A new book Jerusalem and Athens, contains a number of essays, all dedicated to Dr. Cornelius Van Til on his seventy-fifth birthday and fortieth anniversary as professor at Westminster Seminary. The contributions of such influential writers as Berkouwer, Dooyeweerd, Ridderbos, Packer, and Montgomery together with Dr. Van Til’s responses to them make tins a book of unusual variety and interest. One of the most provocative essays in the series may be that by Richard B. Gaffin, professor at Westminster Seminary. Under the title “Geerhardus Vos and the Interpretation of Paul” it deals with the proper relationship of church doctrine or theology to the Bible.
The View of Abraham Kuyper – Professor Gaffin points out that Dr. Abraham Kuyper in his Encyclopaedie, which has guided the thinking of must succeeding Heformed theologians, made a “sharp distinction between Scripture and the biblical writers, on one hand, and the dogmas and theologians of the church, on the other” (p. 230). “The Bible itself contains no dogmas but rather the ‘material’ out of which the church ‘constructs’ dogma” (quoted from Kuyper’s Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid, III, pp. 355 ff.). “The biblical revelation is given in the ‘stylized, symbolic-aesthetic language of the East’; It is only when the ‘Western mind’ with its penchant for ‘dialectical clarity’ goes to work on it (the biblical material) that theology comes into being” (Encyclopaedie, III, p. 168). Kuyper, therefore, “rejects ‘biblical theology’ not only in name, but in concept.”
The View of Dr. Vos – In contrast with Dr. Kuyper, Dr. Vos held to an exactly opposite emphasis. Instead of stressing the distinction between the biblical writers such as Paul, and the doctrines and theology as the church later formulated them, Dr. Vos stressed the “continuity between Paul and his interpreters” (p. 232). “The essence of theology is interpretation of the history of redemption.” “Consequently” (since this is the concern of both Paul and the church and its doctrines) “it is not only possible but necessary to speak of a theological continuity between Paul and his interpreters . . . The inspired, infallible revelation which he gives is at the same time the authoritative teaching and opinion (dogma) of the church, and . . . as various dogmas which he teaches display obvious relationships to each other, one may speak of his theology” (p. 233). This means that “biblical and systematic theology may not be arbitrarily and artificially separated” (p. 234) and that “Scripture must determine not only the content but also the method of theology” (p. 235).
The Practical Importance of Dr. Vos’ View – It seems to me that in calling attention to this generally overlooked difference between Kuyper’s and Vos’ views of the proper relationship between the Bible and church doctrine, Dr. Gaffin has reminded us of a truth that is of tremendous practical significance for our churches in confronting some of their most urgent problems.
A widespread and basic weakness in much of the preaching and teaching found in our churches seems to be that Christian doctrine has often been taught and presented with little grounding in the Scriptures. The Catechism, in particular, has been preached and taught with little or only passing reference to the Bible. At a ministers’ conference some years ago when the discussion arose regarding the need, especially in a missionary setting, of being able to open the Bible and show that what we believe and teach is nothing but God’s Word, an older minister, a home missionary, quipped: “We don’t have to go to all that trouble; we had professors who did that for us in seminary!” It appears that much of what was called “orthodoxy” was nothing but uncritical acceptance of teachings because the church taught them. Our practice in this respect often differed little from traditional Roman Catholicism.
Now a reaction against this traditionalism is appearing everywhere and all the old teachings are being questioned. If the only answer we can give to the question, “Why do you believe this?” is “Because the church teaches it!” we need to realize that we have no adequate ground for either our own faith or for our efforts to answer the doubts or objections of others.
Dr. Gaffin’s little essay raises the interesting point that we may have gotten into this predicament of preaching and teaching church doctrine with inadequate biblical grounding partly because of the influence of Kuyper’s unfortunate separation of Church doctrine from Scripture.
Dr. Vos insisted that what we are called to preach and teach is not a later construction which the church developed from the Scriptures, but simply the doctrine of the Scriptures themselves. Is not this exactly what the Bible teaches? Paul must urge Timothy, for example, to “Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us” (II Tim. 1:13, 14). And he goes on to instruct him that “the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also” (2:2).
The Bible’s repeated warnings against “teaching any other doctrine” point in the same direction. Although the church was promised and given the Holy Spirit who would “guide . . . into all the truth” (John 16:13) and be with it for ever (14:16), because of which its centuries of struggle with error and its witness to the gospel and also its doctrinal formulations in the course of those efforts are rich in valuable lessons for all Christians who follow, that history and doctrine are authoritative only in so far as they reflect exactly what God has taught us in His word. That was the lesson that the Reformers had to learn and teach.
Trying to teach exactly what God’s word taught—no more and no less—was the secret of John Calvin’s tremendous influence. Dr. Vos’ and Dr. Gaffin’s efforts to call the Christian and the church back to that obscured principle need to be heeded especially in our time of growing confusion.
Light on the AACS Views of the Bible – One observes further that the essay of Dr. Gaffin also sheds some light on the controversial views of the Bible being promoted by the AACS [Association for Advancement of Christian Scholarship] movement of some of our North American followers of Dr. Herman Dooyeweerd of The Netherlands.
In such writings as their book on Understanding the Scriptures the above mentioned properly criticize the too common practice of presenting isolated bits of Scripture as general teachings or moralizations, disregarding their total context and their place as parts of the whole Bible. Dr. Gaffin, following the lead of Vos, calls attention to some of the same points they do. He says: “Revelation comes as acts or as words”; “God discloses himself both in redemption and revelation, in what he does as well as what he says”; “God’s speech is invariably related to his actions”; “An unbiblical (one could say, quasi-gnostic) notion of revelation inevitably results, when one considers it of and by itself or as providing general truths, self-evident in and of themselves” (p. 321); references made to Vos’ Biblical Theology, pp. 14ff., 24, 124, 324ff.).
Unfortunately, instead of attempting, like Dr. Vos, to make theology “biblical,” as it ought to be, this A.A.GS. movement relegates theology to its own little “sphere” and places over it, as well as over all other “spheres,” its philosophical system. Dr. Arnold H. De Graaff, for example, plainly tells us in his The Educational Ministry of the Church that “The basic concepts of which theology avails itself cannot be derived directly from Scripture, since the Bible does not contain scientific theological concepts. The Word of God is not a textbook for theology. If the theologian limits himself exclusively to Scripture, he is continually in danger of confusing the direction, the content, and the structure of faith . . . Since the meaning of Scripture cannot be grasped without considering the creational ordinances, we have felt free to make use of the ‘ground plan’ of these structural norms that has been provided by the Philosophy of Law. As a systematic discipline theology cannot do without such a theoretical account of the order of creation” (pp. 157, 158).
With these “creational ordinances” as interpreted by this philosophy placed above the Scriptures, this call to “understand the scriptures” takes us further away from them. If we are to escape the present confusion it will only be by a return with Vos and Calvin to the “sound doctrine” of God’s Word.
Concluding Footnote: Dr. Van Til, in his reaction to this essay calls attention to inconsistencies in Kuyper’s system of thought. From these inconsistencies he observes that Oooyeweerd, although he criticized Kuyper, did not completely escape. This whole discussion as well as the exchange between Van Til and Dooyeweerd in another part of this book, although very technical, should prove highly interesting to students with special interests in these matters.
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.
The View of Abraham Kuyper – Professor Gaffin points out that Dr. Abraham Kuyper in his Encyclopaedie, which has guided the thinking of must succeeding Heformed theologians, made a “sharp distinction between Scripture and the biblical writers, on one hand, and the dogmas and theologians of the church, on the other” (p. 230). “The Bible itself contains no dogmas but rather the ‘material’ out of which the church ‘constructs’ dogma” (quoted from Kuyper’s Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid, III, pp. 355 ff.). “The biblical revelation is given in the ‘stylized, symbolic-aesthetic language of the East’; It is only when the ‘Western mind’ with its penchant for ‘dialectical clarity’ goes to work on it (the biblical material) that theology comes into being” (Encyclopaedie, III, p. 168). Kuyper, therefore, “rejects ‘biblical theology’ not only in name, but in concept.”
The View of Dr. Vos – In contrast with Dr. Kuyper, Dr. Vos held to an exactly opposite emphasis. Instead of stressing the distinction between the biblical writers such as Paul, and the doctrines and theology as the church later formulated them, Dr. Vos stressed the “continuity between Paul and his interpreters” (p. 232). “The essence of theology is interpretation of the history of redemption.” “Consequently” (since this is the concern of both Paul and the church and its doctrines) “it is not only possible but necessary to speak of a theological continuity between Paul and his interpreters . . . The inspired, infallible revelation which he gives is at the same time the authoritative teaching and opinion (dogma) of the church, and . . . as various dogmas which he teaches display obvious relationships to each other, one may speak of his theology” (p. 233). This means that “biblical and systematic theology may not be arbitrarily and artificially separated” (p. 234) and that “Scripture must determine not only the content but also the method of theology” (p. 235).
The Practical Importance of Dr. Vos’ View – It seems to me that in calling attention to this generally overlooked difference between Kuyper’s and Vos’ views of the proper relationship between the Bible and church doctrine, Dr. Gaffin has reminded us of a truth that is of tremendous practical significance for our churches in confronting some of their most urgent problems.
A widespread and basic weakness in much of the preaching and teaching found in our churches seems to be that Christian doctrine has often been taught and presented with little grounding in the Scriptures. The Catechism, in particular, has been preached and taught with little or only passing reference to the Bible. At a ministers’ conference some years ago when the discussion arose regarding the need, especially in a missionary setting, of being able to open the Bible and show that what we believe and teach is nothing but God’s Word, an older minister, a home missionary, quipped: “We don’t have to go to all that trouble; we had professors who did that for us in seminary!” It appears that much of what was called “orthodoxy” was nothing but uncritical acceptance of teachings because the church taught them. Our practice in this respect often differed little from traditional Roman Catholicism.
Now a reaction against this traditionalism is appearing everywhere and all the old teachings are being questioned. If the only answer we can give to the question, “Why do you believe this?” is “Because the church teaches it!” we need to realize that we have no adequate ground for either our own faith or for our efforts to answer the doubts or objections of others.
Dr. Gaffin’s little essay raises the interesting point that we may have gotten into this predicament of preaching and teaching church doctrine with inadequate biblical grounding partly because of the influence of Kuyper’s unfortunate separation of Church doctrine from Scripture.
Dr. Vos insisted that what we are called to preach and teach is not a later construction which the church developed from the Scriptures, but simply the doctrine of the Scriptures themselves. Is not this exactly what the Bible teaches? Paul must urge Timothy, for example, to “Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us” (II Tim. 1:13, 14). And he goes on to instruct him that “the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also” (2:2).
The Bible’s repeated warnings against “teaching any other doctrine” point in the same direction. Although the church was promised and given the Holy Spirit who would “guide . . . into all the truth” (John 16:13) and be with it for ever (14:16), because of which its centuries of struggle with error and its witness to the gospel and also its doctrinal formulations in the course of those efforts are rich in valuable lessons for all Christians who follow, that history and doctrine are authoritative only in so far as they reflect exactly what God has taught us in His word. That was the lesson that the Reformers had to learn and teach.
Trying to teach exactly what God’s word taught—no more and no less—was the secret of John Calvin’s tremendous influence. Dr. Vos’ and Dr. Gaffin’s efforts to call the Christian and the church back to that obscured principle need to be heeded especially in our time of growing confusion.
Light on the AACS Views of the Bible – One observes further that the essay of Dr. Gaffin also sheds some light on the controversial views of the Bible being promoted by the AACS [Association for Advancement of Christian Scholarship] movement of some of our North American followers of Dr. Herman Dooyeweerd of The Netherlands.
In such writings as their book on Understanding the Scriptures the above mentioned properly criticize the too common practice of presenting isolated bits of Scripture as general teachings or moralizations, disregarding their total context and their place as parts of the whole Bible. Dr. Gaffin, following the lead of Vos, calls attention to some of the same points they do. He says: “Revelation comes as acts or as words”; “God discloses himself both in redemption and revelation, in what he does as well as what he says”; “God’s speech is invariably related to his actions”; “An unbiblical (one could say, quasi-gnostic) notion of revelation inevitably results, when one considers it of and by itself or as providing general truths, self-evident in and of themselves” (p. 321); references made to Vos’ Biblical Theology, pp. 14ff., 24, 124, 324ff.).
Unfortunately, instead of attempting, like Dr. Vos, to make theology “biblical,” as it ought to be, this A.A.GS. movement relegates theology to its own little “sphere” and places over it, as well as over all other “spheres,” its philosophical system. Dr. Arnold H. De Graaff, for example, plainly tells us in his The Educational Ministry of the Church that “The basic concepts of which theology avails itself cannot be derived directly from Scripture, since the Bible does not contain scientific theological concepts. The Word of God is not a textbook for theology. If the theologian limits himself exclusively to Scripture, he is continually in danger of confusing the direction, the content, and the structure of faith . . . Since the meaning of Scripture cannot be grasped without considering the creational ordinances, we have felt free to make use of the ‘ground plan’ of these structural norms that has been provided by the Philosophy of Law. As a systematic discipline theology cannot do without such a theoretical account of the order of creation” (pp. 157, 158).
With these “creational ordinances” as interpreted by this philosophy placed above the Scriptures, this call to “understand the scriptures” takes us further away from them. If we are to escape the present confusion it will only be by a return with Vos and Calvin to the “sound doctrine” of God’s Word.
Concluding Footnote: Dr. Van Til, in his reaction to this essay calls attention to inconsistencies in Kuyper’s system of thought. From these inconsistencies he observes that Oooyeweerd, although he criticized Kuyper, did not completely escape. This whole discussion as well as the exchange between Van Til and Dooyeweerd in another part of this book, although very technical, should prove highly interesting to students with special interests in these matters.
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.