My point was that speculation is just that – no matter which way you go. Moreover, it is irrelevant. Most of the SBC or none of the SBC have to either have read or believe in the Chicago Statement to make my point accurate.

My point is that this Roundtable is not about Inerrancy, or political maneuvering – either past or present. Redressing the Resurgence is your issue. It’s not mine, and I suspect that it is not the issue for the now 100+ who have made reservations.

I tried to email you, but the email you give when posting is not a valid address, nor is your website address. I found your blog and it is no big deal to me if you don’t want it posted under your name. I would like to, however, send you this email of my specific thoughts.

You can email me at atr1300@yahoo.com.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Art

“The Statement was produced at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978, during an international summit conference of concerned evangelical leaders. It was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars.”

Art, could you explain the details how the 300 scholars signed this statement? What I’m pointing out is at the end of the meeting this group produced SIX other definitions of inerrancy. Did they sign the other definitions also? If that is the case, then it is misleading to imply they believed 100% in this posted definition.

The definition chosen by the Southern Baptist was known as the ‘strict’ definition. It had 12 qualifications that MAY be accepted and still qualify as believing the definition. The first qualification was the definition only applied to the original autographs.

All this information was written up by a past professor of SWBTS. His conclusion of a many page article was he would not use a word that had so much confusion with 7 definitions. I fell in love with his writing because one of the definitions fitted me to a ‘T’, and I didn’t feel so much like an oddball. I passed his article out years after he wrote it at SWBTS before an official stopped me. He called him and told what I was doing. He had his secretary call saying that he appreciated me liking his article, but please not to pass it out.

The bottom line is I believe in the Chicago Statement but it depends on which definition.
Rex Ray

You are welcome. Been a while. Glad to see you back here.

I did have an excellent holiday. I pray you are doing well.

Art

I have no idea who has and has not read the Chicago Statement and I don’t know where you would get the number 90%, unless you were speculating. I know that I have linked to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy numerous times, referred people to it on numerous occasions and have a copy in my desk. All of that is simply to say, that how ever many there were, there are a few more now.

I know that there were true conservatives who were moved on politically during the Resurgence. I know that not everybody was one and I know that among those no longer in Southern Baptist life were some true liberals. People like to speak in absolutes. I heard many moderates say that there was no such thing as a Baptist liberal. Not True. I heard conservatives say that anyone who wouldn’t use the word “inerrancy” was a liberal. Not true.

I wasn’t even in high school when the Resurgence started, and was partly through college when it was really over. The people who are speaking now weren’t around to “make a bed” in which to lie. We are the children of the Resurgence, who have now grown and are pastoring churches.

Rex, you completely misunderstand what is happening. You see this as a push back against people whom you consider to be power grabbers. It’s not.

You want to help “reveal truth?” We are trying to cast vision for a future direction for the SBC. I have tried to say this, but I don’t feel that I am in any way able to get through to you.

We are about two different agendas. Your agenda is to expose the political underbelly of those against whom you bear a grudge.

Our agenda is to help the SBC engage our culture and to allow for diversity among those who hold God’s Word as inerrant.

Your concern is that good people were hurt during the Resurgence. Fine. I have affirmed that and agree that things like that happened. I am not interested in rehashing the details of old wounds. That is NOT what this is about. lead that way all you want and you are welcome to call for followers, but I doubt anyone among my peers is going to be willing to follow you there.

All they know is the slander of ‘not believing the Bible’ (put on true conservatives) by giving them the degrading name of ‘moderates’. They shout hallelujah thinking the SBC got rid of liberals when in actual practice liberals have led them down a Catholic road of legalism making the circle smaller.

Now people are waking up to the controlling power of these individuals when their toes got stepped on. People want someone to stand for them, but they didn’t stand for others when they were stomped in the ground. Some might say, ‘you chose your bed so lie in it.’

These liberals made the Bible a political football for a smoke screen to take over the SBC.

Art, you imply you only want the help of inerrantists, but I believe you need all the help you can get in revealing truth.
Rex Ray

The fact is that you are fighting a decided battle and are interested in getting others to help you do it – but we don’t share your point of view concerning the events or the results.

Yes, ungodly things happened. Some things were wrong and some people were wronged.

This is not about that and it will never be about that, no matter what anyone says.

As for the word, “inerrant,” it certainly is no shield, neither to me nor to those with whom I disagree. It is, however common ground for our cooperation – if there will be any. If you can’t go there, you aren’t going to be taken seriously within the conversation.

Speaking of cooperation, your options create a fallacy. There are not only two factors, but I am calling for cooperation among inerrantists. That is what it is and will not change. There are inerrantists who are willing to cooperate with me whether or not they believe in the existence of a PPL (some do) or not (some don’t). The question is whether or not the Southern Baptist Convention will reflect that or will it limit cooperation to those who agree with certain leaders even to the most trivial point of doctrine.

This has yet to be decided and is the heart of the issue to be discussed. I don’t say any of this to be rude or dismissive, but you should know that I, and I believe everyone else on the reservation list, are committed to inerrancy. Your issues with it are yours and not ours, so an effort to “right a wrong” at this Roundtable will likely find you hearing us say that we don’t think it was that wrong and aren’t interested in the discussion.

In other words, we are not on the same page and we are not fighting the same battle.

For proof: look at Patterson and Mckissic. I said that to say being inerrantists does not provide a bullet proof vest.
Look what happened when Patterson attacked the IMB for having women over men: the first thing that Rankin said was everyone on the IMB believed in the inerrant Word of God and he couldn’t understand why Patterson would attack those with that belief.
Look what Burleson said when he was attacked: “I am an inerrantist!” You see, ‘inerrantists” has become a symbol of political acceptance, but it is not a shield.

The purpose of the roundtable is not to “keep the machinery running smoothly–well oiled with no squeaks.” (Quote from Scott Goodson) It will be looked upon as opposition and fair game for all criticism available. All attending may become known as ’roundtablest’.

Attending the roundtable may be interpreted as making a “squeak” and treated the same as you said of moderates “they left.” How did moderates leve when it was said of them, “parasites had been removed and the barnacles had been scrapped from the ship of Zion”? Is that leaving? If they had left, would they still give money?

Art, if there only two factors, do you think you would receive more ‘coperation’ from an inerrantists who did not believe a PPL came from God, or a moderate who did?

When does it become too late to right a wrong?

I like Wade Burleson’s statement: “It is the gospel that unites Souther Baptist, and what unites us is greater than anything that might potentially divide us.”
Rex Ray