“The problem of authority is the most fundamental
problem that the Christian Church ever faces. This is because Christianity is built on truth: that is to say, on the content of a divine revelation. Christianity announces salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, in and through whom that revelation came to completion; but faith in Jesus Christ is possible only where the truth concerning Him is known.” “But if this truth is rejected or perverted faith is overthrown (cf. II Tim. 2:18) and men come under the power of a lie (cf. II Thess. 2:10–13), with terrible results. The startlingly violent tone of Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians reflects his vivid awareness of this.” “Though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
In this vigorous fashion J. I. Packer in his little book, Fundamentalism and the Word of God, (pp. 42, 43) begins his discussion of the basic problem of authority. He points out further that “It is…a disturbing fact that today this is largely overlooked. Christian bodies of all sorts are constantly urged to come together, sink their differences and present a united front to the forces of secularism and Communism. It is taken for granted that the differences in question are small and trifling—unsightly little cracks on the surface of an otherwise solid wall. But the assumption is false. Not all the cracks are mere superficial disfigurements: some of them are the outward signs of lack of structural integration. The wall is cracked because it is not all built on the same foundation. The more one probes the differences between Roman and Protestant, Liberal and Evangelical, the deeper they prove to be; beneath the cracks on the surface lie fissures which run down to the very foundations, broadening as they go. Nothing is gained just by trying to cement up the cracks; that only encourages the collapse of the entire wall. Sham unity is not worth working for, and real unity, that fellowship of love in the truth which Christ prayed that his disciples might enjoy, will come only as those sections of the wall which rest on unsound foundations are dismantled and rebuilt. Till this happens, the questions of authority must remain central in discussion between dissident groups; and the best service one can do to the divided Church of Christ is to keep it there” (p. 45).
Having made this point the writer goes on to observe that “There are three distinct authorities to which final appeal might be made—Holy Scripture, Church tradition or Christian reason; that is to say, Scripture as interpreted by itself; Scripture as interpreted (and in some measure amplified) by official ecclesiastical sources; and Scripture as evaluated in terms of extra-biblical principles by individual Christian men.” And these three views of authority are the Confessional Protestant (or, we would say, Reformed), the Roman Catholic, and the modern Liberal Protestant views, respectively.
It seems to me as I observe the continuing developments not only in the church world in general, but in our Reformed family in particular, that Dr. Packer’s analysis and statement of the problem of authority sheds some needed and helpful light on our current difficulties.
The Issue Among Us
At last year’s Ministers’ Conference we heard Dr. Kuitert express his views. Those views have been too widely publicized and discussed to require an extensive review of them now. We heard him say that in his opinion the early accounts of Genesis cannot, in the light of our modern framework of thought, he any longer regarded as authentic history—although, to be sure, he felt that certain doctrines ought still to be maintained, Perhaps there never were an Adam and Eve. and the Fall never really happened. and sin must now be understood simply as opposition to the course of evolution. All of our doctrines would be altered by these changing views more than we at this point can say and our morals too must change with a changing world. What happens to Christ and his atoning death in Kuitert’s view? These, he feels, must still be maintained or the gospel will be mutilated.
“Does he no longer believe the Bible?” one might ask? Of course, he does, he replies; he merely “interprets” it differently. Speaking effectively to our modern world, Dr. Kuitert thinks, demands such a reinterpretation because in this scientific age the old views can no longer be taken seriously.
In the Jan. 3, ’69 Calvinist-Contact Prof. H. Pietersma writes on the subject of “Scripture for us today,” expressing himself somewhat less radically, but in the same vein. The Bible must have authority for Christians, but he feels that we must inquire into the nature and purpose of that authority. The way in which he proceeds with that inquiry is very significant. “Let us then…ask quite simply, ‘What is Scripture for me? What do I believe? What did 1 see in Scripture that led me to accept it as authoritative, as something I no longer wished to question but to recognize as trustworthy?’” His answer: “I believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who came into this world of misery to save us. This message which came to me and which I accepted as absolutely trustworthy was the message about Jesus. Furthermore, as I accepted this message I also accepted the Bible in which it was contained. In this way Scripture became for me the special book it is. Scripture became authoritative for me as a book having that message as content and the salvation of men as its purpose.” Then he attempts to distinguish between this message which has impressed him as true and therefore authoritative, from the forms, the rest of the Bible, what Kuitert has called mere “wrapping materials,” derived from the human opinions, often mistaken opinions, of people who lived in a past age. He argues that this distinction is necessary if the Bible were really to be God’s word to those people who lived in such different times. They must not he mere “instruments” or “speaking tubes.” He says that God “was not concerned to purify and perfect those men to such a degree that in transmitting his word they would not distort or taint it.” While he recognizes that the view he advocates is “dangerous,” he argues that we must assume it if we are not to be compelled to live in a world of the past, a world that is not really the world of the 20th Century at all.
What must one say about such views? They are certainly different from those commonly held and taught in our churches in the past. But that consideration is not an adequate reason for dismissing them. Reformed people may not be mere traditionalists. Ought these views then to be simply discussed, studied, entertained among us as a new, possibly not yet generally acceptable, but quite permissible variant in the circles of our faith and churches? That appears to be a reaction one meets rather frequently. “I can’t exactly share those ideas, but if others want to hold them, find them helpful in meeting student problems, perhaps, that’s quite all right with me!”
The Decisive Consideration
There is one all-important consideration, rarely mentioned in the discussion it seems, that rules out absolutely any Christian acceptance or even toleration of this viewpoint. Notice that the views of Kuitert, Pietersma and others seem to leave completely out of consideration what the Bible itself teaches and demonstrates regarding its own authority! Their view of the Bible. in spite of the fact that it would still honor that book for leading them to Christ is one that can only be held in defiance of what Christ himself taught about the Bible! Kuitert, and Pietersma even more simply in his little writing, never start at that point. Pietersma starts the discussion by asking, “What is Scripture for me?” “What did I see in Scripture that led me to accept it as authoritative. as something I no longer wished to question but to recognize as trustworthy?” But since when does what he or I or what a million other people might think have anything to do with the authority of God’s word? Is authority only valid in so far as one chooses to recognize it? Does God rule only subject to men’s democratic consent? Is it not perfectly obvious that in the views here suggested the authority is not really in tile Bible at all but only in the opinion of the reader? That was precisely what also impressed one in Kuitert’s talks. “In my opinion….” “I think”; those were the expressions that appeared again and again. But what right does he or I or anyone else have to palm off mere personal opinions as having any real validity in sl1ch matters as these? Is not this whole approach and viewpoint characteristic of what Packer so aptly described as not the Confessional Protestant view of authority, that of “Scripture as interpreted by itself,” but the view of modern Liberalism, that of “Scripture as evaluated in terms of extra-biblical principles by individual Christian men”?
These views of Kuitert, Pietersma and others were not derived from the Bible at all. Whether one turns to the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or any of the rest, what confronts him at every turn is not the considered opinions of these religious geniuses or theologians, hut “Thus saith the Lord.” In fact the prophet that went about peddling his own opinions in the role of bringing God’s word was a false prophet, not to be entertained as a pleasant novelty but to be condemned and killed as a criminal! (Deut. 18:20)
Our Lord never taught us to define the authority of the Scriptures in terms merely of certain teachings about” himself in so far as they might commend themselves to the sovereign intelligence of his disciples. He constantly appealed, whether in teaching his disciples or even in opposing the devil to, “It is written.” That appeal, used dozens of times was final; it ended all question of controversy. He said, “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law till all things be accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:13–19). The Lord maintained about the wording of what we still might call a difficult text, “The scriptures cannot be broken” (John 10:35). After his resurrection he had to rebuke his disciples most severely for ignoring in the Scriptures what they did not understand, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe ill all that the prophet’s have spoken!” (Luke 24:25ff., cf. 44–46.) What strikes us as the more remarkable in this case is that Christ didn’t simply reveal himself to them to convince them of his resurrection, as one might expect him to do, but first compelled them to learn from the Scriptures that he must rise! They must be led to faith in him not first by personal experience but by getting to know him through his inspired Word!
This view of the Bible insisted upon by prophets. by our Lord, and by his apostles was never that of the authority of only certain reading ideas, to be extracted from the haphazard, perhaps more or less erroneous sayings of those who expressed them. That authority extended even to the forms and words that speakers or writers themselves at times did not understand. Think of Peter’s illuminating remark in his First letter (I Peter 1:10). “Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow them. To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which have now been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven.” Historical and archeological study have their value to exegesis, but it is plain that if one were to interpret the Old Testament prophecies only in the light of the prophets’ times and even their opinions or understanding of what they were saying he would be missing what God said through them! And so Hebrews on occasion simply cites Old Testament statements with the introduction, “The Holy Spirit saith” (Heb. 3:7; cf. 10:15). If one wants to refer to such a view of the Bible somewhat contemptuously as making men mere “instruments” or “speaking tubes,” it had better be observed that the contempt is directed not at the naivete of 0ur Reformed forefathers, but toward God who insisted on revealing himself in this way whether men in their pride like it or not!
Similarly Paul makes this verbally inspired character of the Bible unmistakable when he writes, “Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual…” And he goes on to add. “Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of Goo for they are foolishness unto him and he cannot know them because they are spiritually judged.” He tells us that God chose this method of revealing himself, a method over which Jews and Greeks stumbled then, just as the 20th Century educated man stumbles today in order to humble human pride: “that no flesh should glory before God” (I Cor. 2:13, 14; 1:29). Elsewhere Timothy is urged to keep not merely certain gospel ideas but to “Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us” (II Tim. 1:13, 14). Two chapters further we are told that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God,” so that it not only leads us to faith in Christ (3:15), but also is his guide to a complete Christian way of life (16, 17). When men today are telling us that we must take greater account of the fact that the Bible is the work of men and that therefore many of its incidental ideas must be dismissed as no longer valid or even as erroneous, we recall that the Thessalonian church was commended for doing the exact opposite: “And for this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe” (I Thess. 2:33).
It is no mere antiquated “interpretation” of the Bible that we are being asked to set aside, but it is the Bible’s own view, the teachings of apostles and prophets and of Christ himself, that we are being asked to reject. Anyone who does that, however well-intentioned he might be, is not making a contribution to academic progress or to a more effective Christian witness, but he is misleading men and inviting the judgment of the Lord who said, “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). That Lord warned, “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18, 19).
What We Must Do
After the Kuitert lectures, in the discussion that ensued someone observed, “Isn’t it wonderful that with such ideas he still wants to be a Christian?” In a somewhat similar spirit Dr. Kooistra concludes his series of comments on Kuitert’s later book, urging Christian unity, “Let scripture not become a source of disagreement, but rather a source of inspired living,” observing that Kuitert may still be regarded as a brother. It seems to me that this kind of pious glossing over what is at stake, such a plea for toleration, is totally misplaced if it is to be taken as a guide to church action. When the authority of God’s Word is being undermined and, in fact, contradicted, one must not minimize the offense by telling us that Christians arc doing it. When Peter who had just made a wonderful confession of faith and heard Jesus’ blessing because of it, turned about and began to contradict the Lord’s further teachings about his approaching suffering and death, Jesus did not excuse him by mildly observing, “Well, I am glad, Peter, that you still believe in me.” He said, “Get thee behind me Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.” Peter, the more because of his confession and position, needed the sharpest of rebukes and he got it! In Galatians 2 we read that Paul had to confront him just as bluntly with a public rebuke, because not only Christian charity but the very faith of the church was again at stake. The devil’s work must never he tolerated, especially when prominent Christians are misled into doing it for him. Love for the men involved, for the church and for its Lord and his testimony in the world demand that such devil’s work be not tolerated, in the name of Christian charity, but exposed and expelled. If that is not done it will undermine and eventually destroy the faith and life of the church. That is what it has done in most churches.
When the antagonism between these mistakenly called “new” views of the Bible and the teachings of Christ and his apostles is pointed out, the answer is usually given, “We still believe in the authority of the Bible; we are only suggesting new interpretations of it.” But to deny the reality of what the Bible and the Lord and his apostles recite as straight facts and convert them to mere symbols of whatever one may choose to read into them cannot be called mere “interpretation.” It recalls the transparent dishonesty of the Liberals of Machen’s day which the latter so beautifully exposed in a sermon in 1923. “Formerly, when men had brought to their attention perfectly plain documents like the Apostles’ Creed. . or the New Testament, they either accepted them or else denied them. Now they no longer deny, hut merely ‘interpret: Every generation, it is said, must interpret the Bible or creed in its own way.” “Arid so now of course we accept the proposition that ‘the third day He arose again from the dead.’” (Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen, p. 358.) (While Kuitert and Pietersma do not deny the resurrection, their method of argument and misuse of the Bible are the same.)
Both Kuitert and Pietersma recognize that the views they are advocating and regard as necessary today are “dangerous” to the church, but they attempt to reassure us that the Lord, or the Holy Spirit, will guide and preserve the church. But that kind of pious observation is nothing but a false confidence. Both the Bible and the centuries of the church’s history teach us that the Holy Spirit will not guide and protect the church which rejects his Word, as we are, in fact, being advised to do. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and when his Word is no longer accepted as true, his guidance is being rejected and we may expect only his judgment, a judgment which is already abundantly demonstrated in the apostate churches of our part of the world and is daily becoming plainer in developments in our Reformed family. Let us pray and labor for a return to the biblical faith and discipline that lead to real Reformation and Revival.
Rev. Peter De Jong is pastor of the Dutton Christian Reformed Church, Dutton, MI. Reprinted from CALVINIST CONTACT.
In this vigorous fashion J. I. Packer in his little book, Fundamentalism and the Word of God, (pp. 42, 43) begins his discussion of the basic problem of authority. He points out further that “It is…a disturbing fact that today this is largely overlooked. Christian bodies of all sorts are constantly urged to come together, sink their differences and present a united front to the forces of secularism and Communism. It is taken for granted that the differences in question are small and trifling—unsightly little cracks on the surface of an otherwise solid wall. But the assumption is false. Not all the cracks are mere superficial disfigurements: some of them are the outward signs of lack of structural integration. The wall is cracked because it is not all built on the same foundation. The more one probes the differences between Roman and Protestant, Liberal and Evangelical, the deeper they prove to be; beneath the cracks on the surface lie fissures which run down to the very foundations, broadening as they go. Nothing is gained just by trying to cement up the cracks; that only encourages the collapse of the entire wall. Sham unity is not worth working for, and real unity, that fellowship of love in the truth which Christ prayed that his disciples might enjoy, will come only as those sections of the wall which rest on unsound foundations are dismantled and rebuilt. Till this happens, the questions of authority must remain central in discussion between dissident groups; and the best service one can do to the divided Church of Christ is to keep it there” (p. 45).
Having made this point the writer goes on to observe that “There are three distinct authorities to which final appeal might be made—Holy Scripture, Church tradition or Christian reason; that is to say, Scripture as interpreted by itself; Scripture as interpreted (and in some measure amplified) by official ecclesiastical sources; and Scripture as evaluated in terms of extra-biblical principles by individual Christian men.” And these three views of authority are the Confessional Protestant (or, we would say, Reformed), the Roman Catholic, and the modern Liberal Protestant views, respectively.
It seems to me as I observe the continuing developments not only in the church world in general, but in our Reformed family in particular, that Dr. Packer’s analysis and statement of the problem of authority sheds some needed and helpful light on our current difficulties.
The Issue Among Us
At last year’s Ministers’ Conference we heard Dr. Kuitert express his views. Those views have been too widely publicized and discussed to require an extensive review of them now. We heard him say that in his opinion the early accounts of Genesis cannot, in the light of our modern framework of thought, he any longer regarded as authentic history—although, to be sure, he felt that certain doctrines ought still to be maintained, Perhaps there never were an Adam and Eve. and the Fall never really happened. and sin must now be understood simply as opposition to the course of evolution. All of our doctrines would be altered by these changing views more than we at this point can say and our morals too must change with a changing world. What happens to Christ and his atoning death in Kuitert’s view? These, he feels, must still be maintained or the gospel will be mutilated.
“Does he no longer believe the Bible?” one might ask? Of course, he does, he replies; he merely “interprets” it differently. Speaking effectively to our modern world, Dr. Kuitert thinks, demands such a reinterpretation because in this scientific age the old views can no longer be taken seriously.
In the Jan. 3, ’69 Calvinist-Contact Prof. H. Pietersma writes on the subject of “Scripture for us today,” expressing himself somewhat less radically, but in the same vein. The Bible must have authority for Christians, but he feels that we must inquire into the nature and purpose of that authority. The way in which he proceeds with that inquiry is very significant. “Let us then…ask quite simply, ‘What is Scripture for me? What do I believe? What did 1 see in Scripture that led me to accept it as authoritative, as something I no longer wished to question but to recognize as trustworthy?’” His answer: “I believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who came into this world of misery to save us. This message which came to me and which I accepted as absolutely trustworthy was the message about Jesus. Furthermore, as I accepted this message I also accepted the Bible in which it was contained. In this way Scripture became for me the special book it is. Scripture became authoritative for me as a book having that message as content and the salvation of men as its purpose.” Then he attempts to distinguish between this message which has impressed him as true and therefore authoritative, from the forms, the rest of the Bible, what Kuitert has called mere “wrapping materials,” derived from the human opinions, often mistaken opinions, of people who lived in a past age. He argues that this distinction is necessary if the Bible were really to be God’s word to those people who lived in such different times. They must not he mere “instruments” or “speaking tubes.” He says that God “was not concerned to purify and perfect those men to such a degree that in transmitting his word they would not distort or taint it.” While he recognizes that the view he advocates is “dangerous,” he argues that we must assume it if we are not to be compelled to live in a world of the past, a world that is not really the world of the 20th Century at all.
What must one say about such views? They are certainly different from those commonly held and taught in our churches in the past. But that consideration is not an adequate reason for dismissing them. Reformed people may not be mere traditionalists. Ought these views then to be simply discussed, studied, entertained among us as a new, possibly not yet generally acceptable, but quite permissible variant in the circles of our faith and churches? That appears to be a reaction one meets rather frequently. “I can’t exactly share those ideas, but if others want to hold them, find them helpful in meeting student problems, perhaps, that’s quite all right with me!”
The Decisive Consideration
There is one all-important consideration, rarely mentioned in the discussion it seems, that rules out absolutely any Christian acceptance or even toleration of this viewpoint. Notice that the views of Kuitert, Pietersma and others seem to leave completely out of consideration what the Bible itself teaches and demonstrates regarding its own authority! Their view of the Bible. in spite of the fact that it would still honor that book for leading them to Christ is one that can only be held in defiance of what Christ himself taught about the Bible! Kuitert, and Pietersma even more simply in his little writing, never start at that point. Pietersma starts the discussion by asking, “What is Scripture for me?” “What did I see in Scripture that led me to accept it as authoritative. as something I no longer wished to question but to recognize as trustworthy?” But since when does what he or I or what a million other people might think have anything to do with the authority of God’s word? Is authority only valid in so far as one chooses to recognize it? Does God rule only subject to men’s democratic consent? Is it not perfectly obvious that in the views here suggested the authority is not really in tile Bible at all but only in the opinion of the reader? That was precisely what also impressed one in Kuitert’s talks. “In my opinion….” “I think”; those were the expressions that appeared again and again. But what right does he or I or anyone else have to palm off mere personal opinions as having any real validity in sl1ch matters as these? Is not this whole approach and viewpoint characteristic of what Packer so aptly described as not the Confessional Protestant view of authority, that of “Scripture as interpreted by itself,” but the view of modern Liberalism, that of “Scripture as evaluated in terms of extra-biblical principles by individual Christian men”?
These views of Kuitert, Pietersma and others were not derived from the Bible at all. Whether one turns to the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or any of the rest, what confronts him at every turn is not the considered opinions of these religious geniuses or theologians, hut “Thus saith the Lord.” In fact the prophet that went about peddling his own opinions in the role of bringing God’s word was a false prophet, not to be entertained as a pleasant novelty but to be condemned and killed as a criminal! (Deut. 18:20)
Our Lord never taught us to define the authority of the Scriptures in terms merely of certain teachings about” himself in so far as they might commend themselves to the sovereign intelligence of his disciples. He constantly appealed, whether in teaching his disciples or even in opposing the devil to, “It is written.” That appeal, used dozens of times was final; it ended all question of controversy. He said, “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law till all things be accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:13–19). The Lord maintained about the wording of what we still might call a difficult text, “The scriptures cannot be broken” (John 10:35). After his resurrection he had to rebuke his disciples most severely for ignoring in the Scriptures what they did not understand, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe ill all that the prophet’s have spoken!” (Luke 24:25ff., cf. 44–46.) What strikes us as the more remarkable in this case is that Christ didn’t simply reveal himself to them to convince them of his resurrection, as one might expect him to do, but first compelled them to learn from the Scriptures that he must rise! They must be led to faith in him not first by personal experience but by getting to know him through his inspired Word!
This view of the Bible insisted upon by prophets. by our Lord, and by his apostles was never that of the authority of only certain reading ideas, to be extracted from the haphazard, perhaps more or less erroneous sayings of those who expressed them. That authority extended even to the forms and words that speakers or writers themselves at times did not understand. Think of Peter’s illuminating remark in his First letter (I Peter 1:10). “Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow them. To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which have now been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven.” Historical and archeological study have their value to exegesis, but it is plain that if one were to interpret the Old Testament prophecies only in the light of the prophets’ times and even their opinions or understanding of what they were saying he would be missing what God said through them! And so Hebrews on occasion simply cites Old Testament statements with the introduction, “The Holy Spirit saith” (Heb. 3:7; cf. 10:15). If one wants to refer to such a view of the Bible somewhat contemptuously as making men mere “instruments” or “speaking tubes,” it had better be observed that the contempt is directed not at the naivete of 0ur Reformed forefathers, but toward God who insisted on revealing himself in this way whether men in their pride like it or not!
Similarly Paul makes this verbally inspired character of the Bible unmistakable when he writes, “Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual…” And he goes on to add. “Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of Goo for they are foolishness unto him and he cannot know them because they are spiritually judged.” He tells us that God chose this method of revealing himself, a method over which Jews and Greeks stumbled then, just as the 20th Century educated man stumbles today in order to humble human pride: “that no flesh should glory before God” (I Cor. 2:13, 14; 1:29). Elsewhere Timothy is urged to keep not merely certain gospel ideas but to “Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us” (II Tim. 1:13, 14). Two chapters further we are told that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God,” so that it not only leads us to faith in Christ (3:15), but also is his guide to a complete Christian way of life (16, 17). When men today are telling us that we must take greater account of the fact that the Bible is the work of men and that therefore many of its incidental ideas must be dismissed as no longer valid or even as erroneous, we recall that the Thessalonian church was commended for doing the exact opposite: “And for this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe” (I Thess. 2:33).
It is no mere antiquated “interpretation” of the Bible that we are being asked to set aside, but it is the Bible’s own view, the teachings of apostles and prophets and of Christ himself, that we are being asked to reject. Anyone who does that, however well-intentioned he might be, is not making a contribution to academic progress or to a more effective Christian witness, but he is misleading men and inviting the judgment of the Lord who said, “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). That Lord warned, “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18, 19).
What We Must Do
After the Kuitert lectures, in the discussion that ensued someone observed, “Isn’t it wonderful that with such ideas he still wants to be a Christian?” In a somewhat similar spirit Dr. Kooistra concludes his series of comments on Kuitert’s later book, urging Christian unity, “Let scripture not become a source of disagreement, but rather a source of inspired living,” observing that Kuitert may still be regarded as a brother. It seems to me that this kind of pious glossing over what is at stake, such a plea for toleration, is totally misplaced if it is to be taken as a guide to church action. When the authority of God’s Word is being undermined and, in fact, contradicted, one must not minimize the offense by telling us that Christians arc doing it. When Peter who had just made a wonderful confession of faith and heard Jesus’ blessing because of it, turned about and began to contradict the Lord’s further teachings about his approaching suffering and death, Jesus did not excuse him by mildly observing, “Well, I am glad, Peter, that you still believe in me.” He said, “Get thee behind me Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.” Peter, the more because of his confession and position, needed the sharpest of rebukes and he got it! In Galatians 2 we read that Paul had to confront him just as bluntly with a public rebuke, because not only Christian charity but the very faith of the church was again at stake. The devil’s work must never he tolerated, especially when prominent Christians are misled into doing it for him. Love for the men involved, for the church and for its Lord and his testimony in the world demand that such devil’s work be not tolerated, in the name of Christian charity, but exposed and expelled. If that is not done it will undermine and eventually destroy the faith and life of the church. That is what it has done in most churches.
When the antagonism between these mistakenly called “new” views of the Bible and the teachings of Christ and his apostles is pointed out, the answer is usually given, “We still believe in the authority of the Bible; we are only suggesting new interpretations of it.” But to deny the reality of what the Bible and the Lord and his apostles recite as straight facts and convert them to mere symbols of whatever one may choose to read into them cannot be called mere “interpretation.” It recalls the transparent dishonesty of the Liberals of Machen’s day which the latter so beautifully exposed in a sermon in 1923. “Formerly, when men had brought to their attention perfectly plain documents like the Apostles’ Creed. . or the New Testament, they either accepted them or else denied them. Now they no longer deny, hut merely ‘interpret: Every generation, it is said, must interpret the Bible or creed in its own way.” “Arid so now of course we accept the proposition that ‘the third day He arose again from the dead.’” (Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen, p. 358.) (While Kuitert and Pietersma do not deny the resurrection, their method of argument and misuse of the Bible are the same.)
Both Kuitert and Pietersma recognize that the views they are advocating and regard as necessary today are “dangerous” to the church, but they attempt to reassure us that the Lord, or the Holy Spirit, will guide and preserve the church. But that kind of pious observation is nothing but a false confidence. Both the Bible and the centuries of the church’s history teach us that the Holy Spirit will not guide and protect the church which rejects his Word, as we are, in fact, being advised to do. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and when his Word is no longer accepted as true, his guidance is being rejected and we may expect only his judgment, a judgment which is already abundantly demonstrated in the apostate churches of our part of the world and is daily becoming plainer in developments in our Reformed family. Let us pray and labor for a return to the biblical faith and discipline that lead to real Reformation and Revival.
Rev. Peter De Jong is pastor of the Dutton Christian Reformed Church, Dutton, MI. Reprinted from CALVINIST CONTACT.