In the debate within the Christian Reformed Church on the inerrancy of the Word of God, there has often been much ambiguity. Those who have questioned the traditional position of the Church (reaffirmed by the Synods of 1959 and 1961) have not always spoken with the greatest of frankness or clarity. But this cannot be said of a recent article in The Reformed Journal.1 Here is one of the most forthlight denials of the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible that we have seen in our church. It must be said, incidentally, that in addition to the affableness of the author, it is this quality of openness that makes him personally appealing to this writer. And it is not easy to write against the ideas of a person who is so likable. But sometimes it is desirable and necessary, especially when one of the most fundamental beliefs in Christianity, the inerrancy of the Bible, is being questioned.

         

           

Intimations of the author’s views on the infallibility were given in an article in the February issue of The Reformed Journal There he attempted (not successfully, we believe) to show that Reformed theologians use the same principles and methods that lead higher critics to the acceptance of theories that arc so destructive of the Bible. Dr. E. J. Young replied in the April issue that the author had seriously (but, surely, unintentionally) misrepresented him. One of the points of discussion centered on the fact that Christ considered Isaiah to be the author of the book that goes under his name. Then, Dr. Boer made the astounding statement:“It must be pointed out, however, that Jesus did not himself write any part of the Gospels. What we have in the Gospels is reports of His words by men as finite as the author of Ecclesiastes”! The implication is that what Jesus said was true, but in the Bible we have only a report b y finite men of what he said. Therefore, we cannot be so sure.

If these previous writings have lacked complete clarity on the matter of the trustworthiness of the Bible, his May article did not. This article was a criticism of a 75-page study committee report on the doctrine of infallibility, a report that was later commended by the Synod of 1961 to its churches.

The author writes that we base our doctrine of Scripture (whether it is inerrant or not, for example) upon two pillars: “The words and the phenomena, teachings and the data.” In our estimation this terminology is not the most felicitous in expressing the thoughts intended. Apparently what he means is that the Bible comes to us with certain general statements about a doctrine of the Scripture, such as II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:21. This he calls the words and teachings of Scripture. But Scripture also must be examined in every part, even in those places that do not speak of inspiration, to see whether its statements can be harmonized with each other or with history, geography, science, and the like. This he calls the phenomena of Scripture. Upon the basis of his investigation he concludes that neither the pillar of scriptural passages that deal explicitly with inspiration nor the pillar of the phenomena of Scriptures supports the conclusion that the Bible is free from errors.

As to the pillar of the teachings of Scripture, he writes: “It should be carefully noted that the Bible nowhere teaches its own infallibility” (page 12). He believes that this is an illegitimate inference (page 12). He asked: “Is it not a fundamental principle underlying the formation of the creeds of the Church that they are based upon direct and explicit teaching of the Bible? Do we accept as creedally binding any inference2 which we say the Bible makes from its own teaching?” After enumerating many doctrines such as the creation, fall, incarnation, and resurrection, the author asks: “Where do we say of any doctrine of the Church that it is an inference which the Bible makes from its own teachings?” and then, speaking of the inference that the Bible is infallible, he asks: “With what right may this bind the reflecting mind of the Church?” (page 12).

If this first pillar docs not teach the infallibility of the Bible, neither, according to the author, does the second pillar, the phenomena. To prove this, he cites two examples. One is the story of David and Saul in I Samuel 16 and 17. In chapter 16 it is stated that Saul loved David greatly, and in chapter 17 Saul wants to know whose son David is. Then the author states; “How these data are to be harmonized I do not know. I cannot imagine the same author as having written both accounts.”

The second example he cites is that of Judas’ death as recorded in Matthew 27 and Acts 1. In this connection he writes: “As factual history they have the same thrust but are irreconcilable on the score of what Judas actually did with the money and how he actually died.” Then he makes. the sweeping and bold assertion: “The phenomena or data of Scripture which do not square with one another as to factuality are many” (p. 11). Thus he believes that the second pillar does not teach the infallibility of the Bible, but that in many places it is erroneous “as to factuality.”

When we read such forthright attacks on the inerrancy of the Bible, we wonder what goes on in the author’s mind when he considers the decision of the Synod of 1959 “that it is inconsonant with the creeds to declare or suggest that there is an area of Scripture in which it is allowable to posit the possibility of actual historical inaccuracies.” We also wonder how he seeks to reconcile his position with the decision that “Scripture in its whole extent and in all its parts is the infallible and inerrant Word of God”; and with the Belgic Confession which states that “we believe with* out doubt all things contained in them” (the Scriptures). As long as Dr. Boer has not publicly stated that he now agrees with what our Synods have decided in the matter, we must hold that his article still expresses his convictions on the subject.

What are we to say to the author’s argument? Let us begin with the pillar which he calls the “teaching” of Scripture. He says that the doctrine of infallibility is not taught in the Bible but is an illegitimate inference. And inferences, he writes, arc not allowed. None of the doctrines of the Church are inferred by us.

But surely the author does not really mean this. The doctrine of infant baptism, for example, is not directly and explicitly taught in the Bible. No text of the Bible commands us to baptize our baby boys and baby girls. Nor is there a clear-cut example of this. Yet we deduce (or infer) from God’s commandment concerning the circumcision of baby boys, the unity of the church in the Old and New Testaments, and the meaning of circumcision and baptism, that it is the duty of parents to put a sign and seal on all their babies, girls as well as boys.

Neither can the author find any passage of the Bible that explicitly and directly leaches that the Christian is to worship on the first day of the week instead of the seventh. This can be deduced or inferred from the day of Christ’s resurrection, the example of the Corinthian churches, and John’s reference to the Lord’s Day (Revelation 1:10). Yet he is not at liberty to become a Seventh Day Christian Reformist.

Similarly, many of our creedal beliefs concerning the Trinity are not taught explicitly and directly in the Bible, but are inferences made by the church. For example, the Reformed creeds teach the eternal generation of Jesus and eternal spiration of the Holy Spirit. But nowhere do we and a text explicitly teaching these two biblical facts that are formulated in our creeds. But we infer these facts from the eternity and deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. And we make, and the Church has made, these and other inferences clearly binding. The rule that has guided the Church is expressed. in the Westminster Confession of Faith (I, vi): “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, Of by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture…” Some necessary matters arc expressly set forth in the Bible; but others have to be deduced by good and necessary consequence. Therefore, we find the heart of Dr. Boer’s argument to be fallible when he states that we cannot infer that the Bible is infallible from such texts as II Timothy 3:16; II Peter 1:19–21; Matthew 5:18; and John 10:35.

On the contrary, we believe that the Bible teaches clearly that it is the Word of God, that it is breathed ant by God (II Timothy 3:16), that “no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” (II Peter 1:21). We believe, moreover, that the Holy Spirit always speaks the truth and cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Therefore, we deduce by a necessary and good consequence that the Bible is without error in every jot and tittle. And this is confirmed by the rest of the Bible that never for a moment suggests, as the author of The Reformed Journal article does, that the Bible is not to be trusted in “many” places “as to factuality.” But rather it claims that “Thy word is truth” even down to the jot and tittle (Matthew 5:18).

As to the second pillar of the doctrine of infallibility, what has been designated (for better or for worse) as the phenomena data of Scripture, we would make two observations.

In the first place, there are places in the Bible such as 1 Samuel 16 and 17 and the account of Judas’ death that raise real problems. On the other hand, these problems that are being raised today are not problems that are suddenly new for the church. As one reads of the problem passages that perplex some today, the impression is often given that some new difficulty is before the church. In reality, however, even the most casual acquaintance with the literature on the subject reveals that the church has struggled with these same problems ever since tho New Testament was written. And most of these problems fade away with a little reflection on the solutions offered by the theologians of the church.

But if they do not fade away—and if there remain apparently irreconcilable passages—then in the light of what seems to us to be the clear teaching of Scripture about the trustworthiness of the Bible, we believe that it is the greater part of humility to follow Augustine’s example. Having asserted his conviction “that no one of those authors has erred in any respect in writing,” he adds: “and if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to be opposed to the truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that even the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or 1 myself have failed to understand it” (Letters, CXXXII, 3). Here is true humility: recognizing that God’s Word is perfect, that we are imperfect. And how time has repeatedly proved the critics of the Bible to be wrong! Time and again unbelieving scholars have taunted the Christian that verifiable historical and geographical facts prove that certain Biblical statements are false. Yet, repeatedly, it has been their own research that has made them see the Bible was fight and they were wrong.

1. Harry R. Boer, “The Report on Infallibility,” Reformed Journal (May 1961), pages 10–13.

2. For the sake of clarity and accuracy it should be noted the author frequently inadvertently uses the word “infer” when he obviously means “imply”; a book may imply but not infer.