Ronald J. Van Putten, a dentist in Grand Rapids, Michigan, has written this article in response to a request that he provide a contribution to THE OUTLOOK’s series THE LAYMAN SPEAKS. Dr. Van Putten and his family are members are the Cascade Christian Reformed Church.
Introduction – It appears that we have come a long way from the “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone) principle of the Reformation. In 1969, the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church appointed a committee to study the nature and extent of Biblical authority. The text of this report which was given this year is entitled “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority” and is found on pages 268–304 in the Agenda for Synod of the CRC, 1971. This report will be distributed in pamphlet form to every consistory of the denomination.
The historical background for the appointment of the study committee lies in the CRC association with the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. In response to a commendable declaration on the doctrine of Scripture in 1958 by the RES, in 1963 the Gereformeerde Kerken in The Netherlands questioned whether this declaration made sufficient distinctions to allow for the “new elucidative confession of the inspiration and authority of Scripture” by which we understand the “new hermeneutic.” They asked for joint discussion on this matter within RES churches. On the basis of this and related grounds, the CRC Synod of 1969 issued the mandate to its study committee.
In Sections I–III, pages 268-280 of Report 36, the committee is to be generally commended for a studied analysis of the nature of Scripture and for its criticism of current methods of interpreting Scripture. However, Section IV (pages 280–296) and the pastoral advice, part 5 of Section V (page 302) repudiates what is said in Sections I–III.
Wedge-Driving – The report says: “Hence an affirmation of basic historicity does not necessarily commit one to the view that the narrative is a literal description of an event.” Here the writers of this report are driving an intentional wedge between Biblical event and the form in which this event is reported to us in Scripture. The reason for doing this is to show how, although a certain event may be true (for example, the entrance of sin into the world), the exact details of that event (for example a literal serpent tempting Eve, and a literal eating of a piece of forbidden fruit) need not necessarily be true. The latter type of details, according to our committee’s standards, could simply be the “cultural trappings” of years gone by. It does not take much foresight to see how such wedge-driving, such undermining of the Scriptures, robs God of His own authority and robs His children of their faith.
In Section V, pastoral advice, part 5, our churches are asked “to continue to confess that the authority of the biblical message is rooted in the historical reliability of the redemptive events therein recorded and to acknowledge that these events are presented as prophetic and kerygmatic history” (italics mine).
The problem here is obvious: If a pastor takes this at face value he can only teach his catechumens that redemptive events of Scripture are historically reliable. Upon the basis of this piece of Synodical pastoral advice, he can no longer affirm with conviction or CRC Synodical approval (!) that the non-redemptive events such as creation, the historical reality of Adam and Eve, the literal creation of Eve from Adam’s rib, Noah and the flood, Jonah and the big fish, etc. are historically reliable. This is serious!
Accommodation to Pseudo-Science – The question being asked by many laymen today is this: Why is the doctrine of Scripture being challenged by so many leaders today? This is an excellent question worthy of a straightforward answer. The answer is not hard to find. Science is king today. Its theory of evolution is based on unproved hypotheses. There are, in fact, almost as many varieties of evolutionary thought as there are scientists. This only shows the lack of factual basis for this theory. Yet evolution has become the acceptable approach to origins in today’s society.
The principle that the Bible is historically accurate and thoroughly reliable to the smallest detail has become academically irresponsible and unrespectable in today’s world. Intellectual leaders (too many Christians among them) feel very uncomfortable with this historic Christian principle of Biblical inerrancy. So instead of altering their pseudo-scientific views (evolution in one form or another) they prefer to tamper with Scripture, altering it to fit their secular, unproved, false view of science.
Against that background we read in Report 36, Section IV, p. 294 which deals with the controversial chapters of Genesis 1–11 the following:
“The occasion for reexamining these chapters stems from the light science has cast upon the age of the human race.”
Certainly we can profit from any true light which true Christian scientific endeavor can shed on the Scriptures. However, when an apparent contradiction arises between what the Bible says and what science seems to say, the BIBLE is king! That truth must be underscored!
Sources of Genesis 1–11: Two Objectionable Options and a Serious Omission – Report 36 acknowledges that the main point of controversy about these chapters finds its root in the sources for Genesis 1–11. If, for example. the intellectuals can prove that the material in these chapters was gleaned not directly from the Holy Spirit, hut from the surrounding cultures and this material was expressed in language of that day, which is not necessarily binding for this enlightened day, then you see, they can open the door widely for any evolutionary explanation for creation (or miracles, etc.) that pseudo-science provides.
The alarming thing about Report 36 is that it presents two options which the authors call Reformed but do not prove, and both options find no substantiation in Scripture or the historical confessions. Furthermore, Report 36 omits completely the historic Reformed position that the Holy Spirit imparted the material found in these chapters directly to the writer of them without the aid of eyewitnesses II Peter 1:20, 21 says: “Knowing this first. that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: hut men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.”
Sources of Genesis 1–11: The First Objectionable Option – The first option which the writers of this report present as Reformed and compatible with the confessions, begins by saying:
“Although granting the essential historicity of these chapters, one point of view argues that they should not be interpreted as a literal description of events.”
The report goes on to give us the reason why we should reconsider Genesis 1–11 as a literal description when it says:
“The occasion for reexamining these chapters stems from the light science has cast upon the age of the human race.”
Then the report goes on to argue that God revealed this history in words, concepts, and symbols familiar to the world of that day. And from this stance the writers make three unwarranted conclusions:
1. That the words, concepts, and symbols used for Abraham and Moses are not necessarily binding in their meaning for today’s enlightened interpretation. They were acceptable in the “cultural milieu” of that day but do not bind us in our use of them today.
2. Therefore, Genesis 4 is not to be read as a “paleontological report” (p. 295) (or a literal description or genealogy of Adam’s descendants) but rather as a “picture of ancient man” (italics mine) held in the second millennium B.C.
3. Therefore we must make a distinction between the event that is reported and the form in which that report comes to us (See Report 36, p. 295).
We have here another example of the now famous technique of driving a wedge between fact and form; message and content. This technique tells us that what is important in Biblical interpretation is the form, or the general teaching of a passage, and details are not to be pressed for their accuracy. The writers of this report consider it Reformed and compatible with the Confessions of historic Christianity to interpret Genesis 1–11 non-literally because of the light (???) which science (pseudo-science?) has shed. At the same time they try to maintain the historicity of these chapters. We cannot avoid the inevitable question: If an account is not a literal description of an event, how can that event possibly be proved to be historical fact at all? Historicity, by its very nature, is based on fact, 1I0t symbols or pictures!! The sad history of liberalism in the Protestant church is sufficient evidence to prove where this road of wedge-driving leads. It is, at rock bottom, unbelief, a refusal to take God at His Word! “Everyone who makes his doctrine of Scripture dependent upon the historical examination of its formation and structure, already begins by rejecting its testimony, and therefore no longer stands in the attitude of faith toward Scripture.” Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, Vol. 1, p. 394.
Therefore this option given to the CRC by the Synodical committee opens the door widely for any and every interpretation of Genesis 1–11. And we may well ask: if this option is good for Creation, why is it not also good for the Incarnation, and the Resurrection of Christ? If one section of reporting in Scripture is doubted, why not others? This may he referred to by some intellectuals as the “domino theory,” but such it is and these same men are unable to tell us where and why to stop with this principle of interpretation. Fellow Christians, be warned! If Genesis 1–11 can be read according to this option, so can Genesis 12 through Revelation 22.
Sources of Genesis 1–11: The Second Objectionable Option – The second option which the writers of this report consider Reformed and compatible with the intent of the Confessions, holds that within the heathen culture from which Abraham was “called out,” there may have existed some knowledge of the true God along with the worship of other gods (a sort of spiritual smorgasbord). It is possible then that God took these heathen sources, or conceptions of the true God, and amplified or renewed by special revelation to Abraham, these heathen sources. This then became the history we find in Genesis 1–11!
This view then proceeds to emphasize that this is thematic history which must be interpreted with a view to the purpose or role it fulfills in history.
There are two basic errors in this option:
1. Its sources for Genesis 1–11 are completely unwarranted by either the Scriptures or the Confessions and border on contempt to think that God could have or would have lifted or revamped such hypothetical sources as heathen mythology to bring Abraham and the writer of Genesis to a knowledge of the sacred history contained in Genesis 1–11.
2. Although the acknowledgment of Genesis 1–11 as thematic history sounds quite orthodox, it is essentially the same error as Option 1 in this way, that it is concerned only with the message, or the purpose, or the role of Genesis 1–11 and does in no way wish to acknowledge the literal accuracy of all the details. The writers confirm this conclusion when they say that “this view comes milch closer to interpreting these chapters as literal descriptions of events” (italics mine).
The committee goes on to state that both of these options “preserve the intent of the confessional statements, both function on the basis of principles considered acceptable in the interpretation of Scripture.” They proceed to say that therefore the church need not decide the correctness of either.
Nowhere does the committee prove that these options preserve the intent of the confessions. Nowhere does the committee prove that these are “acceptable” principles of Biblical interpretation. And furthermore, we are astounded to read in a report designed to give the laymen direction in these matters (Agenda, p. 297). that this committee finds it impossible and unnecessary to decide the correctness of either of these objectionable options.
Sources of Genesis 1–11: A Serious Omission – In addition to this, the committee completely omits the historic Reformed position on the character of Genesis 1–11. In the light of new science, did our committee not even consider this a valid option?
What is that view the committee omitted concerning the source of Genesis 1–11? They have completely ignored the wonder of God’s own self-revelation in which the Holy Spirit imparted the material found in these chapters directly to the writer of them without the aid of eyewitnesses. II Peter 1:20, 21 says: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.”
Paul writes: “And for this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God which also worketh in you that believe” (I Thess. 2:13). How holy, yet sinful, men were provided by God to write His Word infallibly and inerrantly is indeed a mystery, and we should not try to explain this but rather to praise and reverence Him for it.
Conclusion – The issues raised in Report 36 are, without a doubt, the most crucial issues that the CRC has faced in its history. The outcome of these discussions will determine the fidelity or apostasy of the CRC. It is becoming apparent that the differences in the CRC are by no means small or inconsequential. Those who can endorse Report 36, section IV, and Section V, part 5, belong to one camp, and this writer and many others with him belong to another. There can be no compromise between the two for the endorsers of these sections of Report 36 rest on the words of men, and those who object to it stand on the testimony of Scripture to its very own nature and authority—SOLA SCRIPTURA!
The problem induced by Report 36 can be solved only by removing Section IV completely and replacing it with a strong reaffirmation of the organic, verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture in general and Genesis 1–11 in particular, stressing the truth that these chapters are completely true not only in the message they intend to convey, but also and importantly, in the form, to the very last detail, in which this message is conveyed.
The problem in Report 36 can further be solved by changing Section V, part 5 from the following:
“Synod urges the churches to continue to confess that the authority of the Biblical message is rooted in the historical reliability of the redemptive events therein recorded, and to acknowledge that these events are presented as prophetic and kerygmatic history” (italics mine).
to read as follows:
“Synod urges the churches to continue to confess that the authority of the Biblical message is rooted in the historical reliability of all the events therein recorded.”
I would like to appeal to all churches, members, and office-bearers alike to work diligently through proper channels to carry out the recommended changes. The issues are critical and will profoundly affect the future history of the CRC in general and all our families in particular.
The Rev. John Vander Ploeg in the June, 1971, issue of THE OUTLOOK so aptly placed this issue of Report 36 on the Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority in its proper perspective when he said:
“And let there be no mistake about it; it is precisely at this point that conservatives and liberals always come to a parting of the ways. Synod and the Church are now at the crossroads since we must say in no uncertain terms what we believe about the Bible” (italics mine).
Introduction – It appears that we have come a long way from the “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone) principle of the Reformation. In 1969, the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church appointed a committee to study the nature and extent of Biblical authority. The text of this report which was given this year is entitled “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority” and is found on pages 268–304 in the Agenda for Synod of the CRC, 1971. This report will be distributed in pamphlet form to every consistory of the denomination.
The historical background for the appointment of the study committee lies in the CRC association with the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. In response to a commendable declaration on the doctrine of Scripture in 1958 by the RES, in 1963 the Gereformeerde Kerken in The Netherlands questioned whether this declaration made sufficient distinctions to allow for the “new elucidative confession of the inspiration and authority of Scripture” by which we understand the “new hermeneutic.” They asked for joint discussion on this matter within RES churches. On the basis of this and related grounds, the CRC Synod of 1969 issued the mandate to its study committee.
In Sections I–III, pages 268-280 of Report 36, the committee is to be generally commended for a studied analysis of the nature of Scripture and for its criticism of current methods of interpreting Scripture. However, Section IV (pages 280–296) and the pastoral advice, part 5 of Section V (page 302) repudiates what is said in Sections I–III.
Wedge-Driving – The report says: “Hence an affirmation of basic historicity does not necessarily commit one to the view that the narrative is a literal description of an event.” Here the writers of this report are driving an intentional wedge between Biblical event and the form in which this event is reported to us in Scripture. The reason for doing this is to show how, although a certain event may be true (for example, the entrance of sin into the world), the exact details of that event (for example a literal serpent tempting Eve, and a literal eating of a piece of forbidden fruit) need not necessarily be true. The latter type of details, according to our committee’s standards, could simply be the “cultural trappings” of years gone by. It does not take much foresight to see how such wedge-driving, such undermining of the Scriptures, robs God of His own authority and robs His children of their faith.
In Section V, pastoral advice, part 5, our churches are asked “to continue to confess that the authority of the biblical message is rooted in the historical reliability of the redemptive events therein recorded and to acknowledge that these events are presented as prophetic and kerygmatic history” (italics mine).
The problem here is obvious: If a pastor takes this at face value he can only teach his catechumens that redemptive events of Scripture are historically reliable. Upon the basis of this piece of Synodical pastoral advice, he can no longer affirm with conviction or CRC Synodical approval (!) that the non-redemptive events such as creation, the historical reality of Adam and Eve, the literal creation of Eve from Adam’s rib, Noah and the flood, Jonah and the big fish, etc. are historically reliable. This is serious!
Accommodation to Pseudo-Science – The question being asked by many laymen today is this: Why is the doctrine of Scripture being challenged by so many leaders today? This is an excellent question worthy of a straightforward answer. The answer is not hard to find. Science is king today. Its theory of evolution is based on unproved hypotheses. There are, in fact, almost as many varieties of evolutionary thought as there are scientists. This only shows the lack of factual basis for this theory. Yet evolution has become the acceptable approach to origins in today’s society.
The principle that the Bible is historically accurate and thoroughly reliable to the smallest detail has become academically irresponsible and unrespectable in today’s world. Intellectual leaders (too many Christians among them) feel very uncomfortable with this historic Christian principle of Biblical inerrancy. So instead of altering their pseudo-scientific views (evolution in one form or another) they prefer to tamper with Scripture, altering it to fit their secular, unproved, false view of science.
Against that background we read in Report 36, Section IV, p. 294 which deals with the controversial chapters of Genesis 1–11 the following:
“The occasion for reexamining these chapters stems from the light science has cast upon the age of the human race.”
Certainly we can profit from any true light which true Christian scientific endeavor can shed on the Scriptures. However, when an apparent contradiction arises between what the Bible says and what science seems to say, the BIBLE is king! That truth must be underscored!
Sources of Genesis 1–11: Two Objectionable Options and a Serious Omission – Report 36 acknowledges that the main point of controversy about these chapters finds its root in the sources for Genesis 1–11. If, for example. the intellectuals can prove that the material in these chapters was gleaned not directly from the Holy Spirit, hut from the surrounding cultures and this material was expressed in language of that day, which is not necessarily binding for this enlightened day, then you see, they can open the door widely for any evolutionary explanation for creation (or miracles, etc.) that pseudo-science provides.
The alarming thing about Report 36 is that it presents two options which the authors call Reformed but do not prove, and both options find no substantiation in Scripture or the historical confessions. Furthermore, Report 36 omits completely the historic Reformed position that the Holy Spirit imparted the material found in these chapters directly to the writer of them without the aid of eyewitnesses II Peter 1:20, 21 says: “Knowing this first. that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: hut men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.”
Sources of Genesis 1–11: The First Objectionable Option – The first option which the writers of this report present as Reformed and compatible with the confessions, begins by saying:
“Although granting the essential historicity of these chapters, one point of view argues that they should not be interpreted as a literal description of events.”
The report goes on to give us the reason why we should reconsider Genesis 1–11 as a literal description when it says:
“The occasion for reexamining these chapters stems from the light science has cast upon the age of the human race.”
Then the report goes on to argue that God revealed this history in words, concepts, and symbols familiar to the world of that day. And from this stance the writers make three unwarranted conclusions:
1. That the words, concepts, and symbols used for Abraham and Moses are not necessarily binding in their meaning for today’s enlightened interpretation. They were acceptable in the “cultural milieu” of that day but do not bind us in our use of them today.
2. Therefore, Genesis 4 is not to be read as a “paleontological report” (p. 295) (or a literal description or genealogy of Adam’s descendants) but rather as a “picture of ancient man” (italics mine) held in the second millennium B.C.
3. Therefore we must make a distinction between the event that is reported and the form in which that report comes to us (See Report 36, p. 295).
We have here another example of the now famous technique of driving a wedge between fact and form; message and content. This technique tells us that what is important in Biblical interpretation is the form, or the general teaching of a passage, and details are not to be pressed for their accuracy. The writers of this report consider it Reformed and compatible with the Confessions of historic Christianity to interpret Genesis 1–11 non-literally because of the light (???) which science (pseudo-science?) has shed. At the same time they try to maintain the historicity of these chapters. We cannot avoid the inevitable question: If an account is not a literal description of an event, how can that event possibly be proved to be historical fact at all? Historicity, by its very nature, is based on fact, 1I0t symbols or pictures!! The sad history of liberalism in the Protestant church is sufficient evidence to prove where this road of wedge-driving leads. It is, at rock bottom, unbelief, a refusal to take God at His Word! “Everyone who makes his doctrine of Scripture dependent upon the historical examination of its formation and structure, already begins by rejecting its testimony, and therefore no longer stands in the attitude of faith toward Scripture.” Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, Vol. 1, p. 394.
Therefore this option given to the CRC by the Synodical committee opens the door widely for any and every interpretation of Genesis 1–11. And we may well ask: if this option is good for Creation, why is it not also good for the Incarnation, and the Resurrection of Christ? If one section of reporting in Scripture is doubted, why not others? This may he referred to by some intellectuals as the “domino theory,” but such it is and these same men are unable to tell us where and why to stop with this principle of interpretation. Fellow Christians, be warned! If Genesis 1–11 can be read according to this option, so can Genesis 12 through Revelation 22.
Sources of Genesis 1–11: The Second Objectionable Option – The second option which the writers of this report consider Reformed and compatible with the intent of the Confessions, holds that within the heathen culture from which Abraham was “called out,” there may have existed some knowledge of the true God along with the worship of other gods (a sort of spiritual smorgasbord). It is possible then that God took these heathen sources, or conceptions of the true God, and amplified or renewed by special revelation to Abraham, these heathen sources. This then became the history we find in Genesis 1–11!
This view then proceeds to emphasize that this is thematic history which must be interpreted with a view to the purpose or role it fulfills in history.
There are two basic errors in this option:
1. Its sources for Genesis 1–11 are completely unwarranted by either the Scriptures or the Confessions and border on contempt to think that God could have or would have lifted or revamped such hypothetical sources as heathen mythology to bring Abraham and the writer of Genesis to a knowledge of the sacred history contained in Genesis 1–11.
2. Although the acknowledgment of Genesis 1–11 as thematic history sounds quite orthodox, it is essentially the same error as Option 1 in this way, that it is concerned only with the message, or the purpose, or the role of Genesis 1–11 and does in no way wish to acknowledge the literal accuracy of all the details. The writers confirm this conclusion when they say that “this view comes milch closer to interpreting these chapters as literal descriptions of events” (italics mine).
The committee goes on to state that both of these options “preserve the intent of the confessional statements, both function on the basis of principles considered acceptable in the interpretation of Scripture.” They proceed to say that therefore the church need not decide the correctness of either.
Nowhere does the committee prove that these options preserve the intent of the confessions. Nowhere does the committee prove that these are “acceptable” principles of Biblical interpretation. And furthermore, we are astounded to read in a report designed to give the laymen direction in these matters (Agenda, p. 297). that this committee finds it impossible and unnecessary to decide the correctness of either of these objectionable options.
Sources of Genesis 1–11: A Serious Omission – In addition to this, the committee completely omits the historic Reformed position on the character of Genesis 1–11. In the light of new science, did our committee not even consider this a valid option?
What is that view the committee omitted concerning the source of Genesis 1–11? They have completely ignored the wonder of God’s own self-revelation in which the Holy Spirit imparted the material found in these chapters directly to the writer of them without the aid of eyewitnesses. II Peter 1:20, 21 says: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.”
Paul writes: “And for this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God which also worketh in you that believe” (I Thess. 2:13). How holy, yet sinful, men were provided by God to write His Word infallibly and inerrantly is indeed a mystery, and we should not try to explain this but rather to praise and reverence Him for it.
Conclusion – The issues raised in Report 36 are, without a doubt, the most crucial issues that the CRC has faced in its history. The outcome of these discussions will determine the fidelity or apostasy of the CRC. It is becoming apparent that the differences in the CRC are by no means small or inconsequential. Those who can endorse Report 36, section IV, and Section V, part 5, belong to one camp, and this writer and many others with him belong to another. There can be no compromise between the two for the endorsers of these sections of Report 36 rest on the words of men, and those who object to it stand on the testimony of Scripture to its very own nature and authority—SOLA SCRIPTURA!
The problem induced by Report 36 can be solved only by removing Section IV completely and replacing it with a strong reaffirmation of the organic, verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture in general and Genesis 1–11 in particular, stressing the truth that these chapters are completely true not only in the message they intend to convey, but also and importantly, in the form, to the very last detail, in which this message is conveyed.
The problem in Report 36 can further be solved by changing Section V, part 5 from the following:
“Synod urges the churches to continue to confess that the authority of the Biblical message is rooted in the historical reliability of the redemptive events therein recorded, and to acknowledge that these events are presented as prophetic and kerygmatic history” (italics mine).
to read as follows:
“Synod urges the churches to continue to confess that the authority of the Biblical message is rooted in the historical reliability of all the events therein recorded.”
I would like to appeal to all churches, members, and office-bearers alike to work diligently through proper channels to carry out the recommended changes. The issues are critical and will profoundly affect the future history of the CRC in general and all our families in particular.
The Rev. John Vander Ploeg in the June, 1971, issue of THE OUTLOOK so aptly placed this issue of Report 36 on the Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority in its proper perspective when he said:
“And let there be no mistake about it; it is precisely at this point that conservatives and liberals always come to a parting of the ways. Synod and the Church are now at the crossroads since we must say in no uncertain terms what we believe about the Bible” (italics mine).