"The battle for the inerrancy of Scripture is never over,"

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Revmitchell, Sep 16, 2013.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,332
    Likes Received:
    786
    ..."The question is what kind of Jesus do you believe in and what kind of Bible do you end up with?" McMullen said. "Moderates approach Scripture in a way that looks like they're trying to preserve doctrine and belief in the Bible while undermining it completely."

    "You can't not have a historical Adam," Allen said, "and still have a theologically sound Gospel."

    "You can't have independent pieces with some being true and some not," echoed Yeats. "Elliott thought you could."

    Much to his credit, Ellott shunned the wordplay tactics of many of his academic colleagues and didn't couch heterodoxy in orthodox language. Though he eventually resigned under pressure from Midwestern, it was not for heresy, but because he refused to stop a new edition of his book from being published and proudly stood by it.

    In his 1996 book, "The Genesis Controversy," Elliott wrote that no one else had the integrity and nerve to be open about it. He called it "doublespeak" and said that many who believe as he did sought to hide their theology.

    "That bothered him, and rightly so," Wills said. "There was a lot of duplicity there.... If all the seminaries communicated what they truly believed, they would have all been shut down within a year."


    "Doublespeak has become an insidious disease within Southern Baptist life ..." Elliott wrote. "Often this was done [in Southern Baptist seminaries] with an eye and ear for the 'gallery' and how much the 'church trade' would bear. Professors and students learned to couch their beliefs in acceptable terminology and in holy jargon so that although thinking one thing, the speaker calculated so as to cause the hearer to affirm something else."

    Elliott went on to write that during the controversy, a liberal seminary colleague counseled him that his troubles stemmed from now knowing "how to communicate."

    "What he meant was that I did not know how to doublespeak," Elliott wrote.

    Though the Elliott-Genesis controversy occurred more than 50 years ago, Yeats said its lessons should not be ignored today.

    "The battle for the inerrancy of Scripture is never over," Yeats said. "There's always a creeping question that is always seeking to destroy our confidence in the Word of God."

    http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=41095
     
  2. DocTrinsoGrace

    DocTrinsoGrace
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good reminder, pastor. We contend repeatedly with the same error and heresy. It saddens me that so few people know church history. Oftentimes the church has long ago dealt with serious doctrinal issues, and done so with great perspicuity. Nevertheless, since the history of Christianity is not known, we end up being surprised, and "reinventing the wheel."

    In Baptist circles -- so it seems to me -- there is less of an issue these days with the doctrine of inerrancy, than there is with the biblical doctrines of sufficiency, necessity, and clarity of the Scriptures.
     
  3. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    What he rights about Southern Baptist seminaries was largely eliminated when Adrian Rogers became president of the SBC and made it his mission to root out the liberal theologians and send them packing. Perhaps it continued behind closed doors among those who managed to hide their true colors, but that slide into liberalism ended -- not just "mostly ended" but flat ended -- during Rogers' first tenure in 1979-80. He accomplished this by requiring that all professors and employees of the seminaries sign to affirm their adherence to the BF&M. Those who would not or could not were out of a job.
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,332
    Likes Received:
    786
    That was the beginning of the end but so much more went on after that.
     
  5. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    If the battle for inerrancy is never over, when is the SBC going to put it in their Baptist Faith and Message 2000? If its so important, why isn't there?

    You can to have a theologically sound Gospel without a historical Adam.
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,332
    Likes Received:
    786
    "Because of the opprobrious epithet "liberal," today they call themselves “moderates.” A skunk by any other name still stinks!" ~ W.A. Criswell
     
  7. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    So a non answer then?
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,332
    Likes Received:
    786
    Seriously, who in the world knows what kind of answer you are looking for? You are not seriously suggesting it is not important are you? Liberals do not like inerrancy (because it is to restrictive to their liberal interpretation) so you ask irrelevant questions that do not provoke any kind of reasonable answer.
     
  9. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,380
    Likes Received:
    728
    go2church

    That is not possible at all.
    What do you mean by this statement?:confused::eek::confused:
     
  10. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Glad you asked because I was wondering the same thing on a layman level. It seems to me that Adam, who was the first man to sin and bring it into the world, is in perfect harmony with the purpose of the Gospel and the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Adam and his relationship to the Gospel are brought into sharp focus by Paul in Romans. There are several chapters and verses that contrast Adam and Christ. Even in Genesis, does not the two trees suggest a coming Savior. The first tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the one Adam sinned over. The second tree, the Tree of Life, can be viewed as the cross. Christ was hung upon a tree and gives us all that are His life. Also, the Tree of Life reappears in Revelation, giving the whole Bible unity.

    Would someone please explain how a historical Adams negates the Gospel?
     
    #10 saturneptune, Sep 17, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 17, 2013
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    GtC, we both share a favorite Bible translation --the 2011 NIV. But it makes me wonder about you when you have said the above. It is very important to believe in the historical Adam. He was not a fictional character. There are two Federal Heads --Christ and Adam. All believers were born under the latter. But since conversion Christ is our Head.

    I will quote some snips from the NIV which show the significance of the doctrine that indeed the historical Adam is indeed imporant.

    First from Romans 5.

    Verse 14:Nevertheless,death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam,who is a pattern of the one to come.
    15 :...the trespass of one man...
    16 ...one man's sin...
    17 : For if, by the trespass of that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
    19: ...the disobedience of the one man...

    From 1 Corinthians 15:

    Verse 21 : For since death came through a man...
    Verse 22 : For as in Adam all die...
     
  12. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    You can learn a lot about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy by reading The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy [LINK].
    It is the go-to document in defining the doctrine inerrancy for evangelicals.

    But many of us have found the document deficient, not adequately explaining what we find in the scriptures God has given us.

    Obvious areas of contention are still a concern, particularly the interaction of the bible between science and history. Recenlty the historicity of Adam has been questioned. The evolutionary creationist site, BioLogos [LINK] has become quite popular. But it’s the less obvious issues that bring inerrancy to the battlefront today. These issues concern inerrancy and its association with the doctrine of inspiration – how much input did the authors have in the generation of the divine writings,

    Michael Heiser has written extensively on the topic of Inspiration in his blog a few years past. See The Naked Bible [LINK] if you want to be challenged and develop an fuller understanding of why there is such a controversy.

    IMO Michael Heiser and Peter Enns seem to be leading the charge in developing a more modern and functional understanding of this doctrine.
    It will be interesting to see what becomes of this!

    Rob
     
  13. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    As others have stated, I strongly disagree. But Simon Turpin, a young (27) and enthusiastic British evangelist, said it much better than I can in an paper he wrote in May of this year that is published on the Answers in Genesis website:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/importance-of-historical-adam

    From childhood we are informed with ideas in our culture that are inherently pagan and often we are not even aware of this. These ideas are usually accepted into our mindset uncritically shaping the way we think. One of the most common invasions of secular thought even into the Christian mind in our own day is the current pagan understanding of the created realm, evolutionary naturalism. Unfortunately, many Christians uncritically accept the pagan view of the created order.

    The debate over whether Adam was historical is ultimately a debate over whether we trust what the Scriptures clearly teach. If we cannot be certain of the beginning, then why would we be certain about what the Scriptures teach elsewhere? The uncertainty of truth is rampant in our culture partly due to the influence of post-modernism which is why many believe the issue over Adam’s historicity is unimportant.

    Moreover, belief in a historical Adam stands against a dominant intellectual system that establishes what is called “credibility” in the secular academy. Evangelicals who feel intellectually accountable to the academy then have to come up with another way to read Genesis 1–11.
    Turpin proves that there is no biblical basis for accepting a non-historical Adam, that he is, as Turpin states, "a construct of evolutionary-based presuppositions." To deny the historical Adam denies God's truth, and thus destroys, not supports a "sound theological gospel."
     
    #13 thisnumbersdisconnected, Sep 17, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 17, 2013
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,332
    Likes Received:
    786
    It doesn't however, the lack of one does.
     
  15. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    See my previous post
     
  16. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    If the battle for inerrancy was sooooo important, why not put it in the statement of faith (Baptist Faith and Message) required to be signed and adhered to when the statement of faith was reworked in 2000? It's not a hard question.

    As to Adam, stand by my statement, that a non historical Adam doesn't negate the Gospel.

    The Gospel and salvation doesn't rest on Adam, it rests on Jesus. Was Jesus real, was Jesus who he said he was, did Jesus do the things he said he did? Whether one believes Genesis 1-11 to be literal history, historical narrative, epic poetry or representative literature is of no consequence as it pertains to salvation. In fact you can be saved and never have read a bible, much less see one after your salvation, ever. So then just how is the Gospel compromised if that is the case? Is this person not saved? Do they get a little less salvation? Of course not, they are saved exactly like me who knows all about Adam.

    It is inaccurate to say the Gospel rests on Adam, because it doesn't. It would be in this case, accurate to say that our understanding of how salvation happens and works is undermined if there is no historical Adam. Because that is what is on the line in with has been this bogus "inerrancy fight", your interpretation.
     
  17. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was. Though the word "inerrancy" itself was not used, there can be no mistaking the meaning of the Convention's statement on Scripture:

    http://www.sbc.net/BFM/bfm2000.asp#i

    I. The Scriptures

    The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

    Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 17:19; Joshua 8:34; Psalms 19:7-10; 119:11,89,105,140; Isaiah 34:16; 40:8; Jeremiah 15:16; 36:1-32; Matthew 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Romans 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

    As to Adam, stand by my statement, that a non historical Adam doesn't negate the Gospel.

    The Gospel and salvation doesn't rest on Adam, it rests on Jesus.[/quote]The non-historical "Adam" does not give credence to the concept of a perfect being surrendering to original sin. His sin became part of his nature, a nature into which we are also born. We do not become sinners with our first sin, which would leave open the possibility that, should a man or woman live a supposedly "sinless" life -- a concept that also rejects the idea of thought as sin -- he/she would have no need for a Savior. Why do you suppose no one can live a sinless life? It is because of the sin nature we inherit from Adam.

    Even Richard Dawkins doesn't believe Adam is anything less than an historical, singular figure.

    Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.

    I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they’re deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.
    Dawkins, R. 2011. Howard Condor interviewing Richard Dawkins on Revelation TV, February 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GedXBfx07g

    In the context of Paul’s gospel presentation in Acts 17, it would undermine what he is trying to teach if one man is mythical and the other (Jesus, verse 31) is historical. One cannot have Adam as "type" of the one who is to come if he is a mythical construct of an evolutionary man. In the Bible a type is always an historical person, action, or event appointed by God to be a foreshadowing, a pointer, to the fulfilment, yet to come in history in Christ. To speak of a type is to speak in terms of redemptive history. A type is not merely an allegory but an historical reality. If there is no historical Adam, then the Bible’s overall narrative is not Creation-Fall-Redemption-New Creation, but something very different, something that does not show the necessity of the redemptive power and Person of Christ.
     
    #17 thisnumbersdisconnected, Sep 17, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 17, 2013
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,080
    Likes Received:
    48
    Impossible for that to happen, for Paul saw Adam as a real historical figure, an had Romans developed for us the theology of the First and Second adam, Fall of the First Adam, Sin, what Jesus died for, how he paid for/purchased us back from the fall of Adam...

    Worse of all, that would make jesus either a liar or wrong, for he saw Adam as a real figure!
     
  19. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    That's basically what it said before the revision. They took out the pesky Jesus is the criterion for interpretation. Why all the fighting if you're not going to step up and use the word your were fighting about?

    Inerrancy is a non starter, the dirty little secret is that even in the SBC, folks can't agree what it means. Even the almost venerated Chicago Statement has some 20+ qualifiers on the word. So even those who agree to inerrancy can't completely agree to what it means and then to top it all off they start off by saying inerrancy only applies to the originals which no longer exist. So you're fighting for a word you won't use in your statement of faith, that when it is used has to be qualified 20+ times and then only applies to originals that don't exist.

    It isn't accurate to say your fighting for inerrancy when in reality your fighting for interpretation.


    Can you be saved without knowing about Adam?

    If yes, then how is the Gospel compromised by a non historical Adam?
     
  20. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,080
    Likes Received:
    48
    My main complaint on this issue would be the term "Inerrancy" as defining the Bible, as I reserve that term for the originals, as they were w/o errors/mistakes, and I tend to seee Bibles versions as Infallible, still minor mistakes/errors as compared to the originals, but trustworthy in all that is described!
     

Share This Page

Loading...