One Way Fundamentalists define Open Theist

[Rich Schmidt]

Would someone help me with the diagram from Jason. The division starts at the top with "Does the Bible passage deal with salvation: Yes/No" Then goes to "Reader's Interpretation" and "Scripture."

For me, the major problem is the initial question. It appears that those Dan describes, who are pushing for us to adopt some sort of Chicago-Statement-style inerrancy position misunderstand those of us who like our current Article IV position. Do they think that we believe only those Bible passages that "relate to salvation" are inerrant? Or are even Scripture? That's what the chart says. And that's what I've heard some Concerned Nazarenes say.

Others earlier in the thread have already pointed out that this is definitely NOT what Article IV says, nor is it what any of us believe. We believe (as Article IV states) that ALL 66 books are Scripture, that ALL of Scripture is inspired by God, and that it ALL "inerrantly reveal[s] the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation." In other words, Scripture has a purpose, and it isn't to teach math, science, etc. It's to teach us who God is, who we are, and how God has provided for our salvation in Jesus Christ. Everything necessary to our salvation is inerrantly revealed to us in Scripture.

But at this point, I'm just repeating what others have already more eloquently stated...

[Charles W Christian]

One could technically be a fundamentalist and an open theist based upon Dan H's definition.

Charles

[David Gerber]

I've already done so. The problem is that the old addage that one should never discuss religion or politics is polite company rings true. I have noted that both generate heated discussions and not much movement. So when I say discussions like this generate hostility, I'm not taking it personally, just stating an observation. I had thought that I was ready to engage and remain cool, but I have lost my cool at least twice and have stated things, true or not, that I should not have stated.

So I have engaged but not yet ready to remain calm at all times. I have no problem remaining calm in matters pertaining to life, limb, or property (emergencies), yet when it comes to discussions, not so much. With discussions, there is nothing to contain, there is no imminent danger.

Anger, as well as many other emotions, can teach us something about ourselves. Perhaps asking yourself why you are getting angry and what that is revealing about you is a good starting point. More to the issue, what is making you angry and what does it reveal about the character of Christ still needing to be formed within you?

Often, my anger shows my lack of understanding in a subject and thus the discussion reveals my ignorance to me. Or, I see a faint reflection of me in that person. Both of which I need to surrender to Christ for his redemption and transformation.

I have already stated in other words that I am most dangerous to an organization when I am uninformed. If I were fully informed, all my actions would affect the organization correctly.

That is an interesting comment. Are you saying that you have the ability, with enough knowledge you can act properly and beneficially all the time? Our perceptions are faulty, we misunderstand things all the time...at least I do.

I came here to defend, I'm staying to learn. The only thing I ask is that you understand that you are dealing with a peer. I deal with doctors every day ... you've only been called by God, they they think they ARE god. They don't think I'm qualified to evaluate their performance either, many of them never get over the fact that their medical authority has to be checked (balanced) by a mere bean counter like me.

I am pretty sure you don't think of yourself as a 'mere bean counter.'

[Dan Henderson]

Anger, as well as many other emotions, can teach us something about ourselves. Perhaps asking yourself why you are getting angry and what that is revealing about you is a good starting point. More to the issue, what is making you angry and what does it reveal about the character of Christ still needing to be formed within you?

Often, my anger shows my lack of understanding in a subject and thus the discussion reveals my ignorance to me. Or, I see a faint reflection of me in that person. Both of which I need to surrender to Christ for his redemption and transformation.'

Its not anger, its exasperation. Anger has never been one of my issues. I have other weaknesses.

That is an interesting comment. Are you saying that you have the ability, with enough knowledge you can act properly and beneficially all the time? Our perceptions are faulty, we misunderstand things all the time...at least I do. '

You got it. Right thinking, right heart, right actions.

I am pretty sure you don't think of yourself as a 'mere bean counter.'

I do, actually.

[Dennis Bratcher]

. . . So please - without using the word inerrant - define it for me. Please communicate the idea and parameters. . . . Just articulate it plainly and clearly.

I've already done so. . . .

No, actually you have not. You have talked a lot about it, given reasons why you think it is misrepresented, and defended your choice of the term. But there has been no concise definition of how you are using the term as applied to Bible or theology apart from the "basic" meaning of the word.

Language never works according to "basic" meanings of word. Words only have meaning as they are used within a context. And those meanings change with time and place as the context changes (consider the English word "gay" for instance; one can argue the "basic" meaning of the word all day yet that is no longer what the word means in usage). So, to say that inerrant means "fixed or unmoving" or "free from the liability of error" does not say much about Scripture without some kind of more specific explanation or qualification (we could talk here, for example, about obvious "errors" in the text of manuscripts of the Bible, a feature that even the most ardent literalist and fundamentalist scholars openly acknowledge).

So, I join Craig in requesting a clear concise definition of the word "inerrant" as you are using it in relation to Bible and biblical theology. You also might consider explaining from what context you are using the term (laypeople, like elders, operate within a context) and for what purpose (why that particular term is important to you). Both of those help define meaning. That seems a fair and reasonable request for someone who has taken it as his task to correct others (which itself is neither good nor bad). Otherwise, it sounds more like you are just angry about something without apparent cause and defending a personal perspective without a willingness to consider that a different perspective might have some validity.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dan Henderson]

No, actually you have not. .

An abritrary statement does not a point make. We wll not be having the "did too, did not" argument. I've given you root definitions and work definitions. You are just going to have to go back and look. I'm already bored and I do not like to repeat statements, especially when they are preserved here forever. It was a mistake to sign up here. I feel I am wasting my type and running around in cirlcles with the same arguments I've heard since the 70s. Nothing new here. Same entrenched arguments. The only differences is we are more educated and we use bigger words.

[Dennis Bratcher]

An abritrary statement does not a point make. We wll not be having the "did too, did not" argument. I've given you root definitions and work definitions. You are just going to have to go back and look. I'm already bored and I do not like to repeat statements, especially when they are preserved here forever. It was a mistake to sign up here. I feel I am wasting my type and running around in cirlcles with the same arguments I've heard since the 70s. Nothing new here. Same entrenched arguments. The only differences is we are more educated and we use bigger words.

I did go back and look, which is why I asked for clarification. Yes, I suppose it is boring to have to defend a position by actually clarifying what the position is. It is much easier to speak in generalities, decry how other people use words, and lob bombs than to approach an issue constructively. And it is easier to run when challenged than it is to stand and clearly articulate exactly what makes you angry and why you think you need to challenge elders, scholars, and leaders in the church (who may very well need challenging!).

All of that pretty much forfeits any credibility you might have in attempting to rebuke anyone. And it is a tacit admission of an unwillingness to try to understand Christian brothers and sisters, something about which John Wesley was convinced was vitally important in the Church.

BTW: Some of us here have changed our minds about a lot of things in Scripture and theology since the 1970s. That's the nature of learning and spiritual growth.

Blessings on your journey.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[David Gerber]

It was a mistake to sign up here.

Yep, that sounds more like exasperation than anger. You were right.

[Marcus Kibbe]

I'm not Dan, but I'll share my opinion.

So, I join Craig in requesting a clear concise definition of the word "inerrant" as you are using it in relation to Bible and biblical theology.

The Bible is true. This is my concise definition.

I agree that words are used within a context (linguistic, cultural, etc). And the context of Scripture is, for the most part, 'ordinary' rather than 'technical' language. Scripture is certainly not of the 'technically' and 'maximally' precise modern scientific genre that many place upon it in order to prove its "obvious errors". In Scripture, God has most efficiently communicated to us in the same way we communicate with each other, that is through: imprecisions, metaphors, hyperbole, parables, etc. This does not always convey literal truth, or truth with precision expected in specialized contexts, but they all convey truth. There is no reason to charge them with error. The term inerrancy has never meant that the Bible is maximally precise. Ironically, it requires a literalist (and inconsistent) reading to disprove the historic Christian teaching that the Bible is inerrant. Inerrant language is language that makes good on its own claims, not on claims that are placed upon it by thoughtless readers.

Blessings,

Marcus

P.S. Now you can prove to us all the errors found in Scripture, and why saying the "Bible is true" is "technically" not true.

[Rich Schmidt]

Scripture is certainly not of the 'technically' and 'maximally' precise modern scientific genre that many place upon it in order to prove its "obvious errors".
...
P.S. Now you can prove to us all the errors found in Scripture, and why saying the "Bible is true" is "technically" not true.

Since you put "obvious errors" in quotes, I assume you're referring back to Dennis' use of that phrase. He was speaking of textual errors in the manuscripts we have. These are obvious, and no one disputes them.

[Dan Henderson]

Okay, I will try but I need some help.

-I have heard the term 5-point fundamentalist used many times here as if it was a bad thing. I have seen multiple lists depicting these 5-points. They are similar but not the same. Please highlight for me which one is the most comon, or most accepted list and then, by exception, tell me which one(s) the typical Nazarene should disagree with and why.

-I have also seen the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy quoted a lot. I had never heard of it, or read it, until I was "accused" of holding to a Chicago Style inerrancy statement. Please highlight, by exception, which article(s) that a typical Nazarene should not agree with.

-If instead of saying The Bible is Inerrant, I stated, The Bible should be accepted at face value --- How does that communicate to you?

[Daniel Hamlin]

-I have also seen the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy quoted a lot. I had never heard of it, or read it, until I was "accused" of holding to a Chicago Style inerrancy statement. Please highlight, by exception, which article(s) that a typical Nazarene should not agree with.

For me the question is, why should I agree with it? It's redefining the term "inerrant" while still attempting to use it. But in answer to your question:

From the Chicago Statement, Summary section, item 4:

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.

"Verbally God-given" has serious problems in and of itself.

From Article 1:

We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Yet it was the church that determined the canon(s).

From article 6:

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

There is the assumption of the existence of "autographs" (also found in article 10).

Article 10:

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

So, the writers admit that there is an absence of autographs, so they wave their hands and say that it doesn't matter.

Article 12:

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

So even though Scripture teaches that the earth is a flat, two dimensional object we are supposed to deny the fact that it's a oblique spheroid?

Article 13:

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Wait, doesn't that just contradict article 12? In fact, in my opinion, this one article is the one that completely redefines "inerrant". Misspelling is not an error? I should go back and appeal some of my elementary school spelling tests then. How do we know what "standards of truth and error" are "alien to its usage or purpose" since inerrancy is not "limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science."

Article 14:

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

Except the evidence points otherwise.

Article 15:

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

And yet in Article 7 the authors admitted that the nature of inspiration is a mystery.

Article 7:

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

Article 18:

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

Huge assumption about the nature of scripture.

Exposition, Part C:

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature,

How do we know if something is a "phenomenal description of nature" or if the author actually thought that was the way nature functioned? Remember, inerrancy is not "limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science." Again, "the circle of the earth" from Isaiah 40, is the earth flat or not?

Exposition, Part E:

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission.

Why wouldn't God perfectly preserve everything throughout history? Did He not care about the future transmission of Scripture?

My guess is that a Muslim could read the Chicago Statement, substitute in the Koran, and be in agreement as well.

[Dan Henderson]

Daniel Hamlin,

I didn't quote any of your response because I saw only opinions. I asked what a typical Nazarene should disagree with. Are you implying that your opinion is typical for Nazarenes? Even though I am steering away from "Cite your source", statments such as: "Verbally God-given" has serious problems in and of itself, just doesn't do it for me. It does? Why?

Please give me examples of where the Bible teaches flat earth. I missed the memo on that one. I hope you are not refering to Isaiah or Revelation because those arguments are old, tired and simply wrong (they do not teach flat earth). Is it possible you are confusing inerrants with the Flat Earth Society?

[Hans Deventer]

Okay, I will try but I need some help.

Sure, but I thought you were going to explain?

[Dan Henderson]

Sure, but I thought you were going to explain?

I haven't gotten the help I need yet.

[Benjamin Burch]

Daniel Hamlin,

I didn't quote any of your response because I saw only opinions. I asked what a typical Nazarene should disagree with. Are you implying that your opinion is typical for Nazarenes? Even though I am steering away from "Cite your source", statments such as: "Verbally God-given" has serious problems in and of itself, just doesn't do it for me. It does? Why?

Please give me examples of where the Bible teaches flat earth. I missed the memo on that one. I hope you are not refering to Isaiah or Revelation because those arguments are old, tired and simply wrong (they do not teach flat earth). Is it possible you are confusing inerrants with the Flat Earth Society?

Translation:

Nazarenes don't have an identity and who we are and what we believe isn't important. "Typical" should apply to Nazarenes who have no problem with verbal dictation theories of inspiration, even though that explicitly goes against everything the Church of the Nazarene has always believed.

*sigh*

[Dan Henderson]

Translation:

Nazarenes don't have an identity and who we are and what we believe isn't important. "Typical" should apply to Nazarenes who have no problem with verbal dictation theories of inspiration, even though that explicitly goes against everything the Church of the Nazarene has always believed.

*sigh*

What have Nazarenes always believed? (I'm not asking you to quote article IV or our agreed statements of belief)

[Steven Martinez]

This is a Host Post

I have decided that this thread has run its course. It is no longer about the original post but has entered into the innerancy issue. Those who wish to discuss innerancy can do so on the other theology forum if that thread is still open.

Steve Martinez