JOHN WESLEY AND THE BIBLE

WILLIAM M. ARNETT, Ph.D.
(Professor of Christian Doctrine, Asbury Theological Seminary)
(Dr. Arnett's Presidential address delivered to the Third Annual Meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society)

It has been observed that the watershed of present-day theology remains one's attitude toward the Bible as the ultimate and final authority for faith and practice.¹ Whether or not we agree with this observation, it must be admitted that many of our difficulties and divisions arise out of basic attitudes or views toward the Holy Scriptures. "The doctrinal problem which, above all others, demands resolution in the modern church is that of the authority of Holy Scripture," writes John Warwick Montgomery. "All other issues of belief today pale before this issue, and indeed root in it."² In a similar vein, J. Marcellus Kik concludes that "ecumenism will never in a thousand and one years achieve the goal of Christian unity until it settles the question of authority."³ The centrality of this issue cannot be evaded by those who take seriously the claims of the Christian faith.

Our attention is being focused on an important facet of this basic issue in the panel on "Biblical Inerrancy" at this third annual meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society. It is germane to our interests as a theological society to call attention to John Wesley's attitude toward the Bible. This Society bears his name, and as perhaps it’s most important spiritual progenitor, there are wholesome elements in his approach to, and use of; the Bible that can well be emulated. To some of these vital elements, attention is here invited.

I. John Wesley Approached the Bible With Humility

Wesley's attitude was utterly devoid of the air of intellectual snobbery or of the arrogancy of self-sufficiency. He never forgot his human creatureliness and the fact that he was a member of a fallen race. He was soberly impressed by life's gravity as well as life's brevity - the fact that he was "a creature of a day, passing through life as an arrow through the air," enroute to an "unchangeable eternity." As Wesley faced these serious factors, his indispensable book was the Bible. His inmost thoughts were expressed in the memorable introduction to his collected Sermons:

To candid and reasonable men I am not afraid to lay open what have been the inmost thoughts of my heart. I have thought, I am a creature of a day, passing through life as an arrow through the air. I am a spirit come from God, and returning to God; just hovering over the great gulf; till a few moments hence I am no more seen; I drop into an unchangeable eternity! I want to know one thing - the way to heaven, how to land safe on that happy shore. God Himself has condescended to teach me the way, for this very end He came from heaven; He hath written it down in a book. O give me that Book! At any price, give me the Book of God. I have it; here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be homo unius libri!⁴

Although Wesley was one of the best trained and best read men of his time, he bowed in creaturely reverence before a God-breathed Book, a Book that forthrightly tells man whence he came, and offers him light upon whither he goes. In the "Preface" to the Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament he revealed his earnest concern in these words:

Would to God that all the party names and unscriptural phrases and forms which have divided the Christian world were forgot, and that we might all agree to sit down together, as humble, loving disciples, at the fret of our common Master, to hear His word, to imbibe His Spirit and to transcribe His life in our own!⁵

II. It Is Evident That John Wesley Studied the Bible Diligently

In a letter dated May 14, 1765, Wesley informed one of his correspondents (John Newton) that it was "in 1730 I began to be homo unius libri, to study (comparatively) no book but the Bible."⁶ James R. Joy called Wesley a "man of a thousand books and a Book," and rightly so, for Wesley once estimated roughly that he had read 600 volumes, and we know that he was author or editor of some 400 publications.⁷ But the one Book that he exalted above all others was the Bible. He had few superiors in general scholarship and knowledge, but the focal point of all his learning was the Bible. At Oxford he was proficient in Greek, and developed such an acquaintance with the New Testament that "when a friend halted in quoting a verse of the English text, Wesley would come to the rescue by quoting the original Greek."⁸

His knowledge of the Old Testament is equally amazing. Commenting upon the motto which Wesley chose for the Fourth Extract of the Journal, Nehemiah Curnock observes that "it is some indication, if not evidence, of Wesley's absolute familiarity with the Bible that he should have found so perfect a motto for the title page: 'When I had waited!" a reference to Job 32:16.⁹

The section deals with Wesley's relation to Moravianism, and on account of the importance, as well as delicacy of the subject, he was careful to be certain of his action, as well as his writing. Therefore he waited three years before sending the material to

Press - from 1741 to 1744 - and chose Job 32:16, 17, 21, 22 for the title page.¹⁰ Such familiarity with the Word of God was the result of careful training and painstaking effort. In 1727, at the age of 24, Wesley was spending several hours every day in the reading of the Scriptures in the original tongues.¹¹ He said he had "examined minutely every word of the New Testament in the original Greek."¹²

III. Wesley Regarded the Bible As Authority

His three criteria of truth were Scripture, Reason, and Experience. There were times when Wesley varied the order, but always the Scripture was first and basic. "The Scriptures are the touchstone whereby Christians examine all, real and supposed, revelations. In all cases, they appeal 'to the law and to the testimony,' and try every spirit thereby."¹³ In his criticism of Hutcheson's "Essay on the Passion" Wesley said he knew "both from Scripture, reason, and experience that his picture of man is not drawn from life."¹⁴ While reason is not to be discredited or despised, it has limitations and must be the handmaid of faith, the servant of revelation.¹⁵ Experience, for Wesley, whether of contemporaries or of the ancients, was allowed to clarify and confirm Scripture, but never to supersede it.¹⁶

Wesley believed in the full inspiration and infallibility of the Bible. In the "Preface" to his Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, he expresses a high view of inspiration.

And the language of His messengers also, is exact in the highest degree: for the words which were given them accurately answered the impression made upon their minds: and hence Luther says, 'Divinity is nothing but a grammar of the language of the Holy Ghost.'¹⁷

In one of his sermons he admonishes the hearer (and reader) to "prove thy own self by the infallible word of God."¹⁸ All Scripture is equally inspired and therefore authoritative. "If there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth."¹⁹ He chided those who took exception to the views presented by the Scripture, and regarded their "mending" as a most serious offense.

It would be excusable if these menders of the Bible would offer their hypotheses modestly. But one cannot excuse them when they not only obtrude their novel scheme with the utmost confidence, hut even ridicule that Scriptural one which always was, and is now held by men of the greatest learning and piety in the world. Hereby they promote the cause of infidelity more effectually than either Hume or Voltaire.²⁰

In his tract, "Popery Calmly Considered," Wesley's final instruction for knowing the sense of any Scripture "from the sense of the Church" is that

"in all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church. And Scripture is the best expounder of Scripture. The best way, therefore, to understand it, is carefully to compare Scripture with Scripture, and thereby learn the true meaning of it."²¹

IV. Wesley Appropriated and Expounded the Bible Redemptively

He saw clearly that the central focus of the Bible is the person of Jesus Christ and His redeeming work. "We could not rejoice that there is a God," writes Wesley in his comment upon I Timothy 2:5, "were there not a Mediator also; one who stands between God and man, to reconcile man to God, and to transact the whole affair of our salvation."²² As one who considered that he was divinely called to minister to the common man, he wrote his Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament "chiefly for plain, unlettered men, who understand only their mother-tongue, and yet reverence and love the Word of God, and have a desire to save their souls."²³

He was a man who was constantly questing for souls. In his advice to the helpers in the Societies, and in his exhortation to the Methodist preachers of America, he said they had one thing to do and that was to save souls. In his expository sermons on the Sermon on the Mount, Wesley the evangelist emerges again and again as he calls people to faith in Christ and to a life of "inward and outward holiness." He preached his last sermon only eight days before his death on March 2, 1791, on the text, "Seek ye the Lord while He may be found; call ye upon Him while He is near" (Isa. 55: 6). Curnock, editor of Wesley's famous Journal writes: "It is easy to see that the fire of love and zeal burnt brighter and brighter to the end, and the end matched and crowned the whole course of his ministry."²⁴ It was the evangelistic movement introduced by the Wesleys that did more for social uplift in England than all other factors combined, and provided the spiritual impetus of a whole age of reform. The philosophy of the world is that "new conditions will make new men," but the gospel emphasis is that "new men will make new conditions," and Wesley, while concerned about all of man's needs, kept in focus that his primary task was the making of new men.

V. Wesley Applied the Bible With Practicality

Wesley was, in a large measure, an apostle to the common man, and therefore sought to eliminate the elaborate, the elegant, and the oratorical. As he expressed in his "Preface" to the Standard Sermons, "I design plain truth for plain people: therefore, of set purpose, I abstain from all nice and philosophical speculations: from all perplexed and intricate reasonings; and, as far as possible, from even the show of learning, unless in sometimes citing the original text."²⁵ To Alexander Coates he wrote:

Practical religion is your point; therefore keep to this: repentance toward faith in Christ, holiness of heart and life, a growing in grace and in the knowledge of Christ, the continual need of His atoning blood, a constant confidence in Him, and all these every moment to our life's end.²⁶

As a servant of God's Word, Wesley manifested a remarkable catholicity of spirit and breadth of view, displaying a readiness to cooperate with all sincere and earnest Christians. That this was a subject of vital importance to Wesley can be seen from the fact that he included two sermons or addresses devoted to the topic in his Standard Sermons. One was entitled "A Caution Against Bigotry,"²⁷ the other, "Catholic Spirit."²⁸

VI. Wesley Used the Bible Devotionally

Patterns were early set in Wesley's life, and he followed them to the end of his earthly pilgrimage. Where available, the entries in his private diary are synchronized with his published Journal, and the references to Scriptures used devotionally are multitudinous. In the "Preface" to the Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament, Wesley summarized a procedure for using the Bible most effectively, which involved its use in a devotional manner. His constructive suggestions, which undoubtedly reflect elements in his own personal practice, are:

First, set apart some time, if possible, every morning and evening to read the Scripture.

Second, read a chapter out of the Old and one out of the New Testament, if possible. If that cannot be done, read one chapter, or part of one.

Third, read the Scripture with the single purpose of knowing the whole will of God, and with a fixed determination to do that will.

Fourth, in order to know the will of God, there should be a constant eye to the analogy of faith: the connection and harmony there is between those grand, fundamental doctrines-original sin, justification by faith, the new birth, inward and outward holiness.

Fifth, serious and earnest prayer should be made before approaching the oracles of God, seeing that "Scripture can only be understood through the same Spirit whereby it was given." Prayer should be offered at the close in order that what is read might be written upon the heart.

Sixth, there should be periods of self-examination during the reading of the Scripture, with both heart and life being scrutinized. And whatever light is given "should be used to the uttermost, and that immediately. Let there be no delay. Whatever you resolve, begin to execute the first moment you can. So shall you find this word to be indeed the power of God unto present and eternal salvation."²⁹

Such were some of Wesley's emphases with regard to the Bible. To his fellow-workers he wrote: "We are called to propagate Bible religion through the land-that is faith working by love, holy tempers and holy lives."³⁰ On June 5, 1766, he wrote, "My ground is the Bible. Yea, I am a Bible-bigot. I follow it in all things, both great and small."³¹ Again: "I try every church and every doctrine by the Bible. This is the word by which we are to be judged in that day."³²

Thus, in this brief survey, we have noted that John Wesley, the progenitor of this society, approached the Bible with humility, studied the Bible diligently, regarded the Bible as authority, appropriated and expounded the Bible redemptively, applied the Bible with practicality, and used the Bible devotionally. May these worthy elements characterize all who love and serve the Saviour in the tradition of men of "the strangely warmed heart!"

DOCUMENTATIONS

¹Harold J. Ockenga, "Resurgent Evangelical Leadership," Christianity Today, October 11, 1960, p. 12.

²John Warwick Montgomery, Crisis' in Lutheran Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967), p. 15.

³J. Marcellus Kik, Ecumenism and the Evangelical (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing

Company, 1958), pp. 136, 137.

⁴The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M. (London: John Mason, 1829), Thomas Jackson, editor, V:ii,iii. Further references will be listed as Works.

⁵John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament (London: The Epworth Press, 1950), p. 8.

⁶The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M· (London: The Epworth Press. 1931), John Telford, ed., V:299. Further references will be listed as Letters.

⁷James R. Joy, "Wesley: Man of a Thousand Books and a Book," Religion in Life VIII:71 (Winter 1939).

⁸John Wesley's New Testament, with an Introduction by George C. Cell (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1937), p. x.

⁹The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M. (London: Charles H. Kelly, 1911), Nehemiah Curhock, ed., II:500. Further references will be listed as Journal.

¹⁰Ibid., p. 307

¹¹Tyerman, L. The Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.), 1:52.

¹²John Wesley's New Testament, p. x.

¹³Letters, II: 117

¹⁴Journal, V: 492, 495.

¹⁵Works, VI: 360.

¹⁶Wesley's Standard Sermons, Edward H. Sugden, ed. (Nashville: Lamar & Barton, Agents, n.d.), II : 352.

¹⁷Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, p. 9.

¹⁸Sermon CXXIX, "The Cause and Cure of Earthquakes," Works, VII: 399.

¹⁹Journal, VI: 117.

²⁰Journal, V: 523.

²¹Works, X: 142.

²²Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, p. 775.

²³Ibid., p. 6

²⁴Journal. VIII: 128.

²⁵Wesley's Standard Sermons, I: 30.

²⁶Letters, IV: 159.

²⁷Wesley's Standard Sermons, II: 104, 125.

²⁸Ibid., pp. 126-146.

²⁹John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament (Bristol: William Pine, 1765), I : ix.

³⁰Letters, VI: 291.

³¹Journal, V: 169.

³²Letters, III: 172.

BURNING ISSUES IN THE LIFE OF SANCTITY

HAROLD B. KUHN, Ph. D.

(Chairman, Division of Theology and Philosophy of Religion

Asbury Theological Seminary)

The Biblical call to personal sanctity is one which places before us a tremendous obligation to seek out, and to embody in practical living, the implications of the emphasis upon Christian holiness for the conduct of the believer as he takes his place in the life of the world. The fine values which have historically marked the lives of the best of the saints are of little value as museum pieces; only as they find expression in the activities of our common life are they significant in a day in which such emphasis is laid (and rightly so!) upon the projection of the Christian Evangel into the life of the world.

It goes without saying that ethics does not stand detached as an emphasis in the message of Christian Sanctity. That is, ethical living is by no means thought to issue naturally (as, for example, from self-knowledge, as Socrates taught), nor to be derived from the simple analysis of some such abstraction as the 'natural right' or the 'rational good'. The life which is pleasing to God issues solely from an inner spiritual state in which double-ness of purpose, and chaos of motivation, have been set at rest.

One is reminded at this point of the dictum of Soren Kierkegaard, "Purity of heart is to will one thing." While this is obviously not complete as a definition, yet it does point to the real heart of the matter, that the sanctified life is one which results when inner chaos has been resolved, and which springs from a heart free "to will with Him one will." This is the heart of the message of Christian holiness: and without this strong core, no emphasis upon the external expression of any supposed 'ideal of sanctity' can be sound.

It is projected here to take for granted that this central core of teaching is compatible with the general thrust of God's Revelation, and that what is said with respect to the ethical ideal rests upon the broad basis of the reality of the experience known as Entire Sanctification, this being understood in terms of the elimination from the regenerate heart of all that is morally unsound, and the enthronement of Christ, who is the life in the citadel of the personality. It is a commonplace (but what an important commonplace!) that there is no genuine sanctity apart from the installation in the Christian heart of Him who said, "and for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified . . ." (John 17:19).

I

Descending from this high theological ground, into the arena in which our life must be lived, it is indicated, I believe, that we note briefly the type or form of ethical theory which is implied in the emphasis of the movement fostering Christian Sanctity. It should be noted that there is seldom an explicit statement made by ministers of the Full Covenant at this point; certain things are, however, implicit. These may be sharpened by reference to the broader base upon which ethical teaching has historically been made to rest.

In the broadest sense, ethical theories are divisible into two types, the subjectivistic and the objectivistic. Among the most noteworthy of the subjectivistic are these: the individualistic, hedonistic and the sociohedonistic or utilitarian. These have for a common denominator one thing: either pleasure or the absence of pain is made to constitute the ethical objective. Such a form of ethical theory is, of course, ambiguous, since the very term 'pleasure' is a slippery one, resting upon such variables as the personal capacity for enjoyment, and upon personal or cultural idiosyncrasies. Hedonistic ethics has historically led, almost universally, to a narrow definition of pleasure in terms of sensory pleasure; it is but a short step to sensuality.

The major forms of the objectivistic are these: the rationalistic, the metaphysical, and the revelational. The rationalistic ethic rests upon the premise that the Good is the Rational, and that the Rational is the Right. It assumes, further, that human reason possesses a competence, not only to recognize the Good inerringly, but also to sway the personality in such a manner as to secure righteousness in day-by-day practice. This has the evident weakness of failing to take into account the degree to which human reason has been affected adversely by the Fall. It is difficult to defend the view that men unfailingly (or even usually) do as a matter of course that which they know to be right.

The metaphysical type of ethic assumes that the principles of Right and Good are embedded in the universe, and that the cosmos will support only what is good, while it will unerringly designate evil for what it is, and render certain punishment for it. This takes for granted, too, that man can properly and adequately read the moral cipher of the universe-an assumption which is difficult to support by an appeal to human moral history.

The most daring form of ethical theory is the Revelational. It projects for human thought and human acceptance the proposition that the Good and the Right are grounded, not merely in the structures of the cosmos, but in the will of a holy and sovereign God, who, grasping fully and completely our needy and limited predicament, has taken the initiative in disclosing to mankind, in definitive and final fashion, the major lines and the central drive of that Will. To some this view seems an insult to man's intelligence; some hold that it indicts him unreasonably of moral weakness and downright moral perversity. To others, it is the gracious answer to a need which has been felt by sensitive persons from the dawn of human recorded history.

It need not be labored that the Holiness Movement has leaned heavily upon this latter form of ethical theory. Out of its orientation in a tradition which held a high view of the origin and authority of the Holy Scriptures, it logically recognized (and does today recognize) the moral man-date as being part of the very core of revealed truth. Further, just as the heart of the message of Christian Sanctity is that the Divine Spirit, in the work of entire sanctification, does invade the life, sweep away carnal self-centeredness and twisted egocentricity, so also this theological emphasis carries with it the profound assertion that the Holy Spirit simplifies the motivation of the life, bringing all of the currents of the redeemed personality into a harmonious flowing in the direction of God's good Will.

There is a word which suggests itself wherever the application of a general ethical system (such as the Revelational, of which we have just spoken) to the general and concrete in human conduct is attempted. It is the word 'casuistry,' which suggests what 'is generally known as the 'case ethic'. Casuistry connotes the practice or procedure by which one seeks to deal with cases of conscience, and by which one seeks to resolve questions of right and wrong by the application of ethical principles to concrete situations. Now, the term 'casuistry' has fallen upon evil times: unprincipled practices have set upon it, beaten it, and left it half-dead along the road.

There are two groups who have taken seriously the matter of erecting a strategy of conduct upon the basis of a systematic application of ethical principles to life's complex and varied situations. I refer to the Pharisees and the Jesuits-group admittedly far apart in general emphasis, but one in their desire to apply divinely-revealed principles minutely and according to rule.

Reversing these in time sequence, we note the' manner in which the Jesuit-type of casuistry has been employed. Seeking to produce, in the period at the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the modern era, a 'Christian society,' it sought to reduce the requirements for being a Christian to a minimum; thus the Jesuit casuistry came to permit everything which was not expressly and specifically forbidden. Growing out of quite different historical circumstances, the Pharisees sought to do two things: first, to modify the seeming brashnesses of the Mosaic Law in a day in which Judaism was forced more and more onto the world-stage; and second, to protect Judaism against the encroachments of a lax Hellenism. Pharisaism (which, please be reminded, began as something of a Jewish 'Holiness Movement') degenerated into a traditionalism which split hairs, as the New Testament indicates, and which erred at the point of an undiscriminating' directness in its ethical pronouncements. This led, ultimately, to an ingrown and gone-to-seed type of casuistry, in which, essentially, everything which was not specifically permitted was forbidden.

The bearing of this upon the ethic of the Holiness Movement is quite easy to see. As newer social currents impinged upon the lives of devout men and women in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (i.e., the forces of industrialization), they tended to react defensively as they saw their value-systems threatened. It is not unfair to say that in this defensive reaction, there was a strong temptation in the direction of the type of casuistry which characterized the Pharisees. Let it be said at once and in their defense, that within the trend toward the movement for Christian Sanctity', there came a trend which emphasized a wholesome discipline of character. It was assumed, correctly we are sure, that the embodiment of the inner purity of heart in the outward conduct must be assisted and guided by discipline of the personal life. It was this to which the Quaker poet, Whittier referred in his lines,

'And let our ordered lives confess

The beauty of Thy Peace."

Again, such an admirable form of Christian administration as the class meeting had for its purpose the cultivation of the disciplined and self-marshaled life.

There was a temptation, to be sure, to administer discipline along the lines of an inadequate casuistry. Given the constant impinging of practices which seemed to be clearly worldly, due to pressure from the society outside, it was understandable that sensitive Christian leaders should seek to lay down lines which should serve as safeguards to the younger and less mature among their fellowship.

It requires little historical knowledge to help us recall that offering the 'easy answer' has upon occasion tempted the ethical thinker within the Holiness Movement. This temptation was frequently implemented by the evident presence of abuses or factors or elements which may have been morally neutral or innocent in themselves. For example, the use of musical instruments did lead to twofold snares for Christian persons: outside the church they were inseparably connected with the social dance, which nearly all sensitive Christians regarded as an evil. Within the church, the simple question of the choice of an organist frequently led to dissension within the body of believers. The rather natural defensive reaction was to deprecate the use of any musical instruments in the church, in some cases to ban their use entirely, and in some cases to extend the prohibition to the homes of Christians.

Honesty demands also that we recognize that at times the casuistry of the Holiness Movement has tended to be little more than a conservative reaction to social and technological change. Each new social form, and each major new invention, has tended to set off a rash of negative mandates. In too many cases, however, those who spearheaded the resistance to this-or-that new invention (and we forego to mention any of these) found later that the clock cannot be turned back easily, and that it is impossible to 'uninvent' anything. The usual history of those who reacted to new inventions in terms of 'never,' or 'no child of mine,' has been that later they became less vehement in their position, finally became muted in their opposition, and frequently they eventually adopted the new device in question.

Much that has been said to this point has had to do with the temptations which have confronted members of the leadership in the circles of the Holiness Movement, especially those whose ministry offered wide opportunity for the making of public statements of a casuistic nature. The discussion would be incomplete without some positive guidelines for the application of a Christian casuistry. We would propose the following in this connection:

1. There is demanded a careful discrimination at the point of what issues are abidingly crucial, and which are transitory.

2. Any true casuistry must recognize the ambiguous nature of human relationships, and the provisional (temporary) nature of many concrete situations to which we must speak.

3. The real problem in casuistry, as an applied discipline, is that of making the transition from love (which is the core of the life of sanctity) to justice.

4. The technological dynamics of our civilization are such that there is increasing need for moral and ethical living, as opposed to mere living according to received patterns and traditions.

5. The progressive elaboration of an ethic for those who will live "soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world" (Titus 2:12) will demand certain very definitely informed attitudes upon the part of those who undertake it.

II

It is time to note some of the living issues which confront the one who will embody the life of sanctity in our time. Realism demands that the life devoted to godliness be lived within the context of responsible participation in our world, with all of its ambiguities and its hard-nose problems. These problems are legion, and many of them are inescapable. The ''sensitive saint'' (and can there be any other kind?) dare not sweep under the rug the disturbing fact that for over a century since the Civil War, multitudes have been being saved, and many also sanctified wholly, in wide areas of our society in which nevertheless systematic efforts continue to be made to exclude from adequate participation in public life over eleven percent of our population upon the basis of skin color. Not only so: but those professing Christian grace (some at a very high level) continue to justify racial discrimination, or more hypocritically, to practice it in the name of "good business."

The so-called 'sexual revolution' promises a continuing confrontation between accepted practice and the sensitive Christian conscience. Medical research - and how much we owe to this - progresses apace; and within five years potential parents will face the free choice, whether or not to permit a pregnancy to continue to full term. Do-it-yourself measures for the "harmless" termination of pregnancy (and we doubt whether this can ever be without some serious damage, whether to the body or to the psyche) are not far away, and your children must live in a world which will be highly permissive at this point. The sensitive Christian must grapple with this problem.

The author professes to" have no final answer here, but inclines to believe that no creative solution can be found until at least two factors be given full recognition: first, that the prevention of conception is qualitatively different from the termination of a pregnancy, however early; and second, that society has as heavy a stake in setting safeguards around the life of the unborn as it has in protecting the lives of its visible citizens. It would seem that while the artificial regulation of conception (by medically approved means) is increasingly recognized by realistic and sensitive Christians as permissible, the arbitrary termination of a pregnancy already begun (except possibly a pregnancy occasioned by violent assault or incestuous relationship, or clearly jeopardizing the health of the prospective mother) is to be reprehended. This issue will call for some hardheaded discussion and Spirit-guided decision in the days ahead.

The problem of sexual deviation seems to mushroom, possibly in part as a result of the "James Bond (007) Mentality," and (more probably) due to the loss of the image of masculinity among many males. A 'world affirming' Church-ism seems to be working hand-in-glove with a sentimental scholarship to assure us that homosexuality is no more a fault than being left-handed. National and state legislation seems likely to follow this wrongly-personalistic trend. The Christian conscience must be increasingly concerned, at the very minimum, with protecting the insecure and immature in our society (some of whom may be pushed either way - i.e., into normality or into deviation) from the hardcore and congenital deviate.

Advocates of the doctrine and life of Scriptural Sanctity have been slow to articulate the problem posed by our innate humanness in the light of our Lord's words in the Sermon on the Mount which shift the locus of adulterous or fornicative irregularity from the overt act to the leering look. Admittedly our human structures are such that our Lord's words impose a heavy (sometimes a punishing) load upon the male half of our race which is responsible for the initiating of the sex act. This is not always understood by either men or women.

Our elder and saintly brethren who distinguished themselves by their preaching upon dress (usually that of the ladies) do not deserve our scorn, for they attempted, in however limited a fashion, to grapple with this problem a generation ago. We are called to a more fundamental dealing with this question. Minimal to this must be: 1) a recognition of the wrong-headed role of the fashion industry in this regard; and 2) a fuller appreciation of the fact that we are in a world which (as Pitirim Sorokin is quoted as saying) subjects the average man to several sexual stimuli every waking hour, and that it is not what enters the eye, or what rises from our humanness to meet it, but the basic attitude with which our inner nature, gripped by the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, deals with the stimulative-data that is decisive for our sanctity. We will, it seems, live for a long time in an aphrodisiac world; and it will be no simple task to 'walk in white' in the midst of its tar buckets and smudge-pots.

The man or woman who seeks to live the life of sanctity must recognize the problem posed by affluence in our society. We can no longer afford the luxury of such oversimplifications as are encased in such expressions as, "After all, property and money are mere things." In reality, property is an institution, belonging ultimately to God, and is in 'no case held unconditionally by man. Haggai reminds us that His are the silver and gold (Hag. 2:8), while the Psalmist remarks that He possesses "the cattle on a thousand hills" (Ps. 50:10). Not only so, but man derives property and wealth from the people, as well as from a Divine hand. Thus all property is derived from sources and is acquired under conditions which the owner has not himself created.

We never get beyond the need for correctives to a steel-tipped sense of ownership, and need constant reminder that the selfish use of property is under God's judgment - whether it be by state or by individual, whether by sinner or saint. The Christian may well find that a certain amount of ownership contributes to a sense of dignity and a feeling of security; but no person can in this life get beyond the potential peril of judging a man's life in terms of "the abundance of that which he possesses."

The Christian striving for practical sanctity must come to grips with the problems involved in family life. The family is increasingly jeopardized by the growing prevalence of extra-marital sex relations, and of perversion of all kinds, this latter being the more grievous as deviation fails to be regarded as such, and/or is defended as part of the norm. The Christian must recognize that the problem of the right relation between man and woman not only lies at the very heart of society and civilization, but touches very intimately the holy life.

We grant that the home is sometimes made the scapegoat for the ills of out society. In reality social conditions themselves have contributed largely to the decadence of the home. But we maintain that the Christian home should and can surmount its environment and serve as a standard and judge for all that surrounds it. Be it remembered that no institution, even the home, can hope to survive if it makes a final adjustment to society.

Marriage is shored up by the seventh commandment. This "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exod. 20:14), and the words, "What . . . God hath joined together let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:6), are not the pronouncements of an oriental despot, but are words written deeply into the nature of man. The home is designed to be the creative channel for the expression of the sex urge. This Pauline declaration is not a low view if we take into account the ability of sex within marriage to lift, ennoble and enrich human life. But this can never be unless the Christian give full recognition to the unitive or henotic role of the sex relation, set superbly in the words, "the two shall become one flesh" (Mark 10:8, NAS).

Such a view will highlight the corrosive effects of extra-marital intimacy, and lift into prominence the superficiality of the exotic 'love talk' of the societal dropouts, currently called hippies or flower-people. It is by no means astonishing that many of the Haight-Ashbury group of San Francisco are going home to recover from hepatitis, impetigo, and venereal disease. The normal and God-given relation of intimacy between man and wife exacts a fearful toll when exercised with the irresponsibility which all extra-marital use implies.

Not only must the responsible saint recognize this in the abstract; but he or she is under heavy obligation to project, in reasoned and structured and non-squeamish manner, to the young the high legitimacy of sexual intimacy within marriage, and the destructive and erosive character of extra-marital sex. It is the measured judgment of this author that the people of the Holiness Movement are still seeking a constructive and creative sexual ethic.

The picture is by no means entirely dark and forbidding. Many have cherished the example of parents who, however limited their resources with respect to overt education at this point, flaunted before us as children their lifelong fidelity to each other. And how deeply we are indebted to those who showed us, somewhere along the way of life that purely physical intimate relations are no substitute for those more comprehensive relations between man and woman (including physical intimacy) which grow out of a love-related union, or who dangled before us the charm and challenge of the "special song" which resounds in the heart of the truly married.

Finally, the sensitive Christian lives in tension between two moralities: 1) the "morality of perfection's challenge"; and 2) the "morality of my public responsibility." The "morality of perfection's challenge" is absolute, yet open toward persons - since it demands forgiveness on a vast scale toward those whose offense is merely personal. The "morality of my public responsibility" is incomplete, pragmatic, but closed, in the sense that at times it demands conclusive and firm judgments. In this connection, we must guard against two dangers: 1) that of reading off God's will too easily; and 2) the sentimentalization of our public obligation. We must live with this tension, for it is only if we make full and complete peace with the world that it will vanish - and this price is too high!

Light is cast upon this problem by a letter written by the parents and kin of a young Korean lad, In Ho Oh. Parts of the letter are as follows:

Pusan, Korea (1958)

Director, Philadelphia Red Cross

Dear Sir:

We, the parents of In Ho Oh, on behalf of our whole family, deeply appreciate the expressions of sympathy you have extended to us at this time. In Ho had almost finished the preparation needed for the achievement of his ambition, which was to serve his people and nation as a Christian statesman . . .

When we heard of his death, we could not believe the news was true but now we find that it is an undeniable fact that In Ho has been killed by a gang of . . . boys whose souls were not saved and in whom human nature is paralyzed. We are sad now, not only because of In Ho's unachieved future, but also because of the unsaved souls and paralyzed human nature of the murderers.

. . . It is our hope that we may somehow be instrumental in the salvation of the souls, and in giving life to the human nature of the murderers. Our family has met together and we have decided to petition that the most generous treatment possible within the laws of your government be given to those who committed this criminal action . . .

In order to give evidence of our sincere hope contained in this petition our whole family has decided to save money to start a fund to be used for the religious, educational, vocational and social guidance of the boys when they are released . . .

About the burial of the physical body of him who has been sacrificed; we hope that you could spare a piece of land in your country and bury it there, for your land, too, is homeland for Christians . . . We hope in this way to make his tomb a monument which will call attention of people to this came. We think this is a way to give life to the dead, and to the murderers, and to keep you and us closer in Christian love and fellowship.

We are not familiar with your customs and you may find something hard to understand in what we are trying to say and do. Please interpret our hope and idea with Christian spirit and in the light of democratic principles. We have dared to express our hope with a spirit received from the Gospel of our Saviour Jesuws Christ, who died for our sins.

May God bless you, your people, and particularly the boys who killed our son and kinsman.

Signed by the father and mother of In Ho Oh,

also two uncles, two aunts, five sisters, two brothers and nine cousins.

(Printed by permission from Christianity and Crisis, July 21, 1958)

Here we have it in combination: the "Morality of Perfection's Challenge" in the free forgiveness, the plea for minimum sentence, and the offer of rehabilitative help for the killers; and the "Morality of Public Responsibility" which recognized that the demands of public justice must be met and the conditions for public order sustained. And who can deny that the spirit of perfect love, and its concomitant of humility, underlie this letter?

III

In the light of the issues raised in this study, one asks, is there a sufficiency for these things? Ponder the promise, "If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him" and St. Paul's private assurance, "My grace is sufficient for thee." For, dear Friends, our dark world needs lights, needs them desperately!

We have a message - it is, we are persuaded, as changeless as God Himself. But it has little worth as a museum piece. The God of Peace, the universe's Holy Sovereign, has been in the business of building saints for a long time saints who could live adequately in their times. We are persuaded that He stands available, with full resources in hand, to build in our demanding age a type of strong, clear-thinking and fearless saint, fully saved and adequately equipped to weather creatively the growing ferocity of the moral storm of even this day, and who will be, when the tempest is over, standing majestic and unbent and unscarred against the eternal sky.

FACING OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST BIBUCAL INERRANCY

W. RALPH THOMPSON, Th.D.

(Chairman, Division of Religion and Philosophy, Spring Arbor College)

I. Introduction

A study of the history of the church reveals that the Bible has often been an object of attack. Formerly, Scriptures were feared because they were believed to be the Word of God; hence the enemy concentrated on prohibiting their reproduction, dissemination and perusal. Now the strategy is more subtle and distressingly deadly. The current goal is to destroy the belief that the Scriptures are God's Word. When men become convinced that the Bible is but a human book, a record of man's religious strivings and evolution, its authority will be gone. Once sufficient doubt is cast upon the Bible as a body of objective truth, it will cease to be either an instrument of faith or a standard of practice. It can be cherished as literature, adorning our tables and filling our libraries; yet it will be no more authoritative than Aesop's Fables, nor more relevant than the Analeds of Confucius.

In times of doctrinal crisis, God has raised up men with incisive minds and consecrated hearts to point up the specious arguments which were being used, and to point out the way of truth. Such men are needed again.

Prominent terms in the current controversy over Scriptures are words such as "revelation," inspiration," "infallibility," and "inerrancy." Perhaps some definition is advisable. God has employed three stages in making divine truth known to man. Two of them were in the past; the other is a continuing present.

The first stage involved the impartation of truth. God revealed Himself, His will, and His provision to men whom He had chosen for that purpose. Having received the word of truth, they proclaimed it. The initial act of imparting divine truth to man is "revelation."

The second stage involved the preservation of the revelation which had been received. The Apostle Peter appears to have had the latter in mind when he announced that he would endeavor to make it possible that, to use his words, "ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance" (II Pet. 1:15). That is to say, he intended to record for posterity the divine truth which God had given him. "Prophecy of scripture," he said, "came not . . . by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The act of "moving" (bearing along), that is to say the act of stimulating and superintending the minds of those men who had been the recipients of divine truth, as they wrote the things which they had received, is known as "inspiration."

The third stage also involves the work of the Holy Spirit. When He opens the mind and heart of the reader and illumines the printed page, a secondary revelation is experienced. In order that the unique quality of the primary revelation may be preserved, however, this secondary revelation might better be designated "illumination."

Some pros and cons of the claims that Scriptures are free from error will be discussed presently in this paper. This freedom from error is known as "inerrancy." "Biblical inerrancy" is a term that means that the Bible, at least in its autographs, contains no error.

Some apply this claim of inerrancy only to the doctrines of the Bible which relate to man's life and salvation. Others believe that it also extends to biblical references to science and history.

The word "infallible" is sometimes used in speaking of the absence of error in Scriptures. In this sense the word becomes synonymous with the word inerrancy. Infallibility is a strong word, however, that many prefer to employ only when speaking about God.

Now let us consider the basis for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

II. The Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy

A. The Scriptural Position

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy arises, in the first place, from the logical premise that the infallible God of Truth would not and could not direct His human instruments to write anything that is false, even in its minutest details. Calvinists especially emphasize this point. The doctrine also arises from the teachings of Scriptures themselves. Let us look at some of those biblical declarations which seem to support this position.

In the passage in II Peter mentioned above, (1:21), the Apostle makes it clear that the prophets of Old Testament times did not speak according to the dictates of their own reason ("not . . . by the will of man"). Rather, they spoke what God caused them to say ("as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"). This statement seems to make invalid the argument that the prophets, because they were men, produced errant writings. The logic of this observation could, but need not, lead to the dictation theory of inspiration. It appears, however, that the Apostle is discussing only "prophecy" of Scripture (v. 20): "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." A further look at the context reveals, moreover, that he is discussing in particular one aspect of prophecy: foretelling, not forthtelling.

That which was proclaimed by God's prophets and apostles, however, is also described as God's word. Paul makes that quite clear, at least with respect to his own utterances, when he declares that the word which the Thessalonian church heard him preach was God's word, not his (II Thess. 2:13). Jesus upheld this same principle when He said to the Twelve, "He that heareth you heareth me" (Luke 10:16).

The Apostle Peter certainly considered Paul's writings to be the very Word of God. Speaking of them in his second epistle (3:15-16), he calls them Scripture ("as they do the other scriptures"). He indicates that Paul wrote with divine wisdom ("according to the wisdom given to him"). He also states that to twist Paul's writings is to lose one's soul ("which they wrest . . . unto their own destruction"). This last is a claim that one would hardly dare to make for errant or mere human writings.

The Apostle John speaks with no less confidence concerning the veracity of that which he had written in the fourth Gospel: "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things [he says]; and we know that his testimony is true" (John 22:24).

On one occasion when Paul quoted both from the Pentateuch and from the Gospels he stated that he was quoting from Scriptures (I Tim. 5:18; cf. Deut. 25:4; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7). Thus in effect he called the Gospels "Scripture."

When the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers to Old Testament passages, be they from the Law, the Prophets, or the Writings, he almost invariably puts the words into the mouth of God (Heb. 1:5; cf. Ps. 2:7; II Sam. 7:14; Heb. 1:6; cf. Deut. 32:43, LXX; Heb. 1:7; cf. Ps. 104:4; Heb. l:8; cf. Ps. 45:6,7; Heb. 1:9; cf. Isa. 61:l; Heb. l:13; cf. Ps. 110:1; etc.). Jesus goes so far at this point as to imply that a mere comment made by Moses – or was it Adam? - and recorded in the Bible is God speaking (Matt. 19:5; cf. Gen. 2:24). In another setting, Jesus repeats a short Old Testament statement which focuses attention upon one Old Testament word ("I said, Ye are gods"), and, in that context, declares that "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

The above are but a few of the many biblical witnesses to the inerrancy of Scriptures.

B. The Church's Position on Biblical Inerrancy

Until modern times, the church has steadfastly acknowledged the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy - a fact of considerable importance. Whether one quotes from the Westminster Catechism, or Calvin, or Wesley, or Clarke, or Hodge, or Pope, or Strong, or Wiley, the doctrine is essentially the same. Let John Wesley, in one of his comments on Scripture, speak for them all:

Every part thereof is worthy of God; and all together are one entire body, wherein is no defect, no excess . . . The language of His messengers, also, is exact in the highest degree: for the words which were given them accurately answered to the impressions made upon their minds.¹

Commenting on II Timothy 3:16, Wesley writes: "The Spirit of God not only once inspired those who wrote it [Scriptures], but . . . supernaturally assists those that read it with earnest prayer."²

Neo-orthodoxy characteristically emphasizes the clement of "encounter" in its approach to Scriptures. It defines the Bible as a word of man which may or may not become, for the reader, the Word of God. If and when God reveals to a given man some truth through the Scriptures, that portion of the Bible becomes the Word of God for him. Hence neo orthodoxy holds that the Bible as such is not the Word of God; it simply contains the Word of God; At moments of "encounter" the errant writings of the Bible become the media through which God speaks.

This view of the Bible tends to be subjective, allowing those who hold it to deny the validity of those passages through which they themselves happen not to have had an "encounter." Thus Karl Barth finds no apparent difficulty in denying the existence of a personal devil, even though the activities of such a being are often described in the Bible; and even Barth himself admits the practical inescapableness of the devil's activities.

The neo-orthodox approach to Scriptures destroys them as an objective standard of truth and authority. It tends to leave every man to do that which is right in his own eyes. To the degree that the authority of the Scriptures is weakened, its high standard of ethical requirement disappears. This results in sin's blackness being neutralized. Confession of sin consequently ceases to be heard, and "Thus saith the Lord" no longer is proclaimed from the pulpit. Instead, strange forms of doctrinal error are heard.³ A denial of the objective authority of Scriptures opens the floodgates, allowing paganism, impurity, and pandemonium to inundate society.

The school of thought headed by the late James Orr of Britain is an attempt to mediate between the older conservative position, held in more recent times by men like Hodge and Warfield, and the liberal position which is generally held by critical scholars. Orr maintains that the goal of inspiration is to communicate life and knowledge, and he draws support for his position from such Scriptures as II Timothy 3:1 6b and Psalm 19:7-1l.⁴ In other words, since Jesus Christ and salvation are the heart of Scriptures, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy need concern itself only with those things in the Bible which relate directly to them.

In answer to Orr, the present writer suggests that a proper position on inerrancy must also take into account those biblical views presented earlier in this paper.

On the other hand, adherents to the traditional position would do, well to distinguish more clearly between the thing asserted in Scriptures and the thing signified. For example, to what extent does poetry in the Bible communicate truth? Also, one must ask to what extent inspiration applies to the utterances of men like Job's comforters? Or in what sense is the Book of Ecclesiastes inspired?

Traditional orthodoxy should take the initiative in acknowledging the problems which critical scholars have raised, and not fight as men with their backs to the wall. Otherwise, inquiring minds may by-pass them because they seem to be burying their heads in the sand.

III. Objections to Biblical Inerrancy

The present writer must confess that Scriptures present a number of problems which, as yet, he has found difficult to reconcile with a strict doctrine of plenary, verbal inerrancy. The limits of this paper allow for but a few examples.

A frequent objection to biblical inerrancy is raised because parallel accounts of events recorded in the Bible sometimes vary. Take, for example, the inscription on the cross. Clearly, there was but one inscription there, written in three languages, yet every Gospel writer states it differently. Matthew's account reads, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews"; Mark's says, "The King of the Jews"; Luke puts it, "This is the King of the Jews"; while John writes, "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews." A combination of the four statements, "This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews," probably was what the inscription said, which makes each writer accurate as far as he goes; nevertheless, none of them, evidently, records the inscription exactly as it was written. If one of them did, obviously the other three did not. The present writer is still seeking a completely satisfying solution to this problem.

The problem often is raised too, about the angels at Jesus' tomb. Matthew and Mark mention but one angel, while Luke speaks of two. Mark says he was sitting, while Luke has them standing. In response to this apparent discrepancy, one might say that Matthew and Mark chose to mention only one of the angels while Luke mentions both; but it is more difficult to account for the differences of position stated by the gospel writers. Conceivably both may be correct, witnesses having viewed the angel(s) in successive positions.

Or take Esau's wives. In Genesis 26:34; 28:9 they are said to have been Judith, the daughter of Been the Hittite: Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite; and Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael. Yet in Genesis 36:1-3 where his three wives are mentioned (one would suppose them to be the same three), the names are different. In the latter passage, the names of Judith and Mahalath do not appear at all, while the names of Adah and Aholibamah are introduced. The father of Bashemath is said to be Ishmael instead of Elon the Hittite, and there is an Anah whose name did not appear in the first listings. Incidentally, Anah's father is said to have been Zibeon, a Hivite.

It is possible that some of these wives and their fathers had more than one name. It is possible, too, that the Hittites and Hivites, or at least a given family among them, were so closely related that their names are used interchangeably. These answers, however, are mere theories which need substantiation.

Take a more serious critical problem. From the data presented earlier in this paper, evidence is strong that Jesus and the apostles adhered to biblical inerrancy. Yet when they quoted Scriptures they quoted from the Septuagint (LXX), which was the Jewish Bible of the first century A. D. The problem arises when it is remembered that the LXX was a translation, and anyone familiar with languages knows that a word-for-word translation is impossible. Furthermore, many of the nuances of the original are lost in translation. If it be maintained that the LXX was in errant in an absolute literary sense, it must be asked if the Hebrew manuscript from which it was taken was also inerrant. It is obvious to one who takes a given passage which Jesus and the apostles may cite, and compares it with the Hebrew, be it the Massoretic text, the Samaritan text, or the text of Qumran, that the Hebrew and the LXX do not always say exactly the same thing. Because of that fact, English readers of such quotes become perplexed when they look them up in the Old Testament. Which, then, was the inerrant manuscript? To claim absolute inerrancy only for the autographs still leaves unexplained how Jesus and New Testament writers could claim inerrancy for the LXX from which they quoted.

Also, it sometimes appears that a New Testament writer applies an Old Testament passage entirely out of context. Matthew's use of Isaiah 9:1 2 (Matt. 4:12-16) will illustrate. Of course it might be said that the same Spirit who inspired the words at the beginning, making them fit the context in which the prophet used them, could have inspired the gospel writer to give them an application which fits his context. The superintending Spirit is not subject to human rules of hermeneutics.

IV. Conclusions

Since the battle over biblical inerrancy involves serious problems with which sincere seekers after truth on both sides are occupied, its significance cannot be dismissed lightly. But even more important is the magnitude of the results of the outcome of the issue. To renounce the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is to strip Scriptures of their status as an objective standard of divine truth. Since Christ and His apostles claimed complete inerrancy for the Scriptures, to renounce the doctrine is to cast serious doubts upon the Bible's statements about God, the world, the nature and duty of man, the way of salvation, and man's destiny. Although to accept the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, at this point at least, is to do so in the face of serious critical problems, the alternative to doing so is in effect to destroy Christianity itself.

The vital factor in choosing between the alternatives is not complete understanding of the supports that bridge the chasms along the way of faith, but a complete trust in the Person who is the object of faith. If His position is not dependable, then He is neither a safe Guide nor a safe Object.

The problem of biblical inerrancy reminds one of the question which evidently plagued the Twelve at one point in their training. Jesus had just announced that only those who ate His flesh and drank His blood could have eternal life (cf. John 6 :48f.). At this, most of the crowd, including former disciples, lost faith in Him and looked elsewhere for truth. The Twelve appear to have been perplexed, too. Jesus, sensing their problem, did not, as many of us would have done, hasten to explain exactly what He had meant. Instead, He simply asked, "Will ye also go away?" Peter, the spokesman for the Twelve, responded at once, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe, and are sure . . .

That is it! Acceptance of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Word of God rests, in the final analysis, on the foundation of faith. Not blind, naive acceptance of the unreasonable, but a faith that is reasonable because of the character of Him in whom it is placed. Because Jesus put His stamp of approval so categorically upon the inerrancy of Scriptures, one must either accept His point of view on the matter or discredit Him as a teacher of truth. That we dare not do.

A significant sidelight to the dilemma of the Twelve is that later Jesus' meaning, when He was speaking of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, was made clear to them. But faith, in their case, preceded complete understanding.

So it is with the difficult doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The errant tribunal of human reason, lacking as it does much pertinent data, declares that at least some utterances of Scripture must be broken; nevertheless, with a strong faith in the living Word and in the rightness of Jesus' view of Scriptures, one can leave full understanding of critical problems until later. Happily, the science of archeology and other disciplines have already answered a significant number of the questions which critical scholars have raised. It is reasonable to believe that the rest of the problems will be solved in due time.

In the meantime, it is imperative that the Bible be considered both as an objective statement of truth and as a medium through which the Holy Spirit can bring the reader into a direct encounter with God. To approach Scriptures as objective truth prepares the mind and heart for the subjective experience. Not to approach them thus raises a barrier which the Spirit must overcome before He can be heard, if indeed He succeeds in being heard at all. Failure to approach Scriptures as the objective standard of divine truth conditions the reader to hear the voice of fallible reason or of carnal desire, voices which the individual may even mistake for the voice of Deity. How can one "try the spirits whether they be of God" unless there be an objective standard by which to try them? The holy Scriptures are that standard, that body of writings which our Lord and His apostles pronounced inerrant.

DOCUMENTATIONS

¹John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament (London: Epworth Press, 1941), p. 9.

²Ibid., p. 794.

³Thomas Altizer is reputed to have told Paul Tillich on the night of the latter's death that his God-is-dead doctrine was the theology to which he had arrived by following Tillich's teachings to their logical conclusion.

⁴Cf. Donald Walhout, Interpreting Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), pp. 348, 349.

THEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL INERRANCY

WILBER T. DAYTON, Th. D

(Chairman, Division of Biblical Literature,

Asbury Theological Seminary)

Theology begins with an idea of God or with an awareness of God. Christian theology finds its meaning in the Christ who makes God known in redemption to man who needs a Saviour. Scriptures are the means used by the self-revealing God to communicate His redemptive concern and activity in an objective and verifiable way to His creatures.

I. Inerrant Scriptures Implied In A High View of God

The ability and concern of the Deity will determine the quality of the Word of God. If God is not able or not disposed to give an adequate disclosure of Himself in terms understandable to man, the so-called Scriptures can never rise above human, fallible recording of the history of man or, at most, the imaginations of men about what God may be like or what His attitude may be toward man. A finite God would, at best, produce a limited and faulty Scripture. Or a God who did not love with an everlasting love would give an inadequate Scripture to unworthy and sinful man if he concerned Himself at all with the human needs.

Therefore, the idea of an inerrant Bible derives immediately from the idea of an infinite and loving God who, having used every other means of self-revelation, spoke at last

by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high (Heb. 1:2, 3 KJV).

The Old Testament is not just a faulty human record of God's revelation to man. The communication is so intrinsically involved in the revelation itself that one must say that the Word is that revelation. God spoke (Heb. 1:1). And by their own constantly repeated insistence, the Old Testament writings are the Word of the Lord. That Word does not simply report concerning truth. As Jesus said to the Father, "Thy word is truth" (John 17 :17). It is truth as the Old Testament revelation. It is truth as the Old Testament predictions of the coming of Christ. It is truth in its total contents, which support the whole theme of redemptive revelation. It is all truth. "One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18, KJV). While Jesus does not use the late Latin word "inerrant," He goes beyond the term to its strictest possible application to the Old Testament. The Word of God cannot fail in the least degree.

II. Inerrant Scriptures Implied In The Authority Of Jesus Christ

Then out of the advent, person, and work of Jesus flows the New Testament. The Redeemer, redemption history, and the apostolic witness flow into one. The result is the New Testament. As the Old Testament (the words about the coming Jesus) had to be infallibly fulfilled, so these words of Jesus will not pass away (Matt. 24:35). They are the revelation of ultimate and absolute truth, and thus more sure than the heavens and the earth which belong to the realm of changing phenomena. The New Testament is also the voice of the living God, deriving its existence and authority from the living Christ.

Thus, biblical inerrancy derives from theology. The infinite God and His well-beloved Son alone account for the Scriptures. And their Word is inerrant.

III. Conversely, Inerrant Scriptures Reveal God And Christ

The converse is also true. Our knowledge of God and of His Christ derives from the Scriptures. Modern man would be groping in pagan darkness but for the revelation of God in the Written Word. If this is not an inerrant Word, there is no certain knowledge only another tantalizing mythology or human philosophy.

Yes, the circularity of the argument is evident. God is the source of the inerrant Scriptures and the Scriptures are the source of our knowledge of God. And who can tell, even in the current Christian community, which dawns first in the child's consciousness – the basic, inevitable awareness of God or the relevance of the Scriptural witness to God?

IV. Inter-locking A Prioris

Nor does it matter. Man's approach to either God or the Scriptures is in the realm of the a priori. Only by faith can one be certain of the true God or of the truthfulness of the testimony of His Word. If one is sure of either, he has no reason to doubt the other. Conversely, if one disbelieves one, he can find no solid ground for accepting the other. We have here not one a priori fact and one or two inferences but two or three interlocking a prioris. Accept any one and the others become reasonable inferences. But it matters little with which you start. None is proved by ''scientific'' demonstration. Nor does it need to be. Each has its certainty in faith.

Begin with an infinite, loving God and it is reasonable that He would reveal Himself explicitly in the Redeemer and universalize that revelation in an utterly reliable set of documents. Begin with Jesus Christ and He will reveal the Father, of whom He is the express image. He will also imbed this revelation in a totally relevant and authoritative form accessible to all men. Or begin with the inerrant Scriptures and there is no room to doubt the infinite, loving God or His well-pleasing Son. We stand together - not as rival alternatives but as interlocking aspects of one progressive revelation, addressed primarily to faith. The approach is a priori-not a posteriori. "Through faith we understand" (Heb. 11:2), and without faith it is impossible either to approach God or to please Him (Heb. 11:6).

V. Importance Of Biblical Inerrancy To Theology

If an inerrant Bible is related to a high view of God and to the authority of Jesus Christ, both as a direct implication of them and as our source of knowledge concerning them, who could deny the importance of biblical inerrancy to Christian theology? To deny or ignore biblical inerrancy would be to pull out the keystone and let the whole structure of theology collapse. Certainty could not survive in any area of doctrine. Man would be left to the subjectivity of his own opinions. The following ten propositions, together with the brief commentary on them, underscore the crucial importance of biblical inerrancy to Christian theology.

A. Scripture is the primary source of Christian theology. In Protestantism at least this is the one point on which more agree than on any other. All attribute their certainty to a sure Word of God. There was a time, of course, when the New Testament did not hold this place, simply because it was not yet written. Even then Jesus and the apostles used the Old Testament constantly to proclaim and to prove the great truths that were held sacred as from God Himself. Jesus introduced some of His most radical teachings by the twofold affirmation that He came not to destroy but to fulfill the Old Testament, and that no part of the Old Testament, however tiny, would fall short of fulfillment (Matt. 5:17, 18).

When Jesus was defending His life against the charge of blasphemy involved in claiming to be the Son of God, the common ground between Jesus and the Jews was the confidence of all that "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Thus Paul said with confidence that all Scripture, God-breathed as it is, can be used with profit for doctrine. Jesus Himself was not content, as the risen Lord, to proclaim the great truths about Himself in His own words. He opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures in the light of His declarations (Luke 24:44-48).

Following the example of Jesus and the apostles, the early church taught as authoritative only what the Scriptures said, as enlarged, of course, to contain the New Testament fulfillment. This has been the hall-mark of a live and orthodox church through the centuries. As Wesley quotes Luther, "Divinity is nothing but a grammar of the language of the Holy Ghost."¹ The most significant exception to this approach, the Roman Church, did not so much set aside the Scriptures as add to them a tradition which they claimed to have preserved from apostolic times. Only the boldest deviant movements have dared to forego the claim of a biblical theology. And their lack has generally led to disaster or obscurity.

B. Scripture is the norm for distinguishing between truth and error, orthodoxy and heresy. Jesus told the crafty Sadducees that the source of their error was in "not knowing the scriptures." Lacking at this point, they failed in the practical consideration: neither did they know "the power of God" (Matt. 22:29). The same norm of truth as opposed to error is everywhere implicit and often explicit throughout the Scriptures. And the only effective appeal through the centuries by which the Church has been called back to truth, life, or purity has been a challenge to return to the Scriptures. No lasting reformation or spiritual revival has found its norm elsewhere. This is the basic weakness of the more recent movements of Barth, Bultmann, and Tillich. Other powers may bring change, but only the Scripture really reproves and corrects (II Tim. 3:16).

C. Scripture gives Christian theology its unique authority and authenticity. Christian theology, unlike other systems, has not only a content and a norm, but also an authority from which a valid call may issue for a return to the truth and to the old paths. Because of a Scripture that claims to be inerrant, it is possible to believe that a consistency can exist among the various elements of revelation that extend over many centuries, that are mediated through a variety of men, that are communicated in at least three different languages, that occur in a variety of cultures, and that appeared under a variety of governments - good and bad.

The principle of consistency is the authority of truth-the utterance of the Living God. God's commandments, promises, predictions, and mighty works show an amazing self-consistency that steers a perfect path through the maze of man's sin, confusion, and rebellion. No other religion has the benefit of such authentic control as the inerrant Scriptures. Thus no other religion is in a position to develop a theology of such authority and authenticity as is possessed by a truly biblical theology. It is Scripture that gives valid form and preservation to the divine revelation.

D. The authority of Christian theology is based on the assumption of the utter reliability of the Scriptures. Christianity is a preaching religion. Its beliefs are not opinions to be discussed in forums but truths to be proclaimed. On these truths rest the destiny of the hearer, the individual happiness and effectiveness of the person, and the good of society. The preacher cannot afford to be wrong in his proclamation. His source must be reliable. The whole Bible, all Scripture, must be God-breathed and hence profitable in the variety of uses that grow out of its proclamation. If at any point the Bible is not reliable, it is no stronger than its weakest link. Scripture would then break under the pressure of real life.

John Wesley compressed life's problems to one. He said, "I want to know one thing, the way to heaven." The answer is likewise reduced to one. "God himself has condescended to teach me the way." The way is in one document. "He hath written it down in a book." So Wesley became a "man of one book." He said, "O give me that book! At any price, give me the book of God! I have it: here is knowledge enough for me."²

This certainty concerning the reliability and effectiveness of the Scriptures is the mark of a truly Christian theology. Revelation cannot be separated from the God who gave it. God reveals Himself in Scripture. Augustine puts into the mouth of God the words, "Indeed, O man, what My Scripture says, I say."³ This conviction of the utter reliability of the Scriptures is the foundation-stone of theology.

E. This reliability is normally conceived in terms of inerrancy and infallibility. Examples hardly need to be given. Exceptions within the Church are mostly related to the modern attacks on the Scriptures by the same rationalistic biblical criticism that claims to make the Scriptures more understandable. Wesley's view is typical of the normal approach to the Scriptures when he cries, "Every part thereof is worthy of God; and all together are one entire body, wherein is no defect, no excess."⁴ And again when he says, "Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book it did not come from the God of truth."⁵ Who can doubt that this thorough confidence in the inerrancy of the Scriptures was a vital factor in the effectiveness of Wesley in his contribution to the great Evangelical Revival?

Luther says in the same vein, "I have learned to ascribe the honor of infallibility only to those books that are accepted as canonical. I am profoundly convinced that none of these writers has erred."⁶ Anglican documents agree. In The Homilies we read that the Scriptures as a body were "written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost" and are thus "the Word of the living God," "his infallible Word."⁷ The same idea pervades all parts of the New Testament, the Church Fathers, and the significant Christian works through the centuries, in words appropriate to the times.

F. The authority of Jesus Christ is at stake. This proposition applies in at least three ways. The veracity of Jesus' teaching is at stake. No one ever spoke more strongly than He about the detailed reliability of the Scriptures. God would not let one tiniest bit fail of fulfillment (Matt. 5:18). "The scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Wesley comments: "That is, nothing which is written therein can be censured or rejected."⁸ Jesus knew, believed, studied, expounded, venerated, obeyed, and fulfilled the Scripture. This amounts to complete endorsement of the Scriptures by both precept and example. If He points us unwaveringly to the written Word as a firm foundation of our faith and hope, His veracity is at stake in the decision that is to be made about the complete reliability of the Word. If He fails us here, we are betrayed.

The authority of Jesus is at stake in another way. If the Scriptures are not reliable in detail, we know very little about the Jesus who lived in Palestine. Virtually all that we know of Him is recorded in the Bible. If even part of the record is unreliable, we have no stick to measure what we can trust and what we cannot. There would be no stopping point short of Bultmann's conclusion that we know little or nothing for sure of the historical Jesus.⁹ All would be colored by prejudiced reporting or would be under the shadow of uncertainty. He who takes away my Bible takes away my Lord, and "I know not where they have laid Him" (John 20:13).

In still a third way the authority of Jesus is involved. In a peculiar sense the New Testament is His book. He chose and commissioned the apostles. He gave them the power of proxy. Whoever received the apostle was actually so treating the Master (Matt. 10:40). As witnesses to Christ, and as Spirit-filled interpreters for Christ, they conveyed to the apostolic church the gospel which was given to them. As the apostles passed on the tradition which was given to them by the Lord, they believed that their Spirit inspired witness was Christ Himself speaking. Note Ephesians 4:21, where Paul says the Ephesians heard Christ and were taught by Him.

To Paul it made no difference whether the tradition was taught by word or by epistle. The communication and the obligation were the same. (See II Thess. 2:15.) If the Spirit inspired, apostolic witness to Christ, namely the books of the New Testament, cannot be accepted as infallibly true, it is not the apostle that is discredited; it is the Lord Himself. The authority of Jesus is at stake in the question of the inerrancy of the New Testament.

G. The validity of redemption is likewise at stake. If, as Jesus Himself repeatedly declared, in harmony with the whole Old and New Testaments, the purpose of Jesus' coming was as a vicarious Redeemer, the history and authority called into question are redemption history and redemption authority. If the inerrant facticity of the biblical accounts cannot be trusted implicitly, which parts can or cannot be so trusted? Must I choose subjectively, according to my own inclination or philosophic background? Should I posit the source of redemption history in the truth of God or in the Gnostic mythology? If there is no sure Word of God that settles the issue straight across the board, I may, with Bultmann, find the idea of one person's dying for another as abhorrent to naturalism as is the idea of a fully inspired and inerrant Scripture. But in that case I would find myself a lost sinner without redemption.

H. Doubt or denial of inerrancy is historically accompanied by doubt or denial of other basic doctrines, widespread unbelief, a sick church, and vigorous and triumphant anti-Christian movements. Until recent times such doubt had little standing in the Church. It is a modern peculiarity that atheists and agnostics claim to be Christians, and that Christians claim to be atheists and agnostics. Those who have an inerrant Bible have not found their God dead. He is very much alive. One wonders if the compromise on the Bible is not the wedge that opened the door for the massive unbelief that is sweeping over so much of the Church today. One wonders further if professed Christians can really find a resting place short of complete apostasy on the one hand or a return to a fully authoritative Word of God on the other. Currents run swiftly nowadays. One may not have long to wait for the answer.

I. Doubt or denial of inerrancy logically destroys the basis of Christian theology. If the doctrine of God, the person of Jesus Christ, and the fact of redemption could not survive with certainty the loss of inerrancy, what logical expectation is there of preserving any vital doctrine of Christian theology on the basis of an errant Scripture? To labor the point would be to insult one's intelligence.

J. The hope of Christian theology is in an inerrant Scripture. The answer is clear. Not only is inerrancy important to Christian theology; it is essential. The decision of this generation on inerrancy may determine the future of Christian theology for a long time to come, if Jesus tarries.

DOCUMENTATIONS

¹John Wesley, "Preface", Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament (London: The Epworth Press, reprinted 1941), p. 9.

²John Wesley, "Preface", Sermons (3rd American ed), I, 6.

³Augustine, Confessions, xiii, 29.

⁴John Wesley, "Preface", Explanatory Notes, p. 9.

⁵John Wesley, Journal, VI, 117.

⁶Martin Luther, "Defense Against the Ill-tempered Judgment of Eck", D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar: Hermann Bohlaus Nachfolger, 1897), 2, 618; cited by John W. Montgomery, Crisis in Lutheran Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967), p. 68.

⁷"An Information for them which take offence at certain places of the Holy Scripture", The Homilies, ed. G. E. Corrie, Cambridge, 1850, pp. 370, 378, 383; quoted by J.I. Packer, God Speaks to Man, Westminster Press, 1965, p. 21.

⁸John Wesley, Notes, 1.c.

⁹Rudolph Bultmann, Form Criticism (New York: Harper & Brothers, Torch-book, 1962), pp. 20-23.

JOHN FLETCHER'S METHODOLOGY IN

THE ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSY OF 1770-76

ROBERT A. MATTKE, B.D., M.A.

(Head of Religion Department, Miltonvale College)

For over two centuries, the name of John Wesley has been highly honored. He is the acknowledged leader of the Evangelical Revival and is credited with founding the Methodist Church and giving to it a distinctive theology. Many other deserving tributes could be paid this man. Without detracting from Wesley's accomplishments, it needs to be remembered that he had some very able assistants who made helpful contributions to his success. Today's evangelistic association is not wholly a twentieth century phenomenon.

Admittedly, the team which John Wesley headed was small when measured by today's standards. Ernst Sommer points out that by 1765 it was recognized that at the head of Methodism was a "troika" or, as he calls it, a triumvirate, John and Charles Wesley and John Fletcher. Luke Tyerman, the biographer of early Methodism, writes:

John Wesley traveled, formed societies, and governed them. Charles Wesley composed unequalled hymns for the Methodists to sing; and John Fletcher, a native of Calvinian Switzerland explained, elaborated and defended the doctrines they heartily believed.¹

Unfortunately, this third man on Wesley's team is a veritable stranger to many Wesleyan theologians, and this unfamiliarity with John Fletcher in contemporary Wesleyan circles is regrettable.

Those historians who have not overlooked the significance of the mutual efforts of those associated with John Wesley describe Fletcher as the "earliest and fullest expositor and interpreter in English of the Remonstrant Theology of Arminius; whose works remain the storehouse of its treasures and the armoury of its defense."² Another claims that the theology of the Methodist movement was the theology of John Fletcher of Madeley.³ Abel Stevens, one of the leading historians of Methodism, has written of Fletcher's Checks: "They have been more influential in the denomination than Wesley's own controversial writings on the subject. They have influenced, indirectly through Methodism, the subsequent tone of theological thought in much of the Protestant world.⁴ Some writers have seen fit to call Fletcher "the theologian of Methodism" or "the chief theologian of the Wesleyans."⁵

Wesley, who was always judicious in the giving of praise, readily acknowledges his indebtedness to John Fletcher. Wesley enjoined: "Let all our preachers carefully read over ours and Mr. Fletcher's tracts."⁶ The esteem with which Wesley held Fletcher was such that on two different occasions, once in 1773 and again in 1776, Wesley tried to persuade Fletcher to become his successor.

The following reasons partially explain the scant attention paid to Fletcher today: the general theological pauperism in Wesleyan circles; Fletcher's Works are not readily available; few students understand the historical context in which he wrote and, unfortunately, Fletcher's name bears a stigma because it is associated with controversy. A failure to understand Fletcher's methodology poses an additional hindrance. The purpose of this paper is to make some contribution to our understanding at this point.

John Fletcher's significant contribution to Wesleyan-Arminian theology came about as a result of his participation in the Antinomian controversy. As the Evangelical Revival progressed, it soon became apparent that there were two branches simultaneously developing, one Calvinistic, the other Arminian. In 1770 at the twenty-seventh annual conference of preachers, the following statement was made by Wesley: "We have leaned too much toward Calvinism."⁷

This statement caused what was smoldering to burst into the open flame of the Antinomian controversy. Lady Huntingdon was greatly offended by the minutes of the 1770 Conference and believed that the fundamental truths of the gospel were put in jeopardy by them. Walter Shirley, Henry Venn, Richard and Roland Hill and others aligned themselves with Lady Huntingdon. Until 1770, John Fletcher had been much admired by Lady Huntingdon; so much so, in fact, that she had made him president of Trevecca College which she had founded in 1768. Now, because of their theological differences, Fletcher found it necessary to resign the presidency of this college.

It was after this breach in fellowship that Fletcher took up his ready pen and began to write his memorable Checks to Antinomianism. Not only did he write out of a sense of "duty towards God," and towards his "honored father in Christ, Mr. Wesley, and his misunderstood minutes,"⁸ but because of a deep-seated concern for the welfare of the revival. He stated his chief reason for publishing his first Check thus:

It appears if I am not mistaken that we stand now as much in need of a reformation from antinomianism as our ancestors did of a reformation from popery. People, it seems, may now be 'in Christ' without being 'new creatures,' without casting 'old things' away. They may be God's children without God's image; and 'born of the Spirit' without the fruits of the Spirit.⁹

Thus it was that Fletcher was firmly convinced that in evangelical Christianity you could not separate the faith of a Christian from the fruitage of a Christian life. Fletcher, like Wesley, was supremely interested in practical Christianity.¹⁰

Before we consider the methods Fletcher employed in the Antinomian controversy, it must be understood that his methodology was not in any way conditioned by blind partisanship, or by an element of surprise at what was developing in the Methodist Societies. He was not baffled by the sudden emergence of what might be falsely called a "new heresy". You cannot detect any frustration on his part as to what the solution must be. Fletcher did not consider controversy to be a necessarily evil thing. His position was that "controversy, though not desirable in itself, yet, properly managed, has a hundred times rescued truth, groaning under the lash of triumphant error."¹¹

Though emotions ran rampant at times, Fletcher retained his poise and always manifested a tender spirit. He submitted his First Check to Wesley before it was published so that all "tart" expressions might be removed from it. Wesley recorded his evaluation of Fletcher's Checks with these words:

One knows not which to admire most - the purity of the language, the strength and clearness of the argument, or the mildness and sweetness of the spirit that breathes throughout the whole.¹²

Throughout the controversy, Fletcher demonstrated that he was a man of both sobriety and piety.

Fletcher's methodology in the Antinomian controversy was based upon a careful historical analysis of the problem. He was aware that from the very beginnings of the Christian era, Antinomianism has always been a threat to the practical fulfillment of the Christian life as instituted by the New Covenant of Grace. Admittedly, the relationship between the moral law and the law of grace is not readily evident. Immanuel Kant expressed this relationship in terms of a mystery by saying: "Two things fill the mind with ever increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."

In an attempt to meet the ethical demands of the New Testament, some of the early Christians turned to mysticism, asceticism, or to any one of a great number of heresies.¹³ By way of example, the Marcionites taught "that the God preached by the Law and the Prophets, was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one was known, the other unknown; the one righteous, and the other good."¹⁴ William James writes: "The heretics who went before the Reformation are lavishly accused by church writers of antinomian practices."¹⁵

It is an accepted fact that by the sixteenth century the predominant emphasis in the church was upon a "work righteousness." Luther's reaction against this form of salvation supposedly achieved by means of meritorious works precipitated the Reformation. Just as the pendulum has the tendency to swing in the opposite direction, so Luther came dangerously close to an exclusive emphasis upon "faith." At first he found difficulty in reconciling the emphasis of Paul with that of James, and at this stage he preferred the teachings of Paul because he did not yet fully understand either Paul or James.¹⁶ It must be remembered that as Luther recoiled from the theological errors of his day, his emotions temporarily blinded him to an understanding of how the emphasis of Paul and James could be reconciled.

More basic to the problem, however, was Luther's proclivity to Augustinianism in which he had been so thoroughly schooled. Not wanting to detract from Luther's courageous performance in the Reformation, John Fletcher ventures to say,

He was so busy in opposing the pope of Rome, his indulgences, Latin masses, and other monastic fooleries, that he did not find time to oppose the Augustinian fooleries of fatalism, Manichean necessity, lawless grace, and free wrath.¹⁷

In this period of turmoil, the humanism of Desiderius Erasmus with its emphasis upon free will failed to be of any help to Luther because it erred on the side of Pelagianism.

Thus an ancient conflict of the early fifth century is renewed. Pelagius, a British monk, gave great prominence to the ability of man to save himself. St. Augustine was his chief assailant and fought the Pelagian heresy with an emphasis upon the free grace of God. In this justifiable controversy, it was Fletcher's judgment that Augustine's view of grace was not wholly orthodox, especially where it gave rise to predestination.¹⁸ Thus Augustine's corrective emphasis came short of achieving the equilibrium of the gospel in describing the God-man relationship.

When Calvin arrived on the Reformation scene, he likewise failed to find a mediating position with regard to the "holy doctrines of grace, and the gracious doctrines of justice."¹⁹ His Augustinian teachings continued to aggravate the controversy in which

Luther and Erasmus had been the chief disputants. The first reformer to balance the "Gospel ., axioms was, according to the viewpoint of John Fletcher, the English reformer Thomas Cranmer who had written these lines:

All men be monished and chiefly preachers, that, in this high matter, they, looking on both sides (i.e. looking both to the doctrines of grace and the doctrines of justice), so attemper and moderate themselves, that neither they so preach the grace of God (with heated Augustine), that they take away thereby free-will, nor on the other side so extol free-will (with heated Pelagius), that injury be done to the grace of God.²⁰

Because of the Augustinian sentiments in Reformation circles on the continent, the Roman Catholics in launching the counter-reformation soft-pedaled their veneration for Augustine to the extent that following the Council of Trent they became decidedly more Pelagian. Thus both branches of Western Christendom were driven "still farther from the line of Scripture moderation."²¹ According to Fletcher, the unpleasant result was:

That in the popish countries, those who stood up for faith and distinguishing free grace began to be called heretics, Lutherans, and Solifidians: while. in Protestant countries, those who had the courage to maintain the doctrines of justice, good works, and unnecessitated obedience, were branded as Papists, merit mongers, and heretics.²²

In his review of history, Fletcher pointed to the seventeenth century saying that Arminianism within Protestantism and Jansenism within Roman Catholicism were both movements whose intention was to check the excesses to which these respective branches of Christendom were addicted. The Synod of Dort (1618-1619) condemned Arminius for his leadership in a reaction aimed at scholastic Calvinism's failure to recognize fully the significance of human responsibility. Cornelius Jansen's attempt to bring into focus the Augustinian concept of grace especially within the Society of Jesus came to be known as Jansenism. Although both movements were officially condemned, all was not lost, however, for as Fletcher observes, "truth shall stand, be it ever so much opposed by either partial Protestants or partial papists."²³

Fletcher believed that the problem of antinomianism in early Methodism was quite properly analogous to a similar problem which confronted the Presbyterians in the seventeenth century. It is for this reason that Fletcher's Works are replete with references to the works of the more moderate Puritan or Non-Conformist divines (e.g., Richard Baxter, Matthew Henry, John Flavel, Daniel Williams, Philip Doddridge). He also quotes from Bishop Lancelot Andrewes who represents the so-called Arminians of the Caroline divines.

Thus it was Fletcher's conclusion that the great central problems of theology change far less in matter and substance than in form and temper as they appear in history's successive ages. These problems dress themselves up in a new garb and outwardly they appear to be transformed. In more recent times, an English scholar verifies Fletcher's conclusion by saying:

Under the new names of Rationalism and Romanticism, we recognize the old antagonisms of free-will and predestination which at one era bore the names of Pelagianism and Augustinianism, and, at another, Arminianism and Calvinism.²⁴

Fletcher's incisive study of history convinced him that Antinomianism became a threat to sound evangelical doctrine whenever the polarity between divine sovereignty and human responsibility was neutralized. To avoid this subtle pitfall, he believed that responsible theologians must bring themselves to an acceptance of the paradox.

In most cases, the Christian scholar's background in Aristotelian logic is a serious handicap in any understanding of the paradox. The natural temptation is to want to relieve the tension. David Shipley observes that the usual method is to take one truth and explain it "in terms of the other so that the dialectical tension is lost or lessened sufficiently to make possible popular uncritical perversion."²⁵ Thus it is with ease that the theologian can put an irreconcilable opposition between two equal truths to the end that he cancels them both out.

After a careful historical analysis of theological movements in the Christian church, Fletcher develops in the Antinomian controversy a methodology which accepts the reality of the paradox. Gertrude Huehns categorically states that "research has repeatedly pointed out that one of the main reasons for the victory of Christianity over other competing sacrificial mythologies was its paradoxicality."²⁶

Accepting the element of paradox and recognizing the difficulty of making clear-cut distinctives between opposition and complementarity, Fletcher proceeds to develop a methodology which has been called the "via media", or "the middle way." In his words he called it, "the harmonious opposition of the Scriptures." In more recent times this method has been called "dialectical."²⁷

Fletcher's methodology undoubtedly grew out of his peculiar conception of the nature of Truth, which he maintained is an organic unity. "Truth," he says, "is confined within her firm bounds; nay, there is a middle line equally distant from all extremes; on that line she stands, and to miss her, you need only step over it to the right hand or to the left."²⁸

During the course of the Antinomian controversy, Fletcher's dialectical methodology became the hermeneutical principle which he used in the exegesis of Scripture. When he was confronted with seeming contradictions in the Scriptures and differences of interpretation among individual Christians and theological groups, this was the method by which he sought a reconciliation. For example he cites Romans 4:5 and 5:1 which indicate that man is justified by faith. It is equally as important that the mind be confronted with John 6:27 which is a command of Jesus Christ to "labor [ergazesthe, literally, 'work'] for the meat that endureth to everlasting life."²⁹

Any proof-text method not balanced by this dialectical methodology was thought by Fletcher to be potentially dangerous. To him this would be "wresting the Scriptures to one's own destruction" (I Pet. 3:6).

Fletcher's methodology gave him some keen insights into the Antinomian problem. He was able to appraise the current situation by saying, "Once we were in immediate danger of splitting upon 'works without faith': Now we are threatened with destruction from 'faith without works'."³⁰ He accounts for the fact that Antinomianism had again raised its ugly head because of Calvinism's one-sided emphasis upon Christ as the dispenser of grace and thus its preoccupation with only 'the first Gospel axiom," or justification by faith in the day of salvation. In contradistinction the rigid Arminian position imprisoned Christ within the context of the law and thus it was preoccupied with the "second Gospel axiom," a second justification by works. Fletcher insisted that both gospel axioms were complementary and must be held together theologically, and in practice by emphasizing Christ in all of His offices. Thus Fletcher wrote:

If I may compare the Gospel Truth to the child contended for in the days of Solomon, both parties, while they divide, inadvertently destroy it. We, like the true mother, are for no division. Standing upon the middle Scriptural line, we embrace and hold first both Gospel axioms. With the Calvinists, we give God in Christ all the glory of our salvation; and, with the moralists, we take care not to give him in Adam any of the share in our damnation.³¹

Fletcher's doctrine of a "second justification by works" must be understood as the means by which he sought to reawaken the Antinomians and to encourage believers to pursue a life of holiness. His explanation of the doctrine is that initial justification or conversion is by faith alone; justification at the day of judgment will be only by the works of faith. His prayer was that the "merciful Keeper of Israel" would save from both extremes by a living faith, legally productive of all good works, or by good works, evangelically springing from a living faith."³²

The current interest in ecumenicity is calling for a reappraisal of Fletcher's methodology. Because he was a mediating theologian, it is believed that he has something significant to offer to our contemporary situation. If this interest reflects a genuine quest for truth, then these words from Fletcher's pen are worthy of careful study:

Mankind are prone to run into extremes. The world is full of men who always overdo or underdo. Few people ever find the line of moderation, the golden mean; and of those who do, few stay long upon it. One blast or another of vain doctrine soon drives them east or west from the meridian of pure truth.³³

If this evaluation of mankind's tendencies appears to be too pessimistic, it is only fair to Fletcher to add that he would balance this "pessimism of nature" with an "optimism of grace."³⁴

Because Antinomianism is one of the very real problems in our contemporary society, Fletcher's Checks to Antinomianism are taking on a new relevancy. Churchmen of the twentieth century need to avail themselves of whatever they can find of value in Fletcher's methodology.

There is a small minority of people in our modern society who is concerned about our Antinomian problem and is sounding an alarm. Robert E. Fitch, professor of Christian ethics at the Pacific School of Religion, is one of them, and he writes a description of the widespread erosion of authority. He says:

Of course, I have in mind primarily moral authority . . . The erosion of this authority has taken place partly under allegedly democratic and egalitarian theories that we're all equal and nobody's any better than anybody else, partly under the impact of relativistic teachings in history, anthropology and philosophy that say everything is relative to the culture and there's no objective standard of right and wrong, truth and falsehood.³⁵

So widespread is this lawlessness that it respects neither the "radical right" nor the "existential left." Fitch continues:

Any number of 'liberals' and 'radicals' believe passionately in this same proposition . . . This inordinate love of liberty apart from law, apart from social structure and order, which is not the classical pattern of liberty in either England or America. So you have a kind of individualistic, egoistic liberty, that destroys self.³⁶

It is believed that the cause of today's widespread Antinomianism can be laid at the door of existentialism. L. Harold De Wolf suggests this when he writes: