« Does overseas missions strategy need reform? At least one SBC professor says it does | Main | Spurgeon's ecumenism? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


This is a very helpful post. Thank you.

I was an enthusiastic supporter for change in the direction of the SBC, and am glad to see what has transpired in terms of doctrinal confessionalism and accountability of professors, other employees and institutions.

I also recognize that formulations and statements are borne by the times that produced them. It is very likely in my view that this issue will continue to come up in the future. I am hopeful that Christians will be diligent to oppose any movement that views the scriptures with less awe an affirmation than Jesus and the Apostles did. The written Gospel witness in the OT and NT is the basis for our faith.

To be faithful to Christ and his Apostles, we should have the same high view of scripture that they held.

There may be some questions related to textual criticism that are unanswerable with perfection. We should simply live with those. Those questions did not seem to cause any problem or lack of confidence for Christ, so they should not for us either.

peter lumpkins

Thanks, Louis. I hope you are right my friend. There seems to be, however, some pull and tug toward theological compromise about unlimited inerrancy from some very influential evangelicals, and among them, at least a few heavy-weights amidst Southern Baptists.

Lord bless.

Jonathan Hanna

Hey Peter. Thank you for your post. My objections to this debate is not so much "what" has been proposed, but "how" it has been conducted. Somewhat like James C. Hefley, I have chronicled on my blog much of the debate the last three and a half years. Moreover, I have asked many questions that, in my view, if answered would clear up a lot of misunderstandings. Namely, why Dr. Geisler's critiques and comments do not have a broader brush to them? Instead, they are centered in on Licona. Why? There has been some surface level explanations, but nothing substantive. Of course, respectfully, it is Dr. Geisler's right to not explain further, but at the expense of turning off many to "what" he has to say about the doctrine of inerrancy because "how" he goes about it.


I agree with Louis. This is a very helpful post. Thank you.

Unlike Louis, I was not "an enthusiastic supporter for change in the direction of the SBC." Just the same, this is a useful update for laymen like me who care about this issue but do not have the time or education to investigate it in detail.

I'm so out of touch that I was not aware of a new generation of Southern Baptists who question inerrancy as it has been understood since the "takeover" or the "Conservative Resurgence" (Pick your favorite term). I'll have to start paying more attention.

Again, thanks for covering this and for providing Dr. Geisler's update.

The comments to this entry are closed.