Dan's Statement on Article IV

[Dan Henderson]

Greetings, it is the 197th day of 2012. For the past year and a half or so, I have been reading statements and listening to sermons concerning that which Nazarenes consider is or should be our official view of the Bible. I have heard, and read, as many diverse opinions on this subject as the number of sermons, articles, and posts that I have reviewed. I have concluded that there is no consensus in the Church of the Nazarene on how our statement on Scripture should be written. That is to say, that while we do have an agreed statement of belief, every person, all of us, believes that we can improve that statement.

Consider the opening paragraph of this recently published article from Holiness Today:

“As Nazarenes, we affirm the full inspiration of the Bible. We affirm that the Bible inerrantly reveals the will of God for us in all things necessary to our salvation.”

I have no issue with this article or its author per se (thus the reason I did not provide a citation). What I would like to demonstrate, primarily through a few bullet statements is why this paragraph does not represent the Church of the Nazarene official statement on Scripture. I give the author credit for including at least the first statement in the first sentence after the comma. Usually, only the second sentence is quoted when an author tries to summarize article IV.

As such, these are Dan’s statements regarding Article IV. To do so, I will provide the full statement on Article IV as “Statement #1” and use this author’s first paragraph, since it is more complete than others, as a common summary statement for Article IV as “Statement # 2.”

Statement #1: “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.”

Statement #2: “As Nazarenes, we affirm the full inspiration of the Bible. We affirm that the Bible inerrantly reveals the will of God for us in all things necessary to our salvation.”

Conclusions:

Statement #1 is the official Church of the Nazarene position on the Holy Scripture. Statement #2 is not. Statement #1 is the only official stance appropriate for quotation until at least July 2013. We agree that this is our official position, not that we necessarily agree individually. This applies to all Nazarenes, whether; concerned or naznetter, progressive or traditional, fundamental or post-modern, educator or student, elder or layperson . Statement #2 contains some of the same words, in the same sequence as our official statement, but it is neither our official statement nor representative of our official statement. Statement #2 cannot be credibly espoused as the official Nazarene view.

Statement #1 is in “lowest common denominator” form. It cannot be reduced or simplified any further and simultaneously maintain its integrity as our agreed statement of belief. Because of Nazarene legislation, for Nazarenes, Statement #1 is true because it conveys the complete thought with regards to our agreement, Statement #2 is false because it is an incomplete statement with regards to our agreement.

Prediction:

Continued attempts or perceived attempts to reduce the statement known as Article IV will eventually lead to the adoption of a statement that sounds more Calvinist than most would want. Stated another continuing to treat, or be perceived to treat Article IV as less than one, complete, and irreducible thought will drive a ground swell of non-fundamentalist Nazarenes who if given only two perceived choices will lean towards innerancy.

[Shea Zellweger]

Not sure how I could disagree more... Statement 2 expresses thoroughly the Nazarene view on Scripture, and Statement 1 is not a single thought. If Statement 1 were a single thought, then the conclusion of that thought has to do with what we consider to be acceptable as an article of faith. The purpose of our Article on Scripture is much, much broader in its application than simply determining what belongs in the AoF. If we ever reduce it to such, we have already given up on the power of Scripture. So then, "whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith" must necessarily be a subordinate, secondary thought, or we are no longer a Holiness People, but a people who care only about orthodoxy without orthopraxis (and a rather narrow, specific version of orthodoxy at that). Separating off the final sentence as a 2nd thought, we are left with the part of the article that begins "We believe" and ends "salvation" as its own unique thought. Statement 2 is an adequate and acceptable summary of that belief statement, differing only on the expanse of definition for "Bible." While some (myself included) might consider more than 66 books to be "the Bible," The average Protestant does not do so, and there is no more need to define "Bible" in a HT article than there is to provide a caveat every time someone mentions "the Bible" in conversation with a fellow Nazarene. We read "Bible" in HT, and we assume the author is speaking about the 66 books which comprise the Old and New Testaments, unless s/he explicit states otherwise. It's the standard definition for Nazarenes, and needs no more explanation than any other word does when being used in a standard way. For an article of Faith, I can see the need for distinction, but for an article in HT, to say that leaving out the definition makes the statement somehow wrong is disputing a level of minutia that is entirely irrelevant to well over 99% of readers.
So yeah, I'd say the author has more than adequately encapsulated the official Nazarene position on what Scripture is, and your attempt to dissect it and invalidate it only demonstrates more thoroughly just how good a job the author did.

[Dan Henderson]

Shea, your response is an excellent model on how to disagree with an idea. Thank you for your supurb approach to disagreement. I hope that in our future disagreements that I can do as well as you.

[Shea Zellweger]

Shea, your response is an excellent model on how to disagree with an idea. Thank you for your supurb approach to disagreement. I hope that in our future disagreements that I can do as well as you.

Assuming this is a genuine response, thank you, Dan. Pleasure doin' business with you.

[Dan Henderson]

Assuming this is a genuine response, thank you, Dan. Pleasure doin' business with you.

It is genuine. My statement describes my conclusion but does not explain why I've come to that conclusion. So even though I used "demonstrate" at the beginning, I decided not to "demonstrate" but forgot to change the word. I chose not to explain why but reckconed that expaining why would take too long. Your response describes why you disagree with my statement and that is fine.

I have described before why I believe that it is inappropriate to partially quote Article IV. It has much less to do with what you actually mean and much more with the meaning assigned by readers, especially those who lean towards inerrancy. It is irrelevant that we have never agreed to a statement that says that the Bible is innerrant. I estimate that 1/3 of the Nazarene population holds that belief. Since there is no statistical sampling available, my assumption cannot be refuted, but you can substitute my assumption for one of your own and debate from tha premise. Having said that, the partial statement reads to a large portion of the readership to state: "Limited Inerrancy". I do not believe that any Nazarene subscribes to anything remotely like "limited inerrancy", at least not publically. So my question is, why would an accomplished communicator isolate a phrase they know or should know will be read as "Nazarenes believe in limited inerrancy of the scripture." When this happens, there are clear black and white choices. With these types of missteps, they know or they don't know, its intentional or its unintentional, and down the line.

Article IV is a compromise statement. It is legislation more than it is belief. As such, any partial quote is not an agreed to statement among the different sects that make up Nazarenes, and thus not appropriate to be held as an official or defacto-official position in either official or quazi-official communications.

[James Diggs]

.. Having said that, the partial statement reads to a large portion of the readership to state: "Limited Inerrancy". I do not believe that any Nazarene subscribes to anything remotely like "limited inerrancy", at least not publically.

The statement is not about "limited inerrancy", it is a statement about the intention of ALL scripture- to reveal to us everything concerning our reconciliation to God in Christ and the scripture's ability to perfectly do so.

I admit the use of the word "inerrantly" can be problematic when you consider what that word means to some- and perhaps it was used as some sort of poilitical compromise- but in the context of the statement itself it does not read as if to promote "limited inerrancy" as if parts of the bible are inerrant and others are not. ALL scripture "inerrantly" reveals what we need to be reconciled with God. I think we all can agree on this.

I have pointed this out before and I will do so again, the statement (what you call statement 2) isn't about what scripture is (what you call statement 1 does this) but (statement 2) tells us what scripture does.

[Dan Henderson]

The statement is not about "limited inerrancy", it is a statement about the intention of ALL scripture- to reveal to us everything concerning our reconciliation to God in Christ and the scripture's ability to perfectly do so.
does.

Agreed! Again, not about what it means as written, but how it is read and understood.

Added: The "limited inerrancy" read (or fear if you prefer) is not without merit.

[Wilson Deaton]

Continued attempts or perceived attempts to reduce the statement known as Article IV will eventually lead to the adoption of a statement that sounds more Calvinist than most would want. Stated another continuing to treat, or be perceived to treat Article IV as less than one, complete, and irreducible thought will drive a ground swell of non-fundamentalist Nazarenes who if given only two perceived choices will lean towards innerancy.[/SIZE][/FONT]

If we change our statement to a more "innerancy" based stance, I will have to consider myself "grandfathered in" under the old understanding.

Wilson

[Benjamin Burch]

Greetings, it is the 197th day of 2012. For the past year and a half or so, I have been reading statements and listening to sermons concerning that which Nazarenes consider is or should be our official view of the Bible. I have heard, and read, as many diverse opinions on this subject as the number of sermons, articles, and posts that I have reviewed. I have concluded that there is no consensus in the Church of the Nazarene on how our statement on Scripture should be written. That is to say, that while we do have an agreed statement of belief, every person, all of us, believes that we can improve that statement.

Consider the opening paragraph of this recently published article from Holiness Today:

“As Nazarenes, we affirm the full inspiration of the Bible. We affirm that the Bible inerrantly reveals the will of God for us in all things necessary to our salvation.”

I have no issue with this article or its author per se (thus the reason I did not provide a citation). What I would like to demonstrate, primarily through a few bullet statements is why this paragraph does not represent the Church of the Nazarene official statement on Scripture. I give the author credit for including at least the first statement in the first sentence after the comma. Usually, only the second sentence is quoted when an author tries to summarize article IV.

As such, these are Dan’s statements regarding Article IV. To do so, I will provide the full statement on Article IV as “Statement #1” and use this author’s first paragraph, since it is more complete than others, as a common summary statement for Article IV as “Statement # 2.”

Statement #1: “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.”

Statement #2: “As Nazarenes, we affirm the full inspiration of the Bible. We affirm that the Bible inerrantly reveals the will of God for us in all things necessary to our salvation.”

Conclusions:

Statement #1 is the official Church of the Nazarene position on the Holy Scripture. Statement #2 is not. Statement #1 is the only official stance appropriate for quotation until at least July 2013. We agree that this is our official position, not that we necessarily agree individually. This applies to all Nazarenes, whether; concerned or naznetter, progressive or traditional, fundamental or post-modern, educator or student, elder or layperson . Statement #2 contains some of the same words, in the same sequence as our official statement, but it is neither our official statement nor representative of our official statement. Statement #2 cannot be credibly espoused as the official Nazarene view.

Statement #1 is in “lowest common denominator” form. It cannot be reduced or simplified any further and simultaneously maintain its integrity as our agreed statement of belief. Because of Nazarene legislation, for Nazarenes, Statement #1 is true because it conveys the complete thought with regards to our agreement, Statement #2 is false because it is an incomplete statement with regards to our agreement.

Prediction:

Continued attempts or perceived attempts to reduce the statement known as Article IV will eventually lead to the adoption of a statement that sounds more Calvinist than most would want. Stated another continuing to treat, or be perceived to treat Article IV as less than one, complete, and irreducible thought will drive a ground swell of non-fundamentalist Nazarenes who if given only two perceived choices will lean towards innerancy.

Can you help me see what is different between the two, other than the last phrase? Likewise, can you tell me what difference the last phrase makes in your view?

[Dan Henderson]

Can you help me see what is different between the two, other than the last phrase? Likewise, can you tell me what difference the last phrase makes in your view?

Is "two" what I refered to as Statement #1 and #2? Is "last phrase" refering to the second sentance in Statement #2?

[Benjamin Burch]

Is "two" what I refered to as Statement #1 and #2?

Yes.

Is "last phrase" refering to the second sentance in Statement #2?

Last phrase is (statement #1):

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

[Jim Chabot]

I estimate that 1/3 of the Nazarene population holds that belief. Since there is no statistical sampling available, my assumption cannot be refuted,

Oh yeah! Says who?

Ok, sort of kidding. About this time a couple of years back I undertook a brief study where I asked somewhere near a hundred Nazarenes on the subject of innerancy. I must admit that I did this at a few campmeetings so the sampling may be off due to the nasty AHM influence that pervades these places. My query came back with about 95% believing Scripture to be innerant. If I were to exclude clergy and those employed at ENC the survey would have revealed 100%. Among clergy, I found the response toward innerancy to be 60% or so.

Sorry to hear that thee are so many liberals out your way.

[Dan Henderson]

[QUOTE=Benjamin Burch;150226]Can you help me see what is different between the two, other than the last phrase? Likewise, can you tell me what difference the last phrase makes in your view?[/QUOTE]

I will try not to repeat anything I've already said. For now I will ignore the Nazarene's believe part of the quote since I believe I've already addressed that. Reminder, this is with regard to the statement we agreed to, as Nazarenes with regard to Holy Scripture

In another thread you asked "What is Scripture?" With regard to that question, our Art. IV statement answers your question. Statement #2 does not answer your question.

Without fail, in every thread that this has been discussed "We affirm that the Bible inerrantly reveals the will of God for us in all things necessary to our salvation" is the quote used to refute the idea that Nazarenes have never (fill in your argument here). As such, it has become the rallying point for every opponent who believes this article needs to be updated, whether fundamentalist or post-modern. This has been proof-texted both appropriately and inappropriately as proof that Nazarene leaders are espousing limited inerrancy of the Scripture. For example, my interpretation and my interpretation of the overwheming majority of sermons if have heard on this subject: The Bible contains everything I need to know about Salvation. <--- That is not our official agreed to statement any more than my provided statement #2. For some (meaning more than two). The statement, "We affirm that the Bible inerrantly reveals the will of God for us in all things necessary to our salvation" in isolation, without any input from anyone, introduces a potental interpretation leading to limited inerrancy. In addition, some do actually believe and have preached such in my presence.

The last phrase is important to me because it excludes any other source of information as necessary for my Salvation. I don't need to agree with (name your author here). What they write is not in the Bible and it is not needed for me to understand Salvation and it is not an article of faith. I view it as our last stand against dogma. Though I cannot articulate this last statement well and probably won't be able to explain, I actually think that last phrase negates the statement, There is no Salvation outside the church.

[Benjamin Burch]

[[SIZE=3]I will try not to repeat anything I've already said. For now I will ignore the Nazarene's believe part of the quote since I believe I've already addressed that. Reminder, this is with regard to the statement we agreed to, as Nazarenes with regard to Holy Scripture

In another thread you asked "What is Scripture?" With regard to that question, our Art. IV statement answers your question. Statement #2 does not answer your question.

Without fail, in every thread that this has been discussed "We affirm that the Bible inerrantly reveals the will of God for us in all things necessary to our salvation" is the quote used to refute the idea that Nazarenes have never (fill in your argument here). As such, it has become the rallying point for every opponent who believes this article needs to be updated, whether fundamentalist or post-modern. This has been proof-texted both appropriately and inappropriately as proof that Nazarene leaders are espousing limited inerrancy of the Scripture. For example, my interpretation and my interpretation of the overwheming majority of sermons if have heard on this subject: The Bible contains everything I need to know about Salvation. <--- That is not our official agreed to statement any more than my provided statement #2. For some (meaning more than two). The statement, "We affirm that the Bible inerrantly reveals the will of God for us in all things necessary to our salvation" in isolation, without any input from anyone, introduces a potental interpretation leading to limited inerrancy. In addition, some do actually believe and have preached such in my presence.

The last phrase is important to me because it excludes any other source of information as necessary for my Salvation. I don't need to agree with (name your author here). What they write is not in the Bible and it is not needed for me to understand Salvation and it is not an article of faith. I view it as our last stand against dogma. Though I cannot articulate this last statement well and probably won't be able to explain, I actually think that last phrase negates the statement, There is no Salvation outside the church.

Thanks. That's helpful.

I don't see why someone wouldn't just quote the Article. That's why it exists, isn't it? As a reference point so that the denomination can speak, and not individuals? I'd get on board with you, here.

[John Reilly]

Oh yeah! Says who?

Ok, sort of kidding. About this time a couple of years back I undertook a brief study where I asked somewhere near a hundred Nazarenes on the subject of innerancy. I must admit that I did this at a few campmeetings so the sampling may be off due to the nasty AHM influence that pervades these places. My query came back with about 95% believing Scripture to be innerant. If I were to exclude clergy and those employed at ENC the survey would have revealed 100%. Among clergy, I found the response toward innerancy to be 60% or so.

Sorry to hear that thee are so many liberals out your way.

At New England District Children's Camp I taught the children (Jim's son Daniel being one) about Inerrancy. If I told them once I told then twice, "When I as the Director make a decision it is withOUT error concerning all things having to do with your salvation. Now ... Lights out, mouth off, and silence!!!! SO that you may be saved!!!"

[Jim Chabot]

At New England District Children's Camp I taught the children (Jim's son Daniel being one) about Inerrancy. If I told them once I told then twice, "When I as the Director make a decision it is withOUT error concerning all things having to do with your salvation. Now ... Lights out, mouth off, and silence!!!! SO that you may be saved!!!"

That's right! And according to my "source" a violator risked becoming Mr. Reilly's "special friend."

At church this morning Pastor Tom asked the kids to give a report of how camp went. He asked what they did at camp which was different than at home. I said "they obeyed!"

[James Diggs]

Agreed! Again, not about what it means as written, but how it is read and understood.

Added: The "limited inerrancy" read (or fear if you prefer) is not without merit.

Hmmmm the only "merit" to me is that there does seem to be some confusion of some who think the passage is saying only the parts in the Bible about salvation are inerrant - but the part of the statement in question isn't saying anything about what it IS- inerrant or otherwise as it instead talks about what all of scripture does.

I do think we can clear up the misunderstanding with those who are concerned about "limited inerrency", by simply pointing out how it is worded. However in my experience trying to do so sometimes I have discovered that some don't want to hear it as they prefer to keep the view of "limited inerrency" as a straw man to harp on and rail against. The "fear" for some is preferred as they want to say incorrectly that Nazarenes are saying only some parts of the Bible are inerrant and other parts are not. There is no sense arguing with them because they are not going to be happy unless we say the bible IS, as an object, inerrant. I think saying what the bible DOES as revelation in that regard is much more accurate.

Would you be ok with changing the word from "inerrently" to "perfectly"?

[Dan Henderson]

Would you be ok with changing the word from "inerrently" to "perfectly"?

It would not matter to me which of the two words were used in the context of Art 4. It would still read the same to me. I don't need any of our statements to be re-written, I'm happy with them the way they are. I just don't want them proof-texted for anyones purpose, whether [the intent is] pure or diabolical.

[Kevin Rector]

Statement #1 is in “lowest common denominator” form. It cannot be reduced or simplified any further and simultaneously maintain its integrity as our agreed statement of belief. Because of Nazarene legislation, for Nazarenes, Statement #1 is true because it conveys the complete thought with regards to our agreement, Statement #2 is false because it is an incomplete statement with regards to our agreement.

One small sticky wicket in your argument is that we have another "official" statement on scripture that is not the full article of faith - from the 8 Agreed Statements of Belief which is also in our constitution:

That the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living.

[Bob Hunter]

I kinda view Dan's original statement as a red herring fallacy of sorts. It detracts from the real issue at hand. The real issue being, we have sizable segment of Nazarenes who embrace total Biblical innerancy as defined by neo-fundamentalist groups. And it appears to me that if one can trivialize or minimize the official Nazarene position on scripture, then it would be a lot easier to pave the way and accept innerancy as a possible variation of what we already believe. I'm just not buying it. I've read the history and the innerancy view just doesn't jive with who we be.

[Dan Henderson]

One small sticky wicket in your argument is that we have another "official" statement on scripture that is not the full article of faith - from the 8 Agreed Statements of Belief which is also in our constitution:

Its much harder to derive limited inerrancy from this statement than the other and is not the statement most often used and abused by major groups.

[Dan Henderson]

I kinda view Dan's original statement as a red herring fallacy of sorts. It detracts from the real issue at hand. The real issue being, we have sizable segment of Nazarenes who embrace total Biblical innerancy as defined by neo-fundamentalist groups. And it appears to me that if one can trivialize or minimize the official Nazarene position on scripture, then it would be a lot easier to pave the way and accept innerancy as a possible variation of what we already believe. I'm just not buying it. I've read the history and the innerancy view just doesn't jive with who we be.

The term neo-fundamentalist is a nonsense category in the same way that post-modernism is a nonsense category. Its fundamentalism and modernism, always has been. Neo and post are for people who like to split hairs.

[Bob Hunter]

The term neo-fundamentalist is a nonsense category in the same way that post-modernism is a nonsense category. Its fundamentalism and modernism, always has been. Neo and post are for people who like to split hairs.

This whole thread is a hair splinting attempt on your part Dan. I guess nonsense is in the eye of the beholder.

Edited to add: I would ask the moderators to shut this one down as I do not see any good that can come from it.

[Shea Zellweger]

The term neo-fundamentalist is a nonsense category in the same way that post-modernism is a nonsense category. Its fundamentalism and modernism, always has been. Neo and post are for people who like to split hairs.

This is not at all accurate. Postmodern philosophers are almost universally not fundamentalists, and they are not modernists. Furthermore, there is 1500 years of Church history which took place before the rise of modernism, and nearly 1900 years prior to the rise of Fundamentalism. To exclude all voices but modernist and fundamentalist from the conversation is dismissive and, quite honestly, offensive to people who are not in one of those two philosophical camps. Postmodernism rejects several of the foundational tenets of modernism, objectivity being chief among these. It's simply wrong to try and group those two together, just as it would be wrong to group pre-modern philosophy in with either modern or fundamentalist philosophy. Sorry, Dan, but you don't get to dismiss my belief system out of hand and tell me I'm splitting hairs, especially when nothing could be further from the truth.

[Shea Zellweger]

Its much harder to derive limited inerrancy from this statement than the other and is not the statement most often used and abused by major groups.

Wait, what? The statement Kevin quoted is nearly identical to the "statement 2" you quoted. The only significant difference is that the ASB says "Old and New Testament Scriptures" while statement 2 says "Bible."

Dan, I have to ask; what is your end-game here? In other threads, you've threatened damaging action at the 2017 GA. In this thread, you appear to be waging war against those who interpret the Nazarene statements on Scripture differently from you. You have somehow found a way to separate in your mind two statements which are effectively identical, and would likely be seen as such by a large majority of people. I've spent the last 7 years examining the minutiae of Scripture and biblical arguments full-time, and even now I can't imagine how saying "Bible" instead of "Old and New Testament Scriptures" makes a significant difference in a non-Catholic setting. The only real difference I can see is that one is in the Manual, and you have pre-determined that anything in the manual must be compatible with your beliefs, while anything outside the Manual is open to criticism. I just don't get it.

As for limited inerrancy, we most definitely do believe in limited inerrancy. We believe the inerrancy of the Scriptures only pertains to salvation. We do not require our members to uphold the inerrance of the mathematics, geography, history, science, or other subjects addressed in Scripture. I'd say the term "limited inerrancy" is a very fair descriptor of the Manual statement, because the inerrancy of the Scriptures is limited in its scope. Heck, we don't actually ever refer to the inerrancy of the Scriptures, or to the Scriptures as inerrant. The only time we use inerrant, it is in adverbial form to describe the manner in which the Scriptures reveal all things necessary for salvation. In no other context do we use the term. Our members are free to be literalists, inerrantists, fundamentalists, or pretty much any other kind of -ist that fits within orthodox Christianity but our Articles of Faith and our Agreed Statement of Belief neither condone nor condemn any of these -isms. So I am not required by the Manual to be a fundamentalist, and you are not required by the manual to not be. This has been true since the foundation of our denomination, and if ever we narrowed our definition of Scripture in one direction or the other, there would be a mass exodus from this church, and I would be a part of it either way.

[Bob Hunter]

This is not at all accurate. Postmodern philosophers are almost universally not fundamentalists, and they are not modernists. Furthermore, there is 1500 years of Church history which took place before the rise of modernism, and nearly 1900 years prior to the rise of Fundamentalism. To exclude all voices but modernist and fundamentalist from the conversation is dismissive and, quite honestly, offensive to people who are not in one of those two philosophical camps. Postmodernism rejects several of the foundational tenets of modernism, objectivity being chief among these. It's simply wrong to try and group those two together, just as it would be wrong to group pre-modern philosophy in with either modern or fundamentalist philosophy. Sorry, Dan, but you don't get to dismiss my belief system out of hand and tell me I'm splitting hairs, especially when nothing could be further from the truth.

Nice, but nothing is being said here that is very helpful to Dan or anyone else. Let's just pack it in.

[Dan Henderson]

This is not at all accurate. Postmodern philosophers are almost universally not fundamentalists, and they are not modernists. Furthermore, there is 1500 years of Church history which took place before the rise of modernism, and nearly 1900 years prior to the rise of Fundamentalism. To exclude all voices but modernist and fundamentalist from the conversation is dismissive and, quite honestly, offensive to people who are not in one of those two philosophical camps. Postmodernism rejects several of the foundational tenets of modernism, objectivity being chief among these. It's simply wrong to try and group those two together, just as it would be wrong to group pre-modern philosophy in with either modern or fundamentalist philosophy. Sorry, Dan, but you don't get to dismiss my belief system out of hand and tell me I'm splitting hairs, especially when nothing could be further from the truth.

Let my try again Shea, I think you went for the jugular before you finished reading:

Neo-fundamentalism and fundamentalism are so similar that I find no reason to treat them as different thoughts. Post-modernism and modernism are likewise very similar and not a separate category of thought. I think you missed which two categories I was comparing. Maybe my original statement should have said "its fundamentalism vs Modernism". Adding prefixes to words do not necissarily make them more contemporary.

[Shea Zellweger]

Let my try again Shea, I think you went for the jugular before you finished reading:

Neo-fundamentalism and fundamentalism are so similar that I find no reason to treat them as different thoughts. Post-modernism and modernism are likewise very similar and not a separate category of thought. I think you missed which two categories I was comparing. Maybe my original statement should have said "its fundamentalism vs Modernism". Adding prefixes to words do not necissarily make them more contemporary.

I can't say whether your characterization of neo-fundamentalism and fundmentalism is correct. I know some of each variety, and they seem to think there are significant differences, but honestly I've not spent much time looking into those distinctions, as the similarities are sufficient for me to have no interest in affiliating with either of them. However, modernism and postmodernism are not very similar. They're really quite different, to the point that some of the most heated philosophical and theological debates taking place right now are of a modern vs. postmodern nature. If moderns are right in their fundamental assumptions, postmoderns are wrong, and if postmoderns are right in their fundamental assumptions, the what moderns believe may be right for them, but it's not universally applicable (that sentence does a pretty good job of highlighting one of the most significant differences). I really find the characterization of the two as "very similar" to be offensive and either inaccurate or dishonest (I'm guessing inaccurate).

Also, I'd point out that it's possible to be both fundamentalist and postmodern, and it's definitely possible to be both fundamentalist and modern. Fundamentalism has to do with the manner in which an individual understands Scripture. Modernism and Postmodernism have to do with the philosophical underpinnings of one's worldview, particularly as it pertains to epistomology. Neither is explicitly compatible or incompatible with Fundamentalism.

[Billy Cox]

Let my try again Shea, I think you went for the jugular before you finished reading:

Neo-fundamentalism and fundamentalism are so similar that I find no reason to treat them as different thoughts. Post-modernism and modernism are likewise very similar and not a separate category of thought. I think you missed which two categories I was comparing. Maybe my original statement should have said "its fundamentalism vs Modernism". Adding prefixes to words do not necissarily make them more contemporary.

I agree that 'neo-fundamentalism' is probably a pseudo-category. In casual conversation, people commonly use 'neo' to simply refer to the same old ideas but with a new vigor. If you pressed that point, you'd have the high ground.

Now if you try to say that modernism and postmodernism are the same thing, you no longer have the high ground. I have observed that fundamentalism can aptly be described as, "fundamentalism vs. non-fundamentalism". It fits whether the boogeyman is modernism (as in early 20th century America) or postmodernism (as in contemporary America) or secularism (as in Europe).

With regard to the original post, if there are any efforts to revise Article IV, it's coming from those who want it to embrace inerrancy without the wiggle room allowed in the current version. If you're losing sleep over liberals watering down Article IV, then you're just not paying attention. So-called 'liberals' are arguing for the status quo on Article IV.

[Benjamin Burch]

Its much harder to derive limited inerrancy from this statement than the other and is not the statement most often used and abused by major groups.

Technically, in terms of grammar, it is the Agreed Statement of Belief is that which is easier to derive limited inerrancy from. The first one doesn't address what the Scriptures "contain" or "are". They say that the whole of scriptures do something inerrantly. Therefore, it is impossible to derive "limited inerrancy" from that statement. One may do so, but it is an obviously incorrect interpretation. No two ways about it, since Article IV begins by telling the reader it is talking about the entire Bible.

The Agreed Statement of Belief, on the other hand, says the Bible "contains all truth", not that it "is all truth." Therefore, it says that within the Bible, everything we need to know to find salvation is there. It does not say that the whole Bible is this, but that this is within the Bible.

So, in a technical English sense, according to the grammar of each, you have this backwards.

[Dan Henderson]

This whole thread is a hair splinting attempt on your part Dan. I guess nonsense is in the eye of the beholder.

Edited to add: I would ask the moderators to shut this one down as I do not see any good that can come from it.

If you can articulate what you think about this topic without attempting to bully and at least controlled sarcasm, I would love to hear what you have to say.

This topic is beneficial, if at least to me. Am I not worthy? Or have you judged me to be unworthy of speaking to you? How do you expect me to learn anything if you keep cutting me off? You are tired of this subject? I get it. A few others are also. Don't play. As for me, I haven't processed everything yet. I started my reading sprint when I joined NN (I think it was around March) and I'm up to about the 1930s. I think you ought to give me at least until the end of the year to catch up with your scholarship. After all, didn't you take six? I'm, only asking for one.

If you don't want to play, then don't. In the absence of willing conversants, my mind will fill in the blanks (meaning, I'll draw my own conclusions about what you believe). A mind is compelled to do that, especially the western ones. Just because I know it will happen doesn't mean I can stop it. Would you rather I knew about your beliefs from the source (you) or from some other far removed source who really could never know what you believe?

[Benjamin Burch]

I can't say whether your characterization of neo-fundamentalism and fundmentalism is correct. I know some of each variety, and they seem to think there are significant differences, but honestly I've not spent much time looking into those distinctions, as the similarities are sufficient for me to have no interest in affiliating with either of them. However, modernism and postmodernism are not very similar. They're really quite different, to the point that some of the most heated philosophical and theological debates taking place right now are of a modern vs. postmodern nature. If moderns are right in their fundamental assumptions, postmoderns are wrong, and if postmoderns are right in their fundamental assumptions, the what moderns believe may be right for them, but it's not universally applicable (that sentence does a pretty good job of highlighting one of the most significant differences). I really find the characterization of the two as "very similar" to be offensive and either inaccurate or dishonest (I'm guessing inaccurate).

Also, I'd point out that it's possible to be both fundamentalist and postmodern, and it's definitely possible to be both fundamentalist and modern. Fundamentalism has to do with the manner in which an individual understands Scripture. Modernism and Postmodernism have to do with the philosophical underpinnings of one's worldview, particularly as it pertains to epistomology. Neither is explicitly compatible or incompatible with Fundamentalism.

Dan has continually misunderstood and misrepresented Postmodernity on NN since his first thread on NN. He also also insisted that he's correct, despite continual evidence to the contrary, and then he gets all indignant when he is seriously challenged on the topic.

So, just as you suggested I maybe leave the Appolinarian thing alone with Randy.... I assure you you'll get nowhere with Dan on this.

[David Graham]

This is a Naznet host post:

I have read all of the above posts, and I do agree that we are not getting anywhere constructive in the thread.

So I've decided to close it before it degenerates into a slanging match between combatants.

Grace and peace,
Dave