Attacks on the Scriptures Disguised as Support for the Bible

(By John Henderson)
There are at least two ways to talk about bologna. A favorite way, especially among those who are trying to undermine an established belief, is to begin with the raising, feeding, and slaughter of the animals. That is followed by a description of the processing of the meats and animal parts involved—parts you would never eat otherwise— all the way through to plopping down a loaf of bologna for the slicer.

It is then sliced and packaged nicely and sold as sandwich meat. You know it is bologna but enjoy the sandwich meat so much that you never think about the ingredients—which if you did, you might find the “sandwich meat” unappealing.

I prefer to talk about bologna by telling you at the start that it is bologna and working back from there. You have a better chance of not becoming confused about whether or not I am always talking about bologna.

So, what is the bologna to which I refer? To be fair, I have to identify it by name, and that includes the name of the writer and who published it so you can check behind me if you wish. I intend no ridicule of the publisher or the writer because I am interested only in the content of the article.

The article was published in “Holiness Today,” September/October 2012 and was written by Al Truesdale. The name of the article is, “Why Wesleyans Aren’t Fundamentalists.” It is available online at  NCN News.

I call the article’s conclusions and arguments bologna because they are false or unnatural meat with no resemblance to the meat of the Word. It begins with a bias, uses a host of logical fallacies, and concludes with circular reasoning that uses its on premise as the evidence for its conclusions.
I begin with a clearly stated biases. My bias is this: Christians have no other source for what they know and believe about the things of God other than what is written in the Bible. That leaves writers who take the approach as represented in this article with no external sources of legitimate authority so they must rely on what they can conjure up philosophically. One cannot discredit the Scriptures by referencing the Scriptures, especially since they are internally self-evident.
They will argue, as is done here, that they actually represent the inspired Scriptures but by the time they are finished with the qualifications for their reasoning, one is still left questioning the whole Bible, if only portions of it.
Truesdale’s arguments are focused on the presumed inadequacies of the argument for the inspiration of the Scriptures by “fundamentalists” (whom he narrowly defines to suit his narrative) and the supposed adequacy of the “soteriological” inspiration of passages ensconced in a collection that is not ”soteriological”. By “presumed”, I mean that he makes no case for what he accepts as a given. It is as though what he says about those matters are self-evident based on his description of them.
There is no need for me to take apart his argument here. There are ample published repudiations that do that very well. I am looking only at the pattern of his logic and approach. His data are pre-biased because they are arbitrarily selected and narrowly defined to fit his narrative, rather than to fit his narrative to a more comprehensive understanding of key elements such as fundamentalism in a wider-ranging definition.
For example, he neglects to tell us that Nazarene leaders of a previous generation at least, boldly declared Nazarenes as being fundamentalists.
Also, he calls his position Wesleyan but never directly quotes John Wesley or any of the early Wesleyan leaders in support of his “soteriological” position on inspiration. In fact, he never supports his claims for “soteriological” inspiration either from the Scriptures or reason.
There is no definitive identification of the “soteriological” versus “non-soteriological” passages. Especially he has not demonstrated how a perfect, infallible God would allow such a mixture of iron and clay in the only Book that is the sole source of revelational truth about the things of God. He breaks down and tears apart but he never builds. He leaves us with no alternative, from his argument, but a Bible that is part-inspired and part-pagan. However Wesleyan the writer thinks himself to be, John Wesley has already spoken on this issue that contradicts the entire argument: “Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.” – John Wesley – Journal (24 July 1776).

For additional reference:

https://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/john-wesley-was-a-fundamentalist-a-rebuttal-to-dr-truesdales-argument/

https://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/square-peg-nonsense-in-false-theology/

https://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/nazarene-scholars-continue-to-undermine-belief-in-gods-word-with-evolutions-lie/

Advertisement

Nazarene Scholars Continue To Undermine Belief In God’s Word With Evolution’s Lie

“Theistic evolution is a concept being taught in many “evangelical” seminaries and colleges today. It is an idea that comes straight from the pit of hell. To believe that human evolution is true is to say that the Bible contains lies and myths, and that Adam and Eve were allegorical figures. If you teach and promote theistic evolution, you are calling God a liar. There is no middle ground here.”

This is my first article in almost two months, but I’m afraid things are just as bad as it was since my last post; the status quo in most of the evangelical denominations has not changed; and the Nazarene church is still in bad shape, notwithstanding any rosy reports from the General Superintendents or other leadership. Compromise seems to be the underlying principal for these religious leaders for quite some time now. Independent thought and true leadership is a thing of the past, as these General Superintendents continue to speak with one voice, or not speak at all, regardless of the truth.

In fact, the reluctance of the Generals to inform tithe-paying members about any details of the developing Nazarene Publishing House scandal, is a scandal and a moral and ethical failure in and of itself. I await further information before writing fully on this situation, but I can tell you that even those at NazNet (a Nazarene discussion site) who oppose us and disagree that there is a rebellion against God’s word within the church, are concerned and outraged at the continuing secrecy within the General Board regarding the financial debacle at the Publishing House. This link will take you to a discussion on NazNet that has broken all viewing records at that website, for any topic previously.

But let me alert you (again) to a further scandalous debacle that has been going on for a while now, and that is the promotion of theistic evolution in the church as an acceptable view of how we were created by God. The promotion of evolution by theology professors and other scholars, as well as by college and seminary presidents and district superintendents, goes to the heart of the problem in the Church of the Nazarene today. What is that problem? It is simply this: that men in the church are now standing on a foundation built on their wisdom and knowledge, rather than on the foundation of the teaching of God as written in His word. Selective belief in some scripture, while rejecting other parts, is the philosophy of these so-called “learned men and women”, even if they don’t state it overtly.

And now to show that it looks like the danger is worse than we thought. The group Nazarenes Exploring Evolution, lead by Tom Oord, professor of religion at Northwest Nazarene University, recently conducted an online survey. It involved the questioning of two demographics- a sampling of Nazarene laypeople, and a narrower sampling of Nazarene college scholars. Both results look pretty bad, and serves as a continued and even louder warning to parents who love their teenagers and want them to have a solid education that is grounded in truth. They will no longer be guaranteed to have that at any Nazarene university or college, including any of the seminaries.

Well known college presidents such as Dan Boone of Trevecca are fueling the advancement of the anti-biblical notion that man was created over millions of years of random evolutionary processes. Others pushing this godless idea which clearly contradicts the Biblical account include theological intellectuals like Al Truesdale, my former Greek New Testament professor; Scott Daniels, pastor of Pasadena First Church; retired professor Robert Branson; Kerry Fulcher and Mark Mann of Point Loma; Mark Winslow of Southern Nazarene; District Superintendent Stephen Borger; Carl Leth, Dean of Theology at Olivet Nazarene; Mark Maddix of Northwest Nazarene; Henry Spaulding, Mt. Vernon Nazarene President; theologian Rob Staples; and quite a few more “learned men and women”, who can be found at the Nazarenes Exploring Evolution site. **

** Update: The site has since been deleted, perhaps because of too much negative exposure.  However, searches on the wayback machine for “Nazarenes Exploring Evolution” will turn up many articles written by Dan Boone and others who support evolution. They span from 2013 to 2016. The following link will get you all the distinct web pages found when searching and will list each for you to check out: https://web.archive.org/web/*;type=text/exploringevolution.com/*
You have to be patient, sometimes searches are slow. You also need to understand how it works.  Resulting pages are usually documented in a calendar view, that shows you a specific date that an articles was entered.

Here is Thomas Oord’s project summation for Nazarenes Exploring Evolution; https://web.archive.org/web/20140517100539/http://exploringevolution.com/

These people are all responsible for helping indoctrinate countless students with theistic evolution, and their furtherance of this godless idea will lead to them being held accountable by God someday.  They need to repent, or they need to be removed from their positions of authority over our students.  Many of them have also been pushing the emergent church teachings. And do you wonder why so many young people are walking away from the church? Why wouldn’t they, when they are taught that they cannot trust God’s word?

In his article Poll Shows Nazarene Scholars Embracing Evolution, Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis summarizes the survey results:

Overwhelmingly, scholars at Nazarene institutions believe:

1) that the Bible does not require a belief in a young earth (nearly 95%)
2) that the Bible is compatible with evolutionary ideas (82%)
3) that science has established that the world is billions of years old (nearly 86%), 4) that human evolution is true (67%)
5) that the Nazarene church should consider theistic evolution as a valid alternative to biblical creation (87%).”

Those are very disturbing statistics, and the numbers for the first four questions, which were also posed to Nazarenes in general, were almost as ominous. To believe that human evolution is true is to say that the Bible contains lies and myths, and that Adam and Eve were allegorical figures. To believe that human evolution is true is to say that the Jesus was not truthful when he referred to Adam. To believe that human evolution is true is to say that sin and death did not come into the world through the disobedience of Adam, as written in Romans chapter 5.

So let’s be clear: if you teach and promote theistic evolution, you are calling God a liar. But it seems it will only get worse, and Bible-believing Christians will have to decide whether a secular college will be less dangerous to their children’s spiritual wellbeing than a “Christian” college or university. This whole bunch are some of the most dangerous people professing to be Christians today, and any parent sending their children to a Nazarene university or seminary today is literally gambling with their child’s spiritual health.

Dr. Ham, who has spoken out about and exposed these issues more than most Nazarenes have, went on to comment:

“This is clear evidence that a major denomination is teaching young people that they can’t trust the Bible when it comes to Genesis 1–11 and that fallible man can reinterpret God’s Word—thus man is the authority and not God.”

I agree. These men and women are a disgrace and not one of them should be in a position of authority that they are in, because they are misleading many.  The failure of the Nazarene General leadership in even attempting to right the ship makes them just as culpable, because they are allowing the erosion of Biblical standards by doing nothing- which seems to be all they are willing to do.

Addendum

What follows is the statistical report of both surveys, which are from the BioLogos website. (http://biologos.org/blog/nazarenes-on-evolution).   I found it very discouraging; you are free to make your own conclusions and decisions.

Poll of Nazarenes on Evolution

Question 1: Genesis and other biblical texts require Christians to believe the earth was created less than 15 thousand years ago.

Question 2: The Bible can properly be interpreted as compatible with the theory of biological evolution.

Question 3: Geology, astronomy, and physics have established that world is billions of years old.

Question 4: Humans likely became a species as God worked with the biological evolutionary process.

Among other things, this poll suggests that more Nazarenes today feel comfortable with evolution.

 

Nazarene Scholars on God Creating through Evolution

Question 1: Genesis and other biblical texts require Christians to believe the earth was created less than 15 thousand years ago.

Question 2: The Bible can properly be interpreted as compatible with the theory of biological evolution.

Question 3: Geology, astronomy, and physics have established that the world is billions of years old.

Question 4: Humans likely became a species as God worked with the evolutionary process.

Question 5: The Church of the Nazarene should allow the theory that God creates through evolution as one acceptable view of creation among others.

Square Peg Nonsense in False Theology

In the following guest article by John Henderson, he discusses a recent Nazarene pastoral training conference conducted by Dr. Al Truesdale, and material Truesdale used including a document by theologian Robert Branson.  In a previous post, I refuted Dr. Truesdale’s continuing attempts, along with others, to re-write history and say that Nazarenes were never fundamentalists.  Truesdale was my former Greek New Testament professor at ENC and was an excellent instructor, but he has it all wrong in the matter of scriptural inerrancy and John Wesley’s position on it.  The material from Dr. Branson is also very suspect and does not make any biblical sense, as John points out.  It is no surprise that both men are members of Nazarenes Exploring Evolution, which is trying very hard to make the heretical belief in evolution the de facto, unofficial position of the Church of the Nazarene.  We clearly need more theologians who are true to the Bible, and not their own imaginations.  Rev. Henderson has asked us the proper question here: How absolutely foolish can it become? 

Square Peg Nonsense in False Theology

Oct. 7, 2013, By John Henderson

How absolutely foolish can it become?  If the emergent movement ever beats folks such as I, it will be that they wear us down with foolishness, but never by reason or evidence of truth.  I came across what seemed to be a handout of sorts and assume it was at the recent pastoral training conference for the Nazarene’s Tennessee District conducted by Dr. Al Truesdale.

I actually came across two documents from that event.  One was Truesdale’s outline of his presentation wherein he appears to have attempted to trace the idea of “fundamentalism” historically by tying it into the John Darby movement of a pre-tribulation rapture and Calvinism.  I had received a notice of the event from the district office and responded politely that I could demonstrate historically that Nazarenes were traditionally fundamentalists right along with the Calvinists.  Also, the Church of the Nazarene does not take an official stand on the theories of millennialism but allows all three and their variations.

It seemed, from the outline, that Truesdale was attempting to teach that Nazarenes and John Wesley were never “fundamentalists.”   I do not wish to actually address that issue here because the idea is well-refuted in other places and I think I have dealt with it enough for the moment.  It is the second document that concerns me and I am puzzled that it would have been included in the presentation for any reason without rebuttal by the presenter, unless he supports its assertions.

It is a short document by Robert Branson, Emeritus Professor of Bible Studies, Olivet Nazarene University, August, 2013.  It is titled:  “A Day In the Wilderness (An Illustration of ‘accommodation’ in the Bible).”

It is presented in an imaginary setting of Moses entering the tent of meeting where he uttered a casual “Good morning, God.” And there was a table with parchments and pens.  God told Moses to write how He had created the universe.  I quote:

“’Before time and space began, before anything existed, thirteen billion years ago, I formed a singularity of tightly compacted energy and matter.  In three-thousands of a second it exploded sending energy and matter in all directions.  Time and space began.

“’I commanded gravity to collect the matter into billions of galaxies of stars.  The angels watched as giant red stars such as VY Canis Majoris and white dwarfs such as Siri​us B burst forth​ in light.  They were astonished as subatomic particles such as quarks formed hydrons such as protons and neutrons.

“’I shaped planets out of the remnants of stars and gave particular attention to the one I called Earth.  Four and half billion years ago it was a ball of molten lava which soon cooled.  Out of its toxic methane environment I caused the first living cells to form.  Then a little over two billion years ago blue-green algae formed and began to free oxygen into the air.  A billion years later invertebrate animals evolved and then vertebrate animals.  The Earth was alive with plant and animal life.  The oceans were filled with fish of every kind and description.  Soon humans would appear.’

“’Moses, are you getting all this down.  The parchment looks empty.’

“’Forgive me, God.  I have a question.’

“’Yes?’

“’What’s a billion?”

“After a few seconds of silence, God said, ‘Hmmm.  Get a clean sheet of parchment and write down these words.’

“’In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and…’”

It is extremely difficult to respond to utter foolishness, but I will try.

First, the imaginary setting is plagued with both scientific and theological errors.  The casual meeting between God and Moses is irreverent towards God.  That may have set the tone for the outlandish dialog that followed.  Compared to God, man is certainly not bright but the punch line seems to say that we are too dense to understand what an “educated” scientist easily grasps so God had to resort to a simplistic summary of sorts, knowing that we would manage to misinterpret it with fictional concoctions.

Not only does Dr. Branson need to revisit the Scriptures, but he should consider either getting his scientific data straight or leaving it to those who really understand research and discovery—the only thing “science” can actually do.

This is an anemic and silly attempt to promote the demonic doctrine of creation by evolution—a concept that the atheistic evolutionists reject.  In other words, phony theologians have bought into the atheistic ideas of evolution but vainly try to rationalize beyond reason to force-fit it into a wild idea that God was somehow behind it all.  Dr. Truesdale’s Square Peg  book was part of his presentation.  Talk about a square peg in a round hole, however, Dr. Branson’s attack on revelational truth takes the prize cake.  I wonder why it was part of the presentation.  I have one question.  How far is one willing to go to reject the plainness of the Scriptures?

Resource:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/10/20/debate-finally

John Wesley Was A Fundamentalist: A Rebuttal To Dr. Truesdale’s Argument

John Wesley was a fundamentalist.  He believed the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all that it teaches.  Let’s set the record straight.

“Wesleyans aren’t fundamentalists because that would require them to exchange a high doctrine of Scripture for a low one.”… “We shouldn’t ask the Church of the Nazarene, which is a Wesleyan denomination, to exchange its high doctrine of Scripture for a lesser one.”  (Al Truesdale)

These words by Dr. Al Truesdale in his article from Holiness Today (Why Wesleyans Aren’t Fundamentalists) sums up the thinking of some modern day Nazarene theologians who seem to be revising Nazarene history, as well as revising the history of John Wesley.  In this article, Dr. Truesdale flips things upside down and makes the incredible assertion that those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God in ALL that it teaches and affirms, have a low doctrine of Scripture.  For him, and other theologians in the Church of the Nazarene such as Thomas Oord, those who reject biblical inerrancy are the ones who have a higher view and doctrine of Scripture!

Dr. Truesdale was my Greek New Testament professor at Eastern Nazarene College in three classes. Greek New Testament was my favorite subject at ENC, and he was an excellent teacher whom I greatly respected.  But I am afraid he is wrong in much of what he asserts here.  As I spent some time thinking on what approach I would respond, of which there were several, I received the following from my friend Allen Marsh.  It addresses one of the approaches I was contemplating for a rebuttal, which would deal with the historical aspects of the views of Wesley and fundamentalists.  Another approach would also be to deal with the question of whether the Bible is fully inerrant in ALL that it teaches.  Allen’s approach in his writing was solely to address historical accuracy, and here is what he wrote:

(by Allen Marsh)

 “Why Wesleyans Aren’t Fundamentalists” has much good information.  It also contains errors.

The very first sentence is opposite of fact—that fundamentalists have a low view of Scripture (inerrancy) and Wesleyans (certainly not all) have a high view (the Bible has errors).  To believe the Bible IS the Word of God is a high view while to believe the Bible only CONTAINS or BECOMES in certain situations the Word of God but contains errors is a low view.

According to the article, John Wesley, early Methodists, and the early Nazarenes had a low view of Scripture.  I will here argue for historical accuracy, not to prove inerrancy.

Wesley wrote:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (consequently, all Scripture is infallibly true).”

“We know, ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,’ and is therefore true and right concerning all things.”

“[I]f there be any mistakes in the Bible there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.”

“Will not the allowing there is any error in Scripture shake the authority of the whole?”

Here are two examples from Methodism:

Adam Clarke stated:

“Men may err, but the Scriptures cannot; for it is the Word of God himself, who can neither mistake, deceive, nor be deceived.”

Richard Watson (1781-1833), the first systematic theologian of Methodism, stated that the authority of scripture “secures the Scriptures from all error both as to the subjects spoken and the manner of expressing them.”

Following are a few examples regarding early Nazarenes and inerrancy:

Many of the early Nazarene leaders came out of the Methodist Church during the conflict in the early 1900’s referenced in the article. They stood unequivocally for biblical inerrancy.  E. P. Ellyson, in his Theological Compend, wrote, “The Holy Spirit knows all the truths of nature, and would not inspire an untruth.”  “Logically and morally we are as much bound by the geological writings of Moses as by the theological writings of Saint Paul.”

 

As late as 1948 Ross Price wrote in the Herald of Holiness, “Our Lord…assumed the absolute truth of the Scripture…. The Bible is correct astronomically, geologically, historically, medically, botanically, zoologically, meterologically, prophetically, and spiritually.” (29 Nov. 1948).

Not until the 1960’s did soteriological inerrancy become the Nazarene view in academic circles although it was first suggested in the 1930’s.  That view is taught in academic circles but not to the general public.  The adult Sunday school lessons for the Fall of 2010 taught Genesis 1-11 as historical, not fictional.  Try teaching soteriological inerrancy to the tribes of third-world countries.

For one thorough study of this, see “Eighty Years of Changing Definitions in the Church of the Nazarene” by Dr. Daryl McCarthy.

The above information reveals the fallacy of most of the article’s other arguments, but I want to speak to one more.

The author says, “God himself, not information about him, is the primary content of revelation.”  He says fundamentalists are concerned with facts about God while Wesleyans are concerned with relationship with God.  How can you know a person without knowing information about him?  You can’t.  The more you know about the person, the better you know him.

The author said that “not everything in the Bible is essential to God’s self-disclosure.”  But it is.  The Bible says He created the heavens—He is greater than that.  It discloses God’s power, wisdom, holiness, love, mercy, justice, creativity, organization, attention to detail, etc.  God is truth.  His written word is “God-breathed,” true in its entirety when understood as it was written. There are problems with translations and there are problems with interpretations, but that the Bible is inerrant is the historic Wesleyan and Nazarene position.

Dr. Gleason L. Archer said that “almost every problem in Scripture that has been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself.”  And Dr. John Warwick Montgomery said, “I myself have never encountered an alleged contradiction in the Bible which could not be cleared up by the use of the original language of the Scriptures and/or by the use of accepted principles of literary and historical interpretation.” 

To be honest, those promoting soteriological inerrancy only should say they have changed from what our founders believed.

Additional Resources:

https://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/biblical-inerrancy/

http://www.fwponline.cc/v16n2/v16n2reasonera.html

https://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/inerrancy-and-wesleyanism/

http://www.fwponline.cc/arm_extend/Inerrancy_01.pdf