The full authority of Scripture admits of no compromise; it is an item that is non-negotiable. “Thus saith the Lord” is sovereign, settled, and binding throughout the Book—from Genesis through Revelation. This we believe and profess, knowing full well that it is capable of its own defense.
“For anyone who by faith accepts the Scriptures as the Word of God, the matter is settled; the authority of the Bible is not to be defended, but affirmed . . . C. H. Spurgeon said regarding this subject: ‘There is no need for you to defend a lion when he is being attacked. All you need to do is to open the gate and let him out!’” (The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture by Rene Pache, p. 306. Moody Press, Chicago, Ill.)
But right now we can’t let it go at that.
Why? Because right now the Christian Reformed Church is struggling to formulate and to agree on a statement concerning “the nature and extent of Biblical authority.” The statement proposed at Synod 1971 has come to be known as Report 36. That report is now in the hands of the churches for study and reactions.
Report 36 is positively must reading. It may be found in both the Agenda and the Acts of 1971. It has also been published in booklet form available either from your consistory or from The Board of Publications of the CRC, 2850 Kalamazoo Avenue, S. E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49508.
O K, the committee that drew up Report 36 is now soliciting our reactions as Synod 1971 instructed should be done. So, that’s what we attempt to do.
Humbly but nevertheless emphatically, after having read Report 36 (all thirty-six pages of it) three times, I feel compelled to recommend the following: We definitely must not have Report 36, notwithstanding some splendid statements in it, and also notwithstanding all the arduous labors devoted to the preparation of it by men whose competence and scholarship we do respect.
Instead, we are desperately in need of drawing up a different statement than the one now under consideration; and, if the Holy Spirit leads Synod 1972 to decide this, let’s then make it Scriptural, sharp, and simple!
Let’s make it Scriptural! – Strange indeed is the fact that in those parts of Report 36 that the church is asked to adopt there is not a single proof text from Scripture. I am referring, of course, to the “five points relating to the nature and extent of Biblical authority” recommended for adoption, and “the preamble to and the elaboration of the five points of pastoral advice as set forth in Part V” of Report 36 that we are asked to “approve in substance.”
In no sense docs this mean to say that the writers of Report 36 do not recognize that such proof texts are to be had. Instead, in Point 3 of the “pastoral advice” they do refer to such proof by saying that “Scripture is self-authenticating.” But would this point not be more convincing for ourselves and also a better testimony to others if specific citations from Scripture would be included?
That the situation with respect to the affirmation or the denial of biblical authority is indeed serious is clearly recognized and also stated by the writers of Report 36. On pages 487, 488 (pages referred to here and later are as they appear in Acts 1971 and in the blue booklet) they state: “At the risk of saying what probably needs no saying, we remind the churches of the crucial importance of holding fast our common confession of biblical authority. This crisis lies especially in the area of hermeneutics . . . Involved is a right understanding of Scripture, which is a matter of paramount importance today for the entire Christian church, including those churches which stand within the Reformed tradition” (Italics added).
Now if this matter of the authority of Scripture is that important (and it is!) what must we then think of ministers admitting that they have not even read Report 36 with its proposals for adoption? Or of all others who are unaware of what this is all about? By all means then, let’s include relevant proof from Scripture itself for what we intend to say.
Such proof from Scripture is easy enough to find.
Let’s take note of what Jesus said.
Replying to the Pharisees who questioned Him about divorce, our Lord said: “Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female. and said: For this cause shall a man have his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not mun put asunder” (Matt. 19:4–6). Both historical and normative authority-Jesus teaches both here even though His reference is to the second chapter of Genesis, a part of Scripture called into doubt by many today.
“The scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), Jesus said. In his commentary on John (Vol. II ) Dr. William Hendriksen writes concerning this: “Scripture cannot be broken. It is absolutely indestructible, no matter how man may regard it. The Old Testament, as it lies there in written form! is inspired, infallible, authoritative. (Note that the days of Karl Barth [and Kuitert] had not yet arrived)” p. 128.
And in His farewell or high-priestly prayer, we hear Jesus say: “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17).
Consider also what Paul says of Scripture.
Read Romans 5 where Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, clearly recognizes the historical authority of the Genesis account of the fall of man into sin.
Take note also of I Corinthians 11 in which the Apostle testifies of the historical authority of the Genesis account of the creation of Eve: “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man; for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (vss. 8, 9).
And writing in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14, Paul states: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled , but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression.” Paul, highly educated though he was, had no problem with the historical authority of the Genesis account of the creation of Eve and the fall.
The utmost caution is to he exercised in posing and seeking to answer the question about “the nature and extent of Biblical authority.” It can so easily become a loaded question like the device Satan used when he asked Eve: “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?” The so-called “new hermeneutic” had its origin right then and there. A bad question so often brings forth a bad answer.
Our hope and prayer is that the committee and the next Synod may see clearly that we need another statement on the authority of Scripture than Report 36, and that we must make it Scriptural!
Let’s make it sharp also! – It would be highly interesting to have a poll taken of ministers, elders and deacons, and others in the CRC to discover how many (or how few) understand precisely what Report 36 really says about Biblical authority.
My prediction is that if Report 36 is adopted as is, that the advocates of the new hermeneutic as well as the advocates of the old hermeneutic will be found appealing to it for support ill their denial or in their defense of the historicity of Genesis 1–11. Ambiguity, compromise, and obscure formulations may appear for a time to safeguard the unity and the peace of the church, but eventually these appearances will surely prove to be deceiving.
No effort may be spared to make our official statement on the authority of Scripture sharp as a razor and as strong as steel. That this is Scriptural is attested by passages like the following:
“For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joint and marrow, and quick to discern the thought and intents of the heart” (I Tim. 4:12). Thus, sharp as a razor!
“The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Thus, strong as steel!
Note items like the following to see that Report 36 lacks the sharpness so sorely needed:
1. In three of the proposed “five points of pastoral advice” (Points 2. 4, and 5), Report 36 affirms the historicity of the redemptive events recorded in Scripture. Immediately, the question was asked by delegates to Synod 71: “What about the other even.ts recorded in Scripture?”
Fortunately, the Committee now sees the need for revising this expression to avoid misunderstanding. It has taken the liberty of calling attention to this in their Preface to the blue booklet in which they have reproduced Report 36 as Synod instructed’ them to do. It remains to be seen now what specific revision will be proposed. A sharp, forthright statement on this matter is sorely needed and is positively a must in any formulation to be adopted by the church. Whether this can be done without having a drastic revision of Report 36 or an entirely new report calls for the most serious consideration.
2. Probably the most glaring example of the lack of clarity and sharpness in Report 36 is the compromising or both-and position it takes with respect to the “two approaches” to Genesis 1–11. Let’s be on our guard lest this becomes the umbrella under which both the pro and the con on the historicity of Genesis 1–11 seek their shelter.
Because of the propagation of the liberal views of Kuitert and others, it is precisely at this point that the church is asking for an unequivocal and sharp answer. Instead of finding this, we are now offered a statement that leaves us in a quandary.
Note what Report 36 tells us:
Concerning the first approach to Genesis 1–11, the Committee states: “Within this view it is possible to suggest, for example, that although Genesis 3 communicated 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” (p. 486).
Here questions immediately arise. The Genesis account of the fall of man is mentioned “for example.” What are other examples that might be covered by this? And what is the norm or criterion to determine what is literal and what is symbolical?
Concerning the second approach to Genesis 1–11, Report 36 says that “basically it argues that these chapters as historical records are not essentially different from the rest of Genesis . . . Thus, although recognizing the thematic character of these chapters, this view comes much closer to interpreting these chapters as literal descriptions of events.”
Now please read these excerpts from the Report about these two views of Genesis 1–11 once again! Do we as a church really hesitate to vote for 1wmber two and also to affirm it in no uncertain terms and to reject view number one?
The Committee refuses to do so. They say:
“We have not given all of the arguments for either of these positions since it is not our purpose to judge the correctness of either. 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 … the church need not decide concerning the correctness of either. Just as the church should not adopt a particular theory concerning the synoptic problem, so it should not adopt a particular theoretical position concerning the first chapters of Genesis” (p. 486. italics added).
Must we really now be satisfied with that on the Genesis 1–11 question?
3. The church is desperately in need of pastoral advice that is sharp and clear concerning the attack of Kuitert and others on the Bible.
In 1968 (more than three years ago), in reply to an overture from Fruitland, Ontario, it was decided: “That Synod assure the consistory of the Fruitland CRC that it has full confidence that the professors of theology of Calvin Seminary will carefully study all new developments in theology and evaluate them in the light of Holy Scripture and the creeds. and serve the church with the results of their research and discussions. Ground: It is their continuing obligation to vindicate sound doctrine according to Article 20 of the Church Order and the Form for the Installation of Professors of Theology.”
Thereupon, as editor of The Banner at the time, by decision of the Editorial Committee, l immediately asked the Calvin Seminary Faculty to provide a series of articles for our church paper on the views of Kuitert and others like-minded. To this date no such series of articles has ever appeared in The Banner. The churches are sorely in need of being served in this way and to know from all of our Seminary professors what “the results of their research and discussions” are.
The mandate given to the writers of Report 36 included the instruction “to evaluate critically the manner of interpreting Scripture presently employed by some contemporary Reformed scholars and to serve the churches with pastoral advice in these matters” (p, 459. Italics added).
We had thought that we would at last now meet teachers like Kuitert and others head-on and come to grips with specific teachings, also naming chapter and verse. But not so. The writers of Report 36 tell us instead: “Our task is not to adjudicate charges brought against any person or to assess the acceptability of any particular book, but to evaluate methods or principles that are visible in the interpretation of Scripture by some contemporary Reformed scholars . . . Since we are considering methods and not persons, we have decided not to mention theologians by name” (p. 471 Italics added).
Thus, no names. Pray, why not?
Of course, the Committee knows whom they have in mind. And indeed this is a crucial matter. Then why not be specific, pointed, and sharp and tell the churches who’s who and what’s what!
And finally, let’s also make it simple! Much as I would urge every member of the CRC to read and reread Report 36, it must be added that you will not find it to be simple. Having gone through this thirty-six page Report carefully three times, I can understand and feel for anyone not theologically trained who gets lost in it and gives up halfway. Ministers have admitted that they had not even read it.
This is not good. It may be replied that the five points of pastoral advice are simple enough. However , all that which precedes is part and parcel of the whole thing, and no part of it should be adopted without first becoming familiar with all of it.
Report 36 is so right when it states: “Under the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit the Bible is all open Book, which in its central and comprehensive message is readily accessible and unmistakably clear to the believing heart and mind. The biblical faith and obedience of God’s people may not be made dependent upon theologians or other scientists on the faulty assumption that a hearty confession of biblical authority and a right understanding of the biblical message awaits their authoritative word” (pp. 491, 493. Italics added).
No, we do not ask for what the Committee calls “simplistic biblicism,” But we do respectfully request a Scriptural, sharp, and simple report on Biblical authority in language that a believer of average intelligence can clearly understand.
By all means, read, study, and discuss Report 36. Consistories and other groups ought to devote at least one entire meeting to a consideration of it.
“For anyone who by faith accepts the Scriptures as the Word of God, the matter is settled; the authority of the Bible is not to be defended, but affirmed . . . C. H. Spurgeon said regarding this subject: ‘There is no need for you to defend a lion when he is being attacked. All you need to do is to open the gate and let him out!’” (The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture by Rene Pache, p. 306. Moody Press, Chicago, Ill.)
But right now we can’t let it go at that.
Why? Because right now the Christian Reformed Church is struggling to formulate and to agree on a statement concerning “the nature and extent of Biblical authority.” The statement proposed at Synod 1971 has come to be known as Report 36. That report is now in the hands of the churches for study and reactions.
Report 36 is positively must reading. It may be found in both the Agenda and the Acts of 1971. It has also been published in booklet form available either from your consistory or from The Board of Publications of the CRC, 2850 Kalamazoo Avenue, S. E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49508.
O K, the committee that drew up Report 36 is now soliciting our reactions as Synod 1971 instructed should be done. So, that’s what we attempt to do.
Humbly but nevertheless emphatically, after having read Report 36 (all thirty-six pages of it) three times, I feel compelled to recommend the following: We definitely must not have Report 36, notwithstanding some splendid statements in it, and also notwithstanding all the arduous labors devoted to the preparation of it by men whose competence and scholarship we do respect.
Instead, we are desperately in need of drawing up a different statement than the one now under consideration; and, if the Holy Spirit leads Synod 1972 to decide this, let’s then make it Scriptural, sharp, and simple!
Let’s make it Scriptural! – Strange indeed is the fact that in those parts of Report 36 that the church is asked to adopt there is not a single proof text from Scripture. I am referring, of course, to the “five points relating to the nature and extent of Biblical authority” recommended for adoption, and “the preamble to and the elaboration of the five points of pastoral advice as set forth in Part V” of Report 36 that we are asked to “approve in substance.”
In no sense docs this mean to say that the writers of Report 36 do not recognize that such proof texts are to be had. Instead, in Point 3 of the “pastoral advice” they do refer to such proof by saying that “Scripture is self-authenticating.” But would this point not be more convincing for ourselves and also a better testimony to others if specific citations from Scripture would be included?
That the situation with respect to the affirmation or the denial of biblical authority is indeed serious is clearly recognized and also stated by the writers of Report 36. On pages 487, 488 (pages referred to here and later are as they appear in Acts 1971 and in the blue booklet) they state: “At the risk of saying what probably needs no saying, we remind the churches of the crucial importance of holding fast our common confession of biblical authority. This crisis lies especially in the area of hermeneutics . . . Involved is a right understanding of Scripture, which is a matter of paramount importance today for the entire Christian church, including those churches which stand within the Reformed tradition” (Italics added).
Now if this matter of the authority of Scripture is that important (and it is!) what must we then think of ministers admitting that they have not even read Report 36 with its proposals for adoption? Or of all others who are unaware of what this is all about? By all means then, let’s include relevant proof from Scripture itself for what we intend to say.
Such proof from Scripture is easy enough to find.
Let’s take note of what Jesus said.
Replying to the Pharisees who questioned Him about divorce, our Lord said: “Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female. and said: For this cause shall a man have his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not mun put asunder” (Matt. 19:4–6). Both historical and normative authority-Jesus teaches both here even though His reference is to the second chapter of Genesis, a part of Scripture called into doubt by many today.
“The scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), Jesus said. In his commentary on John (Vol. II ) Dr. William Hendriksen writes concerning this: “Scripture cannot be broken. It is absolutely indestructible, no matter how man may regard it. The Old Testament, as it lies there in written form! is inspired, infallible, authoritative. (Note that the days of Karl Barth [and Kuitert] had not yet arrived)” p. 128.
And in His farewell or high-priestly prayer, we hear Jesus say: “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17).
Consider also what Paul says of Scripture.
Read Romans 5 where Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, clearly recognizes the historical authority of the Genesis account of the fall of man into sin.
Take note also of I Corinthians 11 in which the Apostle testifies of the historical authority of the Genesis account of the creation of Eve: “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man; for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (vss. 8, 9).
And writing in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14, Paul states: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled , but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression.” Paul, highly educated though he was, had no problem with the historical authority of the Genesis account of the creation of Eve and the fall.
The utmost caution is to he exercised in posing and seeking to answer the question about “the nature and extent of Biblical authority.” It can so easily become a loaded question like the device Satan used when he asked Eve: “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?” The so-called “new hermeneutic” had its origin right then and there. A bad question so often brings forth a bad answer.
Our hope and prayer is that the committee and the next Synod may see clearly that we need another statement on the authority of Scripture than Report 36, and that we must make it Scriptural!
Let’s make it sharp also! – It would be highly interesting to have a poll taken of ministers, elders and deacons, and others in the CRC to discover how many (or how few) understand precisely what Report 36 really says about Biblical authority.
My prediction is that if Report 36 is adopted as is, that the advocates of the new hermeneutic as well as the advocates of the old hermeneutic will be found appealing to it for support ill their denial or in their defense of the historicity of Genesis 1–11. Ambiguity, compromise, and obscure formulations may appear for a time to safeguard the unity and the peace of the church, but eventually these appearances will surely prove to be deceiving.
No effort may be spared to make our official statement on the authority of Scripture sharp as a razor and as strong as steel. That this is Scriptural is attested by passages like the following:
“For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joint and marrow, and quick to discern the thought and intents of the heart” (I Tim. 4:12). Thus, sharp as a razor!
“The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Thus, strong as steel!
Note items like the following to see that Report 36 lacks the sharpness so sorely needed:
1. In three of the proposed “five points of pastoral advice” (Points 2. 4, and 5), Report 36 affirms the historicity of the redemptive events recorded in Scripture. Immediately, the question was asked by delegates to Synod 71: “What about the other even.ts recorded in Scripture?”
Fortunately, the Committee now sees the need for revising this expression to avoid misunderstanding. It has taken the liberty of calling attention to this in their Preface to the blue booklet in which they have reproduced Report 36 as Synod instructed’ them to do. It remains to be seen now what specific revision will be proposed. A sharp, forthright statement on this matter is sorely needed and is positively a must in any formulation to be adopted by the church. Whether this can be done without having a drastic revision of Report 36 or an entirely new report calls for the most serious consideration.
2. Probably the most glaring example of the lack of clarity and sharpness in Report 36 is the compromising or both-and position it takes with respect to the “two approaches” to Genesis 1–11. Let’s be on our guard lest this becomes the umbrella under which both the pro and the con on the historicity of Genesis 1–11 seek their shelter.
Because of the propagation of the liberal views of Kuitert and others, it is precisely at this point that the church is asking for an unequivocal and sharp answer. Instead of finding this, we are now offered a statement that leaves us in a quandary.
Note what Report 36 tells us:
Concerning the first approach to Genesis 1–11, the Committee states: “Within this view it is possible to suggest, for example, that although Genesis 3 communicated 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” (p. 486).
Here questions immediately arise. The Genesis account of the fall of man is mentioned “for example.” What are other examples that might be covered by this? And what is the norm or criterion to determine what is literal and what is symbolical?
Concerning the second approach to Genesis 1–11, Report 36 says that “basically it argues that these chapters as historical records are not essentially different from the rest of Genesis . . . Thus, although recognizing the thematic character of these chapters, this view comes much closer to interpreting these chapters as literal descriptions of events.”
Now please read these excerpts from the Report about these two views of Genesis 1–11 once again! Do we as a church really hesitate to vote for 1wmber two and also to affirm it in no uncertain terms and to reject view number one?
The Committee refuses to do so. They say:
“We have not given all of the arguments for either of these positions since it is not our purpose to judge the correctness of either. 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 … the church need not decide concerning the correctness of either. Just as the church should not adopt a particular theory concerning the synoptic problem, so it should not adopt a particular theoretical position concerning the first chapters of Genesis” (p. 486. italics added).
Must we really now be satisfied with that on the Genesis 1–11 question?
3. The church is desperately in need of pastoral advice that is sharp and clear concerning the attack of Kuitert and others on the Bible.
In 1968 (more than three years ago), in reply to an overture from Fruitland, Ontario, it was decided: “That Synod assure the consistory of the Fruitland CRC that it has full confidence that the professors of theology of Calvin Seminary will carefully study all new developments in theology and evaluate them in the light of Holy Scripture and the creeds. and serve the church with the results of their research and discussions. Ground: It is their continuing obligation to vindicate sound doctrine according to Article 20 of the Church Order and the Form for the Installation of Professors of Theology.”
Thereupon, as editor of The Banner at the time, by decision of the Editorial Committee, l immediately asked the Calvin Seminary Faculty to provide a series of articles for our church paper on the views of Kuitert and others like-minded. To this date no such series of articles has ever appeared in The Banner. The churches are sorely in need of being served in this way and to know from all of our Seminary professors what “the results of their research and discussions” are.
The mandate given to the writers of Report 36 included the instruction “to evaluate critically the manner of interpreting Scripture presently employed by some contemporary Reformed scholars and to serve the churches with pastoral advice in these matters” (p, 459. Italics added).
We had thought that we would at last now meet teachers like Kuitert and others head-on and come to grips with specific teachings, also naming chapter and verse. But not so. The writers of Report 36 tell us instead: “Our task is not to adjudicate charges brought against any person or to assess the acceptability of any particular book, but to evaluate methods or principles that are visible in the interpretation of Scripture by some contemporary Reformed scholars . . . Since we are considering methods and not persons, we have decided not to mention theologians by name” (p. 471 Italics added).
Thus, no names. Pray, why not?
Of course, the Committee knows whom they have in mind. And indeed this is a crucial matter. Then why not be specific, pointed, and sharp and tell the churches who’s who and what’s what!
And finally, let’s also make it simple! Much as I would urge every member of the CRC to read and reread Report 36, it must be added that you will not find it to be simple. Having gone through this thirty-six page Report carefully three times, I can understand and feel for anyone not theologically trained who gets lost in it and gives up halfway. Ministers have admitted that they had not even read it.
This is not good. It may be replied that the five points of pastoral advice are simple enough. However , all that which precedes is part and parcel of the whole thing, and no part of it should be adopted without first becoming familiar with all of it.
Report 36 is so right when it states: “Under the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit the Bible is all open Book, which in its central and comprehensive message is readily accessible and unmistakably clear to the believing heart and mind. The biblical faith and obedience of God’s people may not be made dependent upon theologians or other scientists on the faulty assumption that a hearty confession of biblical authority and a right understanding of the biblical message awaits their authoritative word” (pp. 491, 493. Italics added).
No, we do not ask for what the Committee calls “simplistic biblicism,” But we do respectfully request a Scriptural, sharp, and simple report on Biblical authority in language that a believer of average intelligence can clearly understand.
By all means, read, study, and discuss Report 36. Consistories and other groups ought to devote at least one entire meeting to a consideration of it.