How many Southern Baptist Infidels?

As a new christian and a new Baptist, please explain what an errant and inerrant Baptist is. My church is affiliated with the SBC. I am just interested in finding out more information. Thanks.

Steven Collins

 

It wasn't one election as you make it appear. It was a number of elections that spanned the course of about 13-15 years. By the way, those who voted against the so-called "inerrantist" position were not necessarily opposed to inerrancy.

You don't seem to understand the situation very well.

Sometimes *much* closer than that. The convention of '88 was nearly 50/50.

Not accepting a theologically-faulty theory of inerrancy does not make one an infidel. Not going along with the takeover movement does not mean that one was against inerrancy. Your questions are full of false presuppositions.

I'm not going to waste my time with the rest of your questions since they are based on false presuppositions.

 

"Inerrancy" was used as a theological code-word in SBC denominational politics throughout the late 1970s through the end of the 1990s. It is still used some today, but the latest fad in SBC denominationalism is the demand acceptance of the latest version of the Baptist Faith and Message -- whatever it happens to be this year.

"Inerrancy" means many different things to different people so that tossing the word around doesn't communicate very much.

When *I* speak of inerrancy, I am usually referring to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

http://www.jpusa.org/jpusa/documents/biblical.htm

Personally I have very few issues with the Chicago statement, except for the two basic problems with theories of inerrancy:

1.) The claims of inerrancy usually are only applied to the original manuscripts, which we do not possess. Many inerrantists concede that the copies of scripture that we possess have minor textual flaws or missing sections, but no doctrines are changed as a result of the textual problems. While we can be confident that we have accurate scripture, the claims of inerrancy are moot since we don't possess and inerrant text.

2.) The claims of inerrancy are a misplaced emphasis on certainty which is a characteristic of modernism. It is a result of fundamentalist reacting against liberal scholarship toward the end of the 19th century. Instead of countering the problems and weaknesses of rationalism, the fundamentalists responded using the same methods, applying a kind of scientific/logical method to biblical apologetics in an attempt to provide "certainty" for believers in an age when there was great confidence in the latest discoveries in science. While some of this was needed, many fundamentalists went too far and made the Christian faith more of a rationalistic house-of-cards that they had to defend against infidels rather than an experiential living faith in Christ that is guided by the scriptures. "Inerrancy" is the logical conclusion of that quest for "certainty".

In addition to those two reasons, I also refuse to affirm the word "inerrancy" because it is a code-word for a movement I am against. I believe the Bible to be fully reliable for faith and practice and affirm it as the written revelation of God, but I don't claim "inerrancy" -- in my opinion, it is too *low* of a view of scripture.

Thoroughly confused? You can PM me if you don't want to respond publicly.

By the way, congratulations on your study of the Bible. The Spirit will honor your reading.

 

I think MOST churches that give to CBF are dually alligned with the SBC.

 

"Inerrancy" is more than just a "code-word" that was used in the '80s and '90s in SBC circles. Those who are honest (on both sides) will admit that there are real and essential differences between being a "conservative" and a "moderate" in the SBC. While there may be a few (very, very few) exceptions, the differences are evident. In fact, it appears on this site. Look at the different issues, whatever they may be, and look at who is standing where.

STEVENINETX:

If you like to read, some sources that might interest you on the issue:

Nancy T. Ammerman, BAPTIST BATTLES
James Hefley, TRUTH IN CRISIS (series)

Rev. G

 

Mark you frame the whole SBC situation in such simplistic terms it is almost impossible to give you a answer, without feeling like you have to give a 25 years history lesson. But there are many in the SBC that are theologically conservative but reject the political power plays that the SBC is now known for. For the most part the SBC is ignored or simply a a line in the budget and nothing more. For evidence look at the 16 million members, if that number is accurate, and the attendance of about 3 to 5,000 to the annual conventions.

 

But aren't there an increasing number of CBF-supporting churches that have stopped supporting the SBC--especially in Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia?

 

I believe this is true. One of my cousins, who is also SBC/CBF says they do. I'm just SBC, and my church seems pretty conservative to me, especially when it comes to inerrancy (and I'm not talking about a perfect translation here)

AJL

 

But aren't there an increasing number of CBF-supporting churches that have stopped supporting the SBC--especially in Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. A number of older, traditional churches that help found the SBC have pulled out completely b/c they feel the SBC is no longer Baptist. But the vast majority of CBF churches are dually alligned.