In the August 23 Banner Clayton C. Libolt, whom the 1981 Christian Reformed Church Synod rejected as candidate for the ministry after he had refused in his examination to say that he believed the events mentioned in Genesis were real in the sense that his questioners intended, attempts to correct misinformation concerning himself and his views. Charged that he denied the historical Adam, he suggests that the word “historical” has become so ambiguous in this connection that we stop using it. It “has acquired such broad meaning that every professor at Calvin Seminary can affirm the ‘historical Adam,’ though it is not very likely that all of them read the Genesis accounts as straight–forward history.”

Somewhat inconsistently, he continues to use the word “historical” in the usual sense of straightforward accounts of events, alluding to the way in which “the creeds speak often of Adam and Eve, and they assume Genesis 1–3 is history. So did everyone else in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.” But he observes that “It is silly to suggest that the creedal references have the same status as creedal rulings,” thereby justifying assent to the creeds while denying what they say in their “references.” He states further that “there are strong indications that Genesis 1–3 cannot be read straightforwardly as history,” (1) alleging (but not showing) a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2, (2) comparing Genesis with pagan Mesopotamian myths, and (3) equating the style of Genesis with the visions of Revelation—by which process he defends his conclusion, “I do not believe that it is written as literal history.” He pits the testimony of the Spirit against the appeal to history as a ground for our faith, attempting to justify that procedure by alluding to John Calvin! “Calvin insisted correctly that we believe the Bible because of the testimony of the Spirit of the risen Lord, not the risen Lord because of the Bible.” He conveniently ignores the fact that the risen Lord repeatedly grounded the faith in His resurrection on the inspired Scriptures (Luke 24:25–27, 44–48), with the Holy Spirit confirming that (49). Finally, Mr. Libolt attacks Paul’s parallel between Adam and Christ in Romans 5 alleging that “Paul is not arguing for a historical reading of Genesis but rather for the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

What is abundantly demonstrated throughout Mr. Libolt’s defense is the rightness of the synod’s rejecting his candidacy for the ministry in view of his conflict with Scripture and creeds. If there had been any doubt about his views, this article removes it. He cannot say about the Scriptures with Article V of the Belgic Confession that he believes “without any doubt all things contained in them.”

And this year’s synod confirmed and clarified last years action in his case when it declared that “adherence to the confessions, as required by the Form of Subscription includes those utterances of t he confession that affirm the historical factuality of events recorded in Genesis 1–3, and that departures from those doctrines must be dealt with in terms of the requirements of that form.” It instructed “the Board of Trustees and all assemblies which deal with admission to the ministry of the Word to require of the candidate a clear statement of commitment to the confessions, including those utterances of the confessions that affirm the historical factuality of the events recorded in Genesis 1–3.”

P.D.J.

In The Banner of Aug. 23, ‘82, Clayton Libolt seeks to defend himself against his critics by attempting to clarify the issue(s) at stake. I’m afraid he isn’t going to be too successful. His article does nothing to remove the confusion that has surrounded his views since his interview before the synod of 1981. If anything, it adds to the confusion. The article is so unclear as to be mystifying. Clear speech inspires confidence, but this article is anything but clear. And that’s the first thing that annoys me. Why can’t he or doesn’t he use the English language in such a way that every elder in the church and every ordinary member thereof knows precisely what he is saying and where he stands? Or does he avoid doing that purposely? Scholars such as the late professors John Murray and R. B. Kuiper had a way of writing so lucidly that no man in the pew could mistake what they were saying. Confused writing, particularly in a church paper read by the ordinary member, is neither scholarly nor honest.

A number of points in the article call for further comment:

1. Libolt writes that he “affirmed repeatedly . . . that the first human couple fell from innocence.” But he does not believe in a real garden or a real snake since he does “not believe the writer of those accounts intended that they be read as history.” So he wants to get rid of the word “historical” altogether, while at the same time holding to the “event-character” of Genesis. This is more confusing than Barth’s “geschichte/historie” distinction. How there can be an “event” without real people and a real garden he doesn’t explain. What every church member wants to know, and what Libolt should tell them in unequivocal language is whether Adam and Eve were real historical people of flesh and blood who lived on this earth in the region of Mesopotamia in real calendar history. That would put an immediate end to the confusion and be of great benefit to all concerned. And it is also a matter of integrity.

2. Libolt puts up a bit of a straw man when he characterizes his opponents as believing that the Genesis accounts were written as “exact history” and that they hold to a “literal–historical” reading of Genesis. They do indeed believe that Genesis records actual history. But “exact” history? And how literal is “literal”? Not even the most extreme fundamentalist believes that the “seed” of the serpent is comprised of snakes. And all recognized that the word “day” is used in different ways in the first two chapters. Prof. Marten Woudstra once described Genesis as concerned with “prophetic history.” I believe that‘s a good designation: it is history written for a specific purpose, with a certain goal in mind. It is the history of salvation if you will. It is not written with a view to satisfying the demands of 20th century scientific historiography. Reformed scholars have always recognized this, and both the 1961 Report on Infallibility and Report 44 explicitly state this.

That is something quite different, however, from saying that the text of Genesis doesn’t convey history at all. Prof. Woudstra has written that we come to know God’s claim upon us “by means of the reading and exegeting of the written record. By that process alone can I be assured of discovering the precise content of the divine claims of Scripture for my life. I employ the means of grammatical–historical exegesis, and while doing so I am absolutely confident that in the way I arrive at an understanding of God’s revelation.” In the view of Libolt, the text has been “exegeted away” by a prior preconception. Then real exegesis is no longer possible.

3. Libolt used the tired old argument that the creation accounts in Genesis 1 & 2, if taken literally, conflict with each other. I thought that argument had been laid to rest long ago. Numerous Reformed scholars have shown the complete absurdity of that argument. 4. In the past the church has faced the quiaquatenus conflict with respect to the creeds: are they true because or in–so-far-as they agree with Scripture? Libolt goes one step further: the creeds are only museum pieces which tell us what our fathers thought about certain events recorded in the Bible. The creeds “assume that Genesis 1–3 is history. So did everyone else in the sixteenth and seventeeth centuries.” So much for what the creeds say about Genesis and the history of the fall of man. We no longer “assume” the same today. Now I can understand a bit better how Libolt could say on the floor of synod that he could subscribe to the creeds of the church. As historical documents of course they are valuable and useful.

Libolt goes on to make a distinction between creedal references and creedal rulings. In itself that distinction has some validity. Take e.g. the Pauline authorship of Hebrews; or the question whether or not Judas really partook of the Lord’s Supper. Those incidental references are not germane to the real teaching and thrust of the articles concerned. But does Libolt believe that all the references to Adam and Eve and the garden, and their fall into sin, are mere references? That the creeds are not really concerned about teaching explicitly the real historical factuality of these matters? Is the literal-historical reading of Genesis on a line with the Pauline authorship of Hebrews? What is L.D. III of the Heidelberg Catechism really teaching us? One wonders how an intelligent man can come up with such nonsense.

5. Romans 5: “Paul is not arguing for a historical reading of Genesis but rather for the gospel of Jesus Christ.” I wonder if Libolt has ever read the booklet of Prof. J.P. Versteeg of the Netherlands, Is Adam a “Teaching Model” in the New Testament? (trans. by Gaffin). Just one quote: “If an evolutionary view leaves no place for Adam as an historical person . . . , that has direct consequences so far as its view of Christ is concerned.” And one from Prof. J. Murray in his Commentary on Romans: “So basic to Paul’s doctrine is the one trespass of the one man Adam, that any interference with this datum wrecks Paul’s whole argument. We cease to be exegetes when we try to pour Paul’s teaching into moulds other than his own” (p. 181).

And what about Christ’s resurrection? If Genesis is not straightforward history, how about the resurrection? Libolt himself asks this question, and though he calls it “a seriously mistaken argument,” he here comes very close to the most dire consequence of his view. Here allow me to quote from Versteeg again:

What became historical reality in the resurrection of Christ is the antitypical fulfillment of what became historical reality in the fall of Adam into sin. If we wish to speak about the resurrection of Christ as Paul understood it we will have to let that resurrection stand is the same framework in which it was put by Paul. If we do not do that, the question of J. Kamphuis is to the point: “But if it is true that in this argumentation we have to do with the disciple of the rabbis, who used Adam as an ‘instructional model’ or a ‘teaching model,’ while he was not really interested in his historical existence, then the question will never allow itself to be finally suppressed: Is not Christ in his resurrection also a ‘teaching model’ in this dogmatic argumentation . . . ?

Or, to freely translate Visee (Verstaat Prof Kuitert wat hij leest?): 

No one comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world after and because he first believed in (Dutch: aan) Adam. However, neither is there anyone who came to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and grows in the knowledge of God without believing that God is reliable also when he speaks about Mary and David and Abraham and Noah and . . . Adam. So it is!

Therefore to say that “Genesis depends on the resurrection, not the resurrection on Genesis” is nonsense. That is a false dilemma. Both Genesis and the resurrection depend on the reliability and veracity of the written Word—“believing without any doubt all things contained in them”—that is, in the canonical books against which nothing can be alleged.

6. And that brings us to the final point: our view of Scripture. That is basically what it all boils down to. And here again Libolt not only posits another false dilemma, but is patently mistaken when he says that “Calvin insisted correctly that we believe the Bible because of the testimony of the Spirit of the risen Lord, not the risen Lord because of the Bible.” Not only does Calvin not say that, but the final ultimate, bedrock reason that we believe the Bible to be the very Word of God, and the reality of the resurrection is just very simply this: The Bible t ells me so, Amen! The only reason we believe the risen Lord is that the Bible says so. On that solid rock we stand; all other ground is sinking sand. Prof. H. Ridderbos points out in his book Paulus en Jezus that faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, is closely connected with the belief that the Scriptures are the authentic historical witness of t he Holy Spirit concerning Jesus Christ, and the question, “What think ye of the Christ?” (notwithstanding all assertions to the contrary) cannot be divorced from the key question on which faith finally rests, namely, “What do you think of the Scriptures? Are they from heaven or from men?” Our knowledge of Christ and His resurrection depends completely and solely on the Scriptures, and questioning the reliability of the latter automatically calls into question the authenticity of the former.

Libolt fails to make an important distinction in this connection, a distinction made by Calvin. I quote from Murray’s booklet, Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty:

When we speak of the authority of Scripture, we must distinguish between the authority that is intrinsic to Scripture and our persuasion or conviction that it is authoritative. This is the distinction between that which imparts authority to Scripture and that which is the source of our conviction that it is authoritative, between that in which the authority resides and that from which our assurance proceeds. It is the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity as it pertains to this question. . . .

Divine authorship invests Scripture with authority, and it alone. But it is the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit that makes me believe that the Scriptures are indeed the authoritative Word of God. We believe the resurrection solely because the Bible tells us that it happened. And we believe what the Bible says because the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that the Scriptures are from God.

In conclusion, I would like to recommend to Mr. Libolt and all our seminary professors the serious reading and study of the following booklets: Is Adam a “Teaching Model” in the N ew Testament? by Versteeg; Verstaat Prof Kuitert was hij leest? by G. Visee; Om de Klaarheid der Waarheid by C. Trimp; and De Val VanAssen by J. Schelhaas. Here is believing scholarship in true biblical fashion.

J.T.