The March OUTLOOK contained the first of a series of articles, suggested by the Reformed Fellowship’s Board, which would call attention to basic issues which trouble our churches. Because we are to do this by presenting side-by-side (1) the historic, Biblical, Reformed view and (2) the emerging, changing, broadening view held by an increasing number in our churches, it seemed appropriate first to show the need for presenting our problems as a confrontation between two opposite, irreconcilable views. Therefore we considered “I. The Nature of t he Problem: The Biblical Antithesis.”
Proceeding now to consider particular issues that trouble us, we see more and more clearly that the one that underlies many, perhaps all of the rest is the issue of (2) The Authority: God’s Inviolable Word. The changes and confusion of our times compel us to face the basic questions of what we must believe and what we must do and why we must believe and do them. That is the question of authority. We are driven back to God’s Word as the authority for Christian faith and life. (See Luke 6:46–49 for example, where the Lord says that that only what is based on His Word will endure.)
Appeals to that authority, however, do not seem to be settling our controversies, for the Bible is cited by t hose on both sides of every issue. Why does appeal to the Bible not help us? Does it give us no clear direction? The answer to those questions is that we are faced by especially two different ways of regarding and using the Bible (what is often called the problem of interpretation, or “hermeneutics”). Consider, in broad outline, the two views:
II The Authority: God’s Inviolable Word.
(1) THE BIBLICAL, REFORMED VIEW
The Bible is God’s Word. Although it was spoken and written, to and through men it is still the direct revelation of God and it must always be received and obeyed as that (1 Thess. 2:13). It is inspired by God not merely in its main teachings but even in its words. This is the claim made regarding it throughout the Bible, but especially by the Lord Himself. (See, for example, Matt. 5:17-19; John 10:35; Luke 24:25–27, 44–47; 1 Cor. 2:11–13; 2 Peter 1:16–21; 2 Tim. 3:13–17).
God’s covenant of grace with His people is not only a personal revelation and relationship, but it is defined and insured, just as important human relationships are, by the inviolable terms of a written document or “contract” (Gal. 3:13–17; compare the terms “Book of the Covenant,” “Old and New Testament,” etc.) This Word of God may have to be interpreted and applied, and may confront us with questions which we cannot answer, but it sternly warns us that if we “critically” alter, add to or take away from it we violate its terms and are condemned by it (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18, 19). When the Bible claims such inviolable authority as God’s Word we may not approve or tolerate any weaker or lesser view of it. We must re gard it as “inspired” by God, therefore “infallible” and “inerrant,” “believing without any doubt all things contained in it” (Belgic Confession V).
We may not be diverted from this clear claim of the Bible by allegations that the Holy Spirit is now leading scholars or the church to other, better ways. We are warned to “Believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits whether they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Any spirit who leads men to contradict the Bible is not the Holy Spirit, but the devil and we must resist him with “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Eph. 6:17).
(2) THE BROADENING VIEW
The Bible, although God’s Word, (or a “form” or “record” of it), is also the word of men, for it was mediated through men like ourselves. It is therefore subject to all of the limitations of human weakness and imperfection and of the changes and cultural conditioning of man’s history. It contains diverse and conflicting theologies. Its authority must not be taken as applying to all of its details, but only to its “content and purpose as saving revelation of God in Christ.”
We must understand its “authority” not by naively appealing to what some biblical writers said, but by critically studying it in the light of modern knowledge to determine what kind of book it really is. Its “inspiration,” “infallibility” or “inerrancy” (if one wants to keep those terms) must be understood as “functional,” not as meaning that it is without mistakes, but that it will surely do what the Lord intended it to do. Therefore we may take Genesis, not as an actual account of our (evolutionary) origins, but as symbolic of important principles. Perhaps Moses did not write the first books, Jonah was not literal history, Isaiah had more than one author, Daniel was not written till long after Daniel’s time and Jesus was not virgin born and Jesus did not say or dow what the gospels record. Even Jesus‘ remarks about such matters settle nothing, for (1) he accommodated himself to his times, (2) he didn’t know everything, (3) and we do not know with any certainty anything which he actually said or did. In matters of faith and life we must use the Bible with discretion, distinguishing in the light of current, scholarship, present circumstances and our own experience, what in it is still relevant and what is no longer applicable in our time. Our faith is not to rest on the Bible as record of past revelation and of the churches‘ experience, but on the present and continuing work of the Holy Spirit who guarantees that the church and its faith will endure.
