Avoiding reactionism is always important and never more so than in matters of theology. In the early 20th century with deep concerns about theological liberalism and cultural modernism a move to promote and protect the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith was launched. One might say that fundamentalism was itself a reactionary move. Larry Pettegrew writing on the history of fundamentalism defines historic fundamentalism as “The religious movement within American Protestantism that stresses the literal exposition of the fundamental doctrines of the Bible and the militant exposure of any deviance therefrom.”[1] One of the fundamental doctrines in question was the inerrancy of Scripture. A militant spirit prevailed among many fundamentalists to the point that a host of practicing theologians began to distance themselves from the spirit and hardline positions of fundamentalists. Considering the influences of theological liberalism, cultural modernism, and a reactionary distancing from fundamentalists, it is not surprising that the doctrine of inerrancy began to fall on hard times. Many in the Christian community including those in the Wesleyan tradition avoided the label and positions of fundamentalism. With one hundred or so years having passed since the birth of fundamentalism and the reactions to it, the consequences of a weakened position on the inerrancy of Scripture have begun to show, particularly among Wesleyans. Should the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture be the sole property of fundamentalism? Can a high view of Scripture also be held by those who do not hold to all the historic positions of fundamentalism? Even more specifically, is the inerrancy of Scripture a Calvinistic distinctive and not compatible with Wesleyanism? Trouble always seems to follow when our presuppositions get in the way. The first loyalty of a Wesleyan theologian or any other theologian is to let God be God and let His Word speak. The Scriptures have not been silent in the internal witness of their accuracy and inspiration. The classic text on the inspiration of Scripture gives us sure footing on this matter: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. (II Timothy 3:16.) Our embrace of the inspiration of Scripture will naturally bring us into fellowship with some in the Christian community while distancing us from others. With whom we stand in this doctrine is not nearly as important as that we stand for the inerrancy of Scripture. Inspiration & Inerrancy Defined Let us be clear on what we mean by inerrancy. Dr. Mark Bird provides a helpful definition of the inspiration of Scripture when he says, “Using the Bible writers' personalities, vocabularies, backgrounds, education, etc., God superintended their writings to enable them to write down exactly the words that He wanted to be in the Bible.”[2] In arguing for the plenary inspiration of Scripture, Charles Hodge reminds us that “Plenary is opposed to partial. The Church doctrine denies that inspiration is confined to parts of the Bible; and affirms that it applies to all the books of the sacred canon. It denies that the sacred writers were merely partially inspired; it asserts that they were fully inspired as to all that they teach, whether of doctrine or fact. They were infallible only as teachers, and when acting as the spokesmen of God.”[3] Dr. William Ury in his classroom lectures emphasized the totality of inspiration saying, “Inspiration pervades all Scripture and is for every people, every person, at all times—not just the parts of Scripture I like or the sections that are the nicest in my generation, but all Scripture is inspired by God.”[4] One must wonder how an orthodox Calvinist theologian like Hodge who lived and died well before the rise of the modern fundamentalist movement would be viewed by a Wesleyan who is uncommitted to the inerrancy of Scripture. Or how such a theologian might explain the presence of several Wesleyan theologians who helped shape The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy to succinctly state, “Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching.” A strong view on the inerrancy of Scripture does not leave you in bad company nor does it require you to check your mind at the door. Admittedly, it may require some work to resolve apparent conflicts in Scripture, but to acquiesce to a low view of Scripture has devastating consequences. Warnings The consequences of a lack of confidence in Scripture are real. Quoting Wilbur Dayton in his aforementioned paper on inerrancy, Dr. Bird quotes a strong warning from Dayton: Doubt or denial of inerrancy is historically accompanied by doubt or denial of other basic doctrines, widespread unbelief, a sick church, and vigorous and triumphant anti-Christian movements until recent times such doubt had little standing in the church. One wonders if the compromise on the Bible is not the wedge that opened the door for the massive unbelief that is sweeping over so much of the church today.[5] At stake in this inerrancy debate according to Vic Reasoner is the issue of Biblical authority. ”The ultimate issue for evangelical Wesleyans is not inerrancy. It is authority. Authority is the logical conclusion of divine inspiration.”[6] This is not just a fundamentalist issue; the authority of Scripture has implications for every soul! When the authority of Scripture is not firmly settled it seems inevitable that a neo-orthodoxy view of Scripture will emerge. In this view the Scriptures are not viewed as the Word of God, but rather they contain an inspired witness. The Bible can only become the Word of God if and when God chooses to use it to reveal himself. Propositional truth is dismissed in favor of an existential element which becomes very subjective and relative. One does not have to look far in the American church to see a lack of authority and an abundance of subjectivity in relationship to truth. This reality is only multiplied in the culture at large. To be sure, how Scripture works in our lives truly matters but Scripture must always have the final say, not our experiences. As Thomas Oden says, “Scripture and tradition are received, understood, and validated through personal experiences, but not arbitrated or censored by it. Rather, Scripture and tradition amid the living, worshiping community are the means by which and context in which one’s personal experiences are evaluated.”[7] Conclusion Inerrancy is not an issue confined to a particular theological camp such as Calvinists, nor is it to be held only by fiery fundamentalists. Inerrancy is the reasonable understanding of a Bible-believing Christian who takes God at His Word and believes the perfect character of God is reflected in His work of recording even the very words of Scripture. Is Inerrancy for Fundamentalists Only? Outline
2. Is the Doctrine of Inerrancy Reasonable? Is it reasonable to expect or believe that God has superintended the transmission of His Word through human agency without error? 3. Is the Doctrine of Inerrancy Traceable in Church History? Why have some embraced as others rejected inerrancy? 4. What Are the Consequences of Accepting or Rejecting Inerrancy? What has inerrancy safeguarded when embraced, what has it threatened when rejected? [1] Pettegrew, L. (2020, April 18). A Brief History of Fundamentalism. Shepherds Theological Seminary. https://shepherds.edu/a-brief-history-of-fundamentalism/ [2] Bird, Mark. “Inerrancy: Inspiration and the Test of Truth.” WTS Paper, March, 2015. http://www.wesleyantheology.com/inerrancy-and-wts.html [3] Hodge, Charles. 1997. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. [4] Dr. William Ury, Ury Systematics 1 (6, 2) Inspiration, Inerrancy, YouTube [5] Bird, Mark. “Inerrancy: Inspiration and the Test of Truth.” WTS Paper, March, 2015. http://www.wesleyantheology.com/inerrancy-and-wts.html [6] Vic Reasoner, The Importance of Inerrancy (Evansville: Fundamental Wesleyan Publishers, 2013), p.55. [7] Thomas C. Oden, Classic Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 1992,) p.180.
1 Comment
In the minds of some, discussing theology should be reserved for the classroom. Mistakenly, some think that theology has little to no relationship to everyday living. Having a proper understanding of God and the things of God and knowing how they relate to life is extremely important. This paper is an effort to explore how theology, particularly Wesleyan theology, informs a theologian in establishing theologically sound beliefs and practices using what is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.
Church history has shown John Wesley to be a practical theologian. According to Allan Coppedge, “Wesley’s concern that God’s truth actually be applied in everyday life led to his writing theology differently than classic systematic models. More like the writings of the early church, his pattern was developed in documents designed to meet the needs of the life of the church.” Wesley not only left a treasure trove of writings for the generations to come, he also provided a pattern to be used by others to do theological studies as they look for practical answers to questions relating to knowing and pleasing God. One of the helpful things about Wesley’s way of doing theology was it was not unnecessarily complicated and it was always practical. By contrast, the Avery Dulles theological method had numerous layers which included “the testimony of ancient Christian tradition, the prayer and worship of the Church, the opinions of other theologians, the sense of the faithful and the evidence of history, experience, or reason.” Wesley’s theology was based on scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. Similar to Wesley’s method was Sung Wook Chung’s six step theological method which included: 1.) Identify relevant texts; 2.) Exegesis: Grammatical/historical/cultural interpretation; 3.) Biblical-theological study; 4.) Integration of historical theology; 5.) Formulation of the doctrine; and 6.) Application of the doctrine to life, ministry and apologetics.” Wesley’s theology was based on scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. Scripture John Wesley was a man of one Book (and many books.) In the preface to the book Sermons on Several Occasions Wesley says, I want to know one thing, the way to heaven—how to land safe on that happy shore. God himself has condescended to teach the way: for this very end he came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book. O give me that book! Let me be homo unius libri. Here then I am, far from the busy ways of men. I sit down alone: only God is here. In his presence I open, I read his Book; for this end, to find the way to heaven. Wesley lived and breathed the scriptures until God’s thoughts became part of his thinking. He saw the Scriptures as his master and he saw them as the final authority for all religious matters. Similarly, those who would be true to the Wesleyan way of doing theology must see the authority and priority of Scripture. Furthermore, Scripture supersedes the other remaining factors in the quadrilateral in weight and importance. After Scripture, the Wesleyan theologian considers additional factors when a particular concern is not made clear or addressed in detail within the pages of God’s Word. Reason As creatures made in the image of God, man has the capacity to reason. Reason is not checked at the door when we live for God. Coppedge says it like this, “Since reason comes from God himself, Wesley felt that all true religion will be reasonable in essence.” Wesley went so far as to say that all irrational religion is false religion. A Wesleyan theologian understands that not every doctrine is explicit in Scripture. Some reasoning is involved in working through the various implications of God’s revelation. A good example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. This blessed doctrine has been developed by organizing various portions of Scripture to bring us to a reasonable conclusion. A faithful theologian in the Wesleyan tradition can never elevate reason above Scripture. When we have reached the limits of human reasoning our faith continues to hold to the God Whose thoughts are higher than our thoughts and Whose ways are higher than our ways. Tradition The third part of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is tradition. The tradition to which Wesley referred was so much more than church customs; it was the weightier matters of interpretation and application of Scripture and the formulation of doctrine. Like Wesley, a responsible theologian understands that tradition is not to be taken lightly. For a modern theologian to ignore how twenty centuries of Christians have understood and applied the Scriptures would be extremely arrogant. Although not rising to the same level as Scripture, the wise counsel of those who have lived before us can be a safeguard to our faulty thinking and limited perspective. “Wesley was willing to consult the great expositors of the church to assist him in his own interpretations of Scripture, it is clear he was not willing for them to become final authority in theological matters.” Experience Since God’s Word is to be put into practice in everyday life, it is important to consider experience in our development of sound theology. While keeping the authority of Scripture as our priority and using reason and tradition as guideposts, we would also do well to honestly assess the fruit or effects of our theology. Does it work? A Wesleyan theologian should be able to not only articulate a reasoned Scriptural basis for a doctrine, but should also be able to demonstrate the desirable outcome of such a belief system. If the Wesleyan theologian will, like Wesley, be a practical theologian, experience cannot be ignored. In proving all things and holding fast to what is good we will show ourselves to be faithful servants of Christ. Outline for Using the Wesleyan Quadrilateral Subject: Practical Christian Living Introduction: Every genuine child of God will want to please his/her Heavenly Father. But just like most children we have known, we have questions. What is right or wrong? Why do some Christians believe and practice some things while other Christians do not? The process of taking what the Bible teaches about knowing and pleasing God and then organizing it into practical ways to live is a form of theology. John Wesley did this in four basic ways. His system has become known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. The four components of that system were: Scripture, Reason, Tradition and Experience. This is a very helpful tool for finding a way to live a well-balanced Christian life. We could break it into four questions for just about any matter regarding our faith from what to do about issues of human life to something as specific as whether or not a Christian should consume alcohol. Question 1: (Scripture) What does God say about it? Are there specific Scriptures that deal explicitly with this topic? Question 2: (Reason) What are some reasonable conclusions from Scripture? Even if the Bible is not explicit on the matter, are there reasonable implications to be drawn from Scripture? Question 3: (Tradition) What has the church historically taught about this matter? Is there widespread agreement on this subject among God’s people? Question 4: (Experience) What have been the fruits of this teaching or practice? Does this help or hinder in loving God and loving others? Conclusion: Beliefs have consequences. What we believe and practice (our theology) really does matter. Sound doctrine based on good theology paves the way for meaningful and practical Christian living. |
AuthorI am a Christ-follower, a husband, father and pastor. ArchivesCategories |