"The Heresy of Inerrancy Continues to Plague Southern Baptists”

by Henlee Barnette                                                                                                      Vol. VIII, No. 10, Nov./Dec. 1995

[Dr: Henlee Barnette is emeritus professor of Christian Ethos at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY. His article is reprinted from the Opinion page of Baptists Today, 21 September 1995. I have reproduced the entire article because it so clearly demonstrates both the vitriol and weakness of liberal attacks against the complete authority and accuracy of God's Word and also to preclude any concern that Dr. Barnette's words are taken out of context. My critique follows Dr. Barnette's article with comments keyed to the numbers in brackets throughout the article. TCP]

Almost every decade for the last 30 years, I have written an article on inerrancy as a biblical heresy. It's that tine again.

Despite the fact that a cursory reacting of the scriptures clearly indicates historical, scientific errors and discrepancies, [1] our Southern Baptist Convention leadership continues to hold inerrancy as a litmus test for fellowship and employment in agencies and institutions controlled by them. [2]

At Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, for example, all new, faculty appointees are required to profess belief in a form of inerrancy of the Bible. The Abstract of Principles, the seminary's governing theological document, nowhere bears the term inerrancy. It was never intended by the founding fathers to be literally interpreted

Hence it is (1) an abstract; (2) stated in principles, not rules; and (3) a compromise statement. For example, the committee in 1858 - in formulating the statement on the Bible - substituted 'authoritative' for ‘infallible.'

John A. Broadus, one of the most brilliant and thoroughly Christian of the founding fathers, did not believe in inerrancy of the Bible. He called attention to the fact that there are "spurious texts" in the New Testament and they should never be used as bases for sermons. [3] (See Broadus' lectures on preaching, The Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, pages 28-29, and his great commentary on Matthew, pages 376-377).

Neither the tern [5] nor the doctrine of inerrancy as claimed by fundamentalists is to be found in the scriptures. [6] Hence. it is not essential to salvation. Yet inerrancy is frequently used as it was used by the Roman Catholic Church - as an instrument of control and a heavy-handed means to ecclesiastical power by contemporary Southern Baptist fundamentalist leaders.

Southern Baptist fundamentalist inerrantists claim the Bible is inerrant as to text, history, science, and cosmology (verbatim, et literatim, et punctatim). They proclaim that the Bible, all 66 books, "are not errant in any area of reality." [7] This is itself heresy, as the bible clearly reveals.

1. The Bible is errant with many self contradictions. For examples: Genesis 50:13 has it that Jacob was buried at Machpelah but Acts 7:16 says at Shechem. [8] Matthew 27:2-5 asserts that Judas hanged himself; but Acts 1:18 states he fell down (‘flat on his face' in Greek) and his bowels burst out. In Matthew 27:7 the priests purchased the field where Judas was buried; but in acts 1:18 Judas bought the field. [9]

2. The Bible has errors in the field of science. For example, Matthew 13:32 claims the mustard seed is the smartest of all seeds; but scientists know this is not true. Many other seeds are smaller. [10]

Leviticus 11:4 says the camel must not be eaten by the people of Israel because it has no cloven foot. But in reality it is cloven-footed, having two toes on each foot. [11]

3. The Bible is not historically accurate. The Bible does not contain a scientific chronology of history. Biblical chronology, based on the genealogies, indicates that from Adam to Jesus about 4,000 yeas expired, from Jesus to the present about 2,000 years have passed. Scientists and anthropologists have shown that human life goes back for many thousands of years.

On the campus of Southern seminary, I discovered oolite limestone with microfossils from two to three million years old. Certainly the world did not begin in 4000 BC as claimed by Bishop Usher and stated in some Bible chronologies, especially Scofield's Bible where it is superimposed on the sacred text. [12]

4. The Bible is errant as to cosmology. Biblical writers thought of the universe as a three storied structure with heaven at the top, the earth in the middle, and sheol below the earth, inhabited by spirits of the dead.

Contrary to reality, the Bible teaches that the earth is flat and square in shape with an angel standing on each corner (Revelation 7:1, 20:8; Ezekiel 7:2; Isaiah 11:12).

And there is the view that the sun circles the earth (Joshua 1:12). [13] Galileo (1564-1642) called attention to this erroneous view of the world reflected in the Bible, and the church persecuted him.

These and many other discrepancies appear in many books of the Bible. (See Clayton Sullivan's book, Toward a Mature Faith: Does Biblical lnerrancy Make Sense?, available from BAPTISTS TODAY.)

Some fundamentalist leaders know the Bible is not inerrant, but use the theory as a smoke screen to gain ecclesiastical power and positions. When confronted by intellectually honest students of the Bible who insist there are discrepancies in the scriptures, those fundamentalists say, “Oh, we mean the autographs are inerrant."

Tine autographs are said to be the original manuscripts. But no such manuscripts have ever been found. If ever discovered, how can they be perfect? Will they not reflect the cultural thought forms and theology of the authors? [14]

Now these fundamentalists know that the truth about inerrancy is becoming known by honest and sincere people. Hence, some are talking about a “perfect" Bible. But only God is perfect, and Jesus Christ is the perfect Word (John 1:1ff).

We must discover the Word in the words of the Bible. [15] To make the Bible perfect and to give our ultimate loyalty to it is to worship a thing and not a person, Jesus Christ. This is called bibliolatry, the worship of a book.

The Bible is not a book of science, but of faith. It is divinely inspired and its truths endure forever. It is the record of the progressive revelation of God through the prophets., reaching a climax in the person of Jesus Christ, the Savior and supreme authority of our lives (Hebrews 1:1ff). The theological doctrines of the Bible are infallible, authoritative and sufficient for our salvation. [16]

Sixty-three years ago I was saved, born again, redeemed. For many years I never heard of inerrancy of the Bible. Now I have discovered there are 18 theories of inerrancies. In my judgment, they are all heretical and just so much theological trivia.

Some current lenders of the Southern Baptist Convention were once ardent "moderates." But they perceived that ecclesiastical power was falling to the hands of fundamentalists, and they preferred to switch rather than fight, so as to become ecclesiocrats in the new order.

How sad that many earnest, faithful Christians who seldom delve deeply into theological concepts are being duped and misled by others who deliberately and arrogantly misuse the issue of inerrancy as a tool to deceive others for political power.

Editorial Critique:

[1] One is tempted to suggest that, had Dr. Barnette read the Bible in a careful rather than cursory fashion, he would have come to quite different conclusions. However, I presume that what he intended was: "even a cursory reading..." We will consider his specific points below.

[2] Consider Dr. Barnette’s words carefully. First; he implies that there should be no 'litmus test" for employment in denominational institutions, no standards. But if that is so, why pay good money to support denominational institutions? Why not send seminary students to Harvard Divinity, Princeton, or Emory? If we have no firm beliefs, we could even contract out the missionary endeavor to the lowest bidder! Is the answer not that we maintain Southern Baptist institutions to support and foster the Southern Baptist understanding of the biblical message? Second, Barnette implies that fundamentalists have instituted "a litmus test." Let me suggest that until recently there had long (for decades) been a liberal litmus test and that Barnette's real problem is that the liberal litmus test has been replaced with a biblical one. Consider the following quote from none other than Cecil Sherman, national executive director of the uncooperative, non-Baptistic, quasi-denomination CBF. “'It would be war. Those things [widely divergent theological and doctrinal interpretations] don't live well together. For example, three fundamentalists and three nonfundamentalists at Southern Seminary would not make for a happy institution." (Religious Herald, 9 December 1982) Thus we see that in 1982 "fundamentalists" [read, those who believe the Bible is without error] were not welcome at Southern Seminary, according to Dr. Sherman.

[3] Barnette writes, “John A. Broadus... did not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible." This statement is incorrect as demonstrated by the following quote from Broadus: "The inspired writers learned many things by observation or inquiry, but they were preserved by the Holy Spirit from error, whether in learning or writing these things ... Those who concede errors in the Scriptures as to matters of fact, in order to remove conflict with some scientific opinion of our time, may tell us that they have great satisfaction in being at peace with science. But there are two drawbacks upon such a peace. It is the peace of sheer submission. ... And it is only a partial and temporary peace. Other scientific men at once make still further demands, tending ever toward the complete abandonment of the supernatural... If we assume that the inspiration of the Bible is only partial, where are we to stop? Every man must then select ab libitum what portions of the Bible's teachings he will accept as true."

[4] Barnette implies that "fundamentalists" claim inerrancy for current editions of the Bible, but that is a red herring, blowing smoke. Only the original documents were inerrant, and it is possible that in some instances “specious texts” have crept in. There are passages about which considerable doubt exists, and of course "they should never be used as bases for sermons." But let's put this matter in context. Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks in their book When Skeptics Ask (Victor books, 1989, p.160) write, "There are less than 40 places in the New Testament where we are really not certain which reading is original, but not one of these has any effect on a central doctrine of the faith."

[5] Nor does the term "trinity" appear in the Bible, but that fact does not invalidate the doctrine. Doctrinal labels such as "trinity” or "inerrancy" are simply brief titles we find useful for referring to a set of related ideas. In the case of "trinity" the set describes our understanding, based upon biblical texts, of a vital aspect of the nature of God. In the case of "inerrant" the set describes our understanding, based upon biblical texts (Dr. Barnette to the contrary notwithstanding), of a vital aspect of the nature of Scripture.

[6] I have a list of 80 scriptural references attesting one or more facets of scriptural inerrancy. Herewith just four: Isaiah 40:8 reads "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever." Jesus says in Matthew 5:18, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." And in John 10:34 Jesus said "...the Scripture cannot be broken." Finally, in II Timothy 3:16 Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." If these are not claims to inerrancy, language has no meaning!

[7] One thing this misattribution proves is that Dr. Barnette is certainly not inerrant! The statement that the biblical books “are not inerrant in any area of reality” was not made by anyone or any group Barnette could accurately characterize as “Southern Baptist fundamentalist inerrantists" as he does in this paragraph. Rather, it was issued on 22 October 1986 in what became known as the "Glorieta Statement” by the then-presidents of the six SBC seminaries: Russell Dilday, Southwestern; Harold Graves, Golden Gate; Milton Ferguson, Midwestern; Roy Honeycutt, Southern; Landrum Leavell, New Orleans; and Randall Lolley, Southeastern. Not one of these men could be called a “fundamentalist” and several fall into the “moderate” political camp. Perhaps it is best to quote the two pertinent paragraphs from the Glorieta Statement of the seminary presidents:

“We believe that Christianity is supernatural in its origin and history. We repudiate every theory of religion which denies the supernatural elements in our faith. The miracles of the Old and New Testaments are historical evidences of God's judgment, love, and redemption.

"We believe that the Bible is fully inspired; it is "God-breathed" (II Tim. 3:16), utterly unique. No other book or collection of books can justify that claim. The sixty-six books of the Bible are not errant in any area of reality. We hold to their infallible power and binding authority."

Dr. Barnette's judgment of this statement is, "This is itself heresy..."

[8] Where was Jacob buried? Barnette sees a "self contradiction" in the fact that Moses says Jacob was buried in the field of Machpelah, while Stephen stated that Jacob and "our fathers" were buried in Shechem. There are several possible explanations. Jacob was carried up from Egypt and buried shortly after the days of mourning for him had passed. But we know that Joseph's body remained in Egypt for some 300 or more years and was carried through the Exodus and returned to the Promised Land as he had desired, perhaps four centuries after Jacob's burial. Possible explanations include: (a) When Joseph and his brothers were reburied in Shechem, perhaps Jacob's mummy was reburied there also; and (b) A. T. Robertson, perhaps the greatest American Greek scholar, suggested that in Acts 7:15-16 the subject of "were carried" may be "our fathers" and may not be intended to include Jacob. In any event, it is clear that there are logical explanations and that there is no necessary "self contradiction."

[9] How did Judas die? Barnette notes that Matthew 27 states that Judas hanged himself while Acts 1 says he fell down and his bowels burst out. He characterizes this as a "self-contradiction." in the Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties (Regency Reference Library, Zondervan, 1982, p. 344) Gleason Archer suggests that both are true in that Judas hanged himself from a tree limb. Then, in the natural upheavals attending Jesus’ death the tree limb broke, Judas’ body fell, and the corpse was split open by the force of the fall.

Barnette also sees contradiction in these two chapters because Matthew asserts the priests bought the burial field whereas (quoting Barnette) "in Acts 1:18 Judas bought the field." Actually, the Acts text says "a" field, and it is quite possible that Judas bought one field while the priests bought another. Peter says Judas “purchased a field with the reward of iniquity.” There are several plausible explanations: (a) Judas could indeed have bought a field with the proceeds of stealing from the common purse of the disciples, for we are told he was a thief. (b) Peter may have been speaking ironically; Archer suggest this. Or (c) we may simply be reading an idiomatic expression. After all, when today we say someone has "bought the farm", we do not mean he has purchased rural real estate, but rather that he has died, probably in an accident. Peter was a fisherman, and it would not be surprising to find him speaking in everyday, idiomatic language.

[10] As an example of a scientific biblical error Barnette refers us to Jesus' statement in Matthew 13:32 that the mustard seed "is the least [smallest] of all seeds" whereas there are other smaller seeds. Archer deals with this (p. 329) questioning whether Jesus intended to address all plant life on earth or simply those seeds used by the Palestinians of His day.

[11] Barnette asserts biblical error by saying of the camel: "But in reality it is cloven-footed, having two toes on each foot." Rendered literally the Hebrew of verse three states: "a split hoof and splitting a split in the hoofs." We know that common Hebrew literary practice used repetition to emphasize and intensify meaning. Thus, the Hebrew stresses a completely split hoof. And in fact the camel's hoof is NOT completely cloven. To the eye it appears split, but actually it has a pad underneath the foot (analogous to a horse's "frog's which prevents it being a thoroughly split hoof. (Keil & Delitzsch, Comments on the Old Testament, Vol. 1, Eerdmans,1976, p. 358-9)

[12] Books have been written on this subject, and there is certainly not space here to deal adequately with it. Let me simply point out that it is impossible to prove either creationism or evolution using the scientific method. That method depends upon the careful observation of process, precise measurement of events, the ability to duplicate conditions in order to test and retest results, and the proposal of explanatory hypotheses based upon the foregoing. Note that neither creationists nor evolutionists are able to comply with ANY of these standards. The real difference rests in the assumptions with which each group approaches existing evidence (such as fossils): Creationists assume that the supernatural is possible; evolutionists assume it is not. Both approaches are matters of faith, not scientific proof. Consequently, creationists are inclined to take the Bible very seriously; evolutionists to disregard or even disdain its words. In fact, if one objectively sets down what he would expect in the, fossil record and other extant evidences based upon (1) creation and (2) evolution, the evidence we see conforms much more closely with the creation scenario. (If you are interested in further information on this subject, you may write or call The Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021; 619-448-0900; fax 619-448-3469. They will be glad to send you information about ICR, their free monthly publication Acts & Facts, and a catalogue of their books, tapes, and videos.)

Dr. Barnette discovered microfossils which he claims are "two to three million years old." But the dating is at best questionable. The fundamental standard by which evolutionists date fossils is by the rock strata in which they are found. BUT the fundamental standard by which evolutionists date the rock strata is by the fossils they contain! Does that strike you as a bit specious?

[13] Barnette asserts that biblical writers had a pre-scientific view of the earth and the universe, believing inter alia that the earth was flat with four comers and that the sun revolves around the earth. Interestingly he does not mention that Isaiah 40:22, written some 700 years before Christ, already knew that the earth is spherical: “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,..." Further, Job in answering Bildad (26:7) says, "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." Barnette also cites Joshua holding the view that the sun circles the earth. (His citation [ 1:12] is wrong. I assume it is a typo for 10:12.)

A professor of Dr. Barnette's extensive erudition and experience certainly knows better than the simplistic and misleading criticisms he presents in this passage. I can only assume that he is proceeding from an intentionally wooden literalism in order to attack inerrantists. The verses he cites are clearly figurative and/or perceptual language. The verse in Revelation (incidentally NOT Revelations as it appears in Barnette's article) is a description in human language of an overwhelming heavenly vision. In Rev. 7:1 John is obviously speaking figuratively. Do we not even today speak of the "four comers of the earth" meaning "all over the world"? And no one takes that to mean that the speaker believes the earth is flat! A similar comment applies to the Joshua passage. To a person standing on the earth's surface, the sun appears to circle the earth, and nontechnical language reflects that perception. What young swain sighs to his sweetheart of an evening, "Darling, look at the beautiful earth rotation!"? No, he says, "Look at the beautiful sunset." She does not conclude that he thinks the sun revolves around the earth!

Such patently spurious charges should be beneath a man of Dr. Barnette's education and experience. But the fact that he stoops to use them demonstrates the difficulty liberals have in finding legitimate grounds for criticizing inerrancy.

[14] In this paragraph Barnette demonstrates that he does not believe God inspired the words and theology of the biblical authors. He pokes fun at inerrantists by noting that the original manuscripts have never been found. But he ignores the wealth of early copies we do possess and the fact that almost all "errors" in Scripture have to do with spelling or other minor matters that have no impact upon doctrine or even with the non-doctrinal meaning of a passage.

[15] Here we reach the nub of Barnette's position: "WE (emphasis added) must discover the Words in the words of the Bible." To me that says, "God was not smart enough nor powerful enough to say exactly what He intended, but we are smart enough and able to discern what He should have said." As the current slang goes, gimme a break!

[16] For once I agree, at least in part, with Barnette: "The Bible is not a book of science but of faith." However, the Bible is also God-breathed (the literal meaning of "inspired" in II Timothy 3:16), and because God is perfect, His inspired Book is perfect. Where the Bible touches upon the physical world, it speaks truth .., just as it speaks truth in the theological realm. God is not merely God of theology, but of all aspects of reality including history, science, and everything else.

I conclude by quoting from The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy of October 1978:

Article X We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters upon which the biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's word.

Article XII We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Note: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics were published in The Baptist Banner, VI, #9, December 1993. Readers who wish to read the statements may find them on our website: On the homepage click on Articles from Past Issues. On the next index page click on Doctrine. A contribution to The Banner of any amount is NOT prerequisite but would be gratefully appreciated.