Monday, February 20, 2006

Rankin and Inerrancy


Jerry Rankin, head of the Internation Mission Board (IMB) for the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) just said: "I made comment that I just don't see how you can be an inerrantist and be a cessationist" (see www.bpnews.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22683). I find this comment absurd. With this issue, like many others, it isn't just the conclusion someone comes to, but the way they get there.
For example, take the issue of women pastors. A dissertation I read from Fuller Theological Seminary basically concluded that Gal 3:28 is Paul's main verse on gender; anything that does not agree with that was not written by Paul and should not be considered as inspired (or canonical ... one of those). That guy came to the conclusion in a way which he can not be an inerrantist. However, it is possible for someone to come up with some fascinating historical background to re-interpret 1 Tim 2 by and thus preserve their view that women can be pastors AND innerrancy.
My point: it's the way the conclusion is reached, not the conclusion itself. I find Rankin's statement ridiculous.

7 comments:

Alan S. Bandy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dacroteau said...

Exactly my point! According to Rankin, I'm not an inerrantist?!?! No wonder he's got people gunning for him. He just called most of the SBC 'errantists'.

Mowens said...

Rankin says:
"because I believe in the inerrancy of the Scripture, that the Scripture's eternally relevant, that, you know as long as the Holy Spirit is operable in our lives and in the church and in the world, you know, what the Bible tells about the work and functioning of the Holy Spirit is applicable."

Is it just me or this not the doctrine of inerrancy we learned in Seminary?

BTW, welcome to the blogosphere, David:-) You might be interested in this blog:
free-grace.blogspot.com


Blessings,
MO

Alan S. Bandy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alan S. Bandy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dacroteau said...

Good point Alan ... while most in the SBC may not define themselves as cessationists ... they may not even know what it means ... they are pragmatic cessationists and I would think they would not want to support those speaking in tongues: privately or corporately.

Furthermore, I understand what you are getting at with the 'spirit' of what he said. I read that thing abou 5 times. I've never heard the man speak before, but he doesn't seem to well at the word getting out of the mouth of him, thing ... that is, he was kind of confusing.

Mowens said...

I was actually trying to make a subtle point about "DR" Rankin. It seems to have been received.