At the request of the board of the Reformed Fellowship, Rev. Peter De Jong of Dutton, Michigan, and Rev. Harry Van Dyken of Toronto (Woodbridge), Ontario have prepared the following preliminary observations on Report 36 (“Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority”). The 1971 Christian Reformed Church Synod decided to “submit the entire report to the churches for study and reactions.” It is requested that all responses be sent no later than Jan. 1, 1972 to the secretary of the committee, Dr. Gordon Spykman, 1715 Griggs St., S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506. Overtures to Synod 1972 concerning this very important matter should be in the hands of Rev. William P. Brink, Denominational Stated Clerk, 2850 Kalamazoo Avenue, S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49508, no later than March 15, 1972.
Today our churches, along with those of many other denominations, are facing increasing controversy regarding the authority of the Bible on which the Christian faith is based. If we arc no longer sure of the authority of the Bible as the Word of God, we lose all ground for any assurance for our own faith and for our witness to the world. In our churches attention is being called to this critically important matter by the 36-page Report Number 36 submitted to our last Synod and now referred to the churches for study. That report deals with the “Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority.”
As discussion and controversy have begun regarding this report, it seems to us that several facts are becoming increasingly clear:
1. Because of questions raised by the Reformed Churches of The Netherlands the committee was appointed to study this subject and especially “the connection between the content and purpose of Scripture as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ and the consequent and deducible authority of Scripture.” Despite the many excellent statements and observations in the report it is our conviction that the report as a whole must be rejected. We believe that the committee in accepting an erroneous statement of the problem has been driven to erroneous conclusions. The statement of the problem already presupposes that the authority of the Bible depends upon its content and its purpose, and it is that assumption which should have been challenged at the outset. The authority of the Word of God does not depend on what is said, but on Who says it!
2. The committee in the development of its report takes note of two approaches to the matter of the Bible’s authority. One it sees maintaining that “The nature of biblical authority is simply and solely that it is divine. God speaks and therefore Scripture has divine authority.” “That is its nature and that may not be qualified in any way. Questions concerning its intent, meaning and applicability arise on the level of interpretation, not on the level of authority.” The other maintains that “the divine authority of Scripture is manifested only through its content as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ.” Its “‘nature and extent’ refer thus to the divine authority of Scripture as viewed in relationship to its content and purpose.” The committee proceeds to note “that both positions affirm the divine authority of the entire Scripture and that both are aware of the same issue, viz. the necessity for interpreting the various parts of Scripture in relationship to the central theme of Scripture. In effect, it declares both acceptable and in its further procedure evidently follows the latter.
We must note, however, that when one confesses; that the Bible is authoritative because God spoke it, it is manifestly contradictory to go on to say that this authority is in any way dependent on what was said and how we evaluate it. The committee has tried to do this and, of course, has ended in contradictions.
3. The error is made worse when the Bible’s authority is not only made to depend on its content and its purpose, but these are further defined (and limited) “as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ.” Does not this statement of the matter make the authority of God subservient to and dependent on the salvation of men? God is deprived of the authority to say anything in the Bible that isn’t saving; and man also, in fact, becomes the authority who decides what in the Bible is saving!
4. Although the committee makes many excellent, mostly critical, observations regarding the “new hermeneutic,” these do not warrant the church accepting a report that is basically a compromise with error.
5. The compromising character of the report appears even more plainly in its dealing with Genesis 1–11. Despite all of its fine insistence on the historicity of Biblical events, at this point it leaves room for two opinions. One opinion, while “granting the essential historicity of these chapters . . . argues that they should not be interpreted as a literal description of events.” Here again instead of insisting all the authority of fact and command in the Bible because God stated them, the report declares legitimate a view that denies them.
6. And the reason advanced for this compromise with unbelief is this: “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 . . .” It is by no means apparent that such interpreting away the Bible’s “literal description of events” can be harmonized with the statements of our confessions. Doesn’t such treatment of the Scriptures flatly contradict the “believing without any doubt all things contained” in the Scriptures which we confess in Article V of the Belgic Confession?
7. Even if the kind of interpreting away of Biblical “description of events” could somehow be defended as not contradicting the creeds, does the committee’s procedure in dealing with this matter not place the creeds above the Scriptures? It is saying in effect that one may manipulate the Bible in whatever way he pleases as long as he doesn’t contradict the creeds! Because the creeds were formulated in times when modern forms of double-talk regarding the Bible were not yet in vogue, the committee report demands that we must tolerate them in the churches.
We must at this point differ sharply with the report and call attention to the fact that the Bible is the Word of God and takes precedence over the creeds. While we must certainly be guided by it as a whole rather than viewing it as a collection of unrelated details and seek to understand each part of it in its context rather than in the abstract, we may not tolerate any rejection or distortion of any part of it just because existing creeds may not deal with precisely that form of error. The Bible insists that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” and must be believed and obeyed down to the last detail (“jot or . . . tittle”, (Matt, 5:18, II Tim. 3:16).
Conclusion: While we must acknowledge the limitations of our own knowledge (“we know in part” –1 Cor. 13:9, 12) and be patient with the weaknesses and errors of others, we may not on a matter as fundamental to the faith and life of the church as the authority of the Word of God, compromise with modern forms of unbelief in order to preserve the peace of the church. Since our churches now face this issue in the Report which we have been asked to study, let us urge upon our coming Synods that they reject explicitly the views that the committee report would tolerate: (1) that the nature and extent of the Bible’s authority is determined not by its character as God’s Word but by its function as saving revelation to men, and (2) that as long as one concedes “the essential historicity” of the early chapters of Genesis, he is at liberty to deny their character as “literal description of events.” Let us overture the Synods to declare that the Scriptures must be honored in their totality as God’s Word, whose authority is in no way qualified by the historical circumstances in which they were given or by the men through whom they were given, that as churches and Christians we must receive “the word of the message, even the word of God . . . not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God” (I Thess. 2:13) and that no departure from this Biblical teaching of the Bible’s authority will be tolerated among us.
Today our churches, along with those of many other denominations, are facing increasing controversy regarding the authority of the Bible on which the Christian faith is based. If we arc no longer sure of the authority of the Bible as the Word of God, we lose all ground for any assurance for our own faith and for our witness to the world. In our churches attention is being called to this critically important matter by the 36-page Report Number 36 submitted to our last Synod and now referred to the churches for study. That report deals with the “Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority.”
As discussion and controversy have begun regarding this report, it seems to us that several facts are becoming increasingly clear:
1. Because of questions raised by the Reformed Churches of The Netherlands the committee was appointed to study this subject and especially “the connection between the content and purpose of Scripture as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ and the consequent and deducible authority of Scripture.” Despite the many excellent statements and observations in the report it is our conviction that the report as a whole must be rejected. We believe that the committee in accepting an erroneous statement of the problem has been driven to erroneous conclusions. The statement of the problem already presupposes that the authority of the Bible depends upon its content and its purpose, and it is that assumption which should have been challenged at the outset. The authority of the Word of God does not depend on what is said, but on Who says it!
2. The committee in the development of its report takes note of two approaches to the matter of the Bible’s authority. One it sees maintaining that “The nature of biblical authority is simply and solely that it is divine. God speaks and therefore Scripture has divine authority.” “That is its nature and that may not be qualified in any way. Questions concerning its intent, meaning and applicability arise on the level of interpretation, not on the level of authority.” The other maintains that “the divine authority of Scripture is manifested only through its content as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ.” Its “‘nature and extent’ refer thus to the divine authority of Scripture as viewed in relationship to its content and purpose.” The committee proceeds to note “that both positions affirm the divine authority of the entire Scripture and that both are aware of the same issue, viz. the necessity for interpreting the various parts of Scripture in relationship to the central theme of Scripture. In effect, it declares both acceptable and in its further procedure evidently follows the latter.
We must note, however, that when one confesses; that the Bible is authoritative because God spoke it, it is manifestly contradictory to go on to say that this authority is in any way dependent on what was said and how we evaluate it. The committee has tried to do this and, of course, has ended in contradictions.
3. The error is made worse when the Bible’s authority is not only made to depend on its content and its purpose, but these are further defined (and limited) “as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ.” Does not this statement of the matter make the authority of God subservient to and dependent on the salvation of men? God is deprived of the authority to say anything in the Bible that isn’t saving; and man also, in fact, becomes the authority who decides what in the Bible is saving!
4. Although the committee makes many excellent, mostly critical, observations regarding the “new hermeneutic,” these do not warrant the church accepting a report that is basically a compromise with error.
5. The compromising character of the report appears even more plainly in its dealing with Genesis 1–11. Despite all of its fine insistence on the historicity of Biblical events, at this point it leaves room for two opinions. One opinion, while “granting the essential historicity of these chapters . . . argues that they should not be interpreted as a literal description of events.” Here again instead of insisting all the authority of fact and command in the Bible because God stated them, the report declares legitimate a view that denies them.
6. And the reason advanced for this compromise with unbelief is this: “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 . . .” It is by no means apparent that such interpreting away the Bible’s “literal description of events” can be harmonized with the statements of our confessions. Doesn’t such treatment of the Scriptures flatly contradict the “believing without any doubt all things contained” in the Scriptures which we confess in Article V of the Belgic Confession?
7. Even if the kind of interpreting away of Biblical “description of events” could somehow be defended as not contradicting the creeds, does the committee’s procedure in dealing with this matter not place the creeds above the Scriptures? It is saying in effect that one may manipulate the Bible in whatever way he pleases as long as he doesn’t contradict the creeds! Because the creeds were formulated in times when modern forms of double-talk regarding the Bible were not yet in vogue, the committee report demands that we must tolerate them in the churches.
We must at this point differ sharply with the report and call attention to the fact that the Bible is the Word of God and takes precedence over the creeds. While we must certainly be guided by it as a whole rather than viewing it as a collection of unrelated details and seek to understand each part of it in its context rather than in the abstract, we may not tolerate any rejection or distortion of any part of it just because existing creeds may not deal with precisely that form of error. The Bible insists that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” and must be believed and obeyed down to the last detail (“jot or . . . tittle”, (Matt, 5:18, II Tim. 3:16).
Conclusion: While we must acknowledge the limitations of our own knowledge (“we know in part” –1 Cor. 13:9, 12) and be patient with the weaknesses and errors of others, we may not on a matter as fundamental to the faith and life of the church as the authority of the Word of God, compromise with modern forms of unbelief in order to preserve the peace of the church. Since our churches now face this issue in the Report which we have been asked to study, let us urge upon our coming Synods that they reject explicitly the views that the committee report would tolerate: (1) that the nature and extent of the Bible’s authority is determined not by its character as God’s Word but by its function as saving revelation to men, and (2) that as long as one concedes “the essential historicity” of the early chapters of Genesis, he is at liberty to deny their character as “literal description of events.” Let us overture the Synods to declare that the Scriptures must be honored in their totality as God’s Word, whose authority is in no way qualified by the historical circumstances in which they were given or by the men through whom they were given, that as churches and Christians we must receive “the word of the message, even the word of God . . . not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God” (I Thess. 2:13) and that no departure from this Biblical teaching of the Bible’s authority will be tolerated among us.