In April, 1994, after approximately two years of vigorous dialog, First Things, published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society, published the document entitled Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium (ECT). This document may stand as the most sophisticated attempt in modern Christian history to make a universally acceptable statement from across the great theological divide begun with the 95 echoes of Luther's hammer on Wittenberg's Castle Church door.
Predictably, a storm of controversy blew through Christendom because many darlings of evangelicalism's stronghold not only participated in the discussions but signed on the dotted line--Chuck Colson, James Packer, Bill Bright, Richard Mouw, Mark Noll and Pat Robertson, to name a few. Even Southern Baptists Richard Land and Larry Lewis were swept up by the mighty wind blowing through ecumenical Christianity, attaching their names to the document.
More predictably, lightning struck during the tornado, sending alert signals about theological power outages to millions across evangelicalism. Major theologians within the Reformed wing gathered to discuss just what their Puritan colleague, Jim Packer, perhaps the most respected evangelical theologian alive at that time, was thinking by sitting down for cozy cocktails with the Pope in Rome.
Bill Bright circled his wagons to assess the damage. Richard Land and Larry Lewis wiggled and squirmed, trying to free themselves from the hangman's noose waiting for them from 14 million Southern Baptists. Land managed to get a midnight stay of execution. Lewis choked out slowly and painfully.
Southern Baptists possess a reluctant history--while not particularly isolationist, certainly a guarded caution--about buying tickets on a boat with other adventurous believers when they are not the Captain's offspring. Historically, Baptists have demanded to know precisely where the boat is sailing, who is on board, how many life jackets, the whole shebang. So, you mean, "Southern Baptists want to absolutely control the boat? Is that what you're saying?" Well, if you insist on putting it like that, yes: that is precisely what I am saying.
Before folk get their drawers in a knot, understand: Baptists insist only on sailing their boat, no one else's. In fact, Baptists spilled their blood--literally!--so that everyone could row his or her own boat.
Baptists do not insist any person ride in their boat, buy their ticket or sail to their destination. Rather, they historically have insisted that they only control the boat in which they happen to be sailing; that's all. A more scholarly term for sailing these seven seas is religious liberty and Baptists have championed such freedom-loving expeditions, I assure.
Two events happened recently that drove this home to me afresh: one is a document; the other is a defense. One was drafted by many; the other was defended by many. One was something old in something new; the other was something new in something old. There are similarities as well as the contrasts above. Both affect Baptists; both are confusing; both are indicative of our time; both are historic; and, unhappily for us, both possess potential to break apart the Southern Baptist Convention.
What are these two phenomenon? The document is the Evangelical Manifesto (EM); the defense is the surrender of bedrock Baptist convictions pertaining to believer's baptism by immersion. Three good critiques are available for the first; that is, the document: Ergun Caner, Robin Foster and Al Mohler. I add only the thinest summary imaginable.
As far as the EM goes, it is adequate. But like its forefather and first cousin, the ECT, it only draws an additional swell of confusion to an already confused evangelicalism. With Robin Foster, I lament EM's undeniable vacuum of evangelicalism's heart for the last half century: Inerrancy.
Speak as EM does about the "the total truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible, God’s inspired Word, [which] make the Scriptures our final rule for faith and practice" but, when the bloviated sophistry is over, virtually any professor teaching in any one of our six seminaries in 1979 could have wholeheartedly agreed with that statement about the Bible. Arguably, Karl Barth himself could have written it.
In 1965, noted psychiatrist, Karl Menninger wrote a book entitled "Whatever Became of Sin?" There Dr. Menninger recorded his lament about the recently strange absence of "sin" as a human condition. He writes:
"The very word, 'sin,' which seems to have disappeared, was once a proud word. It was once a strong word, an ominous and serious word. But the word went away. It has almost disappeared - the word, along with the notion. Why? Doesn't anyone sin anymore? Doesn't anyone believe in sin?"
One could just as well, and even more, lament the absence of Inerrancy among today's proud evangelicals who attached their names to the EM:
"The very word, 'inerrancy,' which seems to have disappeared, was once a proud word. It was once a strong word, an ominous and serious word. But the word went away. It has almost disappeared - the word, along with the notion. Why? Doesn't anyone embrace inerrancy anymore? Doesn't anyone believe in inerrancy?"
Inerrancy and inerrancy's notion constitutes the absolute non-negotiable upon which the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention insisted. Now we're willing to sell the movement's birthright for a bowl of tasteless pottage--"the total truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible."
This newly envisioned evangelicalism which desires to "reaffirm their identity" instead cooks up an entirely new dish based upon an entirely old recipe. The old Moderates, along with some liberals, are alive and kicking. EM demonstrates that.
The other historic phenomenon appears both on my site, here and SBCToday. Following is a very short background.
Last year, Les Puryear offered a stimulating conversation at his site concerning a Southern Baptist who had then only recently left the SBC for a PCA church. In the post, Puryear "sympathized" with his leaving, and in the comment thread, made some startling revelations pertaining to his own theological journey. I have reiterated them elsewhere.
A few month's later, I brought Puryear's "theological reflections" to the table in a conversation at SBCToday (see link above). There Puryear passed his reflections off as struggling with theological issues pertaining to Covenant Theology, including the baptizing of infants.
Nothing was really settled about it, nor did Puryear either indicate he was looking into Covenant Theology so that he would better understand it, as his recent attempt at explaining his words indicate, or, that after thinking through the issue, he'd decided he'd made rash decisions and gave up his quest. Rather, it was left as not having all the so-called "loose ends" of his theology intact. A "growth process" as I recall the conversation.
That was a few months back. Only recently Puryear placed his name to be nominated as President of the Southern Baptist Convention. The link above to my post raised this issue with him a second time. Puryear answered with a post that acknowledges the questions I raised but refused to deal with the words he himself wrote. In essence, he writes that he accepts believer's baptism, rejects paedobaptism and rejects as well Covenant Theology. Fine.
The problem remains, however, that his answers are conspicuously lacking concerning his explicit words, which, from my view, cannot be glibly passed aside. Puryear writes:
"You see, personally, I am finding myself more and more amenable to Covenant Theology, including the practice of paedobaptism. I have taken the time to read several books about these beliefs and I find myself nodding my head in agreement with what I am reading. Where does that place me theologically? Right now, I'm not quite sure. I feel like I'm somewhere in a demilitarized zone between baptist and presbyterian."
Nor does it answer his personally considering a move from the SBC to the PCA as the post makes plain. Nor still does it even hint at explaining his "heart connection" with another commenter who quiered:
Isn't soteriology a higher concern than sacramentology? Isn't right discipline more valuable than baptism if the choice must be made? What Baptist theology text places the latter at a level higher than the former?
Upon this, Puryear replied:
Gene
As always, you speak my heart. You ask a most important question: "Isn't soteriology a higher concern than sacramentology?"
My answer: Absolutely.
Les
So, just what does Puryear mean that absolutely soteriology stands higher than sacramentology and right discipline more valuable than baptism? For me, I cannot accept this "as is" from a presidential candidate for the SBC. Nor can this go unchallenged without allowing Southern Baptists at large to know precisely what was said.
Nonetheless, though this is historic to be sure--after all, when was the last time a man entered the race for the SBC presidency who, only a few short months prior to the announcement, openly conceded to being amenable to infant baptism, nodding his head in agreement with Covenant theologians--this is definitively not the historic moment I had in mind to lament. The former was a document--the EM; the latter is a defense--the defense from a swelling group of Baptists who actually see no problem with Les Puryear's flirtation with baptizing babies.
As you can see on the comment threads you surf, those who have voiced a vigorous objection to a presidential candidate for the Southern Baptist Convention who lacked a less than stellar, strong and seasoned view of believer's baptism by immersion only--defacto the central, historical identifying earmark of being Baptist--have faced a vocal community who simply, but confidently says, it doesn't matter. They assure us that we should all be on theological journeys, that we should all look into other people's faiths, that we all have loose ends we have not neatly tied up.
They further insist that because Les Puryear obviously did not "become PCA" but "stayed SBC" that should constitute in itself positive proof that he is solid and can be our President.
So, a person who has finally decided he wants to be Baptist over the last few months is eligible for president? A man who is amenable to baptizing babies? A person whose heart says baptism is rightly sacrificed for proper church discipline? That person can legitimately represent a faith community whose existence exceeds a century and a half--not to mention going all the way back to Baptist roots in 1609--and begun with blood-drenched bodies because they dared insist on believer's baptism by immersion only?
Some insist I'm making way too much of this. They insist I'm "harassing," "skewing," "spinning," and/or "quote-mining" all, I suppose, just to be against Les Puryear. Some suggested on my site I'm lying and am doing "yellow-journalism." Okay. Prove it and show me to be the huckster I allegedly am. Others continue to joust with crooked sticks, charging that I'm "attacking" Les Puryear and should be ashamed of myself.
Some have hinted that I choose to make the worst possible interpretation of Puryear's words since I have already committed myself to another candidate. Hardly. First, if I wanted to submarine a candidate to help my own choice, I would politically not choose Les Puryear on which to expend my limited firepower. Secondly, I raised this issue with Les Puryear months ago--September, 2007. This is not a new issue. For me, it is an old one; one encountered well before the name Les Puryear was added to the list of nominees.
Thus, it's this small but vocal choir of Baptist folk, strangely unconcerned that a candidate for President of the SBC possesses at best a recently "settled" view of believer's baptism by immersion, subsequently deciding not to go to a PCA church. That's the thumb tack in my chair.
This is the historic moment: When Baptists are apathetic enough to not care if their leader has but recently suffered weak knees when it comes to non-negotiable Baptist identity.
For my part, I cannot imagine voting for a man as president of the SBC whose convictions about Baptist identity remain shrouded and who refuses to offer clarity by ignoring his own public words. My hope is, that the millions of Southern Baptists in general and the thousands of Southern Baptists in particular who meet in Indianapolis in June, will not hesitate to record their strong, non-negotiable conviction that, whoever our next President will be, no questions will cloud our assurance that he is firmly, unambiguously Baptist to the bone. For me, that's the stuff from which SBC Presidents must be made.
These are confusing times, at least from my little plot in West Georgia. EM is confusing because it desires to recast a new identity without inerrancy for evangelicalism. Baptists too are showing signs of confusion. Not necessarily because we are attempting to create a new identity--not at this juncture; rather, in many ways we appear to be giving up our identity period.
And those Baptists among us who defend such a weakened conviction concerning believer's baptism by immersion, explaining it as little more than theological growth, causes me much concern, I have to admit. Are Baptists about to break apart? Is the Baptist movement finally exhausted?
God save Southern Baptists.
With that, I am...
Peter
Peter, forgive me but I have to ask: what is with the SBC logo?
Posted by: Byron | 2008.05.15 at 10:49 PM
Byron,
I'm not sure I understand. What's wrong with it?
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.05.15 at 10:55 PM
Well, I noticed that use the old logo for SBC Communications, which is now part of AT&T. I wondered if you were implying that ecumenicism in the SBC would eventually swallow up the (religious) SBC into another entity, similar to what has happened in the business world with the SBC (Communications) and AT&T. But I was surprised to not find any hint of that in your blog article.
For the record, I have not read the EM. I am not ecumenical in the sense of supporting ECT, and probably not in supporting EM. At least, this is my opinion after reading Mohler and Caner (though I have not read Foster yet).
Posted by: Byron | 2008.05.15 at 11:34 PM
Peter, you write, "One could just as well, and even more, lament the absence of Inerrancy among today's proud evangelicals who attached their names to the EM." Have you, as I, lamented the fact that there was a great deal of turmoil within the life of the SBC for over twenty years and then, when the BFM 2000 was released, there was no mention whatsoever of "inerrancy" in the first article dealing with Scripture?
Posted by: James | 2008.05.15 at 11:37 PM
I think the logo is "purddy":-)
Posted by: cb scott | 2008.05.15 at 11:42 PM
Byron,
No hidden allusion in the "SBC"; it's just purddy as our CB intimates...
James,
On one level I suppose I could say "yes" with you. My consolation is, that "truth without any mixture of error" historically has meant the equivalent of "inerrancy" and, in my view, a much better description than is the term "inerrant", which as Packer pointed out so long ago that really is a double-negative word.
It took a generation of Baptists to bleed out of "truth without any mixture of error" the embedded concept of inerrancy, making it only "authorative" or "infallible but not inerrant".
So, in essence, the post-Resurgence BF&M recaptured the original intent of "truth without any mixture of error" or "inerrancy", if you please. Others may have a different take. But that's mine.
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.05.16 at 12:13 AM
Peter, sorry, I am still confused. That particular logo belongs to SBC Communications (e.g., Southwestern Bell), now part of AT&T. Though I doubt that AT&T would mind, mind you.
As an aside, here's a link to download the Baptist SBC logo (they are pretty strict about its use I see):
http://www.sbc.net/localchurches/sbclogo.asp
Posted by: Byron | 2008.05.16 at 12:30 AM
How seriously could we consider a lay-person as a possible SBC presidential candidate? I think it would help bridge the Great Divide between the two camps and I do sincerely believe there is such a divide. Or at the very least, could we consider a bi-vocational guy?
Oh I'm sure there is some clause, somewhere, that prevents a lay-person from advancing too far beyond the moat, and into the inner courts.
John in St. Louis
Posted by: John Daly | 2008.05.16 at 06:41 AM
Brother Peter,
Good post, and your points are clear.
On the definitions:
"Sin" is a biblical word, strong, ominous and serious.
"Truth" is a biblical word, strong, ominous and serious.
"Inerrant" doesn't seem to fit into the same category as the biblical words above, although I can't see any reason to dismiss its intent and in some ways it does help steer us back to what should be understood. But, truth is a much stronger word than inerrant, just as sin is a much stronger word than "?".
Can you explain more why we should more protective of "inerrant", than "truth"?
Blessings,
Chris
Posted by: Chris Johnson | 2008.05.16 at 07:00 AM
John,
A "lay" person is not at all out of the question though I think it may too late this year. A great Christian leader comes to mind who is a "layman" is Truett Cathey, founder of Chik-fil-A. I'm sure there are others.
I just happen to know of Mr. Cathey since I live so close to him and Atlanta is the home of the original store.
There are no inherent rules why a "layman" or a Bi-vocational pastor/staffer may not make a great President of the SBC.
The question is, do they personally possess the "equipment" necessary to represent millions of people to the global community.
On the current situation, there are some fine men running who I certainly think possess the equipment necessary. It is no secret I support 100% Frank Cox.
Dr. Cox is a Christian gentleman, a longtime Pastor of one church since seminary--indicative of impeccable integrity--evangelistic, a CP champion, a supporter of the CR and has the goods to pull factions together.
Everything I just noted is indicative of Johnny Hunt, whose greatest contribution could well be his sheer winsomeness in relationships with other people. Southern Baptists would never be ashamed of either of these godly men. But both cannot be President--at least at the same time.
Thus, for my present pocketbook, I believe Frank Cox is the man that can represent Southern Baptists for the next two years. After that, I'm all Johnny Hunt.
Grace, John. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.05.16 at 07:23 AM
Chris,
What's "truth" for you is not "truth" for me. This is standard, subjective doublespeak of a cultural shift indicative of the deconstruction of objective absolutes.
Inerrancy is a much stricter term for our time, far more difficult to employ as a weasel word.
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.05.16 at 08:20 AM
I agree with Peter concerning "inerrant" versus "truth". If the word "truth" were able to get the job done, we would not be saying "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" in our courts. As I understand it, each piece of that phrase means something legally, and is not superfluous. In order to convey the same meaning concerning Scripture, we must adopt a similar phrase. "Inerrant" is a much simpler solution!
Posted by: Byron | 2008.05.16 at 09:04 AM
Here is a few quotes from Leonard Verduin's, The Reformers and their Stepchildren;
"Although the Reformers at first gave promise of seeking out the old paths again, th Reformation in its finla thrust not only failed to expel the deformation known as "christening" but gave the ritual a new lease on life"
further he writes:
"With the Reformers thereis indeed an imbalance bewteen the forensic and the moral, between salvation as pardon and salvation as renewal."
Peter, I agree. The question you alude to is right, Did our forfathers die in vain, or were they theologically right? If we don't settle this then our future leaders might wade into the pool of baptismal regeneration, infant or otherwise.
Chris
Posted by: Chris | 2008.05.16 at 09:19 AM
typos mine- not in the original. I need new fingers and glasses.
Posted by: Chris | 2008.05.16 at 09:21 AM
Brother Peter and Byron,
“Truth” has got the job done. At least I think so. Maybe I am too simple….
Psalm 40:11 "You, O LORD, will not withhold Your compassion from me; Your lovingkindness and Your truth will continually preserve me."
I’m not going to come out with a new translation of Psalm 40:11 that replaces “truth” with “inerrant”, because I may think that inerrant conveys a better understood meaning than truth,… even though someone will probably try to translate it in that way and print up a new bible translation. (BUEV, …Better Understood English Version)
The word “inerrant” is no more or less subjective than “truth”. Truth is better defined when linked to an object (Christ), not another descriptor.
Seriously, … I am asking what makes “inerrant” so special, when there are so many ways to make the same argument. Does “inerrant” have more meaning than “truth”? Absolutely Not! I would contend that if we preach and teach the Christ of the gospel, the need for explaining truth by way of inerrant will fade as well,… inerrant will be replaced by Christ as truth is revealed. There is no improvement on that…
Psalm 111:6-10 "He has made known to His people the power of His works, In giving them the heritage of the nations. (7) The works of His hands are truth and justice; All His precepts are sure. (8) They are upheld forever and ever; They are performed in truth and uprightness. (9) He has sent redemption to His people; He has ordained His covenant forever; Holy and awesome is His name. (10) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments; His praise endures forever."
I am not belittling “inerrant”….but come on, it doesn’t hold a light to “truth”. And that doesn’t mean I should stop using “inerrant” as a descriptor either. Its just another one of the words….
Blessings,
Chris
Posted by: Chris Johnson | 2008.05.16 at 09:38 AM
Here's the way I see it. The Bible has truth, yes. But Scripture also contains lies and falsehood (from men, as God is unable to lie). Just witness lies such as Satan's in the Garden of Eden, or Shimei's cursing of David, or Nebuchadnezzar's prideful statements. These are statements of falsehood which are truthfully reported. They are not the truth, but the record of them is inerrant due to the inspiration of the Scriptures. And yes, I agree with you when you say, "Truth is better defined when linked to an object (Christ), not another descriptor." Christ is the way, truth, and the life. But that's a different statement than what the word "inerrant" to me is addressing: the Scriptural record.
Posted by: Byron | 2008.05.16 at 09:49 AM
Chris,
Please. You're being a bit absurd. "Inerrant" or "Inerrancy" is no more a "substitute" for Biblical words in passages like Psalm 40 than "Trinity" would be in MT. 28:20.
We're speaking of "concepts" here.
Nor do I think you can make the case that "inerrant" is just as much a weasel word as is truth, given our cultural deconstruction of the term "truth". If so, go for it.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.05.16 at 10:51 AM
Peter, you said exactly what I was thinking better than I could have. Thanks!
Posted by: Byron | 2008.05.16 at 11:25 AM
Chris,
If I may invade this good discussion I would like to share something from "back in the day."
You are right that the word "truth" does the job.
But, we were and are in a time when the word "truth" was used to make fools out of grassroots Baptists by unscrupulous liberals within our ranks.
They would tell people they believed the Bible was true; meaning the Bible contained the "truth" revealed by God. That did not mean the whole Bible is true.
Therefore, it became necessary to refer to the Bible as the "inerrant word of God" back in the day; meaning the "whole" Bible is the revealed Word of the living God and it is perfect in all matters from the first verse in Genesis through the last word in The Revelation.
It is sad that had to be the case, but, my brother that really was the case back in the days of the CR wars.
We knew Darth Vader was real long before Luke Skywalker ever crossed light sabers with him. :-)
cb
Posted by: cb scott | 2008.05.16 at 02:25 PM
C.B.
Do ya think that ugly snake has re-capped the decapitated head? That the younger, of which I'm one, have subtly allowed that severed head a place in the picnic? Is this not the point of Peter's reporting, to show that those fangs are still dangerous?
Great reminder of what the CR is about.
Chris Gilliam
Posted by: Chris | 2008.05.16 at 02:45 PM
peter,
you made the list!
I M
Posted by: baptistidentity | 2008.05.16 at 05:16 PM
Brothers,
It just appears to me,…that if we teach what the “truth” is as revealed in scripture with the same vigor that we try to defend these “inerrant” type definitions, then we’ll be ok.
Thanks for the post...it was a good one.
Blessings,
Chris
Posted by: Chris Johnson | 2008.05.16 at 06:59 PM
peter and chris
“And thy law is the truth.” As God is love, so his law is the truth, the very essence of truth, truth applied to ethics, truth in action, truth upon the judgment-seat. We hear great disputes about, “What is truth?” The holy Scriptures are the only answer to that question. Note, that they are not only true, but the truth itself. We may not say of them that they contain the truth, but that they are the truth: “thy law is the truth.” There is nothing false about the law or preceptory part of Scripture. Those who are obedient thereto shall find that they are walking in a way consistent with fact, while those who act contrary thereto are walking in a vain show.
I Mitchell
Posted by: baptistidentity | 2008.05.16 at 11:10 PM
baptistidentity:
You said, "The holy Scriptures are the only answer to that question. Note, that they are not only true, but the truth itself. We may not say of them that they contain the truth, but that they are the truth: 'thy law is the truth.'"
I just cannot fully agree with this. You must make a distinction between what is true and what is false in the Scriptures. All of it is truthfully and accurately recorded we believe by faith in divine inspiration of the Scriptures. I invite you to read the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (easily found via Google search if you are interested).
John 17:17 (ESV) "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth."
Christ Himself said this. But everything is not truth. Genesis 3:4 (ESV) says, "But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die." To call Satan's lie the truth simply because it is part of our sacred Scripture is to speak nonsense. I hope I am misunderstanding you, and that you are not actually saying that everything in Scripture is true. It is not, and cannot be.
Posted by: Byron | 2008.05.16 at 11:44 PM
Article III of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy states, "We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity."
In Section III, titled "EXPOSITION", under "C. Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation" it states, "...The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another..."
This is an excellent theological document in my opinion (as an unqualified, ordinary believer).
Posted by: Byron | 2008.05.17 at 12:22 AM
Byron
A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.” (Luke 9:35, NIV)
Truth matches the teaching of Jesus Christ—the one who is truth. As God’s Son, Jesus has God’s power and authority; thus his words should be our final authority. If a person’s teaching is true, it will agree with Jesus’ teachings. Test everything you hear against Jesus’ words, and you will not be led astray. Don’t be hasty to seek advice and guidance from merely human sources and thereby neglect Christ’s message.
I M
Posted by: baptistidentity | 2008.05.17 at 12:51 AM
Byron,
Seems I.M. can't reason with what you pointed out Byron, but rather presents self as an expert and you as a child. I think their advise given; "Don’t be hasty to seek advice and guidance from merely human sources and thereby neglect Christ’s message." applies to their words too.
Chris
Posted by: Chris | 2008.05.17 at 06:25 AM
IM
I am uncertain your series of points here. For my part thus far, they carry little punch. Just because one quotes a bible verse and then makes a "point" means very little to me. I only day before yesterday sent two JWs packing for doing the very same thing.
Have a great weekend. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.05.17 at 09:24 AM
IM
I am uncertain your series of points here. For my part thus far, they carry little punch. Just because one quotes a bible verse and then makes a "point" means very little to me. I only day before yesterday sent two JWs packing for doing the very same thing.
Have a great weekend. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.05.17 at 09:24 AM
Peter: One question I have is your title. Are not Evangelicals and Baptists one in the same? Or can they not be one in the same?
Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2008.05.17 at 06:28 PM
Debbie,
I do not see how they can be. "Evangelicals" as we employ the term is just over a half-century old.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.05.17 at 07:28 PM
Debbie,
I am not Peter, and he is definitely smarter than me; but, a Baptist is evangelical no doubt. But, not all evangelicals are Baptist. Thus, they are not one and the same. There are many evangelicals who are not Baptists.
David
Posted by: volfan007 | 2008.05.17 at 07:29 PM
A couple of things to toss into this stew.
One, I understand well the concept behind the use of the word inerrancy but for me this word has lost its zing. It has never brought us closer to God, it has never made us more obedient. Many of us profess the 'truthfulness' of the Word but we do not obey it. I always liked the word 'infalable'. I don't understand how that word became a copout word meaning that the Bible was pretty good but not perfect. It should have the meaning that when you obey the Word it will not fail you. I like it because it is an action word- unlike inerrancy which we can all shout our amens to and then go about life with no faith, no hope, and no love.
I would also like to add- per the intent of the post- that what I see here is that when we throw stones at those who sign these kinds of statements there is a lot of fear. Slogans like 'betrayed our baptist roots' and the like seem to be shouted loudly- and I might add quite angrily- as if we had so much to lose. Are we that weak? Will we be so easily swept away? Will God's Kingdom fall apart- or worse go merrily on without us? I for one am tired of being so insecure. If our understanding of God is so good- our doctrine so biblical- then we will stand on the rock in the storm without fear. Let Land sign what he will- I will not start baptizing babies because of it. Fear is a weapon of the enemy. Can we make no arguments about the prudence of signing documents without it? If we can not then should we keep making arguments and judging our brothers so harshly?
Posted by: Strider | 2008.05.18 at 01:36 PM