Babylonians to be author of the Book of Daniel?
Dave,
Although authorship does have a great bearing on most biblical writings relating to inerrancy, I realize it is not the specific substance of your post.
Maybe you guys could publish a post on the authorship of biblical writings. It may be even possible to discuss it without reference to the CR……Maybe.
BTW Rick,
I actually know of one “gunfight” wherein a fellow did bring a knife (actually three knives). He won.
It just so happened that he was a highly skilled knife fighter and the two fellows of whom he was engaged were run-of-the-mill thugs.
So I guess it all boils down to who is in the fight and what they know about their chosen weapons. But of course, that is a story about gunfights and has nothing to do with inerrancy.
Just raggin’ on you there Rick. This is interesting, but I gotta get to some other things today. So until later then?
cb
CB, Do I believe that the book of Daniel was written by an old man sitting at a window scratching with a quill pen on a parchment scroll and that that old man was the boy carried into captivity so many long years ago? Probably not.
Do I believe that during his long and prosperous life that extended across two separate empires that a Jewish captive rose from slavery to trusted imperial adviser and that he accomplished a great deal, much of it recorded and that either late in his life at his direction or merely with his approval that his works were compiled by an aide, possibly even working under his direction, for return to Jerusalem and eventual preservation by Ezra, and that his birth name was Daniel? Probably.
Do I believe that during one of the returns from exile an unnamed Jewish scribe, working under the direction of Ezra or his contemporaries assembled a compilation of works that were thought to be authored by Daniel and made their way back to Judea? Not really, although if this were the case, I don’t really have a problem with it.
Let me ask you a question – Why should it make any difference to the INERRANCY OF THE SCRIPTURES which of the above scenarios (or one I’ve not mentioned) were actually the true one?
I am not a scholar on Daniel. I am not even a seminary grad. I like to think that I’ve read a little bit more than the average person in the pew, but I’ve met some pretty thoughtful “pew potatoes” so I’m not even sure this qualifies. As I have asked before, I do not see what is at stake with respect to the inerrancy of the scriptures if the authorship of Daniel (or any OT book for that matter) is in dispute. We don’t worry about the authorship of Judges or Ruth being in dispute. Why so worried about Daniel? Please outline for me the chain of reasoning so I can understand what your underlying presuppositions are and why you feel that if the third scenario above is the true one that it destroys the inerrancy of the book of Daniel.
Please honor my request, Stephen.
Answer the simple questions I asked. Yes or no will do.
Debbie, I really don’t enjoy being hard on you, but sometimes you simply say more than is bearable with such an assumed authority about things of which you honestly know very little
You once heard the tired and old argument that Blood Atonement was not necessary for salvation and you went to Tim G’s blog and posted your newly found fallacy.
CB: Now this one got my dander up. This is simply not true and if you produce the statement I will write a post retracting that statement or if it is taken out of context(which it is) then I will write on what I believe on the atonement. Remember L in TULIP, Limited Atonement? That is what I hold to.
Stephen, far from banning, you, I have been patiently trying to get you to engage in the discussion. You have not been banned.
I have just requested that you show common courtesy by engaging the topic, not filling comments with quotes that have nothing to do with the topic and links to your own pet sites.
I am asking you for the courtesy of engaging in conversation. I do not plan to attack you.
I am just asking you to join in the discussion, not to try to write your own blog at this site.
I have tried to be courteous and patient.
Please answer my questions. Do you need me to re-post them?
Hey, Dave, have you continued reading the comment thread at SBC Today? There have been many, many answers given to the issues you raised that show that my post was no strawman…that my characterization of David Rogers views on baptism was not wrong…that maybe this is more of an issue than you realize.
Go check it out.
David
Dave said to Stephen: Please answer my questions. Do you need me to re-post them?
I like this. It helps me narrow down identities between:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm
or
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm
but likely not
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/issues.htm
even though wielding a
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/grenade.htm
Rick Presley, you are, again, treading in areas where reactions are sometimes governed by previous experiences.
I do not believe that inerrancy dictates that Daniel wrote the words on the original scrolls, or whatever, for inerrancy to be in effect. I think that is what you are saying.
However, the denial of Daniel’s authorship (reference the liberal prof at my college I mentioned above) has been linked to the proof that his prophecies were really written after the fact and then put in the mouth of Daniel.
If you affirm that the story of Daniel is historical, that the words of Daniel and his prophecies are accurately reported and that they were indeed prophecies of future events written hundreds of years before the events took place – that is what inerrancy requires.
Inerrancy does not require that Daniel actually put the words on paper.
Are we on the same page here?
To be honest, David, this comment stream has kind of dominated my blogging focus over the last 24 hours. I looked at some stuff after my last comment, but have spent way too much time engaging here to go there much.
It is that exact mine-infested field I suggest we tread, Dave. We are on the same page.
Here’s my rub. The Bart Ehrman’s of the world are so invested in the “pen to paper” caricature that when it is seen as suspect they toss bathwater, baby, and tub altogether. Like you, I don’t need a pen-to-paper authorship to affirm my belief in inerrancy. Those who do, are weak in the faith and as such should not enter into disputations about doubtful things. I say this with all due respect, btw. There are some areas that ARE mine-fields and must be treated lightly and perspicaciously. But to the Hurt Locker team, they are not really a deterrent to forward progress, just an obstacle to overcome.
And once a way is made through, the path is safe for others to follow.
Lead on!
rick
Bart Ehrman is not Randall Lolley, nor is he Russell Dilday nor Robert Marsh, not to mention Dan Vestal nor Carolyn Weatherford Crumpler and Delanna Obrien.
Dave, I am trying to engage your discussion, but you have raised a shibboleth series of questions that have not been answered by Gene Scarborough, Bruce Gourley, Even Wade Burleson.
I don’t know that the President of Mercer Underwood has answered these questions.
Here is my answer, this in addition to my statement in belief as offered in regard my eulogy for my Dad.
I mean what kind of a fundamentalist are you, when you want publish the testimony of a Baptist Christian and his statement on belief in the Resurrection from his Father’s eulogy.
I don’t know.
My short answer is I believe everything Charles Kimball professes in When Religion Becomes Evil.
I may believe more than that, but no less.
Do you believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis are historically and scientifically accurate.
For the record I have posted no links in this response; but I do have a strong conviction Robert Marsh’s witness as reported to his deacons in June 1990 is awfully germane to the effects of Inerrancy as implemented in the SBC.
Duke, Kentucky, Ga Tech, UConn, Notre Dame and West Va in the round of 16 along with at least four surprises.
Two of the four could be Maryland and Georgetown, though GTown would not be that much of a surprise
Love to see Baylor in there too, with President Starr and Karl Rove at the game; of course Kansas, and Texas may make it; maybe not.
UNC Tar Heels in the Final Eight NEXT year.
Kid from Iowa comin in for retribution against the Coach K machine.
David,
First I will answer your specific questions in #84 and then other comments.
1) Do you agree with our current statement of Faith in general?
Yes. I signed a statement to that effect with when the IMB BoT demanded that all missionaries do that. I may have noted some minor questions similar to the ones David Rogers did at SBC Impact one time but I can’t remember what they were now. I also had to write a statement about my agreement with the 1963 BF&M when I was appointed in 1978. Our missionaries have always been expected to agree with our statement of faith in general.
2) Do you want our denominational servants to be in general assent to that document?
Yes, but we should also remember the BF&M says that the sole authority for faith and practice is the Scriptures and the confession is a guide in interpretation and does not have any quality of finality or infallibility.
3) Do you want our professors at our seminaries to teach in accord with the BF&M?
Yes. I would probably allow the word general assent to be used here also as long as they are in agreement with the fundamental doctrines that you and David Rogers have discussed before.
You said, “I answer all three of those questions yes. I think, if you can get past your feelings about the CR, that you would answer these questions yes as well, wouldn’t you?” My feelings about the CR have no relationship to answering these questions. My feelings about the CR have nothing to do with my answers to these questions.
Your other comments from #84 are in quotes with my response.
“I know a man who a “moderate” leader who had a moral failing. Does that besmirch the whole movement? Of course not.” It has been reported in Baptist Press that at least 4 committee or trustee chairmen active in the CR movement had moral failings. Does that besmirch the whole movement? Maybe not but it shows the poor choices that were made by CR leaders for our trustee boards.
“The CR drew us back to God theologically. Now we need a CR to refocus us on our evangelical purpose. If God is gracious and restores us again, we will get off track again in a few years and need to be renewed again.” The CR may have drawn you and your church back to God theologically but it did not draw me or the Arkansas Baptist State Convention or the IMB back to God theologically. We were already striving to be as close to God’s will theologically as we could. If we needed to be drawn back in some points the CR had nothing to do with drawing us back. We were also already focused on our evangelical purpose. I am glad you and the other CR supporters are finally catching up with us.
You say you are not familiar with Ron Wilson. He has served as trustee of the IMB and NAMB. He is described by Paul Presser in his Hill book as a hero of the conservative resurgence. He has spoken on issues at many national SBC conventions. I am not sure how you can claim to know about the CR and not know who Ron Wilson is. He has been the catalyst and at the center of some of the most significant controversies in the CR takeover. His own California state convention refused to seat him one year because of untrue attacks he made on others in the state and his unwillingness to apologize. They were the same kind of attacks the CR has congratulated him on.
“Many people were like you – believed in inerrancy but did not see a problem. I disagreed with them and with you. But, because these people defended the status quo that we believed had to be changed, they got caught in the crossfire.” That is not true. We saw the problems and were willing to join in the fight to change those problems that were real. We were not willing to be used in dishonest takeovers or labeling of others as liberal.
“The SBC is a conservative, inerrantist denomination.” That was true before 1979 also. The BFM 2000 does not mention the word inerrancy but we still support it. Even though I have no problem saying I am an inerrantist, if others do not like to use that word I willing to let them use their own words to explain their belief in the Bible before judging them.
I will add another reason to Mike Rasberry’s list in #89. 6. Those who had the ability to see the inconsistency and hypocrisy of many of the CR claims and could see it was taking us away from our Biblical basis. The reduction in baptisms and financial support in our convention are indications this group had it right.
Dave, I agree with your comments in #90. You seem to think the mistakes were all excusable. I do not and think they were so large they undid any good done by the CR.
In #91 you quoted me as follows, “Ron said that the CR was not of God because it divided us. But truth always divides.” I think I said if the CR had been about theology it would have united us. I said this because the overwhelming majority of SBCers, maybe 95% or more, are in agreement on almost all major points of theology. I do not agree that truth always divides.
Stephen Doyle in #93. I am from NW Arkansas and know the IMB trustee you speak of and other trustees from NW Arkansas. As an Arkansas Baptist I am disappointed he represented our state on the IMB trustees. This is another example of how the trustees do not represent grassroots Southern Baptists. We would never send these men to represent our state if we could chose our own representatives.
I agree with most of Mike’s comments on Richard Jackson in #94. He was a solid conservative who like me saw the dishonesty in the CR and spoke out against it. He was baptizing 1,000 people a year and leading his church to give a million dollars a year to the cooperative program back in the 80s. That did not keep the CR crowd from attacking him. The number one rule is support the CR or you will be attacked and labeled.
I have several comments on Mike Rasberry’s #103 post.
First David I want you to answer my question about his last sentence. When talking about our FMB missionaries he said, “most were moderate to liberal theologically, not just in methods, during the late 1950’s to late 1970’s, I believe.” David do you believe most of our missionaries were moderate to liberal theologically in the 70s and especially in Taiwan while you were there? When you say moderate I do not accept the made up definition that moderate means conservative but not supportive of the CR. That definition is dishonest and is an attempt to attach labels to people that are not true. It would be the same as me saying you may be faithful to your wife but if you do not give her flowers on valentines day like I do I will call you an adulterer. We are not free to make up our own definition. So David, were the majority of missionaries in the 70s not conservative as Mike has said??? Your answer will go a long way to telling me if you have any credibility as a judge of the SBC. In case you wonder, my answer is Mike is wrong.
I am not sure why Mike brings up Ruschlikon or Taejon. Neither are Southern Baptist Seminaries. I have been to both seminaries. Ruschlikon is European but I don’t know much about it. I have worked with graduates of Taejon but I have never heard one make that statement. Because Korean culture is heavily in to filial piety it is possible someone could say that. I can promise you that belief was not taught to them by our missionaries or by Taejon seminary. That is why I don’t get your point. This is an example of guilt by association that CR supporters have become famous for.
Again, I doubt if we are hearing the whole story with your Argentine example. We have had groups misrepresent themselves and tell our churches or convention in Taiwan they are representatives of the FMB in order to get the groups to partner with them and the FMB has told us not to help them because of their misrepresentation. In the past we were able to clear it up reach an understanding later. Some of the groups are led by men that are desperate to get invited to our conventions because they are dependent on that for their income and they cross the line sometimes. I don’t know if that was the case in Argentina. I do not see this as a theological issue and wonder why you want to bring it up unless it is another attempt to attack the integrity of the IMB and our missionaries.
Stephen, comment 152 was a step in the right direction.
But do you ever think for yourself or just quote/mimic what others say? Why can’t you tell me what YOU think rather than telling me what someone else thinks?
Yes, I believe in the historicity of Genesis 1-11 – Creation, flood, etc. No question.
See how easy it is to answer a question?
Do YOU believe in the historicity of Genesis 1-11?
Remember, Stephen – conversation, not quotes and links.
Dave,
Do you think that someone should come to your house and throw rocks at it, then run home and hide in their house?
David
David, I said what I had to say at SBC Today. I said my peace and you responded. I don’t think I “threw rocks.” I told you I thought you created a straw man. You told me you thought you didn’t. I remain convinced you did as do you that you didn’t.
David, I was up till nearly 3:30 Friday morning writing this post. I spent much of yesterday responding to comments. I did check and see that David Rogers had engaged over there, so I figured he could handle it.
Ron West,
Can I make a procedural suggestion?
When you make a comment as long as the one you made, stuff kind of gets lost in it.
I would suggest making several comments – one to me, one to Steve Doyle, one to…you get the picture.
My guess is that most of the people will never see your comments.
I know that some blogs tell people not to leave multiple comments in a row, but it this case, I think you have a lot to communicate – more than one comment can effectively handle.
Make sense?
Yes, David. I will try to do that.
CB,
You tell Debbie in #132, “You go by only what you are told by your heroes in most cases. And the problem is that your heroes are wrong a great deal of the time.” Were any of your heroes wrong at SEBTS when you left? Your heroes have also been wrong many, many times.
You like to say you were there during the CR and were in the belly of the beast. I was there also. I have just as much firsthand knowledge as you. I was at an SB college in the 60s at SWBTS in the 70s and 80s. I was appointed by the FMB in the 70s and was around for all the battles with the trustees in the 80s, 90s and 00s. I was at SWBTS the last year Russell Dilday was there and saw the actions of the trustees. I was at Houston in 79 and New Orleans in 89. I have seen many instances similar to the one you complained about at SEBTS. I was in our state convention and watched the CR leaders try to force out theological conservatives they didn’t consider loyal enough to the CR. Nothing I witnessed firsthand had anything to do with making our convention more conservative theologically. It was all power and control. I didn’t have to rely on my heroes to tell me. I saw it.
In #136 you say you have spent much time with the president of Samford and he agrees with you. If you are talking about my friend Andy Westmoreland, ask him if he agrees with Ron West’s comments on the Arkansas Baptist State Convention or the IMB. I am glad you in Alabama are getting some culture from Arkansas. Andy is a great guy and you are fortunate to have him at Samford.
I still intend to come though Birmingham this year. If not on the way to Orlando, another time. Hope we can meet.
Dave,
Much has been revealed in the comment thread since you’ve been in there. You said that I was creating a straw man. I was not. You said that I was mischaractering David Rogers position willfully. I was not. You insinuated that I was lying. I was not.
Now, man up and come back over and see how wrong you were on every count.
I dont expect an apology, but I do expect you to at least not leave the boat in midstream….with a passing “I said what I needed to say.”
David
Dave,
Much has been revealed in the comment thread since you’ve been in there. You said that I was creating a straw man. I was not. You would see that if you’d come back. You said that I was mischaractering David Rogers position willfully. I was not. YOu will also see this, if you’ll come back and read a little bit. You insinuated that I was lying. I was not. The proof is there.
Now, man up and come back over and see how wrong you were on every count.
I dont expect an apology, but I do expect you to at least not leave the boat in midstream….with a passing “I said what I needed to say.”
David
David, I’m not sure what I would apologize for. I will try to find my way back there in the next day or two, but time is limited.
It seems you feel as if somehow I let you down, or something. Don’t really want it to be that way, but I can only do what I can do.
Ron,
violating my previous rule, here is a lengthy response to your lengthy response to my lengthy response…
Ron,
As I have tried to say repeatedly, I care about the doctrine of inerrancy. I think our views on that are fairly close. Since you believe the Bible to be inerrant, I don’t care that much whether you view the CR positively or negatively. My concern is that inerrancy continue to be a defining doctrine for our denomination.
I will make some observations, then let you have the last word. We’ve hashed this out over and over and neither of us seems likely to change our viewpoints, so at some point, the argument becomes pointless.
1) In general, your answers to my questions put us in complete agreement.
2) You have repeatedly mentioned CR leaders and their immorality problems. My point is simple. Your association is only valid if you can demonstrate a couple of things. First, that sexual immorality was rampant amongst CR leaders. Second, that sexual immorality was prevalent among CR folks in a way that it was not among the moderates or non-CR participants.
Among the hundreds and thousands of people who were in the CR, you know of 4 who fell into moral sin? Doesn’t seem to be a systemic problem.
I would tell you that this constant accusation of immorality among the CR leaders smacks of slander. You may be thinking of 4 people, but when you insinuate that immorality was part and parcel of the conservative movement, you besmirch the reputation and character of all of us who participated.
I have never cheated on my wife. I have heard NO stories accusing any of the Presidents of the SBC or of any of our boards or agencies cheating on their wives. Insinuating that immorality is a problem in the CR kind of hits us all.
3) You rely on your experience in Arkansas to say the CR was not needed. Fact is, I think most people would say that Arkansas has always been among the most consistently conservative of our state conventions – even pre-CR.
I pastored in Virginia in the 80’s – different animal altogether. You don’t seem to trust my word, but I will tell you that Virginia Baptist work was not overly conservative. There were serious theological problems in Virginia Baptist colleges and these problems spilled over into the churches.
Here is my point: your experience was in one of the SBC’s most conservative states. Just because you did not experience liberalism did not mean that liberalism did not exist.
4) I have heard the name Ron Wilson, but know little about him. I have been in Iowa for nearly 20 years (left politically-charged Virginia to come to Iowa) and we don’t get involved that much in denominational politics. Don’t know him. Don’t know much about him.
But I got into blogging to fight against a certain IMB trustee president (from Arkansas, I believe) and the policies he was trying to implement at the IMB (and succeeded). So, by saying I supported the CR I am not implying that I want to defend all who are part of it.
5) Here’s where we will probably have to part ways. I attended a Baptist college that taught heinous false doctrine, with professors who came from Southern and Southeastern. I remember a speaker they brought in from Southern (Dale Simmons) who told us the death of Christ was not planned – Jesus did not come to die, but things went wrong and he ended up dying on the cross. I pastored in Virginia.
You say the SBC was an inerrantist denom in 1979. I say it was becoming less and less so, and had the trend that was present at Southern, SEBTS and MWBTS continued, we would not long have been an inerrantist denomination. We would have followed the other mainline denominations down the path of liberalism to the spiritual scrapheap.
I believe that. You seem not to. Fine. Either we can agree to disagree or not. That is your choice.
6) I do not think the mistakes were ‘excusable” as you claim. I think that human beings make mistakes. If you delved deeply into the moderate side, I think you would find every bit as much of the political shenanigans.
7) The Word of God is a “two-edged sword” – a sword is designed to divide. Doctrine divides. Truth divides. That is the nature of it.
I do not believe that most of our missionaries were liberal. I think many were moderate in their sympathies.
David Worley,
I don’t know why you come over here on this post to insist on a point you were trying to make on your own post. For the record, I don’t think that is very good blog etiquette. If Dave or I were to do same thing to you, I don’t think you would like it very much. And, in regard to your affirmation that what you wrote about me was not misrepresenting my view, I think it is best for people to read for themselves the comment stream over there, and come to their own conclusions. Personally, I don’t think you were “willfully” misrepresenting me, or “lying.” But, I do still think that what you said misrepresented my view, and I explain why over on the comment stream on your post. I tend to think that a good part of our misunderstanding comes from a lack of precision in the way we express ourselves. I am doing my best to clear that up, and explain exactly what I mean. But, once again, I believe it is best to continue this discussion over at your place. I am totally open to continuing to dialogue, and am not closed to discussing the particular questions you are bringing over here. But, my suggestion is that we let this be the last comment on this subject here on this comment stream. If you need to say something to Dave Miller, or to me, there is always e-mail.
Rick,
I am wondering if we are on the same page with the “pen and paper” issue.
I do not think that inerrancy demands that the prophet actually wrote by his own hand.
However, in the case of Daniel, I think there is good reason to hold to the idea that Daniel was directly responsible for what was written. He may not have held the Bic, but he was overseeing the one who did.
Would someone argue that Daniel wrote (or directed the writing) multiple prophecies and that someone else came along later and (also under inspiration) compiled the individual prophecies into a whole (like the compilation of the Psalms)? Fine. But the prophecies need to be under Daniel’s authority.
Ron West,
I have but a minute, but I do want to address your comment.
Ron, as you know, we have discussed some of these things before and I have stated that you were/are right about some of the things you have said.
Let me quickly say, as I have always said, the CR was necessary. There were some of us who did sinful things. I am one of those who did. As I told you, I have had to repent of much. Yet, the cause was right and valid.
Now, to answer your questions.
1. Ron some of my heroes were wrong even before I left SEBTS and I knew it.
2. Ron, it was not all about power and control. There were problems with liberal theology and philosophy in every agency, board and institution we had. I know that and I cannot change that reality. The CR was necessary. It was about theology and the inerrancy of Scripture for the most part. Those were the foundational issues. Naturally, as I have already stated, some bad things did happen. Ron, there were some pretty mean liberals also and I know they were, I dealt with many of them in VA. I didn’t have to rely on “my heroes” to tell me. I saw it. I experienced it.
3. I was present in most every place and time you mentioned. Frankly, I am glad we did not meet personally (or at least I don’t remember if we did) or I would probably be ashamed of some things I might have said to you back then, because I was a Zealot or maybe a Jesuit even. Now that we are both older, we may be able to talk without laying our weapons on the table. I would certainly like to try anyway and look forward to the possibility.
4. My comments relating to Andy were concerning to the topic at hand when I was addressing Steve. He may well agree with you about Arkansas. I do not know anything about that firsthand. I do agree that we are most fortunate to have him here. And I do consider him a personal friend. (And I don’t have many. And far less than I once thought I had. And maybe that is my own fault. I may never know. I don’t hear form many of them anymore.)
5. I do hope to catch up with you either here in Birmingham or in Orlando. Let’s plan on it and make it happen.
Ron,
Let me illustrate my point one more time. Hate to drive the war analogy into the ground, or to open a political can-o-worms, but here goes:
I supported the War against Saddam. I think he needed to be removed and that he was a danger. I thought it was a worthy goal to get him out. But I have no doubt that a lot wrong was done in the conduct of the war. I think those who did wrong should be held accountable. If they did wrong, the fact that they did wrong in a noble cause does not excuse the wrong they did. However, the fact that a few people did some stuff wrong does not negate the fact in my mind that the war had a good reason.
So, assume I’m right about the war against Saddam (I know some will disagree but this is an illustration/analogy), here’s how it applies.
1) I believe there was a real problem in the SBC – one that was dangerous and had to be dealt with. I had seen the “weapons of mass destruction” with my own eyes (liberal theology).
2) I agree that some people did wrong in the name of doing what is right. People did stuff they shouldn’t have in the conduct of the Battle.
3) Those people who did wrong should not be defended because they had a noble purpose. It is never okay to do wrong in the pursuit of right.
4) The goal was worth it – to root out liberal theology from our seminaries.
I do not excuse whatever wrong someone did. I did not participate in those things and wish it had not happened. T
*the noble purpose of the CR does not excuse evil acts done in its name.
*the evil acts done in the name of the CR do not negate the noble purposes of the CR.
That’s where I stand.
Maybe “evil acts” is too strong. I’m speaking from your perspective Ron, seeing you believe that much evil was promoted within the CR.
Nowthat’s disappointing.
I gave the History of Genesis my best shot and clicked submit and it didn’t even make it to moderation.
I copied it for posterity and posted it over at http://www.baptistlife.com/forums if anybody wants to see it there in Faith and Practice.
May try later to bring it back over here.
Ron West, I had an interview with DAvid Montoya in 88 when he came to Nashville, and your version of ARkansas politics of that time rings pretty true to what he was saying at the time.
Then MOntoya was on stage with Judge Pressler and Wilmer C Fields at Samford in Oct 1990 for an interesting event. Fields son Randy, I should say.
Andy Westmoreland seems to be a good guy. I don’t have any problem with him
I am glad that my friend Mark Baggett who teaches English and Law at Samford has been a strong and articulate spokesmanfor the CR resistance; folks like myself who resist politicalfundamentalism in Alabama.
At same time I have come to enjoy a strong friendship with John Killian, a friend of CB Scott.
It has always been my honest understanding with the Publication of the pamphlet Stand With Christ, the reason more missionaries didn’t resign in 2000 with the Revised BFM was if you walked you lost all your retirement and benefist and would even have to pay your own way home from the field.
Would be a tough decision for anyone, so I could see how I could interpret BFM 2000 in ways that could feed my family.
I delight in the knowledge of one family who stayed on the field and whose children are pilgrimming academically toward a Kimball/Parham view of Muslim/Christian dialogue.
Thank-you for letting me have this exchange with Ron West in regard some of the issues he raised here, that were also addressed by Dave Miller.
Stephen, you talk about all these things, but will not simply say what you believe.
Are you ashamed of what you believe?
If someone asks me what I believe, I tell them.
I just wonder why you won’t.
Stephen, I talked with David Montoya in 1989-90 when he made his stand. For those of you who do not know who he is, he was a graduate of Criswell College who come to NW Arkansas to pastor a church and support the CR. Even though he had only been in Arkansas a short time and didn’t know many people here he was put on the Committee on Nominations to select the people from Arkansas to serve on the Trustee boards. In the meantime he was invited to the meetings with the CR supporters where they would discuss who could serve on boards and how to get there people in places of leadership in Arkansas. He noticed that the peope they were criticizing were more theologically conservative and honest than the CR people he was meeting with. He switched sides and tried to block Ronnie Floyd from being on the SBC Exec. Comm. but was defeated. He did some ethically questionable things in opposing the CR but they were things that the CR accepted if you were fighting for them.
Wade Burleson had a similar experience with the IMB BoT. He had always been a support of the CR until he got on the inside and saw their true character.
I understand CB and hope you understand where I am coming from also.
Ron,
I think this kind of character assassination is unnecessary. “///saw their true character.”
Could you not disagree without questioning the character of those involved in the CR?
Dave,
You said:
“However, in the case of Daniel, I think there is good reason to hold to the idea that Daniel was directly responsible for what was written. He may not have held the Bic, but he was overseeing the one who did.
“Would someone argue that Daniel wrote (or directed the writing) multiple prophecies and that someone else came along later and (also under inspiration) compiled the individual prophecies into a whole (like the compilation of the Psalms)? Fine. But the prophecies need to be under Daniel’s authority.”
First – I’m glad we’re on the same page about the pen & paper thing. That keeps you from being a hyper-inerrantist (I mean, why not? If we can have “hyper-Calvinists” then why not hyper-inerrantists?).
Second – Yes, I agree with you that there is good reason to believe that Daniel was personally and materially involved in the compilation of the book that bears his name.
But. (And this is just to satisfy Mike R. who is firmly convinced that I am a nasty little provocateur.)
The book of II Samuel was not under Samuel’s authority even though it bears his name.
The 33rd chapter of Deuteronomy was not under Moses’ authority even though the book bears his name.
The book of Ruth (likely) was not under Ruth’s authority even though it bears her name.
Esther may or may not have been under the queen’s authority.
There are other prophetical books whose authorship is suspect and even in the NT, which James wrote the epistle is (as far as a know) still a debatable point while the book of Hebrews is most definitely in debate.
Not one of these books is adversely affected by the lack of imprimatur of authority because of an unattributed author.
So.
Why does the book of Daniel have to be under Daniel’s authority when the book of II Samuel does not have to be under Samuel’s authority?
Now, I recognize there there are lots of controversies surrounding the authorship of Daniel. I also understand that OTHER people who don’t accept inerrancy think they have some sort of trump card if they can disprove the authorship of Daniel. But I maintain they only hold this trump card because WE attach something special to the authorship. If we would say that WHO wrote the book of Daniel is only as important as who wrote the book of Judges or who wrote the book of Hebrews, would this not destroy the biggest part of their argument?
Because of the nature of prophecy, Rick. A prophecy is a direct message from God. “Thus saith the Lord.” Daniel’s prophecies are very direct and intricate.
What would be the motivation for questioning that Daniel recorded his prophecies. He was there. He was educated. He had scribes who could help him.
What reason is there to believe that he did NOT record his own prophecies?
Frankly, those who have questioned Daniel’s authorship of the book that bears his name (or at least his oversight of it) have done so to deny the force of predictive prophecy. I do not think yo are doing that, but I’m trying to figure out what the reason would be to seek another explanation?
I testified about the Resurrection in my Dad’s funeral, him an ordained Baptist preacher; in his eulogy.
I gave you a great poem, you take it down,then say I am ashamed of the Gospel
That borders on wickedness
I got to run to Supper.
Thanks Ron for the comments on Montoya, Will give them just notice soon.
It isn’t so much to seek another explanation. It is an attempt to disarm the critics.
In understand why it might be important, but I never hear a lot of controversy surrounding the authorship of Amos or Obadiah or even Nahum. So why Daniel? Clearly it is because Daniel is so incredibly accurate and the nonbelievers are trying to find some other explanation than the Holy Spirit.
If we say that authorship authenticity does not concern us for books like I Chronicles or Hebrews, so we see no compelling reason to make it an issue for Daniel, then they are effectively robbed of one of their biggest objections.
And I am all about taking ammunition away from errantists.
I asked you right from the start Stephen, to state your positions, not to give cryptic quotes or scattered links.
You won’t be the first person to accuse me of wickedness. But if I came to your blog, I would do you the courtesy of either entering the discussion or walking away.
Your poem did not answer the question. I’m sure it has meaning to you. But the question was whether you believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ and the poem did not answer that question.
I’m determined to try to be as patient with you as I can. But I will ask you again to enter the discussion or leave the forum.
By the way, Stephen, nice try painting yourself the victim. But I did not say you are ashamed of the gospel.
I asked if you are ashamed of your beliefs. I asked you some basic questions which you have refused to give clear answers to. I asked you if you were somehow afraid to answer or something.
As patient as we have been with your trolling here at IMPACT, it does not seem right for you to try to paint yourself as the victim here.
I think authorship is a key issue in many books. NT scholars of the liberal variety call Pauline authorship of many of the books attributed to Paul. I think that is an obvious problem. If a book’s authorship is deceitful, it affects inerrancy.
I hold to the school of thought that believes that CB Scott wrote Hebrews, but obviously, that’s not a big issue.
That Matthew wrote Matthew, Peter wrote his epistles, etc. These things matter.
Mosaic authorship or at least oversight is seen to matter both because it seems to be affirmed in other scriptures and to pull the teeth of those who claim it is post-exilic, etc.
I agree that many of the authorship issues are not per se inerrancy issues. But some of them are and some of there are at least significannt issues for debate.
Rick, sometimes the issue that matters most is not who held the Bic, but when the book was written.
Were the gospels written in the lifetimes of the apostles, or were they written later by people who pretended to be the apostles?
Were the prophecies of Daniel made and recorded during Daniel’s life, or were they fabricated later?
Sometimes the time of authorship is more significant than the name of the author.
Hold on. I can clearly see how authorship affects inerrancy in cases of epistles of Peter, James, Paul, etc, where the author self identifies. But the authors of the Gospels do not self identify by name. Therefore I don’t see a problem if, at some later date we find evidence that the Gospel we now attribute to Matthew was really written by some guy named Cletis. Do you really think we have inerrant author identification? Would you really turn around and disbelieve inerrancy if it could be proved Mark didn’t write the Gospel that tradition attributes to him?
I’ve owned bibles that entitle Hebrews as “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews”. Should that settle it?
Yeah, Bill, you are right. That is why I said that they time is more important than the name in some cases. Though it is believed to be important that the authors were apostles (Matthew, John) or wrote under the direction of an apostle.
However, I do have a problem if a guy named Cletis wrote a book of the Bible.
As to your last question – If the Bible referenced above was King James, then obviously the question is settled, right?
Once again, Dave, I agree. In the case of Daniel, there is no credible line where the authorship can be moved back that does not make the critics look absurd.
Liberal scholars that try to date Daniel around 150 BC still have to account for the fact that Anthony, Cleopatra, and the rise of the Roman empire so minutely described in the book are still events yet in the future of even the latest supposed writing of the book.
The accurate descriptions of the rise and fall of the Roman empire seem to me to be ample proof that Daniel was authored by God, regardless of who penned it.
The professor I referenced often in the post and comment line started his OT class with the assertion that there was no such thing as predictive prophecy. If something was presented in the Bible as a prediction, it ws actually written afterward and then falsely presented as a predictive prophecy.
That’s why I said what I said above (which we are in agreement about, I see) that time of writing is often the key issue.
Rick,
Is there a specific person in history of whom we can justly say God gave by inspiration the content of the Book of Daniel?
I hadn’t thought about the idea of predictive prophecy in a good while though I was vaguely familiar with the concept.
Found this discussion to be taking a most fascinating turn.
I hope Miller will give me a pass on this one.
I know he is getting little irritated with me and links; but in all honesty I will be studying this one with you and am sincerely interested to see how the discussion goes in light of this.
Came right up with a simple search for Book of Daniel and predictive prophecy
Dave, I think books like Isaiah and, as I said earlier, Daniel that contain prophecies that happen in the first century BC make such profs look foolish. Their debating of authorship only makes them look petty.
CB: Is there a specific person in history of whom we can justly say God gave by inspiration the content of the book of Judges?
If not, why then must we insist on such for any other book that does not claim to be authored by a specific person?
Stephen, do you believe that Daniel’s prophecies were actual predictions or that authors falsely attributed these prophecies to Daniel?
No more links, Stephen.
Stephen, feel free to study and bring your viewpoints here.
Rick,
The subject of my question was not Judges or any other Book within the Canon. It was about the Book of Daniel specifically.
Do you or do you not believe God gave, by divine inspiration, the content of the Book of Daniel to a historic figure named Daniel between 605 B.C. and 536 B.C.?
Rick,
From what I have read (and my research is not extensive), there seem to be only two generally held viewpoints on the authorship of Daniel.
1) Daniel did it (or directed it)
2) It was done in the second Century and is only purported to be by Daniel.
I know that you did not intend to guide us down the road of focusing on Daniel.
To bring it back to our inerrancy discussion – inerrancy seems to attach in some way to issues of authorship is:
1) The Bible testifies to a certain person’s authorship
2) There are historical/chronological issues that make it an issue.
The second seems to me to be in place with Daniel.
When I say authorship, I guess I am saying “oversight of authoring process” or something like that. In other words, whoever held the pen, Daniel (as an example) was responsible for the product.
What are you guys preaching on tomorrow?
Dave,
I realize this post is not specifically about the authorship of Daniel or any other Book in the Canon for that matter. Yet, it is about inerrancy. The inerrancy of Daniel does greatly depend on its date of authorship and to a great extent also, who God gave its content by divine inspiration.
I realize this discussion of Daniel is mostly at my doorstep relating to responsibility. I also realize a whole other post could be written about authorship. I also realize that the explanation of why it is important for inerrantists to believe Daniel of the Sixth Century would take up a longer “space” here than the original post and the following comment thread combined.
I will stand down if you wish. But let me say:
that the historic Daniel documents the dates of the beginning of his Book and the dates when he received each of the prophecies. If these dates are a lie and Daniel did not receive these prophesies between 605 B.C. and 536 B.C., then how can the Book be trusted as the inerrant Word of God?
For over 1,800 years the authorship and date of Daniel was not challenged by Christian or jewish writers alike. Enemies of the prophetic nature of Daniel relating to the coming of Christ were the first to attack the authorship and date of the Book of Daniel. Variations of that same attack are present today.
Let me say quickly that I am not charging Rick or anyone else here with such an attack. I am saying that the date and authorship of Daniel is important to its content being the Word of God and the claim of its inerrancy as part of the Canon.
Bruce, the authorship of Daniel.
Bruce,
I am preaching from Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43.
CB, I may be missing it (not a new accusation) but I don’t think that you and I are that far apart from Rick.
Rick is, I believe, arguing that sometimes we try to make issues into inerrancy issues when they shouldn’t be.
I think, if he answers your question above, he will say he believes in a historical figure called Daniel who received genuine visions from God and recorded, or oversaw the recording of those prophecies.
I think (correct me, Rick) that he is being more theoretical about authorship than specific.
Do you see my comment 192? That states where I am.
Couple things
1) as for the no more links I think there are other folks who have a stake in this board and you are not the sole arbiter of implementation.
It may be that among you, you have decided that a poster has discretion over the character of the comments that follow.
I’d just be interested in what other parties think. David Rogers in particular as my experience with him is he is much more beneficent, has more of a Christlike spirit in these matters than my experience with you has been on this particular thread.
No offense David; just want to be straightforward with you.
That said, I realize I am a guest, and with the exception of this topic genuinely appreciate the overall hospitality shown me thus far.
As for Daniel, I don’t think the authors were lying; Idon’t think they were sinister. I think they were doing what the consensus of scholars at PBS frontline are saying, trying to build up solidarity in the community of Israel, part of the great River of Hope that is a Theme of the Scripture perfected in Jesus and the Gospels.
Marilynne Robinson, the John Calvin expert, is no fundamentalist. She is no Inerrantist. But she has a strong testimongy, paper trail of allegiance to the Truth of Scripture.
Best of my literate ability to understand her I think she agrees with the point I am in concurrence with here.
What I do find interesting is the eloquent and articulate dissent in the comment line at Frontline.
I respect it and find it admirable.
My own grandfather did not have the education I have, and I don’t got any past a BA and considerable reading since then. But he had considerable more character and virtue than me that came out of his literal reading of the Bible.
Even so I have become acquainted with academics, Baptists and others who have great affect for the countless baptists in the pews like my Grandfather, whose virtue matches his.
I am proud that he was a part of tithing their luxury for academic pursuit. I think his tithes were contributions, stewardship well used.
My best example of that is Stewart Newman and in my experience Randall Lolley; Marney and his community in Baptist ranks of his time.
So yes, in a short reading of the consensus at Frontline I am inclined to throw in with them.
AT the same time, I don’t consider the authors of the book of Daneil to be committing falsehood.
DAvid; I guess our next exercise should be an exploration of the idea of negative capability.
Till Then, with you looking forward to Palm Sunday and Easter with you; and hoping to make a grand Sacred Harp singing next weekend if the Lord Tarries.
Oh, I imagine,like you, many on this board who have the courage and honesty to give it a fair read, will find the FrontlineLink most interesting, and some willfind it exhilirating.
I’m actually preaching through 1 Corinthians and am working on it now. I think I’m going to have to sign off for the evening, at least for a while.
1) Maybe we have hammered Daniel to death. I’d love to see at least one more response from Rick, but maybe then we can find something else to talk about.
2) I’m looking forward to several dozen quotes and links from Stephen whilst I am away.
3) I am wondering where Tom Parker, Gene Scarborough and Joe Blackmom have been on this one. I’d have thought this would have been red meat for them.
Play nice everyone.
Dave & cb
Both interesting topics, thanks. Don’t forget to Spring forward tonight.
May the Lord’s Day be glorifying in every respect. Good night.
Bruce
Wonderful comment, Stephen. Thank you for expressing your views and feelings.
1) As to my managing of your comments and links, you are right that we normally do not do that here. We have a largely open commenting policy.
2) We also give each author some authority to manage his own comment stream.
3) Knowing that this subject matter had the possibility of being fairly volatile, I made a decision to be a little more careful about managing comments.
4) I have observed your habit of going from blog to blog and talking about what you want to talk about, with quotes and links and such, instead of discussing the subject at hand. I determined that I was not going to permit that to take place here.
5) I am open to rebuke from David or any of the contributors at IMPACT, if they believe that I have handled this wrongly. They all have my email.
There it is.
Thanks for the reminder Bruce. Now, I really have to go. I resent “spring forward” Sunday, but no one asked me.
Dave,
If we are close, then Rick will say “The Daniel” of the Sixth Century was given, by divine inspiration, the full content of the Book within the Canon that for 1,800 years was attributed to him and no one else.
Could Daniel have told another person in his charge to write down what God was saying to him by divine inspiration? Of course. Daniel was a man of authority with untold numbers of people under his authority.
But, Dave, if Sixth Century Daniel is not the guy who received the inspiration for the content of the Book of Daniel, the content is not valid, the prophecies are false and it cannot be inerrant. Thus is the specific nature of the Book of Daniel.
BTW, the same must be said of the Revelation of John, but we will save that for next weekend
So, what say ye, Rick?
Ron,
Referencing post # 154
First, your assumption that the CR was not about theology because it did not unite us reveals an ignorance of Biblical Theology beyond my limited ability to explain.
Do you really believe G. Hinton Davies’, and later Clyde T. Francisco’s version of Genesis reflects a conservative theology? If so, dear sir, there remains little room for discussion.
During the 1950′s-and late 1960′s a denominational organization began to evolve of professional religionists with the SBC. Conservative pastors were busy building churches and paid little attention to denominational activities except at convention time. limited avenues of communication was challenging transportation contributed greatly to that situation.
However, the professional religionists began to endoctrinate the churches with a “social gospel” which the grass roots people began to complain about to their pastors. The ensuing investigations by the pastoral leadership created no little consternation within the ranks of the professional religionists at denominational headquarters throughout the South.
Smaller State Conventions, more responsive to the needs of the local churches were sprouting up and with them a unified voice of concern began to be heard throughout the convention. Bill Powell and B. Grey Allison recognized that should alternatives not be offered thousands of churches would be lost to the convention.
Acting separately, they began to advance alternatives. Eventually theirs became a concerted effort coalesced by the issuance of the Broadman Bible Commentary Vol. 1 by G. Hinton Davies an extremely liberal British Baptist. The reaction to reviews of the work led the BSSB to withdraw it from circulation and engage Clyde T. Francisco who stated that he believed the same as Davies, but believed he could write the work in such a was as to not be offensive to Southern Baptists.
Eventually Powell and Allison enlisted other men and when Dr. Adrian Rogers cast his lot with the Baptist Faith and Message Fellowship, they were validated by the second most popular preacher in Southern Baptist Life, behind only Dr. Criswell, and perhaps the greatest Biblical Preacher Southern Baptists have produced.
The organizational skills of Patterson and Pressler gave an effective format to the need for reform and the CR was born.
Dr. Rogers is reported by his wife to have made a statement that I think we would all do well to remember, “I’m willing to compromise about many things. but not the Word of God. So far as getting together is concerned, we don’t have to get together. The Southern Baptist Convention, as it is, does not have to survive. I don’t have to be the pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church. I don’t have to be loved; I don’t even have to live. But I will not compromise the Word of God.” p.109, “Love Worth Finding: the Life of Adrian Rogers and His philosophy of Preaching.” by Joyce Rogers and Paige Patterson.
Now concerning those matters about which you questioned the veracity of:
The IMB was not existent during the period I spoke of. It was the FMB under the regime of Keith Parks. I really don’t care whether or not you understand the situation.
I hope you were not like those “M’s” of Uganda who visited a certain group trying to dissuade them from going to Rawanda, and then when that could not be accomplished visited the Rawandan churches trying to get them to dis-invite the group. The Rawandan churches replied that they had been attempting to convince the FMB to bring groups for nearly five years without results, so the FMB could co-operate, or be left behind.
The FMB under Parks was drug kicking and screaming into the second half of the twentieth Century, always saying the typical Christian could not make it in those countries. Our group made it quite well, thank you. Sleeping in tents and sleeping bags, bathing irregularly, and witnessing effectively.
Ruschlikon and Taejon were supported by FMB funds, The International School at Taejon had a FMB appointed Head Master, the professors at both institutions were appointed missionaries of the FMB or approved by the FMB. The tired argument that for the sake of relationships we had to approve some of their choices was used until it became just too much for Southern Baptists to stomach.
I simply cannot understand anyone not accepting the liberal leanings of a great many appointees under the old Parks and earlier regime and must assume such people as either : (1) Ignorant, or (2) Willfully deceptive.
The CR is accomplished history, and revisionist types who try to justify moderate/liberal leanings today by attacking the work of those who helped bring it about, are held in high contempt by me in the same way I have contempt for those who attempt to revise the history of our country to malign our founding fathers.
Like Dr. Rogers, I’m not interested in growing a great denomination. I’m interested in growing a dedicated, disciplined, body of Believers who daily take up their cross and follow Him to the ends of the earth. Should others join us in that endeavor, we welcome them, however they must walk with us in a manner which reflects our understanding of Scripture.
We do not seek to enlarge the tent.
DAve:
I must say I wrote what I said in the last comment on the assumption the link to PBS Frontline discussion to predictive prophecy and the Book of Danielwas still up.
Quite frankly, I found it a little squirrelly of you to have taken it down.
Maybe Ron WEst will google it up and link it, or even David Rogers and will see where it goes from there.
Something less than virtuous when all others here make inferences and allegations about liberalism run amok in the SBC; and a few with links and personal experience challenge their view of things; and in God’s name you censor dissenting thought.
Kinda what Montoya and West experienced with the CR in Arkansas.
I left a strong worded comment on your blog in Sioux City Iowa, but had a 2nd thought and decided to err with mercy.
Hope things otherwise are well.
Mr. Rasberry,
After reading your last comment, I clicked on your name and looked at your blog. Good stuff! Back in April 2009, you posted your thoughts under the title, “Try a Little Kindness.” Please go back and read that post on your blog. The heart you reflected there didn’t come through in your most recent comment here to Ron West. Just a suggestion.
Mary Ann,
I’m sure that some will consider my comments unkind. However, I think the worst unkindness possible is to facilitate what one considers error by giving the impression of either acquiescence to or support of a particular position.
I wonder just how unkind people would consider Jesus today if they attempted to follow Him, and He replied, “You’re just a bunch of snakes.” Now, I don’t intend to project myself as Jesus, or even a very good imitation of Him. But I do believe God has anointed me to proclaim forthrightly that truth which He has given me without apology.
I really don’t think I was unkind. Unkindness sounds like this, “You are a no good, useless, sack of excrement, worthy of nothing more than being cast on to a heap and burned for ever.” Wait, I’ve heard that somewhere before.
I have little use for those who persist in error, even to the point of distorting the past, and excoriating those who have acted in good faith to their betterment. I’m extremely kind to those who are do not profess a knowledge of Christ. I’m less so to those who I feel misuse the gifts God has given them, while bearing His name.
I’m preaching on Jonah tomorrow. I’m doing a Character Sketch and examining the Motivations for Obedience. I portions of the entire book.
I’ve just got time for a quick reply to David in #163. My comments on immorality were in response to your comment in #84 about a moderate leader who had a moral failing. I do not believe it is systemic in the CR but I do think it is an example of poor choices for trustees by the CR leadership.
David, you said, “I have never cheated on my wife. I have heard NO stories accusing any of the Presidents of the SBC or of any of our boards or agencies cheating on their wives. Insinuating that immorality is a problem in the CR kind of hits us all. “ If you are referring to my definition of moderate statement you need to reread my comment about moderate in #154 and Valentine’s day and calling someone an adulterer. It had nothing to do with saying anyone from the CR was cheating on their wife. I was showing the absurdity and dishonesty of using the definition of moderate as being someone who is a conservative but does not support the CR. That definition has been thrown around for years by CR supporters desperate to use labels to attack others. It is dishonest. A moderate is a moderate and a conservative is a conservative. David, you have a knack for taking something I write and putting a meaning to it that is nowhere near what I have written. As for as the 4 trustee or committee chairmen, that is just news reported by Baptist Press and is well known to anyone who keeps up with the SBC.
Did you answer my question? Do you agree with Mike Rasberry that the majority of FMB missionaries were not theologically conservative in the 70s?????
I will answer Mike Rasberry tomorrow.
Ron,
I will moderate my comments somewhat. I repent of saying the majority of SBC missionaries prior to the CR were liberal. I will say the majority of SBC missionaries prior to the CR were either liberal, or sympathetic toward liberal causes.
Let me hasten to add that liberal in the classical sense of the German Rationalists, no. We probably had very few Southern Baptists who fell into that category. Liberal in a Southern Baptist Sense meant that one taught or allowed to be taught, without correction, theological error concerning the nature of Scripture, the miracles of Scripture, The creation account, and/or single path of salvation through Jesus Christ.
I will also say the resources, including personnel, under the administration of the then, FMB, were not receptive to the direct participation of church groups in ministry because of a skewed theological position which resulted in policy determined to maintain such an other worldliness about Foreign missions that only those endoctrinated with the FMB policies could participate directly in foreign missions.
Well this is embarrassing. I thought I posted a response last night and then headed to bed at 10:00 after springing fwd. And it’s not here.
CB asked: “But, Dave, if Sixth Century Daniel is not the guy who received the inspiration for the content of the Book of Daniel, the content is not valid, the prophecies are false and it cannot be inerrant. Thus is the specific nature of the Book of Daniel.”
Isn’t 699-600 BC Seventh Century?
No matter.
What I had said earlier that failed to post was that a second century BC date as the scholars propose is still not going to negate the prophecy. One has to do like the scholars did with Daniel’s prophecy of Cleopatra and the rise of the Roman empire and reinterpret the prophecy to be about something else. For instance one scholar in the link that Stephen posted claims the legs of iron and feet of iron mixed with clay are the dissolution of the Greek empire. Of course he is going to say that because he doesn’t believe Daniel is prophetic. However, any sensible reading points to Rome which doesn’t rise as an empire until Julius comes to power.
So I do not feel that authorship and late dating are fatal to the inspiration of Daniel because the book describes events that are later than the date even the most liberal scholar assigns to authorship. When you look at the rock that hits the feet of clay fulfilled in the coming of Jesus Christ that grows into a mountain that fills the whole earth as a descriptive metaphor of Rev. 11:15 (there it is again, Strider! Had to slip that in since you’ve had me meditating on that verse all week and will be discussing it this a.m. with my SS class).
To explain, here is my strategy: I will concede and give ground on issues that I feel are not germane to the central core of the argument until my opponent is stretched to the end of his argument. At that point, he is off balance and susceptible to a quick trip-up that brings him crashing down. I used to wrestle in high school and one of my favorite takedown moves was when an opponent made a rush, I would lock up, roll over backward, and let the momentum of his charge continue to carry him forward until he found himself rolling further than he expected and ended up on his back, pinned to the mat.
Here’s how it looks in my argument regarding Daniel:
Them: Daniel cannot possibly be inspired because it was not written by Daniel.
Me: That doesn’t matter because Ruth wasn’t written by Ruth and it is still inspired.
Them: Well it wasn’t written during the Babylonian captivity.
Me: Doesn’t matter. Moses wrote Genesis and he wasn’t there to see it and its still inspired.
Them: Daniel was written AFTER the prophecies it describes around 165 BC.
Me: That does matter because Daniel contains prophecies that didn’t come to pass until 100 years after 165 BC. Let’s look at chapter 11…. (or if they are a simpleton, I’ll just go to the fall of the colossus in ch. 3 and ask how that happened in 165 BC)
I realize that this style of argument does not appeal to everyone and that many want to fight for every inch of ground. I say go for it. That’s what Napoleon did in Russia. He fought for every inch of Russian soil and even marched into Moscow only to find out that winning the battles had no bearing on the outcome of the war. I’m like the Russians in this regard. I like to let the hubris of the opponent be the factor that takes them down. Let them have the territory that they gain. They will be eaten up by their own victories.
See? I’m evil that way. Like Fezzik in The Princess Bride who does not defend himself when first attacked by the Dread Pirate Roberts, I like them to feel they are doing well.
Or if the scholars on this list prefer a more philosophical approach, just treat it like a form of Paschal’s wager. If they are right and I am wrong about EVERYTHING (a prospect that my children assure me is accurate), and my argument still holds, what have they gained? Nothing. But if they are wrong and I am right (a prospect that my children realize only after attending the hard school of bitter experience), they still lose.
Personally, I believe Daniel was the person responsible for the book we hold. For the sake of argument, I do not think this is a critical point in defending the inspiration of the book. I realize that liberals will use it to question the veracity of the book. Let them. Even if they win, they gain nothing. And here’s the important point for pastors:
If we would point this out from the pulpit and from our Sunday School lecterns, we would have a much stronger congregation! (Time for my soapbox, now) If we would show people how our arguments stand even if the liberals are right about everything they throw at us, we will have a much more confident people, less able to be swayed by liberal arguments. I see this in my teens who are wrestling with these questions. I see this with my college kids who are grappling with these issues and looking for a good source of ammunition and armor to use in the battle. THIS is what we need to do – equip our people with the best defense the Bible can provide which is an intimate familiarity with what the Bible says. Liberal scholars rarely grapple with the content of the Bible because they cannot fault it when presented fully and completely in its grammatico-historical context. So they take pot shots at side issues to discredit it. We need to teach our people to stand by the content and let the pot shots fall ineffectively where they may.
CB, as the author of Hebrews, I did not mean to slight you. My reply to your question was one of the posts that has turned up missing from last night.
You asked, “The subject of my question was not Judges or any other Book within the Canon. It was about the Book of Daniel specifically.
“Do you or do you not believe God gave, by divine inspiration, the content of the Book of Daniel to a historic figure named Daniel between 605 B.C. and 536 B.C.?”
My answer is yes, I believe that Daniel was the person responsible for the book that bears his name.
Now, my question: Who is the author of the book of Judges? And if the authorship of Judges doesn’t matter, why should Daniel?
Here is where you stick your head into the noose. In post 195, you say, “But, Dave, if Sixth Century Daniel is not the guy who received the inspiration for the content of the Book of Daniel, the content is not valid, the prophecies are false and it cannot be inerrant. Thus is the specific nature of the Book of Daniel.”
Read the book of Daniel. Nowhere does it specifically state, “I Daniel wrote this down.” It is possible that maybe one of his friends, Hananiah, Mishael, or Azariah wrote it down during his life and used a first person narrative point of view as a literary device common to the times. We know that at least part of Daniel is a first person narrative of King Nebuchadnezzar in ch. 4.
It is possible that Daniel had a collection of works that made their way back to Jerusalem during the time of Ezra and that he (or one of his helpers) assembled the book in its present form and that was what was read to the people.
It is even possible that Ezra or some other trusted scribe had spoken with Daniel about his life and after his passing wrote memoirs of what he heard exactly like the writers of the gospels did regarding Jesus.
You will admit that each of these does nothing to detract from the inspiration of the text or its veracity. So when you say, “…if Sixth Century Daniel is not the guy who received the inspiration for the content of the Book of Daniel, the content is not valid, the prophecies are false and it cannot be inerrant,” this is exactly the backwards way of going about attesting to the inspiration of the scriptures.
According to the Mosaic rules for prophets, we begin with the message and if it comes to pass, THAT is what testifies to the credibility of the prophet. You start with the content validity and work backwards from that to attest to the inspiration of Daniel. You do not begin with the author and work forward. That path leads to peril if it is ever shown that the person we traditionally associate as the author is later found to not be the actual author, although I doubt Cletis wrote it either. Or is “Cleophas” a misspelling of Cletis? Could be a transcription error in the Greek….
Rick,
The author and date of Daniel does matter. Truth always matters. And it is truth that makes congregations stronger. “If we would point this out from the pulpit and from our Sunday School lecterns, we would have a much stronger congregation!”
And your illustration about dealing with an opponent in a wrestling match is good. But you need to know that some have used such tactics not just to get a “pin” but to stay alive. But all of that has to do with physical combat and little to do with the understanding of Scripture.
You see Rick, once you know the truth you do not have to “concede and give ground on issues” as you say. All you have to do is just tell the truth and the truth will stand on its own. Truth is always “germane to the central core of the argument.” What you “feel to be germane” does not matter. (See Rick, in real combat, physical or otherwise, “feelings” will get you killed. It is what you actually “know” and how you use what you know that brings you back home and as you say, leaves your opponent “stretched to the end of his argument.”
Rick, we really can say “Sixth” Century Daniel wrote the Book attributed to him for over 1,800 years before opposition ever arose. And we can say it with confidence and not have to use any “wrestling” tactics at all. We can stop the “charge” before it comes. The opponent is “dead” even while still in motion so to speak. That tactic is called “using superior firepower.” Truth is always superior firepower.
Rick, our job is to find and know the truth, speak it, and then, by faith, let the truth stand on its own. And that is what makes a “stronger congregation.”
Ron, here is my problem.
You throw out broad, sweeping statements about the CR which evidently you mean to accuse a small number of people. But, as part of the CR, (though a small part) I take umbrage at the sweeping generalizations. You then say, “Well, I didn’t mean you.”
If you say, “People over 6’3″ are stupid” I will likely object (for reasons you might understand if you met me). You can then come back and say, “Well, Dave, I didn’t mean you.”
So, if you keep on making broad generalizations about the lack of character and integrity of the CR, I am likely to continue to feel a little pique.
I answered your question in my comment above Ron. I guess you missed it.
Point 8, comment #163
CB,
Not sure what you are misunderstanding here.
First of all, I did not advocate teaching falsehood or to neglect the teaching of truth. I did say that using a form of Paschal’s wager, we can overcome our opponents, precisely when they look the strongest by appealing to the content of the book in question. This may be an odd strategy to some, to let the Bible speak for itself and not to rely on external authorities to substantiate the Bible’s claim, but I prefer it. Others who want to argue from external authority are free to pursue the course they feel is best.
I agree that the truth matters. It is true that arguments against Daniel fail on every point. I agree that we can, and should, teach heavily supported and detailed apologetics approaches to our defense of the Word, including the book of Daniel. However, we would also be remiss if we neglected to show that even if none of this were true, the Bible, on its own and without any help from us, is capable of destroying any attack against it, solely on the internal evidence available. I would much rather my people come away with a desire to read the Bible and know it intimately above any earthly authority on the Bible.
Also, William Lane Craig uses the Paschal’s wager format on many occasions to show that his atheistic opponents really have no ground to stand on. I would recommend watching a couple of his videos on YouTube to see how he does this. Once again – these tactics are used against opponents to the truth, not directed at those in the congregation. We watch them for edification and encouragement.
I did not miss a thing Rick.
I did not say you advocate teaching falsehood. I am saying that if you take the time to know the truth about the Book of Daniel (and you have admitted that you have not) then you do not have to use Paschal’s wager or anything else to make the case. The truth will stand on its own.
See, Rick as I said earlier, we are not talking about Ruth or Judges or most other Books in the Bible. We are talking about Daniel. Daniel is unique in and of itself. The arguments you promote here will not stand.
Let’s say you were in a debate with Steve Fox about the inerrancy of Daniel. Steve is not a seminary graduate either. But he has read a lot of material and he knows the arguments. Rick, using the arguments you use, Steve would quickly realize you had not done the “background” work and he would simply smile and walk away knowing that you really do not know the foundational argument for the inerrancy of Daniel.
Again Rick, I am not saying you are promoting falsehood. I am saying your “one size fits all” argument for inerrancy will not stand up against knowledgeable people such as Steve Fox and many others. It just won’t work.
Lastly, the truth of Daniel I speak of does come from “internal evidence.” It just takes a while to dig it out shall we say.
CB:
I think you overrate me a little.
It is way past time to bring John Killian and Fisher Humphreys into this discussion.
I imagine you will remember Fisher’s interview 30 years ago with Judge Pressler.
Fisher, Robert Marsh’s Brother in law, was able to coexist with Timothy George all those years on the same campus at Samford.
Maybe he is the template.
Steve,
I doubt seriously that I overrate you in this specific matter. And it would be fun to have Killian and Humphreys, along with Larry Draper in on this.
BTW, I always respected Dr. Humphreys. I did take an opposing position on many things, but it was always evident Dr. Humpherys had done his “homework” and he caused many of “us” to do ours. Dr. Fisher Humphreys is due the respect he has earned.
I can respect Fisher Humphreys as a man, but I loathe his conclusions on most issues. However, I have not read after him extensively. I continue to believe he should not be employed at a Southern Baptist School.
Mike Rasberry,
A couple of times I have made an effort to engage you and you ignored me. Is there a reason for that or was it simply an oversight?
Inerrancy is a great topic because it separates the “men from the boys” as it were. For instance, all Christians affirm inerrancy because it is true and it is a foundational doctrine. In contrast, mainstream/moderate christians* reject inerrancy because it makes it easier to ignore clear biblcal teaching that they’d rather not be required to submit to.
Further, in response to Debbie Kaufman’s comment about all the poor, innocent people who were “destroyed” in the CR, they fall into two camps. They were either mainstream/moderate christians whose putrid theological doctrine was a cancer in the body of Christ. The other camp was folks who may have been conservative (inerrantists, folks who affirmed the virgin birth, etc) who said “Well, now, I believe in inerrancy but it’s ok for someone to hold to a different opinion. I’m not going to try to rid the SBC of folks who don’t believe in that.” In other words, they weren’t willing to support the CR and therefore were not actively opposing the people who were rightly labeled as the enemy. Therefore, if they got “destroyed” in the CR they picked the wrong side and got what they deserved. Anyone who lost a job/church/whatever in the CR got WAAAY better than they deserved.
*Ron had asked in a prior comment stream what I meant about the comment that mainstream/moderate christians not affirming inerrancy. Inerrancy is not salvific. Therefore, I can’t say someone is not saved if they don’t believe in inerrancy. That’s why I use the lower case “c” and try to make sure I have a sentance somewhere near that I can say “Christians affirm inerrancy” to show that the lower case “c” wasn’t a typo.
Those mainstream/moderate christians who do not affirm the plain and obviious fact that the Bible is inerrant may be saved. However, they’re not what I would call brothers or sisters in Christ. They’re more like 2nd cousins once removed in Christ. They’re like that nutty relative who shows up at the family reunion all liquored up, gets up to sing kareokee, can’t read the lyrics, and decides to free style rap. You can’t truthfully say you’re not related to them, but you don’t go around admitting it.
Now, Joe, play nice.
I would challenge several things you said, even though you and I are on the same side on inerrancy.
1) “they picked the wrong side and they got what they deserved…” I completely disagree with that. The fact that someone is on the “wrong” side (and we agree on that, at least) does not justify any acts of unkindness done to them.
Jesus told us to love our enemies. We can confront what we believe to be false doctrine without meanness.
I went to a liberal school and spent my 3 years there opposing what I was taught. But I made a lot of friends among the “liberal” folks. We’d argue and sometimes it might get heated.
I think we need to stand strong on inerrancy, but stand just as strong on love, mercy and kindness as we do on doctrine.
2) Many of the “moderates” were our brothers and sisters in Christ. I believe that the most significant mistake of the CR was to treat people who believed the Bible and loved the Lord, but did not agree with the CR as enemies.
Remember my 3 groups:
*Conservatives (politically and theologically)
*Conservatives (theologically but not politically ) sometimes called moderates
*Liberal/moderates (significant theological problems)
Those of us in group 1 believed that group 3 needed to be dealt with.
Unfortunately, in the process, we lumped group 2 in with group 3 and treated them as if they were liberal.
That was a huge mistake.
Lot’s of refs will call things close in the early part of the game, then “let them play” as the game goes on.
I’m going to do that. Share your opinions. But let’s treat one another with respect even as we disagree. A sharp disagreement is not ungodly, as I see it.
But let’s honor one another.
Play nice, boys and girls.
Well, Dave, I must say I disagree with your disagreement.
I personally have no problem with lumping 2 and 3 together. However, your mileage may vary. And really, for the most part in life it kind of takes care of itself. Most churches that are theologically conservative are known as such and no moderate would be caught dead, generally speaking, in such a church. Of course that’s a generalization but I think it holds fairly true. Therefore, when I was lookig for a church with my family, my wife and I looked to make sure the church was theologically conservative. I’m pretty sure liberal errors are not going to be a problem here.
I think Joe just made a lower case christian out of Timothy George, a key figure in the Manhattan Declaration.
George is an advocate for the Baptist World Alliance, and celebrates the work of Fisher Humphreys with a testimonial in the Festschrift presented to Fisher on retiring from Samford.
Best of my memory, George introduced Anne Graham Lotz, a woman, when she preached at Samford couple years ago.
Fisher’s membership is at http://www.bcoc.net whose senior pastor is a woman.
I celebrate Fisher’s choice; but that’s not the point.
The point is Joe may want to take down the link on his blog to the Manhattan Declaration until such time as he can clean the house of Timothy George; the logical next step it would seem to me for a fellow who will have nothing to do with what he calls lower case christians; those in his mind soft on the enemy.
Which raises the question, was David Rogers bordering on the lower case when he signed the Memphis Declaration??
I mean you are either errant, or your not; Right???
All black and white, everywhere; all the time, on every occasion, in every instance; Right??
As I said, Joe, we agree on the importance of inerrancy and I am passionate in my desire that the SBC remain committed to it.
My only point is that the Bible we believe is inerrant calls us to be kind and Christlike, even to those we disagree with.
Stephen, you looked at my blog? COOL! That means I’ve had three people look at it this week (you, my mom, and me). I’m on a roll here. Look out next week, I bet I’ll have 4 hits before Friday. Woohoo!!
Steve,
You and I and all others as well are always errant. As you say, “All black and white, everywhere; all the time, on every occasion, in every instance; Right??”
It is the Word of God that is inerrant. That is one reason we have so much trouble with it. The Word of God is inerrant, we are not.
Therefore, we all should proclaim; Thank God for grace!
It’s that gravatar, I’m telling you. Scares people off.
Dave,
Does the Bible actually call us to be “kind” as in the way people define kind today? Or does it actually call us to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves and to be meek in the biblical manner?
Dave,
You’re just jealous cause you’re not a superhero!!!
CB, I admitted to not being a scholar on the book of Daniel. If that’s what it takes to “know the truth” about Daniel, then I will forever remain in ignorance, for I have no intention of entering the academy at this late stage in life. As a hopelessly ignorant boob, I will leave the professional treatment of the Bible to you, since I am clearly inferior both in intellectual attainment, scholastic achievement, and incapable of divining it from internal evidence.
We return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.
I think, CB, a good illustration would be how we stand against or confront homosexuality.
The world says that we should be “kind” – meaning tolerant and approving of sin.
On the other hand, many Christians seem to go out of their way and use offensive words in describing and dealing with homosexuality.
We can stand strong without compromise without being mean, without name-calling, without being demeaning.
It is a tough balance – standing strong without being unkind. We will each tend to slip out of balance from time to time. Then, we just confess and start over in trying to maintain the balance.
We can stand strong without compromise without being mean, without name-calling, without being demeaning.
Yeah, but that’s no fun.
In all seriousness, you are right on with that comment.
CB, Rick, I wonder if any blog has ever hammered out the authorship of Daniel with as much passion as we did here.
You guys have both made good arguments and stated your cases well. Maybe we should move on before the emotions rise too much.
Let’s talk about the Yankees – something great we can all agree on!!!
CB, Since I don’t know your name. I don’t know if I’ve met you before. I was at BBI in Graceville Florida with a fellow named AC Scott.
I’ve not deliberately ignored you, but I do sense a kindred spirit, and one who has been down some of the same trails, I’ve followed, albeit at different times apparently.
We probably have some common Acquaintances. I don’t know many of the “new guard” leadership in Southern Baptist Life. I was acquainted with Dr. Rogers, Dr. Criswell, Richard Jackson, both of the Lindsay’s, but was never a part of the inner circle with any of them. I know Paige because our son’s played football together at FB Academy in Dallas, and his daughter was friends with our oldest son.
I have known Harold O’Chester for a long time, but not intimately. He has been a help several times over the years.
After leaving the Marine Corps in 1969 I served in Southwest Arizona near Yuma, Nathan Pillow, then pastor of FSBC, Yuma and later Evangelism Director for Arizona was extremely instrumental in my early ministry.
I’ve served in Pioneer Missions, language missions, and foreign missions.
So, I doubt I’ve ever met you, and so far your luck has held out, since you’ve not yet met me.
Dave,
Is it possible that our concern for “kindness” comes from a desire to be acceptable to those outside the Kingdom.
Some of the most harsh language imaginable is in Scripture, and some of it from Our Lord.
It is difficult to be “kind” when describing an abomination. Should we be kind to person who takes a little girl, and repeatedly rapes and sodomizes her, then leaves her to die alone in a deserted location? How would such kindness be described.
I find it much more grievous that learned men who are responsible to teach truth without any mixture of error, choose to play games with God’s Word. The little girl who is molested is harmed and human life taken from her, but the little children who receive lessons which subtly substitute the word of man for The Word of God, and who are influenced away from trust in God’s Word suffer a much worse fate.
I do not believe there is strong enough language to describe those workers of iniquity who have chosen to follow error, and call it truth, thereby deceiving entire generations.
Those Methodists of yesteryear, who repented at the preaching of Sam Jones, would not set foot in a contemporary Methodist Church. Should we allow the influence of Fisher Humphreys, Francisco, Dale Moody, et al to permeate our convention, I fear Southern Baptists will begin to look more and more like contemporary Methodism which has left its first love for a gospel of good works.
In my opinion, we need more straight talk, not less.
The Manhattan Declaration seems like a good thing from a religious perspective. I however would not post name to anything that said :
We Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians,… At the beginning of its Declaration. If we as blood bought, born again Christians continue to make such concessions and blur the lines of wrong and right, we will do nothing but cause aid our enemy in the confusion that we cause.
This Thread is completely about the inerrancy of scripture and to join ourselves with a Religious Sect that teaches transubstantiation as the path to Salvation, is practiced in idolatry, and negates the priesthood of the believer, would be to say that the book of Romans is a lie.
For by Grace are you saved through faith and not of yourself…
I do not see how someone lumping Baptist in with Catholics like is done in this document, would raise that person in my estimation any.
In His Service
Kevin Rasberry
Rick,
Don’t do the martyr thing on me here.
For when you do, Dave will come in his “kindness” and hug you and scold me. Or he will get antsy and say something like:
You guys have both made good arguments and stated your cases well. Maybe we should move on before the emotions rise too much.
Oh, look, he just said that.
Look Rick. I am not saying you have to go to the academy. I also did not say you were promoting “falsehood” earlier either.
I simply stated the truth about Daniel being unique in and of itself and the method you might use to affirm Ruth, Judges or a number of other books will not suffice to make a good stand for inerrancy.
You are a bright guy. I have not said you are not. I also said other bright guys like Steve will not be swayed by your argument because they will not let you use the “Ruth-Judges” argument and the use of “Paschal’s wager” does not really work here either. It works well in evangelistic presentations, but not in debates about the inerrancy of Daniel.
Rick, I have not thrown an insult at you, not even a veiled one by talking about people being “weak in the faith” or not building “strong congregations”
See, Rick if you do take the long look and do the work you will not “stick your head in the noose” as you say and you will build “strong congregations”
Dave, I thought the same thing about moving on. Sadly it was after I hit “Submit” and not before. Taking your advice and waiting to see what other “incendiary” issue is raised this coming week.
Mike,
CB is the name. We know many of the same people. I worked for Dr. Patterson for a long time. I am familiar with most of those you mention, some more so than others, naturally. What just amazed me is that you mentioned “Sam Jones”
You are right. There ain’t many Methodist preachers like him anymore. For that matter, there ain’t many Baptist preachers like him anymore either.
Best to you there Mike and maybe we will run into each other somewhere.
I have a sneaking suspicion, reading the comments above that CB and Mike Rasberry are really the same person.
CB, I know better than to scold you. It just encourages you! I do though, someday, want to get you and Rick and Wade and Vol and Tom Parker and we’ll all join hands around the campfire and sing “Pass It On” together.
A guy can hope.
CB, when I find myself taking offense and responding with sarcasm, it is time for me to bow out of the conversation. I appreciate your patience and dedication to the topic, but I will have to respectfully disagree that Daniel is a special case on the topic of inerrancy/inspiration. Since we cannot agree on the fundamentals of the conversation, I’m afraid that puts us at an unassailable impasse. I will apply Hanlon’s razor and take your word for it that you did not intend malice in your post, content to let bygones be bygones.
Until the next topic, may His blessings be upon you.
rick
Pass it on?
Sounds like church camp back in the 70′s.
For some reason I can’t sing that song without a slight twinge of fear at a failed cabin inspection….
Mike, I see where you are coming from, and i am sure there are some who are doing exactly that.
Here’s my thoughts:
1) I think that the motivation for kindness and meekness, and loving our enemies is twofold – pleasing God and obeying him. The same Bible that condemns homosexuality commands love, grace and kindness.
2) If we uphold the truth, but do it in unkindness, we can actually harm the kingdom. There is no power when we stand for godly values in ungodly ways.
3) Kindness does not require us to compromise our beliefs, or even to soft pedal them. I can say that homosexuality is a sin, but I can make every attempt to do so in a kind way.
I was on a televised debate one time about whether gays should be allowed to adopt. The lady sitting next to me was a lesbian who had adopted. I sat there and tried to be as gracious as I could while I told her that she should not be allowed to adopt. I never raised my voice nor did I use any insulting name. I just told her that I believed that the Bible said her lifestyle was a sin.
In other debates on the same show, I told the Imam of the Mosque and the Rabbi of the temple that we could not accept their religions were true and that we Southern Baptists would continue to try to proclaim salvation in Christ to Jews and Muslims.
I attempted to “speak the truth in love.” The truth without love can damage people. Love without the truth leaves people in their sins and is ultimately contrary to love.
4) Ultimately, here’s what I think. We have to understand the biblical view of those who disagree with us, those who live in sin and those who promote falsehood.
“Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers.”
Homosexuals are not the enemy, they are the battleground. We are not fighting the gays, we are fighting the forces of darkness to win the gays.
Liberals are not the enemy. They are deceived by Satan’s lies and our job is not to crush the liberals but to hold up the light of truth in hope that the Spirit will draw them to the truth.
5) When I have the sovereign insight into men’s souls that Jesus had, I can say the things Jesus said about their motives. Non of us can see motives, so it is best if we don’t try.
6) We need to remember that it is our job to proclaim. It is the Spirit’s job to convict.
I’m not sure I ever passed an inspection.
Rick,
You can take my word for it, there was no malice. But I advise you not to apply the jab of Hanlon’s Razor toward me. That is a mistake. And I mean that with no sarcasm, no offense and no veiled threat, no blessings, no nothing.
My friend, you will do far better to just attribute malice to me than stupidity. Your comment is not well taken. And your wishing of “blessings” is consider hollow at best and hypocrisy in reality.
Who is Hanlon and why does he need a razor?
Rick,
I just looked up Hanlon’s razor, and I think that might have been unwise to go there.
CB and I have had our fair share of arguments, some of which have gotten pretty heated. And I try to regularly insult him, as he does me.
CB can be direct, hardheaded, belligerent. I will let him tell you my bad qualities (I think he thinks I’m kind of a kindness-wimp sometimes)
But he’s not stupid.
Dave,
I agree with the heart of your missive about acting in kindness. However, trying to present Christ to Unbelievers is completely different than trying to prevent professing Believers from usurping the message.
Jesus’ most harsh statements were always for the religious hypocrites. And while we cannot know a man’s heart, we are admonished continually in Scripture to mark a man’s lifestyle and to dis-associate from those who claim His name yet teach or live contrary to His way.
Most people would call me kind. However, I can ferocious to those who would harm one of God’s little ones.
Because “Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers”, we must understand that one cannot separate the person from the sin. Time and again I’m told to love the sinner while hating the sin. Exactly what does that mean?
My idea of loving the sinner is to attempt to present him with truth in a caring way, and should he repent to love him and disciple him to maturity in Christ.
Should he reject the truth, he is the sin. A homosexual man who rejects God’s direct truth about homosexuality cannot be separated from his sin. He is that sin because he has so chosen. That is what Paul speaks of in Romans 1. He has chosen. Now, like Paul, my heart and prayer is that he be saved, but as long as he rejects that truth, no amount of kindness by me is going to influence him to Christ. He only comes to Christ as a consequence of being confronted with the truth and the subsequent conviction of the HOly Spirit.
Should I, by my kindness, be able to win him to Christ, the cross becomes of no effect. My primary concern should be to gain an ear which will at least listen to the truth. But should I eventually pursuade him by loving and argumentation to turn to Christ, he still is not converted, but rather he is simply an unconverted “good guy.”
Again. I’m not arguing for abrasiveness. That is not beneficial, but straightforward speaking seems abrasive to the more gentle souls among us.
It wasn’t intended as a jab. It was intended not to attribute malice when none is intended.
Yeah, Mike, there is a balance here. I think we have to be direct, but try to avoid being offensive in manner (name-calling, etc).
I can tell someone that their lifestyle is sinful without calling them names, or whatever.
It is a balancing act. Avoiding both abrasiveness and compromise is tough.
Hanlon’s razor: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
I was a little shocked when I read what that meant. If all meant was that you were not trying to attribute malice, Hanlon’s razor might not have been the right phrasing to use.
You are undoubtedly correct. My apologies.
Those should probably be directed to CB.
Apologies to you, CB, as my intention was solely not to attribute malice since you said you had not intended such.
rick
I’m a little numb from havin all my stellar links taken down in this search for the Truth about Inerrancy; I guess you could call it the Missing Links.
Or to paraphrase Hefley, Inerrancy Links in Crisis.
But if you want to get closer to the heart of this matter, over at faith and practice forum of http://www.baptistlife.com/forums a fellow Alabama revenant has finally joined the shadow conversation I’ve been having with myself on this matter and my treatment here with some stellar links on Inerrancy, including the decision of the BGCT in 2001, and Jim Denison’s treatment of Inerrancy of just a few years ago.
I encourage the brave and thoughtful among you to wonder over there and explore that material if the truth is really what you are seeking no matter where it takes you.
If you just want to have another conversation among yourselves nothing I can do about that.
There is this Laurie Corzett poem, but then again it would probably be deleted as unorthodox or not a member of the club or some such.
Great opening line
Starts
Sally want you go downtown
And round up some teabag party clowns
Ends up with a riff on Hallelujah Hallucinations.
Title of it is
The Gospel.
I am rather late to this discussion–it has been a busy couple of weeks for me, and I have not kept up with any blogs lately. But this is interesting. Early on, Dave expressed a hope that more non-inerrantists would chime in, so late or not, here I come.
First off, while I do not call myself an “inerrantist,” if a discussion went strictly by the definitions in the Chicago Statement, I could be labeled one. My problem with the label is this: first the baggage that carries in the SBC, which automatically connects to the CR. Let me gladly concede that some, perhaps many, in that movement were honest and had motives that were above-board, but others did not, or so I believe. Having been a student at SEBTS in the 80s, I saw people (professors) who were conservative, but because they could not with intellectual integrity affirm this doctrine, labeled as liberals and heretics, and pressured to leave. I am sure that others saw things I did not; but then, you generally find what you look for, so if you look for witches, you find witches; look for liberals, you find liberals; look for heretics, you find heretics. Myself, I went looking for an education, and found educators. But back to the label, inerrantist: any convenient label carries some baggage, and I always tell people that someone else who has misused a word is not sufficient reason to avoid it, used correctly. So that I could live with. The second and a more substantial reason is I do not call myself one is that in most discussions in the SBC, the nuances of the Chicago statement are either quickly forgotten or ignored. The Statement says, “WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose,” but SBC “debates” about inerrancy often quickly become “if you don’t accept every word as absolute truth in all areas–not just theology and practice, but in science, politics, history, etc.–you don’t believe.” That bothers me. Finally, there is my own intellectual integrity. As I said, I can accept the limitations and definitions of inerrance of the Chicago statement, but those argue against the very use of the term inerrancy, at least to me. If you have to qualify the meaning of the term to not only the original manuscripts, but also to matters of faith and practice, it seems to me you have negated the meaning of the term itself. And since we do not possess any of those autographs anyway, the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
I agree completely with Dave: almost all the textual variations found in the manuscript witness deal with what are little, if any, more than trivialities: case, pronouns use, the exact viowel in a Greek word (i.e., the eye of a needle passage: most manuscripts refer to a camel passing through, but a few late ones say a cable, and in Greek, the difference is whether the “O” is long or short, and neither changes the meaning of the passage). I further agree that none of the textual variations (even the long ending of Mark and the stoning pericope in John) affect any major or even significant points of doctrine. Consequently, I have no propblem affirming a high view of Scripture, and I further believe that it possesses a remarkable degree of accuracy–within the limitations defined by the Chicago statement.
As a brief aside, the question of authorship is interesting. Do you all have any problem with believing that that the named authors (where that exists) stand behind the various books, but that these works existed as part of an oral tradition for a greater or lessor period of time before being “written down” by unknown named persons? In non-literate societies (which included most of Israel and the Middle East in the Old Testament period) that seems to have been quite common. In fact, that was the case in rural east Alabama, where I grew up, and yet the stories transmitted in my family (where I can document it) are remarkably accurate.
John Fariss
Whoops, a tyupo. I wrote, in my last paragraph, “unknown named persons.” I meant to write, “unknown UNnamed persons.” My bad.
John
John: If you like a good family story google up the Shelton Laurel Massacre and the World Made Straight.
Take you right to an agency page for a Baptist Shaped Author.
Sorry not Alabama, but Western North Carolina, where accumulated oral tradition rings pretty true to the facts; and a novel made from all that
Great line in there that could well enough be about the author himself
Smarts like yours just don’t spring up like a daisy in a bunch of hogweed.
Good family oral tradition from a highly celebrated Baptist Shaped author that goes through fiction and rings true.
Pardon me for the aside, but thought you might like it.
For me it has all kinds of imaginary possibilities for the pregnant comment Crawford Toy made a bout Lottie Moon having the greatest command of the English Language of any female student he came into contact with.
Thanks Stephen. That was interesting. I have long been interested in oral history and the folk stories transmitted in families. I suspect there is a good deal to be learned there about the transmission of the “pre-Bible,” the books and episodes of the Bible before they became part of a written text.
John
Brother Dave,
I have been away from the blog scene for the week and like John Fariss, I am very late to the conversation. It appears that most the angles have been pursued and I agree with John that the rhetoric surrounding the debate is more exciting than the substance of what politically is affirmed as inerrant or somewhat inerrant.
The bottom line for me is that the Word of God is without error. God has preserved what we need to know and has revealed to the church the purpose of its preservation. To know that God’s word is without error is a practice of faith. Since faith is defined in substance and evidence, then the reality of God’s preservation of the text is for His purpose, not necessarily ours. We receive the truth. How we preach and teach it is important ….to bring glory to God.
Good article brother…..
Blessings,
Chris
Rick,
The bottom line here Rick is this: Your argument as to the nature of the inerrancy of Daniel will not stand up to the scrutiny of informed opposition. The “one size fits all” argument you present just don’t “cut it” no matter whose “razor” you use.
The inerrancy of Daniel greatly depends on its date and its author. It truly is unlike other Books in Scripture in that regard due to the nature of its content. Ultimately the internal evidence of the Book will stand on its own without “wrestling tricks” or the use Paschal’s Wager. But in order for you, me or anyone to defend the inerrancy of Daniel we must know the structured evidence from within the Book to make a valid argument.
My discussion with you was based on those realities. There was no malice. It is silly to even bring that word into the discussion and anybody who reads the progression of the dialogue between us will see that.
Rick, most all conservative scholarship for the last 150 years will agree that the author and date of Daniel is important to its inerrancy. Why do you suppose the date and authorship of Daniel has been scrutinized so greatly—-More so that most any other Book in Scripture?
Rick, when one considers the mere “tonnage” of material that has been written by conservative scholars as to the accuracy of the date and author of Daniel, one must wonder which of us is sliding naked down the edge of Hanlon’s razor.
In truth brother, enough good scholarship has been provided that neither of us have to do so when it comes to the inerrancy of Daniel. We can honestly say without fear that Sixth Century Daniel wrote the Book ascribed to him between 605 and 536 B.C.
And let me say this before I go off the stage tonight:
Over the last four years I have read comments by Ron West, John Fariss, Steve Fox and some other guys who were not traveling down the same road I was during the CR.
(I have done my best to stay away from that in this comment thread because Huggie Bear Dave asked us to. Sorry Dave.)
I have learned from their comments of honesty to have a respect for them. The CR was many things I guess. For many of us it was a time of trial and struggle. For me it was about theology and Scripture in the beginning. Later it was an obsession. Its not an obsession anymore. I have stated my position. I believe it was necessary. Some of these guys may not. And maybe, based on their experiences and their perception of it, it wasn’t. Who knows. Sometimes when I look at the way things are today I say; “who knows” or “who cares?” But this I do know. I have developed a respect for the guys here I have mentioned along with some others. I think I could get along with most any of them today and never worry much about where, what or who we were in the past.
I just wanted to say that. And I still believe the Bible is the perfect, inerrant Word of God. And there I will always stand.
cb
Huggie Bear Dave – I kinda like that!
And whatever else we find to disagree on, I will one-up your last statement.
CB said, “I just wanted to say that. And I still believe the Bible is the perfect, inerrant Word of God. And there I will always stand.”
I will amen that and add, “I am willing to act to enforce the doctrine of inerrancy in the SBC.”
We all know that there is a big difference between the SBC and the Kingdom of God. There may be genuinely saved Christians who want to take a different road, but I hope that the SBC will always take the road of inerrancy.
John Fariss,
If I understand you rightly, your problem is less the doctrine of inerrancy than the conduct of the CR. If I understand you properly, then you and Ron West are pretty much in the same boat.
I have said above that I do not consider one’s attitude toward the CR to be an essential doctrine. I consider inerrancy an essential doctrine, one we should enforce with our professors and denominational employees.
I would not say that someone would have to adhere to the CR to be SBC, but I think they should adhere to the doctrine of inerrancy.
I have been spending way too much time on blogging recently, and I think I’m taking a break. I did a debate and another article over at Voices and then this article here, which has had a pretty active comment stream.
I am quite sure the blog world will survive without me for a few days. I think I’m going where Chris was.
I’m tracking comments here, so if anything really interesting comes up, I’ll be back.
Its been fun,
This is Huggie-Bear, Buzzard Eye Dave signing off.
Regarding Mike’s post in #205.
Mike says my, “assumption that the CR was not about theology because it did not unite us reveals an ignorance of Biblical Theology beyond his limited ability to explain. “ Sorry I am so ignorant you can’t even explain things to me. David Miller would have accused me of all kinds of things if I made that comment.
Mike, I also will not compromise on the Word of God. That is why I have to oppose many of the actions of the CR. For example, when CR supporters falsely accuse others of being liberal.
Mike said, “The IMB was not existent during the period I spoke of. It was the FMB under the regime of Keith Parks. I really don’t care whether or not you understand the situation.” Really, I never knew the IMB used to be called the FMB. I just looked at my 20 year service pin. It said FMB. My 30 year service pin said IMB. I never noticed there were two names. Sorry I didn’t understand the situation.
I do not know the details of the Uganda/Rwanda situation or the Argentina situation so I cannot comment. I doubt if you do either. I would have to hear from one of the missionaries there to know their side of the story. Of course mistakes have been made in dealing with our national co-workers but in the overwhelming majority of situations I am aware of, we what had good understandings of cooperation with national Baptist entities. We do not tell them what to do and they do not tell us. That is what partnership is about.
Your comments about Keith Parks are wrong. I will not accuse you of being too ignorant to understand as you did me but I served with the board the entire time Parks was FMB president and I know he did not have to be drug kicking and screaming into the second half of the 20st century. I wonder where your bitterness toward Keith Parks comes from.
Here is where I really get confused. Mike you said, “Ruschlikon and Taejon were supported by FMB funds, The International School at Taejon had a FMB appointed Head Master, the professors at both institutions were appointed missionaries of the FMB or approved by the FMB.” I thought we were talking about the Baptist seminary in Taejon. The International School at Taejon is a K-12 school for MKs and other International students. Southern Baptists are one of several mission groups that operate it. Are you really using this school to make accusations of liberalism against the IMB? If you are talking about the seminaries at Rusclikon and Taejon, I will repeat my statement that no missionary or the seminaries themselves taught that if you were dedicated to the Lord when you were in your mother’s womb by your parents you didn’t have to make a personal decision for Christ. Also in most cases I am aware of the FMB did not have to approve teachers at our national seminaries. I do not think you have a good understanding of the cooperative agreements between the IMB and our seminaries.
Mike said, “I simply cannot understand anyone not accepting the liberal leanings of a great many appointees under the old Parks and earlier regime and must assume such people as either : (1) Ignorant, or (2) Willfully deceptive.” I do not accept that there were liberal leanings under the Parks, Cauthen or Theron Rankin presidencies. I guess that makes me ignorant or willfully deceptive. Evidently David Miller has not problem with you blanket accusations of ignorance for those of us who believe the IMB was not liberal.
In #210 Mike said, “I will also say the resources, including personnel, under the administration of the then, FMB, were not receptive to the direct participation of church groups in ministry because of a skewed theological position which resulted in policy determined to maintain such an other worldliness about Foreign missions that only those endoctrinated with the FMB policies could participate directly in foreign missions.” Mike you sure have a way with words. However, your claim is not true. We were actually pressured to partner with church groups, associations and state conventions. They did put requirements on those who we partnered with at times. We could not partner with those who were advocating charismatic practices or liberal theology. Was that the type of church you were wanting to participate?
David,
David, you said the following about me, “Ron You throw out broad, sweeping statements about the CR which evidently you mean to accuse a small number of people. But, as part of the CR, (though a small part) I take umbrage at the sweeping generalizations. You then say, “Well, I didn’t mean you. So, if you keep on making broad generalizations about the lack of character and integrity of the CR, I am likely to continue to feel a little pique. “
David, when you make accusations against me please give me an exact quote of mine that you are referring to. I don’t know what you are talking about. You have a history of misinterpreting my comments.
Why do you not get a little “pique” when Mike makes broad, sweeping statements about our missionaries being liberal, left leaning, and all the other statements about our work with seminaries, etc. Every time I give you a chance to stand and support our missionaries. For example, in answer to my question you said, “I do not believe that most of our missionaries were liberal. I think many were moderate in their sympathies.” I was asking if you believe the majority were conservative theologically. Yes or No. I also deny that the majority were moderate (theologically) in their sympathies. Moderate in their sympathies means they were not conservative.
David you have no problem with Mike making broad, sweeping statements about me and others being ignorant or willfully deceitful. I think I see a double standard there.
I see you have checked out. I just got home from church. You can reply to this when you return if you wish. I am ready to call it quits on this subject.
CB, the feeling is mutual.
Ron, I’m going to answer your questions briefly, and then, I am done. It does not seem to me that the discussion is productive. I am convinced that the CR was a blessing. You disagree. I have requested time and again that we just leave it there, but you seem unwilling to do so. So, am left with only the option of answering your questions one more time, then breaking off contact. I regret doing it, but I do not have time to go round and round on the same merry-go-round endlessly.
So, here it is, Ron.
1)”Sweeping generalizations” Okay, Ron, I will give you one example. “Carnal and Immoral.” When I took umbrage, you said it wasn’t directed at me. Then you questioned the “character” of those in the CR – I said that offended me. you said it wasn’t directed at me.
2) You seem to have a sense of “unfairness.” Actually, I did challenge Mike’s statements where I thought they were in error.
That’s it, Ron. I am done. I have tried to be fair and display integrity in blogging. You obviously do not consider me to have integrity in my blogging. I am sorry you feel that way, but I am through with the argument.
I’m through responding. I’m through fighting.
I am sure I
In re the limitted ignorance charge above I have seen no better countercharge that demonstrates the theological inadequacy of inerrancy as a political tool than the point I have beentrying to make for some time about the 87 conference at Ridgecrest.
In the Baptist STandard of TExas is confirmation of my point.
Ron West will find some refuge in his differences with Mike here.
If you want to get at the problem honestly here is a fine template
I hope DMiller will let this stand if he truly wants to get at this matter the way it is playing out on this board; as it speaksmost eloquently to the frustrations Ron West and Myself are having here:
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/10_1/pages/editorial.html
Steve, if you get into the habit of filling the comment stream with quotes, links, and name-dropping again, I will get in the habit of using the delete button again.
Expressing your opinions are fine, but there is no need to link in every comment.
Ron,
You’re just plain wrong in your post # 270. I was talking about the Seminary at Taejon and used the International School to support that argument.
I’m not bitter towards Parks. I DO know personally, about as personally as one can get about the situation in Argentina and Rawanda. I also know about several other countries where he did the same thing. I have promoted World Missions for more than forty years now, and about 90% of that has gone through the FMB/IMB. I have spoken at World Missions Conferences (Why don’t we have them anymore?)in support of FMB/IMB but I Parks was bad for Southern Baptists and he did NOT appear to want churches participating directly in foreign missions except through the auspices of the FMB. That was just wrong.
The FMB had a vested interest in a particular entity whose debts and contacts the board paid off headed by a former “M” to Japan. Parks did everything possible to prevent other groups from working with “M’s” in other countries.
When I speak of ignorance concerning a matter, it relates to one’s lack of knowledge concerning that matter. It is not intended as a put down, but rather an acknowledge of fact. All of us are ignorant, simply of different things.
You are also mistaken about Ruschlikon and Taejon. I have no idea how old you are, but perhaps it was before your time.
David,
I am also tired of this but you keep making statements about me that are not true. That is why I asked you to give the exact quotes when you criticize my statements. You did not do that so I will give the quotes and if anyone is still reading this they can decide if your charges are true.
In #273 you say the following,
‘Sweeping generalizations” Okay, Ron, I will give you one example. “Carnal and Immoral.” When I took umbrage, you said it wasn’t directed at me. Then you questioned the “character” of those in the CR – I said that offended me. you said it wasn’t directed at me.
‘
Here is the sentence you refer to. I said, “We oppose the CR because of its immoral, carnal political activity not because of inerrancy.
Here was your reply, (it is one thing to say you disagree with the CR – it is another to say that everyone who was involved was immoral and carnal)
Here was my response to you, “First I said we oppose the CR because if its immoral and carnal activities and I did not say as you quoted me, “everyone who was involved was immoral and carnal.” There is a BIG difference. Do you think in the last 30 years no ACTIVITY has been done by the CR or it leaders that could be called immoral or carnal? Immoral in my dictionary means wrong behavior or not in conformity with the accepted moral code of the community. I think the misuse of labels by the CR and its leaders fit that definition. It has often been dishonest and I think that does not fit t