Oh, and by the way, if you read the differences between the 1925 and the 1963 BFM you get some really interest takes on how Baptist views on the subject of grace and sanctification have change. The 1925 statement on sanctification is almost Wesleyan, and certainly gives a more Arminian slant to the text than the 1963 document.
Growing up in the SBC I'm pretty sure I'd never heard the word "inerrancy" before the early 80s. Nor, I'm willing to bet, would you have found the term in SBC denominational publications. So what was the SBC doing so wrong between 1845 and 1970ish that whole new terminology had to be adopted for Biblical inspiration?
We've been around this argument so many times that there really isn't any point in us doing it again. But I am always honestly surprised that people forget that most of the inerrancy argument wasn't about doctrine, it was about politics and the desire of some folks sitting in a cafe in New Orleans who wanted to takeover the workings of their denomination. Inerrancy wasn't so much doctrine in those days as a campaign slogan.
Of course it is all ancient history now. And it hasn't done the SBC much good. I say with no satisfaction on either account that last stats I saw both the SBC and the UMC were losing membership at about the same rate of 2% per year.
Inerrancy was pitched as the salvation of the SBC. For all the fighting, warfare and losses of good people you all could have saved yourself the time if you were just going to lose membership like the mainliners.