Report 36 on “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority,” which appeared in the Agenda for Synod – 1971: The Christian Reformed Church ( pp. 268–304), is a lengthy response to a letter requesting such a study that was sent by the Gereformeerde Kerken of The Netherlands to the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. which letter of request was passed on to the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church. As a result, a committee was appointed to study the “connection between the content and purpose of Scripture as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ and the consequent [or ‘concomitant’ – see p. 272] and deducible authority of Scripture” (p. 268). I shall attempt to review several of the plus and minus features of this report by selective and representative quotation and by brief comment.
A canon within the canon – The title of Report 36 “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority”) suggests the possibility that men may set certain limits to Biblical authority. But that is a perilous position to take at the outset, and the Committee recognized it by dealing extensively with the logistic (or rationalistic) wording (“consequent” and “deducible” authority) in the study proposition received from the Gereformeerde Kerken. That is, to take one motif—the central one, to he sure—from the Bible and to base Scriptural authority on that doctrine alone necessarily prejudices the investigation and actually also predetermines the answer.
That the Committee sensed its being manipulated by the phrasing of the charge is evident in the following quotations from their report: “To suggest that the matter of historicity is really unimportant because the Scripture is primarily ahout Jesus Christ suggests a rather narrow Christocentric view of Scripture” (p. 292), and more emphatically the Committee adds: “The full authority which Scripture claims for itself radically excludes every intimation of a canon within the canon of Scripture” (p. 298). Now, that is a thoroughly Biblical statement in the Reformed tradition: Sola Scriptura, the Bible itself and only, the entire Bible, as its own interpreter.
But, unhappily, the Committee contradicts this Biblical profession by proposing its own “canon within the canon of Scripture” as follows: “The authority of Scripture touches every sphere of human life and knowledge but it does so in its own way and from its own perspective, viz. from the standpoint of creation, fall, redemption and the coming again of Jesus Christ” (p. 279). It is a well-known irony that the creation-fall-redemption motif has been used by some writers within the Reformed community to asperse (perhaps unintentionally) the historical and scientific accuracy of the Scriptures, as well as to question the definitive, propositional clarity of its prescriptions: “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Unrecognized behind this approach to God’s teachings in Scripture arc I) the demythologizing, sitz-im-leben, neo-orthodox criticism of the Bible; and 2) the contemporary positivistic and irrationalist repudiation of the cognitive significance of language.
Form versus content – After introduction and definition of its mandate, the Committee quotes Bavinck approvingly to indicate their disapprobation of the popular, erroneous view that the form and the content of the Bible arc to be analytically differentiated, just as one strips away the husks and chaff from the kernels of corn or wheat—we preserve the contents, but the container is useless and expendable. Concerning the Scriptures, then, Bavinck makes this true and crucial confession: “Form and content interpenetrate each other and may not he separated” (p. 270). But again the Committee negates its testimony to the truth by approving quotation of H. Ridderbos as follows: “Inspiration docs not, for example, correct views of the structure and working of the universe, which are relative to a particular historical epoch.” H. Hidderbos clarifies this statement in Trouw of May 9, 1966, thus: “The Bible has no authority regarding the expression of a certain concept-view of the world, nor as far as style or historical statements are concerned.”
And to show more convincingly that H. Ridderhos does not at all share Bavinck’s Reformed view of “impenetrable form and content” in Scriptur, I quote Ridderbos once more, from the Nieuwe Haagse Krant of May 7, 1966: “We are increasing our understanding of the fact that the real authority of the Bible lies in its contents, not in its formal authority.” It is strange that men like Ridderbos argue thus that the writers of the Bible were prone to error and time-bound by the false conceptions of the universe current in the days when they lived (which is actually to deny the plenary verbal inspiration of the Holy Spirit), yet these modern theologians will never mention such texts as Isaiah 40:22, which asserted the rotundity of the earth long before human science had made the discovery, and Job 26:7, which declares in everyday terminology the suspension of earth in space by gravity. “He . . . hangs the earth upon nothing.”
Immaturity and ignorance of human authors? – Sadly, the Committee here follows the leading of higher critical detractors of Biblical accuracy and inerrancy by attempting to demonstrate the cultural immaturity and consequent ignorance of the human authors of Old Testament Scripture: “For example,” they say, “in Old Testament times the seat of the emotions and passions was considered to be in the abdominal region of the body.” Therefore, when the Bible speaks of “bowels of compassion,” we are to smile wisely in our twentieth century and say, “We know now that it’s all in the head!”
Nevertheless, I believe that the Biblical statement is both psychologically and physiologically correct, for when one experiences pity (and other intense emotions), it hits him in the pit of the stomach. The Bible employs accurate everyday language—as contemporary and true as any “gut issue” that agitates us deeply today. We should end our exertions to patronize the intelligence of the inspired writers of the Bible, whom the Holy Spirit kept from even the least error: He is the Almighty God of Truth Who cannot lie or make a mistake.
Timidly apologetic versus Kuitert – Professor Kuitert is a fervid proponent of the New Hermeneutics that is presently ravaging The Netherlands’ churches. At a conference of Christian scientists, he said that “Genesis 1 is a story borrowed from the Babylonian myths. God’s creation has never been ‘good’ from the beginning”(Netherlands Dagblad, April 20, 1963). On October 5, 1966, at a meeting of the Christian Pedagogical Studies Centre, Dr. Kuitert maintained that “There has never been an Adam and no Eve either; there never existed a Paradise that was created without sin and death.” And Professor Kuitert later defied God’s Word thus: “There never was a falling into sin” (Friese Kerkbode, November 11, 1966—see “Pulpit and Pew” in the Calvinist-Contact, July 1, 1971 and July 15/22, 1971).
But the Committee disavows such heretical views of the first chapters of Genesis (as that interpretation necessarily establishes one’s whole approach to the Bible). My only negative comment on this excerpt is its circumlocution, the Cassius Clay lean-away style of its conclusion—we need not be so timidly apologetic in stating the truth: “If one asserts, for example, that science makes it impossible to believe any longer that there was historically an original man and woman who were ancestors of the human race, then it is no longer apparent that one is maintaining that Scripture is its own interpreter” (p. 283). Another plus statement is the Committee’s rejection of the revived old-liberal attempt to substitute a psychologistically conjectured “historical Jesus” for our Lord Jesus Christ as He makes Himself sufficiently known to us in His infallible, inscripturated Word by His Holy Spirit. The Committee raises the following pertinent objection to “the quest for the historical Jesus”: “The faith-perspective is neutralized and is allowed no role in reconstructing the historical picture of Jesus” (p. 287).
Science forces reinvestigation – As the Committee finally begins to wrestle in its Report with the heart of the issue, Genesis 3–11, it admits that it is “science” that has forced this reinvestigation of Biblical authority. What disturbs me most here is the facile assumption that “science” is synonymous with uniformitarian geology and its whole evolutionary prcsuppositional framework: “The occasion for reexamining these chapters stems from the light science has cast upon the age of the human race . . . Scientific evidence is only the occasion for reexamining the kind of reporting contained in these chapters” (p. 294).
I wish that the Committee had said at this point what it enjoined the Church to profess and practice six pages further in the report: “The church must encourage its members to pursue their scientific work in loyalty to the authoritative Scriptures and in harmony with the confessions, and assure itself of a similar commitment on the part of scholars working within the church’s sphere of responsibility [a question-begging phrase, that last – M.M.] . . . We must seek to profit from and make thankful use of the findings of science as seen in the light of Scripture . . . The church may not, however, allow its message to be made dependent upon the scientific enterprise, nor allow scientific findings to dictate its interpretation of the Bible, nor allow the claims of science to call into question its confession of Biblical authority, nor allow any science, including theology [and “historical” geology with its mythologized geologic column? – see the writings of creationist scholars, of the Creation Research Society. for example, who also believe in the Flood – M .M .], to determine what is believable and what is not believable in the Bible” (p. 300).
Two views of Scripture – Now we are at the heart of the issue, and here the Committee presents two views of Scripture that it affirms are both in accord with the Reformed Confessions. The first view, however, imposes a massive delimitation on the Bible, a stricture that theoretically invalidates inspiration and makes both the creation account and prophecy impossible: “We know [but how do we know? – M.M.] that revelation is given in words, concepts, and symbols known and used by the recipients of that revelation. Thus in these early chapters God makes use of such words, concepts, and symbols in revealing to Abraham or to Moses this early history. Within this view it is possible to suggest, for example, that although Genesis 3 communicates an event, i.e., the fall of man at the beginning of human history, it does so making use of concepts or symbols familiar to Abraham and to the world of that time” (pp. 294–295).
Next the Committee characterizes the second “acceptable” point of view. But notice that it is a caricature of the Reformed position, that it is quite obviously biased, by definition, toward the new-hermeneutical approach just declared acceptable as the first option. The traditional Reformed view of “believing without doubt all things contained” in Scripture is not even presented, in the stealthy rhetoric of the Committee (e.g., “more closely related to the traditional interpretation”). Further, this second, seemingly more conservative, viewpoint is forced to make certain critically essential but undefined concessions concerning the “influence of the cultural milieu upon the historical narrative, especially in connection with the creation account.”
A dire prediction – I do no recognize the Reformed Biblical position here at all: “The other point of view is more closely related to the traditional interpretation of these chapters . . . This point of view is willing to acknowledge some influence of the cultural milieu upon the historical narrative, especially in connection with the creation account [italics added] . . . Thus, although recognizing the thematic character of these chapters, this view comes much closer [why the hedging here? – M.M.] to interpreting these chapters as literal descriptions of events . . . Our confessional statements, as well as our basic confession concerning the authority and reliability of Scripture, do not force us to choose for one or the other. Both positions preserve the intent of the confessional statements, both function on the basis of principles considered acceptable int he interpretation of Scripture. Therefore the church need not decide concerning the correctness of either” (p. 295).
With that conclusion, however, I disagree so strongly that I would predict the doctrinal deterioration of the Christian Reformed Church in one generation if the first option, or “acceptable” point of view, is not officially and unequivocally rejected as unScriptural by Synodical action.
Difficulties, yes; errors, no – Two more short quotations from the Report and a concluding remark. Herewith the first quotation: “To be sure, the historical narratives of Scripture are not purely objective, factual accounts. They are not mere chronicles. Scripture interprets as it narrates. It is prophetic history with a redemptive force and purpose” (p. 303). True and very nicely expressed, but I can’t avoid the inference that Biblical historical narratives might be faulty and inaccurate—or doesn’t the diction here imply a presl1ppositional depreciation of “purely objective, factual accounts” and “mere chronicles”?
My last quotation for analysis from the Report is this enigmatic and unsupported asseveration: “It is possible in certain instances to distinguish, partially at least, between an event as it actually happened and the way that event is recorded in Scripture” (p. 303). I would like to study any attempt made to demonstrate that theory, but T do not believe that it could be substantiated. r find Dr. E. J. Young to have a more humble, less historicistic, less skeptical, and more faithfully acceptable view of the Bible in his book Thy Word Is Truth. Difficulties in the Word, yes, says Dr. Young; but errors and inaccuracies, no. Nor has one ever been proved, though the spears of its attackers have blunted themselves against that Word for centuries.
A compromise position – A member of the Study Committee acknowledged to me that because of disagreement within the Committee, some kind of accommodation had to he reached—and this Report 36 was the result. It is easy to pontificate from a distance, but I would say, better a split committee and a minority report, than a compromise position on a doctrine so foundational as the absolute Spirit-breathed authority of the inerrant Holy Scriptures, our only and infallible canon of faith-and-life.
In refuting the historical-critical hermeneutical method, the Committee unintentionally (but forcefully and aptly) warns against its own first-mentioned “acceptable” view of Scripture: “Whenever this method of interpretation is thus used to reduce the words of God to the words of men, the results are devastating for the life of the church. The Bible is then robbed of its authority for Christian living. It then serves only as an historical document for scholars and experts, a handbook for theologians and historians in the pursuit of their scientific studies” (p. 301).
The Church would do well to heed the admonition of the Committee in this instance, not to stop studying the Bible, but resoundingly to reaffirm the literal-historical redemptive truth of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. For it is usually with these chapters that the assault on the doctrines of the Incarnation and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ has its satanically plausible and insidious origin.
A canon within the canon – The title of Report 36 “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority”) suggests the possibility that men may set certain limits to Biblical authority. But that is a perilous position to take at the outset, and the Committee recognized it by dealing extensively with the logistic (or rationalistic) wording (“consequent” and “deducible” authority) in the study proposition received from the Gereformeerde Kerken. That is, to take one motif—the central one, to he sure—from the Bible and to base Scriptural authority on that doctrine alone necessarily prejudices the investigation and actually also predetermines the answer.
That the Committee sensed its being manipulated by the phrasing of the charge is evident in the following quotations from their report: “To suggest that the matter of historicity is really unimportant because the Scripture is primarily ahout Jesus Christ suggests a rather narrow Christocentric view of Scripture” (p. 292), and more emphatically the Committee adds: “The full authority which Scripture claims for itself radically excludes every intimation of a canon within the canon of Scripture” (p. 298). Now, that is a thoroughly Biblical statement in the Reformed tradition: Sola Scriptura, the Bible itself and only, the entire Bible, as its own interpreter.
But, unhappily, the Committee contradicts this Biblical profession by proposing its own “canon within the canon of Scripture” as follows: “The authority of Scripture touches every sphere of human life and knowledge but it does so in its own way and from its own perspective, viz. from the standpoint of creation, fall, redemption and the coming again of Jesus Christ” (p. 279). It is a well-known irony that the creation-fall-redemption motif has been used by some writers within the Reformed community to asperse (perhaps unintentionally) the historical and scientific accuracy of the Scriptures, as well as to question the definitive, propositional clarity of its prescriptions: “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Unrecognized behind this approach to God’s teachings in Scripture arc I) the demythologizing, sitz-im-leben, neo-orthodox criticism of the Bible; and 2) the contemporary positivistic and irrationalist repudiation of the cognitive significance of language.
Form versus content – After introduction and definition of its mandate, the Committee quotes Bavinck approvingly to indicate their disapprobation of the popular, erroneous view that the form and the content of the Bible arc to be analytically differentiated, just as one strips away the husks and chaff from the kernels of corn or wheat—we preserve the contents, but the container is useless and expendable. Concerning the Scriptures, then, Bavinck makes this true and crucial confession: “Form and content interpenetrate each other and may not he separated” (p. 270). But again the Committee negates its testimony to the truth by approving quotation of H. Ridderbos as follows: “Inspiration docs not, for example, correct views of the structure and working of the universe, which are relative to a particular historical epoch.” H. Hidderbos clarifies this statement in Trouw of May 9, 1966, thus: “The Bible has no authority regarding the expression of a certain concept-view of the world, nor as far as style or historical statements are concerned.”
And to show more convincingly that H. Ridderhos does not at all share Bavinck’s Reformed view of “impenetrable form and content” in Scriptur, I quote Ridderbos once more, from the Nieuwe Haagse Krant of May 7, 1966: “We are increasing our understanding of the fact that the real authority of the Bible lies in its contents, not in its formal authority.” It is strange that men like Ridderbos argue thus that the writers of the Bible were prone to error and time-bound by the false conceptions of the universe current in the days when they lived (which is actually to deny the plenary verbal inspiration of the Holy Spirit), yet these modern theologians will never mention such texts as Isaiah 40:22, which asserted the rotundity of the earth long before human science had made the discovery, and Job 26:7, which declares in everyday terminology the suspension of earth in space by gravity. “He . . . hangs the earth upon nothing.”
Immaturity and ignorance of human authors? – Sadly, the Committee here follows the leading of higher critical detractors of Biblical accuracy and inerrancy by attempting to demonstrate the cultural immaturity and consequent ignorance of the human authors of Old Testament Scripture: “For example,” they say, “in Old Testament times the seat of the emotions and passions was considered to be in the abdominal region of the body.” Therefore, when the Bible speaks of “bowels of compassion,” we are to smile wisely in our twentieth century and say, “We know now that it’s all in the head!”
Nevertheless, I believe that the Biblical statement is both psychologically and physiologically correct, for when one experiences pity (and other intense emotions), it hits him in the pit of the stomach. The Bible employs accurate everyday language—as contemporary and true as any “gut issue” that agitates us deeply today. We should end our exertions to patronize the intelligence of the inspired writers of the Bible, whom the Holy Spirit kept from even the least error: He is the Almighty God of Truth Who cannot lie or make a mistake.
Timidly apologetic versus Kuitert – Professor Kuitert is a fervid proponent of the New Hermeneutics that is presently ravaging The Netherlands’ churches. At a conference of Christian scientists, he said that “Genesis 1 is a story borrowed from the Babylonian myths. God’s creation has never been ‘good’ from the beginning”(Netherlands Dagblad, April 20, 1963). On October 5, 1966, at a meeting of the Christian Pedagogical Studies Centre, Dr. Kuitert maintained that “There has never been an Adam and no Eve either; there never existed a Paradise that was created without sin and death.” And Professor Kuitert later defied God’s Word thus: “There never was a falling into sin” (Friese Kerkbode, November 11, 1966—see “Pulpit and Pew” in the Calvinist-Contact, July 1, 1971 and July 15/22, 1971).
But the Committee disavows such heretical views of the first chapters of Genesis (as that interpretation necessarily establishes one’s whole approach to the Bible). My only negative comment on this excerpt is its circumlocution, the Cassius Clay lean-away style of its conclusion—we need not be so timidly apologetic in stating the truth: “If one asserts, for example, that science makes it impossible to believe any longer that there was historically an original man and woman who were ancestors of the human race, then it is no longer apparent that one is maintaining that Scripture is its own interpreter” (p. 283). Another plus statement is the Committee’s rejection of the revived old-liberal attempt to substitute a psychologistically conjectured “historical Jesus” for our Lord Jesus Christ as He makes Himself sufficiently known to us in His infallible, inscripturated Word by His Holy Spirit. The Committee raises the following pertinent objection to “the quest for the historical Jesus”: “The faith-perspective is neutralized and is allowed no role in reconstructing the historical picture of Jesus” (p. 287).
Science forces reinvestigation – As the Committee finally begins to wrestle in its Report with the heart of the issue, Genesis 3–11, it admits that it is “science” that has forced this reinvestigation of Biblical authority. What disturbs me most here is the facile assumption that “science” is synonymous with uniformitarian geology and its whole evolutionary prcsuppositional framework: “The occasion for reexamining these chapters stems from the light science has cast upon the age of the human race . . . Scientific evidence is only the occasion for reexamining the kind of reporting contained in these chapters” (p. 294).
I wish that the Committee had said at this point what it enjoined the Church to profess and practice six pages further in the report: “The church must encourage its members to pursue their scientific work in loyalty to the authoritative Scriptures and in harmony with the confessions, and assure itself of a similar commitment on the part of scholars working within the church’s sphere of responsibility [a question-begging phrase, that last – M.M.] . . . We must seek to profit from and make thankful use of the findings of science as seen in the light of Scripture . . . The church may not, however, allow its message to be made dependent upon the scientific enterprise, nor allow scientific findings to dictate its interpretation of the Bible, nor allow the claims of science to call into question its confession of Biblical authority, nor allow any science, including theology [and “historical” geology with its mythologized geologic column? – see the writings of creationist scholars, of the Creation Research Society. for example, who also believe in the Flood – M .M .], to determine what is believable and what is not believable in the Bible” (p. 300).
Two views of Scripture – Now we are at the heart of the issue, and here the Committee presents two views of Scripture that it affirms are both in accord with the Reformed Confessions. The first view, however, imposes a massive delimitation on the Bible, a stricture that theoretically invalidates inspiration and makes both the creation account and prophecy impossible: “We know [but how do we know? – M.M.] that revelation is given in words, concepts, and symbols known and used by the recipients of that revelation. Thus in these early chapters God makes use of such words, concepts, and symbols in revealing to Abraham or to Moses this early history. Within this view it is possible to suggest, for example, that although Genesis 3 communicates an event, i.e., the fall of man at the beginning of human history, it does so making use of concepts or symbols familiar to Abraham and to the world of that time” (pp. 294–295).
Next the Committee characterizes the second “acceptable” point of view. But notice that it is a caricature of the Reformed position, that it is quite obviously biased, by definition, toward the new-hermeneutical approach just declared acceptable as the first option. The traditional Reformed view of “believing without doubt all things contained” in Scripture is not even presented, in the stealthy rhetoric of the Committee (e.g., “more closely related to the traditional interpretation”). Further, this second, seemingly more conservative, viewpoint is forced to make certain critically essential but undefined concessions concerning the “influence of the cultural milieu upon the historical narrative, especially in connection with the creation account.”
A dire prediction – I do no recognize the Reformed Biblical position here at all: “The other point of view is more closely related to the traditional interpretation of these chapters . . . This point of view is willing to acknowledge some influence of the cultural milieu upon the historical narrative, especially in connection with the creation account [italics added] . . . Thus, although recognizing the thematic character of these chapters, this view comes much closer [why the hedging here? – M.M.] to interpreting these chapters as literal descriptions of events . . . Our confessional statements, as well as our basic confession concerning the authority and reliability of Scripture, do not force us to choose for one or the other. Both positions preserve the intent of the confessional statements, both function on the basis of principles considered acceptable int he interpretation of Scripture. Therefore the church need not decide concerning the correctness of either” (p. 295).
With that conclusion, however, I disagree so strongly that I would predict the doctrinal deterioration of the Christian Reformed Church in one generation if the first option, or “acceptable” point of view, is not officially and unequivocally rejected as unScriptural by Synodical action.
Difficulties, yes; errors, no – Two more short quotations from the Report and a concluding remark. Herewith the first quotation: “To be sure, the historical narratives of Scripture are not purely objective, factual accounts. They are not mere chronicles. Scripture interprets as it narrates. It is prophetic history with a redemptive force and purpose” (p. 303). True and very nicely expressed, but I can’t avoid the inference that Biblical historical narratives might be faulty and inaccurate—or doesn’t the diction here imply a presl1ppositional depreciation of “purely objective, factual accounts” and “mere chronicles”?
My last quotation for analysis from the Report is this enigmatic and unsupported asseveration: “It is possible in certain instances to distinguish, partially at least, between an event as it actually happened and the way that event is recorded in Scripture” (p. 303). I would like to study any attempt made to demonstrate that theory, but T do not believe that it could be substantiated. r find Dr. E. J. Young to have a more humble, less historicistic, less skeptical, and more faithfully acceptable view of the Bible in his book Thy Word Is Truth. Difficulties in the Word, yes, says Dr. Young; but errors and inaccuracies, no. Nor has one ever been proved, though the spears of its attackers have blunted themselves against that Word for centuries.
A compromise position – A member of the Study Committee acknowledged to me that because of disagreement within the Committee, some kind of accommodation had to he reached—and this Report 36 was the result. It is easy to pontificate from a distance, but I would say, better a split committee and a minority report, than a compromise position on a doctrine so foundational as the absolute Spirit-breathed authority of the inerrant Holy Scriptures, our only and infallible canon of faith-and-life.
In refuting the historical-critical hermeneutical method, the Committee unintentionally (but forcefully and aptly) warns against its own first-mentioned “acceptable” view of Scripture: “Whenever this method of interpretation is thus used to reduce the words of God to the words of men, the results are devastating for the life of the church. The Bible is then robbed of its authority for Christian living. It then serves only as an historical document for scholars and experts, a handbook for theologians and historians in the pursuit of their scientific studies” (p. 301).
The Church would do well to heed the admonition of the Committee in this instance, not to stop studying the Bible, but resoundingly to reaffirm the literal-historical redemptive truth of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. For it is usually with these chapters that the assault on the doctrines of the Incarnation and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ has its satanically plausible and insidious origin.