A conference of more than ordinary interest, especially in this time of much discussion about the Bible, took place at Trinity Christian College in Palos Heights, Illinois on January 21 and 22, 1972.
Dr. Paul Schrotenboer, Secretary of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod, and Professor Norman Shepherd (Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. Pa.) in their writings in the International Reformed Bulletins of January-April, 1968 and July, 1969 had revealed somewhat differing viewpoints regarding the Bible. Now they were each asked to present a paper on the subject, “The Bible as the Word of God.” Their papers were followed by a panel discussion in which Dr. Edwin Roels of Trinity was chairman, and in which Dr. Simon Kistemaker of the Reformed Theological Seminary at Jackson, Mississippi, Dr. Fred Klooster of Calvin Theological Seminary at Grand Rapids, Dr. George Knight of Covenant Theological Seminary at St. Louis, and Dr. James Olthuis of the Institute for Christian Studies at Toronto participated.
Dr. Schrotenboer in the 1968 article had expressed the idea that “Scripture is only one form of the Word of God, only one link in a living chain of revelation, the middle connecting link.” He had characterized it as “both indispensable and subordinate.” Beside the Bible there are other “forms” of God’s Word.
Dr. Shepherd, who read the first paper at this meeting, presented a careful study of Scripture passages showing that although God’s speech is mentioned in connection with creation, “there appears to be no place in Scripture where the expression word of God or something like it is used for the creation.” With a view to the Bible’s own use of the expression, “the church virtually limits its application of Word of God to the word revelation of the gospel, especially as the gospel is embodied in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.” In view of recent efforts in theology which would “divorce the Word of God from the words of Scripture” we must insist that “the Bible must be directly identified with the Word of God.” Although there are rare places in Scripture which refer to Jesus Christ as “the Word,” the common usage of the Bible is to speak of the Bible as the Word of God. It is the witness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to the Son.
Similarly, while the Bible as the Word of God must be proclaimed and believed, that proclamation and faith are not themselves the Word of God.
Dr. Schrotenboer in his paper, in contrast with the previous one, maintained that there is a “multiformity of the Word” of God. “God reveals himself not only (1) in the Scriptures; but also (2) in the creation, preservation and government of the universe, (3) in Jesus Christ, and (4) in the Gospel proclamation.” Schrotenboer observed that it “has been a definite mistake in the orthodox view of the Bible that it tended to see the Bible in isolation, separated largely from the Word in creation and the word of preaching.” “Jesus Christ is preeminently the Word of God.” Although the Bible “is a human artifact,” “the Christian claims that this artifact is the Word of God for in it God speaks to him.” Although the Scriptures themselves claim that what Scripture says, God says, “The Scriptures are also the way in which man speaks to God. It is a credit to man’s recent insight that it is now more generally acknowledged that the Bible is in large part the confession of the early church of God concerning its faith in God.”
Dr. Schrotenboer also expressed his “considered opinion” that this is “also true of the first ten chapters of Genesis.” He added: “That this part of Scripture is peculiarly confessional in character does not preclude its also being historical!” He explained the objections to “the term ‘Word of God in creation’” as stemming “from the failure to see that revelation is primarily act and only secondarily, in a derivative sense, the deposit of the act.” He observed also: “that Gospel proclamation is revelation, Word of God, has not received general recognition,” as he feels it should. The speaker did not like to speak of “propositional revelation” in the Bible feeling that it revealed a rationalistic failure to realize that the Bible is directed at man’s heart. And he insisted that “revelation, in whatever form it occurs, is process.” It “by nature is never static, not even in book form.” He maintained that we ought “to speak of Scripture, not as objective truth nor as subjective opinion, but as the written Law Word of God’s Power.”
In the panel discussion which followed, Dr. Kistemaker pointed out that in the Bible the expression “Word of God” is never used of creation, as it is of Scripture and of Jesus Christ. Dr. Klooster, after warning against exaggerating the differences between the views expressed, and making a few critical comments on Dr. Shepherd’s presentation, stressed the need for clearing up the ambiguities in the view that there are a number of “forms” of the Word of God as it was presented by Dr. Schrotenboer.
Dr. Knight pointed out that the viewpoint of Dr. Schrotenboer’s lecture showed a philosophical and rationalistic rather than Biblical direction, stressing the human where the Bible stresses the divine side of Scripture, wanting to speak only of “dynamic” revelation whereas the Bible stresses that it is also a “tradition,” “pattern,” “writings,” etc., using “static” as well as “dynamic” terms.
Finally Dr. Olthuis objected to Dr. Shepherd’s presentation as reflecting a non-Reformed, nature-grace philosophical dualism. In response to the latter objection Dr. Shepherd observed that what appeared in the viewpoint expressed by Dr. Schrotenbocr and Dr. Olthuis was a “kind of scholasticism in which, not Aristotle, but a later philosopher (Dooyeweerdl) is calling the shots in our interpretation.”
‘What became increasingly apparent at the conference was that two views of the Bible were under discussion, one seeking to be led by the Scriptures themselves and stressing their unique character as the Word of God; and the other, with its multiple “forms” of the Word of God, tending to downgrade the Bible and, accordingly, more open to and influenced by men’s changing views of creation, individual experience, and philosophical hobbies. This latter view, which is being advanced by some leaders and literature of the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship, it seems to me, is diverting that movement in a direction opposite to its own expressed objective of promoting “scripturally directed higher learning,” a direction against which the Scriptures repeatedly warn us.
We recall the words of Isaiah, “To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them” (Isa. 8:20). Our Lord prayed for His people: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:16, 17). Paul warned the Colossians: “Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and 110t after Christ” (2:8).
What I thought to be the most encouraging feature of the conference was its revelation of the thinking of a number of influential men regarding the unique authority of the Bible. Most of the speakers, including younger men, holding key positions in various seminaries, expressed a common loyalty to the Holy Scriptures and a readiness to oppose any compromise of its uniqueness as God’s Word. Such Bible-believing leadership is full of promise to churches who will follow it.
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.
Dr. Paul Schrotenboer, Secretary of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod, and Professor Norman Shepherd (Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. Pa.) in their writings in the International Reformed Bulletins of January-April, 1968 and July, 1969 had revealed somewhat differing viewpoints regarding the Bible. Now they were each asked to present a paper on the subject, “The Bible as the Word of God.” Their papers were followed by a panel discussion in which Dr. Edwin Roels of Trinity was chairman, and in which Dr. Simon Kistemaker of the Reformed Theological Seminary at Jackson, Mississippi, Dr. Fred Klooster of Calvin Theological Seminary at Grand Rapids, Dr. George Knight of Covenant Theological Seminary at St. Louis, and Dr. James Olthuis of the Institute for Christian Studies at Toronto participated.
Dr. Schrotenboer in the 1968 article had expressed the idea that “Scripture is only one form of the Word of God, only one link in a living chain of revelation, the middle connecting link.” He had characterized it as “both indispensable and subordinate.” Beside the Bible there are other “forms” of God’s Word.
Dr. Shepherd, who read the first paper at this meeting, presented a careful study of Scripture passages showing that although God’s speech is mentioned in connection with creation, “there appears to be no place in Scripture where the expression word of God or something like it is used for the creation.” With a view to the Bible’s own use of the expression, “the church virtually limits its application of Word of God to the word revelation of the gospel, especially as the gospel is embodied in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.” In view of recent efforts in theology which would “divorce the Word of God from the words of Scripture” we must insist that “the Bible must be directly identified with the Word of God.” Although there are rare places in Scripture which refer to Jesus Christ as “the Word,” the common usage of the Bible is to speak of the Bible as the Word of God. It is the witness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to the Son.
Similarly, while the Bible as the Word of God must be proclaimed and believed, that proclamation and faith are not themselves the Word of God.
Dr. Schrotenboer in his paper, in contrast with the previous one, maintained that there is a “multiformity of the Word” of God. “God reveals himself not only (1) in the Scriptures; but also (2) in the creation, preservation and government of the universe, (3) in Jesus Christ, and (4) in the Gospel proclamation.” Schrotenboer observed that it “has been a definite mistake in the orthodox view of the Bible that it tended to see the Bible in isolation, separated largely from the Word in creation and the word of preaching.” “Jesus Christ is preeminently the Word of God.” Although the Bible “is a human artifact,” “the Christian claims that this artifact is the Word of God for in it God speaks to him.” Although the Scriptures themselves claim that what Scripture says, God says, “The Scriptures are also the way in which man speaks to God. It is a credit to man’s recent insight that it is now more generally acknowledged that the Bible is in large part the confession of the early church of God concerning its faith in God.”
Dr. Schrotenboer also expressed his “considered opinion” that this is “also true of the first ten chapters of Genesis.” He added: “That this part of Scripture is peculiarly confessional in character does not preclude its also being historical!” He explained the objections to “the term ‘Word of God in creation’” as stemming “from the failure to see that revelation is primarily act and only secondarily, in a derivative sense, the deposit of the act.” He observed also: “that Gospel proclamation is revelation, Word of God, has not received general recognition,” as he feels it should. The speaker did not like to speak of “propositional revelation” in the Bible feeling that it revealed a rationalistic failure to realize that the Bible is directed at man’s heart. And he insisted that “revelation, in whatever form it occurs, is process.” It “by nature is never static, not even in book form.” He maintained that we ought “to speak of Scripture, not as objective truth nor as subjective opinion, but as the written Law Word of God’s Power.”
In the panel discussion which followed, Dr. Kistemaker pointed out that in the Bible the expression “Word of God” is never used of creation, as it is of Scripture and of Jesus Christ. Dr. Klooster, after warning against exaggerating the differences between the views expressed, and making a few critical comments on Dr. Shepherd’s presentation, stressed the need for clearing up the ambiguities in the view that there are a number of “forms” of the Word of God as it was presented by Dr. Schrotenboer.
Dr. Knight pointed out that the viewpoint of Dr. Schrotenboer’s lecture showed a philosophical and rationalistic rather than Biblical direction, stressing the human where the Bible stresses the divine side of Scripture, wanting to speak only of “dynamic” revelation whereas the Bible stresses that it is also a “tradition,” “pattern,” “writings,” etc., using “static” as well as “dynamic” terms.
Finally Dr. Olthuis objected to Dr. Shepherd’s presentation as reflecting a non-Reformed, nature-grace philosophical dualism. In response to the latter objection Dr. Shepherd observed that what appeared in the viewpoint expressed by Dr. Schrotenbocr and Dr. Olthuis was a “kind of scholasticism in which, not Aristotle, but a later philosopher (Dooyeweerdl) is calling the shots in our interpretation.”
‘What became increasingly apparent at the conference was that two views of the Bible were under discussion, one seeking to be led by the Scriptures themselves and stressing their unique character as the Word of God; and the other, with its multiple “forms” of the Word of God, tending to downgrade the Bible and, accordingly, more open to and influenced by men’s changing views of creation, individual experience, and philosophical hobbies. This latter view, which is being advanced by some leaders and literature of the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship, it seems to me, is diverting that movement in a direction opposite to its own expressed objective of promoting “scripturally directed higher learning,” a direction against which the Scriptures repeatedly warn us.
We recall the words of Isaiah, “To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them” (Isa. 8:20). Our Lord prayed for His people: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:16, 17). Paul warned the Colossians: “Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and 110t after Christ” (2:8).
What I thought to be the most encouraging feature of the conference was its revelation of the thinking of a number of influential men regarding the unique authority of the Bible. Most of the speakers, including younger men, holding key positions in various seminaries, expressed a common loyalty to the Holy Scriptures and a readiness to oppose any compromise of its uniqueness as God’s Word. Such Bible-believing leadership is full of promise to churches who will follow it.
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.