Inerrancy And The Wesleyan Tradition
June 11, 2009
Over the past few years, I have been spiritually troubled by an increasingly popular implication that not “all scripture is breathed by God” (2 Tim. 3:16). I have come to an understanding of the inerrancy of God’s Word, in all matters, as essential to the faith. Though there are those who do not see the point in explaining the original autograph manuscripts which we have not seen, yet out of reverence for the sovereign knowledge of the Author, I believe it is essential we defend them.
Though I consider its message of salvation and holiness as the purpose for which this book was “breathed by God,” I do not undermine its Author’s ability to communicate to mankind a message free from errors in history, geography, science, or any other subjects. There is no doubt that the Bible is a book of God’s redemptive plan. However, we cannot ignore the fact that this redemptive plan involves a history, a place in which it unfolds, and, often, science plays a role. To bring in to question any of these “other topics” will undoubtedly affect the central message, as it is inextricably linked. It must all be a part of the affirmation, “All scripture is breathed by God.”
In simple terms, I will attempt to bring understanding to all that I have stated thus far. On the side of a packet of bottled water, I noted the slogan “pure, refreshing and invigorating.” There is no doubt that one who drinks bottled water does so that he may be refreshed. Furthermore, that person would expect the water to be pure. This is the purpose of bottled water.
However, here is a question many have not considered, “Is the bottle clean?” Let us consider the history, the geography and science of the bottle. Imagine if the manufacturers of bottled water added in small print under their slogan, this following remark:
We are not concerned with the scientific composition of the bottle itself. Furthermore, we are unsure of the historical facts regarding the handling of this bottle, and may have been misinformed as to its origin. Nevertheless, we ensure you its contents are pure.
Immediately, the consumer would suspect that the water is no longer pure, because the bottle was subject to contamination. Though he or she may have picked up the bottle only because they merely wished to be refreshed, an awareness of potential error in the science, history and geography of the bottle, has caused the very content to come under question.
As the pure bottled water is the source of refreshment to the consumer, the living water is the source of life to those who believe. Jesus the Word stated, “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10b). In a nutshell, this is the message of salvation and entire sanctification that has been held so dear by Wesleyans over the past two and a half centuries. However, this message has been encased in “time and space.” It was stated at a certain time in history and in a certain place. Furthermore, it establishes Jesus as the great Life Giver, the one who breathed life into man at the beginning of time (Gen 2:7; Col 1:16-17). This life that Jesus offers in John’s gospel is essentially spiritual, but in Genesis he was involved in the creation of physical life. Therefore, science is also involved.
If an absolute standard of inerrancy is not held, and only the message of salvation and holiness is considered valid, then this will lead to a corruption of the message itself. As a contaminated bottle will serve to corrupt its contents, so will a contaminated history, geography or science corrupt the message for the hearer of the Word. To question the historicity of a statement or the place in which a statement is made will only lead to the inevitable doubt of the validity of the statement itself. Which court would accept a statement as truth in which the witness is vulnerable to making errors in recollection of events and places? Would not the ruling be “insufficient evidence”? Yet the Bible is regarded by its Author as “sufficient” in all matters. “All scripture is breathed by God.”
This is the traditional belief of Wesleyans throughout the centuries. In a sermon entitled, “On Charity,” John Wesley states, “We know, ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,’ and is therefore true and right concerning all things.” It is quite clear that Wesley understood that “all scripture” meant “all things” in the Word. However, were these “things” so connected that an error in history, geography or science would affect the central message? When reviewing a tract entitled, “Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion,” by Soame Jenyns which undermined inerrancy, Wesley wrote in his Journal for 24 July 1776:
If he is a Christian, he betrays his own cause by averring that “All Scripture is not given by inspiration of God, but the writers of it were sometimes left to themselves, and consequently made some mistakes.” 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.
It is evident in this statement that Wesley believed that the admittance of “any mistakes” would affect the very “truth” that God wishes to reveal. Therefore, I am sure that John Wesley would ascribe to my analogy of bottled water.
Secondly, we must review those prominent theologians in a movement to trace the consistency of its doctrine. Adam Clarke concurred with Wesley’s view on inerrancy. He 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, 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.”
However, the great debate of inerrancy never began to take its toll until the last century. It began in the early 1900s and culminated in the 1970s when “historical skeptics” attacked the Word of God as unreliable in matters of science and history. As a response, some Wesleyans have fled from the bastion of inerrancy in all matters, to the wilderness of what they would call “soteriological inerrancy.” This is to say that they have created a doctrine contrary to the truths held by the fathers of the Wesleyan movement.
However, just what is this new view on inerrancy? Rob L. Staples, a proponent of soteriological inerrancy, wrote, “For Wesleyanism, the basic theological question is: ‘What must I do to be saved?'” Therefore, he surmises, that “Wesleyans” need only be concerned about inerrancy as regards the message of salvation. Staples even goes so far as to quote John Wesley for support: “I want to know one thing, the way to heaven ‘how to land safe on that happy shore.'”
Although Staples’ motives may be pure, there are two areas of immediate concern. First, the door has been left open for error in “other things” in scripture that Wesley himself considered inextricably linked to the message itself. Though the “way to heaven” is the pure water of the Word, one cannot avoid the fact that this message is linked with the bottle of “time and space.” To do so, would be to commit an intellectual suicide. Secondly, it is a sweeping statement of little historical merit to use the term “Wesleyans.” As we have seen, both the founder and its early theologians would disagree that this movement would support such a theological stance.
Furthermore, Dr. Staples stated, “We in the Wesleyan tradition have avoided the divisiveness some denominations have suffered whenever the “inerrancy” issue has reared its ugly head” [Words of Faith, p. 21].
Once again, there is a contradiction here. “Soteriological inerrancy” is a divisive theology that has crept into Wesleyan denominations. H. Ray Dunning, wrote concerning the Nazarene statement of faith concerning “The Holy Scriptures,”
While some Nazarenes interpret this to imply full authority in the broadest sense… other Nazarene sources allow a more restricted interpretation, defining it as extending to the whole canon; in terms of the content of scripture, to the soteriological aspects of the Bible, that is, it holds that the way of salvation set forth in Scripture is completely reliable and dependable [Grace, Faith, and Holiness, p. 72].
In other words, we have those that hold to the Wesleyan belief that “all scripture is breathed by God” and those that would settle for less: pure water in a potentially dirty bottle.
This leaves only one question to be asked: If doubt as to the total inerrancy of God’s Word does not have its roots in the Wesleyan tradition, from where did this understanding originate? I believe we find this theology in the Garden of Eden. It is the original temptation. Eve had wandered too close to “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” For her waywardness, she would suffer temptation at the hands of the serpent. Instead of the inspired Word, she now will be tempted to settle for something less – the inspired snake of the evil one. He states his doctrine of doubt, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?'” (Gen 3:1).
Notice, the serpent does not make a direct statement, such as “God did not say . . . .” He simply implies that it may not be true when he questions the validity of God’s statement. This is what I call “the power of suggestion.”
If the evangelist of soteriological inerrancy proclaims that only the message need be true, has he not wandered too closely to the tree? He may argue at this point that the question of the serpent need not be historical or that the creation account is allegorical. However, if he listens carefully to his “own understanding” he will find that he has not trusted God’s Word, but echoed the voice of the evil one (see Prov 3:5-8). After all, to deny the validity of history is to bring into question the message. In other words, if there was neither “time” nor “space” when God spoke those words, then the next question to ask is: “Did he really speak them?”
In the garden, the Word of God was doubted and the rest is history. Adam and Eve were cast into a wilderness because they bought into the lie. They had traded the pure waters of Eden, for the murky waters of the wilderness. If we begin to doubt the pure water of the Word and all that is inextricably linked, we will end up drinking the contaminated waters in the wilderness of doubt. One doctrine after another will fall. Furthermore, we will put ourselves in a very dangerous position before the Author and Judge, Jesus Christ. A. W. Tozer proclaimed:
Let a man question the inspiration of the Scriptures and a curious, even monstrous, inversion takes place: thereafter he judges the Word instead of letting the Word judge him; he determines what the Word should teach instead of permitting it to determine what he should believe; he edits, amends, strikes out, adds at his pleasure; but always he sits above the Word and makes it amenable to him instead of kneeling before God and becoming amenable to the Word.
Once any detail in the Word is doubted, then the doubter has permitted himself to judge that which will judge him. He begins to pick and choose what is true, and that what is false. He has attempted to set his throne higher than the Almighty: The One who has promised, “till heaven and earth pass away, one jot (the smallest letters in the Hebrew alphabet) or one tittle (accents and diacritical points) will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (Luke 4:36). It is then that the door is opened and in creeps heresy.
At the outset of his book, The Story of God, Michael Lodahl, professor of theology at Point Loma Nazarene University, writes
In many ways, it’s the same way anyone’s story gets told – except that this is a very old story, told over a considerable length of time with many tellers, twists, and complications, and with a rather unobtrusive main Character (God) who seems not to be overly concerned that we get the Story “just right” in every detail [p. 16].
Notice in the last sentence the word “seems” is used. The use of this verb does not create a direct statement. If he had used the verb “is” and the statement was straightforward in nature – “God is not concerned that we get the Story right,” then there would probably be an outcry. But here we have the power of suggestion: “God seems not to be overly concerned that we get the Story “just right.” And, as I have already stated, suggestion is more enticing. In other words, he gives you enough to begin to doubt. The door of doubt is open and now we as readers are invited to become the judge of the Word. You pick and choose what “details” are right.
As we are led into the wilderness of this book, the water itself begins to become contaminated; not just the “Story,” but the message itself. In his search for an answer to God’s judgment of water at the time of Noah, we are given a heretical “implication” by Lodahl: “There is an unavoidable implication in the story of the Flood, however, that it is that God was learning through experience about human beings of His own making.”
After this remark, Lodahl attempts to soften the blow: “This does not square with traditional notions of divine omniscience, but this need not be overly bothersome” [p. 97]. For those who still drink of the water of the Word from the Garden of Sound Doctrine, it must be bothersome! After all, Lodahl has just attempted to diminish the omniscient God of scripture. Instead of a God who is all-knowing, Lodahl has given us the option of another god, in our image, who is “learning through experiences” – a humanistic god. That is a breach of the sovereignty of the Almighty! Furthermore, it is evidence that when one begins to doubt total inerrancy and sits in judgment, the message becomes contaminated. I will stand with the disciples who stated to my God: “Now we are sure that You know all things, and have no need that anyone should question You” (John 16:30).
Nazarene Ordained Pastor
well said. We need every nazarene to read your letter.
I’m glad I found your article. My instructor has assigned us to read The Story of God by Lodahl before attending the first class in our Introduction to Theology Course. I have read the first 61 pages of this book and would like to throw it in the wood stove. Just as one example, on page 21 of the book it talks about Mark eluding to the fact that it was himself outside of the tomb and that he was a witness when Jesus arose. He then says Mark may not have been literally there that he just added this in. First it doesn’t say it was Mark in the Bible. And to say that Mark added something to the story that was not there sure does go against devine inspiration of the scripture. When I showed it to my Sr. Pastor he said it was a “bunch of crap”. I told him that was the best theological explanation I’d heard. I don’t know where this Lodahl guy is coming from and I am dreading reading the rest of this book.
Thanks Anon Wesleyan Student,
This is a big problem, because folks like Lodahl and Dennis Bratcher insist that inerrancy is “alien to the Wesleyan tradition”. That is a big lie, as disproven by Wesley’s own words.
I pray that you will survive the course just fine. Several months ago, when I had posted an article on inerrancy, someone tried to “help” me by sending some excepts from both Dennis Bratcher and Michael Lodahl in his argument against inerrancy. Out of the material that was sent to me, I’ll just share my response to him, which was partly quoted from Pastor Joe’s paper, and my observations:
(Speaking RE Lodahl:): Regarding God’s judgment of water at the time of Noah, it’s almost heretical sounding in nature:
From Pastor Joe’s excerpts; “There is an unavoidable implication in the story of the Flood, however, that it is that God was learning through experience about human beings of His own making.” (Lodahl 1994, 97)
After he says that, Lodahl trys to soften the blow of that statement: “This does not square with traditional notions of divine omniscience, but this need not be overly bothersome” (Lodahl 1994, 97).
I could never believe that a sovereign God would ever learn through experience. That implies that he makes mistakes like we do. That to me is outrageous thinking. He must be talking about another God, because the God of the Bible is sovereign, knows all, and is everywhere- yet is not IN ALL, as the New Agers and many emergent church leaders are either implying, or stating clearly.
So frankly I don’t trust these writers. They both seem to write things that can lead people to doubt, which leads to further erosion and trust in God’s Word.
The sources that you gave me are fine writers and some of the things they write are pretty good, but they are dead wrong about the inerrancy issue. Take up your argument with John Wesley, whose very own words prove that he is in line with me on this more than he is with you and Dennis Bratcher.
I stand on what I have said. My testimony today is that I am confident in God’s Word as the living word of God. The Bible testifies to that, and I believe it’s testimony, that it is the Word of God. It does NOT CONTAIN the word of God; it IS the word of God. If you disagree with this, you disagree with the Bible.
May the Lord give you wisdom and insight as you go through your ministerial studies.
Psalm 119:99 I have more understanding than all my teachers,
For Your testimonies are my meditation.
The struggle is to hold to the scripture and to not eliminate free will – we are not monergist – this has real meaning for how we view scripture. – how we define inerrancy matters – if we mean that people that GOd used to write the cannon were not infulenced by their culture and understanding of the world – I can’t go there – I think the thought that the scriptures are complete in all things necessary to our salvation is good.
The thought expressed by scripture is even better, because none of us can determine what parts are necessary and not necessary for our salvation:
2 Tim 3:16-17 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
One of my favorite summaries of this: http://carm.org/christianity/sermons/2-timothy-316-all-scripture-inspired
Inerrancy was thrown out years ago when the denomination adopted the theory of ‘plenary’ inspiration. EVERY difficulty you see today on the reformednazarene website is a direct result of this intentional “change of direction”!
When I attended Pasadena (Nazarene) College in the ‘1960’s I was told told by the Pres. Emeritus of Naz.Theo. Seminary, who was teaching the Systematic Theology: ‘This is a class on Systematic Theology and not Bible, so shut up, and don’t quote BIBLE to me in my theology class!’
The problem of homosexuality in young men preparing for the ministry existed way back then too – with no one wanting to rock the boat, or address the issue … SADLY, it’s taken 50 years for anyone to even begin addressing these problems.
– Is it even possible to rectify all these issues, and somehow ‘put all the horses back in the barn’ at this late date?
A very helpful, extremely well documented put out by Asbury Theological Seminary that documents the Church of the Nazarene’s historic and systematic slide from Biblical Inerrancy to “plenary inspiration” is available: –
Dearest Ekklesia (the invited),
As far as the Nazarene church has been able to feed and disciple me towards each opportunity to fulfill our Great Commission, like all “churches”, it falls short. As I have been forced to reach outside the Nazarene bubble to be discipled further towards whatever the Lord wills for my short service here on earth, it has been hard to refrain from fatigue and bitterness within Nazarene circles. My prayer is that all of us who pray better and more scriptural understanding by our brethren will be spared any hardness and unforgiveness. Our roots are a great cornerstone to build on and I highly recommend the article above cited.
It establishes roots and feeds the tree with direct knowledge of Weslesy own words; so the “holiness” fathers are on our side!
Read this for an excellent survey of BOTH Nazarene and global church errors: http://www.ericbarger.com/inerrancynazarenesdarylmccarthy.pdf
(see link above)
The great blessing to being forced out into the wider church for both discipleship and ministry opportunity is that I have been blessed with a chance to build bridges within the greater church (ekklesia) and to break down barriers between parts of the body of Christ. As the days move towards greater apostasy (Rev. 3:14-22) we should hold fast to the “whole counsel of God” and pray for the Lord to reform and revive our faith in the original statements of faith which began the Nazarene church on it’s path (Hot for the gospel as opposed to lukewarm as the letter to Laodicea warns). We are the “overcomers” referred to in the letters to the churches in Revelation. Please pray for boldness and opportunity to speak out within and without the church body. Know your persecution will come but more often will be of the silent murmering type. Rest on the knowledge that the murmering of critics is fed by a spiritual conviction which may lead to repentance and forgiveness! He is in control.
Finally, thank you all for the knowledge that others contend for the faith and the innerancy of the original canon with the faith of Abraham!
Interesting that in the comments connected to articles like this, there are a number of anonymous posters (often those of Wesleyan/Nazarene students of theology. This implies that there is a degree of politics involved in both denominations at the collegiate level. Here’s the sad thing: these students have to pay an ungodly (figuratively and literally) amount of money to take these courses, and they MUST get that piece of paper (diploma) to prove to the two denominations (and society) that they are “legitimate” and “worthy” to minister to the flock. HENCE, most students have no choice but to grit their teeth and study what they are told….regardless of their convictions or the relevancy to the Gospel.
You may want to link to my article:
Click to access Inerrancy_02.pdf
I look forward to reading this paper, Dr. Reasoner. I have read some of your other work and it clearly is a refutation of the emergent Nazarenes and their remade history of what Wesleyans believe, and their rejection that Wesley di dnot believe in the inerrancy of scripture.
I want to thank you very much for this article. I was torn if I could even be Wesleyan since I believe in inerrancy. I have been told countless times that I could not be a Wesleyan if I believe in inerrancy. I was recently told that is a Calvinist doctrine. I now see that it is the Church of the Nazarene that has drifted away and not those that believe in in inerrancy. I do hope and pray that we return to a high view of Scripture.
Anonymous, where did you come up with this information? Who told you that Wesleyans didn’t believe in inerrancy? I was raised in the Wesleyan church and have a number of friends and contacts who are pastors. Many are closely tied with headquarters. At no time was it ever INFERRED that Wesleyans did not believe in inerrancy, or that the doctrine of inerrancy was “calvinist.”
David, Please don’t be offended.
I am confused about your comments in this thread. Are you speaking about the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy in regard to “the Church of the Nazarene.” (the beginning of this thread — or are you speaking in regards to “The Wesleyan Church” denomination? — Or do you not know that the Church of the Nazarene is also derived from the Wesleyan tradition? …
“Where did this Calvinist idea come into the discussion?”
Answer: An Official Statement published by the Board of General Superintendents of the Church of the Nazarene in 2009. *(http://didache.nazarene.org/index.php/volume-13-1/892-didache-v13n1-01-scripturestudycommitteereport-king1/file) Page 5, QUOTE:
“2. THE CALVINIST ORIGIN OF THE ASSERTION OF DETAILED INERRANCY.
The debate over ‘inerrancy’ has been particularly strong in North America over the last
few decades, sparked off in 1974 by the book written by Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible,and at first it might appear that the assertion of this kind of inerrancy is commendable. However, it is necessary to understand that this assertion of the complete inerrancy of Scripture in every detail (‘inerrancy throughout’) comes out of one particular Calvinist tradition. It is part of a particular Calvinist theological method, and it cannot be understood apart from its place in the rationalism which too often characterizes that theology. The Calvinist theologians who taught at Princeton in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Charles Hodge (1797-1878) and B. B.
Warfield (1851-1921), inherited this assertion from previous Calvinists such as the Swiss-Italian theologian, Francis Turretin (1623-1687), and it comes directly from their Calvinist concerns. In their battle with the Roman Catholics, the Calvinist theologians of the century after John Calvin held to the authority of the Bible in order to oppose the authority of the pope and the cardinals. Their apologetic strategy prompted them to assert the authority of the Bible as a basis for faith in Christ rather than as somethingwhich was implied by faith in Christ. Their method became to establish first the truth and authority of the Bible, and then build faith in Christ on that. Intellectual persuasion and apologetics therefore came first. Some Lutherans departed from
Martin Luther by taking a similar position. Accordingly many of the Reformed Confessions in the post-Reformation period began with the Article of Faith on the Bible. It was in that context that they began to assert the inerrancy of the Bible. In keeping with their deductive method in theology, they argued that since God was perfect, and since the Bible came from him, the Bible must be ‘perfect’ in the sense of being without any error in the smallest detail. It was a presupposition they brought to the Bible rather than a conclusion from the study of the biblical text itself. Not all Calvinists took this position. The Dutch and Scottish Calvinist traditions (Hermann Bavinck, Abraham Kuyper, and James Orr) are different and closer to John Calvin and the Reformers. The insistence on inerrancy was particularly strong among American Calvinists, perhaps helping to explain why Fundamentalism is a predominantly American phenomenon. …” – End Quote.
The fact is, many early, “old-fashioned” Nazarenes and Wesleyans do hold a view of the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture that is closer – in this respect – to Calvinists than to the “modern” iteration of Nazarene-ism and Wesleyan-ism, who both say in their statement of faith “We believe that the books of the Old and New Testaments constitute the Holy Scriptures. They are the inspired and infallibly written Word of God, fully inerrant [ONLY] ‘IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS’ … they contain all things necessary to salvation” – BUT the Bible is not accurate [True?] historically, scientifically, geographically, or any such non-salvation matter. — As is now being taught in both the Church of the Nazarene and Wesleyan University systems, without the knowledge of many of the laymen in both denominations.
But, as the lead article in this thread proves — John Wesley was closer in the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy to “fundamentalist Calvinism”, than to either iteration of modern Nazarene-ism or modern Wesleyan-ism.
I am in much closer agreement with Rev. Joe Staniforth, the “original” John Wesley, and Calvinist Fundamentalists IN THIS REGARD, than any of the NEW renditions of “modern” Wesleyan-ism.
2nd Timothy 3:16-17: “ALL SCRIPTURE is given BY INSPIRATION OF GOD,and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
… “Modern” Calvinists do not accept the context of “RIGHTEOUSNESS”, that A MAN OF GOD may be “PERFECT”, “thoroughly equipped unto ALL GOOD WORKS”, in relation to the COMPLETE INSPIRATION of ALL Scripture.
“Old fashioned” Nazarenes and Wesleyans believe EVEN MORE in the Inspiration of ALL Scripture, INCLUDING those Holy Scr iptures that speak of Righteousness, Christian Perfection, and “good works”!