Some Thoughts on Biblical Inspiration

I participate in a blog by Wade Burleson which has come to be known for trying to tell the truth about Southern Baptist behind-the-scenes shenanigans. It has drawn some highly intelligent and articulate participants. Of course I would be called one of the rebellious and questioning ones. Here is my response over the nature of an "Inspired" Bible vs. an "Inerrant" one:


Frank--I am honored that you would take your time and energy to share your views in such a clear fashion. If only our SBC leadership would be so forthright and kind to those of us who share most of your views, we would still be together!!!Remember the Conference on Inerrancy bravely called together in the 80's by the Seminary Presidents: Lolley / Dilday / McCall /etc. Each one of these men had a pastoral heart. Duke McCall was furthest away from Pastor toward Administrator. None of them was stupid. McCall probably enjoyed exercise of executive power the most, but it was not the excess of a Mohler or Patterson.

From that Conference should have come a mutual understanding that we were more alike than alien in our views of Scripture. I have yet to meet a "Liberal" professor who was past a middle-of-the-theological-road sharer of truth and research at the time he taught. Few of those exist anymore thanks to CR under the pretense of Inerrancy.

I think I know whereof I speak because I was President of the Emory University BSU the year Altizer did his "God Is Dead" stuff. I saw, first hand, what "Liberal" is all about. In that case it involved thoughts which were not really that radical couched in words undefined ("dead" the main one) which got the front cover of Time Magazine. 1967 was the year and I entered SEBTS that Fall after Altizer in the Spring.I perceive in your position a desire to make the Scriptures, themselves an object of worship for their validity. Without that object being perfect, you would probably say all your religious belief falls apart. I prefer to worship the Living God using the Scriptures as my "measuring rod (CANON)." At the same time recognizing them as a witness to their experience with God in their day and time.

The transference of the experience of the Bible writers was by word of mouth first. It was subjected to some verbal alteration as no story is ever told exactly in the same way twice. This does not invalidate it. It simply adds a human touch and explains, for example, why the Gospels are not 1:1 replications of each other. There is "truth" in that transmission, but it is not "absolute perfect truth" because man is involved along with his imperfect mind and voice.The verse you quoted from Paul stating "all scripture is inspired . . ." is the basis of my preference of "inspired" over "inerrant." Further, the "writings (graphe)" to which he refers are the non-canonical writings, many of them termed "Gnostic Gospels."

Yesterday, on National Geographic TV there was an excellent presentation of the Gospel of Mary purported to be written by Mary Magdelene. I doubt it would be shown at one of our seminaries today because it hardly follows BF&M 2000. To our loss, it contains valuable information which broadens our understanding of who Mary was and what relationship she had to Jesus---yet we don't want it recognized as a new discovery shedding new light on Jesus!Our orthodoxy makes us afraid of anything new which shakes its perfection. In my position of scripture reverence, I welcome the new stuff, measure it in terms of the old stuff serving as my measuring rod, and consider it also in light of how the Holy Spirit guides me in having a balanced and real faith today and into tomorrow.

Carl C.F. Henry is quoted by you at the end of treatise 1. He has long been recognized as an outstanding Conservative Biblical Scholar. I agree that I would not say what he says because I do not see it as totally accurate.

It does not take into account all the variances I cited before and you covered in your exposition. For me, it does not require a perfect dictated text to a perfect scribe from a perfect God and written in a perfect form transmitted down through the years so I can worship and use that perfect "received text" to have a perfect orthodox statement of faith with a Bible-----so perfectly big------it can be used to bash out the brains of anyone not believing in the perfection!Frankly, I know of no one the Bible claims to be perfect outside of Jesus--who, through faith, we believe to be the Messiah. Although the Bible gives reliable witness to this, the facts of scripture pale in comparison to the joy of salvation when one is willing to turn those facts into a living faith.If, today, an original manuscript were found, for example, which clearly stated: "Jesus and Mary Magdelene were lovers and married," it would not destroy my faith. It would simply enlarge my understanding of who Jesus really was and how our orthodoxy covered it over because Paul, for one, had serious sexual hang-ups and fully expected the End of the Age to come in his lifetime.

Then the Catholic Church turned his words into creed, said Peter was the first Pope (irregardless of how Peter and Paul had to part ways rather than fight all the time), made local priests lord and master of superstitious illiterate masses, raked in millions from each church, and still could not get along with the Greek segment of the Catholic Church.

When my professors pointed out how Paul's position softened in his older letters, it did not destroy my "perfect orthodox complete" faith--rather it gave me the knowledge that any real faith changes over time. Sometimes our perfect and arrogant theology of youth needs to grow an become more open to that which God is showing us every day.

I rejoice in getting a "C" on my Bible course at Emory, although I was "preacher's kid mad" at the time. It was on 2nd Isaiah's Suffering Servant--Was He The Christ?" I had used dad's concordances and Pulpit Commentaries--including C.F. Henry's books you quoted--in diligent research. I had "Jesus is the Suffering Servant" nailed down, annotated, all cross-referenced. I could win any debate on that issue with my paper.

I found my reason for an "average" grade when I read the note from the professor, son of the head of the University's Department of Religion, Dean Reese, which said: "You did an excellent presentation on the first half of the issue. You did NOTHING on the other side of the issue that Jesus might not be the Suffering Servant, therefore you got this grade. Just do better on your next paper! You have great potential."

That got my attention after the shock of a "C" when I knew I had given the best "A" paper ever--after all I was a life-long Baptist with perfect SS attendance and my daddy had every reference book a great preacher should have! Daddy was no dummy and could debate with the best of them. His belief was that heart and brain both needed to be baptized and dedicated to letting people know--in plain language--who God and Jesus really are.

To back this truth-telling up you need to know I was fired from 2 large churches of FBC caliber because I kept preaching the Bible, telling the truth in simple terms, convicting church leadership of their own state of sin and social exclusion, and I was not so fearful as to simply tell them what THEY WANTED TO HEAR! My dad had the same experience.

It proves to me we are often too busy kissing the feet of orthodoxy instead of seeking a living and breathing relationship to God and Christ with the Holy Spirit guiding our daily quest for truth, love, and peace.

I have found that peace despite severe disappointment with the Southern Baptist "demonimation" and its ignorant, egotistical, judgmental approach to religion. Too often we are attending a "Glorified Country Club" instead of a fellowship of believers who worship and work together in a "FELLOWSHIP OF FAITH AND LOVE."

Our growth is in decline. Our giving is to the point 600 IMB missionaries/staff will have to go because we can no longer support them.

Meanwhile, the heads of agencies are earning 3-figure incomes with perks and benefits doubling what actually shows. Our reasonable HMB headquarters on Spring Street (downtown Atlanta) has been transferred to a mega-million dollar campus in affluent Alpharetta---far removed from the street people of Atlanta / the airport / or anything resembling the poor and outcast Jesus associated with.

I fail to see how God could be happy with our arrogance and judging and doing what our Baptist founders despised most----having a Creed instead of an Autonomous general agreement on Theology while we sacrificially give to Missions as our prime goal.

We have drastically changed using Inerrancy as the rally cry. Our humble and dedicated leaders of the past--with a servant attitude--have been replaced with "little kings" at every corner. They would rather fly First Class everywhere and stay in 4-star Hotels than walk with dusty feet among the poor who need the Gospel.

If you and I truly believe in Autonomy, we will simply be friends with a slightly different view of Scripture. Otherwise, we will be bitter enemies so stuck in our different positions that we cannot appreciate how your view appeals to certain people while mine appeals to others.

Together we could reach 10,000 when our 2 churches are cooperating. Otherwise we are leading 5,000 away from the other 5,000 who could and should be helping one another fund missionaries. Our prime purpose, missions, used to win the lost we cannot win from our large church facility!

I think we will be friends!!! I pray we both have a special Christmas filled with love, joy, and peace!