"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

The SBC Presidential Nomination Announced

Someone told me just yesterday that he has learned so much from everyone's blogs --- he has learned a great deal about ecclesiology, soteriology and missiology from some very sharp people who have taken the time to write their thoughts for others to read.

The gains each of you has made in causing people to acknowledge you as interested leaders of the SBC could be lost, however, if anyone in the blogosphere begins to make personal attacks against leaders in the SBC.

Last week Porter Goss resigned as head of the CIA. As he left his home in Washington this past Saturday, Goss told CNN his departure is "just one of those mysteries" and declined to elaborate. He then flew to Ohio, where he delivered a commencement address at Tiffin University. "If this were a graduating class of CIA case officers, my advice would be short and to the point: Admit nothing, deny everything and make counteraccusations," Goss, a former CIA officer.

Interesting comment. May God forbid that anyone in SBC leadership follows the advice imparted to CIA graduates.

The SBC is not the CIA. In fact, we work for a King who demands honesty and integrity. Sometimes when we attempt to deal with issues, those who have a great deal to lose will begin to make personal attacks on those who raise the questions. Here is where true character is seen. How do you and I respond when those attacks come?

It is the mandate of our Lord, and written in Scripture as a Christian ethic, that Christians are to be known for their love. True love is seen in the face of attack. That doesn't mean you can't defend the truth, or set the record straight, but in doing so, it is wise for us all never to personally attack back.

Ronnie Floyd has been a man who has reached many men and women with the gospel of Jesus Christ. He is committed to the Scriptures and the person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. A press release was issued over the weekend announcing Ronnie Floyd's nomination for President of the Southern Baptist Convention by Johnny Hunt. This is the only announced candidate to date.

You may not agree with everything Ronnie does in his church, or condone every methodology of his evangelism, or even like his leadership style --- but I guarantee you that all those things could be said of you, or me, or anybody else who pastors a church or takes leadership in our convention.

Those are not the issues. What is best for the SBC is the issue. Ronnie Floyd is a graced man, with a wonderful family and a great church who supports him. He is more than qualified as a person to lead our convention. The question is not, and should not be about "the person" but rather, "the issues involved."

Therefore, I call upon all my Southern Baptist friends to focus on the issues.

I commend Ronnie Floyd for being willing to make the personal sacrifice to help our convention the way he believes our convention needs help. The decision you must make is based upon two questions: What direction will Ronnie Floyd take our convention? Is that the direction I believe our convention should go?

If you are comfortable with Ronnie Floyd's grasp of the issues in our convention as you see them, and believe that he will address them as President through his powers of appointment, then by all means, vote for Ronnie Floyd.

He is a graced brother who deserves our Christian love.

Let's keep it on the issues.

In His Grace,



Kevin Bussey said...

Thanks for handling this with respect.

Jason Sampler said...


You are always the one to keep us on track. Thank you for your grace-filled words. I am proud to know you as a friend and brother in Christ.

Jason Sampler

art rogers said...

Gracious and to the point, Wade.

Excellent observations.

Anonymous said...

"The decision you must make is based upon two questions: What direction will Ronnie Floyd take our convention? Is that the direction I believe our convention should go?"

The second question SHOULD be, "Is that the direction GOD believes our convention should go?"

brad reynolds said...

Thank you so much for your post and your spirit. I am grateful for your stand against those who would attack the methodologies of Dr. Floyd. On one Blog, there was a clear implication that his methodologies were “blasphemous.” Your stand against such Blogging is most commendable.

On another note, for those who may not know Dr. Floyd, your insights could be helpful. Perhaps you can tell us your thoughts concerning the direction you feel Dr. Floyd will take the convention. As yet, I don’t think he has given a statement (I know if and when he does, we will take him at his word, for it is biblical to do so) and your help would be appreciated.

Wade Burleson said...


I would prefer to wait until Ronnie is either interviewed with pertinent questions asked and answered or Ronnie issues a statement himself before I comment on the direction he will take the convention.

You are asking, however, the right questions.

Jamie Wootten said...


I imagine that I speak for a lot of people on these blogs when I say I have learned much from you about graciously dealing with brothers in Christ. Thank you for modeling Ephesians 4:31-32 for us.

Tad Thompson said...

I am trying to schedule an interview with Dr. Floyd. I have made a similar post as you on my blog - the tone of the blogs has gone into the gutter. Thank you for your wisdom here.

Randall Hosea said...

Would you consider allowing your name to be put up for nomination as president of the SBC? I understand your support for Ronnie Floyd. However, we need men who are willing to take a stand as you have and not allow things to remain at the status quo.

Serving Together
Randall Hosea

Nannette Lites said...

I am not sure that these questions are appropriate for this blog, but here goes anyway. These are honest questions. We have been overseas for the past 34 years and missed a lot of things that are referred to in this blog.
(1) What characteristics in another person would cause you to refer to that person as a "liberal"?
(2) To what are you referring when you say "the battle for the Bible"?
We continue to pray for you.
Nannette Lites

Wade Burleson said...


I have been asked. I will do what I believe is best for the SBC in the long run, and it could mean declining or accepting, but I will not say one way or the other prior to convention.

Wade Burleson said...


(1). Definition of liberal. One who denies the deity of Christ or the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures or salvation by grace through faith.

(2). The battle for the Bible in my mind is the battle to protect the SBC's view of the integrity of the Scriptures. Notice I said "the view" of the integrity, not the integrity of Scriptures. Whether we proclaim our belief in the inspiration or authority of the Scriptures is irrelevant. They remain so whether we declare it or not.

CB Scott said...


Thank you for your post. Thank you for your answer as to your own considerations relating to the position of president of the SBC.

Now, I think we that respect you should take you at your word and cease to ask you about it and let you make that a matter of prayer between Jesus, you, your wife and family and of course, your church.

It is my prayer that God and God alone will give the SBC a president this year.


Jason Sampler said...


If I understand the blog you are referencing, the reason the posts were implying that the childhood evangelism practices at Floyd's church were "blasphemous" is because that is the exact word Paige Patterson used when he was presented with the story.

If you are speaking of Floyd's methodologies specifically, and not of the childhood baptism issues, then this is another issue. However, when I read your post on this site, my mind jumped immediately to Patterson's words.

I have tried to read your post with fairness and charity and apoligize if I have misrepresented you. Can you respond to Patterson's comment that this practice is blasphemous if you are specifically referencing the baptism methods of FBC Springdale? Thank you.

Jason Sampler

Dan Paden said...

One of the wonderful things about the blogosphere is the opportunity to hear of so many new people! Up until fifteen minutes ago, to the best of my recollection I had never heard of Ronnie Floyd.

Now I'm all set for some popcorn and a cold drink!

JRMathews said...

Thanks for a very inciteful and thoughtful article.

annie said...

Nanette, Thank you so much for asking your question. I'm so relieved. I'm not a liberal!

Anonymous said...

I feel like the starting pitcher has our team ahead 1-0 at the bottom of the ninth with two out, and the coach replaced him. That’s the way the announcement of Ronnie Floyd for president hit me. I know nothing of the man. I felt I knew the starting pitcher as one who had the heart, the ability, the gumption, and grace to finish the game.
Rex Ray

jgsy3kids said...

I have no problem with Ronnie Floyd being put up as a cadidate for SBC president. I've attended conferences he has led; I appreciate his heart and love for God. I appreciate what his church has done and is doing for missions. My problem is with the whole tone of the "announcement". It gives the impression that this is "God's man" for the hour, that if you want to be on God's side, then you need to vote for Ronnie Floyd. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't the best one for the job, but that's for each of us to pray about and then vote accordingly. Unfortunately, there are too many in our convention who still "follow the leader" of the moment without question or prayer. I pray that we would follow God's leading in this. Regardless, whether the majority make the right choice or not, God's going to use it for His glory...even if it means the SBC has to fall flat on its face.


Milton said...

Thanks for clearing up the "liberal" tag. So far as I know, I have not met one liberal in all my years in the SBC, and that includes CBF people. Which leads me to the next question "Where or who were the liberals from which the SBC had to be saved?" Perhaps because we were overseas at the time and we missed all the fun.
It is easy to fire away at "them liberals" without having to identify them. If we do not agree with actions by the SBC leaders (whether this takes place during convention sessions or not) does that make us liberals? Thanks for the opportunity to ask.

Ron West said...

Let me add to Milton and Nannettes excellent questions and your answer. We need to keep asking these two questions of those who use the word liberal. Wade has given two good answers. I would answer the same as you on question one. I can also accept your answer on question 2 but some would want more comment on the SBC’s view of the integrity of scripture.

The problem many of us have when some on these blogs continually say the conservative resurgence was necessary and they support the actions of its leaders in the beginning of the battle is that we are hearing them say they supported the firing of theological conservative like Al Shackleford and Russell Dilday and the slanderous attacks on other conservatives like Keith Parks and a multitude of leaders in state conventions and associations who did not jump on board the conservative resurgence band wagon. Even when they say things like it was a battle for the Bible and the integrity of scriptures, the actions of their leaders do not support their words. I agree there were a few seminary professors that had no business teaching in a Southern Baptist seminary and I am glad they are gone. I am glad we have taken a strong stand against abortion and homosexuality. That does not justify the attacks we have seen on our missionaries, seminar professors and many pastors and laypeople under the banner of the conservative resurgence that in reality was nothing more than a power grab.

The best sign that the conservative resurgence was not of God and has harmed our convention is that fact that it has created division and not unity. If the conservative resurgence was to support the integrity of the scripture and to reject those liberals who deny the deity of Christ or the inspiration or authority of scriptures or salvation by grace there would have been no battle to fight. We can all unify over those issues. We have to judge you by your actions not your words. The true result of the conservative resurgence is a divided convention, baptizing fewer people than we did in the 70s before the resurgence began, weakened missions support of the cooperative program partly due to poor leadership from our convention presidents and isolation from other evangelical Christians.

It would be good to ask any presidential candidate to answer these two questions and then apply that to their words and actions in the battle in our convention.

Dorcas said...

Rex -

Your baseball analogy speaks volumes. Thanks for your honesty.

Anonymous said...

Sad news, annie,
You were relieved at not being a liberal according to Wade’s definition, but the rest of the story you have not heard. The bottom line: you may not be a liberal today, but tomorrow that may change.
In actual practice, it is like Milton said by asking, “If we do not agree with actions by the SBC leaders, does that make us liberals?
In actual practice, Wade has been put on the liberal list. Well, one day he is on and the next he’s off, but unofficially he will always be suspected because he is a free thinker and not a ‘yes sir man.’
A former SBC president announced all barnacles and parasites had been removed from the ship of Zion. He was referring to liberals and moderates. You see, moderates are about one step from liberal according to actual practice.
Did you catch that hint the other day when the question arose if I was that moderate that lurked on the Baptist Standard? One indirectly said I was an idiot. Why? All because I proclaimed truth that did not fit their way of thinking. See what proclaiming truth has done for Wade.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

To cb scott,
I admire your post to Wade except for “we that respect you, should etc.” You make the conclusion if I don’t think like you, I don’t respect Wade. That attitude has been in our convention too long.
I respect Wade, but I may think 1,000 of us should march seven times around his house each day saying we want him for president. Come to think of it, that’s not a bad idea.
Rex Ray

Jack Maddox said...


It is very normal for those nominating a pres to pontificate on his mortal divinity...I am not saying it is right, just that it is. I have read many who have claimed that Wade is "Gods Man" Wde does a great job dodging these kind of asertions.
I can't help but wonder if God really has a 'man' for a man made position. Remember what the late Adrion Rodgers Said "God does not need the Southern Baptist Covention..."

Greg Cloud said...

Hi, Wade.

I've been out for a few days, and had to catch up on my reading.

I don't know Bro. Ronnie personally...I'd like to go hear him preach. To me, that's one of the best ways to see what spirit he is of and the fruit he produces.

Roger-dodger on laying off the mud slinging.( ergo yesterday's blog & comments) This occurs when Christians jockey for political position, not ride into battle for our Lord...then its "and every man went up straight before him and conquered the city" as in the days of Joshua.

God bless you and yours this day,


annie said...

If they put me in the moderate or liberal columns, will they also tell me whether I am a barnacle or a parasite?

brad reynolds said...

Wade (and others who refuse to use the word inerrant)

You commented to me on another post “Brad is right: conservatives agree on the fundamentals of the faith.” One of those fundamentals was “The inerrancy of the Scriptures.” And yet, when asked about your definition of a liberal you said “One who denies the deity of Christ or the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures or salvation by grace through faith.” Why did you veer from saying one who “denies the inerrancy” of Scripture.

Perhaps because of the stigma that the word inerrancy carries with some; yet as you educate those who ask of you your position on alcohol why not educate them on the meaning of inerrancy? This would be very easy with the tool of a dictionary.

I don’t mean to be knit-picky or sound unloving…please know my motives are pure and sincere. However, I have had professors who affirmed the inspiration and authority of Scripture and yet deny its inerrancy. What they meant, by a recognized definition of inspiration (scripture writers were inspired as Muhammad was inspired), was totally different from what I meant…hence the need for a clarifying term - (inerrancy)!

In the context of Dr. Patterson’s statement it appears he was questioned in the context of believers baptism being done in an irreverent manner – hence his response. I can’t speak for him but having known him for years I’m not sure he would care if believer’s (being children or adults) were baptized in a dunking booth, if that was the best place, provided it was done in a reverent manner. If the one asking the question to Dr. Patterson was in anyway “trapping” Dr. Patterson (i.e. – asking Dr. Patterson a question about a church, pastored by one of Dr. Patterson’s friends, practicing something (unbeknownst to Dr. Patterson) the interviewer knew Dr. Patterson would disagree with) then that raises other issues. I certainly do not know and would never accuse any of such without knowing.

Wade Burleson said...


Quite unfair.

I use the word inerrant to describe Scripture frequently.

Search my sermons at Emmanuel Baptist Church and you will see.

Be careful of such blanket statements without any corresponding factual basis for support.

brad reynolds said...

Forgive me...I was implying the use of the term in reference to this Blog and the question about liberals.

I certainly did not intend to imply you don't ever use it or believe it.

Hence, the question: would you say a liberal is one who does not believe in the inerrancy of scripture?

Wade Burleson said...


You are forgiven.

And, yes, any teaching that says there is "error" in the Word of God is liberal teaching.

brad reynolds said...

Thanks so much, but I must not have made my question clear. Forgive me. The question was not about liberal teaching but rather in reference to your comments about what constitutes a liberal, thus the question: would you say a liberal is one who does not believe in the inerrancy of scripture? One word may suffice.

Wade Burleson said...

One word does not suffice.

All conservatives believe in the inerrant autographs.

brad reynolds said...

I take full responsibility for the lack of clarity here. I was asking if you would "say a liberal is one who does not believe in the inerrancy of scripture?"

You said the answer demands more than one word and then you gave me your understanding of a conservative. The definition of a conservative was not my question.

Allow me to put it into the context of the discussion. You said a liberal was, " One who denies...the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures..." I asked, in this context, why you avoided "inerrancy" showing that some who claim inspiration mean it in the sense of "scripture writers being inspired as Muhammad was inspired" and inerrancy avoids this discrepancy (I was then cautioned about making blanket statements without a factual bases, which in this context I did not do and now we arrive here).

Thus, since you said a liberal was one who denied the inspiration and authority of scripture would you not say a liberal was one who denied the inerrancy of scripture and if you are unwilling to state that with the very clear understanding of what some call inspiration...why?

Forgive the length of this comment but I'm trying to overcome my lack of clarity.


Wade Burleson said...


All liberals deny the inerrancy of the original autographs.

Bob Cleveland said...

I'm not sure this is supposed to be fun ... but it is.

Scripture is of course inerrant. If it weren't, absolutely, then it could not be authoritative.

Unfortunately, I see far more inconsistency among those who confess inerrancy, but do not demonstrate its authority in their lives, than vice versa.

The manner of the "goings on" in the current "differences" are sadly illustrative of that.

brad reynolds said...

Perhaps the semantics seem trivial to some but as one who sat under a professor who denied inerrancy but agreed to inspiration let me ask it another way for I feel I am somehow unclear again, even with my best efforts.

You said "All liberals deny the inerrancy of the original autographs." While I'm not sure I agree with that (for I think it is possible for one to believe in inerrancy but to interpret Scripture erroneously and thus arrive at a denial of the deity of Christ, as the Arians and Ebionites (and thus still be a liberal according to your definition)) it misses the question I intended.

My question was not “Do all liberals deny the inerrancy of Scripture?" but "Would you call those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture liberals?" as you called those who deny the inspiration of Scripture liberals.

Also, I know you pastor and have the SBC on your mind, and are a Trustee, and maintain a Blog, and have a family and so much more, so thank you for taking the time on this question, this is not trivial to me or my friends and it is entertaining Bob.

brad reynolds said...

If your comments were intended as an ad hominal statement to either Wade or myself, then it speaks for itself. If it was intended to reference something else then forgive my inference.

Concerning your subjective perspective on those professing inerrancy, I apologize on behalf of the majority (according to my subjective perspective) of us who affirm inerrancy. I too have seen a FEW of these and they are horrible witnesses who bring no glory to God through their mean-spirited, judgmental, legalistic lives.

However, I’m not sure that based on the relationship you see between inerrancy and authority that the “vice-versa” is applicable for according to your understanding of the two “Scripture is inerrant otherwise it couldn’t be authoritative” then one could not hold to its authority without believing its inerrant.

Bob Cleveland said...

Hi Brad.

Nah, my comment wasn't a comment on anyone else's comment. Just an observation in general.

If I disputed the inerrancy of scripture, that would mean (to me) that I was free to dispute the authority of any verse, based on evidence of my choosing. I cannot dispute what the Bible seems to say, based on any evidence outside the bible itself. To do so would be to grant authority to something outside the word, which is tantamount to appealing a Supreme Court decision to a local traffic court.

I cannot think the bible has authority over me, if I think I have any authority over it.

Or not. I don't pretend to be a deep thinker and I certainly don't have any formal education in spiritual matters. Just a bunch of years.

CharlieMac said...

To be nit-picky it is not 'knit'!
With that said, I suppose I am liberal because I still need "inerrant" defined. Do you mean that the meaning of scripture or application to life is inerrant or is the printing of, copy of, or particular version of God's Word which you may possess "inerrant"? There in lies the real question. Why else has there been many revisions to so many versions of the scriptures in each of the languages the Bible has been interpreted into? Inerrant became a "talking point" in the early 70's by which to accuse those who believe different to the fundamentalist regarding non-essential to salvation parts of scripture. For instance if you apply Paul's writing to Timothy regarding women's roles in the church at Ephesus to the church of today then why do you allow Christian women to go to the beauty shop or wear jewelery, especially gold or pearls?

brad reynolds said...

My question was for WADE, since many are asking him to accept their nomination for him to SBC president and it is good for all of us to know precisely where he stands on this issue.

With that said let me thank you for picking the nit from my knit. I really do appreciate it as a learning experience...I will not make that mistake again, although it does show my errancy (contrary to Scripture).

Now to the issue. Your understanding of inerrancy is far far from what those, who led the resurgence, teach it to mean and what theological textbooks have taught it to mean also...let me reference you to the fundamentals of the faith, of which one is "the inerrancy of Scripture." (I do not deny that many have desired to paint those who affirm the inerrancy as the fundamentalists of the seventies you referenced, but that was inaccurate then and still is today).

The word means without error, that is, in the original autographs there were NO errors, since it was breathed by God.

Bob Cleveland said...


I finally looked up "ad hominem".

Oh goodness gracious, no. Never.

Anonymous said...

As a Assistant Professor of Christian Education how do you define what is meant by the ELECT, that GOD predestined?

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

brad reynolds said...

While I'm not sure what this has to do with this Blog I will answer. Off the cuff, my understanding of the Elect is that it references those whom God has chosen of His own volition to become his children. However, I dare not presume upon human ability to understand predestination and Election in light of man's free will and Christ death for all man (I John 2:2).

By the way your Biblical knowledge is most encouraging in a day and age when our pews are full of theological and Biblical illiterates.

Anonymous said...

You stated, “The word [inerrancy] means without error, that is, in the original autographs there were NO errors, since it was breathed by God.”

At risk of sounding like an Atheist, are you saying the Bible we have today is not what God wanted us to have—that it is inferior—that it does have errors?

Do you know the eight definitions of inerrancy that 300 scholars wrote in 1978?

Seven of those could be combined into one: The Bible can be trusted in what it teaches and affirms. Does not contradict itself but does with science, geography, and history. Without error in faith, morals, and salvation, but not true in all words or statements. Speeches reported in truth but not all speeches have perfect contents.

Conservatives adopted what is called the ‘Strict Definition:’ “The Bible does not lie, deceive or err in any assertion it makes.”

Brad, do you know the twelve qualifications that go with the ‘Strict Definition’ that is permissible to believed? That means it is acceptable if you don’t believe any of the qualifications or you may pick and choose which qualification you believe and still be accepted as a conservative. This is very important! These qualifications are not taught to the public. I doubt that most pastors even know them. The qualifications change the ‘Strict’ to about like the other definitions.

When backed into a corner with an obvious discrepancy in the Bible, conservatives pull their ace in the hole--their first qualification—the one you just mentioned—that inerrancy ONLY applies to the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS.

Can you imagine a lawyer telling the judge, “I know everything points to my client being guilty, and I cannot produce the ORIGINAL event, but in it, he is innocent.” Makes about as much sense as original autographs of the Bible being perfect.

Understand one thing, the Word of God that spoke the world into existence is perfect and the same Word in the Bible is perfect! Truth is always perfect. The truth of the Bible is perfect anyway you look at it.
But how much UNTRUTH is recorded in the Bible? How many lies of the devil and of men are recorded in the Bible? How much ignorance and even stupidity is recorded in the Bible?

The lawyer presiding at the 2004 SBC did not like “We believe the Bible has…truth, without any mixture of error for its matter.” He told me that meant ‘the truth of the Bible is true and the untruth of the Bible is untrue’ and that was why they added, “and that all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.”
I believe both statements are true—taken together or taken separately with the understanding that Scripture is God’s Word and is not that of MEN’S words recorded by the Bible.

God did not want us to have a Bible that was perfect like of math book. He wanted us to believe by faith. He could have used the hand that wrote on the wall to record a ‘perfect’ Bible in every language in the world, and man would have made it God. The Bible is not to be placed above God.
As men shouted praises to their god, Dianna, I heard a man yell, “We have our Inerrancy and no one is going to take it from us!” Inerrancy becomes a god when it is placed above loving Christian brothers—when they are classified as LIBERALS, BARNACLES, and PARASITES.

No one word has caused more harm among Christians than inerrancy. I pray it will expire from where it came--the smiling lips of the devil.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Dear annie,
Yours is my sister’s name as she was growing up, but she changed it to Ann. Sorry my reply did not make it through the ‘personal test’ as I named the author and the recipient of those words who could answer your question better than I.

brad reynolds said...

We will certainly agree to disagree in nearly all parts.

Yes, with any translation or rewriting of scriptures, errors can creep in, but that does not deny the inerrancy of the originals or the recovery of the actual words written in the originals by careful study. Further, inerrancy includes the accurate (inerrant - without error) recording of untruths by the foolish (Psalm 14:1) and others.

Without boring everyone here (probably too late for that) let me recommend the following to address your concerns in far more detail than a Blog:

1. Archer, Gleason. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.
2. Geisler, Norman, ed. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
3. Montgomery, John W., ed. God’s Inerrant Word. Minneapolis: Bethany, 1974.
4. Blomberg, Craig L., William W. Klein, and Robert L. Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Dallas: Word, 1993.
5. Radmacher, Earl, and R. Preus, eds. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
6. Geisler, Norman, and William Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. rev. ed. Chicago: Moody, 1986.
7. Henry, Carl F.H. God, Revelation, and Authority. 6 vols. Rev. ed. Wheaton: Crossway, 1999.

(Archer’s and Geisler’s should be sufficient).

Finally, As the first president of the Baptist Sunday School Board, James M. Frost, declared in 1900: "We accept the Scriptures as an all-sufficient and infallible rule of faith and practice, and insist upon the absolute inerrancy and sole authority of the Word of God. We recognize at this point no room for division, either of practice or belief, or even sentiment. More and more we must come to feel as the deepest and mightiest power of our conviction that a 'thus saith the Lord' is the end of all controversy."

Anonymous said...

From Rex,
I have this habit good or bad of reading over and over what a person (including the Bible) writes to see the correctness or incorrectness of what they say. For instance, your first words in your reply to me states, “We will certainly agree to disagree in nearly all parts.”
That sounds like I have asked you (which I haven’t) and the mouse in your pocket to agree to disagree.
“Agree to disagree” means both parties will stay friendly even when they disagree. You said, “…in nearly all parts.” Does that mean you’re not going to be friendly on some parts, or you’re not going to agree to disagree because we both agree on that part?
Yes, English gets complicated when trying to communicate. The reason I am being so picky-picky is that this illustrates what the Scripture says that I will mention later.

Communication is not clear if questions are not answered. I will make a grade of 100 on this reply because I’ve answered all your questions. (Never mind you didn’t ask me any.) On the other hand, you answered only one of my eight questions which gives you a grade of 12 ½. I really wish you would answer all my questions.

You say, “…errors can creep in, but that does not deny the inerrancy of the originals or the RECOVERY of the ACTUAL WORDS written in the originals by CAREFULY STUDY.” You did not give an example of this, so I’ll give one for you.
Every translation except the Holman Bible (This Bible has been accepted over the King James by the SBC.) has the ruler’s daughter dead in Matthew 9:18. But by CAREFUL STUDY, the RECOVERY of the ACTUAL WORDS written in the originals, have been put in the Holman Bible and the dead girl is alive.

Brad, how was this careful study made? (Please remember to answer this question.) Did they go back to some ancient autographs, or did they just take a vote and majority ruled since Mark 5:23 and Luke 8:42 had the girl alive? This involves another qualification of the accepted inerrancy definition. That qualification states, “Inerrancy does not imply agreement in parallel accounts of the same event.”

Brad, I think it would be good if you listed the twelve qualifications of the definition of inerrancy. Do you think people should know? Will you list them? (That’s two questions.)
And by the way, what was the definition and any qualification of inerrancy used by James M. Frost that you quoted him using in 1900? (Another question.)

Brad, if all these questions are too boring for you to answer, could you help me out with v domus? He is the Baptist preacher that turned Catholic. We are still discussing on “Why Fundamentalism Must Be Defined in the SBC.” It is in April. Of course he is not as big a “fish” as Wade that you seem to be nipping at. Why did you ask him the same question four different times on this post? (You don’t have to answer—I think I know.)
Rex Ray
PS I didn’t get into that Scripture I mentioned. Save it till later if there is a next time.

brad reynolds said...

I think I answered all your questions or explained why I chose not to (I don't think this is the forum to quote or even paraphrase numerous paragraphs and pages from the references I mentioned). But I say again you will find your answers in my references, especially Archer and Geisler.

And, you are right, you may not agree to disagree, so let me rephrase "in Christian love and care and in the Spirit of Christ I choose to disagree with you concerning the inerrancy of Scripture."

I asked Wade about inerrancy because his position is a concern of mine, since he is a Trustee at a SBC institution and many desire him to run for President of the SBC. It concerns me greatly, that you, who stated "No one word has caused more harm among Christians than inerrancy. I pray it will expire from where it came--the smiling lips of the devil." also stated "I respect Wade, but I may think 1,000 of us should march seven times around his house each day saying we want him for president. Come to think of it, that’s not a bad idea."

Anonymous said...

I think our discussion has come to a halt. When about a third on what you write is quoting what I have written, then you are dodging question you don’t want to answer or lack the ability to answer. But thank you for my words. They’re the best you have written. (Grin)
For some free advice, (about what it’s worth) this is a no-win situation for you. You stand some kind of a chance to lose this debate, but if you win what can you brag about since I’m just a cotton chopper who set a record at SWBTS as being their fastest drop-out. I even got all my money back.
One thing I don’t understand; how can you keep hounding Wade to answer your trick question and you won’t answer my fair questions? I think Christ had a word for that but it won’t pass the rules of Wade’s blog.

brad reynolds said...

Since I suppose it is just you and I left. Allow me to address your questions adequately but in a less than totally thorough way, since that would require a much much more lengthy response which I believe would take advantage of this forum. If Wade wants me to post pages of explanation on inerrancy, he just needs to say so, and I will have a link next week (busy this weekend with other things), but until then I feel I am already wearing my welcome thin on his Blog. If you are really seeking answers (which I will assume) please reference the readings I mentioned, if you are seeking an argument then it is I, who am the fool.

As an inerrantists I believe the Bible is literally true in every word in the original autographs. Yet, it is necessary to understand it in the context it was written. If something states “the Mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing” – Isa 55:12, then surely this is figurative language in its context. That does not deny the literalness of the figurative language.

The fact that there are scribal errors in some manuscripts does not deny the uniform agreement in over 5600 Greek manuscripts. And yes I’m one of those nuts who dare’s to believe that the God who gave His Word can Preserve His Word. Thus, I do believe that when the manuscript evidence is compared then the errors in transmission become apparent. As implied earlier, every time I explain a specific situation, one who desires to find another difficulty, will, (thus the reference to the books).

In my simple mind one either affirms inerrancy or denies it. I have a difficult time trying to grasp that one can affirm inerrancy and deny it.

For further explanation and definition, (just for you), I have included this link if Wade will post it (not sure on protocal of Blogs here). It is called the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/chicago.stm.txt

But here is its summary:

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy
Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through
Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is
God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and
superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all
matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God's
instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all
that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it
to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or
fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in
creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary
origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in
individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total
divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made relative
to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring
serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

For those who started reading this Blog (but have long since left) the understanding of inerrancy is clear from the last 30 years in the SBC, and it is in that context my question was asked to Wade.

PS – Don’t sell yourself short, my grandfather who has a sixth-grade education, is one of the wisest men I know and in his words “there ain’t no mistakes in the Bible” – Granted it’s a double-negative but I knew what he was saying, based on the context.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your last post. It has a different tone since it is just ‘you and me.’ If you think I have strong opinions about the BFM and inerrancy, you can guess how I feel about Catholicism. When I first was ‘debating’ with v domus, I was fairly sharp, but as the days went by we both have mellowed a lot. Yesterday, he said, “I hope to someday meet you in person. I know already that I like you very much.”
Brad, we are both Southern Baptist. Compared to Catholicism, our differences in doctrine are not much at all, and yet we seem to be at each other’s throats. Why is that?
I take it that you believe any person that does not believe inerrancy is a liberal and by Wade’s definition; a liberal does not believe in the deity of Christ. That’s pretty bad and me calling you a rat is not good either.
Deuteronomy is the Word of God written by Moses. Numbers is the Word of God written by Moses. (Deuteronomy 1:37) “And the Lord was even angry with me because of them and said to me, ‘You shall not enter the Promised Land.”
Was this the exact same meaning that was written in the original autographs? Let’s hear Moses again: (3: 26) “But the Lord was angry with me on account of you, and would not listen to me.”
And again: (4:21) “The Lord was angry with me on your account. He swore that I would not cross the Jordan and enter the good land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.”
Do you get the picture? Moses was saying it was the people’s sin that made God angry with him. They got to go to the Promised Land, but he didn’t. After obeying God all those years, poor Moses got a raw deal from God.
Is this account the Word of God? Does this reflect the true meaning in the original autographs, or did some error creep in or a scribe record it wrong? Now I’m not asking if it was true what Moses said—I’m asking is it true that this is what he said.

We know the real truth is what God said in Numbers.
(Numbers 20:12) “But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, ‘Because you did not trust Me to show My holiness in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this assembly into the land I have given them.”
(20:24) “The time has come for Aaron to die…for the two of you rebelled against my instructions concerning the water at Meribah.”
(27:13-14) “After you have seen it [Promised Land], you shall die as Aaron your bother did, for you rebelled against my instructions in the wilderness of Zin…you did not glorify me…by following my instructions to order water to come out of the rock.”

We see that Numbers is the truth of God, and Deuteronomy is the untruth of man, but the big question is since Moses wrote both Books, why didn’t he omit his lies in Deuteronomy? Sure it’s a fact he said it was the people’s fault, but when he wrote the Book wouldn’t it have been natural to skip what he had said since it makes him look bad?
But God had him to put it in. Isn’t that great?

So, how do you believe this any different than me? I believe any untruth in the Bible is not out of the mouth of God which means those words were not breathed by God. The Bible says it is impossible for God to lie, so how could he breathe a lie for Moses?

I tried to find http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/chicago, but it would not come up. Was this the Chicago meeting of 1978 to define inerrancy?

Are the 12 qualification still in effect or have they been changed?

Sorry it took so long to answer your post.
Rex Ray

brad reynolds said...

Google "Chicago Statement on Inerrancy" the first link will take you to a place where your questions will be answered.

And if I conveyed in any way to you a different treatment when more were on this Blog forgive me, it was not-intentional, nor do I ever desire to be unChrist-like.

However, based on the Chicago definition of inerrancy, (for clarity as to the context) which is what the battle in the convention was over, I will state "one who denies it is a liberal." It is not name-calling for me but rather my firm belief of what constitutes a liberal.