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.