“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing. because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is ill truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (I Thess. 2:13).
Can’t We Quit Arguing about the Bible?
Haven’t we had more than enough discussion about the Bible? After two Synod reports totaling more than 85 pages and more than two years of discussion, can’t we agree to drop this matter and go on to some worthwhile united action—to Evangelism Thrust, or to Christian political or social action, or to trying to get the churches together?
I can appreciate such a sentiment, and in some degree I share it. No one better realizes how wearisome extended discussions and debates can be than those who have participated in them. Yet l am convinced that, whether we like it or not, we cannot avoid further discussion about the authority of the Bible. The reason for this is that as soon as we try to engage in some of these other, more “practical” matters we encounter increasing confusion and frustration because of differences of opinion as to what we must do and how’ we must do it.
And the more serious of those differences of opinion can be traced right back to the unresolved questions about the authority which should determine what a Christian must do and how he must do it, that is, about the Word of God.
The Problem in Evangelism
Do you doubt this? Look at Evangelism Thrust. Are its suggested preliminary discussions not already showing deep-seated differences of opinion about what the Christian and church are, what they must believe, what the missionary duty is, and how it should be carried out? Can such basic confusion of counsel be expected to produce united action?
The Problem in Christian Action
Look at proposals for Christian political and social action—those of the AACS (Association for Advancement of Christian Scholarship—Toronto, Ontario) for example. Why can’t all of us Reformed Christians forget our differences and join in such common action, as we are being urged to do? The answer is that we can hardly act together unless we can reach some agreement on what that action is to be.
It becomes increasingly evident that the deepest reason why we can’t reach such agreement is that we do not have a common authority which tells us what to do. Those who attempt to be guided by the Bible as the unique Word of God feel called to a different kind of action from those who believe that the Bible is only one of several “forms” of the Word of God, the understanding and use of which must be conditioned by the changing understanding of Creation (as also the “Word of God”) and the Christian experience in proclamation (as also a “form” of the “Word of God”).
The Problem in Uniting Churches
Efforts to get Christians and churches together prove to be just as frustrating, and for the same reason! The thirteen-year old special efforts to achieve closer relations between the Christian Reformed and the Orthodox Presbyterian Churches are now being discontinued. Why? Because of the Orthodox Presbyterian’s lack of confidence in our faithfulness to the Reformed faith. Significantly, the report of our Christian Reformed committee observed: “Perhaps the most crucial issue concerns the infallibility and inspiration of the Scriptures” (Acts 1972, p. 361).
This Fall representatives of our church arc to meet with those of the Reformed Church of America to promote closer unity between the two denominations. In this connection, I was intrigued by a letter of the Rev. Franklin Spoolstra which appeared in the Reformed Church’s September 22 Church Herald Commenting, not on the union talks, but on the general situation within that denomination, he “observed that the real problem that divides us is singular—the authority and the normative value of the infallible Word of God! To put it another way, there is a difference between the ‘hath God said’ (on the part of those who would discount the authority of the Scriptures) and the ‘thus saith the Lord’ (of those who still see in the Scriptures the only rule for faith and life in our homes, churches and world). Our real problem, and only serious one, is that we have in our fold those who do not hold to the authority and normative value of the infallible Word of God. How we ever got together is an enigma to me. How we can live together in unity in that kind of an atmosphere is an even greater enigma!” Could uniting such internally divided churches produce a real or happy union?
Differences of the same kind have been threatening the continuation of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. The Reformed Churches of The Netherlands, in contrast with most of the other member churches, have joined the World Council of Churches in spite of the Bible’s warning against “being unequally yoked with unbelievers,” have ordained women as elders and ministers, in spite of the Bible’s teaching to the contrary, and have refused to discipline leaders in the church who even deny doctrines as fundamental as creation and Christ’s atonement.
Our View of the Bible is Fundamental
To understand the nature of our difficulty we must recognize that this matter of the Bible’s authority is not just an obscure problem of interest to a few theologians and professors. Its implications affect every area of Christian life and every doctrine of the Christian faith.
This matter affects how the parent must train his child (in the old-fashioned biblical “training and discipline of the Lord” or in the latest theories of psychologists, sociologists and educational experts). It affects sex morality. (“Thou shalt not commit adultery!” or “What’s wrong with loving somebody else if nobody gets hurt?”) It affects our use of property. The Bible says, “Thou shalt not steal,” and “Thou shalt not covet . . . anything that is thy neighbor’s”; social theorists and modern theologians are telling us, “Don’t blame poor people for taking things they should have been given long ago!”
This matter affects our respect for life. The Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill!” and “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed.” But our courts and lawmakers at the instigation especially of religious leaders have outlawed capital punishment and are sanctioning the murder of lens of thousands of unborn children in the name of humanitarianism and “Christian clarity.”
In a similar way every Christian doctrine is involved in these differing and changing views of the Bible’s authority—Creation, man’s nature, the fall, the character of sin, judgment, salvation, the Trinity, the person of Christ, His virgin birth, atonement, resurrection, return and the Church—there is not a doctrine of the Christian faith that is not involved in these questions about the Bible’s authority.
The Bible: Word of God, Word of Man, or Both?
What is the real “problem” in this discussion regarding the Bible’s authority? Stated very simply it may he said to be this: Is the Bible to be regarded as God’s Word, or man’s word, or a combination of the two? That this brings us into the heart of the matter becomes apparent in the Reports at the CRC Synods.
The common orthodox view and the view stated in the CRC treatment of the subject stressed the fact that the Bible must be regarded as the Word of God. The RES (Reformed Ecumenical Synod) statement of 1958 and the Christian Reformed statement of 1961 both placed a great deal of emphasis on that. According to the CRC Synod Report 44 (Acts 1972, p. 503) the Synod of the Gereformeerde Kerken in 1961 expressed the “general criticism” that the 1958 resolutions of the RES, while stressing the divine character of Scripture, failed to do justice to the “human side of Scripture.”
The Dutch churches felt that such statements were no longer adequate “in the context of the questions being asked today. In this century there has been a tremendous increase in knowledge concerning the past history of mankind. In addition, modern man is conscious of his distance from that past, and he is aware of the differences in the human situation as man moves from one era to the next. Consequently, because Scripture is in one sense an historical book recording past events and written by men who lived many centuries ago, questions are being asked today precisely about that historical character of Scripture. Is the authority of Scripture in any way influenced or qualified by its historical character? That is the question that must be answered today.”
At the risk of oversimplifying the situation we may observe that the old, orthodox view insisted that the Bible is the Word of God; the liberals have been saying that it is the word of man; and now it is being urged upon us that to do justice to today’s problems we must regard and treat it as both the Word of God and the word of man.
Professor H. Pietersma’s View
This latter viewpoint was stated very plainly by Prof. H. Pietersma in the June 19 Calvinist Contact. Reacting to a Reformed Fellowship rally he had attended the previous evening, he judged that both speakers at that rally had so strongly affirmed “the divinity of the Bible” that they had “implicity denied the humanity of the Bible.” He therefore pronounced us “unorthodox,” “un-Reformed” and “un-biblical.” In his view, one must stress both the divinity and the humanity of the Bible in order to be Reformed.
This creates “questions and problems.” “You affirm strongly what the Spirit has taught us, namely that the Bible is God’s Word. But it is true that God’s Word came to us filtered through human minds. Therefore, when you confess the authority and infallibility the Bible possesses for you, you lay yourself open for questions. What is infallible? Do you mean to say that whatever is spoken of in that book you call Bible is accepted by you as truth? Do you, for example, believe today that the earth is flat? . . . When we speak about the Bible’s authority we speak about a hook that has been opened to us by God. On all its pages we hear human voices. But in those voices the Spirit that inspired them has taught us to hear a specific content or message and to discern a specific divine purpose. We would no longer be orthodox if we denied that the Bible as a whole is God’s Word. But neither would we be orthodox if we denied that the Bible in all its parts is human. To make both affirmations, I dare say, is to be orthodox and Reformed.”1
Is this now the “Reformed,” “biblical” and “orthodox” view to which we in this time must come: that while the Bible is the Word of God, we must affirm just as emphatically that it is in the word of man, in which, despite all of the human limitations through which everything must be “altered,” the Holy Spirit still leads us to detect a divine message and saving purpose? Professor Pietersma, our Dutch sister churches, and many others are now telling us that this is the case. And we can see how they arrive at this view with all of its accompanying problems. But must we now all accept it?
The Bible’s Answer
The decisive consideration against accepting this view is that it is not merely different from but exactly opposite to that which we find in the Bible itself. This is nowhere stated more plainly than in the first letter of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, in the passage quoted at the beginning of this article (2:13): “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
Notice that Paul does not say, as Dr. Pietersma’s explanation of the matter would demand: “We thank God that when you received the word which you heard of us you received it as both the word of men and the word of God.” He thanked God that they “received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God”! What does this mean? Can they ignore, must they deny that Paul was the man who preached and taught it to them? Of course not! Paul’s personal involvement and activity stand out in almost every verse of the chapter—his coming to them (vs. I), his speaking (vss. 2, 3, 4, 5) his attitude (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11), etc. But this is not what was important. This is not what gave his work and preaching significance. Historical and psychological study of Paul’s character and background does not enable one to understand his gospel—in fact it would lead one away from it—if that were all that were involved he’d probably have remained the enemy of the gospel he had been. One simply cannot properly understand or appreciate Paul’s labor or message or the church—or anything else about Christianity, unless he sees what Paul thanked God the Thessalonians had seen, that what he had been preaching was “—not the word of men, but . . . in truth the word of God.” Paul’s own tireless and amazing labors, the remarkable response of the Thessalonians (chapter 1), and the tremendous influence of both are intelligible only when one sees and puts all emphasis on the fact this is not man’s word but God’s!
In other words, in the Bible’s own teaching the so-called “human” and “divine” side of the Bible are not correlatives to be equally stressed, to be “kept in balance,” two principles between which we have to try to worm our tortuous way through the multitude of problems which this approach is creating. To present matters in this way, the Bible makes plain, is to completely misunderstand the situation. It is to invite confusion where we need clarity, to multiply problems where we need solutions.
The Bible leads us out of the confusion by reminding us that it is God’s Word and that this fact overshadows and controls everything in it. The Bible is not as we have been told “time-bound.” The Word of God (in this respect too) is not “bound.” Its message does not have to be “filtered through” human limitations as Dr. Pietersma would have it. Dr. B.B. Warfield long ago pointed out the fallacy of such a view. (The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. 153): “The Biblical writers do not conceive of the Scriptures as a human product breathed into by the Divine Spirit, and thus heightened in its qualities or endowed with new qualities, but as a Divine product produced through the instrumentality of men. They do not conceive of these men, by whose instrumentality Scripture is produced, as working upon their own initiative, though energized by God to greater effort and higher achievement, but as moved by the Divine initiative and borne by the irresistible power of the Spirit of God along ways of his choosing to ends of his appointment.”
A little later (p. 155 f.) Warfield goes on to point out the error of assuming that “the human characteristics of the writers must . . . condition and qualify the writings produced by them, the implication being that, therefore, we cannot get from man a pure word of God. As light that passes through the colored glass of a cathedral window, we are told . . . is stained by the tints of the glass through which it passes; so any word of God which is passed through the mind and soul of a man must come out discolored by the personality through which it is given, and just to that degree ceases to be the pure word of God.” Warfield goes on to correct this statement of the case by observing: “But what if this personality has itself been formed by God into precisely the personality it is, for the express purpose of communicating to the word given through it just the coloring which it gives it?”
The Orthodox Presbyterian Statement
The 37th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, dealing with the subject of the inspiration of the Bible, pointed out that “God employed men, without violence to the full range and integrity of their personalities . . . . Careful attention to the writings of the various authors in all their respective individuality and particularity . . . serves to disclose in all the richness of its diversity the organic character of the unity of biblical revelation. Nevertheless, all such reflection must remain within and be controlled by the recognition that in the most proper sense of the word God is the final and sole author of the text of Scripture. It is striking that when Scripture itself explicitly conjoins the activity of God and men in the production of Scripture, it does so for the express purpose of subordinating the function of the human writers that it may thereby magnify the divine origin and character of what is written.”
God’s Word Works in the Believer
Paul thanked God that the Thessalonians received the word heard from him, “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God,” and he adds, the significant statement: “which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” The Word, seen for what it is and so received, worked savingly and powerfully in the believers. 1t did that in Paul and in the Thessalonians. It has continued to work in that way in the believer and the believing church. But it does not so work and it cannot be expected to so work in the heart of man or the church who do not believe it!
The bankruptcy of churches and “Christian” activities that are tampering with or rejecting the Bible as the Word of God is being demonstrated daily. The wretched plight of our sister churches in The Netherlands is demonstrating that. And the increasing confusion in our own is threatening to do the same. If we are going to expect God’s blessing on our evangelism program we shall have to take much more seriously than we often do the full authority of God’s Word both regarding message and method. God has said He works in that way!
And if we are going to see any significant Christian social and political action we shall have to submit without quibbling to what God’s Word teaches about the proper position and action of the believer is such matters. And if our efforts to achieve unity of fellowship and action within and beyond the denominational boundaries are to be significant we must be inspired and directed by God’s Word, received “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God.”
1. Notice the evident subjectivism of Dr. Pietersma’s statement of the case. The “infallibility” of the Bible is not that of whatever the Book says, but it is only of the specific message and divine purpose which you, believing you are guided by the Holy Spirit, discern in it! The infallibility has shifted from the Bible to the hearer. And since the Bible is no longer decisive in determining what is true, holy do you know that in your choice of what you are going to consider infallible you are not being misled by the Devil masquerading as an “angel of light” instead of led by the Holy Spirit? The fatal error of all such subjectivism is that it no longer sees the need and has lost the means to “try the spirits whether they are of God” (I John 4:1–3).
Can’t We Quit Arguing about the Bible?
Haven’t we had more than enough discussion about the Bible? After two Synod reports totaling more than 85 pages and more than two years of discussion, can’t we agree to drop this matter and go on to some worthwhile united action—to Evangelism Thrust, or to Christian political or social action, or to trying to get the churches together?
I can appreciate such a sentiment, and in some degree I share it. No one better realizes how wearisome extended discussions and debates can be than those who have participated in them. Yet l am convinced that, whether we like it or not, we cannot avoid further discussion about the authority of the Bible. The reason for this is that as soon as we try to engage in some of these other, more “practical” matters we encounter increasing confusion and frustration because of differences of opinion as to what we must do and how’ we must do it.
And the more serious of those differences of opinion can be traced right back to the unresolved questions about the authority which should determine what a Christian must do and how he must do it, that is, about the Word of God.
The Problem in Evangelism
Do you doubt this? Look at Evangelism Thrust. Are its suggested preliminary discussions not already showing deep-seated differences of opinion about what the Christian and church are, what they must believe, what the missionary duty is, and how it should be carried out? Can such basic confusion of counsel be expected to produce united action?
The Problem in Christian Action
Look at proposals for Christian political and social action—those of the AACS (Association for Advancement of Christian Scholarship—Toronto, Ontario) for example. Why can’t all of us Reformed Christians forget our differences and join in such common action, as we are being urged to do? The answer is that we can hardly act together unless we can reach some agreement on what that action is to be.
It becomes increasingly evident that the deepest reason why we can’t reach such agreement is that we do not have a common authority which tells us what to do. Those who attempt to be guided by the Bible as the unique Word of God feel called to a different kind of action from those who believe that the Bible is only one of several “forms” of the Word of God, the understanding and use of which must be conditioned by the changing understanding of Creation (as also the “Word of God”) and the Christian experience in proclamation (as also a “form” of the “Word of God”).
The Problem in Uniting Churches
Efforts to get Christians and churches together prove to be just as frustrating, and for the same reason! The thirteen-year old special efforts to achieve closer relations between the Christian Reformed and the Orthodox Presbyterian Churches are now being discontinued. Why? Because of the Orthodox Presbyterian’s lack of confidence in our faithfulness to the Reformed faith. Significantly, the report of our Christian Reformed committee observed: “Perhaps the most crucial issue concerns the infallibility and inspiration of the Scriptures” (Acts 1972, p. 361).
This Fall representatives of our church arc to meet with those of the Reformed Church of America to promote closer unity between the two denominations. In this connection, I was intrigued by a letter of the Rev. Franklin Spoolstra which appeared in the Reformed Church’s September 22 Church Herald Commenting, not on the union talks, but on the general situation within that denomination, he “observed that the real problem that divides us is singular—the authority and the normative value of the infallible Word of God! To put it another way, there is a difference between the ‘hath God said’ (on the part of those who would discount the authority of the Scriptures) and the ‘thus saith the Lord’ (of those who still see in the Scriptures the only rule for faith and life in our homes, churches and world). Our real problem, and only serious one, is that we have in our fold those who do not hold to the authority and normative value of the infallible Word of God. How we ever got together is an enigma to me. How we can live together in unity in that kind of an atmosphere is an even greater enigma!” Could uniting such internally divided churches produce a real or happy union?
Differences of the same kind have been threatening the continuation of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. The Reformed Churches of The Netherlands, in contrast with most of the other member churches, have joined the World Council of Churches in spite of the Bible’s warning against “being unequally yoked with unbelievers,” have ordained women as elders and ministers, in spite of the Bible’s teaching to the contrary, and have refused to discipline leaders in the church who even deny doctrines as fundamental as creation and Christ’s atonement.
Our View of the Bible is Fundamental
To understand the nature of our difficulty we must recognize that this matter of the Bible’s authority is not just an obscure problem of interest to a few theologians and professors. Its implications affect every area of Christian life and every doctrine of the Christian faith.
This matter affects how the parent must train his child (in the old-fashioned biblical “training and discipline of the Lord” or in the latest theories of psychologists, sociologists and educational experts). It affects sex morality. (“Thou shalt not commit adultery!” or “What’s wrong with loving somebody else if nobody gets hurt?”) It affects our use of property. The Bible says, “Thou shalt not steal,” and “Thou shalt not covet . . . anything that is thy neighbor’s”; social theorists and modern theologians are telling us, “Don’t blame poor people for taking things they should have been given long ago!”
This matter affects our respect for life. The Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill!” and “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed.” But our courts and lawmakers at the instigation especially of religious leaders have outlawed capital punishment and are sanctioning the murder of lens of thousands of unborn children in the name of humanitarianism and “Christian clarity.”
In a similar way every Christian doctrine is involved in these differing and changing views of the Bible’s authority—Creation, man’s nature, the fall, the character of sin, judgment, salvation, the Trinity, the person of Christ, His virgin birth, atonement, resurrection, return and the Church—there is not a doctrine of the Christian faith that is not involved in these questions about the Bible’s authority.
The Bible: Word of God, Word of Man, or Both?
What is the real “problem” in this discussion regarding the Bible’s authority? Stated very simply it may he said to be this: Is the Bible to be regarded as God’s Word, or man’s word, or a combination of the two? That this brings us into the heart of the matter becomes apparent in the Reports at the CRC Synods.
The common orthodox view and the view stated in the CRC treatment of the subject stressed the fact that the Bible must be regarded as the Word of God. The RES (Reformed Ecumenical Synod) statement of 1958 and the Christian Reformed statement of 1961 both placed a great deal of emphasis on that. According to the CRC Synod Report 44 (Acts 1972, p. 503) the Synod of the Gereformeerde Kerken in 1961 expressed the “general criticism” that the 1958 resolutions of the RES, while stressing the divine character of Scripture, failed to do justice to the “human side of Scripture.”
The Dutch churches felt that such statements were no longer adequate “in the context of the questions being asked today. In this century there has been a tremendous increase in knowledge concerning the past history of mankind. In addition, modern man is conscious of his distance from that past, and he is aware of the differences in the human situation as man moves from one era to the next. Consequently, because Scripture is in one sense an historical book recording past events and written by men who lived many centuries ago, questions are being asked today precisely about that historical character of Scripture. Is the authority of Scripture in any way influenced or qualified by its historical character? That is the question that must be answered today.”
At the risk of oversimplifying the situation we may observe that the old, orthodox view insisted that the Bible is the Word of God; the liberals have been saying that it is the word of man; and now it is being urged upon us that to do justice to today’s problems we must regard and treat it as both the Word of God and the word of man.
Professor H. Pietersma’s View
This latter viewpoint was stated very plainly by Prof. H. Pietersma in the June 19 Calvinist Contact. Reacting to a Reformed Fellowship rally he had attended the previous evening, he judged that both speakers at that rally had so strongly affirmed “the divinity of the Bible” that they had “implicity denied the humanity of the Bible.” He therefore pronounced us “unorthodox,” “un-Reformed” and “un-biblical.” In his view, one must stress both the divinity and the humanity of the Bible in order to be Reformed.
This creates “questions and problems.” “You affirm strongly what the Spirit has taught us, namely that the Bible is God’s Word. But it is true that God’s Word came to us filtered through human minds. Therefore, when you confess the authority and infallibility the Bible possesses for you, you lay yourself open for questions. What is infallible? Do you mean to say that whatever is spoken of in that book you call Bible is accepted by you as truth? Do you, for example, believe today that the earth is flat? . . . When we speak about the Bible’s authority we speak about a hook that has been opened to us by God. On all its pages we hear human voices. But in those voices the Spirit that inspired them has taught us to hear a specific content or message and to discern a specific divine purpose. We would no longer be orthodox if we denied that the Bible as a whole is God’s Word. But neither would we be orthodox if we denied that the Bible in all its parts is human. To make both affirmations, I dare say, is to be orthodox and Reformed.”1
Is this now the “Reformed,” “biblical” and “orthodox” view to which we in this time must come: that while the Bible is the Word of God, we must affirm just as emphatically that it is in the word of man, in which, despite all of the human limitations through which everything must be “altered,” the Holy Spirit still leads us to detect a divine message and saving purpose? Professor Pietersma, our Dutch sister churches, and many others are now telling us that this is the case. And we can see how they arrive at this view with all of its accompanying problems. But must we now all accept it?
The Bible’s Answer
The decisive consideration against accepting this view is that it is not merely different from but exactly opposite to that which we find in the Bible itself. This is nowhere stated more plainly than in the first letter of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, in the passage quoted at the beginning of this article (2:13): “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
Notice that Paul does not say, as Dr. Pietersma’s explanation of the matter would demand: “We thank God that when you received the word which you heard of us you received it as both the word of men and the word of God.” He thanked God that they “received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God”! What does this mean? Can they ignore, must they deny that Paul was the man who preached and taught it to them? Of course not! Paul’s personal involvement and activity stand out in almost every verse of the chapter—his coming to them (vs. I), his speaking (vss. 2, 3, 4, 5) his attitude (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11), etc. But this is not what was important. This is not what gave his work and preaching significance. Historical and psychological study of Paul’s character and background does not enable one to understand his gospel—in fact it would lead one away from it—if that were all that were involved he’d probably have remained the enemy of the gospel he had been. One simply cannot properly understand or appreciate Paul’s labor or message or the church—or anything else about Christianity, unless he sees what Paul thanked God the Thessalonians had seen, that what he had been preaching was “—not the word of men, but . . . in truth the word of God.” Paul’s own tireless and amazing labors, the remarkable response of the Thessalonians (chapter 1), and the tremendous influence of both are intelligible only when one sees and puts all emphasis on the fact this is not man’s word but God’s!
In other words, in the Bible’s own teaching the so-called “human” and “divine” side of the Bible are not correlatives to be equally stressed, to be “kept in balance,” two principles between which we have to try to worm our tortuous way through the multitude of problems which this approach is creating. To present matters in this way, the Bible makes plain, is to completely misunderstand the situation. It is to invite confusion where we need clarity, to multiply problems where we need solutions.
The Bible leads us out of the confusion by reminding us that it is God’s Word and that this fact overshadows and controls everything in it. The Bible is not as we have been told “time-bound.” The Word of God (in this respect too) is not “bound.” Its message does not have to be “filtered through” human limitations as Dr. Pietersma would have it. Dr. B.B. Warfield long ago pointed out the fallacy of such a view. (The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. 153): “The Biblical writers do not conceive of the Scriptures as a human product breathed into by the Divine Spirit, and thus heightened in its qualities or endowed with new qualities, but as a Divine product produced through the instrumentality of men. They do not conceive of these men, by whose instrumentality Scripture is produced, as working upon their own initiative, though energized by God to greater effort and higher achievement, but as moved by the Divine initiative and borne by the irresistible power of the Spirit of God along ways of his choosing to ends of his appointment.”
A little later (p. 155 f.) Warfield goes on to point out the error of assuming that “the human characteristics of the writers must . . . condition and qualify the writings produced by them, the implication being that, therefore, we cannot get from man a pure word of God. As light that passes through the colored glass of a cathedral window, we are told . . . is stained by the tints of the glass through which it passes; so any word of God which is passed through the mind and soul of a man must come out discolored by the personality through which it is given, and just to that degree ceases to be the pure word of God.” Warfield goes on to correct this statement of the case by observing: “But what if this personality has itself been formed by God into precisely the personality it is, for the express purpose of communicating to the word given through it just the coloring which it gives it?”
The Orthodox Presbyterian Statement
The 37th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, dealing with the subject of the inspiration of the Bible, pointed out that “God employed men, without violence to the full range and integrity of their personalities . . . . Careful attention to the writings of the various authors in all their respective individuality and particularity . . . serves to disclose in all the richness of its diversity the organic character of the unity of biblical revelation. Nevertheless, all such reflection must remain within and be controlled by the recognition that in the most proper sense of the word God is the final and sole author of the text of Scripture. It is striking that when Scripture itself explicitly conjoins the activity of God and men in the production of Scripture, it does so for the express purpose of subordinating the function of the human writers that it may thereby magnify the divine origin and character of what is written.”
God’s Word Works in the Believer
Paul thanked God that the Thessalonians received the word heard from him, “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God,” and he adds, the significant statement: “which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” The Word, seen for what it is and so received, worked savingly and powerfully in the believers. 1t did that in Paul and in the Thessalonians. It has continued to work in that way in the believer and the believing church. But it does not so work and it cannot be expected to so work in the heart of man or the church who do not believe it!
The bankruptcy of churches and “Christian” activities that are tampering with or rejecting the Bible as the Word of God is being demonstrated daily. The wretched plight of our sister churches in The Netherlands is demonstrating that. And the increasing confusion in our own is threatening to do the same. If we are going to expect God’s blessing on our evangelism program we shall have to take much more seriously than we often do the full authority of God’s Word both regarding message and method. God has said He works in that way!
And if we are going to see any significant Christian social and political action we shall have to submit without quibbling to what God’s Word teaches about the proper position and action of the believer is such matters. And if our efforts to achieve unity of fellowship and action within and beyond the denominational boundaries are to be significant we must be inspired and directed by God’s Word, received “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God.”
1. Notice the evident subjectivism of Dr. Pietersma’s statement of the case. The “infallibility” of the Bible is not that of whatever the Book says, but it is only of the specific message and divine purpose which you, believing you are guided by the Holy Spirit, discern in it! The infallibility has shifted from the Bible to the hearer. And since the Bible is no longer decisive in determining what is true, holy do you know that in your choice of what you are going to consider infallible you are not being misled by the Devil masquerading as an “angel of light” instead of led by the Holy Spirit? The fatal error of all such subjectivism is that it no longer sees the need and has lost the means to “try the spirits whether they are of God” (I John 4:1–3).