The Church of the Nazarene
"During the early years of its history, the Church of the Nazarene—both its leaders and its people—unequivocally affirmed a high view of the authority of Scripture which included the historic doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Nazarene leaders unabashedly identified themselves with the fundamentalist movement in responding to the growing liberalism of the day. But beginning in the 1930s, a subtle and gradual move away from an affirmation of biblical inerrancy began. Eventually, many Nazarene leaders and scholars adopted a more restricted view of inspiration and inerrancy. Some asserted that inerrancy was intrinsically a Calvinistic doctrine, and hence inconsistent with true Wesleyanism. This paper will examine the changing definitions and the shifting positions regarding the authority and inerrancy of Scripture during the history of the denomination from the early 1900s until the late 1980s.
My research only covers the period from the early 1900s up to the late 1980s. I hope I‘m wrong, but it‘s my impression that since the late 1980s the majority of Nazarene scholars have continued to deny the full authority of Scripture by restricting its inerrancy to matters of faith and practice. This is doubly strange, both because it is a rejection of the historic Wesleyan and Nazarene doctrine and because at least in my limited observation, most Nazarene laypersons and probably most pastors would still affirm the full inerrancy of Scripture. The most sobering side of this is that, if history (especially the history of Methodism) is any indicator, in another generation or two, even the inerrancy of matters of faith and practice will likely be questioned by scholars, pastors and laypeople at the grassroots. Let us hope and pray that in this generation—in the first quarter of the twenty-first century—the deep and authentic commitment of Nazarene leaders, scholars, pastors and laypeople around the world will lead once again to a thoughtful and unequivocal affirmation of Scripture‘s trustworthiness, indeed of its inerrancy, as the Written Word, testifying to the Living Word. The world needs the strong and robust witness of transformed living rooted in the authority of the Word from the Church of the Nazarene. The larger Church globally needs a challenge to holy living empowered by the Holy Spirit from the Church of the Nazarene.
Dr. Daryl McCarthy Graduate of Nazarene Theological Seminary
FULL ARTICLE << click
If you don't have time right now to read the article--here is a quick bit....
"The Preacher’s Magazine,(a Nazarene publication) in its very first issue in 1926, featured the fundamentalist controversy. In the lead article, ―Modernism and Christianity, F. M. Messenger averred, ―If the Bible cannot be taken at its face value, it should be discredited altogether, for it claims too much to be authentic only in part. Either ―accept the revelation which God has given, or declare yourself an agnostic."
"Throughout their 1928 address to the General Assembly, the General Superintendents made clear their stand for a high view of Scripture. We must stand for the whole Bible. We do not as a movement believe merely that the Bible contains the Word of God. We believe the Bible is the Word of God. We believe it from Genesis to Revelation…. The Bible has received the bitterest attack of the enemy for centuries, but today the Old Book stands as impregnable as the Rock of Gibraltar…. The church must stand first, last and all the time for the whole Bible, the inspired, infallible, revealed Word of God…. Every man in this body is a fundamentalist and so far as we know there is not a modernist in the ranks of the Church of the Nazarene. We believe the Bible and accept it as being the revealed Word of God, immutable, unchangeable, infallible and sufficient for every human need. A modernist would be very lonesome in this General Assembly."
from Preacher's Magazine 1928 #1 " Fundamentalism is winning and is bound to win. Otherwise the Church would disappear and the ministry would perish." the Editor
from me again------the lay members of the church would probably agree with these statements today.
However, the seminary and college professors and many graduates and therefore many pastors, would not. They have changed over to a partial inspiration theory which allows the skirting of several thorny issues; Creation, the Flood, etc. This way they can avoid looking backward and foolish in the eyes of the modern, politically correct scientific crowd. I ask again.....does the scientific community accept virgin births? or resurrection?
Some have gone through extraordinary gyrations to call Genesis 1 poetry, and therefore not a factual history. Poetry may therefore be interpreted as allegorical or just inspirational, not history.
Believing in the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Bible is now seen as a Calvinistic view. To the modern Nazarene scholar John Calvin is the ultimate person to disagree with. If Calvin said smoke goes up, they would say it goes down. There is a particular dislike of the word "fundamental", because it is always put together with Calvin, or Islam, but it is always a derogatory term. The emotion projected is that of a uneducated, naive person, hillbilly, or red neck, blindly assuming things. . Not the well-educated, scientific person. Nothing sure, everything mystical and unsure.......
If you study it , the newer thought is called "soteriological inspiration", meaning only things having to do with salvation in teh Bible are correct, trustworthy and authoritative. If you can determine scripture that does not have salvation as its focus, you may feel free to doubt its truth and authority. Who gets to determine which scriptures have to do with salvation? What allows us to trust the salvation scriptures and not others? Again, all I hear in that is Satan's question to Eve------
"Did God really say..........? to which many answer----probably not.
in the Preface to his Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament John Wesley sets forth his unequivocal understanding of Scripture as the inspired Word of God.
"Concerning the Scriptures in general, it may be observed, the word of the living God, which directed the first patriarchs also, was in the time of Moses, committed to writing. To this were added, in several succeeding generations, the inspired writings of the other prophets. Afterward, what the Son of God preached, and the Holy Ghost spake by the apostles, the apostles and evangelists wrote.—This is what we now style the Holy Scripture: this is that word of God which remaineth for ever: of which, though heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle shall not pass away. The Scripture therefore of the Old and New Testament, is a most solid and precious system of Divine truth. Every part thereof is worthy of God; and all together are one entire body, wherein is no defect, no excess. It is the fountain of heavenly wisdom, which they who are able to taste, prefer to all writings of men, however wise, or learned, or holy. An exact knowledge of the truth was accompanied in the inspired writers with an exactly regular series of arguments, a precise expression of their meaning, and a genuine vigour of suitable affections…. In the language of the sacred writings, we may observe the utmost depth, together with the utmost ease. All the elegancies of human composures sink into nothing before: God speaks not as man, but as God. His thoughts are very deep: and thence his words are of inexhaustible virtue. 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 the grammar of the language of the Holy Ghost.” To understand this thoroughly, we should observe the emphasis which lies on every word; the holy affections expressed thereby, and the tempers shown by every writer."23
Thus, Wesley provides a classic description of the evangelical doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration—an inspiration by God which covers every word and thought and yet allows for the individual styles of the inspired writers. Wesley’s declaration that there is “no defect, no excess” in Scripture, that “an exact knowledge of the truth was accompanied in the inspired writers with…,a precise expression of their meaning…” and that “the language of his [God’s] messengers also is exact in the highest degree….” can hardly be re-interpreted to mean anything less than an undiluted affirmation of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. Daryl McCarthy
http://www.fwponline.cc/v16n2/v16n2reasonera.html Here is an article from the Arminian point of view.
Here are more classic Nazarene statements that are now outdated.
As late as 1948 Ross Price wrote in the Herald of Holiness, “Our Lord…assumed the absolute truth of the Scripture…. The Bible is correct astronomically, geologically, historically, medically, botanically, zoologically, meteorlogically, prophetically, and spiritually.” (29 Nov. 1948).
As recently as 1969 the Nazarene Publishing House was printing a series called "Search the Scriptures" and here is portion on Genesis:
"What is important is to recognize the integrity and Mosaic authority of this portion of the Bible, and the genuineness of its contents. All facts discovered about the writings from centuries of careful study can be understood in this light; Genesis, like all the rest of the Scripture, was "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." ----
Many of the deepest and most profound truths of the entire revelation of God in the Bible are found in seed form in Genesis. The need for atonement, the sacrificial altar, the promise of the coming Savior, the foundations of home and the family, and the basic principles of salvation by faith all find expression in this great first book of the Bible"
From Preacher's Magazine 1928 #1
SIDELIGHTS ON THE TEXT, OR GEMS FROM GENESIS B y W m . H e s l o p
In the first few verses of chapter three of Genesis, the Word of God is questioned, added to, mixed up, altered, contradicted, denied, and rejected.
1. Questioning the Word of God .
“ YEA hath God said ?” is the question mark of Satan reminding us of his “IF thou be the Son of God” in Matthew 4:3, 6. Beware of Satan’s “Yea” and “ If.”
2 Adding to the Word of God.
God said, “Of every tree . . . freely eat.” Eve added, “Of the fruit.” Eve also added, “Neither shall ye touch it.” God never
mentioned anything about touching it at all.
3 . Mixing up the Word of God.
God said, “The tree of life was in the m idst.” Eve said, “The tree of knowledge” was in the midst. The devil and men are everlastingly questioning, adding to, and mixing up G od’s W ord.
4 . Altering the Word of God.
Eve said, “neither shalt thou touch it,” and God never said this.
5. Contradicting the Word of God . God said, “ye shall surely die.” Satan said, “Ye shall not surely die,” and thus the W ord of God is questioned, added to, mixed up, contradicted and rejected. Satan and Eve are the first so called higher critics.
From Nazarene Preacher's Magazine 1928 #2 W.W. Clay
The divine inspiration of the Bible is nowhere more apparent than in the inter-relation of its several books. How incomplete the Bible would be without having as its beginning the book of Genesis with its backward look into the ageless past and its revelation of that which science can never discover, the very beginning of things. How unfinished it would be not to have as its final word the book of Revelation, God’s telescope through which we may look into the ages to come and see as if happening now the things which shall be hereafter, a fitting climax and ending for a God-breathed, divinely inerrant Book. What an inestimable loss it would be not to have the book of Acts with its clear-cut delineation of the pentecostal church in the fullness and purity of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. There is no book of the Bible that is superfluous, or that does not bear a definite relation to the rest, or that does not carry its peculiar message not only for the time and place for which it was first written but for all succeeding generations. There is no book of which this is more true."
Christian Theology----Textbook H. Orton Wiley Nazarene scholar
Inspiration and Revelation. By Revelation we understand a direct communication from God to man of such knowledge as is beyond the power of his reason to attain, or for whatever cause was not known to the person who received it. By Inspiration we mean the actuating energy of the Holy Spirit through which holy men were qualified to receive religious truth, and to communicate it to others without error. The disclosure of the mind of God to man is Revelation when viewed from the standpoint of the truth unveiled; it is Inspiration when viewed in relation to the methods of its impartation and transmission. The highest and most important is the factor of "suggestion," by which is meant a direct and immediate suggestion from God to man by the Spirit, as to the thoughts which he shall use, or even the very words which he shall employ, in order to make them agencies in conveying His will to others. These factors in varying degrees must enter into any clear thought of inspiration, but to regard them as different degrees of inspiration, as if the several portions of the Scripture were in different degrees the Word of God is necessarily to weaken the authority of the Bible as a whole. The error springs from a failure to distinguish between revelation as the varying quantity, and inspiration as the constant; the one furnishing the material by "suggestion" when not otherwise attainable, the other guiding the writer at every point, thus securing at once the infallible truth of his material, and its proper selection and distribution. For this reason we conclude that the Scriptures were given by plenary inspiration, embracing throughout the elements of superintendence, elevation and suggestion, in that manner and to that degree that the Bible becomes the infallible Word of God, the authoritative rule of faith and practice in the Church. (As time went on, Wiley wavered in this belief, see below)
Preacher's Magazine 1928 #2
"In the leading schools it is declared that scholarship is agreed that the evidence is lacking that God inspired the Bible, and that a study of the original text assures us that it is man-made and not God-inspired. But the deeper one delves into the original languages the surer is the basis of his faith. The rock is impregnable; the foundation is sure; the more one tries to remove our rock-foundation of faith the deeper becomes the conviction that the Word is God-breathed. There is nought in the study of the New Testament that does not confirm our faith in its inspiration and in its infallibility. From the score of scholarship we have nothing to fear. The greatest scholars have been Christians who have affirmed their faith in the divine origin of the Bible."
Herald of Holiness Aug. 14, 1912
We must have old-fashioned preaching the old-time truths with the old-time power. The Bible must be the old-fashioned one. There is no power in the book reconstructed by the higher critics. They have no assurance to offer. The methods employed by the scholars has landed them in a pandemonium of conflicting theories regarding the authorship and dates of the books of the Bible. They cannot agree with each other nor can they agree with their own findings of a few months ago. They are in inextricable haze from which the only way of escape is an utter abandonment of their vicious methods. Their plan of judging by internal method is wholly devoid of that reverence which with the Bible ought to be approached. Our Bible must be entire, including the story of creation and fall of man as well as the story of Jonah and the whale. We believe in the book of Job as well as the Gospel of John. Let others slash the Bible, like the infidels of old, but we must believe it, study it and preach it entire.
Herald of Holiness October 22, 1913 from the editor
This writer's experience of grace in his heart, under the direct work of the Spirit of God, so established him in his faith in God and in His Word as to render him perfectly satisfied with God's declaration, and he felt he had a kind of assurance within that he had not followed cunningly devised fables, but had been unerringly dealt with by a God who could not deceive or be mistaken, and who did not have to leave Himself to be revised or corrected by the researches and discoveries of frail, sinful, fallible men.
No, thank God, we are safe and sure on the old foundation of Moses and the prophets and of Jesus and the apostles without the aid of modern disputers and gainsayers, whether of the blatant sort of bald atheists or of the more dangerous breed of higher criticism and divers occultisms too numerous to mention. Back to the naked, old Bible in its entirety as God's infallible and all-sufficient rule of faith and practice!!!
Wiley tries to have it both ways.......
In crafting the 1928 statement in the Nazarene Manual, the theologian Wiley put his efforts at blunting the fully authoritative bunch, stating this: his "confessed purpose was to frame the Article “so that there would be a little bit of elbow room in there” ---authoritative for salvation, adding in the word "inerrantly" only as as adverb commenting on revealing salvation........but.......allowing there could be errors concerning anything else.
Ok----now here is a quote from about 2015 from a famous Nazarene scholar:
"Many biblical scholars, theologians, and philosophers in the Church of the Nazarene, however, believe the Bible should not be interpreted as a straightforward science or history book. For instance, many believe Genesis 1 reads like a hymn of praise. Others believe it draws from Jewish Temple literature, which is religious and not scientific. Most Nazarene Bible, theology, and philosophy scholars believe the main point of Genesis and other creation texts is theological: God is Creator. Genesis and other books of the Bible need not mention the specific ways God creates for this main point to be true."
"Currently the Nazarene colleges and universities promote theistic evolution as well as classical Darwinian
evolution. Richard G. Colling, Darrel R. Falk, and Karl Giberson, who are all professors at Nazarene colleges and
universities, have all published books in favor of theistic evolution and classical Darwinian evolution.78
In addition to these professors, some of the most well-known theologians in the denomination have also published
work on science and religion. Jay Oord, Michael Lodahl, and Samuel M. Powell have all published books
reconciling creation and evolution.
Since the Church of the Nazarene holds that non-soteriological issues are less important-- then, the theory of origins
should not be important because it does not relate to salvation. However, the Church of the Nazarene contradicts
this position as so many Nazarene theologians spend so much time elaborating their theory of origins. It is evident
that the theory of origins is extremely important, and these Nazarene theologians, and professors desire to promote
their view of origins and a high view of science and a low view of the Bible." Jason Bjerke
They are afraid to believe the Bible as written because they are afraid someone might think them backward and unscientific. Their trust is in man's wisdom, their fear is the fear of man, not the fear of God. How does this compare to the quotes from the early 1900s? Sad.
Here is an interesting paper on whether a Wesleyan must reject a fully pure, authoritative Scripture;
http://www.fwponline.cc/arm_extend/Inerrancy_02.pdf
From "THE ARMINIAN" a journal of Wesleyan/Arminian thought
Why Wesleyans Can Safely Believe in Biblical Inerrancy Jerry Bimber The September/October 2012 issue of Holiness Today included an article by Dr. Al Truesdale entitled “Why Wesleyans Aren’t Fundamentalists.” After a brief discussion of fundamentalism arising from the reaction of conservative Protestantism against the challenges of modernism in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, Dr. Truesdale focuses his argument. He says the great difference between Wesleyans and Fundamentalists is their differing views of Scripture. To be more precise, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is a fundamentalist doctrine of recent origin, and unworthy for any Wesleyan to believe. Since Dr. Truesdale’s working definition of fundamentalism includes a heavy dose of Calvinism, then let me quickly say that I agree with Dr. Truesdale that Wesleyans are not fundamentalists in the Calvinistic sense. But his article raises some important questions: Is inerrancy a recent and wholly fundamentalist (Calvinistic) doctrine? Is it true that inerrancy is unworthy of Wesleyanism? It seems that Dr. Truesdale has answered those questions affirmatively because throughout his article the concepts of inerrancy and fundamentalism are used interchangeably. The assumption of his argument seems to be that Fundamentalists are inerrantists, and since Wesleyans are not Fundamentalists, we should not be inerrantists. The belief that inerrancy is a doctrine arising from the fundamentalist/modernist controversies culminating in the 1920’s is simply wrong. It is a fiction that we tell ourselves, and alas, no evidence is allowed to count against it. Yet, a fair reading of history gives clear evidence that belief in the inspired and infallible Word of God is the main historical tradition of the church. From the Church Fathers, to the Reformers, and yes, even to John Wesley and the theologians of early Methodism, the belief in an infallible Scripture was foundational to their Christian witness. Biblical inerrancy was the position of the church catholic from the earliest centuries up to and including Vatican II. Augustine of Hippo, in a letter (A.D. 394 or 395) to Jerome noted, “It seems to me that the most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false.” Far from being a recent fundamentalist doctrine, inerrancy was settled Roman Catholic doctrine. In 1893, Pope Leo XIII released his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, in which he stated, “But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.” As the Reformers broke with Rome, they did so over issues of authority and interpretation, but not over the infallible character of the Bible. In 1518, Johannes Eck entered into a dispute with Erasmus, denying the possibility that a biblical writer could err by even one word! Historian Richard Muller points out that, “catholic teaching before the Reformation assumed the infallibility of Scripture, as did the Reformers—the Protestant orthodox did not invent the concept.” But what of Wesley and the early Methodists? John Wesley, famously, was the “Man of One Book.” But was his Bible infallible only for matters of faith and practice? In his response to a Mr. Jenyn’s article, The Internal Evidence of the Christian Faith, Wesley writes, “If he is a Christian, he betrays his own cause by averring that ‘all Scripture is not given by inspiration of THE ARMINIAN - Page 3 God, but the writers of it were sometimes left to themselves, and consequently made some mistakes.” Because the Scriptures are of divine origin, for Wesley, they could not be false in any way. The theologians of Methodism: Richard Watson, Thomas Ralston, Samuel Wakefield, Miner Raymond, William Burt Pope, Thomas O. Summers, and Randolph Sinks Foster, all joined Wesley in the affirmation of biblical inerrancy. Early Nazarenes strongly affirmed inerrancy as a reading of early editions of the Herald of Holiness will show. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) was signed by nine Wesleyans, among them Nazarene theologian Dr. Ralph Earle, and Holiness leader, Dr. Dennis Kinlaw. If Nazarenes choose the view that the Bible’s inerrancy is limited to matters of faith and practice, we will not be aided by history. We must “bite the theological bullet” and sever ourselves from the Church’s historic position. But if so, we should hear the import of what we do in the words of Stephen Sykes, an admitted theological liberal, who says, “For many Protestant Christians the most momentous step of theological liberalism is taken when they deny the traditionally accepted belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.” The limited inerrantists protect their belief by offering quite spiritual sounding reasons. So, Truesdale points out that revelation for fundamentalists is a matter of information about God, and for Wesleyans, revelation is God himself. The battle is between cold knowledge and warm hearts. But this is a confusion. There is no revelation of God that is not also informative. God reveals himself in words and concepts. He made us to receive such information. When Dr. Truesdale argues that in the case of Wesleyans, “knowing the truth is primarily a matter of knowing God,” he is right. But he confuses truth with the end to which that truth is given. There is no war between God and the truth about God. Wesley believed in the quickening power of the Holy Spirit and that apart from that work, we will remain deadened to revelation. But the work of the Spirit does not make the Bible any more true, nor is the Bible any less true in the Spirit’s absence. The illumination of the Spirit does nothing to the character of the Scriptures. The Spirit heightens the understanding of fallen men and women. We cannot recognize the truth of even an inerrant Scripture unless the Spirit quickens our understanding. The word inerrant is a stumbling block to many because they cannot or will not believe that any text with any human input can be infallible. For a text to be inerrant it must simply be truthful or without error. My grocery list can be inerrant if I copy it correctly from my wife’s instructions. A phone book can theoretically be inerrant. And the Scriptures are inerrant because the Spirit of God superintended the writing. 2 Peter 1:21 reminds us that, “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” That was apostolic belief, the belief of the men who had been with Jesus. A trustworthy, infallible Word is the Spirit’s gift to the world. What of the charge that inerrantists read the Bible in a hyper-literal fashion and have no concern for interpretational nuance, such as recognition of the different genres of Scripture? Such a charge is misplaced. Consider the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics which was released in 1983. Article XIII reads as follows: “WE AFFIRM that awareness of the literary categories, formal and stylistic, of the various parts of Scripture is essential for proper exegesis, and hence we value genre criticism as one of the many disciplines of biblical study.” What is the theological justification for believing that the Bible is inerrant? A safe way is to THE ARMINIAN - Page 4 Belief in the inspired and infallible Word of God is the main historical tradition of the church. start with Jesus. What did Jesus believe? The gospels tell us that Jesus believed in a real Adam and Eve, Noah’s flood, Jonah swallowed by a fish, and that Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt. His appeal to ultimate biblical authority was with the words, “It stands written,” and he argued for resurrection on the basis of the tense of one word (Mark 12: 26-27). He knew of his approaching death, of Peter’s triple denial, and he knew what was in the hearts of men. His knowledge extended to counter-factuals, or what would have happened in the past had certain circumstances been different. If Tyre and Sidon had seen the works that Jesus did in Chorazin and Bethsaida, they would have repented! Jesus only did what he received permission from the Father to do, and one of his tasks was to speak of the Scriptures and assure us that they cannot be broken. He reminds us that “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matt. 5: 17-18). Belief in an inerrant Scripture begins with belief in an infallible Jesus. But isn’t this debate merely theological “inside baseball?” After all, we all love Jesus, don’t we? There is great importance to this debate. An inerrant Scripture bounds our interpretation. All of our spiritual experiences are to be tested by the word of God. The local pastor of the Church of Christ is a far more spiritual man than me, and he proves it by affixing a rainbow to his church sign. The Spirit has shown him that God approves of homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and the ordination of homosexuals. The Scriptures are just wrong in their prohibition of such behavior, because after all, homosexuality is a matter of science, both behavioral and genetic. And everyone knows that the Bible is not intended as a science textbook. A glaring problem with identifying as infallible only what is necessary for salvation is that what is necessary for salvation can shrink away to almost nothing. Nazarene laity and clergy alike have good reasons to believe in an inerrant Bible. It was the historic position of the ancient Church, the Reformers, Wesley, the early Methodists, and many early Nazarenes. It is the position most closely associated with Jesus. It is the position of many Wesleyans now. Some of our academics disagree. So, in articles in Holiness Today and in papers at our theological conferences, in talks from pulpits and prayers from professors, we are warned against fundamentalism. But whatever the demerits of fundamentalism (and there are many), it is a mistake to confuse it with inerrancy. I agree with Dr. Truesdale that Nazarenes should not embrace fundamentalism. But there is good reason for Nazarenes to hold to inerrancy. Indeed, many of us already do.
Editorial Note: After Holiness Today ran the article by Truesdale, Jerry contacted the editor and received permission to write a rebuttal. He heard nothing after it was submitted. In a later conversation with the editor, although the editor admitted that the Truesdale article was somewhat lacking and that he personally was in substantial agreement with the rebuttal article, to publish the rebuttal might prove too divisive. Essentially, the discussion has been declared closed. This all sounds very familiar to me.
I love the idea that the man of God can be made perfect---through the guidance of this document, the Bible---according to Nazarene scholars in 1928---a divinely inerrant book. If it was a human document---an error-filled, pitiful attempt of man to envision what God might be like or think------we would not be made perfect, just doubters picking and choosing which scriptures we want to hear and totally confused souls.
God's foolishness is far higher than man's wisdom.