“Moderate” Views of Scripture

                                                                                                                                                                      Vol. X, No. 2, February 1997

           “Anti-Heritage” continues to present the views of those who question the authority of God’s Word because, until the average Southern Baptist reads them for himself, he cannot believe some Baptists actually hold such views. Therefore, we bring you direct quotes whenever possible and as fully as space permits. In addition the source is always cited so that readers can check it out for themselves.

           The selection below is from the book, Southern Baptists Observed, Nancy Tatom Ammerman, ed. Each chapter of the book is by a different author. The chapter we quote is “Southern Baptists and the Bible” written by Joe E. Barnhart, Ph. D., a professor of philosophy at the University of North Texas. Both Ammerman and Barnhart are well-known “moderates.” Our quote is found on pp 131 and 140-1. Bold print has been added.

           It is perhaps over the question of extrabiblical sources that the scholars and leaders of the fundamentalists stand in sharpest disagreement with many moderate leaders and scholars. The inerrantists are exceedingly reluctant to acknowledge that the biblical writers drew ideas, images, and conclusions from a variety of human sources, whether written or oral. For them special revelation is a miraculous supernatural intervention into human history, not an example of religious and moral evolution. Far from depending on human culture, it rejects the heathen cultures surrounding the Hebrews and Christians. The noninerrantists’ quest for extrabiblical sources and parallels of Scripture is regarded as the Enemy’s drive to dilute the specialness of special revelation and to rob it of its supernatural authority and content.

           The moderate scholars who claim that the first eleven chapter of Genesis are not a historical narrative seem to divide roughly into two groups. The first group agrees somewhat with the extended inerrantists in asserting that the author thought he or she was writing an actual historical narrative. The moderates of this group then add that the author/redactor was clearly wrong in thinking he was writing a historical account. These scholars do not, therefore, describe the Bible as inerrant. The second group of moderates argues that the author/redactor of Genesis 1-11 used a highly poetic and dramatic genre, not a historical narrative, to express his or her theistic and providential view of the universe. The author was not in error in doing this, they contend. Those who insist on reading the chapters as a historical narrative have simply mistaken one genre for another.

[Editorial Comment: Notice that Barnhart clearly indicates in the first paragraph above that moderate scholars believe the Bible is “an example of religious and moral evolution.” In the second paragraph Barnhart divides moderate scholars into two subgroups with the first holding that biblical authors erroneously thought they were writing history, and the second group maintaining that biblical writers knew they were not writing actual history but were merely employing “highly poetic and dramatic genre” to express a human view of the universe. Thus moderate scholars, according to Barnhart, one of their own, regard the Bible as little more than a somewhat more serious work of the nature of Aesop’s Fables, interesting fictional stories but which often convey a moral point.

           Contrast these views with the historical and orthodox view of Scripture set forth in this month’s “Heritage.” TCP]