“Confusing” is the word for it.
One Word of God or three—which is right?
Unless our thinking about the Bible is straight as a rule and clear as crystal we are in for trouble. As “a lamp unto my feet and light unto my path,” the Bible must shine in all its brightness, undimmed by thought or talk that may obscure rather than accentuate its luster.
That thought hit me hard a few weeks ago when as a congregation we were reading the Form for the Ordination of Elders and Deacons. Confusion and uncertainty about the Bible as the Word of God means trouble. And this is something we positively cannot justify or afford. Clarity about Scripture is most emphatically of the essence at any time, and especially at such a time as this.
Permit me to explain.
Historically, in speaking of “the Word of God,” we meant the Bible. That has long been a settled matter for us. If one would want to speak of Christ as “the Word” (John 1:1) or God’s general revelation in nature, he would take pains to say so. However, today we arc hearing and reading increasingly about “the threefold Word of God”; and the danger of confusion and uncertainty that may arise is one we positively should avoid.
A Look at the Forms – According to the historic conception among us, the Word of God and tile Bible arc regarded as one and the same. This is obvious from our Forms for the Ordination of those who hold office in the church. In each case a question is addressed to those about to be ordained or installed that makes this clear beyond a doubt. Note the following:
Question addressed to Ministers: “Do you believe the writings of the Old and the New Testament to be the only Word of God. and the complete doctrine of salvation, and do you reject all doctrines conflicting( therewith?” To this the minister replies: “I do, with all my heart.”
Question addressed to Elders and Deacons: “Do you believe the Old and the New Testament to be the only Word of God, and the doctrinal standards; of this church to be in harmony therewith?” To this the elders and deacons reply individually: “I do.”
Question addressed to Professors of Theology: “Do you believe the writings of the Old and the New Testament to be the only Word of God? Do you reject all doctrines which conflict with them, and do you accept the doctrinal standards; of the Christian Reformed Church as the purest interpretation of the doctrine of salvation?” To this the professors of theology reply: “I do, with all my heart.”
Question addressed to Missionaries: D0 you believe the writings of the Old and the New Testament to be the only Word of God and the complete doctrine of salvation, and do you reject all doctrines conflicting with them?” To this the missionaries reply: “I do, with all my heart.”
The Forms from which the above excerpts are taken appear in the Psalter Hymnal, pages 101–112. Italics in each case have been added to make the point that, according to the conception long accepted among us, when we say the Word of God we mean the Bible. It is to be expected therefore that any departure from this usage easily leads to misunderstanding and confusion.
A Different Terminology – It is obvious from the foregoing that in the Christian Reformed Church all elders and deacons, ministers, professors of theology, and missionaries have solemnly stated before God and His church that they believe Scripture to be the only Word of God. However, today new terminology about the Word of God is being introduced among us, and we are frankly dubious about its use if we are to keep our understanding of the rightful place of Scripture straight and clear.
Examples of this different terminology are at hand:
1. Recently Dr. Gordon J. Spykman was quoted in The Banner (Jan. 7, 1972, p. 17) as having said: “Returning in conclusion to a kind of point-of-departure in doing science every man just has to make up his mind about the threefold Word of God: What think ye of creation? What think ye of Scripture? What think ye of Christ?” (Italics added). Do we cite this to impugn or call into question Dr. Spykman’s view of Scripture? Not at all. Our aim is rather to give an example of the use of a different terminology about the Word of God than is found in our Forms for Ordination, and to express our misgivings about the wisdom of using it.
2. Dr. James Olthuis of Toronto teaches in matters of “Biblical prolegomena, ethics, and problems in theology.” He is one in the cluster of leading figures in the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship with its headquarters in Toronto, an organization listed in the Christian Reformed Church Yearbook as one worthy of receiving our financial contributions. Thus the AACS is of interest and concern to us, and we should take note of what its leaders have to say.
Perspective, Newsletter of the AACS (April 15, 1971), among other things, reports on an interview with Dr. Olthuis from which we quote the following to point out further what is being said about the Word of God and the Bible:
Interviewer: “What, briefly, is your view of the Word of God? Is the Word of God bigger than the Scriptures?”
Dr. Olthuis: “The Word of Cod upholds all of creation. In the beginning God put His Word to the world and it came forth; after man’s fall He inscripturated His Word in the Bible so that man could be directed to keep God’s Word again. In Jesus, the Christ, the Word of God made flesh, this became possible. The Word of God lives and stands forever, and that Word calls man to respond and obey. The Word of God for creation, in the Scriptures, and in Jesus Christ structures existence in every way; that Word makes discovery of an orderly world possible, for instance.
“We maintain that the Scriptures are the Word of God, but that the Word of God is bigger than the Scriptures. The Scriptures themselves teach us that Jesus Christ is the Word Incarnate; they also teach us that the Word of God holds for creation . . . that Word is the very condition of and structure for creaturely existence. Compare the last part of the Book of Job, or the first part of Hebrews, and many of the Psalms” (Italics added).
From other statements by Dr. Olthuis, it becomes increasingly clear that the interviewer should state: “It is impossible to boil down the thorough yet subtly phrased statements he [Dr. Olthuis] made in an hour and a half about many things . . .” Consider the following:
Interviewer: “How is Biblical confession different from theology?”
Dr. Olthuis: “We believe that the Scriptures arc a confessional book, and not a book of theology. Theology doesn’t examine God; it examines one aspect of man’s experience. Theology as a science involves abstraction; a confession of faith is an act which takes place with a man’s whole being and it’s a faith confession which affects whatever he does . . .” (Italics added).
To say that “the Scriptures are not a book of theology” is baff1ing, to say the least. Surely unless the Bible occupies first place among one’s books of theology, the results of his theologizing are bound to be disastrous.
Interviewer: “If you aren’t an ‘Old Moralist’ and you aren’t a ‘New Moralist,’ then are you a middle-of-the-roader?”
Dr. Olthuis: “No, I’m not. I would hope to be known as an ethicist of the Word. To use an analogy, the ‘New Morality’ frustrates man because it pretends that man can swim without any water—but the ‘Old Morality’ has frozen the water, not allowing the fish to swim at all, and the ‘New Morality’ has no water. I think that what is needed is that from time to time the water be changed, but that the Bowl, the Word of God, remains, providing the conditions and structure to make the environment, the ‘furnishings’ meaningful. And so our approach is not in between, but it structures the things rightly; and that’s why we can use so many things from the ‘Old Morality’ and the ‘New Morality’ and put them into the right structure, the right framework—the Word of God that holds for Creation” (italics added).
Although I have studied some theology and also ethics, once again 1 am baff1ed by this kind of language. Just what is this so-called ‘New Morality’? The following definition, I would say, hits the nail right on the head: “New Morality—Twentieth-century term for an attempt, popularized by such men as John Robinson and Douglas A. Rhymes, to base moral condl1ct on love alone” (The Dictionary of Religious Terms by Donald T. Kauffman, Fleming H. Revell Co.).
Can there be any doubt that this so-called ‘New Morality’ is an out-and-out abomination in the sight of a holy God? Pray tell me, how can we possibly “use so many things from . . . the ‘New Morality’”? And what does it mean that we can “put them into the right structure, the right framework—the Word of God that holds for creation”? Ethics is a very practical study supposed to deal with down-to-earth matters of right and wrong; but frankly, the language just quoted leaves me nonplussed.
3. Proposed Change in NUCS Bylaws – The final example of this new terminology about the Word of God concerns the National Union of Christian Schools. Last August at the annual meeting of the NUCS, the Board of Directors proposed for adoption the following Basis Article for the NUCS Bylaws:
“The basis of the National Union of Christian Schools is the Word of Cod manifest in creation, incarnate in Jesus Christ, and inscripturated in the Bible [All aside: I have yet to find a dictionary that lists “inscripturated.” This is regrettable because it serves so well to designate the written Word. Perhaps someone will eventually prevail upon Webster to adopt it. JVP] as it is confessed to be God’s Word in the Reformed creedal standards.
The delegates to the August 1971 NUCS Annual Meeting tabled this proposal for one year. One of the principal objections, according to the Editor of Christian Home and School “was with respect to the threefold application of the term ‘Word of God.’”
Editor John Vander Ark goes on to say in his November 1971 editorial: “I would not like to drop the threefold reference to the Word of God, but I can understand that majority opinion will favor retaining only the reference to the Bible as the basis. I happen to be impressed by the regularity with which the Bible binds creation to the Word of God. I am persuaded of the appropriateness of the threefold reference, too, by the knowledge that the Christian Reformed Board of Publications in its document, ‘Toward a Unified Church School Curriculum’ (Acts of Synod, 1970 p. 67) uses the same concepts but, admittedly, in different language. The fact that representatives from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Conference with the Christian Reformed Church body on this matter found nothing divisive about it is significant” (pp. 4, 5).
Observations – Of course, when such is properly understood and explained, it is not wrong or unscriptural to speak of the one Word of God in more than one sense: the written Word, Christ as the Word incarnate, divine revelation in nature, and God’s word of power (Psalm 33:6). However, there are considerations why we do well to give very serious thought to it before discarding om historic practice of meaning the Bible when we speak of the Word of God, unless we make clear why we have something else in mind.
1. A first consideration is that not only our Forms for Ordination, as we have already seen, but also our Doctrinal Standards mean the Bible when they speak of the Word of God. A single example from each of these three will suffice:
Belgic Confession (Art. II) “We know Him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book . . . Second, He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His holy and divine Word . . .”
Heidelberg Catechism (Q. and A. 21) “What is true faith? True faith is not only a sure knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word . . .”
Canons of Dort (V. Art. 10) – “This assurance, however, is not produced by any peculiar revelation contrary or independent of the Word of God, but springs from faith in God’s promises, which He has most abundantly revealed in H is Word for our comfort . . .”
These excerpts from our Doctrinal Standards (italics added in each case) make abundantly clear that for centuries now it has been taken for granted among those of Reformed persuasion that when the Word of God is mentioned we mean the Bible. Of course, the antiquity of this usage does not necessarily settle the matter of whether it should be continued or not. However, the burden of proof for now making a change does lie with those who advocate it should be done. Our Forms for Ordination and Doctrinal Standards should be honored on this score, unless there are compelling reasons that they be revised.
2. Another consideration is that we could propagate serious error if we speak of God’s general revelation in nature as if it is on a par with God’s special revelation in Scripture. Due to the coming of sin and the curse, man is no longer able to read God s revelation aright apart from “the spectacles of Scriphure.” At such a time as this, when natural science is on the throne and Scripture is being assailed from every side, we need to be on our guard more than ever against the introduction of terminology that may downgrade the preeminence of Scripture as our source of true knowledge.
Article II of the Belgic Confession is explicit about God making Himself known “by the creation, preservation and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book . . . However, it also spells out very clearly the superiority of His special revelation as follows: “Second He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His holy and divine Word, that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to His glory and our salvation” (Italics added).
3. Another source of error is to forget that we cannot know Christ, the incarnate Word, except as we come to know Him from the Bible as the written Word. Of course, Christ is the Person whom we know and serve as our Lord and Savior. To regard the Bible the same as we regard Christ would be bibliolatry. We believe the Bible but we believe in Christ. However, any knowledge we may suppose we have of Christ apart from the teaching of Scripture concerning Him is properly suspect. It is the written Word that bears witness of Christ as the incarnate Word.
Early in 1971, a conference was held in St. Catharines, Ontario “for the purpose of promoting unity and harmony in the Christian Reformed Community in Canada and a better understanding regarding the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship.” Included in “A Statement of Consensus” issued by this Conference was the following about the matter we are considering:
“In a discussion on the concept of ‘The Word of God’ it was agreed that the infallible Word of Scripture is the only source of our knowledge of Christ the incarnate Word and of the proclamation of the Word of the Gospel. The term ‘creation-word’ occasioned some debate. Its meanings, as expressed in the discussion, included the Word by which the Creator calls His world into being, the Word by which He holds His creation together, and the Word as it functions for and in the structures of creation. With reference to this last-mentioned usage there was agreement that no one should speak of this creation-word in isolation from the written word, or in isolation from Christ crucified, or for the purpose of demanding religious adhesion to a scientific conception of it. Others questioned either the value or the validity of this concept.”
We do appreciate this consensus on a matter of such great importance as what we believe, say, and write about the Word of God. Indeed, to be clear and explicit about something as basic as this is of the essence. To avoid confusion when speaking about the Word of God we certainly need to think, speak, and write with such Scriptural precision that there can be no question about the unique place to which Scripture alone is entitled.
One Word of God or three—which is right?
Unless our thinking about the Bible is straight as a rule and clear as crystal we are in for trouble. As “a lamp unto my feet and light unto my path,” the Bible must shine in all its brightness, undimmed by thought or talk that may obscure rather than accentuate its luster.
That thought hit me hard a few weeks ago when as a congregation we were reading the Form for the Ordination of Elders and Deacons. Confusion and uncertainty about the Bible as the Word of God means trouble. And this is something we positively cannot justify or afford. Clarity about Scripture is most emphatically of the essence at any time, and especially at such a time as this.
Permit me to explain.
Historically, in speaking of “the Word of God,” we meant the Bible. That has long been a settled matter for us. If one would want to speak of Christ as “the Word” (John 1:1) or God’s general revelation in nature, he would take pains to say so. However, today we arc hearing and reading increasingly about “the threefold Word of God”; and the danger of confusion and uncertainty that may arise is one we positively should avoid.
A Look at the Forms – According to the historic conception among us, the Word of God and tile Bible arc regarded as one and the same. This is obvious from our Forms for the Ordination of those who hold office in the church. In each case a question is addressed to those about to be ordained or installed that makes this clear beyond a doubt. Note the following:
Question addressed to Ministers: “Do you believe the writings of the Old and the New Testament to be the only Word of God. and the complete doctrine of salvation, and do you reject all doctrines conflicting( therewith?” To this the minister replies: “I do, with all my heart.”
Question addressed to Elders and Deacons: “Do you believe the Old and the New Testament to be the only Word of God, and the doctrinal standards; of this church to be in harmony therewith?” To this the elders and deacons reply individually: “I do.”
Question addressed to Professors of Theology: “Do you believe the writings of the Old and the New Testament to be the only Word of God? Do you reject all doctrines which conflict with them, and do you accept the doctrinal standards; of the Christian Reformed Church as the purest interpretation of the doctrine of salvation?” To this the professors of theology reply: “I do, with all my heart.”
Question addressed to Missionaries: D0 you believe the writings of the Old and the New Testament to be the only Word of God and the complete doctrine of salvation, and do you reject all doctrines conflicting with them?” To this the missionaries reply: “I do, with all my heart.”
The Forms from which the above excerpts are taken appear in the Psalter Hymnal, pages 101–112. Italics in each case have been added to make the point that, according to the conception long accepted among us, when we say the Word of God we mean the Bible. It is to be expected therefore that any departure from this usage easily leads to misunderstanding and confusion.
A Different Terminology – It is obvious from the foregoing that in the Christian Reformed Church all elders and deacons, ministers, professors of theology, and missionaries have solemnly stated before God and His church that they believe Scripture to be the only Word of God. However, today new terminology about the Word of God is being introduced among us, and we are frankly dubious about its use if we are to keep our understanding of the rightful place of Scripture straight and clear.
Examples of this different terminology are at hand:
1. Recently Dr. Gordon J. Spykman was quoted in The Banner (Jan. 7, 1972, p. 17) as having said: “Returning in conclusion to a kind of point-of-departure in doing science every man just has to make up his mind about the threefold Word of God: What think ye of creation? What think ye of Scripture? What think ye of Christ?” (Italics added). Do we cite this to impugn or call into question Dr. Spykman’s view of Scripture? Not at all. Our aim is rather to give an example of the use of a different terminology about the Word of God than is found in our Forms for Ordination, and to express our misgivings about the wisdom of using it.
2. Dr. James Olthuis of Toronto teaches in matters of “Biblical prolegomena, ethics, and problems in theology.” He is one in the cluster of leading figures in the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship with its headquarters in Toronto, an organization listed in the Christian Reformed Church Yearbook as one worthy of receiving our financial contributions. Thus the AACS is of interest and concern to us, and we should take note of what its leaders have to say.
Perspective, Newsletter of the AACS (April 15, 1971), among other things, reports on an interview with Dr. Olthuis from which we quote the following to point out further what is being said about the Word of God and the Bible:
Interviewer: “What, briefly, is your view of the Word of God? Is the Word of God bigger than the Scriptures?”
Dr. Olthuis: “The Word of Cod upholds all of creation. In the beginning God put His Word to the world and it came forth; after man’s fall He inscripturated His Word in the Bible so that man could be directed to keep God’s Word again. In Jesus, the Christ, the Word of God made flesh, this became possible. The Word of God lives and stands forever, and that Word calls man to respond and obey. The Word of God for creation, in the Scriptures, and in Jesus Christ structures existence in every way; that Word makes discovery of an orderly world possible, for instance.
“We maintain that the Scriptures are the Word of God, but that the Word of God is bigger than the Scriptures. The Scriptures themselves teach us that Jesus Christ is the Word Incarnate; they also teach us that the Word of God holds for creation . . . that Word is the very condition of and structure for creaturely existence. Compare the last part of the Book of Job, or the first part of Hebrews, and many of the Psalms” (Italics added).
From other statements by Dr. Olthuis, it becomes increasingly clear that the interviewer should state: “It is impossible to boil down the thorough yet subtly phrased statements he [Dr. Olthuis] made in an hour and a half about many things . . .” Consider the following:
Interviewer: “How is Biblical confession different from theology?”
Dr. Olthuis: “We believe that the Scriptures arc a confessional book, and not a book of theology. Theology doesn’t examine God; it examines one aspect of man’s experience. Theology as a science involves abstraction; a confession of faith is an act which takes place with a man’s whole being and it’s a faith confession which affects whatever he does . . .” (Italics added).
To say that “the Scriptures are not a book of theology” is baff1ing, to say the least. Surely unless the Bible occupies first place among one’s books of theology, the results of his theologizing are bound to be disastrous.
Interviewer: “If you aren’t an ‘Old Moralist’ and you aren’t a ‘New Moralist,’ then are you a middle-of-the-roader?”
Dr. Olthuis: “No, I’m not. I would hope to be known as an ethicist of the Word. To use an analogy, the ‘New Morality’ frustrates man because it pretends that man can swim without any water—but the ‘Old Morality’ has frozen the water, not allowing the fish to swim at all, and the ‘New Morality’ has no water. I think that what is needed is that from time to time the water be changed, but that the Bowl, the Word of God, remains, providing the conditions and structure to make the environment, the ‘furnishings’ meaningful. And so our approach is not in between, but it structures the things rightly; and that’s why we can use so many things from the ‘Old Morality’ and the ‘New Morality’ and put them into the right structure, the right framework—the Word of God that holds for Creation” (italics added).
Although I have studied some theology and also ethics, once again 1 am baff1ed by this kind of language. Just what is this so-called ‘New Morality’? The following definition, I would say, hits the nail right on the head: “New Morality—Twentieth-century term for an attempt, popularized by such men as John Robinson and Douglas A. Rhymes, to base moral condl1ct on love alone” (The Dictionary of Religious Terms by Donald T. Kauffman, Fleming H. Revell Co.).
Can there be any doubt that this so-called ‘New Morality’ is an out-and-out abomination in the sight of a holy God? Pray tell me, how can we possibly “use so many things from . . . the ‘New Morality’”? And what does it mean that we can “put them into the right structure, the right framework—the Word of God that holds for creation”? Ethics is a very practical study supposed to deal with down-to-earth matters of right and wrong; but frankly, the language just quoted leaves me nonplussed.
3. Proposed Change in NUCS Bylaws – The final example of this new terminology about the Word of God concerns the National Union of Christian Schools. Last August at the annual meeting of the NUCS, the Board of Directors proposed for adoption the following Basis Article for the NUCS Bylaws:
“The basis of the National Union of Christian Schools is the Word of Cod manifest in creation, incarnate in Jesus Christ, and inscripturated in the Bible [All aside: I have yet to find a dictionary that lists “inscripturated.” This is regrettable because it serves so well to designate the written Word. Perhaps someone will eventually prevail upon Webster to adopt it. JVP] as it is confessed to be God’s Word in the Reformed creedal standards.
The delegates to the August 1971 NUCS Annual Meeting tabled this proposal for one year. One of the principal objections, according to the Editor of Christian Home and School “was with respect to the threefold application of the term ‘Word of God.’”
Editor John Vander Ark goes on to say in his November 1971 editorial: “I would not like to drop the threefold reference to the Word of God, but I can understand that majority opinion will favor retaining only the reference to the Bible as the basis. I happen to be impressed by the regularity with which the Bible binds creation to the Word of God. I am persuaded of the appropriateness of the threefold reference, too, by the knowledge that the Christian Reformed Board of Publications in its document, ‘Toward a Unified Church School Curriculum’ (Acts of Synod, 1970 p. 67) uses the same concepts but, admittedly, in different language. The fact that representatives from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Conference with the Christian Reformed Church body on this matter found nothing divisive about it is significant” (pp. 4, 5).
Observations – Of course, when such is properly understood and explained, it is not wrong or unscriptural to speak of the one Word of God in more than one sense: the written Word, Christ as the Word incarnate, divine revelation in nature, and God’s word of power (Psalm 33:6). However, there are considerations why we do well to give very serious thought to it before discarding om historic practice of meaning the Bible when we speak of the Word of God, unless we make clear why we have something else in mind.
1. A first consideration is that not only our Forms for Ordination, as we have already seen, but also our Doctrinal Standards mean the Bible when they speak of the Word of God. A single example from each of these three will suffice:
Belgic Confession (Art. II) “We know Him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book . . . Second, He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His holy and divine Word . . .”
Heidelberg Catechism (Q. and A. 21) “What is true faith? True faith is not only a sure knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word . . .”
Canons of Dort (V. Art. 10) – “This assurance, however, is not produced by any peculiar revelation contrary or independent of the Word of God, but springs from faith in God’s promises, which He has most abundantly revealed in H is Word for our comfort . . .”
These excerpts from our Doctrinal Standards (italics added in each case) make abundantly clear that for centuries now it has been taken for granted among those of Reformed persuasion that when the Word of God is mentioned we mean the Bible. Of course, the antiquity of this usage does not necessarily settle the matter of whether it should be continued or not. However, the burden of proof for now making a change does lie with those who advocate it should be done. Our Forms for Ordination and Doctrinal Standards should be honored on this score, unless there are compelling reasons that they be revised.
2. Another consideration is that we could propagate serious error if we speak of God’s general revelation in nature as if it is on a par with God’s special revelation in Scripture. Due to the coming of sin and the curse, man is no longer able to read God s revelation aright apart from “the spectacles of Scriphure.” At such a time as this, when natural science is on the throne and Scripture is being assailed from every side, we need to be on our guard more than ever against the introduction of terminology that may downgrade the preeminence of Scripture as our source of true knowledge.
Article II of the Belgic Confession is explicit about God making Himself known “by the creation, preservation and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book . . . However, it also spells out very clearly the superiority of His special revelation as follows: “Second He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His holy and divine Word, that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to His glory and our salvation” (Italics added).
3. Another source of error is to forget that we cannot know Christ, the incarnate Word, except as we come to know Him from the Bible as the written Word. Of course, Christ is the Person whom we know and serve as our Lord and Savior. To regard the Bible the same as we regard Christ would be bibliolatry. We believe the Bible but we believe in Christ. However, any knowledge we may suppose we have of Christ apart from the teaching of Scripture concerning Him is properly suspect. It is the written Word that bears witness of Christ as the incarnate Word.
Early in 1971, a conference was held in St. Catharines, Ontario “for the purpose of promoting unity and harmony in the Christian Reformed Community in Canada and a better understanding regarding the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship.” Included in “A Statement of Consensus” issued by this Conference was the following about the matter we are considering:
“In a discussion on the concept of ‘The Word of God’ it was agreed that the infallible Word of Scripture is the only source of our knowledge of Christ the incarnate Word and of the proclamation of the Word of the Gospel. The term ‘creation-word’ occasioned some debate. Its meanings, as expressed in the discussion, included the Word by which the Creator calls His world into being, the Word by which He holds His creation together, and the Word as it functions for and in the structures of creation. With reference to this last-mentioned usage there was agreement that no one should speak of this creation-word in isolation from the written word, or in isolation from Christ crucified, or for the purpose of demanding religious adhesion to a scientific conception of it. Others questioned either the value or the validity of this concept.”
We do appreciate this consensus on a matter of such great importance as what we believe, say, and write about the Word of God. Indeed, to be clear and explicit about something as basic as this is of the essence. To avoid confusion when speaking about the Word of God we certainly need to think, speak, and write with such Scriptural precision that there can be no question about the unique place to which Scripture alone is entitled.