One Way Fundamentalists define Open Theist

[Dan Henderson]

The blade of an argument cuts both ways. I joined Naznet because I din't like how some very vocal people here were defining my views of inerrancy and fundamentalism. To demonstrate the inadequacy of defining someone else's views for them I offer the following chart. Not for its accuracy, but because it describes what I hear when someone here calls out the dependent clause from article IV "in all things necessary to our salvation". I don't yet separate (I don't have enough resolution in my thoughts), to separate Open or Process Theology from my Idea of Emergent and Post-Modern Ideology. All 4 ideas look very similar to me and seem to come from the same root-cause.

So this chart adquately describes how my brain rolls (what I think you say) when you tell me that all scripture is not inspired or not necessary to our salvation. Here's your chance teach me.

[Hans Deventer]

Oh Dan, the first question is already wrong. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the entire Scriptures, all 66 books. It's like a symphony. You can't pull out a single bit, it doesn't work that way. All are needed, that is the very point of plenary inspiration. But all must be read as salvation history, because that is the purpose. From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. You can't draw charts that way, it totally pulls Article IV apart. Article IV was never meant to dismiss parts of the Scriptures.

There is only one question: what does this verse, within the context of the entire Scriptures, teach us regarding salvation?

[Dan Henderson]

Oh Dan, the first question is already wrong. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the entire Scriptures, all 66 books. It's like a symphony. You can't pull out a single bit, it doesn't work that way. All are needed, that is the very point of plenary inspiration. But all must be read as salvation history, because that is the purpose. From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. You can't draw charts that way, it totally pulls Article IV apart. Article IV was never meant to dismiss parts of the Scriptures.

There is only one question: what does this verse, within the context of the entire Scriptures, teach us regarding salvation?

No more wrong than the definitions of inerrancy and fundamentalism (as it applies to Nazarenes) that I have seen here. That's the point. I happen to agree with you on article iv, but that is not how your opposition is reading what you say. There are a lot more people here who can comment so I think I will wait before I post any more.

If you are able can you edit the thread title to say "define" instead of "defone"

[Craig Laughlin]

Thanks for sharing this. It does give insight to how you process the world. You indeed have a very modern way of thinking. This is not a put down just an observation. I too can be very modern in my thinking and sometimes have a hard time understanding some of the younger theologians on this board let alone getting to a place where I think I can evaluate it. -- (If one evaluates another's theology then one is a theologian by definition. Some just have more formal training than others)

That being said I am a little confused by your reference to open theism and process theology as it relates to exegetical/hermeneutical issues you address in your chart. As a modern myself I see those as two separate issues? Issues of what we used to call "systematic or constructive" theology seem to me to lay on top of one's exegetical/hermeneutical perspective. I agree that this perspective opens the door to those other more philosophical constructs but it seems to me, again from a modern perspective that in order to be honest I must construct my exegetical/hermeneutical tool without regard to it's implications.

Maybe the part about open theism and process theology was just a tangent? (I'm kind of an expert with tangents and side tracking threads)

[Michael Flowers]

I doubt any of us on this forum would argue that a passage is not scripture just because it doesn't speak specifically to salvation. It is still Scripture regardless of what it talks about, and it all relates God's saving action and love in the life of his people. However, I have a hard time believing that every single number in the Bible is accurate, specifically when it estimates how many concubines Solomon had, or how many people were present for the feeding of the five thousand (about five thousand men, not counting women and children). However, those types of details do not matter. Having the accurate count is not necessary in order for me to learn about salvation from Scripture. Our arguments against 100% inerrancy is not against the message of Scripture, but mostly about the minute details about a very few specific things. Now this might differ from person to person, but as we have already stated, the Bible is not a history or science textbook, it is a book about faith. In all matters concerning our faith it is 100% accurate. What matters in Scripture is that God did it, God chose to act on behalf of his people. The small details don't matter.

For myself, personally, where I end up having the biggest issue with 100% total inerrancy is when I have been taught and have researched for myself the events in the book of Esther. Extensive records exist from Babylon and yet there is no record of a queen by that name or the specific events recorded in the book. That raises its historical accuracy in my mind. I have chosen, instead of looking at the book as 100% historical, to look at it as 100% about the hope/faith we have in a God who will provide for his people and will take care of them. It strengthens my faith, even if it is not factual historically. (and if the time comes where they do find the historical evidence of it, I'm more than willing to say "Hallelujah! It did happen!")

[Craig Laughlin]

Dan - I haven't been reading on Naznet a lot lately - to busy. I've picked up that you disagree with the general definition of inerrancy and fundamentalism that float around here. - could you tell me or point me to a previous post in which you give your definition? - Thanks.

[Hans Deventer]

No more wrong than the definitions of inerrancy and fundamentalism (as it applies to Nazarenes) that I have seen here.

Well, I've read definitions of inerrancy with so many qualifications that I was left wondering what on earth they were contending for. And then I haven't even started talking about arguing for autographs that don't exists anymore.

That's the point. I happen to agree with you on article iv, but that is not how your opposition is reading what you say.

Dan, in all honesty, I don't believe there is any way I could tell them what I believe that "my opposition" would understand. You'll say, that's the problem of the sender. I submit that such is only partly true. But for my part, for the life of me, I have no idea to explain it any better. I'd say what wrote here is hardly vague, nor new.

If you are able can you edit the thread title to say "define" instead of "defone"

At your service

[Paul DeBaufer]

Hi Dan, Maybe this article The Modern Inerrancy Debate would be helpful. For many of us here our definitions of inerrancy is well stated by Dennis Bratcher. When we speak of inerrancy we tend to mean it in the current sense. However, there seems to be a more historical sense, which may more closely reflect your personal definition. Unfortunately some of the most vocal members (leaders?) of the group to which you associate perpetuate the "modern" meaning. And we are learning that you do not necessarily hold to either the methods or the meanings that they convey.

[Paul DeBaufer]

The blade of an argument cuts both ways. I joined Naznet because I din't like how some very vocal people here were defining my views of inerrancy and fundamentalism. To demonstrate the inadequacy of defining someone else's views for them I offer the following chart. Not for its accuracy, but because it describes what I hear when someone here calls out the dependent clause from article IV "in all things necessary to our salvation". I don't yet separate (I don't have enough resolution in my thoughts), to separate Open or Process Theology from my Idea of Emergent and Post-Modern Ideology. All 4 ideas look very similar to me and seem to come from the same root-cause.

So this chart adquately describes how my brain rolls (what I think you say) when you tell me that all scripture is not inspired or not necessary to our salvation. Here's your chance teach me.

I disagree that Open Theists view scripture in the way that is flow charted. However, it is helpful in that you did preface the post with this is how fundamentalists and inerrantists view how we view scripture. Wow, hard to follow sentence.

I think that many open/process theists read scripture narratively. As Hans says the Bible in total as the story of God (to borrow from the title of Michael Lodahl's excellent book) that speaks to us of who God is and what His will is for us and our salvation.

[Bob Hunter]

No more wrong than the definitions of inerrancy and fundamentalism (as it applies to Nazarenes) that I have seen here.

I think herein lies the problem. We are defining inerrancy in a manner that suits most in the scholarly community. If you have a different definition, that is fine, you are entitled to it. But the old saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" applies. If you ask 10 people how to define success, you would get 10 different answers. But if you were to ask 10 Nazarene Scholars how to define inerrancy based on their study of biblical hermeneutics and their understanding of the Wesleyan tradition, I'm pretty sure you would get the same general definition.

What I don't like is the fact that when someone disagrees with the Concerned crowd on this, they immediately conclude that person has a low view of scripture. So let me make this very clear. A high view of scripture does NOT require that one embrace total Biblical inerrancy. Why? Because, a high view of scripture, or in our case the plenary view, affirms that all scripture is true. We don't believe scripture will lead us into error, when properly interpreted. But more importantly, a high view of scripture makes good hermeneutics absolutely imperative. This is the problem with the CNs, they have such poor hermeneutics that they actually end up undoing themselves by imposing literal methods of interpretation on scripture that were not intended to be interpreted literally. Moreover, they have a modern standard for truth and accuracy that is completely foreign to the intent of the biblical writer. In hermeneutics, we take authorial intent pretty seriously.

All this nonsense coming from the concerned camp about how low our view of scripture just bugs the daylights out of me. Responsible Biblical interpretation strives to understand what scripture meant in its own era. Context is everything. But with the Concerned crowd, context is rarely spoken of. They decorate their blogs with tons of scriptural references and string them together in a manner that is so irresponsible that it makes me wanna vomit. No regard for context or authorial intent. Zip! And we are the ones with a low view of scripture....yeeeeeeeeah....right.

[Charles W Christian]

Besides, many who scream "inerrancy" really cannot define what the impact means. If you believe that the Bible is best seen through the eyes of Jesus, who is the Word of God (John 1) and is therefore best interpreted through the "lens" of Jesus, then who cares whether there were 10,000 troops at an OT battle, or 100,000?? That's why the inerrancy discussions usually are just about proof texting and "baptizing" one particular interpretation and trying to force everyone to agree. Ironically, "inerrancy" proponents tend to care less about historical and theological context than those who are not strict inerrantists! Weird, huh?

Thanks,
Charles

[Bob Hunter]

Ironically, "inerrancy" proponents tend to care less about historical and theological context than those who are not strict inerrantists! Weird, huh?

Bingo! See my earlier post.

[Ryan Scott]

I believe scripture is completely authoritative and should be read literally in all cases.

I just don't believe that anything short of the collective efforts of all biblical scholars, theologians, historians, archaeologists, etc, through all time, blessed and supported and empowered by the Holy Spirit will ever be able to accomplish an appropriate literal reading.

Any reading of scripture that does not take into account the historical, literary and theological components of both the particular passage and scripture as a whole cannot be literal.

Honestly, the biggest objection I have to "so-called" fundamentalists is simply their belief that a "plain sense" reading of scripture is the most accurate way to read it.

[Todd Erickson]

I believe scripture is completely authoritative and should be read literally in all cases.

I just don't believe that anything short of the collective efforts of all biblical scholars, theologians, historians, archaeologists, etc, through all time, blessed and supported and empowered by the Holy Spirit will ever be able to accomplish an appropriate literal reading.

Any reading of scripture that does not take into account the historical, literary and theological components of both the particular passage and scripture as a whole cannot be literal.

Honestly, the biggest objection I have to "so-called" fundamentalists is simply their belief that a "plain sense" reading of scripture is the most accurate way to read it.

...in the original King James.

[Paul DeBaufer]

...in the original King James.

If it was good enough for Paul it's good enough for me!

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Let me try to put this a different way.

My biggest problem with worrying about things like were there actually 5000 men plus women and children is that it obscures the text and move the question from "What does this story reveal about God?" to "Were there really 5000 men plus women and children?" Moreover, it makes the first question (What does this tell us about God?) dependent on the second question (Were there really 5000 men plus women and children?).

If the first question is dependent on the second, then if there were in fact 4999 plus women and children, we would not be able to even look at the first question. If we were assessing the truth of the claim, "Jesus fed 5000 men plus women and children" then we would have to know if there were actually that many people there. How could I know that? If I assert that the Scriptures are inerrant then I have constructed a tautology. How do I know it is true? Because it has to be true. I've added nothing to the conversation by stating that.

On the other hand, if I look at the story of the feeding of the five thousand from a theological perspective, the question radically shifts. The question is no longer, "Were there really 5000?" and it returns to "What does this story (as part of the larger story) tell me about God?" I love the story of the feedings of the multitudes because they are a counter-narrative to the idea of economic scarcity. The story makes clear that there are way to many people to be fed by the amount of food on hand. I remember studying economics and they drilled into us the law of scarcity. In this story, Jesus shows us that scarcity is not something that is true in God's kingdom. In God's kingdom, there are resources we can never imagine. In God's kingdom, there is enough to feed the crowd (whatever the size) and there are still leftovers.

The question then turns to application -- If scarcity isn't something that dominates the Kingdom of God or at the very least isn't "true" when God is active in creation, how does that change how I live? Perhaps more importantly, How does it change how I give?

[Michael Flowers]

Let me try to put this a different way.

My biggest problem with worrying about things like were there actually 5000 men plus women and children is that it obscures the text and move the question from "What does this story reveal about God?" to "Were there really 5000 men plus women and children?" Moreover, it makes the first question (What does this tell us about God?) dependent on the second question (Were there really 5000 men plus women and children?).

If the first question is dependent on the second, then if there were in fact 4999 plus women and children, we would not be able to even look at the first question. If we were assessing the truth of the claim, "Jesus fed 5000 men plus women and children" then we would have to know if there were actually that many people there. How could I know that? If I assert that the Scriptures are inerrant then I have constructed a tautology. How do I know it is true? Because it has to be true. I've added nothing to the conversation by stating that.

On the other hand, if I look at the story of the feeding of the five thousand from a theological perspective, the question radically shifts. The question is no longer, "Were there really 5000?" and it returns to "What does this story (as part of the larger story) tell me about God?" I love the story of the feedings of the multitudes because they are a counter-narrative to the idea of economic scarcity. The story makes clear that there are way to many people to be fed by the amount of food on hand. I remember studying economics and they drilled into us the law of scarcity. In this story, Jesus shows us that scarcity is not something that is true in God's kingdom. In God's kingdom, there are resources we can never imagine. In God's kingdom, there is enough to feed the crowd (whatever the size) and there are still leftovers.

The question then turns to application -- If scarcity isn't something that dominates the Kingdom of God or at the very least isn't "true" when God is active in creation, how does that change how I live? Perhaps more importantly, How does it change how I give?

Very well said.

[Dan Henderson]

Dan - I haven't been reading on Naznet a lot lately - to busy. I've picked up that you disagree with the general definition of inerrancy and fundamentalism that float around here. - could you tell me or point me to a previous post in which you give your definition? - Thanks.

Short version: Inerrant - free from the liability of error. Fundamentalist - A movement formed to directly oppose the modernist movement, or modernist thinking.

Dan as a Fundamentalist - Focusing on the basics or core values of our Chirsitan beliefs. My specific focus on Nazarenes is for those who call themselves Elders (with or without formal education). My concern is not about what non-Nazarene elders or Nazarene laymen say or publish but what Nazarene Elders say and publish. I am especially critical of those who are technically correct but communicate in such a manner as to confuse those they are supposed to be teaching.

As to my qualifications to critique an Elder - When I see sufficient evidence that Elders are sufficiently critiquing each other in the CoTN (Peer Review), at all levels, then I will back down. With no other evidence of checks and balances in place, my credentials will have to do and I am a thorn in your side until I draw my last breath or sufficient evidence of the former is provided.

[Dan Henderson]

If it was good enough for Paul it's good enough for me!

Ahh, Good enough for Moses too ...

[Benjamin Burch]

The blade of an argument cuts both ways. I joined Naznet because I din't like how some very vocal people here were defining my views of inerrancy and fundamentalism.

I don't think we ever attempted to define Dan Henderson's "views of inerrancy and fundamentalism." I think we have always reacted to very specific people, their specific statements, their specific presentations of inerrancy, and then made connections due to their claims and attempts to speak for a larger group they refer to as "Concerned Nazarenes." We have also represented and reacted to the historic concepts of inerrancy and fundamentalism.

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.....If an absolute standard of inerrancy is not held...then this will lead to a corruption of the message itself.

The critic…must choose between an errorless Bible or an errorless God…. If there is error in the Bible, there is error in God. If there is no error in God, then there is no error in the Bible.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in
what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary
origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited
or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious
loss to both the individual and the Church.

The idea that historic "fundamentalism" and "inerrancy" have been misrepresented simply cannot be defended. It hasn't been. We've more than accurately represented what has been given to us. I could easily go find more from Manny, Tim, or others.

So, the premise - that we have misinterpreted inerrancy or fundamentalism - simply cannot be defended.

If we haven't described what Dan Henderson believes on the issue, then so be it. We can discuss that too. But don't go saying we've misrepresented anything. If the shoe fits, wear it.

I don't yet separate (I don't have enough resolution in my thoughts), to separate Open or Process Theology from my Idea of Emergent and Post-Modern Ideology. All 4 ideas look very similar to me and seem to come from the same root-cause.

It is fine that you cannot separate them. That's fine and fair. If they look similar, so be it. However, they do not come from the same root cause. They come from very, very different root causes.

(1) Open Theism - Dealing with the actual texts of Scripture as well as philosophical concepts of the nature of time
(2) Process Theology - doing theology in light of modern understandings of Biology and Physics, specifically dealing with issues of theodicy in light of these things, and grounded specifically in the philosophical and metaphysical work of Alfred North Whitehead.
(3) Emergent Theology - A reaction by the Evangelical Church to the intersecting issues of contemporary culture and the same issues struggled with in 1950-80 mainline Protestantism
(4) Postmodern Theology - A reaction to the failures of Modern Philosophy, and the way this has played itself out in the construction of Modern theologies, particularly that evidenced by Schliermacher, Hegel, and other movements in Western Europe and the United States. From there it has grown to also incorporate postmodern literary theories as well as postmodern social scientific criticisms in analysis of theologies as well as Biblical texts.

Understanding the differences of these four things is very important.

it describes what I hear when someone here calls out the dependent clause from article IV "in all things necessary to our salvation".....
[So this chart adquately describes how my brain rolls (what I think you say) when you tell me that all scripture is not inspired or not necessary to our salvation. Here's your chance teach me.

I will try.

No one should ever be saying either of these things:

(1) separating the dependent clause from the effectual clause, "inerrantly revealing God's will concerning us"
(2) all scripture is not inspired or not necessary to our salvation.

If they do, they are not being accurate to what the Church of the Nazarene believes, specifically in Article IV. Likewise, this is an incredibly common misconception among "concerned" folks. (Just look at Manny's blog!!!!)

The Church of the Nazarene says that

4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,

The Nazarenes believe that the entirety of the Holy Scriptures, all of them, the whole of it (plenary) is inspired.

by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments,

Nazarenes believe that the "whole" is the 66 books they find in their versions of the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, connecting the first clause, we see that Nazarenes believe that all 66 books of the Bible, and everything in them, is inspired.

given by divine inspiration,

Nazarenes believe that this inspiration comes from God.

inerrantly revealing the will of God

Nazarenes believe that these Scriptures reveal the will of God. They do not believe that they necessarily "contain" the will of God. In fact, that word was removed in 1928, symbolizing that this is not what Nazarenes believe. They believe that the Scriptures reveal God's will. Unfortunately, the Church of the Nazarene believes that this happens inerrantly.

concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation

Nazarenes do not believe that the Scriptures reveal God's will in any and all things. Instead, they believe that the Scriptures specifically reveal God's will concerning humanity in all things necessary to humanity's salvation.

so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

Nothing which is not contained in Scripture is important enough to be considered essential to Nazarene faith.

Therefore, the Church of the Nazarene does not believe that only some of the Scriptures are inspired while others are not. It does not believe that only Scriptures pertaining to or speaking about salvation, or God's will concerning salvation are inerrant, while others are not.

The Church of the Nazarene believes that the whole Bible, all 66 books, are divinely inspired and all of them, every word, when read, reveals what God desires for humans to be saved. The Church of the Nazarene believes that the whole of the Bible reveals this desire inerrantly, regardless of what errors may or may not be in the actual text itself.

[Benjamin Burch]

Short version: Inerrant - free from the liability of error. Fundamentalist - A movement formed to directly oppose the modernist movement, or modernist thinking.

Dan as a Fundamentalist - Focusing on the basics or core values of our Chirsitan beliefs. My specific focus on Nazarenes is for those who call themselves Elders (with or without formal education). My concern is not about what non-Nazarene elders or Nazarene laymen say or publish but what Nazarene Elders say and publish. I am especially critical of those who are technically correct but communicate in such a manner as to confuse those they are supposed to be teaching.

As to my qualifications to critique an Elder - When I see sufficient evidence that Elders are sufficiently critiquing each other in the CoTN (Peer Review), at all levels, then I will back down. With no other evidence of checks and balances in place, my credentials will have to do and I am a thorn in your side until I draw my last breath or sufficient evidence of the former is provided.

Both "inerrancy" and "Christian fundamentalism" are historically defined terms which point to specific historic realities. We cannot make these mean different things. Thus, I would want to say that as long as NazNetters are accurately portraying what those words mean, and the historic realities to which those words point, then they have accurately described the two. If one feels what they believe is being misrepresented, it would seem that they would need to find new words other than "inerrancy" or "fundamentalism."

[Benjamin Burch]

I don't think we ever attempted to define Dan Henderson's "views of inerrancy and fundamentalism." I think we have always reacted to very specific people, their specific statements, their specific presentations of inerrancy, and then made connections due to their claims and attempts to speak for a larger group they refer to as "Concerned Nazarenes." We have also represented and reacted to the historic concepts of inerrancy and fundamentalism.







The idea that historic "fundamentalism" and "inerrancy" have been misrepresented simply cannot be defended. It hasn't been. We've more than accurately represented what has been given to us. I could easily go find more from Manny, Tim, or others.

So, the premise - that we have misinterpreted inerrancy or fundamentalism - simply cannot be defended.

If we haven't described what Dan Henderson believes on the issue, then so be it. We can discuss that too. But don't go saying we've misrepresented anything. If the shoe fits, wear it.




It is fine that you cannot separate them. That's fine and fair. If they look similar, so be it. However, they do not come from the same root cause. They come from very, very different root causes.

(1) Open Theism - Dealing with the actual texts of Scripture as well as philosophical concepts of the nature of time
(2) Process Theology - doing theology in light of modern understandings of Biology and Physics, specifically dealing with issues of theodicy in light of these things, and grounded specifically in the philosophical and metaphysical work of Alfred North Whitehead.
(3) Emergent Theology - A reaction by the Evangelical Church to the intersecting issues of contemporary culture and the same issues struggled with in 1950-80 mainline Protestantism
(4) Postmodern Theology - A reaction to the failures of Modern Philosophy, and the way this has played itself out in the construction of Modern theologies, particularly that evidenced by Schliermacher, Hegel, and other movements in Western Europe and the United States. From there it has grown to also incorporate postmodern literary theories as well as postmodern social scientific criticisms in analysis of theologies as well as Biblical texts.

Understanding the differences of these four things is very important.



I will try.

No one should ever be saying either of these things:

(1) separating the dependent clause from the effectual clause, "inerrantly revealing God's will concerning us"
(2) all scripture is not inspired or not necessary to our salvation.

If they do, they are not being accurate to what the Church of the Nazarene believes, specifically in Article IV. Likewise, this is an incredibly common misconception among "concerned" folks. (Just look at Manny's blog!!!!)

The Church of the Nazarene says that



The Nazarenes believe that the entirety of the Holy Scriptures, all of them, the whole of it (plenary) is inspired.



Nazarenes believe that the "whole" is the 66 books they find in their versions of the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, connecting the first clause, we see that Nazarenes believe that all 66 books of the Bible, and everything in them, is inspired.



Nazarenes believe that this inspiration comes from God.



Nazarenes believe that these Scriptures reveal the will of God. They do not believe that they necessarily "contain" the will of God. In fact, that word was removed in 1928, symbolizing that this is not what Nazarenes believe. They believe that the Scriptures reveal God's will. Unfortunately, the Church of the Nazarene believes that this happens inerrantly.



Nazarenes do not believe that the Scriptures reveal God's will in any and all things. Instead, they believe that the Scriptures specifically reveal God's will concerning humanity in all things necessary to humanity's salvation.



Nothing which is not contained in Scripture is important enough to be considered essential to Nazarene faith.

Therefore, the Church of the Nazarene does not believe that only some of the Scriptures are inspired while others are not. It does not believe that only Scriptures pertaining to or speaking about salvation, or God's will concerning salvation are inerrant, while others are not.

The Church of the Nazarene believes that the whole Bible, all 66 books, are divinely inspired and all of them, every word, when read, reveals what God desires for them to be saved. The Church of the Nazarene believes that the whole of the Bible reveals this desire inerrantly, regardless of what errors may or may not be in the actual text itself.

It would seem that teaching new members what Article IV means should be of primary importance?

[Craig Laughlin]

Short version: Inerrant - free from the liability of error.

Could you flesh this out for me? I don't really understand what this means. I have never heard this verbiage applied to a method of interpreting scripture. My only reference is mildly legal with the idea that someone has made a mistake but can not be held legally culpable for that mistake. - I doubt that is what you meant so... help me out.

[Todd Erickson]

Fundamentalism actually came out of a growing reaction to liberal Christianity and the Princeton movement in the late 1800's and early 1900's. It is, in fact, incredibly and entirely modern in scope and pursuit...for all things to be labeled, known, and in their place, and only the correct and inerrant labelings/uses of things to be in play.

Any usage of Fundamentalism which falls outside of this is not normative.

[Benjamin Burch]

Fundamentalism actually came out of a growing reaction to liberal Christianity and the Princeton movement in the late 1800's and early 1900's. It is, in fact, incredibly and entirely modern in scope and pursuit...for all things to be labeled, known, and in their place, and only the correct and inerrant labelings/uses of things to be in play.

Any usage of Fundamentalism which falls outside of this is not normative.

Dan is correct that Fundamentalism was a reaction against the Modernist movement. However, it attempts to do so out of a pre-modern bastardization of modernist philosophy. It was a very confused movement.

[Dan Henderson]

Any usage of Fundamentalism which falls outside of this is not normative.

I've not made any claim to being normative, that would be boring.

[Dan Henderson]

Dan is correct that Fundamentalism was a reaction against the Modernist movement. However, it attempts to do so out of a pre-modern bastardization of modernist philosophy. It was a very confused movement.

Interesting insight.

[Benjamin Burch]

Interesting insight.

You might find this post equally interesting.

[Dan Henderson]

Could you flesh this out for me? I don't really understand what this means. I have never heard this verbiage applied to a method of interpreting scripture. My only reference is mildly legal with the idea that someone has made a mistake but can not be held legally culpable for that mistake. - I doubt that is what you meant so... help me out.

Maybe I can by indicating, suggesting that the modern usage of inerrant is as a synonymn to infallible. If not as a true synonymn then as an interchangeable or closely related word. So when I look at word useage, I look at its modern uses as well as its original uses. If the term has been highjacked or co-opted in modern language and there is a better or equal word available, I will use the modern substitute rather than try to reclaim the original meaning of the word. When there are no good words available, then we need to try to reclaim the word.

Inerrant in its most basic sense means, fixed or not moving.
Infallable in its most basic sense means, not capable of error or unable to fail.

These two words have been combined in modern language to mean much the same thing. In addition, not only have they become interchangable, but their basic meanings have merged. The problem is that these words (both of them) are part of the language of the adademic world of theology. Academic areas have the right to have their terms and to define them to a specific standard. So you have here root meanings, basic meanings, modern, meanings, and professional meanings. This is not unique to religion, it just is more acute because it is religion. So what I have seen is a range (think horizontal analog scale versus digital scale) of ideas of and a lot of people talking, using the same words, but not speaking the same language and no attempt by either side (though there are more than two sides) in attempting to understand what the other speaker is saying.

So back to the word usage. Since these words have taken on a combined meaning of both the individual terms, and me knowing of no other single word that can convey such clear meaning, I have chosen to use inerrant as the representative term. If I had chosen infallable "The Infallable Word of God", that would have taken on just as much debate, just in a different vein. Somewhere along the line, someone would have pointed out that infallable invokes the Pope more than it invokes the Word of God.

At least the term "inerrant" belongs almost exclusively to the Church (popular and academic) and pretty much invokes that you are talking about Scripture when you are using it.

Some other time I may tell you about a conversation I had with a Witch (note the capitalization), as in a Wiccan who refered to herself as a Witch. It is my best example of when it is not a good idea to try to claim or re-claim a word or phrase. As another example, gay, meaning happy or glad is gone forever and we have acceptable substitues.

[Dan Henderson]

Let me try to put this a different way.

My biggest problem with worrying about things like were there actually 5000 men plus women and children is that it obscures the text and move the question from "What does this story reveal about God?" to "Were there really 5000 men plus women and children?" Moreover, it makes the first question (What does this tell us about God?) dependent on ...

Jeffrey, I don't want to ignore you on this one. At the same time, I don't want to engage on this one either because its handled quite well by others. There are a lot of people here who can treat on number usage in the Scripture. I would use Matt 1:17 if I were going to use numbers as a defense against inerrancy.

[Rich Schmidt]

What does any of this have to do with Open Theism?

[Dan Henderson]

What does any of this have to do with Open Theism?

Benjamin's got this one.

[Benjamin Burch]

What does any of this have to do with Open Theism?

I am not quite sure why I "got this one".... but here it goes.

My guess is this:

Dan seems to think that he is misrepresented when we talk about inerrancy and fundamentalism, and in a similar way he recognizes that he might misrepresent those with whom he disagrees, particularly about the inspiration of Scripture.

However, for Dan, he also seems to think his understanding of Open Theism may also be a misrepresentation, and that for him all of these issues with which he seems to disagree, but may misrepresent, are wrapped up together in his brain, particularly Open Theism and the interpretation of Scripture (that last connection is a guess on my part. Help, Dan?), and he's looking to be open with us about how he thinks through the issue(s), and for us to help him so that he is - at the least - not misrepresenting us.

PHEW....

Dan, how did I do?

FWIW, Rich, I agree with your sentiment. I'm not sure what Article IV has to do with Open Theology.

[Benjamin Burch]

Dan, for a linguistic and historical study of Article IV, which explains precisely

(1) What it means, through an explanation of the grammar, syntax, and construction of the sentence
(2) How it developed
(3) the theological developments in the CotN which led to and grew out of this final form of Article IV

I highly suggest Michael Lodahl's book: All Things Necessary to Our Salvation.

It should be required reading for membership in the CotN, as well as required again for ordination. I don't know of a more important study in the CotN on the article.

I know he's a heretic and all by CN standards, but he's truly a wonderful man of God, a wonderful professor, and regardless of what someone thinks of his own theological orthodoxy, or the merit of his personal theologies, this work is rock solid. You should know someone who owns it. If you do not, I'd gladly mail you my copy.

[Dan Henderson]

You did quite well Benjamin. You got the question because your answers attempted to address my 1st statement and you demonstrated that you understood what I said. You even provided definitions for the four things that I think have a root-cause.

I went through the Stephen Covey training in the 90s (it was an Air Force fad), #4 of the 7 habits of highly effective people, "Seek first tho understand, then to be understood" (From memory so don't call me out if it's not #4.)

[Dan Henderson]

Dan, for a linguistic and historical study of Article IV, which explains precisely

(1) What it means, through an explanation of the grammar, syntax, and construction of the sentence
(2) How it developed
(3) the theological developments in the CotN which led to and grew out of this final form of Article IV

I highly suggest Michael Lodahl's book: All Things Necessary to Our Salvation.

It should be required reading for membership in the CotN, as well as required again for ordination. I don't know of a more important study in the CotN on the article.

I know he's a heretic and all by CN standards, but he's truly a wonderful man of God, a wonderful professor, and regardless of his own theological orthodoxy, or the merit of his personal theologies, this work is rock solid. You should know someone who owns it. If you do not, I'd gladly mail you my copy.

I will look into that (sooner if its on Kindle), Right now I'm chewing through Mark Quanstrom's dissertation and Wiley's "Christian Theology"

[Benjamin Burch]

You did quite well Benjamin. You got the question because your answers attempted to address my 1st statement and you demonstrated that you understood what I said. You even provided definitions for the four things that I think have a root-cause.

I went through the Stephen Covey training in the 90s (it was an Air Force fad), #4 of the 7 habits of highly effective people, "Seek first tho understand, then to be understood" (From memory so don't call me out if it's not #4.)

I completely agree. That is why I emphasized the differences which may exist between the way you use words and the way they've historically been used in Evangelicalism. If the shoe doesn't fit Dan Henderson, I don't want you thinking I'm trying to put it on you.

[Benjamin Burch]

I will look into that (sooner if its on Kindle), Right now I'm chewing through Mark Quanstrom's dissertation and Wiley's "Christian Theology"

I thought his dissertation was "A Century of Holiness Theology"?? At least, he told us that his PhD was in historical theology, for which he wrote his dissertation on the history of the doctrine of ES, which we were reading in that book. Or, that's what I recall him telling us.

[Dan Henderson]

I completely agree. That is why I emphasized the differences which may exist between the way you use words and the way they've historically been used in Evangelicalism. If the shoe doesn't fit Dan Henderson, I don't want you thinking I'm trying to put it on you.

Good, because my feet hurt enough as it is. BTW, I would have never picked that book you recommended on my own, it has that dependent clause out there by itself again, thats a turn-off for me, even realizing that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. In this case you can read the aforementioned proverb literally

[Dan Henderson]

I thought his dissertation was "A Century of Holiness Theology"?? At least, he told us that his PhD was in historical theology, for which he wrote his dissertation on the history of the doctrine of ES, which we were reading in that book. Or, that's what I recall him telling us.

That's the one