Moderator: William Thornton
Sandy wrote:Note that the "Nashville Statement" was of conservative evangelical, not exclusively Southern Baptist origin, but the declaration of its inerrancy did come from Southern Baptists across the river in Arkansas.
There's definitely room for inerrantists to discuss terminology, how to not say stupid stuff, do dumb things, etc. But I really don't see why the non-inerrantists would get their knickers in a twist about it, seeing they don't believe in inerrancy anyway. I think they are more troubled about anyone affirming homosexuality is a sin.William Thornton wrote:My peeps sometimes do dumb things. Bob Allen didn't let this slide by...nor would I.
I think I agree with you on this one. I posted it more for a little drama than for anything substantive.John Sneed wrote:On this one, I have to agree with RVaughn in his reading of things. I see their statement as saying, In so far as what the Bible says, the Nashville Statement has not made any errors. I don't believe they are claiming inerrancy for the statement. I think people who don't like the Statement over-react so they can dramatize their disagreement.
I agree with you, too.William Thornton wrote:I think you're a bit too charitable. The reported quote was, "Arkansas Baptists went so far as to describe the Nashville Statement as “without error in its declarations based on biblical truths.”
The BFM famously uses "truth without mixture of error." The statement above claims an inerrant declaration. Or, do they mean that the declaration was inerrant only in its declarations that were based on biblical truths? Sounds rather like the mods of old.
It was dumb.
Rvaughn wrote:So, Leland, you really think that Arkansas Southern Baptists mean to say that the Nashville Statement is just as inspired and inerrant as the Bible?
Rvaughn wrote:
Of course, probably none of the rest of us have ever claimed to agree with what someone else has written.
Tim Bonney wrote:Rvaughn wrote:
Of course, probably none of the rest of us have ever claimed to agree with what someone else has written.
I’ve never claimed anything any human being wrote was inerrant/without error/perfect, even if I agree with it. Given that a whole SBC denominational fight centered around the idea of inerrancy, you’d think inerrantists would be a smidge more careful as to what they apply the wording to?
Dave Roberts wrote:I guess in this case, they have the original autograph.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest