… Beyond the problem of communication, one of the main problems with the argument for inerrancy of Scripture, or even the companion argument for near total historical reliability of Scripture, is that it is based on a very modern and quite rationalistic premise. The modern debate arose between 1900 and the 1920s, and was developed into the 1970s, as a defense against historical skeptics who were launching some very scathing attacks against the authority of Scripture from the perspective of historical positivism and scientific naturalism. However, in the zeal to defend Scripture, many simply capitulated to the rationalistic mind set and tried to defend the Bible on that alien turf by ground rules set by the critics. The ensuing "battle for the Bible" is thus a battle largely fought in an area far removed from Scripture itself, and by the premises and logic of very rationalistic categories. …
The full article can be read here.
5 comments:
The Church of the Nazarene has never fully embraced inerrancy as far as I know. I visited the site this article is from and the site clearly reflected a moderate Nazarene position on most issues. While I don't fault you for using them to defend your position, I believe the rejection of inerrancy by the Nazarenes will (and has been) one of the reasons they are in decline. They are simply following their older Methodist brethren toward liberalism.
Roy,
I am sure I would have some disagreement with the modern Nazarenes however I interest in the article was more in agreement with the history that drove the usage of the term.
I do not know enough about the Nazarenes to comment much about their direction but if they are headed toward the UMC swamp, they will need our prayers and the LORD's intervention.
I'm a Nazarene, and Roy's correct, the denomination has never held to inerrancy. This was a deliberate choice made back in the early 1900s, and I think it was a very wise one. Nazarenes are conservative theologically, but they are not fundamentalists. They leave room for consciense on many matters like this.
Excellent article, BTW. I much prefer to say the Bible is trustworthy than to apply a secular/rationalistic hermeneutic to it.
Kevin, your last comment really hit home with me. It is knowing we can trust the Bible through God's promise to preserve His Word that gives me comfort. That hermeneutic you refer to, by its nature, is going to be unnecessarily divisive. These are matters of faith rather than rational and empirical evidence.
Thanks for your comments.
Post a Comment