I want to know JESUS About the SBC Contact  
 Information and Inspiration on Issues of Importance to Baptists
Sixth and Final Report of the SBC Funding Study
The Fifth and Final Report of the SBC
Stand For Marriage
Final Report of Ad Hoc CP Committee
Final Report of Ad Hoc CP Committee (Appendices)
Cooperative Program Advance Plan
Fourth Report of the SBC Funding Study Committee
Review of NOBTS's Sole Membership Charter Amend.
Response to reservations about sole membership
Reservations Concerning a Charter Amendment Prop.
Sole Membership - A Florida Laymanís Perspecti
A Letter to Dr. Denton Lotz
Letter from Albert W. Wardin
The Relation of the SBC to its Entities
SBC Funding Study - State of Giving
What is Sole Membership?
Sole Membership
Letter to Missouri Churches
Questions and Answers
Behind the Scenes at the SBC
Response by Morris H. Chapman to the BGCT
Does It Matter What Missionaries Believe?
Letter to the Baptist Standard
On Facts and Fallacies
Letter by SBC EC President to Dr. James L. Hill
A View from the Other Side
Carter's rift with SBC not a new development
SBTS Response to BGCT Seminary Study Committee
Response to BGCT Seminary Study Committee Report
SBTS Response to BGCT Seminary Study Committee
Exec. Comm. Interacts with BGCT Funding Proposal
The Pastor's Point of View on the BGCT
Feasibility Study for Name Change
Report of the SBC Peace Committee
Doctrine, Cooperation, and Association
Report to the Fellowship of Deacons
Too High a View of Scripture?
The Truth about the SBC and Texas
Christ, The Bible, and Human Experience
Bibliolatry ó A Fraudulent Accusation
BFM - Still Thoroughly Baptist!
Texas First, Texas Only - Not the Spirit
Anti-SBC Leaders Threaten Cooperative Program
Southern Baptists and Women Pastors
The Root of the SBC Controversy
Your Church Reaching the World for Christ
Together We're Carrying Out the Great Commission
Doctrinal integrity paramount for Serminary
Have Baptists replaced Jesus with a book?
Why theology matters for the Great Commission task
A survey of the 2000 BFM
Baptists, the Bible and confessions
Southern Seminary and the Abstract of Principles
An Open Letter to Southern Baptists
A Statement About the Baptist Faith & Message
An Example of the Need to Change The BFM
Incredible Vanishing Corporations
Committee on Cooperation - Report and Findings
An Open Letter from Dr. Allen to Dr. Wade
Why Cooperate?
The Southern Baptist Convention is Alive and Well
Letter by SBCEC President to TX Church Leaders
  Home > Reports, Articles & Papers
Selected Quote

"There should be an 'Abstract of Principles', or careful statement of theological belief, which every professor in such an institution must sign when inaugurated, so as to guard against the rise of erroneous and injurious instruction in such a seat of sacred learning."

James P. Boyce
from "Three Changes in
Theological Institutions"
- summarized by John Broadus, 1856

An Example of the Need to Change The Baptist Faith and Message Statement on the Scriptures
by Dr. Randy White

A Response by Dr. Randy White
Pastor, First Baptist Church of Pampa, TX
November, 2002

The following answers about the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message were made in response to questions posed by a student's letter to Dr. Randy White, Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Pampa, TX

The 1963 Baptist Faith and Message statement on the scriptures said "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" This statement was removed--at the disdain of moderate Baptists. It was substituted with " All scripture is testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation." The moderates said that fundamentalists were "placing the Bible over Jesus," a preposterous claim. They were really creating a "straw man" to fight--since no one in the conservative camp ever suggested anything to the effect of the Bible over Jesus.

The problem with the earlier statement is not that it was wrong, but that it opened up a door to go almost anywhere. One could say "the criterion of biblical interpretation is Jesus, and I think Jesus would have said or done..." This statement could then go almost anywhere with nothing to tie it to truth.

Now, to prove I am not creating a "straw man" argument of something that never happened, I bring up my Southwestern Seminary text from Old Testament Survey written by LaSor, Hubbard and Bush1. Notice how the authors give themselves tremendous liberty in Old Testament interpretation by using their view of Jesus as the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted:

"Compared to the viewpoint of most of his Jewish contemporaries, Christ's approach to the Old Testament is dynamic, not static. He looked upon the Old Testament not as a catalogue of fixed principles regulating religious conduct, but as the inspired and authoritative record of God's activity in history, an activity which presses toward its denouement in his coming kingdom. As Jesus' words are spirit and life (John 6:63), so the Old Testament when viewed with his insights becomes a guide to life (John 5:39)." (LaSor...page 2).

Now, notice that they are saying that "we think Jesus would have interpreted the Old Testament and a very fluid manner, thus we are going to do the same." Now the door is wide open to do whatever you want with whatever the Old Testament says.

With this door now open, the text's authors go through it quickly.

Let me give several examples. Their interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is that this section, "is not 'history' in the modern sense...rather, it conveys theological truths...portrayed in a largely symbolic, pictorial literary genre." (LaSor...pg. 74). I believe I would be correct in paraphrasing that statement to mean that what we read in Gen. 1-11 about creation, the flood, etc., is not necessarily to be taken historically like we would take an account of the civil war, but rather symbolically. That is, there are theological truths that are accurate, but specific teachings of 24 hour days, 40 days and nights of rain, etc. are just symbolic.

We can go further. The book's interpretation of Genesis 1-2 (the creation) was that these chapters teach that there was, "special divine intervention in the production of the first man and woman."
(pg. 72). This position clearly allows one to take an evolutionary approach to the creation of man, because you "intervene" on something already taking place.

Further, with the interpretation the text took on the Old Testament, a literal interpretation of the text is not necessary in any way.

The text even mocked the idea of literally interpreting Genesis 1-2, saying, "Adam means 'mankind' and Eve is '(she who give) life'.

Surely, when the author of a story names the principle characters Mankind and Life, something is conveyed about the degree of literalness intended!" (pg. 72).

The 1963 statement, though well intentioned, left a wide-open door to liberalism. Professors went through that door, even at Southwestern which remained one of the more conservative seminaries. This text from my 1987 Old Testament class stands as proof that the statement needed to be removed from the BF&M. Further, it was a statement which was only in the '63 version--not in the 1925 or the documents that preceded it, so that statement was not a historical Baptist position.

Dr. Randy White, Pastor
First Baptist Church
Pampa, TX

Back to Top of PageBack to Top
Print PagePrinter Friendly version

Copyright © 1999-2023, Southern Baptist Convention.
All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use
Website Comments?