BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Oh well, no danger of me ever teaching at SEBTS. The "creeping creedalism" that Dale Moody at SBTS used to warn us about is now "stampeding creedalism." The quality of theological education really tanks when few divergent viewpoints are allowed, even when we are talking about divergent viewpoints well within the mainstream of evangelical thought. For instance, there are plenty of evangelical Christians, including many who would consider themselves inerrantists, who interpret Scripture to support women in all ministry roles including the pastorate. While I don't consider myself an inerrantist (and thus couldn't sign the Chicago statement), I am pretty conservative in my view of Scripture and in the hermeneutical principles I follow to arrive at my view that God calls and gifts women and men alike for all forms of Christian ministry, so I couldn't sign the Danvers statement either.

It does intrigue me to see the primary issue on which difference of opinion is at least tolerated--the question of whether Christ died for all or only for the elect. In today's SBC, it's OK to disagree about that but not OK to disagree about whether God calls women to preach the Gospel.

I served as a field ministry supervisor for SEBTS in the early 1980's. As I recall, my contract was about 2 paragraphs long. It would take a day just to read all that.

Another example of Godsliners making the tent smaller & smaller. By using doctrinal points to proclaim their own purity, they are shutting the door on those who have genuine convictions to the contrary.

Anyone who can sign the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and its exceptions with a straight face has a problem.

This is not your father's - certainly not my - SEBTS. It makes me sad on the one hand as an alum but also continually grateful for having matriculated at SEBTS in the Lolley years.

If I'm not mistaken (like that could ever happen) the number of exceptions in the Chicago statement is somewhere in the neighborhood of 21 or 26! Why bother?

I'm sure that the Chicago Statement was talked about by many ABCers in its early years. But the conference was held in 1978 and I think that's when the document was produced. It was very popular among northern evangelicals - so I'd guess that at least a few American Baptists endorsed it and probably more than a few came out against it. I don't think that more than a handful of the original signatories were Southern Baptists.


The only SBC names that I recognize are Russ Bush, W.A. Criswell, and Jerry Vines.

It is interesting that notable fundamentalist leaders like Adrian Rogers, Paul Pressler and Paige Patterson are absent from this list. Maybe their absence says something about the motivations behind the "Conservative Resurgence" - it was more about power/control than truth/theology. Or maybe this just shows the early (continued) resistance on the part of some Southern Baptists to join conservative Northern Evangelicals in various endeavors. Or maybe it's both.

I think the resistance of some Southern Baptists to subscribe to the Chicago statement is not necessarily based on the contents of the statement itself, but on the idea that it must be signed, or subscribed to, in order to facilitate some kind of cooperation or fellowship. That is what I myself object to, since that makes it a creed rather than a confession. It is a human statement of belief about the nature of the Bible as scripture and as such, it is not equal with the scripture, so requiring someone else's agreement with it as a condition of cooperation is creedal.

As far as the contents go, what does it contain that is disagreeable to a Baptist?

As I recall, the invitation to the conference that produced the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrrancy said something about the need to provide better underpinnings for the doctrine of plenary-verbal inspiration. I can't remember where I read it, but then that was over 30 years ago. The purpose was to provide the theoretical support for the plenary-verbal folks.

Here's a list of Southern Baptists who signed the Chicago Statement in '78. I overlooked the Pattersons:

Richard Belcher (SC pastor, former prof. at Columbia Bible College)
Russ Bush
J. William Carpenter (FL pastor, active in the BF&M Fellowship)
W. A. Criswell
Richard L. Mellick Jr. (Criswell College)
Jimmy A. Milliken (Mid-America Seminary)
Roger Nicole (taught at Gordon-Conwell, but a Southern Baptist in church membership)
Paige Patterson
Dorothy Patterson
Charles Ryrie (member of FBC Dallas, though taught at DTS)
Jerry Vines

Tim Says to Aaron Weaver "I agree with you that literalism is nothing new. But, in the context of the SBC takeover it was not good enough to use even synonyms for "inerrant." If you couldn't accept a very specific use of the term "inerrant" as THE understanding of Biblical interpretation you were called anything from "liberal" to "skunk." None of this really had much to do with theology, it was politics and power pure and simple. The word "inerrant" became in and of itself a "shibboleth" and, no one who couldn't pronounce it right was a good Southern Baptist."

Ed: Tim I honestly think this discussion could develop into possibly the most worth while contribution ever on this site if we stay focused on the issue of inerrancy. So for the moment I will not argue a lot with your blaming what Barnette called the Heresy of Inerrancy on the Southern Baptist, although Barnettte may turn over in his grave.

When you write "in the context of the SBC takeover it was not good enough to use even synonyms for "inerrant." For me a flag goes up and questions come to mind. Why would you want to use synonyms for a term that is not applicable ? And Criswell didn't seem to put any distance between liberal and Skunk. And I have to disagree with your contention that "None of this really had much to do with theology, it was politics and power pure and simple." I understand that thinking and have made very similar statements, however to many people in the pews it had a lot to do with theology, perhaps not "good Theology" in your mind or mine but in the theology that most Baptist grew up on, starting in primary SS. with the chorus The B-I-B-L-E, I stand alone on the WORD of GOD the B-I-B-L-E. On the other hand you are exactly right when you say of how it (inerrancy) was used in the takeover "it was politics and power pure and simple". Well maybe not so simple. And to our discredit we moderates for the most part did not counter the term well. It took me while but by 1980 I was opposing the term inerrancy and trying to explain that it just does not accurately describe the BIBLE. And too often I got hit over the head with "Well if it isn't inerrant it must be errant". I found it hard to argue with that rationale, and as Flick and others who where on the old SBC net can attest we kept beating our heads against a brick wall on that one. (If you think Sneed is radical right. you should have seen some of his buddies.) I began agreeing that yes it is errant, in some instances. I finally started calling my self a biblical realist and defined that as "one who believe that in maters of faith and practice the Bible really means what it says and is reliable." I am not sure that got any of them off of my back but it made me more comfortable.

I have said all of that to say perhaps the participant on this site could reach some type of consensus on a term that expresses our concept of what it is to say the Bible is a "lamp unto my feet" , and put on something of a campaign to to get it worked into our "church talk" . The old retort when some one says "the bible is Inerrant " to shout "NO! it is not", hasn't gotten us very far.

I remember one strong inerrantist preaching at a NC meeting who brashly got up and declared, "My Bible is inerrant from the place on the front where it says 'Holy Bible' to the place on the back where it says 'genuine leather.'" Something was lacking in his theology, IMHO.

I remember the late Dale Moody saying that it was a shock to him when he got to Southern Seminary and learned that some of the older manuscripts didn't have Scofield's notes.

Actually, Paul and Silas predated Scofield, so they didn't actually have a completely inerrant text to work with...