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
Eric Kuhns
5/26/2022 09:24:29 pm
This is certainly not an issue to be monopolized by the Fundamentalist or Calvanists. Without an innerrant Bible, we have absolutely nothing to fight with, to stand on, or to hope in. We are left with rags. To allow for fallability is to open the door to the Devil to exchange truth for falsehoods. The authors were human, frail and imperfect, yes. But just like God protected Daniel from the lions, protected Israel from the plagues of Egypt and protected Paul from a snake bite, He has certainly protected His Word from any error or manipulation. It is all truth and breathed by God!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am a Christ-follower, a husband, father and pastor. ArchivesCategories |