Editor’s note: Chris Bounds, Professor of Theology at Asbury Seminary, kindly permitted me to print this presentation he first offered at the April 2024 Reconstructing Methodism event in Birmingham, Alabama. I am confident readers will find this a helpful summary of important issues facing the Global Methodist Church. You can view Dr. Bounds’ biography here.

by Rev. Christopher Bounds, Ph.D.

William J. Abraham has asserted rightfully that the history of Methodism has “given birth to a host of competing visions of Scripture.”[1] While initial changes in the understanding of Scripture from early Methodism through the 19th century were slow, they accelerated with the rise of theological liberalism in the 20th century.[2] As Henry Sheldon has shown, Methodism held to “a high technical view” of the Bible, believing it to be “without error,” until the end of the 19th century.[3] With the ascendency of theological liberalism at the beginning of the 20th century, however, distrust has arisen over the inspiration, authority, and reliability of the Bible. Since the formation of the United Methodist Church in 1968, different process, feminist, existentialist, and liberationist conceptions of Scripture, to name a few, have come to the fore to shape her understandings.[4]  

According to Rob Renfroe, President of Good News, one of the fundamental issues in the formation of the Global Methodist Church is the doctrine of Scripture. For too long, leading voices in the United Methodist Church have operated from a perspective “that the living Christ…corrects, amends, and even contradicts” the Bible.[5] Renfroe quotes an unnamed retired United Methodist elder to make his point, “The Church created the Scripture, so we can recreate it.”[6] In contrast, a new Methodism must uphold “that it is the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit to illumine the Scriptures, reveal more of its meaning, and show us how to apply the eternal Word of God to the issues of our contemporary time and culture.”[7] In short, we are to live in humble submission to the written Word of God as contained in the Old and New Testaments.

However, not all in the Global Methodist Church, or those in sympathy with her, are in complete alignment regarding the Bible. While unified around historic Christian orthodoxy and a “high technical view of Scripture,” disagreements exist, with some larger than others. These differences focus on questions regarding the Bible’s relationship to divine revelation; the meaning of its inspiration; what it is to be called the written word of God; the meaning and extent of its authority; and its ultimate purpose in the life of the church. To be sure, these debates preexisted the formation of the Global Methodist Church, but with her birth, they have come to the fore, especially in consideration of our theme “Reconstructing Methodism.”       

David Watson has argued that Wesleyans “are due for a vigorous conversation” around the doctrine of Scripture.[8] The purpose of my paper is help lay a foundation for Global Methodist reflection on the nature and purpose of Scripture by identifying commonalities and differences that exist within her connection. Both of which will be necessary for a new Wesleyan “reconstruction of Scripture.” To do so, I will begin with an examination the Global Methodist Church’s present doctrinal standards on Scripture to form a baseline of understanding. Then, I will explore conflicting opinions within the denomination on key points in a typical theological accounting of the doctrine of Scripture: inspiration, authority, truthfulness, and sufficiency. Finally, I will offer summary remarks and a recommendation on the work of reconstruction.   

I. Scripture According to the Doctrinal Standards of the Global Methodist Church

The Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline of the Global Methodist Churchstates that “the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments (as specified in the Articles of Religion) are the primary rule and authority for faith, morals, and service, against which all other authorities must be measured.”[9] The Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, along with the Definition of Chalcedon are judged as “the apostolic witness disclosed in Scripture.”[10] Of note here: no attention is given to the “Wesleyan quadrilateral.” In contrast, The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, in its affirmation of the primacy of Scripture also gives equal attention to tradition, experience, and reason. This has historically led to confusion among United Methodists about what has final authority for “faith and practice.[11] There is no ambiguity for Global Methodists; it is Scripture.        

The Transitional Book then identifies the “constitutive standards” of the denomination as “The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church” and the “The Confession of Faith in the Evangelical United Brethren Church.”[12] Both have doctrinal statements on the Bible. Article V states, “The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”[13] Similarly, Confession IV declares that the Bible “reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scripture is not to be made an article of faith nor is it to be taught as essential of salvation.”[14]

Five observations can be made from these two doctrinal statements. First, emphasis is placed on Scripture’s authority. Any doctrinal requirements for Christians and the church must be found in the Bible. Implied here is that all twenty-five Articles and sixteen Confessions listed have Scripture as their foundation. Scott Jones asserts, “It can be said that,” the Scriptures “provide the basis on which the rest of these documents claim to rest, and the warrants for any possible revision thereto.”[15] Second, focus is placed on the sufficiency of Scripture for salvation, that it contains all things necessary for redemption. Third, as seen in the Article on “The Rites and Ceremonies of Churches,” whatever is not contrary to Scripture is permissible.[16] Fourth, the Confession of Faith points to the role of the Holy Spirit in the readers and interpreters of Scripture. Finally, no mention is made about biblical inspiration; or that the Scripture is without error; or even that it is the word of God, although it is called “God’s Word” in another place, Article XXII.          

The Transitional Book then identifies the “Normative Wesleyan Standards” of the denomination as John Wesley’s Standard Sermons and his Explanatory Notes on the New Testament. These sources shed more light on the Global Methodist’s doctrine of Scripture.[17] First, in the Standard Sermons, Wesley declares all Scriptures, in both Old and New Testaments, are given by “inspiration of God,” making them “the oracles of God,” elsewhere calling them “the Word of God.” Consequently, “all Scripture is true.”[18] Wesley warns preachers accordingly, “Whatever God hath spoken, that will we speak, whether men will hear or whether they will forbear: knowing that then alone can any minister of Christ be ‘pure from the blood of all men.’”[19] Wesley further clarifies Holy Scripture as the rule by which right and wrong, good and evil are evaluated and is “the whole and sole outward rule whereby conscience is to be directed in all things.”[20] Wesley then teaches that the Bible is a means of grace. “Searching the Scriptures,” which Wesley defines as both reading, hearing, and meditating thereon, are “the great means God has ordained for conveying his manifold grace” to humanity, “preventing, justifying, or sanctifying grace.”[21]

Second, in his Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, Wesley recognizes again that the Bible is the “word of God,” “authoritative” and “is a most solid and precious system of divine truth. Every part thereof is worthy of God; and all together” is “one entire body, wherein is no defect, no excess.”[22] Through Scripture “the whole will of God” is made known for human life; “correction of error” takes place, and “instruction in righteousness” is provided.[23] Wesley teaches to check inward leadings of the Spirit to see “if it agrees with Scripture.”[24] He admonishes Christians to “try all spirits” by the written word of God.[25] “Christian are not left to the mercy of individual passing impressions, which may be mere fancy. They have a fixed record of God’s revelation as a guide.”[26] 

More specifically, Wesley declares repeatedly that the words of Scripture have their source in the Holy Spirit. Even in passages where Paul declares that he is not speaking under any direct authority from God, Wesley clarifies that this is simply an example of God not explicitly commanding him. Nevertheless, Paul is still under the direction of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 7:25; 2 Corinthians 15:7). Wesley states, “the apostles wrote nothing which was not divinely inspired; but with the difference – sometimes they had a particular revelation, and a special command; at other times they wrote from the divine light which abode with them, the standing treasure of the Spirit of God. And this also, was not their private opinion, but a divine rule of faith and practice.”[27] While Wesley recognizes the human element in the composition of Scripture, divine authorship is his emphasis. Both biblical writers and the text they wrote are inspired.

II. Key Points in a Theology of Scripture

While not necessarily given in a straightforward manner, the Global Methodist Church has all the rudiments of a doctrine of Scripture. Between ¶104 on “Holy Scripture,” the “Constitutive Standards” (¶ 106) and the “Normative Wesleyan Standards” (¶ 107), the Transitional Doctrines and Discipline addresses the Scripture’s inspiration, authority, truthfulness, and sufficiency. I want now to turn our attention to commonalities and differences among Global Methodists on these issues.   

A. The Inspiration of Scripture

As seen in her doctrinal standards, Global Methodists, with historic Christianity, affirm that the Bible is the written word of God. This, however, is conceived in different ways. Global Methodists agree minimally that the Scriptures are the unique, divinely inspired, witness to the special revelation of God: to specific words and actions of God in the history of Israel; to the eternal Word of God incarnate, Jesus Christ; and to apostolic teaching on the gospel.

Some Global Methodists, who focus here and are reluctant to go further, seek to maintain a distinction between the biblical text and divine revelation. While recognizing their inseparability, they want to avoid equating them.[28] Other in this new Methodist denomination argue that the human words of Scripture are a medium of divine revelation. The Bible is not in and of itself God’s word but becomes such through the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit as the Scripture is read or proclaimed.[29] Still others contend that Scripture is an expression of and a part of God’s special revelation. It is more than an inspired witness; more than a medium of divine revelation; it is indeed divine revelation.  

While these differences are often ones of nuance, they raise the question of how Global Methodists understand Scripture’s divine inspiration. How are the words from human authors in Scripture also the words of God?[30] Over the course of Christianity, theories have been offered with respective proponents in the larger Methodist and Wesleyan tradition.

Donald Bloesch gives a helpful description of two extremes in theological conceptions of biblical authorship. On one end of the spectrum are “Docetic” views, where Scripture is so divine, it only appears human. Emphasis is placed on God with little or no acknowledgement given to human involvement.[31] Biblical writers are stenographers who take dictation from the Holy Spirit. They are only passive recipients of the words given them directly by the Holy Spirit.[32] Their personality, education, and historical and cultural context are completely minimized or overlooked.   

On the other end are “Ebionite” interpretations of inspiration, which focus so much on the human authors, the Bible becomes little more than a human account of religious experiences with God or is “the product of heightened” religious intuition.[33] Inspiration here is reduced to human insight, a special capacity to reflect upon God. The Holy Spirit works only to elevate the normal talents of biblical writers, giving them greater sensitivity and perceptivity to the divine. “Thus, the work of inspiration is different only in degree and not in kind from the Spirit’s work with all believers.”[34]

In a traditional Wesleyan via media approach, Global Methodists have rejected both extremes, with many landing into two basic positions, both emphasizing inspiration as a “concursive operation” or “cooperative work” between God and human authors.[35] First, the more conservative view affirms “plenary verbal inspiration,” that every word of Scripture is inspired by the Spirit.[36] The biblical writers, however, were not mere stenographers. Instead, they were guided by the Spirit to the very words they freely selected from their own vocabulary, life experiences, and historical-cultural context.[37] The Scriptures arose by a process in which the Holy Spirit selected the very words, “even as the human authors also chose them.”[38]

The second concursive view held by Global Methodists is “dynamic theory” or simply “plenary inspiration.”[39] Here, the work of the Holy Spirit, generally speaking, does not extend to the particular words of Scripture, but to the biblical writers themselves. They received divine thoughts from the Holy Spirit and communicated them in their own words, using their own styles and expressions. Inspiration here is largely conceptional. As Michael Bird describes, “the human authors were inspired at the level of concept, framework, worldview, and idea. Their own style, personality, vocabulary, and even their own educational limitations come out – not in despite of inspiration but in conjunction with it.[40] Adherents of this perspective believe it does justice to the humanity and divinity of Scripture.  

While differences exist in understanding the role of inspiration in the writing of Scripture, whether primarily to the words or to writers, Global Methodists are united in the necessity of the Holy Spirit in reading the Scripture. They follow John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on 2 Timothy 3:16, where he states, “The Spirit not only once inspired those who wrote” the Bible, but the Spirit also “continually inspires, supernaturally assists, those that read it with earnest prayer.”[41] As Wesley’s teaches in the Standard Sermon “The Means of Grace,” Holy Scripture “if separate from the Spirit of God,” “unless he work in them and by them,” “cannot profit at all, cannot conduce in any degree either to the knowledge or love of God.”[42]  

B. The Authority of Scripture

Richard P. Thompson states “What is often discovered … is that it is one thing to declare the … Bible … to be authoritative, but it is quite a different matter to figure out precisely what that declaration means, even for those of us in Wesleyan and Wesleyan-Holiness circles.”[43] Thompson’s observation captures one of the challenges facing a Global Methodist Church reconstruction of the doctrine of Scripture. How are we to understand the authority of the Bible? Three points are critical in answering this question.

First, the authority of Scripture derives from God. “Divine authority, unlike all other authorities, is absolutely indefeasible and universal in scope. There is no domain in which divine authority is not operative and sovereign.”[44] No other authority, however foundational or wide in scope stands in relationship to creation and to humanity in the same way as God. The authority of Scripture then, according to Lutheran scholastic, Johann Gerhard, “arises from and depends on the efficient cause of Holy Scripture, which is God. Because Holy Scripture has God as its author, by whose immediate inspiration the prophets, evangelists, and apostles wrote, it obtains its divine authority therefrom and therefore.” [45]

Second, unlike divine authority, the scope of Scriptural authority is circumscribed. It has limits, because “it belongs to a particular domain.”[46] Philosopher Michael Rea illustrates accordingly: a parent lacks authority over another person’s child and the rules of the card game Spades do not apply to chess. To speak of the authority of Scripture, we must specify “the realm in which the text bears authority, under what conditions, and with respect to what objects (persons or things and beliefs or behavior).”[47]

For example, the Bible does not claim authority, as Scott Jones has illustrated, “in matters of geology, astronomy, or other physical sciences.”[48] Also, while the Scriptures are meant for all humanity, it is the Christian and the church in particular that are called ultimately to obedient submission to it. Finally, even when the Scripture speaks authoritatively, it is often not in exhaustive manner. This is particularly true regarding moral issues like just war and artificial contraception, as well as issues in worship like icons or images and types of music.[49]

Global Methodists recognize and acknowledge boundaries of scriptural authority, generally limiting it to issues of “faith and practice.” Nevertheless, debates exist around what constitutes “faith and practice.” Does this primarily or exclusively regard soteriology, or does it also include other “belief guiding” doctrines, as well as “action guiding” expectations. Some Methodists seek a more limited realm of authority within “faith and practice,” while others a more expansive one.

Third, and more specifically, historic Protestantism has often described Scriptural authority in a twofold manner: causative and normative. Causative authority is that “by which scripture generates and confirms in the human mind assent to the things to be believed.” Stated differently, biblical authority leads us to believe what the Scripture teaches. As Charles Wood explains, “It begets faith by bringing the reader or hearer” to trust in “Scripture’s capacity to teach, to convey the knowledge of God.”[50] Through the Holy Spirit, we come to trust that the Scripture has “the power to do what God does in the Gospel: convict of sin, call to repentance, convey preventing, justifying and sanctifying grace. This is the effectual power of the Scripture.”[51]

The Bible’s causative authority is intimately connected with the testimonium internum spiritus sancti,which is the work of Holy Spirit within the human soul testifying to the fact that God himself speaks in Scripture and that such conviction cannot be gained through “human reasons, judgments, or conjectures” but only through the “inner testimony of the Spirit.”[52] God who spoke through the prophets and the apostles “must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us” that the Scriptures faithfully proclaim what has been divinely commanded.[53]

In addition to the causative power of Scripture, there is normative authority. Here, Scripture operates as the “supreme rule” for Christian teaching regarding faith and practice, what should be believed and what should be lived. The Bible is the norma normans non normata, “that which judges, but is not itself judged.” Scripture has doctrinal authority with respect to belief, forming the foundation and measure for creedal confessions in historic Christianity. Further, its authority extends to Christian behavior – to worship God alone, to serve those in need, to forgive those who have harmed us, to not steal, or murder, or commit adultery.[54] This normative power of Scripture is grounded in the same “internal” source that forms its causative authority – the Holy Spirit. As such, Christians and the church do not confer authority upon the Bible, but only acknowledge it.[55]

Historically, Protestants have tied the idea of sola scriptura, or prima scriptura as some Global Methodists would prefer, to the normative, or sometimes called “canonical,” authority of Scripture.[56] This is not to say Scripture is the only authority in matters of faith and practice, but to recognize it has the final word in such judgments. David Watson states accordingly, “While we do make use of other sources in our theological reflection, Scripture must always remain primary for Methodists. Scripture is the Church’s primary canon – its measuring rod for faithful belief and practice.”[57]

C. The Truthfulness of Scripture

An important distinction must be made between Scripture’s authority and its truthfulness. Brad East offers two helpful illustrations, “A parent’s authority over her child speaks to a role, not to her propensity for being wise or correct.” Furthermore, in the case of boardgame instructions, “though they are certainly authoritative for players…they are not ‘true’ in the wider sense of describing the state of competitive affairs, prescribing proper conduct, or being falsifiable.”

Global Methodists affirm the truthfulness of Scripture. But to what extent is it true or in what sense? While the Global Methodist Church’s Article and Confession on Holy Scripture do not explicitly address the issue of truth in Scripture, although it is implied, the Standard Sermons and Explanatory Notes on the New Testament make clear the Bible is true. Because all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, it is “true and right concerning all things.”[58]    

Some within the Global Methodist Church, however, have noted tension between the Article and Confession on Scripture with the Standard Sermons and Explanatory Notes. Scott Jones makes the point that the Article and Confession are more “circumspect in their claims,” allowing “much more room for error in nonessentials matters as well, as for the variety of human expression that are obvious to the critically trained reader of Scripture.”[59]

For example, David Watson, who echoes I. Howard Marshall, describes Scriptural claims as “infallible,” meaning they are “utterly reliable” for the fulfillment of their primary purpose: “to lead us into salvation and the associated life.” “Inerrancy,” according to Watson is not a helpful description, because the Bible contains mistakes in matters of history and science, but not in any way to hinder its primary purpose.[60]

Other Methodists are more comfortable with the stronger language of “inerrancy” and more conservative interpretation of the doctrine of Scripture found in the Sermons and Notes.[61] While inerrancy is a relatively new term in Christianity, the concept is not, with a pedigree stretching back to the Ante-Nicene fathers.[62] As Thomas McCall has argued, the concept is found in most of the major Wesleyan theologians through the 18th to the early 20th century. He further contends that this is a part of the classical understanding of Scripture.[63]        

The tension between these views of Scripture’s veracity is often rooted in different perspectives on biblical inspiration, ways of interpreting 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21. Those who argue for infallibility tend to move toward a “dynamic” or “plenary” view of inspiration where focus is placed on the biblical writers. In contrast, inerrantists are more inclined to place inspiration on the words of Scripture or a “plenary verbal inspiration.”

Both positions, however, have a high view of Scripture’s truthfulness, especially in comparison to where leading United Methodist voices are and have been. They represent the diversity that exists among evangelicals today. For example, “infallibility” is the posture taken by the National Association of Evangelicals in their Statement of Faith. “The Bible is the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.”[64] In contrast, inerrancy is represented in the Lausanne Covenant declaration on Scripture. The Bible is “without error in all that it affirms…”[65] 

D. The Sufficiency of Scripture

The title of the Global Methodist Church’s Article V on the Holy Scripture explicitly mentions “sufficiency.” Classically, Christians have affirmed the Bible to be sufficient for its intended purpose. The question must be asked, however, “In what sense is Scripture sufficient?”

To begin, Global Methodists have avoided two extremes that exist in our larger Christian and ecclesial cultural context. One is a “naïve biblicism,” which has an overdeveloped or maximal view of sufficiency. The Bible is treated “as a handbook that provides everything” we “need to know about every subject from dating and politics to science and economics.”[66] In this perspective, Scripture is a sufficient source to answer any question we put to it.

The other extreme, in contrast, has an underdeveloped or minimal view of sufficiency. Certain liberal Protestant perspectives have portrayed the Bible simply as a classic religious text, among many others in the world, which can shape human morality and encourage people to live better lives. It is only sufficient as devotional or inspirational literature.[67] Any traditional interpretation or doctrine derived from Scripture, as such, must be revised continually by contemporary thought.

To explore the Global Methodist navigation between these two poles and arrive at a sound position, a distinction must be made between material and formal sufficiency. First, Scripture is materially sufficient “when it says everything” that needs to be known “about a particular subject matter” for which it has been given.[68] For example, historic Christian orthodoxy affirms the Bible’s material sufficiency for salvation, not that it provides “everything we want to know.”[69]

Global Methodists concur here as well. Wesley writes in his preface to the Standard Sermons, “I want to know one thing, the way to heaven…God has condescended to teach the way…He hath written it down in a book.”[70] This is the specific context for the Anglican Article of Religion on Scripture that Wesley appropriates for Methodism. Furthermore, the Confession of Faith declares that the Bible “revels the word of God so far as it is necessary for salvation.”[71]

Intimately related to Scripture’s sufficiency on salvation is the Global Methodist recognition of its transformational nature. The Bible is not just information about salvation but is an essential means of saving grace. The Bible is “ordained by God, and appointed for this end,” to be a channel whereby God “might convey… preventing, justifying, or sanctifying grace” to humanity.[72] As Scripture is read, heard, and meditated upon, it “mediates to us the work of God for our salvation: calling us out of sin, forgiving us of our sin, and forming us into more Christlike people.”[73]

In addition to Scripture’s material sufficiency for salvation, Global Methodists, by and large, as seen in the “Constitutive Standards,” also agree on its material sufficiency for essential doctrines about God: the Trinity, the two natures in the one person of the incarnate Son of God, and the Holy Spirit (although this is an area in which William J. Abraham offers some critique). Therefore, “God and the Gospel” are sufficiently addressed by Scripture.

However, there have been historical disagreement among Protestants in general, and Wesleyans in particular over Scripture’s material sufficiency on such matters as church order, polity, worship, and the relationship of the church to larger society. As such, Global Methodists recognize that the material sufficiency of Scripture ends at some point.

Nevertheless, while the Bible is not a handbook on every discipline of knowledge, it provides an overarching narrative and lens through which to see all of reality. As Kevin Vanhoozer argues, “The Bible’s story is sufficient for enabling us to perceive reality differently – not as a closed spatio-temporal material nexus, but as created, sustained, and directed by the Triune God.”[74] Richard Hayes proposes that the “Scripture is the story in which we live.” [75] It has a coherent narrative that runs from Genesis to Revelation that shapes who Christians as the people of God are; how they should live in diversity of contexts; “to know how we are to understand and engage with the larger world around us.”[76]

This final recognition of Scripture’s material sufficiency segues into the second way biblical sufficiency is conceptualized. Formal sufficiency, as its name suggests, addresses the Bible’s form rather than content. For the Reformers and John Wesley this means the Scripture “functions as its own authoritative interpreter” because of “its intrinsic clarity.”[77] The Bible is self-explanatory to a certain extent. Formal sufficiency, more specifically, means that the Scripture is the most important context for interpreting Scripture, “because the parts interpret the whole and the whole interprets the parts.”[78] John Wesley identifies this as the “analogy of faith” “touching original sin, justification by faith, and present, inward righteousness.”[79]

To be clear, this does not mean “that the Bible issues commentaries on itself apart from the Holy Spirit, human interpreters, and the larger tradition of the church. Scripture is the primary source from which theology develops, but there are helpful resources to aid in processing it: reason, tradition, and experience.”[80] Randy Maddox clarifies formal sufficiency by speaking of the “unilateral rule of Scripture within a tri-lateral hermeneutic of reason, tradition, and experience.”[81]   

Conclusion

In conclusion, let me make the following summary. First, Global Methodists have a “high technical view” of Scripture as the inspired written Word of God. This is clearly seen in the doctrinal standards. Tension, however, exists between the modest declarations on Scripture found in the Article and Confession when compared to Wesley’s more robust teaching found in the Standard Sermons and Explanatory Notes on the New Testament. Some Global Methodists will be drawn to the former and feel more comfortable with them, others to the latter.

Second, while Global Methodists have resisted the pull of docetic and Ebionite extremes in views of Scripture’s inspiration, many hold different “concursive” understandings of inspiration, representing historic debates within larger American evangelicalism. Still, others have views that do not fit neatly into either of these concursive understandings.   

Third, Global Methodists agree that Scriptural authority is ultimately rooted in God and that it is the final authority (but not only authority) in the church on issues of “faith and practice,” belief and behavior. Some have more expansive views on what this entails, while others are more limited. Some embrace the historic Protestant cry of sola scriptura to describe their view, while others believe prima scriptura is more accurate.

Fourth, Global Methodists affirm the truthfulness of Scripture, but there are disagreements about the extent of it. Some embrace the word “inerrancy” to convey their belief that the Bible is without error in all that it teaches, while others take up language of “infallibility,” that the Scriptures are “trustworthy” in all that they affirm. Still others, while affirming Scripture’s veracity eschew both descriptions. Again, this represents debate that exists within larger evangelicalism. 

Finally, regarding sufficiency, Global Methodists reject, on one hand, naïve biblicism found too often in folk theology and, on the other, liberal Methodism’s reduction of Scripture as simple devotional literature. There is broad consensus regarding the Bible’s material sufficiency for salvation, as a means of divine grace, for the doctrines of God, and for a lens through which to view all reality. Scripture’s formal sufficiency is also largely affirmed. Disagreements arise here about details.

Because of the diversity in United Methodism from which many Global Methodists constituents come, there will be diversity in the understanding of Scripture. We must acknowledge this as we seek a reconstruction of the doctrine of Scripture. As we form a doctrine of Scripture in this new denomination, we need to be clear what we reject and what we affirm. However, a Global Methodist doctrine of Scripture must allow nuance, some latitude in interpretation.

Furthermore, the need for clarification on the doctrine of Scripture exists for Global Methodists. The Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline does not address the relationship between the “Constitutive Standards” (¶ 106), where the Article and Confession on the Holy Scripture reside, and the “Normative Wesleyan Standards” (¶ 107), where Wesley’s Standard Sermons and Explanatory Notes on the New Testament are located. Does the former have precedent over the latter? Historically, United Methodism has had uncertainty over the relationship between them and this confusion will carry into the Global Methodists without some explanation. This has implications for the doctrine of Scripture.  

Thomas McCall provides a helpful exhortation as Global Methodists move forward in a doctrine of Scripture. He states, “we should be patient and charitable where there are different understandings and even misunderstandings. We need to stand together in our confessional orthodoxy and commitment to Gospel proclamation. We need to walk together and continue to talk together; we need to understand that at various points we will have differing ideas about the best ways to formulate our commitments” to the doctrine of Holy Scripture.[82] In the end, we must work together for a (re)construction of Scripture that does justice to the declaration made in worship after the reading of Scripture: “The Word of God for the People of God. Thanks be to God.”    

[1] William J. Abraham, “The Future of Scripture: In Search of a Theology of Scripture,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 46.1 (2011), 8.

[2] Robert E. Chiles. Theological Transition in American Methodism 1790-1935 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1983), 76-114, 186. 

[3] Henry C. Sheldon, “Changes in Theology among American Methodists,” American Journal of Theology 10 (1906), 34.

[4] See Donald K. McKim’s discussion in What Christians Believe about the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1985).

[5] Quotation by Rob Renfroe in “An Appeal to Leadership — Listen and Lead,” cited by Albert Mohler, “Defining the Issues – A Methodist Witness,” https://albertmohler.com/2006/11/01/defining-the-issues-a-methodist-witness/ Accessed 04.16.24.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] David F. Watson, “Thoughts upon Christian Orthodoxy,” https://firebrandmag.com/articles/thoughts-upon-christian-orthodoxy. Accessed 04.16.24.

[9] Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, ¶ 104.

[10] Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, ¶ 105.

[11] The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church 2016, ¶105, Section 4.

[12] Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, ¶ 106.

[13] Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, “Articles of Religion V,” ¶106.

[14] Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, “Confession of Faith IV,” ¶106.

[15] Scott J. Jones, United Methodist Doctrine: The Extreme Center (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002), 129.

[16] Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, “Article of Religion XXII,” ¶106.

[17] Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, ¶107. It should be noted that the Transitional Book does not clarify the relationship between the “constitutive standards” and the “normative Wesleyan standards.” Without defining the relationship between the two, confusion will exist in the Global Methodist Church.

[18] John Wesley, “The Means of Grace,” The Standard Sermons of John Wesley, 2 vols, edited by Edward H. Sugden (London: Epworth Press, 1955), I. 249.

[19] John Wesley, “On Perfection,” The Standard Sermons of John Wesley, I. 226-229.

[20] John Wesley, “The Witness of our own Spirit,” The Standard Sermons of John Wesley, I. 226.

[21] John Wesley, “The Means of Grace,” The Standard Sermons of John Wesley, I. 248-51.

[22]John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament (London: Wesleyan-Methodist Book Room, 1898), 4.

[23] John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, 2 Timothy 3:16.

[24] John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, Acts 18:5.

[25] John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, 1 John 4:1.

[26] John Lawson, Selections from John Wesley’s “Notes on the New Testament:” Systematically Arranged with Explanatory Comments (London: Epworth Press, 1955), 24.

[27] John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 7:25; 2 Corinthians 11:17.

[28] See William J. Abraham, Crossing the Threshold of Divine Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006); David Watson asserts regarding Abraham, “…Billy Abraham did not believe that the Bible itself was divine revelation, but rather bears witness to divine revelation.” See “A ‘Pain in the Brain’: Is the Bible Divine Revelation, https://firebrandmag.com/articles/a-pain-in-the-brain-is-the-Bible-Divine-revelation-firebrand-big-read. Accessed 04.01.24.   

[29] Donald Dayton, “The Pietist Theological Critique of Biblical Inerrancy,” ed. T. Collins Winn, From the Margins, A Celebration of the Theological Work of Donald Dayton (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2007), 193-206.

[30] Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 638.

[31] Donald Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 1: God, Authority, and Salvation (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1978), 52.

[32] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Third Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 175.

[33] Donald Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, 1.52.

[34] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 175.

[35] Of course, there are Global Methodists who would not fit neatly into either position on inspiration.

[36] See Steve Blakemore, “How to know the Words Are the Word? Re-Evaluating the Legitimacy of Biblical Inerrancy as a Wesleyan Commitment,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, 51.1 (2016), 65-91;Thomas H. McCall, “Wesleyan Theology and the Authority of Scripture: Historic Affirmations and Some Contemporary Issues,” The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2016), 102-114; Daryl McCarthy, “Early Wesleyan Views of Scripture,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 16.2 (1981), 95-105; and Murray Vasser, “A Response to David Watson on Biblical Inerrancy,” at https://www.murrayvasser.com/post/a-response-to-david-watson-on-biblical-inerrancy . Accessed on 04.04.24.

[37] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 1:215.

[38] Roger E. Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity, 104. For Wesleyans who hold to this view, see footnote 34. Wesleyans who offer a critique of this position include Randall Basinger and David Basinger in “Inerrancy, Dictation and the Free Will Defense,” The Evangelical Quarterly 55 (1983), 177-80.

[39] See I. Howard Marshall, Biblical Inspiration (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983); David Watson, A ‘Pain in the Brain’: Is the Bible Divine Revelation, https://firebrandmag.com/articles/a-pain-in-the-brain-is-the-Bible-Divine-revelation-firebrand-big-read. Accessed 04.01.24.

[40] Michael Bird, Evangelical Theology, 642.

[41] John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, 2 Timothy 3:16. See the comments of Joel Green in “A Wesleyan Understanding of Biblical Authority: The Formation of Holy Lives,” in Square Peg: Why Wesleyans Are Not Fundamentalists, ed. Al Truesdale(Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 2012), 122-28.  

[42] John Wesley, “The Means of Grace,” The Standard Sermons of John Wesley, 2 vols, edited by Edward H. Sugden (London: Epworth Press, 1955), I. 249.

[43] Richard P. Thompson, “Holy Word, Holy People: Replacing Scripture in Wesleyan-Holiness Thought and Practice,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, 51.

[44] Brad East, The Doctrine of Scripture (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2021), 147. Wesleyan theologian Don Thorson comments that John Wesley “knew that all authority comes from God and that religious authorities with which we function are somehow derivative of God’s ultimate authority…even Scripture.” See his article “Sola Scriptura and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, 41.2 (Fall, 2006): 20.

[45] Johann Gerhard, On the Nature of Theology and Scripture, trans. Richard J. Dinda (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2006), 3.33.

[46] Michael Rea, “Authority and Truth,” The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2016), 873-74.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Scott J. Jones, United Methodist Doctrine: The Extreme Center, 132.

[49] Brad East, The Doctrine of Scripture, 145.

[50] Charles M. Wood, “Scripture, Authenticity and Truth,” Journal of Religion 76 (April), 190.

[51]See Robert Jensen, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, The Triune God (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 28-29.

[52] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 1.7.4. See also this concept in the Wesleyan tradition as discussed by Kenneth J. Collins, The Evangelical Moment: The Promise of an American Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 71.

[53] John Calvin, Institutes, 1.7.4.

[54] David B. McEwan, “The Living and Written Voice of God: John Wesley’s Reading, Understanding, and Application of Scripture,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, 46.1 (2011), 109.

[55]  Charles M. Wood, “Scripture, Authenticity and Truth,” 191.

[56] See Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, ¶ 104; Mark Gorman, “According to Scripture: A Fresh Approach to Systematic Theology,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, 65; David Watson, “A Vision of Scripture for the Next Methodism,” The Next Methodism: Theological, Social and Missional Foundations for the Next Methodism, eds. Kenneth J. Collins and Ryan Danker(Nashville, TN: Seedbed, 2022), 107. For an example of a Methodist theologian comfortable with traditional language of sola scriptura, see Ben Witherington III, Sola Scriptura: Scripture’s Final Authority in the Modern World (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2023).

[57] David Watson, “A Vision of Scripture for the Next Methodism,” in The Next Methodism, 106.

[58] John Wesley, “The Means of Grace,” The Standard Sermons of John Wesley, I. 249.

[59] Scott J. Jones, United Methodist Doctrine: The Extreme Center, 130.

[60] David F. Watson, “A ‘Pain in the Brain’: Is the Bible Divine Revelation,” https://firebrandmag.com/articles/a-pain-in-the-brain-is-the-bible-divine-revelation-firebrand-big-read, Accessed 04.01.24.

[61] See Steve Blakemore, “How to know the Words Are the Word? Re-Evaluating the Legitimacy of Biblical Inerrancy as a Wesleyan Commitment,” 65-91;Thomas H. McCall, “Wesleyan Theology and the Authority of Scripture: Historic Affirmations and Some Contemporary Issues,” 102-114; Daryl McCarthy, “Early Wesleyan Views of Scripture,” 95-105; and Murray Vasser, “A Response to David Watson on Biblical Inerrancy,” at https://www.murrayvasser.com/post/a-response-to-david-watson-on-biblical-inerrancy. Accessed on 04.04.24. One of the places where these distinctions of view, as well as others discussed in this essay, can be observed is in the doctrinal statements of universities and seminaries recommended by the Global Methodist Church. Asbury Theological Seminary’s statement on Scripture speaks of Scripture as “the only written Word of God, without error in all it affirms…the only infallible rule of faith and practice;” Ashland Theological Seminary “believes God’s saving revelation has been supremely made in Jesus Christ. The Bible is the complete and authentic record of that revelation. We are committed to both the Old and New Testaments as God’s infallible message for the church and the world;” Truett Theological Seminary declares the Scriptures “are the sole supreme authority under God for Christian believing and living; Wesley Biblical Seminary states that the Bible is “without error or defect in the autographs…the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”

[62] James I. Packer, “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1958), 34.

[63] Thomas H. McCall, “Wesleyan Theology and the Authority of Scripture: Historic Affirmations and Some Contemporary Issues,” 102-06. For a strong counter argument to McCall, see Kenneth Collins The Evangelical Moment: The Promise of an American Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 41-47, 72-78.

[64] “The National Association of Evangelical Statement of Faith,” https://www.nae.org/statement-of-faith/. Accessed, April 4, 2024.

[65] “The Lausanne Covenant Statement,” https://lausanne.org/statement/lausanne-covenant. Accessed on April 4, 2024.

[66] Kevin Vanhoozer, “The Sufficency of Scripture: A Critical and Constructive Account,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 2021 (49.3), 230.

[67] Roger E. Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity, 106.

[68] Kevin Vanhoozer, “The Sufficiency of Scripture: A Critical and Constructive Account,” 221.

[69] Ibid.

[70] John Wesley, “Preface,” The Standard Sermons of John Wesley, I.32.

[71] Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, “Confession of Faith IV,” ¶106.

[72] David Watson, “A Vision of Scripture for the Next Methodism,” The Next Methodism (Seedbed, 2023), 103

[73] Kenneth Collins, The Evangelical Moment, 76-78.  

[74] Kevin Vanhoozer, “The Sufficency of Scripture: A Critical and Constructive Account,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 2021 (49.3), 230.

[75] Richard Hayes, “The Future of Scripture,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, 26-27.

[76] Ibid.

[77] Charles M. Wood, “Scripture, Authenticity and Truth,” 191.

[78] Ibid.

[79] John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, Romans 12:6.

[80] Scott J. Jones, United Methodist Doctrine: The Extreme Center, 130.

[81] Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998), 46.  

[82] Thomas H. McCall, “Biblical Authority Calmly Considered,” https://firebrandmag.com/articles/biblical-authority-calmly-considered, accessed 04/14/2024.