The Baptist Faith and Message says, in part, about the Bible:
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.
The phrase “truth, without mixture of error” is our most popular operative phrase about Scripture. Most of us are completely comfortable describing themselves and being described by others as “inerrantists.”
The inerrant Bible, of course, refers to the original writings, autographs, not any particular translation or version. It is also understood that there are textual and interpretive issues in the Bible which have led to additional statements explaining and qualifying inerrancy. Others may criticize us for claiming to be inerrantists while we also include a good many caveats, provisos, and qualifications. No big deal here. Not everything is tidy and clean. Let the errantists declare themselves as such. I’m an inerrantist.
Over time and in regard to certain issues we have prepared additional statements that attempt to clarify, expand, and explain the Baptist Faith and Message. I don’t believe that any of these additional statements have been adopted by the SBC in annual session nor have any amendments to the BFM been made since it was passed almost two decades ago.
So, when some small group of Southern Baptists create one of these supplemental statements, the document may be helpful in some ways but there is good reason for a healty dose of caution about them. At their best, these help explain the BFM which itself has attempted to condense the inerrant Scripture into an expression of orthodoxy for those of us who cooperate as Southern Baptists. At their worst, they are documents represent the thinking of self-appointed, unelected small groups of Southern Baptists which then use them to force additional orthodoxy on Southern Baptists, orthodoxy not agreed upon by the SBC as a whole in annual session.
Entity trustees in their stewardship of our orgainzations routinely use a wide range of additional measures in their employment of workers or appointment of funded personnel. Some of these touch on doctrinal matters. Most of us would understand that if we seek employment with or appointment by one of our entities we would be subject to considerable examination beyond merely stating our agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message. This is a delicate matter and trustees should be careful not to elevate any supplemental statement of belief above that of the one upon which we are agreed by formal vote of the SBC.
We should be uncomfortable when any Baptist entity, leadership, trustees acts as if any of these supplemental statements are on the same level as the BFM. I am extremely uncomfortable if there is even a subtle indication that any of these statements are on the level of the Bible itself, which brings me to the resolution passed by our friends and colleagues in Arkansas at their recent annual meeting:
RESOLUTION NO. 4: ON THE “NASHVILLE STATEMENT”: A MANIFESTO ON HUMAN SEXUALITY
Resolved, that we find the statement without error in its declarations based on biblical truths…
Maybe the brethren would reconsider the idea of stating that any statement two steps removed from the inerrant Bible is itself “without error.” If the brethren intended the phrase “…in its declarations based on biblical truths” as a plausible caveat then perhaps they would consider that this sounds very much like that for which we stopped electing and employing liberals and moderates during the Conservative Resurgence.
This sounds more like homeopathic theology. Start with the inerrant Bible, extract some of that for the BFM, then further extract some of that for another statement. One of the things moderates tirelessly attempt to foist on the SBC is that we aren’t content with the Bible. Instead, we will accrete layer-upon-layer of supplemental interpretations and applications of both the Bible and it’s derived SBC doctrinal statement. Moderates had a point in that some groups of Southern Baptists are always in a search for perfect conformity with their own particular interpretation of Scripture, or of the Baptist Faith and Message as they read it, and now of one of these supplemental statements.
Maybe our Arkansan brethren could merely say that they agree with whatever extra-biblical statement they wish, be it the Nashville Statement, Danvers Statement, Chicago Statement, or the U. S. Constitution. Just don’t say that it is “without error” regardless of whatever modifiers are added. If one wishes to dismiss all of this as a matter of semantics, one might consider that semantics is meaning.
It is a good idea in my view to reserve “truth without mixture of error” and “without error” for Scripture alone.
A few years ago I told a fellow Pastor (who himself was theological liberal) that I had proceeded in writing a sermon for a future Sunday and that I was in communion with the Spirit in such a way that it was as if “the Spirit were writing the sermon and I was simply punching keys on a keyboard.” He’s response: So you were writing Scripture!
That made me feel highly uncomfortable. While I do believe I was overcome in the Spirit, to equate it with Scripture was sacrilege. Yet isn’t that one of the definitions of inspiration we teach concerning the writing of the Bible: men divinely inspired by the Spirit.
I agree with you 100% on how we must be careful to word phrases such as “without error” or “divinely inspired.” If not, Steve Gaines may be able to start speaking “ex cathedra” soon!
The old joke my late father-in-law used to quip was, “I may be wrong, but I’m not in doubt!” That being said, there arises a dilemma for us when it comes to “without error.” I am persuaded that Scripture is inspired—a verbal, plenary inspiration. As such, Scripture is wholly without error, as given. Here’s the difficult part: the consequences of the inerrancy must mean that there are also teachings without error. Marriage by a man born as a man, to a woman born as a woman, must be one of those (by way of relevant example). That statement, though not specifically expressed in Scripture in the way I just stated it, stands as undisputed truth, as evangelicals understand it.
My dilemma lies in where we draw the line for essential and non-essential statements. In this age of tolerance of all beliefs, how do we establish the fact that we stand on Scripture alone and when do we risk offending the tolerant ones?
Kevin,
I think that each person through their local congregation draws that line as the Spirit leads them. I mean, they should draw that line. Above the line is the Gospel essentials which define what a true believer should confess.
But below that line, but within reason, there should be allowances for differing understandings so that the bond of unity may be maintained.
Certainly we all hold our belief tenets as right and true or we wouldn’t hold them. But we also must recognize that we are fallible and still not as mature in the Lord s He was. Thus on this or that or this and that we might be wrong in some way or ways. So we should not break the peace for exact conformity.
Which is why having autonomous congregations is a good thing as long as the core Gospel essentials are adhered to, otherwise it’s a bad thing
Well written and timely stated, William.
A few years ago I got into a debate with a fellow who is now a VP at a Baptist college who argued that the BF&M was without error. I reminded him that any document of human origins is suspect to error, that only the Scripture was without error.
A similar caution would be good for the word “inspired”. I heard a person praise a really good Christian book once by saying God inspired the author to write it. I gently suggested that however good the book was, that calling it inspired was wrong since only the Bible is really inspired.
There was a frequent commenter here who used to claim inspiration for his sermons. Frankly, it was among the least bizarre things he said.
Scott,
You’re being too technical with the term.
Being inspired to write something isn’t the same as writing something inspired like the Word of God.
The Word is inspired as men wrote it as moved by the Spirit to give us the Word of God written.
But God’s can and does inspire people to write lesser works which are not infallible since they are not the Word.
Mike,
I would gently disagree with you on this as per my example the person was speaking of the book in language that should be reserved for Scripture alone.
Scott,
Thanks for disagreeing gently.
But respectfully, you didn’t add anything to the discussion and didn’t address the nuance I spoke of.
People have always been inspired by this or by that to write or draw or paint or to fight or to defend. Do you not agree? Why can’t they be inspired by God to write or to draw or to defend or to stand up to injustice?
Such inspiration doesn’t mean they are writing Holy Writ.
Lets look at what you said:
“A similar caution would be good for the word “inspired”. I heard a person praise a really good Christian book once by saying God inspired the author to write it. I gently suggested that however good the book was, that calling it inspired was wrong since only the Bible is really inspired.”
The Bible is the inspired Word of God.
That writer could have been inspired by God to write, but it doesn’t mean what he put down on paper was inspired words. Do you see the difference? You transferred WHAT was being inspired. God can inspire a man to write a book but that doesn’t mean what he writes is the inspired Word. Why do wish to limit God?
2nd tim 2 says:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
But that doesn’t mean that God cant and wont inspire men to write other things besides Scripture, OR that man inspired by God [because of His beauty, His righteousness, His love, His glory, etc] might not write inspirational or well crafted works.
Certainly there are those who think their words written are inspired by God to be Holy Writ, think Mohammed or J. Smith, but that doesn’t mean that there are many others who are inspired by God to write lesser works seeking to bring honor and glory to God.
Now there are many preaching pastors who read and some respond on this blog, maybe you are one [I am not] who most every Sunday give the people a message from God. They study hard and long and with much prayer and they seek to communicate to the sheep under their charge the Word of the Lord. No one should think that they speak the inspired Word except as they quote It but they are more than just reciters of what is written. They are called to bring the inspiration of the Word to the minds of those listening… to speak for God by the power of the Spirit as they are inspired to do so.
That doesn’t mean they never err in what they say, but with that, it doesn’t mean they are NOT inspired by God to say what they do.
Matthew 10 tells us this:
“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.”
Will these words be Holy Writ? No, the canon is closed. But were [or will be] those words be spoken by the inspiration of the Spirit? Yes.
So respectfully brother Scott, do not draw such a tight line around the idea f God inspiring men to speak and write and so limit the influence of God.
Yes Holy Writ is inspired Word written by min inspired by God. But God can inspire men to write lesser words as well. But only Scripture is infallible for Scripture is the written Word of God while Jesus is the Living Word of God.
Likewise, can’t a preacher preach a sermon full of truth and void of error and do so in the Spirit of God? Of course.
What makes our words less than infallible is when we interpret the Word through the dim to dinner lens we understand life by.
It is something that seems forgotten in this Reformation year: Reformed and ever reforming. Man by nature due to his sinfulness wanders, even if ever so slightly, from the solid truth of God’s Word. Thus we are called to stay in it and be corrected by it again and again.
Both Mike and Scott make decent points. Saying someone or some writing is “inspired” is common in the American religious vernacular. A claim of “without error” is more of a dog whistle among Southern Baptists because of inerrancy and the phrase containing such in the BFM.
I make a small point with this. The treatment by Southern Baptists of these declarations two steps removed from Scripture could be a big point.
I’ve spoken several times over the years that we should be careful using the word “inspired” to refer to anything other scripture.
What is meant is not always what is heard.
When someone says “That song is inspired” – usually they mean by it “wow, that’s a good song that touched my heart” they typically don’t mean “God inspired chris Tomlin to write that song exactly like He did the apostle Paul to write Romans”.
Should we educate them toward more precise language? Maybe – probably – but a rebuke or strong tongue lashing? Not necessarily.
The etymology of “inspire” is from the Latin for “breathe into”, which is essentially the greek used in 2 tim 3:16 (we might say woodenly “God-spirited”), but I’m afraid the more figurative meaning of “create a feeling in a person” cannot be put back into the bottle.
Perhaps instead we should not often use the general term “inspired” to refer to Scripture unless accompanied by less common but clearer terms like infallible, without error, etc. The ESV and NIV go for “God-breathed”.
Good article, and I agree.
I would point out this is where some Liberals found a loophole in the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message.
It says, the Bible “has” …truth without any mixture of error.
It does not say the Bible “is” truth without mixture of error. Therefore, a Liberal could sign it while still believing there are errors in the Bible.
Back during the Conservative Resurgence, a SBC Resolutions Committee, at the last minute, changed a resolution from “has” to “is” truth without mixture of error, in reference to the Bible. A Moderate leader strongly opposed the change from the convention floor.
While the Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 still has the same “has” phrase, it ended any possibility of a loophole by adding,
“Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.”
So, be careful. Some people can make something sound Conservative, while leaving Liberal loopholes.
David R. Brumbelow
Inspiration means God-breathed.
And, as Herschel H. Hobbs, SBC president, said,
“A God of truth does not breathe error.”
David R. Brumbelow
David,
Dictionary.com defines it:
noun
1. an inspiring or animating action or influence:
I cannot write poetry without inspiration.
2. something inspired, as an idea.
3. a result of inspired activity.
MeriamWebster Online like this:
1 a : a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation
b : the action or power of moving the intellect or emotions
c : the act of influencing or suggesting opinions
2 : the act of drawing in; specifically : the drawing of air into the lungs
3 a : the quality or state of being inspired
b : something that is inspired a scheme that was pure inspiration
4 : an inspiring agent or influence
One can narrow it down for themselves and define it only in certain way, but hardly can one say it can ONLY be defines that way be others.
I appreciate the comments. “Inspired” when used of Scripture is Greek 101. When used casually, other definitions apply. No big deal.
A Baptist body using the phrase “without error” inevitably invokes the BFM on Scripture. That’s my point.
“Inspired of God (qeopneusto). ‘God-breathed.'”
-A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures of the New Testament. Greek scholar.
“‘Inspiration’ means to breathe in… ‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God’ or ‘God-breathed.’”
-Herschel H. Hobbs, A Layman’s Handbook of Christian Doctrine, Broadman. Hobbs was a pastor and SBC president.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
-2 Timothy 3:16 NKJV
David R. Brumbelow
English Bible translations that use “God-breathed” in the text, or in a footnote:
2 Timothy 3:16 NIV
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
2 Timothy 3:16 NASB
All Scripture is [a]inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for [b]training in righteousness.
Footnotes:
2 Timothy 3:16 Lit God-breathed
2 Timothy 3:16 ESV
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.
2 Timothy 3:16 HCSB
All Scripture is inspired by God[a] and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness.
Footnotes:
2 Timothy 3:16 Lit breathed out by God; the Scripture is the product of God’s Spirit working through men; 2Pt 1:20-21.
2 Timothy 3:16 YLT
Every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness.
David R. Brumbelow
OK, let’s go down this road:
Every now and then, Dave Miller writes an genuinely inspired blog article.
I have yet to hear a musician who introduces a song by saying “God inspired me to write this…” that, after hearing it, I didn’t want to say, “Bro, don’t blame that on God.”
I’m probably going to get inspired in few moments to crank up the old chainsaw and get me up some firewood to burn.
A famous headline, “Headless body found in topless bar” was inspired, as was the most famous sports headline of all time by Lewis Grizzard. It had to do with a football game between Georgia (the bulldogs) and (gamecocks) when Georgia’s linebacker (Happy Dicks) was injured. No joke, look it up.
I don’t think anyone confuses any of these with theopneustos.
William, I’d have to say that everything I recall reading by Lewis Grizzard was “inspired” — not the theopneustos kind, obviously.
If we’d wanted comments on the other article, we’d have opened them.
The next disrespectful commenter who posts a comment here or on any other post about the Pressler article will go on moderation.
Thanks William for your great post. I always enjoy your articles.