Inerrancy and the SBC

A Question From Another Blog:

The ETS members will also vote as to whether or not to approve the following resolution:

“For the purpose of advising members regarding the intent and meaning of the reference to biblical inerrancy in the ETS Doctrinal Basis, the Society refers members to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). The case for biblical inerrancy rests on the absolute trustworthiness of God and Scripture’s testimony to itself. A proper understanding of inerrancy takes into account the language, genres, and intent of Scripture. We reject approaches to Scripture that deny that biblical truth claims are grounded in reality.”

It looks as if the ETS is “narrowing” the tent as well. This is very interesting in light of claims by many Southern Baptist leaders that insisting on inerrancy alienates fellow Baptists from fellowship and, possibly, service in certain SBC organizations.

...So the question that naturally arises in my mind is, “are we going to hear an outcry against the ETS for narrowing the tent?” We might, for it is now merely a resolution. Further, is the Southern Baptist Convention or movements therein moving with the tide of global evangelicals or against it?

“Here an outcry?” Probably not, because the only people who would care what the ETS does would agree with the narrowing move.

This is the society that when they could not get enough votes to kick out open theists, changed their governing rules so they could kick them out.

I always find it humorous when evangelicals point to an authority (CSBI 1978) outside the Bible in order to prove that the Bible has such authority.

The resolution states: “We reject approaches to Scripture that deny that biblical truth claims are grounded in reality.”

1) The problem with the inerrancy issue is not the argument of whether or not biblical truth claims are grounded in reality but what actually the biblical truth claims are.

2) Oddly enough, “inerrancy” is not taught in Scripture and its existence as a doctrine violates the doctrine of the “sufficiency of the Scripture.”

3) The doctrine wasn’t conjured or even formulated until the very end of the 19th century among Princeton Presbyterian theologians. Even then it did not appear in any Baptist confession until the first decade of the 20th century. Even then that confession was among fundamentalist and Landmark Baptist groups reacting against the theory of Evolution. Even then, the inerrancy doctrine in no way negates or not allows belief in evolution. One can believe in evolution and inerrancy at the same time (as I do). In fact, many of the Princeton Presbyterian theologians who formulated the doctrine of inerrancy believed in evolution. To this day, with all the anti-evolution crusades in the SBC not one SBC confession as ever rejected biological evolution.

4) The debate now among evangelicals is not whether inerrancy is or is not true but how much different evangelicals support the doctrine. “That person holds to inerrancy but does not hold it as an important a doctrine as we do.”

5) Such confessions and creeds are pointless. Really, why do we have a Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and a Baptist Faith and Message 2000? Why not simply us the Bible instead of all these confessions and creeds? Because various believers will come to various conclusions of what various Scriptural truths mean. Of course, these various believers will also come to various conclusions as to what these various creeds and confessions mean. We then need a confession or creed so that everyone

“is the Southern Baptist Convention or movements therein moving with the tide of global evangelicals or against it?”

Various parts are moving with, against, and others are completely irrelevant.

In terms of ecumenicalism, very much against.