c l a s s i c a l
Dr. Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in his address entitled "Why All Southern Baptists are Calvinists," a title which betrays history as well as reality, stated, "It is not by accident that there are no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture" (link). Since he has yet to retract his statement, we conclude that he still believes the tenor of the argument.
I think Dr. Mohler's first error is his over-generalization: "there are no great Arminian testimonies." None? Not even one? "No, not one." His second error is the assumption that one's theology directly corresponds to one's bibliology. I personally know some progressive, five-point Calvinists who deny the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. Is the theology of Calvinism to blame for this denial? Is it "not by accident" that such progressives deny the inerrancy of Scripture?
Refuting Dr. Mohler's argument is quite simple; all one need do is perform a little ad fontes: a reaching back to the original sources of Arminianism -- the theology of the early Church1 -- and let the reader see for him- or herself the great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture.
We must begin with Arminius himself (1559-1609) if we are to investigate great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture -- that Scripture is divine, divinely-inspired, and without error. On this site one can read Arminius' "On the Authority of the Sacred Scriptures" in its entirety here.
From that Disputation, in Volume 2 of his Works, Arminius affirms that the authority of Scripture is "nothing else but . . . the worthiness according to which it merits . . . credence, as being true in words and true in significations, whether it simply declares any thing, or also promises and threatens;" as a superior, "it merits obedience through the credence given to it, when it either commands or prohibits any thing" (2:80).
Keep in mind that in Dutch, a word such as inerrancy did not exist. So, when Arminius and others wanted to convey the same concept, the words perfect, perfection, and divine were employed.
For Arminius, Scripture derives its authority from God alone; hence people cannot declare it authoritative in and of themselves because they do not give it authority. Scripture is authoritative because God is its author (2:81). The Church can only attest to the Bible's divinity. For Arminius Scripture is divine (2:80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87), canonical (2:82), the rule of our faith (2:82), the rule of truth (2:82, 84), and all its parts "will prove that the perfect agreement which exists between the various writers is Divine" (2:88).
The scriptures are also perfect and without error, according to Arminius, having derived its perfection from its Author, who alone is perfect (2:92, 93, 100, 101). The perfect scriptures "serve for the instruction of the ignorant and of babes in Christ, and for preparing their minds," as well as "for perfecting adults, and for imbuing and filling their minds with the plenary wisdom of the Spirit" (2:93). Regarding Scripture's perfection, Arminius concludes:
His followers the Remonstrants (including Jan Uytenbogaert, Simon Episcopius, Hugo Grotius, Gerhard Vossius, Caspar Barlaeus, Johann Oldenbarneveldt and Conrad Vorstius, among others) were in full agreement, noting:
Philipp van Limborch (1633-1712), a later Arminian Remonstrant pastor and Professor of Theology at the Remonstrant Seminary, carried on the torch and great Arminian tradition of the divinity of Scripture into the early eighteenth century, as is evinced in his systematic theology, in which he declares the scriptures to be holy, authorial, true and divine. He writes:
I think Dr. Mohler's first error is his over-generalization: "there are no great Arminian testimonies." None? Not even one? "No, not one." His second error is the assumption that one's theology directly corresponds to one's bibliology. I personally know some progressive, five-point Calvinists who deny the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. Is the theology of Calvinism to blame for this denial? Is it "not by accident" that such progressives deny the inerrancy of Scripture?
Refuting Dr. Mohler's argument is quite simple; all one need do is perform a little ad fontes: a reaching back to the original sources of Arminianism -- the theology of the early Church1 -- and let the reader see for him- or herself the great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture.
We must begin with Arminius himself (1559-1609) if we are to investigate great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture -- that Scripture is divine, divinely-inspired, and without error. On this site one can read Arminius' "On the Authority of the Sacred Scriptures" in its entirety here.
From that Disputation, in Volume 2 of his Works, Arminius affirms that the authority of Scripture is "nothing else but . . . the worthiness according to which it merits . . . credence, as being true in words and true in significations, whether it simply declares any thing, or also promises and threatens;" as a superior, "it merits obedience through the credence given to it, when it either commands or prohibits any thing" (2:80).
Keep in mind that in Dutch, a word such as inerrancy did not exist. So, when Arminius and others wanted to convey the same concept, the words perfect, perfection, and divine were employed.
For Arminius, Scripture derives its authority from God alone; hence people cannot declare it authoritative in and of themselves because they do not give it authority. Scripture is authoritative because God is its author (2:81). The Church can only attest to the Bible's divinity. For Arminius Scripture is divine (2:80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87), canonical (2:82), the rule of our faith (2:82), the rule of truth (2:82, 84), and all its parts "will prove that the perfect agreement which exists between the various writers is Divine" (2:88).
The scriptures are also perfect and without error, according to Arminius, having derived its perfection from its Author, who alone is perfect (2:92, 93, 100, 101). The perfect scriptures "serve for the instruction of the ignorant and of babes in Christ, and for preparing their minds," as well as "for perfecting adults, and for imbuing and filling their minds with the plenary wisdom of the Spirit" (2:93). Regarding Scripture's perfection, Arminius concludes:
(1) All things which have been, are now, or till the consummation of all things, will be necessary to be known for the salvation of the Church, have been perfectly inspired and revealed to the prophets and apostles.The inerrancy of Scripture also renders as useless any new revelation (2:96-102). The Church has in the Bible all she needs to know regarding God, Christ, His Spirit, sin, grace and salvation, etc.
(2) All things thus necessary have been administered and declared by the prophets and apostles, according to this inspiration, by the outward word, to the people who have been committed to them.
(3) All things thus necessary are fully and perfectly comprehended in their books. (2:94)
His followers the Remonstrants (including Jan Uytenbogaert, Simon Episcopius, Hugo Grotius, Gerhard Vossius, Caspar Barlaeus, Johann Oldenbarneveldt and Conrad Vorstius, among others) were in full agreement, noting:
The entire declaration of the divine will pertaining to religion is contained in the books of the Old and New Testaments, and indeed authentically only in those which are called canonical. And there is no just reason to doubt that they were written and endorsed by those men who were inspired, instructed and directed by the Spirit of God.2For the early Arminians, Scripture was "written and approved by inspired men,"3 "completely true and divine,"4 "altogether authentic and indeed of divine authority."5 They conclude:
Because such divine authority as this belongs to these books alone, it is therefore necessary that controversies and all debates pertaining to religion be examined by them alone, as touchstones and firm and unmovable rules, and to be disputed from them only, and so leave them to be decided by God and Jesus Christ alone as the one supreme and infallible judge.6Are there no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture? So far we have James Arminius himself, as well as the early Arminians, the Remonstrants, spanning the era from Arminius' death (1609), unto the Synod of Dort (1618-19), and after the 1625 reestablishment of Arminian ministers in Holland.
Philipp van Limborch (1633-1712), a later Arminian Remonstrant pastor and Professor of Theology at the Remonstrant Seminary, carried on the torch and great Arminian tradition of the divinity of Scripture into the early eighteenth century, as is evinced in his systematic theology, in which he declares the scriptures to be holy, authorial, true and divine. He writes:
That the Rule of our Faith and Religion is the Books of the Old and New Testament, or the Holy Scripture, we have already declared; and are next to evince the Authority of this Rule, which depends on the Truth and Divinity of those Writings. To say that they are the Word of God, is a sufficient Proof of their Truth and Divinity, to an honest and humble Mind. . . .7
He affirms a basic Christian notion that all we as believers in and followers of Christ need to know for salvation and godliness are contained in Holy Scripture: "so that no Opinion or Doctrine is to be reckoned as necessary, which is not contained therein."8 In such affirmations, he assumes to be defending Scripture's absolute perfection and divine origin.
Later Wesleyan tradition evinces a thread of inerrancy in the Arminian tradition. The Methodist-Episcopal's first Bishop Thomas Coke (1747-1814), Wesley's successor, for example, though a lover of literature was first and foremost a lover of God's sacred word -- himself often found with his Greek New Testament in his hand (link). Francis Asbury (1745-1816), self-taught in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, treasured God's infallible Word, keeping it always by his side (link).
Adam Clarke (1760-1832), that British Methodist theologian, a godly, liturgical man steeped in the practice of praying the hours (link), argued for God's word being divine revelation, "the sole Fountain of light and truth" (link): "Who then are they who cry out, 'The Bible is a fable?' Those who have never read it, or read it only with the fixed purpose to gainsay it" (link). Clarke comments: "The men who can despise and ridicule this sacred book are those who are too blind to discover the objects presented to them by this brilliant light, and are too sensual to feel and relish spiritual things" (link).
Methodist-Episcopal minister Richard Watson (1781-1833) argued for the divine authority of the sacred scriptures in his Theological Institutes (link). H. Orton Wiley (1877-1961) affirmed the doctrine of inerrancy: "The term 'inspiration' is derived from the Greek word theópneustos, which signifies literally, 'the breathing of God,' or 'the breathing into,' and is therefore 'that extraordinary agency of the Holy Spirit upon the mind in consequence of which the person who partakes of it is enabled to embrace and communicate the truth of God without error, infirmity, or defeat'" (link).
This very brief survey exposes the error that there are no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture -- an error promulgated either by ignorance or by the motivation to promote one's own theology as the sole underpinning for proving the divinity of Scripture.
__________
1 Ken Keathley correctly notes: "What is called Arminianism was nearly the universal view of the early church fathers and has always been the position of Greek Orthodoxy." See Kenneth D. Keathley, "The Work of God: Salvation," in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007), 703.
2 "On the Sacred Scriptures," in The Arminian Confession of 1621, translated and edited by Mark A. Ellis (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2005), 35.
3 Ibid., 36.
4 Ibid., 37.
5 Ibid., 39.
6 Ibid.
7 Philipp van Limborch, A Compleat [sic] System, or Body of Divinity, both Speculative and Practical, trans. William Jones (London: Publisher Unknown, 1702), 7.
8 Ibid., 11.
Later Wesleyan tradition evinces a thread of inerrancy in the Arminian tradition. The Methodist-Episcopal's first Bishop Thomas Coke (1747-1814), Wesley's successor, for example, though a lover of literature was first and foremost a lover of God's sacred word -- himself often found with his Greek New Testament in his hand (link). Francis Asbury (1745-1816), self-taught in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, treasured God's infallible Word, keeping it always by his side (link).
Adam Clarke (1760-1832), that British Methodist theologian, a godly, liturgical man steeped in the practice of praying the hours (link), argued for God's word being divine revelation, "the sole Fountain of light and truth" (link): "Who then are they who cry out, 'The Bible is a fable?' Those who have never read it, or read it only with the fixed purpose to gainsay it" (link). Clarke comments: "The men who can despise and ridicule this sacred book are those who are too blind to discover the objects presented to them by this brilliant light, and are too sensual to feel and relish spiritual things" (link).
Methodist-Episcopal minister Richard Watson (1781-1833) argued for the divine authority of the sacred scriptures in his Theological Institutes (link). H. Orton Wiley (1877-1961) affirmed the doctrine of inerrancy: "The term 'inspiration' is derived from the Greek word theópneustos, which signifies literally, 'the breathing of God,' or 'the breathing into,' and is therefore 'that extraordinary agency of the Holy Spirit upon the mind in consequence of which the person who partakes of it is enabled to embrace and communicate the truth of God without error, infirmity, or defeat'" (link).
This very brief survey exposes the error that there are no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture -- an error promulgated either by ignorance or by the motivation to promote one's own theology as the sole underpinning for proving the divinity of Scripture.
__________
1 Ken Keathley correctly notes: "What is called Arminianism was nearly the universal view of the early church fathers and has always been the position of Greek Orthodoxy." See Kenneth D. Keathley, "The Work of God: Salvation," in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007), 703.
2 "On the Sacred Scriptures," in The Arminian Confession of 1621, translated and edited by Mark A. Ellis (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2005), 35.
3 Ibid., 36.
4 Ibid., 37.
5 Ibid., 39.
6 Ibid.
7 Philipp van Limborch, A Compleat [sic] System, or Body of Divinity, both Speculative and Practical, trans. William Jones (London: Publisher Unknown, 1702), 7.
8 Ibid., 11.
Excellent thoughts. No doubt John Wesley himself would stand with the Reformers and affirm the inerrancy of the Bible. Those who deny inerrancy like to point out that the term inerrancy is a relatively new term but they ignore the fact that the Reformers and men such as Arminius or Wesley spoke about the Bible in grand terms such as "authority" or "without error" which is nothing more than inerrancy in our terms today.
ReplyDeleteWesley made a comment or two about allowing for errors in Scripture in categories that he thought were not too important, so I decided not to include him: "not always exact on tangential [superficially relevant] matters" (certain genealogies, for example).
DeleteYou are exactly right with regard to the word inerrant. First-century believers didn't have the word Trinity either, but they certainly believed in it!
Hi William! Good to see you posting again.
ReplyDeleteDennis! Thank you so much, my friend!
ReplyDeleteThis post should certainly put that myth that Dr Mohler promulgated to rest.
ReplyDeleteMost excellent!
Thank you, friend!
Delete