Bible inerrancy

[Serapha]

Hi there!
:wave:


I just found this statement in a response on the suggestions forums....and wow... what a surprise to learn that the Church of the Nazarene does not support the inerrancy of the Bible. That's news to me. It isn't what the Manual states, but on checking, it has become a teaching of the church.



Talk about compromise. Could someone tell me who made the determination that the part of the Bible that pertains to salvation is infallible, but the rest of the Word of God is not infallible? And could someone clarify... which part of the Bible is true? Is the Old Testament true? How about the Book of Revelation? It doesn't pertain to salvation, it is a prophetic book. Is the Book of Revelation truth or not?

I sat in a service in the Church of the Nazarene Wednesday evening with a pastor I have known for 21 years, and never has he told me about this change of theology. In fact, he was "teaching" from Ephesians 3 ... should I call him up and ask him if what he was teaching was "fallible" or "infallible" and what is the determining factor? After all Ephesians, Chapter 3 doesn't pertain to salvation.


<edited>

and added for clarity

I sent an email to Kansas City tonight asking for the "official" statement from the Church of the Nazarene concerning inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, so I will refrain my comments until I receive a response.


~serapha~





HeatherJay vbmenu_register("postmenu_8127905", true);

27 http://www.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/Female.gif http://www.christianforums.com/images/flags/United%20States.gif http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/Romantic.gif http://www.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/Nazarene.gif http://www.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/photo.gif http://www.christianforums.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif http://www.christianforums.com/images/buttons/bless.gif http://www.christianforums.com/images/buttons/comment.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/usernote.php?do=viewuser&u=12243) http://www.christianforums.com/images/buttons/reputation.gif http://www.christianforums.com/images/misc/im_yahoo.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/t694370&page=2&pp=20#) http://www.christianforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/private.php?do=newpm&stripquote=1&stripquote=1&userid=12243)
Kisser of Boo-Boos
Blessings: 5,652
Reputation: 338
Posts: 2,034
http://www.christianforums.com/images/customavatars/avatar12243_0.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/u12243) As a Nazarene (very much within the definition of 'mainstream Christianity'), doing what the OP is suggesting would exclude me from the Christian-only forums. The Church of the Nazarene postition on inerrancy is that the Bible is, indeed, inspired by God, but that does not necessarily mean that it's inerrant. I can't imagine that the Church of the Nazarene is the only Christian denomination that holds this stance. But Seebs is doing an excellent job of covering all the reasons why this would not be a positive step. :)

Love, Heather

[Islander]

From the Articles of Faith:

IV. The Holy Scriptures

4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

(Luke 24:44-47; John 10:35; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:20-21)

[WesleyJohn]

.

[Crono]

I am glad WJ responded to this before I did because he explained this much more eloquently than I could. Basically, the Bible is one of the ways that God reveals Himself to us, and in light of that purpose, the Bible is inerrant. It is irrelevant whether or not the Bible contains errors in history, science, etc. because that is not God's reason for providing the Bible to us.

[Serapha]

From the Articles of Faith:

IV. The Holy Scriptures

4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

(Luke 24:44-47; John 10:35; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:20-21)
Thank you,


I have my own copy of the Manual, and I am aware that there is a copy online. My question, now, concerns ... the statement that is omitted here.

~serapha~

[Serapha]

That is to say that the Bible is not anything it doesn't claim to be. It is not a history textbook, or a science textbook, a math textbook, a geologogy textbook, geography textbook, or an astronomy textbook. It is a book of religious instruction, and it is inerrant when it speaks to religious instruction.


Hi there!

:wave:

My personal question to you. Do you believe there is "error" in the Bible?

Yes or no is a good response.


~thanks~

[Serapha]

Hello, et al.


:wave:

I received an email from an ordained minister in the Church of the Nazarene, who told me they were checking into it further. It seems they were unaware of the "intent" of the church concerning that particular article of faith.

My point is this.... the Church of the Nazarene was built on a foundational truth that the Bible was infallible and inerrant (period).

Do any of the faithful "Nazarenes" have a copy of "Called Unto Holiness", a two-volume book written on the history of the Church of the Nazarene, Purkiser, Nazarene Publishing House, Kansas City, Missouri, 1983. If you don't have a copy, I recommend that you pick up a copy so you know where your roots came from.


May I quote from that book, which, BTW, the author was editor of the Herald of Holiness for 15 years and a professor at the Nazarene Theological Seminary.... so this is a book written from the inside, and not someone looking in from the outside...

Volume 2, page 55-56

"A church is measured not only by its leadership and organization but also by its shared concepts and convictions as to its reason for being. ....



paraphrased from Bresee's 1903 Manual, adopted in Chicago in 1907, and Pilot Point 1908,

"The Church of God is comprosed of all spiritually regenerate persons, whose names are written in heaven."

The churches "are to be composed of such regenerate persons as by providential permission, and by the leadings of the Holy Spirit, become associated together for holy fellowship and ministries."

Here is the first fundamental characteristic of the Church of the Nazarene from that time... (page 56)

1. The church "stands for the whole Bible" Its people believe that the Bible not only contains the Word of God but also that it "is the Word of God" and may be preached from Genesis to Revelation "as the revealed will of God and plan of God for us, for our salvation and our activity."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Now, I could go through the history of the Church of the Nazarene and give quotation after quotation that the church was found on the infallibility and inerrancy of the Word of God. That was never left up to "interpretation."

So, what changed?

The people I know and see in the Church of the Nazarene believe what I just posted, that the Bible can be preached from Genesis to Revelation as the revealed will of God and plan of God for us, for our salvation and our activity. They are unaware that the entirity of the Bible is not considered to be infallible.... or that there is a "choice" in interpretation.


~serapha~

[Serapha]

I have an image of Uncle Buddy Robinson "stuttering" in heaven at the thought that the Bible was not to be considered "inerrant".

~serapha~

[Plan 9]

So, you're Nazarene yourself, Serapha, or a member of another Wesleyan denomination?

[Serapha]

So, you're Nazarene yourself, Serapha, or a member of another Wesleyan denomination?

Hello Plan 9,


No, I am not a member of the Church of the Nazarene, but that doesn't mean that I don't know and understand the doctines of that denomination. I could ask 15 members of the Wesleyan or Nazarene faith to define "entire sanctification" and the majority of them would not be able to come close to defining the term. Being a member isn't an assurance of knowing the doctrines and teachings of a denomination.


I'm 3/3 with Nazarene ministers not knowing this particular understanding of the inerrancy of the Bible.

~serapha~

[Serapha]

Hi there!
:wave:

I have a second question, concerning the interpertation of Article IV.




Our official stance is that Holy Scripture is inerrant in regards to all things necessary to our salvation.



It is a book of religious instruction, and it is inerrant when it speaks to religious instruction.

We also officially state a belief in plenary inspiration which, as I can remember, is the belief that the Bible is fully inspired--accomplishing exactly what God desires it to. We do not state that it is verbally inspired (word for word), but fully inspired--in writing, translation, reading, and intepretation.

Grace and Peace to you,

WesleyJohn
1. Do the aspects of religious instruction pertain only to the plan of salvation being inerrant, or does that include the commandments of the apostle Paul on how to live a godly, sanctified life?

2. Do the aspects of religious instruction pertain only to the plan of salvation being inerrant, or does that pertain to premillenialism and dispensationalism also? The plans of salvation differs from premillenialism and dispensationalism, both of which are doctrines supported by the Church of of the Nazarene.

As to plenary inspiration,



(http://www.nazarene.org/welcome/beliefs/index.html)http://www.nazarene.org/welcome/beliefs/index.html

We believe that the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living.
(http://www.nazarene.org/welcome/beliefs/index.html)



(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plenary%20inspiration)Plenary inspiration (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plenary%20inspiration) (Theol.), that kind of inspiration which excludes all defect in the utterance of the inspired message.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plenary%20inspiration)Verbal inspiration (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=verbal%20inspiration) (Theol.), that kind of inspiration which extends to the very words and forms of expression of the divine message.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plenary%20inspiration)


Would someone explain to me how plenary inspiration would result in the concept that the bible is only inerrant when it pertains to salvation.


Is not all of the Bible "inspired", "God-breathed"? If you belive it to "inspired", then why is it not considered "inerrant"?

Did God "breath" error? Or did He fail to preserve His Word after He "breathed" it perfectly?

Just wanting to understand exactly where the "errancy" of the Bible lies.


~serapha~

[wvmtnkid]

Just stepping in with a little Mod reminder here. This is the Wesleyan forum. While we welcome all of our brothers and sisters from other denominations to come in and fellowship with us, this is not the place for debate with those outside of the Wesleyan tradition. If you have questions, fine. If the answers put forth don't jive with you or you don't doctrinaly agree with them, just keep in mind this is the Wesleyan forum. A nice "thank you for your time to answer my questions" is a good response.

Thanks! :)

[bigsierra]

Did all of this start because of HeatherJay's statement?

[Plan 9]

Did all of this start because of HeatherJay's statement?

Yes, it did. :sigh:

[tiggs]

They way I see this, as my own interpretation, is that it's not a heaven or hell issue to believe that the Bible was written by man, who were devinely inspired, that through them God was able to put down his message onto paper (eventually), might have an error or two. (I've never found but have heard there's errors between the KJV interp. and NIV interp) Now, as for the Bible being an accurate history text book, that I think can be seen rather obviously that there are flaws. You also have to account for our (human as a whole) limited knowledge of the languages the books of the Bible were written in, and through those, we have our present day Bible. If you have a good study bible there will be side notes at how certain words are discussed to mean something differently since a lot of words in some languages have many meanings. I wont even get into cannonical history because people get mad at me when I talk about the Pope and King's rolls in certain books.
Ok, just a disclamer, this is part of mine own interpretation or opinion, it doesn't have to be yours, I love hearing other people's opinions and interpretation because sometimes, it helps me see where I might be wrong myself, as I'm only human.

Cliff notes: Don't think it's a heaven or hell issue. We had to translate, chance for our own human error, maybe not the writers. My opinion, I welcome yours. Thanks for your time.

[Serapha]

Hi there!

:wave:


The response I received from Kansas City and my response to them...


~serapha~


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From IT, Kansas City

I believe we received two inquiries from you, so I will combine them
with my response. The Church of the of the Nazarene has never been
identified with fundamentalism. Rather, we have charted what John
Wesley would have called the "via media" or the middle way, especially
in matters relating to topics like inerrancy. I have included
verbatim, the statement contained in Article IV from our Articles of
Faith:

IV. The Holy Scriptures
4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

(Luke 24:44-47; John 10:35; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17;
1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:20-21)

You will note several important things:

1) We believe the scriptures are fully (plenary) inspired. This understanding of inspiration does not mean they are inspired like great literature. We believe the scriptures are indeed, as on translation puts it, "God-breathed."
2) We believe the scriptures inerrantly reveal the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation. We do not make any claims beyond this with regard to the inerrancy of scripture.
3) Scripture is given its rightful place of authority so that we do not allow anything to usurp their authority regarding the message of salvation.

Some groups have made claims that are challenging, even detrimental. The scriptures are not a science textbook. Scripture must be properly interpreted. When they are not, all sorts of errors have crept in, often distorting the message of God.

The comment you cited, and for which you requested an interpretation needs further explanation. I do not know the context from which the comment originated. I do not know the perspective from which the one making the comment is addressing the issue. Inerrancy has been a litmus test by fundamentalists for years. The theological perspective of the Church of the Nazarene is enriched by our Wesleyan roots. Wesley gave us what has become known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience are the four elements to which we turn when examining theological claims such as inerrancy. Scripture itself occupies a place of primacy. Beyond that, we must examine the tradition of the Church, our own God-given gift of reason and finally the voice and testimony of experience.

With regard to your follow-on question regarding the remainder of scripture, it is not so much a question of which part is inerrant (as though the claim made in our Articles of Faith somehow suggests that other parts of scripture are not accurate or inerrant) as a question of recognizing the claims and authority of scripture itself. As an apologist I am sure you are quite familiar with the Synoptic problem, the discrepancy in the genealogical stream associated with Jesus' human family, and other similar discrepancies. Making claims for inerrancy that leave the impression that such problems do not exist, or can somehow be harmonized, often present more challenges than a
more humble statement such as the one in our Articles of Faith.

I have given you a lengthy response because I believe you want to
know the depth of theological thinking, research and prayerful study
that went into the composition of our Articles of Faith.

General Editor
Nazarene Headquarters
6401 The Paseo
Kansas City, MO 64131

~~~~~~~~~~~

and my response...

Hi there!

In the future, should you see any passage, example, or translation of the Bible that you cannot reconcile to make the entirity of the book inerrant, please feel free to contact me, and I will reconcile such passages for you.

Thank you for the clarity. I will assure you that I will have no further contact within the structure of a denomination that does not believe the Word of God to be truth.

[WesleyJohn]

.

[WesleyJohn]

.

[WesleyJohn]

.

[WesleyJohn]

.

[WesleyJohn]

.

[WesleyJohn]

.

[WesleyJohn]

.

[Serapha]

Second, I think it is unfortunate that you would sever whatever ties you may have with the Church of the Nazarene. You clearly have a great deal of passion and insight for God's Word. I'm sure that your pastor friends have appreciated your assistance and support in ministry. I wish to assure you that there is just as much room for a Biblical Inerrantist in the Church of the Nazarene as there is someone like myself.

In any case, I trust that you will continue to seek the Face of God and His will.

Grace and Peace to you and yours,

WJ



I will be meeting with the DS on Sunday. After reading your responses, I don't see me changing my mind on anything over the past couple of days.

I have forwarded your comments to several pastors so they may know what the church teaches. It's been enlightening... and disheartening to learn the truth.




~fundamentally yours~

[WesleyJohn]

.

[ChiRho]

I truly am sorry that these threads have caused you to be disillusioned about the Church of the Nazarene. I'm also sorry that 'Biblical Inerrancy' is so important to you. But, perhaps it is good that you have now understood the CotN's position on this issue. I think it is very odd that you have not understood it prior to now.

I'll leave you with this thought:

-- There is a difference between teaching something and not teaching something. --

The CotN does not teach 'errancy' as you seem to suggest. We simply don't teach 'inerrancy,' at least not the way that fundamentalist churches do.

Grace and Peace,

WJ

WesleyJohn,

This may interest you.

http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar37.htm

If you want to pm me, I would love to discuss Scriptural inerrancy with you.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Plan 9]

Matt. 5:45 '...only so can you be children of your heavenly Father, who causes the sun to rise on the good and bad alike...'
These, of course, are the words of Jesus. Are we to conclude from this verse (and others in the Bible) that the sun orbits the earth, or is it an expression, rather than a statement of fact, which is used by us today when we tell a friend how beautiful the sunrise was, or the weatherman tells us what time the sun will rise in the morning?
Perhaps there are Christians who believe that the planets orbit the sun, based on what they read in the Bible, but I've never yet met any.

[HeatherJay]

Goodness, all because I threw in my two cents worth in the Suggestions forum. Go on vacation and look what I come back to. Nice to know I wasn't forgotten, though. ;)

Well, I think WJ had done a magnificent job of explaining the CotN position. Serapha, I'm sorry that my comment upset you so, but I don't really understand all the hostility.