July 23, 2001

COMMENTARY:
A flawed commentary
___By Kenneth Keathley
___This is a response to Mike Clingenpeel’s commentary, "A Confusing state of affairs" (online, June 25). In it, he reviews Jimmy Draper’s and my book, "Biblical Authority: The Critical Issue for the Body of Christ," and claims (1) that we present a deficient view of inspiration, (2) that conservatives who stood for inerrancy during the Southern Baptist Convention controversy were duplicitous and (3) that the moderates are the ones who actually have the higher view of Scripture.
___It is difficult for me to tell whether Clingenpeel is being facetious or if he is genuinely confused.
___Clingenpeel gives the impression that the view of inspiration of the Bible that is advocated in "Biblical Authority" is somehow new or different from what inerrantists have always believed. However, we present the same position on Scripture that was endorsed by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in 1978 and later was reiterated by the Southern Baptist Presidential Theological Study Committee in 1994. Surely he knows that.
___Clingenpeel makes an astonishing claim, saying, "I honestly believe I and most moderates have a higher view of Scripture than they do" (referring to Draper and me). If this were true, then I would be the first to rejoice and stand corrected. However, he bases this claim of bibliological superiority on his belief that not only were the authors of the original manuscripts inspired, but so were the "sleepy scribes" and "crafty editors" (his words) that copied them. As far as I know, the only ones to advocate this position are the King-James-only people (we address this error on pp.99-101). I doubt that Clingenpeel belongs to that camp.
___Much is made over the comment in the book that states that the words "inerrant" and "infallible" are not indispensable terms. Clingenpeel alleges that the "I" words were shibboleths used by the conservatives as tests of orthodoxy during the SBC controversy. He insinuates that since we no longer find the terms politically expedient, we are trying to quietly discard them. However, Draper’s statement was true when he originally made it in 1984 in the first edition of the book, and it is still true when he makes it this year in the revised edition. For example, Clingenpeel will search in vain to find the terms "inerrant" or "infallible" in the 2000 edition of the Baptist Faith & Message, though the essence of what those terms mean is clearly taught. The terms are dispensable; the concepts are not.
___The truth is that the position advocated in "Biblical Authority" is the historic position of the church in general and Baptists in particular and is completely within the bounds of the 2000 edition of the Baptist Faith & Message. Draper and I are inerrantists who argue that a scholarly exploration of the sacred text can be done in such a way that is both intellectually honest and spiritually faithful to the Bible as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
___One does not like to think that Clingenpeel is deliberately misstating our position. He begins and ends his commentary by stating that he is confused. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and believe him.

___Kenneth Keathley is assistant professor of theology and philosophy at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in New Orleans.

___


Get printer-friendly version of this story


Send this story to a friend

---

Contents/ Masthead / Why We're Here / Links / Archive / E-mail us/ SUBSCRIBE!