The Schism in the Southern Baptist Convention

Why anyone would want to use the word inerrant is beyond me. There are so many qualifiers and distinctions of distinctions to be made that the word ends up having no value whatsoever. The gold standard of inerrancy statements, The Chicago Statement has some 20+ of these qualifiers and distinctions all by itself.

For the life of me I can't understand why this has become a "hill on which to die" when for the vast majority of believers the world over this has never been an issue and those wishing to affirm inerrancy can't even agree on what the word means.

 

It seems to me that is what I said.

There's no doubt that there are minor factual inconsistencies in the Bible we have today. If you doubt that I can show a few to you. These have NO impact on the message the Bible delivers.

So, do you consider this an inerrant position or not and if not why?

 

Not necessarily wrong but fell short of a complete description.

 

I'm not the Rev. that you said this to, but I'd sure like to know if you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

 

He thinks he is being vague enough to play this game. In a previous thread he held that his personal experience was on an equal level to f not higher than "a book of words". His exact words. It is clear that he doesn't. It seems he is taking his ques form Wade Burleson who plays this exact words game on the issue of inerrancy.

 

Inerrancy is a hill on which to die. It is the source of all our other doctrines.

The idea that since it doesn't occur in Scripture that it can't be a Biblical concept is flawed unless believing in the Trinity is also flawed. "Omnipotence" is not mentioned, "omniscience" is not mentioned... but these are Biblical truths.

 

I respectfully disagree with this. Looking across the breadth of Christianity we see the central combining locus of doctrine is the person of Jesus Christ.

All else is subsequent.

 

That's right. And errancy always leads to secularism.

 

Here's the problem I have with this thought...it ignores the heart of the problem. Secularism is not the result of a mental acknowledgement of one view or another, it is the result of sinful lifestyles.

This is the problem with most of those on the hard right....I think they may be saying things that are somewhat right...but they still don't get it. The problems of Christianity, and our world, is not that there are too many "liberals". This is turning everything into an academic/mental game in which we judge people's faith, maturity, and ultimately salvation based on a system that we created. Created in good motives, I think...but still something that is not a perfect system.

 

Parts of the world do not include Revelation in their Bibles. Does that make them liberals? From what I know of their practice and doctrine they would make most Americans look extremely liberal in comparison.

 

Now prove that the Bible is inerrant in everything according to the accepted definition found in Webster's Dictionary?

I believe scripture is exactly what the Bible says it is--inspired by God. Since the Bible is inspired by God, then God had recorded exactly what he wanted and it is God's word not just a truth. Inerrant can be something that is dead, but God's word is alive, etc. God's word is far more than just a truth without error. It is an alive message from God.

2 + 2 = 4 is inerrant but it is not God's word.

 

I fully agree. And I would add that the Scriptures as written by men inspired by God are definitely inerrant. I can't necessarily say the same regarding translations of copies.

 

I have no doubt that any proof that anyone would give would not be believed.

I watched and listened to the liberals say

And they always forget or can't accept that the only way we know anything of Jesus is thru God's inerrant Word. Inerrancy has nothing to do with how you interpret Scripture or the fact that the Bible contains figures of speech. I am not a KJVO at all, but I also know that once we act as if inerrancy ONLY completely can refer to the original and that somehow an omnipotent God can't protect His Word in various translations, we have started to get our reader's digest Bible.

We're not going to convince each other. The comments just make me realize how hard it must have been for those leading the Conservative Resurgence to bring us out of this type of liberalism.

 

lol...it only took you 1 post to call me a "liberal" (whatever that ad hominem means)

this is funny, you don't know me but you are happy to libel me, I don't deny inerrancy. I do have a significant problem making the Bible the third person of the Trinity.

This is exactly what is wrong with my home denomination.

 

I find it interesting the backdoor ways liberals have of denying inerrancy without coming right out and denying it. I also find it interesting how they hold up experience equal to or higher than scripture in authority over matters of doctrine. Conservatives aint buying it.

 

Inerrancy is more than just a mental acknowledgment of a view. It goes to what kind of authority scripture has. Which is far beyond simple academia. Secularism is a result of a world view and rebellion. Sinful lifestyles are a result of secularism which follows diminished biblicial authority.

 

I really do not find that sinful lifestyles in the church are a result of secularism but rather disobedience and a failure to be doers of the word. Peter thought he was doing the right thing when he cut off the man's ear and Paul thought he was doing right when he kiled Christians.

Take a deeper look and realize that a man's lifestyle is a result of a series of decisions. Jesus taught that the first shall be last. How many leaders do you see being last and putting others first according to scripture. Jesus came to serve not to be served. Christian leadership is not done by being out front but by serving and putting others first.