scripture-may-june-1996

WHERE

I N l-<HE

\VORLI)

IS

~r HE

CH'U RCH?

What Are We Looking For In the Bible?

Michael Horton

Evangelical Mindlessness & the Bible Carl F. H. Henry

So What Does the Bible Tell Me About History?

v. Philips Long Is Bibliolatry Possible? s. M. Baugh Must I Learn How to Interpret the Bible?

D. A. Carson

I Hate My Generation Shane Rosenthal

Scriptural Authority & the Theology of B. B. Warfield Rachel S. Stahle

In Memoriam: Dr. G. C. Berkouwer U NITED

for

REFORMATION

Lincoln Road #350 i>Analhenn, California 92806

714-956-CURE

Ronald Gleason

In This Issue

Pardon & Praise (JanlFeb 1996)

by Michael ·f/orton Most of 'us recan the Sunday scl1Qol song, "Jesus loves, rne,this r know: For the Bible tells meso;' It is of those songs thafstill conyeys a rich depth of meaning~ in spi~eofits a.ssociations with childhood., But what does it mean. to say, "The Bible tells me SO';' it may be easy for most of us to believe that we can be confident in God's love for us "because the Bible says '86:' ", , But Holy Scripture is not built into our hardware. In fact, When it ~omes to the Gospel, Scripture actually rups ' contrary to our nature. W~ are wired for another message , completely,ever since the Fall. Atsome,pointin adulthoO'd, , , there~ore, we have ~o decide whether we,Will live off of ' platitudes or delve deeply into,the sacred text fOT ourselves~ To do that r we must know what we're lookingfor in Scrip­ ture and know how'to i~terpret thetext, espe~iaUywhen it appears to us that there are contradictions within ,Scripture itself. ..

one

" There ate ma~y things that could be said about Sctip­ . ture, of cours.e .We· might have discussed the issues of , canonicity: Why did the Gospel ofJohn make it while the ~<?spel of Thomas wasn:jected? We coulq have also dealt with issuesof authority and the nature O'finspiration. How­ 'ever, we have decided to narrow our focustothe quesJiO'n of . the Bible's purpose: Why was it given to us, what should we beJQoking for, what does it tell us about hi~tory, and what generaLrules should we follow in: interpreting it? ,When all iS 'said and done, we must realize that ques­ , tions such as .these are irrelevant if Christians themselves are not reading the Scriptures. If we are to make an impact ,in ' this dying culture, 'we must not be conformed by the world's standards, but we must continually be transformed ' by the renewing of our minds. , .. We look forward to rolling up our'sleeves together on this one, so ,~hat we will be: able to say, "... because the Bible tellsme :with more matur~) adult confidence even after the Sunday school days ~avebecome distant memories. ~

so:'

..............................

, Next Issu:e:' The Solas of The 'Reformation: ·,

Is There «No Plac~ For Truth" Left in Evangelical Circles?, ,(A Special ACE Report)

2

MAY/jUNE 1996

Too Harsh

I am seeking to lead a church to sense the glory of Christ among his gathered people. I, along with other ,elders, exercise strong leadership in the regulation and order of the public worship services. We have taught and practiced that Sunday public worship is not run by the sentimentality of people's favorite songs, nor is it a time for promoting church activities as a homeroo for the church (a marvellous analogy). We are careful in our planning of the selection of songs. For this e have almost shed blood. People have nottaken kind ly to our insistence that worship be what God intended it to be. Yet I do not buy your arguments. I think they are too harsh.

Is it fair to dismiss all contemporary music and choruses? Is it rightto lampoon them when establishi n principles that should govern worship would provide a filter through which all worship passes? We ha e evaluated 1000 choruses (more or less) and have found 60-80 that we think express biblical truth in a appropriate way. We are not trendy. We are discerni no.

We are equally discerning with classic hymnology and gospel songs. I state it this way: I do not want childre raised in this church without knowing Watts and Wesley, Luther and the Te Oeum. Nor do I want the to think that God's gifts of good music ended with the nineteenth century or are only expressed in certai styles. As one of our members, a PhD in cho ra conducting, puts it, "Sometimes good things happe even in Rock and Roll."

I am not saying we are healthy today. There ha e been better ages of the church, ages when truth was important. In this, CURE serves a wonderful purpose: calling us to think theologically and to demonstrate that good theology is practical and relevant at fa r deeper levels than any modern substitutes are.

It would seem that our best effectiveness can be marred by an overly harsh spirit. modernREFORMATIO~ will serve the church best if it so clearly teaches and exalts the truth that people gladly forsake the ir theological cornhusks to dine on the meat of God ' Word.

M. L.

..

_Yia Compuserve Show Discernment

I just finished the "Pardon & Praise" issue, and once again, it states some things that have been festering in my gut without diagnosis, but you have named these ills and suggested some "cures." But I believe the area ofworship and music is an area where we must be very careful. The "shallow and repetitive ditties" and th e

modernREFORMATIO!\

music that "bears striking familiarity to commercial jingles," we must contrast with the hymns we sing by rote and no longer hear. Even when we do, the minister frequently suggests that we sing "just the first, fourth and fifth verses," apparently because they, too, are long and repetitive.

Would we have some of the great John Newton hymns if we rejected his style of praise to God? We must not forget what Isaac Watts endured when he introduced poetry and rhyme into hymns of that day. Sometimes style is not neutral. Sometimes it's an improvement!

I was recently at a church where a dove replaced the cross in the chancel. When you ask questions about it, the response is something like "A symbol of a bloody, torturous death is not something we should rejoice in front of." Now we're talking error.

Be specific. Show discernment. And may we all pray over our liturgies (whether we think we have them or not!), and compare our services, songs and gospel to Scripture.

D. R. Via Internet

LORD has done.

I believe CURE is doing a great service to the evangelicals by awakening our mind to see how shallow and diluted the gospel has become in our time.

It saddens my heart to read the criticism that people write to you. But, take comfort in that Jesus was criticized for speaking the truth, and He had so predicted that those who speak His truth will be criticized and persecuted as well.

J. Y. Via America On-Line Willow Creek I went to the Willow Creek Church here in Illinois this Wednesday. I had never been to it and was very curious. I promise! After sitting through the entertainment session and a breeze through the food court I thought I would check out the book store. Low and behold, sitting prominently on the front shelf was "Amusing Ourselves To Death" by Neil Postman. I think I've seen it all now!

J. M.

Via Internet

I Almost Sold My Guitar After reading Michael Horton's article on worship, "Is Style Neutral?," my first reaction was to sell my acoustic ,guitar and begin shopping for a pipe organ and a set of hymnals.

Once I regained my senses, I regathered the baby and the bathwater that Michael had thrown out.

Let's not confuse correct doctrine with correct praise.

It's possible to sing "Holy, Holy, Holy," and still be very unholy, unholy, unholy. After all, the Pharisees were stylis­ tically sound and liturgically correct-but their hearts were farfrom God. Their liturgy became legalism. Yes, style is not neutral, but it is also not the best indicator of a person's theology or their heart for God. Let's be careful not to mistake stylistic preferences (cultural or musical) for biblical mandates. It's one thing to encourage theological depth in our worship; it's another to suggest that all our worship should look the same. I can believe like Jonathan Edwards without having to wear one of those funny white wigs!

M.D.

CA A CURE for Naval-Gazing!

It is unfortunate to read that many evangelicals who have come across your magazine or radio program still do not see the importance of what you are trying to do: to stir the mind, heart, and soul of God's people into the scripturally based doctrines and theology. For such is the case with me.

I have been reading modern REFORMATION magazine for almosta year and I can'tthankyou enough for renewing my view of God and Christianity.

You have helped me stop my own "naval-gazing" -the in ard-Iooking and introspective self-examination of what I can do, should do, and didn't do-and place my trust, my faith, and my focus on what the gracious and sovereign

Kudos "I thank my God in all my remembrance of you," (Phil 1 :3) at CURE. Indeed, my life has been blessed by your faithful ministry in both the production of The White Horse Inn and modernREFORMA TION.

K.W.

Via Internet

I am currently subscribed to modern REFORMATION magazine.

I enjoy your publication very much and find it extremely useful, especially in these days of incredible apostasy. Please, keep up the good work.

M. B. Via Internet Thanks for all of your letters. Whether you appreciated our perspective on worsh ip or not, the editors wou ld like to conclude the discussion with the classi c text from the book of Hebrews: "Since we are receiving a ki ngdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful and so worshi p God acceptably w ith reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire " (12:28-29).

, ' SEND US YOUR lETTERS . BY MAIL, FAX, OR E-MAIL TO: ' ~

modernREFORMATioN: Letters,to the Editor

.

2034 E. Lincoln Ave. ,#350 , Anaheim, California 92806

Fax: 714'-956'; 5111

E-mail: ¡CURElnc@aol.com

MAY/jUNE 1996

3

WHAT AR E W E

LOOKING FOR IN

THE BIBLE ~• A

"W

~lea ~O'l ~eclemptltJe-d-llsto'llcal ~'Zeachl1t~

BY MICHAEL HORTON

e must not tell chiefly of people, of their faith as over a more in -depth survey of perspectives. For the ' an attracting example and of their sins as a re­ latter, a number of works could be recommended. 2 pelling example, but we must tell of the revelation ofthe grace ofGod in Christ:' 1 Author ofthe Are We Missing The Point When We Study the Bible? remarkably useful four-volume set, Promise and Deliv­ Calvin Theological Seminary professor Sidney erance (Paidea Press), s. G. De Graafin the above quote Greidanus has provided a masterful overview of the sounds a note that seems to have all but vanished even Dutch debates of the 1930's and while the historical in much of Reformed preaching and Bible-instruction ,'~, details may not be relevant for most readers, the issues these days. It is part of a method of biblical interpreta- -~', raised cannot be dismissed in our own situation. 3 tion that has been a hallmark of Reformed While the liberal Protestants on the Continent were hermeneutics (interpretation), in opposition to ratio- already busily engaged in downplaying the historical nalistic, pietistic, subjective, moralistic and mystical dimension of revelation, emphasizing the ethical, tendencies. In this brief space, I want to appeal to my psychological and spiritual applications provided b own Reformed colleagues to give greater attention to the various biblical writers, a number of prominent this so-called "redemptive-historical" method. In that Reformed theologians saw similar, if less overt, prob­ spirit, I have chosen more of an "open letter" format lems within conservative congregations. According to

4

MAY/jU NE 1996

modern REFORMATION

Greidanus, biblical interpretation during the early part of the century was often marked by the following three tendencies: 1. The Illustrative Interpretation. In this ap­ proach, David and Jonathan teach us about friendship; Hannah's prayer for a child teaches us about persistent prayer; Jacob's struggle with God at Peniel illustrates our spiritual struggle; David's defeat ofGoliath teaches us about conquering the "Goliaths" of our life; Joshua teaches us how to be leaders, and so on. Similarly, then, the New Testament figures-including Jesus-are there chiefly to illustrate "life lessons:' D. Van Dijk, one of the defenders of the redemptive-historical view, warned that the illustrative approach reduces the sa­ cred events of redemptive history to little more than a lesson we could have learned as well from any other non-biblical figure: ''Appealing to the normative pro­ nouncements of Scripture, I could as well preach on the death ofPrince William I in this exemplary manner as I could on, e.g., the death of Jacob; I could as well hold up Napoleon as a deterrent example as, e.g., Nebuchadnezzar because in both cases the normativity must be carried in from elsewhere:'4 In other words, such interpretations assume there is a "truth" lying somewhere beyond Scripture (or at least beyond this particular text) that is illustrated by this biblical pas­ sage or figure. But that is to deny sola Scriptura in practice, importing non-biblical "truths" to the text under consideration. Can we not find better examples than David in non-biblical history?

2. The Fragmentary Interpretation. Here, the unity of revelation in one historical progression of God's plan in Christ is broken up by a number of"his­ tories:' "They dissolve Holy Scripture into a series of spiritual, edifying fragments:' said Klass Schilder. "The one Word of God is shattered into many words about God, and the one work of God [redemption] is dis­ sected into many separate works which are related somehow to God and religion:'s 3. The Atomistic Interpretation. Closely related to the fragmentary approach, this method isolates a text or the person or event from the whole fabric of redemptive history. Instead of asking, "Where does Aaron or Peter fit into the broad sweep of God's fulfill­ ment of his covenant promise in Christ?", one asks, "What does this one verse mean?"Verse-by-verse ap­ proaches as well as inductive Bible study methods fall into this category and while the preacher may feel some sense of accomplishment in having dissected the sen­ tence, it is hardly the Bread of Life, as one of the critics warns: "Either all kinds of practical remarks are tacked onto the several parts of the text with the result that the sermon, because the main theme was not caught, does

not exhibit any unity and the hearers complain that it sticks together like sand -either that, or the sermon centers around one particular 'atom' which has been abstracted from the totality of the texf'6

Six Reasons Why We Fail To Hear Christ In Preaching Even more menacing are the preaching approaches that arise out ofthese interpretive methods. Here Greidanus offers examples of the sort of preaching that results: 1. Biographical Preaching. In the illustrative approach, we end up preaching Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, Paul and Mary, but not Christ! Or ifwe do "preach Christ:' he is simply one more of these biblical examples to lead us on our way. It is deeply human­ centered rather than God-centered and, therefore, Christ-centered. Again this begs the question: Why can we not use the Qur' an for such biographical preaching? After all, many of the same moral "truths" are there as well.

2. Psychologizing. It is likely that many readers heard sermons during Passion Week that guided hear­ ers to reflect on Mary's grief, Peter's inner turmoil, Judas' emotional state, and the states of our Lord's soul.

But can one really say that these appear in the text as clearly or at least as centrally as the sermon seems to have indicated? Do we think that the culmination of the sacrificial system of the Lamb of God is less inter­ esting and relevant than, say, a presumed similarity between Paul's Damascus Road conversion and our own? Often in this approach, hearers are directed to the inner life ofbiblical characters in order to discover their own inner life: "Do I have this kind of faith? Am I willing to do what so-and-so did?" Thus, it will inevi­ tably lead not to a self-examination that leads us to despair of ourselves and seek Christ alone outside of us, but to a labyrinth of self-absorption. This method, says Holwerda, buries "the real content of the text un­ der an avalanche of edifying remarks:'7 3. Spiritualizing. In this approach too, history is pushed aside in an attempt to "get beneath" the actual story of God's speaking and acting. The woman reach­ ing out to touch Jesus' garment simply becomes an allegory for our receiving Christ and the wedding feast at Cana becomes an invitati...on to Jesus today. The crit­ ics of this app1;;oach rightly concluded that this is to return to the a~egorizing method of Alexandria that had enjoyed so 'much success in medieval preaching and was overthrown by the Reformation.

4. Moralizing. Of all the epithets attached to the all-too-popular style of preaching in the modern era, the charge of moralism is the most frequent and not without reason. Every other tendency we have de­ scribed is a handmaiden to this chief abuse ofScripture

MAY/JUNE 1996

5

within conservative Protestant circles. As Greidanus describes moralism, it is "the (semi) Pelagian tendency which denies sola gratia .. .Moralistic preaching is legal­ istic; it issues imperatives without the divine indicative; it makes of the gospel a morallaw:'8 None of the critics complained that there was any overt rejection of Re­ formed theology in favor of Arminian or Roman Catholic dogma, but that in an effort to be relevant and practical, the text was forced to say something other than what it really said. Surely God could have picked better moral examples than Abraham and Sarah or the crafty Jacob or David the adulterer and murderer. Van Dijk wrote, (~t best one may say that a few good, scrip­ tural remarks were occasioned by the text, but that is, strictly' speaking, no longer Ministry of the Word...For then the content ofthe sermon is determined not by the text itself but by the preacher's ingenuitY:'9 5. Typologizing. (~few examples of typologizing

in sermons of the thirties are: Joseph's obedience in looking for his brothers is a prophetic type of Christ's obedience; his sale to the Ishmaelites prefigures Christ's being sold by Judas... :'1o At least the motive here is to preach Christ and to preach him as the promised Mes­ siah, but it fails to allow the text to speak for itself, to point to Christ in its own way. Christ is already present there in the text, whether Old or New Testament, and we do not have to tack him on somehow to the story.

6. Doctrinal Preaching. We love doctrine as Ref­ ormation people, and doctrine prepares us as nothing else for our task as preachers. Thus, the Bible must be studied carefully in order to discern what its unified teaching is concerning the major doctrines it reveals.

However, the redemptive-historical model follows the Reformers in insisting that the preached Word is not merely a word about God or Christ, but is itself the Word of God! Therefore, the goal is not merely to ex­ plain doctrines and lecture about these important truths, but to actually bring CLASSIC QUQ.TES Christ to the people through the procla­ mation. The point is not to educate or to You dillgently study the Scriptures because you thinkthat by them you possess eternal instruct (this is hopefully done thor­ life. The~earethe Scriprnres that testify about me... (iohn5:39) oughly in other contexts), but to break We arelaught'by this:'passage, that if we wish to obtain the knowledge of open the Rock in the wilderness, to allow Christ, we,must'seekitfrom the Scriptures; for they who imagine whatever the water to flow to the thirsty. This does they 'choose concerning Christ will ultimately have nothing of him but a not mean that we avoid doctrine in our I 'shadowy phantom. 'First, tget).; we ought to believe that Christ cannot be ' sermons, but that we see our mission in ,0/ ,property known in any other way than from the Scriptures; and if it be so, it preaching as sacramental (i.e., God giv­ follows thafwe'ought to read the Scriptures with the express design of finding ing his grace) rather than merely , ,Christ in them.Wlwever ,shall turn aside from 'this object, -though he may educational. In the words of the Second weary hims~lf.throughout his whole of life in learning, will neverattain tbe Helvetic Confession,"The preached Word , knowledge of the truth~ ,- . ' is, in a special sense, the Word of God:' John Calvin, Comm(!ntary John (l5,? 3).

How A Preacher Can Be Reformed

Do yo~ remember whatkindof time it was when our Reformers appeared, and Without His Parishioners Knowing It what kind of doctrine candidates for themiriistry learned in the schools? You These critics of the various types of yourself know that it was mere'sophistry, and sophistry so twisted, involved, preaching we have described, Greidanus tortUQUS, ~nd puzzling, that scholastic theology mightweJI be,described as a included, have been concerned that the sp~ci~sof secret magic. The denser the'darkness in which anyone shrouded a pietistic, mystical and subjective streak subject,the more hepuzzledhimself and others with 'preposterous riddles; the' in Protestantism-tendencies that were ,' greater 'his fame -for acumen and learning. _. ' dominant in the preaching before the , Not to ,go' over every pOint, 'what sermons in Europe then 'exhibited that Reformation - had become routine even simplicity with which Paul wishes a Christian people to be always occupied? .. in circles in which orthodox theology was , N~y,what one sermon was ther~ from which,old wives might not cam~ off more insisted upon officially. It is not a question ' whimsies than they could devise at their own fireside in a month?\ For, as ' of heresy, but of biblical interpretation. sermons were then usually divided, the first half was devoted'to those misty Similarly, one often hears the same ser­ questions of the 'schools which ,might-a,stonish'the rude populace, while the -, ' mons in churches deeply and honestly second contained sweefslories; or not-unamusing speculations, by which the ', committed to Reformation confessions he;:trers rriight be kept awake. _Only afew expressions were thrown in from the that one might have heard growing up in ,Word of God, that bytheir majesty they might procure credit for these frivolities: Roman Catholicism, liberal Protestant- ~ ,John Calvin, Letter to.Sado.1e.to (1539). ism, or Arminian fundamentalism and evangelicalism. This happens for various

on

6

MAY/IUNE 1996

modern REFORMATION

reasons.

First, many pastors are concerned that their churches are full of the unconverted, and with good reason. To be sure, there are many hypocrites in our churches who do not have the fruit of righteousness because there is no root. But this has always been true, as Calvin, echoing Augustine and Paul, recognized: "There are many wolves within and sheep without."

But our Dutch defenders of the redemptive-historical method warn us of taking God's work into our own hands here. Exemplary preaching (i.e., preaching Bible examples) makes sense if one's greatest interest is in separating the sheep from the goats by taking inven­ tory: "One Sunday Abraham would be held up as the hero of faith, followed~by the application: Do you have that faith also? ... The next Sundaywe would be told that as Jacob we must know our <Jabbok' or at least our <Peniel' ...Then again it was the soul of Peter, ofJudas, of Pilate,etc."ll "Did Christ arise in your heart?" , say these critics, becomes a way ofseparating the wheat from the chaff, but it is "the curse of mysticism that festers in our circles. It imposes an entirely different problem on us than does the Gospel. The Gospel says: Easter is really a fact! Do you believe that? But mysticism says: That Jesus arose in Joseph's garden we believe all right, but the really important question is: Did he arise in your soul? ... Decisive is the repetition of Easter in everyone personalli'12 How often do believers lose the joy of their salva­ tion as a result of exhortation-centered preaching that drives them to take inventory of their fruit-bearing?

Some consider such an emphasis key to vital spiritual­ ity, but how can one know if he or she has really experienced "Easter" sufficiently or possesses the faith illustrated in the lives of Bible "heroes"? We ought to heed the counsel of the defenders of the redemptive­ historical approach in their advice to preach the Gospel to everyone and not to attempt to sift through God's harvest. We must trust the Word, both Law and Gos­ pel, to do its work in God's sovereign hands. Constant inwardness and self-examination with the purpose of discerning sufficient faith or grace in one's heart or its fruit in one's life will only lead to either self-righteous­ ness or despair: "How in the world;' Van Dijk asks, "could one ever expect to come to certitude in this way?" 13 How indeed. As Calvin insisted, our mission as pastors is to preach faith, not doubt; to lead them to Christ's sufficiency, not to their own.

Second, many pastors are more worried about the moral condition of the nation and of their own congregation than any other matter. On any given Lord's day a conservative Christian may be likely to hear a sermon that leads off with one or two lines

from the Bible (never to reappear) before launching into the real message: America's moral decline, the dangers of Clinton, and the importance of family values. Most of these sermons could be preached by a Mormon if Christ were not tacked on at the end in an invitation to receive Christ. (Perhaps these days even that would not distinguish the two religions.) Often, more time is given to the exegesis of the Constitution and the letters of the founding fathers than to the Gospel and the letters of the apostles.

I realize that this is an extreme example, but it has been repeated in varying degrees across the landscape as I have encountered it. It is the experience of a grow­ ing chorus of frustrated parishioners who are tired of receiving stones for bread. If it isn't American values, it is self-esteem, career guidance, tips for life of some sort: "How To Get Up When Life's Got You Down;' or some such drivel. I recently preached in a large conser­ vative evangelical church in which the title "sermon" in the bulletin was replaced with "Life Perspectives." Had people come expecting a Word of salvation from God or a "life perspective" from Horton? Does it matter? If it doesn't matter, we are no better than the liberal church­ men whose sentimental, moralistic, political, psychological, mystical and subjective orations we have criticized for so long. But enough of the bad news.

Allow me to finish my jeremiad by outlining the basic features of the redemptive-historical approach, and again I will summarize the points made so well by Greidanus: 1. Redemptive History is History. The triumph of Barth in many Reformed circles not only led to a col­ lapse of the Law into the Gospel, but created a Kierkegaardian "paradoxical" dualism between history and supra-history. Still saddled with this liberal dual­ ism between faith and history, Neo-orthodoxy and pietism often tend to down-play the fact that, as Paul told Festus, these events did not take place in a corner.

They were public and historical, not simply individual and subjective. This is Luther's point when he stresses · "Christ extra nos," Christ outside ofus, in opposition to mysticism. Redemptive- historical preaching and Bible reading, therefore, will focu,.s on every text as a part of one seamless f~bric of promise and fulfillment. The whole Bible is 2~ncerned with history-not with his­ tory in generaL but with the unfolding of God's redemptive plan in Christ from Genesis to Revelation.

The Bible is not about me or the problems of my gen­ eration, but about specific saving events in the past, present and future that incorporate me into a commu­ nity, a "cloud of witnesses."

2. Redemptive History is a Unity. This is why a lot

MAY/JUNE 1996

7

of redemptive-historical preaching is done from the Old Testament as well as the New. The Law and the Gospel run from the beginning to the end of the Bible and the revelation of Christ is like a light that grows brighter as the story progresses. Instead ofbreaking this story up into dispensations or atomistic verses, we should see the Bible as talking about the same thing from beginning to end: Christ, and the covenant of grace through which the believer is united to and par­ ticipates, in his life.

3. Redemptive History Means Progression. Some, in reaction against dispensationalism, make so much of the unity of revelation that they neglect the differences between the Old and New Covenants and fail to distin­ guish the national promises made to Israel from the saving promises made to the New Israel. We must always be ready to announce the new stages of revelation and redemption as they are brought into view by the text.

Conclusion But is all of this biblical? In other words, are we impos­ ing an approach on the text that is not there- precisely what we are accusing others of doing?

Audaciously, Jesus accused the biblical scholars of his day of not knowing the Scriptures (Mt 29:29; Lk 24:45) and declared, «You diligently study the Scrip­ tures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are th~ Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life" On 5:39). After his Resurrection, our Lord explained the Scriptures on the Emmaeus road. But first, he sharply rebuked the two disciples for failing to read the Old Testament with

himself at the center: «How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! ... And beginning with Moses and all the Proph­ ets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself" (Lk 24:27). Imagine the power of that sermon! No wonder their hearts burned within them. Jesus here teaches us how we are to read and preach the Bible. It is not chiefly about Bible heroes or lessons in life, but the revelation of Christ.

Similarly, Peter reminds us that the chief message of the entire Old Testament is «the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow" (1 Pt 1: 10-11).

To preach the Bible as «the handbook for life:' or as the answer to every question, rather than as the revela­ tion of Christ, is to turn the Bible into an entirely different book. This is how the Pharisees approached Scripture, however, as we can see clearlyfrom the ques­ tions they asked Jesus, all of them amounting to something akin to Trivial Pursuits: «What happens if a person divorces and remarries?" «Why do your dis­ ciples pick grain on the Sabbath?,"'Who sinned-this man or his parents-that he was born blind?" For the Pharisees, the Scriptures were a source of trivia for life's dilemmas. To be sure, Scripture provides God­ centered and divinely-revealed wisdom for life, but if this were its primary objective, Christianity would be a religion ofself-improvement by following examples and' exhortations, not a religion of the Cross. This is Paul's point with the Corinthians, whose obsession with wisdom and miracles had obscured the true wisdom and the greatest miracle of all. And what is that? Paul replies, «He has been made for us our righteousness, holiness and redemption" (1 Cor 1:28-31) . ~ Notes s, G. De Graaf, cited in Sidney Greidanus, Sola Scriptura: Problems and Principles in Preaching Historical Texts (Toronto: Wedge Publishing, 1970),27, 2 See Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Eerdmans, 1975); When The Time Had Fully Come (Paideia Press, 1982); Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980); Biblical Theology(Eerdmans , 1948, 1985); Gerard Van Groningen, Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament (Baker, 1990); S. G. De Graaf, Promise &Deliverance, 4 volumes (Paideia Press, 1981); Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 2 volumes (self-published, 1986); Edmund Clowney, The Unfolding Mystery: Christ In The Old Testament (NavPress, 1988).

3 Sidney Greidanus, op. cit 4 Ibid,, 59.

5 Ibid., 62.

6 Ibid., 63.

7 Ibid., 76.

8 Ibid ., 79, 9 Ibid., 82, ...

10 Ibid,,83.

11 Klass Schilder, cited in Greidanus, op. cit, 96.

12 Ibid. , 96, Dr. Michael S, Horlon is the president of CHRISTIANS UNITED for REFORMATION and is a graduate of Biola University, Westminster Theological Seminary in Califomia, and recently com­ pleted his doctoral work at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. The author of ten books, Michael is co-pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Placentia, California.

8

MAY/JUNE 1996

modern REFORMATION

~

in Jesus Christ. This may restrict revelation to matters of doctrine and ethics. Noll deplores as harmful to Christian thinking the invocation of inerrancy as a litmus test, stressing that evangelicals have "an im­ plicit thorough trust" in the truthfulness of the Bible.

But that comment deals with psychology more than theology.

Bock is somewhat more cautious. He thinks we should follow biblical proportions when expounding doctrine. Yet when one is discussing Christianity's epistemic foundations may it not be proper to violate such restriction? But to Bock's credit, he remarks that

By Carl F. H. Henry "to give some description of the Bible's trustworthi­ ness without asserting Scripture's fundamental truth­ na forum on the ~vangelical mind-which Pro­ fulness leaves us in a no-man's land." fessor Mark Noll of Wheaton College says is McGrath stresses the "trustworthiness and suffi­ virtually nonexistent-Christianity Today maga­ ciencyofScripture, " which he regards as a fence erected zine (August 14, 1995) enlists Noll and three other to safeguard these features. The fence (inerrancy) is intellectual heavyweights to tell the world what ails really not as important, he says, as the truth it's meant conservative Christianity in the United States. to safeguard. McGrath thinks we should emphasize The disconcerting verdict is that-despite cen­ "what Scripture says" rather than "why it is authorita­ tury-old schools like Wheaton College and scores of tive." But suppose Scripture says it is authoritative seminaries and a vast production of religious books because it is veritably the word of the Lord-as the and magazines-the evangelical movement is prophets declare some 1200 times? Andsupposeiner­ cognitively ineffectual. Even the Christian College rancy is an indispensable part of the truth that iner­ Coalition ofsome 90 evangelical colleges and univer­ rancy is intended to safeguard? sities hardly gets a mention.

Mouwrejects the emphasis oftheological moder­ Prescriptions are offered by Mark Noll, author of ates-shared also by previous Fuller president David The Scandal ofthe Evangelical Mind (1994), Richard Hubbard-that the term inerrancy is useless because Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary; it is variously defined. Instead, he affirms that, how­ Alister McGrath, now at Regent College, Vancouver, ever we define it, the term is "helpful" because it and progressive dispensationalist Darrel Bock ofDal­ guards "the message character of Scripture as pre­ las Theological Seminary. The participants have in cious." But this shifts the ambiguity from "inerrant" common their postponement into the future of im- . to "precious." Th~basic issue is the truthfulness, au­ pressive evangelical intellectual achievement and their thority, inspiration, and inerrancy ofScripture, as the shared confidence that evangelicals should put less apostle Paul stresses in 2 Timothy 3: 16. What the term emphasis on the inerrancy of Scripture. inerrancy really guards is inerrancy.

Noteworthy differences exist. Noll is most Somewhere in the interview the emphasis emerges despairing about the evangelical mind. He sees the that Christian humility may lead us to forsake finality. recent-earth creation theory and the politically But that proposal opens another can of worms. uncritical Religious Right as having consumed Christianity Today could surely have located intellectual capital that might have been better spent among its own senior editors evangelical intellectuals on larger issues. Mouw shares these reservations, but like James Packer, Kenneth Kantzer or Timothy thinks sweeping deconstruction of the past is not George, or could have enlis!ed other scholars like D. needed. The contributions of Noll, Marsden, Hatch, A. Carson, DaXid Wells or John Woodbridge (and and McGrath are viewed as the beginnings ofa better perhaps even aA alternative at Wheaton) who would era, although their efforts are more analytic than have asked theologically decisive questions. Renewal constructive. of the evangelical mind should least of all accommo­ But it is the prevalent attitude toward the Bible­ date ambiguity in the exposition of the doctrine of es_ j<ill, embarrassment in respect to scriptural in­ Scripture. ~ e:-:-2~-- that is noteworthy.

Dr. Carl F. H. Henry is the founding editor of Christianity Today and is the author of _- o~ -ommends ((seriousness about the Bible," some 35 books, including Twilight of A Great Civilization, and the six volume set God, -..:.- ia ' e on the history of redemption culminating Revelation, and Authority.

Evan8elical

& the Bibl e

I

MAY/JUNE 1996

9

What .Does The ible Tel1 Me About

History?

By V. Philips Long henever discussions of the authority and reliability of the Bible arise, questions of history and historicity take center stage. There is nothing surprising in this, for Christianity is by its very nature a historical

religion. As contemporary German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg stresses,

«The Christian religion exists, in distinction from other belief systems, by

virtue of its relationship to a historical figure and that figure's particular

story."l The figure is, 6f course, Jesus. And his story is of a sinless life, a

wonder-working ministry, death by crucifIXion, and a miraculous resurrec­

tion from the grave. The point of the story is redemption for God's people.

The recipients of redemption are, as John points out, real people «in the

world;' people whom God the Father has «given" to God the Son (J n 17: 11).

Thus, for John-as indeed for the other Gospel writers-for Paul, and for

most people through the ages who have professed the name of Christ, the

Christian faith is dependent for its validity, vitality, and viability on its

historical reality.

The late G. B. Caird, former Regius Professor of Holy Scripture at the

University of Oxford, put the matter plail1ly: (~ccording to John there is no

Christianity apart from the solid reality ofthe earthly life ofJesus recorded in

the apostolic tradition .... Eternal life remains an unsubstantial dream unless

in one man's life it has become earthly reality.... Without the Jesus of history

we know neither the Christ of faith nor the God he came to reveal:'2 The

Apostle Paul put the matter more plainly still: «If Christ has not been raised,

your faith is futile; you are still in your sins .... If only for this life we have hope

in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men" (1 Cor 15: 17,19).

W

10

MAY/jUNE 1996

'. modern REFORMATION

Does Biblical Historicity Really Matter?

Given what is at stake, Christians are quite right to express concern when, for example, the Society of Biblical Literature's "Jesus Seminar" pronounces nega­ tively on a majority of the sayings of Jesus or on the historicity of the resurrection. This concern should not induce panic, however, but rather should incite evaluation of the philosophical/metaphysical belief system that underlies the method employed by the If we can demonstrate, with our research tools, that Seminar. Those who do not accept the philosophy parts ofthattradition tell ofevents or persons that never should not adopt the method, at least not without were, or at least never ~ere like the tradition describes significant modification.? Less dramatic perhaps, but them, this does not alter the fact that the tradition has alarming nonetheless, is the frequently heard claim spoken to believers for generation after generation with that events like the exodus out of Egypt and the power and expressed things which they believed to be true. The tradition "rang true" in their own experience conquest of Canaan, which are of central importance and enabled them to "develop a self-understanding and to the biblical story line, have been shown by a lifestyle. It was the tradition as received which accom­ . archeological study never to have happened. Again the response of those who find such claims unsettling plished this, not the past-as-it-actually-was. 4 should not be to panic but, rather, to pursue the deeper Ramsey's bold statement raises several questions. level questions that sometimes go unasked by actual Is he suggesting that the credulity ofprevious genera­ purveyors of archeological information. What one tions somehow provides an adequate basis for a more often finds is that the methods employed-even some­ enlightened faith today? And ifit really doesn't matter times by professing Christian believers-are built on what in the Bible is fact and what is fiction, does it an Enlightenment worldview whose naturalistic matter whether God is a fiction or not? Perhaps J. R. R. rationalism finds itself at loggerheads with the Tolkien's Lord of the Rings or even TV's Star Trek worldview that permeates the Bible and the Bible's through its many generations could serve as "founda­ own historical accounts. tion documents" for faith, if faith has no need of historical grounding. Furthermore, what is the faith Is the Bible History, Literature, or Theology? that Ramsey advocates? Is it nothing more than "a So far I have stressed the importance of historical self-understanding and a lifestyle"? questions for the Christian faith and have alluded to If the essence of Christianity had only to do with the "historical accounts" found in the Bible. But this "self-understanding" and "lifestyle," then maybe there raises a question: Is the Bible a "history book" per se? would be something to be said for the view that con­ The answer is yes andno. The Bible, as I have attempted cern about biblical historicity is at best irrelevant, at to stress, is surely interested in history, but it is more worst "the silliest manifestation of historical criti­ than merely a book ofhistory. It is, in fact, a library of cism."s But, as we have already seen, neither Scripture quite diverse literary works. In addition to historical itself nor classic Christian tradition understands the prose, there is law, prophecy, preaching, poetry, essence of the faith in this way. Rather, as Princeton psalmody, parable, epistle, apocalyptic, genealogy, Seminary professor Geerhardus Vos observed back in gospel, and so forth. Most of these literary types (or 1906, true Christianity's «deep sense of sin, which is genres) exhibit some interest in historical questions, central in her faith, demands such a divine interposi­ but the extent of interest and the way this interest is tion in the course ofnatural development as shall work expressed varies considerably. Thus, it is important, actual changes from guilt to righteousness, from sin to when seeking to distill historical information from the holiness, from life to death, in the sphere not merely of Bible, to consider what kin..d of literary genre one is consciousness but ofbeing."6 In other words, for real reading. One sJtould not assume that a parable, for people, with real problems, in need of reconciliation example, wiU\ necessarily contain historical with areal (not fictional) God, whose wrath they really information. But nor should one too quickly label a deserve-for these people (which is all people), real text "parable" or "myth" simply because it contains redemption is needed. Such redemption the Father reference to miracles or to divine activity, which tend mplished through the Son, in space and time, by to be excluded from modern history books. The c. real incarnation, a real death, and a real resurrection. question, rather, is whether the text seems to recount ~. ory, therefore, is vital both to divine self-disclo­ something that its writers believed actually happened.

-...ire an d to salvation.

Whether modern readers share that ancient beliefwill,

Given what has just been said, the answer to this question would seem to be obvious. But there are many people today who would argue that historical questions are irrelevant to faith. George Ramsey, for example, in a chapter cleverly titled "If Jericho Was Not Razed, Is Our Faith in Vain?,"3 asserts:

MAY/jUNE 1996

11

Since God has revealed himself not simply in deed but also in word, providing authoritative commentary not only on his own actions but on the actions of human beings as they figure in the sw~ep of history, the Bible .requires a measure of literary competence of those w ho would read its theological history appropriately. of course, vary from person to person, but modern acceptance or rejection does not change the fact ofthe ancient belief, which must be acknowledged. The key, of course, is rightly to discern the "truth claims" of Scripture. And this is possible only through a careful and competent literary reading of the texts. Thus, we cannot adequately deal with the Bible historically until we have first done it justice literarily. But recognition of the literary character of Scripture raises another question.

Years ago. I read Robert Alter's The Art ofBiblical Narrative,8 and my eyes began to be opened to many striking literary features of the Old Testament's narratives that had previously eluded me. I well remember being somewhat troubled (as well as intrigued) by my growing literary awareness, because it raised a question. I thought, ''I've always taken the biblical narratives in their apparently intended sense as historical accounts, am I now to understand that they are literature, not history?" Perplexed, at first, by this question, I soon came to understand that the opposition "literature versus history" sets up a false dichotomy. I was much helped by reading Meir Sternberg's monumental The Poetics of Biblical Narrative,9 but it was my previous experience as a portrait painter that most dramatically alerted me to the wrong-headedness ofsetting literature and history ~ in opposition. As I reflected on portraits that I had ~ previously painted, I recognized that the overriding purpose of the portraits was a historical one-to preserve a memory ofthe subject through a depiction, or representation, that would not only capture the physical likeness of the individual but also something of that individual's character and interests. As a representation, some features were non-negotiable, 12

MAY/JUNE 1996

the configuration and contours ofthe face in particular, while other features, such as the arrangement of"props" in the setting, could be left to the judgment ofthe artist.

Indeed, many creative choices were left open to thet artist-how to compose the picture, the angle from ~ which to view the subject, the light in which to place the subject, the degree ofdetail to include in the depiction­ but these creative choices had to be made under the overarching "historical" purpose ofpreserving a "true likeness" (though by no means the only true likeness) of the subject .

These kinds ofreflections opened for me a satisfy­ ing way of recognizing that the Bible's narratives may at one and the same time be both accurately historical and masterfully literary. Indeed, in my recent book, The Art of Biblical History (intentionally playing on Alter's title), I argue that a good definition ofhistoriog­ raphy (history writing) might be "verbal representa­ tional art" analogous to the "visual representational art" of portraiture. The analogy of history writing to portraiture helps in several respects. For example, one may recognize differences between several portraits of, say, George Washington, without drawing the con­ clusion that at best only one portrait can be"accurate," while the others are necessarily flawed. By the same token, one may recognize differences between the Gospel portraits of Jesus, or between the histories oT Israel found in Samuel-Kings, on the one hand, and Chronicles, on the other, or between the prose account of Deborah's battle in Judges 4 and its poetical coun­ terpart in Judges 5, without assuming that"difference" implies "error" or even "inaccuracy."

Another way in which the portrait analogy is help­ ful is that it underscores the fact that each portraitist, while committed to preserving a "record" of the past, will do so in his or her own style and from a particular "slant" or point ofview. The slant in biblical historiog­ raphy is very clearly theological, as distinct from the political, economic, social, anthropological, or other slants that characterize much modern historiography.

It has often been noted that the reign ofOmri, for example, though no less notable from a political point of view than that of his son Ahab, receives far less treatment in the book of Kings. That Omri gets only eight verses (1 Kgs 16:21-28) while Ahab gets over six chapters (1 Kgs 17-22) would seem to constitute an error, or at least an imbalance, ifthe book ofKings were seeking to write a political history per se-but that is not its intent. Its interest, rather, is theological. Per­ haps Ahab gets more coverage in part because of hi link, through his wife Jezebel, to the Baal worship that threatened true religion in his day and also, in part, because his career was bound up with that of-the

modern REFORMATION

prophet Elijah.

The above example illustrates yet another similar­ ity between portraiture and all history writing. Both must be selective. While some portrait artists seek to achieve almost photographic accuracy, this is not the usual approach; even where such an attempt is made, close inspection of the canvas will reveal that at some level the artist's striving for photographic accuracy has to give way to tiny abstractions which, taken to­ gether, give the impression of an exact likeness. Most portraitists are far more selective in the details they choose to include, often limiting themselves to just those few details that are necessary to allow the mind of the viewer to fill in the rest. In the same way, the writers ofthe Bible's historical narratives are generally quite selective, masterfully choosing just those sug­ gestive details that "paint the picture." Ehud was left­ handed, Eli was growing blind and overweight, Saul was tall and physically impressive, David was small but spiritually impressive, Absalom prided himself in his hair, and so forth-not enough information to draw a picture on paper, but in context just the right information to get the picture ofwho these individuals were and why they are significant.

The heading to this section asks the question "Is the Bible history, literature, or theology?" The answer should by now be clear. It is all three. The relation between the three might be summed up as follows.

The overarching purpose of the Bible is a theological one-namely, to reveal God to his human creatures.

But since the true God has been active in human affairs, bringing deliverance to his chosen and visiting judgment on those who reject him, the Bible must also take a vital interest in history. Furthermore, since God has revealed himself not simply in deed but also in word, providing authoritative (because inspired) commentary not only on his own actions but on the actions ofhuman beings as they figure in the sweep of history, the Bible requires a measure of literary competence of those who would read its theological history appropriately.

How Should We Read the Bible "Historically"?

Christian believers who take the Bible seriously are usually quick to defend the theological and historical veracity ofthe Scriptures. I hope that enough has been said above to underscore how important it is that these same believers also take seriously the literary charac­ ter of Scripture. If the latter is overlooked, there is a great danger that believers committed to the "truth value" of the Bible (i.e., those who believe that what­ ever the Bible says or enjoins is to be believed and obeyed) may find themselves embracing and defend­

ing theological or historical "truth claims" that the Bible, rightly understood, does not in fact make. For example, those who overlook the distinction between the prose account of Sisera's death in Judges 4:21 ("while he lay fast asleep") and the poetic celebration ofthe event in Judges 5:27 ("he fell ...he fell ...he fell") may wrongly assume that these texts involve a histori­ cal contradiction. Was he prone or erect when Jael "nailed" him? But to ask this question is to exhibit a lack of literary sensitivity and competence. 10 Most people are quick to recognize the poetic idiom of, say, Isaiah 55:12, and so do not assume that hills actually "burst into song" or that "the trees of the field ... clap their hands." The Judges 4,5 issue may be different in

C LAS SIC

QUO T,E S

There are certain rules for the interpretation,of Scripture which I think mightwith great advantage be taught to eameststudcnts ofihe Word, that they may profit not only from reading the works of others who have laid open the secrets of the sacred writings, but also from themselves opening such secrets to others....Bur now as to those ' , who talk vauntingly of Divine Grace, and boast thatthey understand and can explain Scripture without such aids, I wish such persons could calm themselves so far as to remember that; however justly they may rejoice in God's great gift, yet it was from human teachers ' they themselves learned to read....They must surely grant that evel)' one oius learned his own language by hearing it constantly from childhood, and that any other language we have leamed~Greek,or Hebrew, or.any of the rest~we have learned either in the same way, by hearing it spoken, or from a human teacher. Now, then, suppose we advise aU our brethren not to teach their children any o( these things,"because on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit the apostles immediately began to speak the language of every race; and warn , every one who has nothad alike experience thathe need notconsider himselfaChristian, or may atleastdoubtwhether he has yet received the Holy Spirit? No, no; rather letus put away false pride and learn , whatever can be learned from man; and let him whoteaches another ' communicate what he has himself received withoutarrogance and without jealousy. And do not let us tempt Him in whom yve have believed, lest, being en~nared by such wiles of the enemy and by our own perversity, we may even refuse to go to fhe churches to hearlhe gospelitself, or to read a book, or to listen to another reading or preaching, in the hope that we shall be carried up to the third ,heaven....Let us beware of s!jch dangerous temptations of pride. ...We know for example that the eunuch who was reading Isaiah the prophet, add did not understand what he read, was not sent by' the apostle to an angeI,norwas it an angel who explained to him what he did not understand, nor was he inwardly illuminated by the grace of God without the interposition of man; on the contrary, at the suggestion of God, Philip, who did understand the prophet, came to ' him, and sat with him, and in human words, and with a human ' tongue, opened to him the Scriptures.

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine,(397 AD).

MAYljUNE 1996

13

sense. And those who do not give atten­ tion to the larger context(s) in which the particular text under investigation is situ­ So then, from this we musfgather that to profit much in the holy

ated may easily misconstrue what the text , Scripture we must always resortto,our Lord Jesus Christ and cast our is actually saying. For instance, the sig­ eyes upon him, :without turning awayfrom him at any time. You will nificance ofthe words ofJob's friends and see a numherof p~ople'who labor very hard indeed at readingthe holy

even of Job himself can hardly be under­ Scriptures-theY'do , nothing else but turn over the leaves,ofit, and yet

stood apart from the entire message ofthe , after ten years they 'have(}.s 'much knowledge of it as if they had never book, including in particular the heav­ , read'a single line~And why? Because theydo riot have any partiCular enly assembly in the prologue and the aim invie~, tryey only wandet about. And even inworldly'learning you divine encounters with Job at the end of the book. Or again, the significance of will see a,great number who take pains enough, and yet all to no such notices as Solomon's marriage to ' p'urpose, beca~se they kept neither order nor proportion, nor,do Pharaoh's daughter in 1 Kings 3:1, his anything else but gather material from. this quarter and from that, by of chariots in 4:26, his ap­ acquisition Il'learis of whith they ~arealwaysconfused , and can never bring pointment of district officers in 4:27, and anythingw,orthwhile. And although they have gathered together a so on may appear as inconsequential in­ number of sentences of all sorts, yet n<?thing of value 'results from terruptions in the flow of the narrative them. Even soit is with them that labor in reading the holy Scriptures one views them in the context ofthe until , and ,d9'not know which is the point~hey ought to rest on" namely? the entire story of Solomon in 1 Kings 1-11, knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. in which Solomon's ever-increasing ac­ John Calvin, Sermon on Ephesians 2.: 19-22(1559). ',: cumulation of gold (chapters 9-11), of chariots (10:26-29), and of wives (11:1­ degree, but not in kind.

3) leads ultimately to his apostasy. And even this read­ The task, then, for those who would read the Bible ing may be further enriched by considering Moses' well "historically" is first to read it well "literarily." "law of the king" in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, which ~ This will require an unrelenting attentiveness to the forbids the accumulation of all three. text. Martin W oudstra has stated that "the task of the Good listening by fair-minded, open readers theologian-exegete is a humble yet a significant one. It should yield a generally adequate, ifnot perfect, grasp begins with listening; it continues and ends with listen­ of the truth claims of a text. Once we feel fairly sure ing." 11 Preconceived notions ofwhat the text can and about the historical claims a text is making, we may must say will have to be held in check in order to hear attempt to test the truth value, or veracity, of these clearly what the text actually says. Like a counselor claims. To assess the historical veracity ofa text, we will listening to a patient, the exegete will want to explore need to ask questions similar to those a law courtwould why the text uses certain terms and tells its stories in ask in assessing the reliability of a witness. First, is the certain ways. But unlike the counselor, the exegete character ofthe witness such as to inspire confidence? listens carefully not so as to discover how the "patient" Here believers and nonbelievers will approach the bib­ might be helped but, rather, how what the text has to lical texts with different assumptions. Believers, how­ ever, must take care not to adopt a skeptical approach say might help the exegete.

Good listening requires at least the following: first, that may be wedded to a particular method (e.g., the a receptive attitude on the part of the exegete and, standard, post-Enlightenment historical-critical second, careful attention to the full context ofthe text's method) but not warranted by the object under inves­ individual utterances. Listening ability can also be tigation. Second, does what the witness has to say hang enhanced by good training-in the original languages together as...a coherent whole? Are there internal con­ of the Bible, in the specific literary conventions of the '," tradictions in what the witness is saying? This might be biblical genres, etc.-but those without opportunity ' \ called the test ofinternal coherence; biblical texts should for specialized training should not despair, as the first be subjected to it, so long as the interpreter is careful to two characteristics ofgood listening will still enable the apply a standard of coherence appropriate to what the reader to make solid progress in understanding the text is-namely, in the case ofmuch biblical narrative, Bible. On the other hand, those who approach the text "verbal representational art." Finally, how does the with skepticism and suspicion may prove to be poor witness's testimony square with the testimony ofother listeners; they may not "bear with" the text long enough reliable witnesses (biblical or extra-biblical) and with to understand what it is driving at or just how it makes whatever material evidence is at hand (artifactual,

'C1 ASS Ie , Q,U 0 T E S

14

MAY/JUNE 1996

modern REFORMATION

'W

architectural, etc.)? This might be called the test of of history, he is also the master literary artist who has external coherence. authorized the pictures of the past that we encounter Now, believers may object to the notion of «test­ in Scripture. Whatever else may be learned about the ing" the claims ofScripture. But I would argue that the peoples, politics, cultures, and events of the biblical attempt is warranted for at least two reasons. First, it ' period through, for example, archaeological, anthro­ serves an apologetic aim. It provides information that pological, and sociological studies, and however much may be very necessary in building a case for the trust­ our full understanding may be enriched by the pic­ worthiness of Scripture. Second, such internal and tures painted by these disciplines, it is the biblical external testing also provides the interpreter an op­ depictions, above all others, that command our trust portunity for self-correction. Where the pieces do not and obedience, for it is they that bear the stamp of seem readily to fall into'place, the interpreter is chal­ authority. ~ lenged to check to see whether his or her understand­ ing of the text is flawed in some way. The realization Notes "Weltgeschichte und Heilsgeschichte," in Probleme Biblischer Theologie: Gerhard that one has misread a text, though perhaps painful, is von Radzum 70 Geburtstag, (ed. Hans Walter Wolff) . MOnchen: Chr. KaiserVerlag, 1971 , 350.

(My translation).

nevertheless something that should be welcomed by 2 The Language and Imagery of the Bible. London : Duckworth, 1980, 215-16.

3 The sixth and final chapter of Ramsey's book, The Quest for the Historical Israel:

all who prize the Bible and accord it ultimate author­ Reconstructing Israel's Early History. London: SCM, 1982.

ity, as distinct from the relative authority oftheir own 4 Ibid., 124.

5 So Alan Cooper, "On Reading the Bible Critically and Otherwise," in The Future of

opinions.

Biblical Studies (eds. Richard Elliot Friedman and H. G. M. Williamson). Atlanta: Scholars

Press, 1987, 65-66.

6 "Christian Faith and the Truthfulness of Bible History," Princeton Theological Review

4 (1906): 299.

Conclusion This brief essay began with the title question, «So what does the Bible tell me about history?". Weare now in a position to answer it. The Bible tells us just what we need to know in order to understand who God is, who we are, and how God has worked «at many times and in various ways" in history to bring redemption to his people (to borrow a phrase from Hebrews 1:1). But God has not simply been at work in history, he has also been at work in literature. That is, the Bible tells us just what we need to know in just the way we need to hear it. If(all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3: 16), then God is not only the most important actor on the stage

7 For brief but substantive critiques of the Jesus Seminar by R. W. Yarbrough and J. A. Gibbs, see the journal Presbyterion, Volume 20 (1994), 8-35. Book-length evaluations

have also begun to appear. See, for example, Jesus Under Fire (M. J. Wilkens and J. P.

Moreland, eds.). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. See also B. Witherington, The Jesus

Quest. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995).

8 New York: Basic Books, 1981 .

Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. A briefer, useful introduction is

9 Tremper Longman's Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation. FCI 3; Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1987.

10 For fuller discussion of this and other issues, see Long, Art of Biblical History, 53­

56.

11 The Book of Joshua. NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981,29.

Dr. V. Philips (Phil) Long is Professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary. He holds a BA from Wheaton College, an M.Div. from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge, England. He has also studied at the University of Heidelberg, Germany, and at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. After graduating from seminary, he served for four years with Greater Europe Mission as lecturer in Biblical Languages and Old Testament Exegesis at the Freie Theologische Akademie in Germany. His publications to date include The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence (Scholars Press, 1989) and The Art of Biblical History (Zondervan, 1994).

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8 ••••••••••••• II

• • • &I

•

•

Resource Catalog (Call 1-800

•

956-2644

Lot's of CURE Stuff

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• MAY/j UNE 1996

15

tion more piquant here than in the rest ofus.) Specifi­ cally, he believes that "creation scientists" and their followers tend "to transform the biblical text, or a set of human assertions regarding the text, into an object of worship: biblicism bordering on bibliolatry."

Now, I would like to set aside the creation­ evolution issue entirely, as interesting as it is. I only quote Professor Psmith here because he invokes the charge of bibliolatry against his opponents in this internecine squabble of the Scientifically Trained. In doing so, I must report in my capacity as a "theologi­ cally trained Christian" that Professor Psmith has wan­ dered beyond his proper realm of pterodactyls and psyllae by bringing up bibliolatry. Idolatry ofany sort is a theological idea, not a scientific one. And before he or anyone else may cry, "Bibliolater!", a prior question must be asked: Is bibliolatry possible? Because, of course, if it is not, then no one does it.

Oh, people do say that bibliolatry has been prac­ ticed in the past. For instance, in a somewhat sympa­ thetic and therefore refreshing discussion on Calvinis­ tic worship, J. S. Whale gravitates to the idea that some of Calvin's heirs turned the Bible into "an infallible legal code." How? By actually using the Decalogue in their Sunday morning worship and by fencing the Comm union Table. And you know what these nefari­ 0us acts indicate: "The Biblicism which was the ruling principle of the whole system too often degenerated into Bibliolatry."l But we are not helped much by Professor Whale's use of the term. He tosses both "biblicism" and "bibliolatry" at us without clear defi­ nition and brings in no real evidence to justify these incriminations. "Is bibliolatry possible?" still begs an answer.

I should make it abundantly clear right here that neither Professors Psmith nor Whale seriously be­ lieves that anyone practices bibliolatry in any literal 130 5 )11. 13CAugh sense. Bowing down to the Book? No, not likely. John R. W. Stott does take pains to calm our fears in his own case. In his handbook on sermon preparation he tells 'm not wont to read letters to editors. Time, I us that he often kneels in prayer over his message with suppose, or a perceived lack thereof. Or perhaps an open Bible before him. "This is not because I am a it's outrage. All the posturing and petty outrage of bibliolater and worship the Bible," Stott scrupulously our age shows up there. But I did read one letter in a explains. 2 fIe need not have worried. Not only our religious periodical recently. It was from a science "' magnanimity, but our common sense would infallibly department chairman in a Christian college whom I ' ~; steer us away from believing that he or anyone else will call Professor Psmith (the"P" is silent as in psycho­ . engages in literal worship of bits of paper today.

sis), a pseudonym ofcourse. Professor Psmith tells us (Though trees themselves have received quite too much

in his capacity as a "scientifically trained Christian" veneration in the past. And who can tell about the

that he observes a grave danger rising from "North future with the current craze over Mother Gaia?)

So bibliolatry must occur in some figurative sense American fundamentalism" and its handling of the ofthe term. Now, when I first read Professor Psmith's Bible. (We may assume that being trained scientifi ­ cally has made Professor Psmith's powers ofobserva­ statement above, I thought he was saying that certain

I

16

MAY/JUNE 1996

modern REFORMATION

~

/

~

(creation science) interpretations of the biblical text are idolatrous. He could have expressed himself more clearly.

Is bibliolatry really possible?

Let us begin with God. Always. The God ofthe Book IS a jealous God. He makes himselfperfectly clear on this point. He is ardently offended when men or angels give worship due to him to anyone or to anything else.

But, granted that we do not do obeisance to the folios, is God offended when we ascribe certain attributes of God himselfto the ideas, truths, even to theverywords ofHoly Scripture? (Ideas and truths are best commu­ nicated through words, by the way. They are most elusive otherwise.)

For example, ideas like «infallibility" are ascribed to the Bible, because we believe that God himself is infallible. He cannot by his nature make a mistake. To do so would be to deny himself and to be God no more.

Therefore, if the Bible does contain mistakes, either the infallible God did not inspire it, or he mistakenly (and cruelly) left us, more than six score thousand who know not their right hand from their left hand, to shift for ourselves in matters of truth. But God does nothing unfinished or unwell. As he puts it, «Myword will not return to me void," "Behold, itwasverygood." . So is it vulgar idol chasing to say that the Bible itselfby good and necessary inference cannot contain error? Is God affronted by such ascriptions to the Book?

«The Scripture cannot be broken... Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away... Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God...Itis easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law...for you have exalted your word over your name ...I have trea­ sured your word in my heart...Your testimonies are my delight, my counselors ... Scriptute locked up all under sin." These statements by Jesus and the biblical writers must suggest bibliolatry to some. So is bibliolatry truly possible?

A fine theologian of whom I asked the question thinks that bibliolatry is possible and that the scribes and Pharisees were guilty of it. Now we must guard against laying all the intellectual sins ever conceived at the feet of the poor scribes and Pharisees. They have quite enough sobering problems. But were they bibliolaters to boot? Well, they did highly honor the words ofScripture. Whatever else you say about scribes and Pharisees, they knew the Book. Look, for instance, at those of whom Herod inquired regarding the Messiah's birthplace. «Bethlehem of Judea!" they snapped off, «Forsoithas been written by the prophet,

'And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah ... '" Let me ask you. How well do you know Micah's prophecy?

But it is a tragic fact that the scribes and Pharisees, though knowing the words of the Book, knew not its Author. «You know neither me nor my Father," pro­ nounced Jesus. Perhaps it is bibliolatry to know the Book but not its Publisher. To know dead precepts, but not the living God. «Thou shalt love the Bible thy Book with all thine heart, soul, and strength. But God is expendable." However, let me ask you this: How did Jesus answer the bibliolatrous folk of his day?

«Have you not read what God said to you? ...Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written ... What is written in the Law? How do you read it? ...In your own Law it is written ... Have you not read in the book of Moses? ..It is written in the Prophets ... Then what is the meaning of that which is written? ..The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him... Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms ... Begone, Satan! For it is written...It stands written ... As it is written...On the other hand, it is written...Is it not written?"

Jesus answered wrong users of the Book with the Book. Is bibliolatry possible then? Not easily, but yes, I suppose bibliolatry may possibly occur in some ex­ treme cases. Yet is it bibliolatry to hold to a high view of Scripture or to attribute infallibility or other divine attributes to God's Word? How about substituting God's actions with the Bible's record ofhis acts? «The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith ...."

No, what some may call bibliolatry is not always­ indeed, is rarely such. Let us truly love the Lord our God with all our hearts and worship him only. But «to reverently esteem" the Book, «the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole...is to give all glory to God."3 Even to love God's Word has good precedent in our Lord Jesus himself: «Oh, how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day 10ng...I hate and abhor falsehood, but I love your law...But these things were written that you may be­ lieve that Jesus is the Messiah) the Son ofGod, and that by believing yo~'~ay have life." f'-> ~

Notes 1 J. S. Whale, "Calvin," in Christian Worship (Nathaniel Micklem, ed .; Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1936): 157.

2 John R. W. Stott, Between Two Worlds (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982): 222.

3 Westminster Confession of Faith 1:5.

Dr. S. M. Baugh is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (M. Div.) in California and the University of California (Ph. D.) in Irvine. He is Associate Professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in California and has taught Greek for more than a decade. He is the author of A New Testament Greek Primer published by Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company.

MAY/jUNE 1996

17

Must I Lea rn

ow to •

I

e?

By D. A. Carson

ermeneutics is the art and science of those who don't. We might adapt his analysis to our interpretation; biblical hermeneutics is the art topic: There are two kinds of practitioners of . and science of interpreting the Bible. At the time hermeneutics: those who admit it and those who don't. ofthe Reformation, debates over interpretation played The fact of the matter is that every time we find an enormously important role. These were debates something in the Bible (whether it is there or not!), we over interpretation, not just over interpretations. In have interpreted the Bible. There are good interpreta­ other words, the Reformers disagreed with their tions and there are bad interpretations, but there is no opponents not only over what this or that passage escape from interpretation. meant, but over the nature ofinterpretation, the locus This is not the place to layout foundational prin­ of authority in interpretation, the role of the church ciples, or to wrestle with the "new hermeneutic" and and of the Spirit in interpretation, and much more. with "radical hermeneutics." [For more information During the last half-century, so many develop­ and bibliography on these topics, and especially their ments have taken place in the realm of hermeneutics relation to postmodernism and how to respond to it, that it would take a very long article even to sketch see my book The Gagging of God: Christianity Con­ them in lightly. Sad to say, nowadays many scholars fronts Pluralism, esp. chapters 2-3 (Grand Rapids: are more interested in the challenges ofthe discipline Zondervan, 1996).] I shall focus instead on one "simple" of hermeneutics itself, than in the Bible that problem, <?ne with which every serious Bible reader is hermeneutics should help us handle more responsi- " occasionally confronted. What parts of the Bible are bly. Ironically, there are still some people who think ,'\ binding mandates for us, and what parts are not?

"Greet one another with a holy kiss": the French that there is something slightly sleazy about interpre­ tation. Without being crass enough to say so, they do it, Arab believers do it, but by and large we do not. secretly harbor the opinion that what others offer are Are we therefore unbiblical? Jesus tells his disciples interpretations, but what they offer is just what the thattheyshouldwashone another's feet On 13:14),yet Bible says. most of us have never done so. Why do we "disobey" CarlF. H. Henryis fond ofsaying that there are two that plain injunction, yet obey his injunction regarding kinds of presuppositionalists: those who admit it and the Lord's Table? Ifwe find reasons to be flexible about

H

18

MAY/jUNE 1996

modern REFORMATION

the ((holy kiss," how flexible may we be in other domains? May we replace the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper with yams and goat's milk ifwe are in a village church in Papua, New Guinea? Ifnot, why not?

And what about the broader questions circulating among theonomists regarding the continuing legal force of law set down under the Mosaic covenant?

Should we as a nation, on the assumption that God graciously grants widespread revival and reformation, pass laws to execute adulterers by stoning? Ifnot, why not? Is the injunction for women to keep silent in the church absolute (1 Cor 14:33-36)? If not, why not?

Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born again ifhe is to enter the kingdom; he tells the rich young man that he is to sell all that he has and give it to the poor.

Why do we make the former demand absolute for all persons, and apparently fudge a little on the second?

Obviously, I have raised enough questions for a dissertation or two. What follows in this article is not a comprehensive key to answering all difficult inter­ pretive questions, but some preliminary guidelines to sorting such matters out. The apostolic number of points are not put into any order of importance.

(1) A6 con6cientiou61y a6 ,po66ible, 6eek the balance of Scripture, and avoid 6uccumbing to hi6torical and theological di6junction6.

Liberals have often provided us with nasty dis­ junctions: Jesus or Paul, the charismatic community or the ((early catholic" church, and so forth. Protes­ tants sometimes drop a wedge between Paul's faith apart from works (Rom 3:28) and James' faith and works (Jas 2:4); others absolutize Galatians 3:28 as ifit were the controlling passage on all matters to do with women, and spend countless hours explaining away 1 Timothy 2:12 (or the reverse!).

Historically, many Reformed Baptists in England between the middle of the eighteenth century and the middle of the twentieth so emphasized God's sover­ eign grace in election that they became uncomfortable with general declarations of the Gospel. Unbelievers should not be told to repent and believe the Gospel: how could that be, since they are dead in trespasses and sin, and may not in any case belong to the elect?

They should rather be encouraged to examine them­ selves to see if they have within themselves any of the first signs of the Spirit's work, any conviction of sin, any stirrings of shame. On the face of it, this is a long way from the Bible, but thousands ofchurches thought

it was the hallmark of faithfulness. What has gone wrong, of course, is that the balance of Scripture has been lost. One element of Biblical truth has been elevated to a position where it is allowed to destroy or domesticate some other element of Biblical truth.

In fact, the ((balance of Scripture" is not an easy thing to maintain, in part because there are different kinds of balance in Scripture. For example, there is the balance of diverse responsibilities laid on us (e.g. praying, being reliable at work, being a biblically faithful spouse and parent, evangelizing a neighbor, taking an orphan or widow under our wing, and so forth): these amount to balancing priorities within the limits of time and energy. There is the balance of Scripture' s emphases as established by 0 bserving their relation to the Bible's central plot-line; there is also the balance of truths which we cannot at this point ultimately reconcile, but which we can easily distort if we do not listen carefully to the text (e.g. Jesus is both God and man; God is both the transcendent sover­ eign and yet personal; the elect alone are saved, and yet in some sense God loves horrible rebels so much that Jesus weeps over Jerusalem and God cries, ((Turn, turn, why will you die? For the LORD has no pleasure in the death of the wicked."). In each case, a slightly different kind of Biblical balance comes into play, but there is no escaping the fact that Biblical balance is what we need.

(2) Recognize that the antithetical nature of certain part6 of the Bible, not lea6t 60me of Je6u6' preaching, i6 a rhetorical device, not an ab6olute. The context mU6t decide where thi6 i6 the ca6e.

Of course, there are absolute antitheses in Scripture that must not be watered down in anyway.

For example, the disjunctions between the curses and the blessings in Deuteronomy 27-28 are not mutually delimiting: the conduct th{lt calls down the curses of God and the fpnduct that wins his approval stand in opposite camps, and must not be intermingled or diluted. But on'the other hand, when eight centuries before Christ, God says, ((For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hos 6:6), the sacrificial system of the Mosaic covenant is not thereby being destroyed.

Rather, the Hebrew antithesis is a pointed way of saying, ((If push comes to shove, mercy is more MAYI)UNE 1996

19

important than sacrifice. Whatever you do, you must not rank the marks of formal religion in this case, burnt offerings and other mandated ritual sacrifices with fundamental acknowledgment ofGod, or confuse the extent to which God cherishes compassion and mercy with the firmness with which he demands the observance ofthe formali ties of the sacrificial system."

Similarly, when Jesus insists that if anyone is to become his disciple, he must hate his parents (Lk 14:26), we must not think Jesus is sanctioning raw hatred of family members. What is at issue is that the claims of] esus are more urgent and binding than even the most precious and prized human relationships (as the parallel in Mt 10:37 makes clear).

Sometimes the apparent antithesis is formed by comparing utterances from two distant passages. On the one hand, Jesus insists that the praying of his followers should not be like the babbling ofthe pagans who think they are heard because oftheir many words (Mt 6:7). On the other hand, Jesus can elsewhere tell a parable with the pointed lesson that his disciples should pray perseveringly and not give up (Lk 18: 1-8) . Yet, if we were to suppose that the formal clash between the two injunctions is more than superficial, we would be betraying not only our ignorance of Jesus' preaching style, but also our insensitivity to pastoral demands.

The first injunction is vital against those who think they can wheedle things out of God by their intermi­ nable prayers; the second is vital against those whose spiritual commitments are so shallow that their mumbled one-liners constitute the whole of their prayer life.

(3) Be cautioua about ab60lutizing what ia aaid or · commanded only once.

they claim are inspired and authoritative.

This principle also underlies one of the reasons

why most Christians do not view Christ's command to

wash one another's feet as a third sacrament or ordi­ nance. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are certainly

treated more than once, and there is ample evidence

that the early church observed both, but neither can be

said about foot washing. But there is more to be said.

(4) Carefully examine the

biblical rationale for any aaying

or command.

The purpose of this counsel is not to suggest that

if you cannot discern the rationale you should flout

the command. It is to insist that God is neither arbi­

trary nor whimsical, and by and large he provides

reasons and structures ofthought behind the truths he

discloses and the demands he makes. Trying to un­

cover this rationale can be a help in understanding

what is ofthe essence ofwhat God is saying, and what

is the peculiar cultural expression of it.

Before I give a couple ofexamples, it is important

to recognize that all of Scripture is culturally bound.

For a start, it is given in human languages (Hebrew,

Aramaic, Greek) and languages are a cultural phe­

nomenon.NorarethewordsGodspeakstobethought

of as, say, generic Greek. Rather, they belong to the

Greek ofthe Hellenistic period (it isn't Homeric Greek

or Attic Greek or modern Greek). Indeed, this Greek

changes somewhat from writer to writer (Paul does

not always use words the same way that Matthew

does) and from genre to genre (apocalyptic does not

sound exactly like an epistle). None of this should

frighten us. It is part ofthe glory ofour great God that

he has accommodated himselfto human speech, which

is necessarily time-bound and therefore changing.

Despite some postmodern philosophers, this does not

jeopardize God's capacity for speaking truth. It does

mean that we finite human beings shall never know

truth exhaustively (that would require omniscience),

but there is no reason why we cannot know some truth

truly. Nevertheless, all such truth as God discloses to

us in words comes dressed in cultural fornls. Careful

The reason is not that God must say things more than once for them to be true or binding. The reason, rather, is that if something is said only once it is easily misunderstood or misapplied. When something is repeated on several occasions and in slightly different contexts, readers will enjoy a better grasp of what is meant and what is at stake. .~ andgodlyinterpretationdoesnotmeanstrippingaway That is why the famous «baptism for the dead" ' \such forms to find absolute truth beneath, for that is passage (1 Cor 15:29) is not unpacked at length and not possible: we can never escape our finiteness. It made a major plank in, say, the Heidelberg Catechism does mean understanding those cultural forms and by or the Westminster Confession. Over forty interpreta­ God's grace discovering the truth that God has dis­ tions ofthat passage have been offered in the history of closed through them. the church. Mormons are quite sure what it means, of So when God commands people to rend their course, but the reason why they are sure is because clothes and put on sackcloth and ashes, are these they are reading it in the context of other books that precise actions so much of the essence of repentance '0.

20

MAYIjUNE 1996

modern REFORMATION

_b

that there is no true repentance without them? When Paul tells us to greet one another with a holy kiss, does he mean that there is no true Christian greeting with­ out such a kiss?

When we examine the rationale for these actions, and ask whether or not ashes and kissing are integratively related to God's revelation, we see the way forward. There is no theology of kissing; there is a theology of mutual love and committed fellowship among the members ofthe church. There is no theol­ ogy of sackcloth and ashes; there is a theology of repentance that demands both radical sorrow and profound change.

Ifthis reasoning is right, it has a bearing on both foot washing and on head-coverings. Apart from the fact that foot washing appears only once in the New Testament as something commanded by the Lord, the act itself is theologically tied, in John 13, to the urgent need for humility among God's people, and to the cross. Similarly, there is no theology of head­ coverings, but there is a profound and recurrent the­ ology ofthat ofwhich the head -coverings were a first­ century Corinthian expression: the proper relation­ ships between men and women, between husbands and wives.

, (5) Carefully obaerve that the formal univeraalityof proverba and of proverbial aayinga ia only rarely an aboolute univeraality. If proverba are treated aa atatutea or caae law, major interpretive and paatoral errora will inevitably enaue.

Compare these two sayings ofJesus: (a) "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" (Mt 12:30). (b) " ...for who­ ever is not against us is for us" (Mk 9:40; cf. Lk 9:50).

As has often been noted, the sayings are not contra­ dictory if the first is uttered to indifferent people against themselves, and the second to the disciples about others whose zeal outstrips their knowledge.

But the two statements are certainly difficult to recon­ cile if each is taken absolutely, without thinking through such matters.

Or consider two adjacent proverbs in Proverbs 26: (a) "Do not answer a fool according to his folly ... " (26:4), or (b) "Answer a fool according to his folly ..."

(26:5). If these are statutes or examples of case law, there is unavoidable contradiction. On the other hand,

C LAS S· I C QUO T E S .

We acknowledge then that men are indebted to revelation in the " ' matter ofNatural Religion but thisis no reasonwhy we should not also use our reason here. Revelation was given us not to hinder the,' ' exercise of our reasoning powers but to aid and assist them. 'Tis by reason that we must judge whether that Revelation really be so; . 'Tis by reason that we 'must judge of the meaning of what is revealed; and it is .by Reason that we must guard against any impious, ihconsistent or absurd interpretation of that revelation.

As the best things may be abused, so when we lay aside the exercise of reason, Revelation becomes the tool of low Superstition or 'of wild fanaticism; man is best prepared forthe study and practice of the revealed Religion who has previously acquired just sentiments of the Natural.

Thomas Reid, Lectures on Natural Theology (1780). the second line of each proverb provides enough of a rationale that we glimpse what we should have seen anyway: proverbs are not statutes. They are distilled wisdom, frequently put into pungent, aphoristic forms that demand reflection, or that describe effects in society at large (but not necessarily in every indi­ vidual), or that demand consideration ofjust how and when they apply.

Let us spell out these two proverbs again, this time with the second line included in each case: (a) "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself." (b) "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." Side by side as they are, these two proverbs demand reflection on when is the part ofprudence to refrain from answering fools, lest we be dragged down to their level, and when it is the part of wisdom to offer a sharp, "foolish" rejoinder that has the effect of pricking the preten­ sions of the fool. The text does not spell this out explicitly, but if the rationales ofthe two cases are kept in mind, we will have a solid principle of discrimina­ tion.

So when a well-known parachurch organization keeps quoting "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" as if it were case law, what are we to think?

This proverbial utteraqce must not be stripped of its force: it is a ppwerful incentive to responsible, God­ fearing, child-'fearing. Nevertheless, it is a proverb; it is not a covena'ntal promise. Nor does it specify at what point the children will be brought into line. Of course, many children from Christian homes go astray because the parents really have been very foolish or unbiblical or downright sinful; but many of us have witnessed the burdens ofunnecessary guilt and shame borne by really godly parents when their grown MAY/JUNE 1996

21

children are, say, 40 years of age and demonstrably unconverted.

(6) The application of aome themea and aubjecta muat be handled with apecial care, not only becauae of their intrinaic complexity, but alao becauae of eaaential ahifta in aocial atructurea between Biblical timea and our own day. ((Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bringjudgment on themselves" (Rom 13:1-2). Some Christians have rea­ soned from this passage that we must always submit to the governing authorities, except in matters of con­ science before God (Acts 4:19). Even then, we ((sub­ mit" to the authorities by patiently bearing the sanc­ tions they impose on us in this fallen world. Other Christians have reasoned from this passage that since Paul goes on to say that the purpose ofrulers is to uphold justice (Rom 13:3-4), then if rulers are no longer up­ holding justice, the time may come when righteous

people should oppose them, and even, ifnecessary, over­ throw them. The issues are exceedingly complex, and were thought through in some detail by the Reformers.

But there is of course a new wrinkle added to the fabric of debate when one moves from a totalitarian regime, or from an oligarchy, or from a view of gov­ ernment bound up with an inherited monarchy, to some form of democracy. This is not to elevate democ­ racy to heights it must not occupy. It is to say, rather, that in theory at least, a democracy allows you to ((overthrow" a government without violence or bloodshed. And if the causes ofjustice cannot do so, it is because the country as a whole has slid into a miasma thatlacks the will, courage, and vision to do what it has the power to do. What, precisely, are the Christian's responsibilities in that case (whatever your view ofthe meaning ofRomans 13 in its own context)?

In other words, new social structures beyond anything Paul could have imagined, though they cannot overturn what he said, may force us to see that the valid application demands that we bring into the discussion some considerations he could not have foreseen. It is a great comfort, and epistemologically important, to remember that God did foresee them but that does not itself reduce the hermeneutical responsibilities we have. ~ Dr. D. A. Carson teaches New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and has more than twenty books to his credit. Among them are Showing the Spirit, Exegetical Fallacies, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, How Long 0 Lord: Reflections on Suffering and Evil, and Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary.

where can I tune in to THE WHITE HORSE INN?

Atlanta, GA Austin, TX Billings, MT Boise, 10 Boston, MA Casper/Cheyenne, WY Chicago,lL Collville, WA Colorado Springs, CO Dallas, TX Denver, CO Houston, TX Lake Tahoe, CA Los Angeles, CA Lynchburg, VA Mammoth, CA McCook, NE Modesto, CA

KGUN 1010AM KIXL 970AM KCSP 100.9FM KBXL 94.1 FM WEZE 1260AM KCSP 90.3FM WYLL 106.7FM KCVL (?)

KGFT 100.7FM KDFX 1190AM KRKS 94.7FM KKHT 106.s9FM KNIS 91.9FM KKLA 99.SFM WBRG 10S0AM KNIS B9.9FM KNGN 1360AM KClV 99.9FM

Mon. Bpm Sun. 11 pm* Sat. Bpm & Sun. 12Noon Sun.10pm* Sun.2pm Sat. Bpm & Sun. 12Noon Sun . 11 pm* (Check with Station) Sun.1Opm* Sun. Bpm Sun.10pm* Sun. 11 pm* Sat. Bpm & Sun. 12Noon Sun.9pm* Sat. 11am Sat. Bpm & Sun. 12Noon Sat.1pm & 6pm Sun.9pm*

New York, NY Palmdale, CA Philadelphia, PA Phoenix, AZ Pittsburgh, PA Portland, OR Reno/Carson City, NV Riverside, CA Salinas/Santa Cruz, CA San Antonio, TX San Diego, CA ...

San Francisco, CA 'st~ Louis, MO Seattle, WA Ventura, CA Washington, DC Wichita, KS * (Program is aired live).

WMCAS70AM KAVC 10S.SFM WFIL S60AM KRDS 1190AM WORD 101.SFM KPDQ BOOAM KNIS 91.3FM KKLA 1240AM KKMC BBOAM KDRY 1100AM KPRZ 1210AM KFAX 1100AM KFUO B90AM KGNW B20AM KDAR9B.3FM WAVA 10S.1FM KSGL 900AM

Sun. 12Mid* & Mon. 11 pm Sun.9pm* Sun. 6pm & 12Mid* Sun.4pm Sun. 6pm & 12Mid* Sun.9pm* Sat. Bpm & Sun. 12Noon Sun.9pm* Sat. Bpm Sun. 9:30pm Sun.9pm* Sat. 12Mid Sun.7pm Sun.9pm* Sun.9pm* Sun. Bpm & 12Mid* Sun. Bpm

no local station? tune in live via the internet @ www.kkla.com

22

MAYIjUNE 1996

modern REFORMATION

d .

?-"

can really relate to Cracker's new song, "I Hate My Generation:' A couple of decades ago, most songs were overly optimistic, "All you need is love:' "What the world needs now is love, sweet love:' etc. But today, a refreshing pessimism abounds in popular music; refreshing not because pessimism is a cherished virtue in and of itself, but because in some respects this culture is beginning to realize that it is coming unglued. As in the case of Isaiah before the throne of God, this culture may indeed be realizing that it is "undone:' But obviously, it is not because our culture is being confronted with the glory of God which has brought a consciousness ofguilt. Rather, it is our sins that are finding us out. And many ofthese sins were sown by our parents, and our parents' parents.

One of the things I hate most about my generation is the fact that we do not read. We were not raised on books but on TV We prefer images over words, enter­ tainment over serious thought, the trivial over the eternal. I've had a number of conversations over the years with friends from my age group about recalling particular episodes of The Brady Bunch or Gilligan's Island: "Remember the one where Jan forgets to wear her glasses and crashes into the family portrait?" "Or how'bout the one where they go to the Grand Canyon and accidentally get locked up in the old jail cell:' When you think about it, it is not a coincidence that Holly­ wood is turning out many films based on old television shows (The Addams Family, Casper, The Brady Bunch, Flipper, Mission Impossible, etc.) It is also to be noted that many films or TV shows will often make it a point to bring in references from old TV episodes to be used as punch lines. In particular I think of the the movie Wayne's World, a film of which it could almost be said :vas comprised entirely of such references. There were allusions to Laverne & Shirley, Lassie, Scooby Doo, Star Trek, Bugs Bunny, and other such shows. But what was even more interesting were the many references to televsion commercials within the film. We were re­ minded of ads featuring The Chia Pet, The Clapper, Pepsi, Doritos, Nuprin, and Pizza Hut. And of course there is the classic scene in which Wayne and Garth

I

.~

pull up to a Rolls Royce to ask the question, "Pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon?" These references were all quite funny. And the reason they were funny was due to the fact that our minds are simply filled with this type of garbage.

Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote that Americans paid the least attention to philosophy than any other country in the civilized world. They "seek by them­ selves and in themselves for the only reason for things .. :' Therefore, he wrote that ''Americans have needed no books to teach them philosophic method, having found it in themselves:'l Now ifthis was true in 1848, it is certainly true today for we are living at a time when classical and Biblical themes are almost completely ef­ faced from the cultural memory. In de Tocqueville's day Americans had philosophical opinions, but not from reading the classic works. Today however, the situation is worse. As in the words of the popular song

by Edie Brickell, "Philosophy is the talk on the cereal box, and religion is the smile on a dog."2 For my genera­ tion' questions of any significance or depth are almost completely avoided. Many of us sing along with Brickell, ''I'm not aware of too many things, I know what I know, if you know what I mean .... Shove me in the shallow water before I get to deep"3 Another pro­ found way this is illustrated is again from Wayne's World in which Wayne himself asks this telling but sarcastic question, "Was it Kierkegaard or Dick Van Patten who said, 'To label me is to negate me?'"

Sadly, this cultural decline has not been without its effects in our own Christian communities. In my own impromptu polls that I have recorded at Christian con­ ventions for The White Ho(se Inn radio program, I have asked individvals to see ifthey can name the Ten Com­ mandments. ' ~ut of probably two hundred interviews over the years 6nly two individuals that I know ofcould name all ten. I also asked folks ifthey were familiar with the doctrine ofjustification, and the majority of Chris­ tians said they had never heard ofthe doctrine. On one level this is a doctrinal crisis, but on another level this reveals a much more basic problem; we are not reading the Scriptures. We are not being saturated with God's

-

MAY/JUNE 1996

23

Word, either in our own personal study or in our churches.

Recently I was in Boston attending the Leadership Summit ofthe Alliance ofConfessing Evangelicals. One night I took a walk through Harvard Square and was approached by a woman who was passing out witness tracts. After handing me a tract she began telling me about the abundant life in Jesus. I decided to play the devil's advocate. "How do you know Jesus exists?" "Be­ cause he lives in my heart" she said with a Boston accent.

"What if I were a Muslim and told you that I had a personal relationship with Allah, and that my life was very fulfilled?", I asked. She paused for a moment and then began spewing forth in cookie-cutter like fashion many evangelistic texts that didn't relate at all to my question. So I asked, ''Again, what if! told you that I was perfectly fulfilled with the Qur'an, and didn't need the Bible?" This time she didn't really know how to re­ spond. Then I asked her to tell me what the main argument of Peter was in his famous sermon in Acts 2, or Paul on Mars Hill in Acts 17, or his famous statement in 1Cor. 15; in short, what was the most central element of apostolic preaching. She said, "Oh, I know this one:' But she didn't really. I had to tell her. "The Resurrec­ tion!" Anyone can claim to have divine authority, but the Christian claim is that a rabbi who claimed author­ ity for himself vindicated his claim by being raised from the dead: " [God] has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead" (Acts 17:31). The point ofthe story is not merely to point out failures in modern apologetics, but to high­ light the fact that many Christians are ignorant ofsome ofthe most basic elements ofthe Bible's teachings. They might not officially "deny" the doctrine of the Resur­ rection, but they are basically ignorant of the internal substance ofthe doctrine and all its related implications on life, worship and evangelism. Paul's line is worth considering here, "For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge" (Rom 10:2).

What really shocked me that night, however, was not that I found out how little this woman knew, but

CLASSIC

QUOTES

Scripture consid~rs the withdrawal of God's Word from. men the greatest plague and manifestation of God's wrath. On the other hand, there is no greater manifestation of grace than the sending of His Word.

MartinLuther, The Freedom ofa Christian (1520).

24

MAY/jUNE 1996

rather, how much she thought I knew. After I had talked with her for just over five minutes she com­ mented to me that I had "a remarkable knowledge ofthe Scriptures:' This is what amazed me. When George Lindbeck wrote that his non-Christian students of the fifties had a better grasp ofScri pture than did the Chris­ tians ofthe eighties, I felt he was speaking as if! was one ofhis later students. My knowledge ofthe English Bible is pitiful. I have a fairly decent grasp of systematic theology (in other words I have learned how to proof­ text), but when it comes to a coherent understanding of the Old and New Testaments (especially the Old) I fear my knowledge is dismally lacking.

This really hit me recently when this particular section ofScripture from Isaiah was read from the pul­ pit one Sunday morning:: On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine-the best ofmeats and the finest ofwines. On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace ofhis people from all the earth. The LO RD has spoken. In that day they will say, « Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation" (Is25:6-9).

After hearing this wonderful text read aloud I thought to myself about the line: "the best ofmeats and the finest of wines:' My mind was immediately drawn to con­ template the work of Christ on my behalf, offering up his flesh for my eternal benefit, and pouring out his blood to cover all of my sins. Then I began thinking of Communion and how the partaking of the bread and the wine was but a foretaste of that meal to which this passage in Isaiah was refering. It was a wonderful and meaningful moment. At least it was until I thoughtof the fact that I had no recollection of reading that par­ ticular passage before.

Most likely I had read it before, but just didn't re­ member that I had. But that still points out a glaring problem. I am not grounded in the Scriptures. To a large extent I am a product ofmy generation. And what is alarmin& about this fact is that the contemporary .:. church is doing little if anything to counter this prob­ , j)em. There are very few churches where large sections bfScripture are read on Sunday mornings, even though it was Paul who wrote to Timothy to remind him to "devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture.. :' ( 1Tim 4: 13). This must be recovered in our time.

The lack of personal discipline among individual Christians (myself included), and even more impor­ tantly, Christian parents, is a troubling characteristic of

modern REFORMATION

the contemporary church. Lamenting the present crisis, Allan Bloom recalls better days: It was the home-and the houses of worship related to it-where religion lived. The holy days and the com­ mon language and set ofreferences that permeated most households constituted a large part of the family bond and gave it a substantial content. Moses and the Tables ofthe Law, Jesus and his preaching ofbrotherly love, had an imaginative existence. Passages from the Psalms and the Gospels echoed in children's heads. Attending church or synagogue; praying at the table, were a way of life, inseparable from the moral education that was supposed to be the family's special responsibility in this democracy .... The loss of the gripping inner life vouch­ safed those who were nurtured by the Bible must be primarily attributed not to our schools or political life, but to the family, which, with all its rights to privacy, has proved unable to maintain any content of its own.

The dreariness of the family's spiritual landscape passes belief. 4

Now obviously, Bloom is writing from outside the Christian perspective (which itself is interesting to think about-i.e., the issues involved concern more than Christians). Nevertheless, it is amazing to me how similar Bloom's comments are to those made some sixty years earlier by J. Gresham Machen. "The most important educational institution;' Machen wrote, "is not the pulpit or the school, important as these institu­ tions are; but it is the Christian family. And that institution has to a very large extent ceased to do its work:'s So you can see the seeds of our present crisis were sown a good many years ago. But again we must counter these trends. We must again heed the instruc­ tion of Paul who wrote, But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

(2Tim.3:14-15).

Notice that Paul indicates that Timothy had learned the Scriptures from infancy. This must be our goal for our own children. We must not let our children be catechised by television, public school, or exclusively in our churches. Rather, parents must take the heaviest responsibility of equipping their own children, and bringing them up in the fear and knowledge of God. We must raise our children, as Bloom wrote ofa former generation, with "passages from the Psalms and the Gospels echoing in their heads:' I am the first to admit that it is easier to turn on the tube than it is to open a book. But our generation must begin to wean itself from this habit. We are becoming

addicted to entertainment, neglecting our own spiri­ tual growth, the nurturing of our children, and participation in the larger community. Christians must resist this trend. In the words of Neil Postman, we are amusing ourselves to death. In similar fashion, Bloom reminds us of Nietzsche's disturbing observation that "the newspaper had replaced the prayer in the life ofthe modern bourgeois, meaning that the busy, the cheap, the ephemeral, had usurped all that remained of the eternal in his daily life:' Bloom then adds, "Now tele­ vision has replaced the newspaper:' Are we going to let the busy, the cheap, the ephemeral usurp all that re­ mains of the eternal in our own hearts, minds, and churches? We must not. We must take up the Scrip­ tures once again, and we must teach them to our children.

Now, in order not to be misunderstood, I want to clarify a few things. I am not saying that television is completely a waste of time, nor am I saying that it is wrong to be entertained. It is just that we are becoming a nation of entertainment addicts. My generation has grown up on television. We are sort oflike crack babies, who've needed the fix since before we can remember.

We're so addicted to entertainment we hardly noticed that many of our churches had been turned into fun, happy, exciting places-like late night TV shows-as Peter Jennings so brilliantly showed us. 6 But we are neglecting so many other important responsibilities in exchange for entertainment, and this at a time when knowledge of the Scriptures is dismally lacking, even among Christians-even, dare I say it, among Re­ formed Christians.

Without being legalistic, we must begin to take our entertainment in moderation. Our generation has a lot of work to do. The culture is collapsing and we ourselves are partly to blame. There has never been a time like the present to swim against the cultural tide.

Many people in this country, having been reared on television's slick images, long for the sublime, the unseen, the transcendant. We have that in the eternal Word of God. This is no time to squander our treasure. ~ Notes 1. Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy In America, (Harper & Row, 1988 edition; Lawrence trans.) p. 4~9-430.

2.

Edie Brickell & Ne}v Bohemians, Shooting Rubber Bands at the Stars, "What I Am" (Geffen Records,1'988) .

3.

Ibid 4. Allan Bloom, The Closing of The American Mind, (Simon & Schuster, 1987) p.

56-57 5. J. Gresham Machen, What Is Faith?, (Banner of Truth, 1925) p. 21.

6.

See Peter Jennings' Special, "In The Name of God," (ABC, 1995).

Shane Rosenthal received his B. A. in liberal studies from Cal State Fullerton . He is currently the producer of The White Horse Inn radio program, in charge of layout! design of modern REFORMATION magazine, and is also responsible for editing all CURE tape masters. Shane and his wife Heidi reside in Anaheim, CA, with their daughter Sydney, who was born this past February.

MA Y/jUNE [996

25

CRIPTURAL in the Theology of ·B. by

Rachel

B~

Warfield

Stahle

T

he synthesis ofKant ian philosophy tance .... Historical Criticism thus distances his­ tory from the present and achieves no union of with modern scientific reasoning, the then and the now. 2 among other factors, has contrib­ uted to the evolution ofan historical-criti­ The most deceptive element ofhistorical cal culture. Housed in virtually all of the world's major universities (and many of criticism, and indeed the most damaging to the modern church, is the assumption that the minor ones as well) and possessing a "golden calf' method of biblical evalua­ a rational technique which is valid in the tion which no one dare challenge, histori­ sciences is similarly useful in biblical stud­ cal criticism itselfis a deistic theology which ies. When method is absolutized, it acquires a subjective authority which appears to be has undermined church and school alike. objective to the modern mind, encapsu­ By imposing humanistic standards upon the Bible, the method instigated by Kant's lated in individualistic empiricism. As Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921) biblical studies have generally become epistemologyand eventuallypromoted by Bultmann's hermeneutics has transformed the "Queen of professionalized during this century, theological authority the Sciences": modern theology approaches her source and rests now upon the status, tenure, or fame of whichever creator, the Bible, with the fundamental assumption that scholar happens to be making a theological pronouncement. there is no God. Scripture consequently is reduced to a The consistency of his pronouncement with Scripture is hardly considered, except perhaps the degree to which it collection of religious ideas and theological concepts. This supports a humanistic interpretation of the Bible. In short, renders the living Word a dead letter, as becomes abundantly agnostic or deistic principles determine the authority and clear in many pulpits as pastors strive in vain to bring life to usefulness ofthe Scriptures. "Even in its inost positive form, now lifeless texts, resorting finally to psychoiogy, sociology, Christianity under humanism's influence degenerates into and other 'ism's' in an attempt to infuse texts with newvitality. I an enlightened religion for passing on humanistic values, reaching its climax in etiquette and morality, science and Lifeless texts and the trite sermons which often are their prod­ culture."3 ucts are apt commentaries on the failure of subjectivism to When B. B. Warfield succeeded A. A. Hodge in penetrate not only the contemporary scene, but the existen­ Princeton's chair of didactic and polemic theology in 1887, tial events which are their philosophical goal. When reality is historical criticism was just becoming prevalent as the method translated into an analogy in which temporal and physical of choice in more liberal theological circles, following the phenomena are devalued for the sake of personalized ab­ path Baur and Strauss had pioneered at Tiibingen. Warfield straction, history and the future can only be described as devoted much of his publishing efforts to a critique of the meaningless. Indeed, while historical criticism has sought to method and a pQ.sitive, thorough apology for the authority of blend reason with a positive perspective on the moral evolu­ Scripture based on its nature as inspired revelation from the tion of mankind, the method has succeeded only in liviIfg God. Seventy years after his death, Warfield's plea demonstrating reason's fallibility and moral decline, as the from the past for the truth of an external epistemological true Gospel is forsaken. Just as with Kant, historical criticism's standard is more useful and laudable than ever. In scholar­ philosophical dualism fails to bridge the theoretical with the ship and general culture alike, subjectivism is the operating practical. As Peter Stuhlmacher comments, principle. Therefore, understanding Warfield's theology of ...historical criticism detaches from the present the historical inspiration can be a valuable steppingstone for proclaiming phenomena which it examines, and despite all tradition and the objective truth of the Gospel to those who might prefer the history of their effects, describes them at a historical distheir conscience, and not the Bible, to be their guide.

26

MAY/jUNE 1996

modern REFORMATION

There has been a tendency in theology to regard general revelation and special revelation as being op­ posite constituents of reality which are at best difficult to describe. For Warfield, however, general and special revelation are mutually dependent components which provide the foundation ofa biblical ontology expressed in Scripture through theophany, prophecy, plenary inspiration, and ultimately the incarnation of Christ.

The goal ofthat ontology lies in the expressed will ofits Author: to make himself personally known to men, and thereby to offer ,salvation. "Revelation is, there­ fore, never an unconscious emanation or an involun­ tary reflection of God in his works: it is always a con­ scious, free, intentional making of himself known, a purposed self-expression."

Given its redemptive focus, revelation in its gen­ eral and specific forms could more accurately be called cosmological and soteriological. Because God does all . things perfectly, cosmological revelation is as much an expression and reflection of God as it is soteriological (i.e., saving); however, due to sin, man cannot apart from grace understand or acknowledge God through that general manner alone. In Eden, saving revelation was unnecessary, for the first humans lived in God's presence and knew him far better than our present comprehension. But since the Fall, people are capable merely of knowing his existence and only of worship­ ping the creature rather than the Creator. Soteriological revelation, and the accompanying grace which is needed (for illumination) by those whom it will save, was necessary to restore the opportunity for communion between God and man.

Without special revelation, general revelation would be for sinful men incomplete and ineffective, and could issue, as in point offact it had issued wherever it alone has been accessible, only in leaving them without excuse (Rom 1:20). Without general revelation, special revela­ tion would lack that basis in the fundamental knowledge of God as the mighty and wise, righteous and good, maker and ruler of all things, apart from which the fur­ ther revelation of this great God's interventions in the world for the salvation of sinners could not be either intelligible, credible or operative. s

With Christ as its agent of delivery and its central redemptive message, revelation is not merely a com­ munication about salvation through faith; it is also the means offaith, being the dynamic tool which God has chosen to melt granite hearts to repentance and devo­ tion. "Revelation thus appears ... not as the mere reflec­ tion ofthe redeeming acts ofGod in the minds ofmen, but as a factor in the redeeming works of God, a com­ ponent part ofthe series ofHis redeeming acts, without

which that series would be incomplete and so far inop­ erative for its main end."

Because revelation's source is the living God who has in revelation a real redemptive goal, the knowledge gained from it is not only comparable to other kinds of knowledge in purely earthly matters, but is actually superior, for its acquisition comes entirely as a result of grace. Knowledge of God, being Warfield's definition of faith, is like other knowledge in that it must reflect reality in order to be true. "From the psychological point ofview, all knowledge is just an intellectual con­ viction which has been properly validated and thus raised to a high level of certainty." But faith has the advantage over other forms of knowledge in that its object, perfectly rational and comprehensible revela­ tion, is being sought by a spiritually regenerated mind, enabled by the Spirit to desire God and communion with him. Warfield's emphasis here is that the starting point of faith is a restored intellect, not subjective feelings or autonomous reason. Faith is not a "subjec­ tive ground of authority," but rather [t] heologically considered as a 'mode of acquisition',

it is essentially passivity and receptivity in its purest

form. Psychologically considered, it is a form of mental

assent to evidence. In neither case can the subject be

spoken of as actively participating in the validation of

truth. No act of will enters into the validating process.

The subject remains at all times the receptive intellect,

and personal, volitional response follows the intellectual

convincement. 8

The"evidence" of God's existence has been pro­ vided by him more generally in nature and history, and more specifically in the biblically-recorded modes of theophany, prophecy, and plenary inspiration.

Warfield defines theophanies as external manifesta­ tions, including miracles, which reflect extraordinary, supernatural intervention and communicate God's nature and purposes. Prophecy, including dreams and visions, involves internal suggestions in human instru­ ments of God's will. In prophecy, the human element is entirely passive, receiving divine dictation. Warfield explains, " ... He who made the mouth can be with it to teach it what to speak,~nd announces the precise function ofa rrophet to be that he is 'a mouth ofGod,' who speaks rt<.1this own but God's words." Prophecies were not objectively contemplated by prophets and then reported, nor" ...implanted in the prophets by a process so violent as not only to supersede their mental activity but, for the time being, to annihilate it, [so that] it would be quite clear that they came from a source other than the prophets' own minds." Rather, proph­ ets wholly retained their personaliti~s and intelligence

MA Y/JUNE 1996

27

while yet transmitting the divine words.

Inspiration, as the foundation of Warfield's view of authority, deserves the fullest description. It in­ volves God's work through human activity to com­ municate a distinctively supernatural product. In in­ spiration, or as Warfield preferred to call it, concursive expiration, mortal authors are sovereignly employed

by God, who works confluently in, with and by them, elevating them, di­ recting, them, controlling them, energizing them, so that, as His instruments, they rise above themselves and under His inspiration do His work and reach His aim.

The product, therefore, which is attained by their means is Hi~ product through them.

Warfield goes to great lengths to defend his view of inspiration against the charge that it, like his ideas about prophecy, actually involves dictation, in which the author is reduced to simply an automaton. Such a charge assumes" ...that what is human cannot also be divine, and that wherever the human enters there the divine disappears." The professor argues, though, that inspiration may loosely be compared to the Incarna­ tion, Christ being fully God and fully man.

[T]he Scriptures are the joint product of divine and human activities, both ofwhich penetrate them at every point, working harmoniously together to the produc­ tion of a writing which is not divine here and human there, but at once divine and human in every part, every word, and every particular .... On the other hand, no quality inconsistent with either divinity or humanity can be found in any portion or element of Scripture. 14

the Bible, ... the human factors have acted as human factors, and have left their mark on the product as such, and yet cannot have fallen into that error which we say it is human to fall into, because they have not acted apart from the Divine factors, by themselves, only under their unerring guidance. IS

Consequently, the basis of asserting that the Bible is concurrently divine and human is God's transcen­ dence and immanence in all his activity. Even in the prophetical books and specific biblical references to authorship, both the finite and the infinite are men­ tioned as equally plausible; thus, Scripture itselfrecog­ nizes their inseparability and together their inspired validity.

It should not be thought, though, that the biblical authors became temporarily superhuman, either, while the Holy Spirit was upon them. Paul's confession in Romans 7 could easily disprove that notion. It can be safely maintained, however, that in his sovereignty God had equipped each writer for the task.

[T] he apostles were not given this supreme authority as legislators to the Church without previous instruction in the mind of Christ, without safeguards thrown about them in the prosecution of their task, without the ac­ companying guidance of the Holy Spirit. 16

Warfield's doctrine of inspiration provides the groundwork for the contention that the Bible is an external authority by demonstrating Scripture's di­ vine source and its applicability to earthly needs, not The analogy of the Incarnation also applies to the merely for knowledge of God, but for eternal life. infallibility ofthe Scriptures. Warfield observes that in Scripture's "authority rests on its divinity and its di­ vinity expresses itself in its trustworthi­ ness .... " Even so, Warfield writes, "...the C L·ASS .I C QU 0 ,T E S proofofthe authority ofthe Scriptures does ',We do not adopt the.doctrine of the,plenary.inspiration ofScripture on ' not rest on a previous proofoftheir inspira­ tion. Even an uninspired law is law. But sentimental grounds, nor ~ven, as we have already had occasion to when inspiration has once been shown to remark, on a priori or ·general grounds of whatever kind. ·We a~opt it be fact, it comes mightily to the reinforce­ specifically because it is taught us as truth by Christ and His apostles, in ment of their authority." the Scriptural record of their teaching, and the evidence for its truth is, , Acceptance ofthe Bible as an objective, therefore, we have also already pointed out, precis,ely that evidence, in e~ternal authority was not a rational com­ weight and amount, 'whith vindicates for us the trustworthiri~ss of promise for Warfield, but instead was the Christ and His apostles.as teachers.of doctrine.. Of course, this evidence key to rational freedom. Building upon faith ,is, not 'in the strict logical sense "demonstrative;" it is ·"probable" which by grace accepts and desires knowl­ edge of God, reason is itself transformed to evidence. It therefore ,leaves open'the metaphysical possibility of its accord with the image of God in the Chris­ being.mistaken. But it may 'be contended that it is about as great in tian; by accepting God's Word as authority, amount and weightas "probable" evidence as can be made... reason finds its guide and rock. External B. B. Warfield, The ReatProblem of Inspiration (1893). authority in this case refers not just to an

as

28

MA Y/jUNE 1996

modern REFORMATION

objective standard, but ultimately to the divine; rejec­ tion ofexternal authority constitutes a sinful rejection ofGod's authority in favor ofone's own. "Reason in its legitimate role submits to authority and accepts mys­ teries and even apparent paradoxes by faith when it is convinced on the basis of rational evidence that the authority is valid." Indeed, without external author­ ity, reason is crippled. For Warfield, " ... the authority must be infallible or it is not a supernatural authority, and ifit is not supernatural authority we are left in the uncertaintyofourownrelativity,andskepticismmust at last reign in the domain of the intellect."

Calvinists have been accused, at times justly, of emphasizing the role ofthe mind in faith so much that their resultanttheologyis heavily rationalistic. Warfield maintained that religion and theology must always engage external authority and subsequently reflect it in the intellect and the heart, harmoniously and in­ separably; otherwise, religious life is deformed and disjointed. An overemphasis upon authority itself, from Warfield's perspective, leads to traditionalism, as in Catholicism. Abuse of the intellect leads to a rationalism whose creative reconstructions are inevi­ tably based upon, and even legalistically restricted to, empiricism. And dwelling unduly upon the heart leads to a mysticism in which .. .neither the objective truth of a revealed word nor adherence to rational thinking is allowed to check the wild dreaming of a soul that fancies itself divine, or the confusion of our weakest sentiments with the strong voice ofGod .... 2 1

Instead, revelation touches and enlightens the mind, and then transforms the will toward godly obedience.

"Authority, in the Scriptures, furnishes the matter which is received by the intellect and operates on the heart."22 Science and philosophy, particularly here regard­ ing the topics of historical criticism, have since Copernicus and Descartes joined to forge a double­ edged sword which mortifies the modern mind: be­ liefs must be objectively proved, but nothing can be proven beyond doubt. Theories about everything from the composition ofasteroids to the function ofneural synapses must be wholly rational; they must also, though, be capable ofsome experimental proof, or be rejected as superfluous or meaningless. This irresolvable conundrum, a direct result of subjectiv­ ism, has one awful effect: that the modern mind, con­ fined by this Cartesianlrational mode, has a strikingly restricted capacity to think abstractly, and has no reason to do so, given that the product of any such thought would only be victim to nihilism.

Herein lies the great opportunity for modern Chris­ tianity: to show our need for Scriptural authority by critiquing the consequences ofour rebellion against it.

Warfield's battle was basically only against the highu ' critics of his day; presently, the subjectivism to which higher criticism has greatly contributed has spread to permeate all ofWestern culture. IfWarfield is correct, it may even be said that in all religions and philosophies which reject Christ, subjectivism has prevailed. But in no other era of modern history has such a blatant rejection of biblical authority and Christian norms come from within the church community itself, or had so powerful a grip on common culture and scholarly thought. Biblical authority must not only be defended but actively promoted in opposition to those who as­ sert that man self-legislates truth through his own mo­ tivation, as iftruth would not exist ifhumanitywere not there to create or to judge it. As we have seen in the doctrine of inspiration, certainly the human factor in knowledge is important; but it must always be submis­ sive to the living God and his W ord. ~ Notes 1 Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology?

(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 85.

2 Peter Stuhlmacher, Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of

Scripture, Roy A. Harrisville, trans. (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1977), 62 .

3 Linnemann, Quoting Kurt Dietrich Schmidt in Kirchengeschichte (Fourth Ed .,

1963), 269.

4 Benjamin B. Warfield, "Christianity and Revelation", in Selected Shorter

Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. I., John E. Meeter, ed. (Nutley, NJ :

Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1973), 26 .

5 Benjamin B. Warfield, Biblical Foundations (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co. , 1958), 15 .

6 Ibid., 20 . .

7 Clyde Norman Kraus, The Principle of Authority in the Theology of B. B.

Warfield, William Adams Brown and Gerald Birney Smith (Diss., Duke University,

1981),127.

8 Ibid., 133.

9 As mentioned previously, the consummate mode of divine revelation is the incarnation of Christ. Warfield does not explicitly discuss the incarnation as such in any of his writings on revelation, presumably leaving that topic to be subsumed in an exposition of soteriology.

10 Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Revelation," in Foundations, 27.

11 Ibid., 29 .

12 Ibid., 35 .

13 Warfield, "The Divine and Human in the Bible," in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. II, John E. Meeter, ed. (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1973),545.

14 Ibid., 547.

15 Warfield, "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration," in Selected Shorter Writings, Vol.

1,74-5 .

16 Warfield, "The Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures," in Selected Shorter Writings, Vol. II, 539.

17 Warfield, Foundations, 62.

1 8 Warfield, "The Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures," in Selected Shorter Writings, Vol. II, 540.

19 Kraus, 232.

20 Ibid., 239.

21 Warfield, "The Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures," in Selected Shorter Writings, Vol. II, 540.

22 Ibid., 671. .~

Rachel S. Stahle is a gr~duate of Grove City College, Pennsylvania, and Gordon­ Conwell Theological Seminary. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate in historical and systematic theology at' Boston University, where her dissertation work will investigate Edwardsean revival theology.

MAY/JUNE 1996

29

In Memoriam: Dr. Gerrit Cornelius Berkouwer

(June 8,1903 - January 25,1996)

By Ronald Gleason

R

ecently, a friend ofmine sent me a clipping from the Dutch newspaper, Het Nederlands Dagblad (The Dutch Daily), which contained the obituary of Dr. G. C. Berkouwer. It is not saying too much to state that his death marks the passing of an era. No one, with the exception of Karl Barth, ever had as many American students study under him as did Berkouwer. Among those students was R. C. Sproul.

Berkouwer's works are extensive. He is probably best known for his magnum opus, the Studies in Dogmatics (Dutch: Dogmatische Studien), which has been trans­ lated into English, although he has many other articles, sermons, and speeches to his credit. It should be noted that many of the earlier translations of Berkouwer's works are very accurately and faithfully translated, while some of the later works are substantially condensed and rather poorly translated. 1 In many ways, Dr. Berkouwer made significant strides in communicating Reformed theology to the world, yet in other ways it must be said that his "later" theology deviated from traditional Re­ formed orthodoxy.

When I was studying at the Free University of Amsterdam, I had the privilege of having a three hour audience one afternoon with Dr. Berkouwer. In that interview, he spoke of his own changes and the various developments in his theological method and I want to take the time to document them, present them to you and to comment on them briefly from a Reformed perspective.

30

MAY/JUNE 1996

But before I do that, I want to take a few lines to express what a gentle and warm character Dr. Berkouwer was. He made one feel comfortable in his presence and loved his students as well as studying and teaching theol­ ogy. He was fluent in many languages, was well and widely read, and was very gracious to friend and foe alike. To my recollection, I only heard him preach once while I was living in Holland, but the message was God­ centered and exalted Christ. He was deep enough for the greatest theological mind, yet simple enough for a child to grasp the beauty of the message he brought from Scripture.

While he did not seem to be quite as much at home in North American theology as he was with German theology, he corresponded with a number of prominent English-speaking theologians such as James Barr and Cornelius Van Til, just to mention two.

His manner of answering questions from students was gracious and intriguing, taking the time to ensure he had understood the question and then, extemporane­ ously, would speak on the subject in detail and at length.

When he came to the point of really wanting to express himself with pin -point accuracy, he would excuse him­ self for his lack of ability with a particular foreign language and request to continue speaking in Dutch.

There were several influences in Berkouwer's life as well as certain key interests. Possibly and arguably his greatest influence was his own Reformed heritage. Raised on the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort, when one reads Berkouwer's earlier works, one finds a deep and genuine concern for the valid place of the confessions of the Church. Those earlier works especially breathe the theological atmo­ sphere of Scripture and confession. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of his later works.

Certain theologians affected him, too. Certainly no two influenced his thinking more than Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) and Karl Barth (1886-1968). These two theologians are different in many respects: Bavinck, a traditional Reformed theologian and Barth, neo-ortho­ dox. Even his later works show that even though he departed from the strictly Reformed tradition, he always knew himself to be under the influence of Bavinck.

Berkouwer was always interested in the develop­ ments in Rothan Catholicism, devoting several works to .!he subject, such as his little work, Recent Developments z'n Roman Catholic Thought (translated into English and still very worthwhile reading). Berkouwer was also in­ vited to attend Vatican II as a Protestant observer.

His first important publication was his doctoral the­ sis in 1932 entitled, Faith and Revelation in Recent

German Theology (Geloof en Openbaring in de Nieuwere Duitsche Theology). In this work Berkouwer discusses important German theologians such as Albrecht Ritschl,

modern REFORMATION

Wilhelm Herrmann, Ernst Troeltsch, Rudolf Otto, Karl Heim, Emil Brunner, and Karl Barth. It is interesting to read his trenchant criticism of these theologians and their theological methodologies. Of particular note are two things.

In his first book on Barth (written in 1936), Berkouwer was very critical of the very foundations of Barth's theological methodology. 2 In 1954 when the Dutch edition of Berkouwer's, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, appeared there was more appreciation for Barth than criticism. 3 Karl Barth's in­ fluence on the "later" Berkouwer was profound. Apart from his above mentioned work on the triumph ofgrace, perhaps no book points us to a more decided and calcu­ 1ated shift in Berkouwer's theology than the one on divine election that appeared in 1955. It is precisely here that we are able to discern a noticeable shift in Berkouwer's theological paradigm.

The second important point is Berkouwer's empha­ sis on the notion of"correlation:' the idea that there is a co-relationship between faith and God's revelation. That is, Berkouwer posited a mutuality between faith, as a gift from God and the revelation given to man by God in Scripture. This mutuality goes something like this: Faith is directed by the Holy Spirit to the Word of God in Scripture to form and inform it. Once this happens the Word and Spirit influence faith and cause it to grow and be nourished. Then the process begins anew. So there is this continuous correspondence between the believer in the life of faith and the Word and Spirit.

Dr. W. D. Jonker, former professor of systematic theology at the University of Stellenbosch, (South Af­ rica), wrote an article in which he reiterated that for Berkouwer's understanding of theological method, this fundamental relationship must be present. 4 Hendrikus Berkhofhad already noticed the important and key place which the notion ofcorrelation occupied in Berkouwer's theology in an article in a book presented to Berkouwer on the occasion of his 25th anniversary as a professor of theology.5 Berkhof designates three "phases" of what he calls a "clear continuity" in Berkouwer's theological method.

The first phase is the complete authority of the Scripture. 6 In the already cited doctoral dissertation, Berkouwer had insisted that virtually every theological problem that the recent German theologians had was firmly rooted in their letting go ofthe authority ofScrip­ ture. 7 This was Berkouwer at his best! One can only wish that he had remained faithful to the notion of the com­ plete authority ofGod's Word for all of doctrine and life.

In his "early" years, Berkouwer wrote an important book entitled, The Problem of Scriptural Criticism (Het Probleem der Schriftkritiek) that deals with the distinctives of the Reformed doctrine of Scripture and

contrasts them with the subjectivism of modern critics.

This book followed the lines of his doctoral dissertation and was an excellent work. Just to give you a bit of the flavor of the book I'll give you some words found on just one of the pages. This could be multiplied, but for the sake of brevity I'll practice some uncommon restraint and give you one page. He says, "The battle against the scholastic tendencies of orthodoxy was in reality a let­ ting go of Scripture revelation:' and the "self-sufficient autonomous subject" dominates the whole "modern" reflection on Scripture. In short, the loss of Scripture inevitably brings with it a loss ofthe Christian faith. 8 One will readily see that by saying this he squarely places all "modern" or "liberal" reflection on Scripture in the cat­ egory of unbelief.

The second "phase" had to do with the redemptive­ historical content of the Scripture. This phase is not all that important for our purposes, but in passing it should be noted that the concern here was to take all ofScripture in its redemptive-historical content and development and to avoid moralism and moralizing sermons such as, "be a good person because Moses was a good person:'9 This was a "phase" or condition in Berkouwer's theology that he never really abandoned. In fact, according to his memoirs, it was a preaching methodology that intrigued him for years. 10 The third and last "phase" had to do with the "exis­ tential" drift of Scripture. II Berkouwer was insistent that Scripture was to be taken personally and applied to life.

Like Bavinck, Berkouwer was never satisfied with a mere cerebral approach to Reformed theology. There was al­ ways the compunction to know and live the Christian life. 12 This is a very important part ofwhat made Bavinck such an important and relevant theologian. For those who have never read any of Bavinck's works, I would like to suggest that you find a copy of Our Reasonable Faith and make it part of your theological library.

Berkouwer cannot be understood apart from his religious upbringing and heritage. He was raised in an orthodox Reformed home and from his youth was ac­ quainted with the Reformed confessions used by his Church. In keeping with his understanding of the Heidelberg Catechism, Berkouwer affirmed that faith was composed of two integral parts, namely a true knowledge (head; intellec~ and a firm confidence (heart). In rejeeting the scholastic method, Berkouwer thought he saw li}. that method too great of an emphasis on the head, the intellectual at the expense of the heart.

Admittedly, Reformed theology and thinkers have this penchant for divorcing the head from the heart and life. There is the ever-present danger that theology be­ comes something entirely cerebral. Berkouwer vigorously opposed any such notion. Doctrine is given to us that it might be lived in our everyday lives. For this

MAYIJUNE

1996 31

insight, we may be very thankful to Dr. Berkouwer.

Unfortunately, a decided shift took place in his thinking. The "later" Berkouwer was not the same man who wrote the dissertation in 1932. Let me just give a couple of examples of what I mean. One of the favorite words that the "later" Berkouwer used concerning Scrip­ ture was scopus. What he meant by that was the inte.qt of Scripture. So far, so good. But a problem arose with the doctrine of infallibility. This problem was touched on in his volumes on Holy Scripture. Unfortunately, I do not have the English translation, but only the Dutch version.

Therefore, the translation work will be my own and I leave it up to the interested reader to see if these quota­ tions are even given in Rogers' English translation.

Berkouwer tells us that a doctrine ofinfallibility is an "impure way of relating Scripture and the certainty of faith:'!3 He documents his movement away from Scrip­ ture as propositional truth for us when he says, "Certainty may never be approximated byway ofthe postulate. Faith does not and can not rest in theoretical reflection about what in our view the character of divine revelation must be and how and in what form it must come to us to be able to guarantee its certainiti'I4 There is a very true sense in which Berkouwer wanted to direct our attention away from the "book" and toward the Christ it proclaims. 15 His fear was that the written word would fall into "formalism and legalism:'16 By di­ recting our attention away from "the book:' however, a major shift can be observed in Berkouwer's theology.

Compared to his work on the problem ofscriptural criti­ cism' his volumes on Holy Scripture appear almost Neo-orthodox. That is, by referring to the scopus, he wants to see what is the "purpose" ofscriptural revelation.

Rejecting the formal, causal, metaphysical, and tradi­ tionally orthodox explanation ofinspiration, Berkouwer says this of Scripture: "It is the perspective of human witness."ll Anyone even vaguely acquainted with Neo­ orthodoxy will recognize the language. If we take his statement a step further and ask what is the purpose, the scopus, the meaning of Scripture, Berhouwer tells us something like this: When one treats Scripture properly, it is not the "exact photographical-history" which one finds trustworthy, it is the kerygma, the gospel story that is "infalliable." 18 Something similar happened in terms of his doc­ trine of election. As mentioned earlier, Bavinck maintained a most beautiful balance between the objec­ tive truth of Scripture and the existential living of that doctrine. In my opinion, even with his emphasis on the correlation between living Scripture and faith, Berkouwer could not maintain this same balance. He tipped the scales to the side of the subjective in his later years. Even Hendrikus Berkhof notices, in what we called the "third phase" ofBerhouwer's development, a growing

32

MAY/jUNE

1996

criticism of the Canons of Dort.

In particular, Berkhof points us to Berhouwer's criti­ cism of the doctrine of election that is taught in the - "\ Canons. 19 Berkhof rightly cites the article written by, # Berkhouwer as a monumental continuation of what the latter has already written in his volume on election. 20 In his book on election, his criticism was directed more at the formulations of Calvin. This article in G. T T, in­ cluded criticism of Dort and of such Reformed theologians as B. B. Warfield.

I conclude and summarize by stating that Berkhower was an exceedingly important Dutch theologian who certainly played a key role in the shaping of much of Dutch (and American) theology. It is my assessment, after having read almost all of his works, that he could have left us with a better, more Reformed heritage. His debt to Karl Barth, his departure from an orthodox formulation ofScripture, and his views on God's election proved to be integral parts of his departure from tradi­ tional orthodoxy. And yet, there are still some valuable works that can be read profitably. I shall give you just a short list of them: Faith and Sanctification, Faith and Justification, The Person of Christ, Recent Developments in Roman Catholic Thought, and A Half Century ofTheology. ft..;> Notes A classic case in point is the translation of "The Holy Scripture ," by Jack Rogers.

The Dutch version comprises two volumes totaling more than 700 pages , while the English translation is substantially less than one half that size .

2 G. C. Berkouwer, Karl Barth, (Kampen: Kok, 1936) . See, especially, "Het Grondmotief van Barth's Theologie ," pp. 75-98 .

3 G. C. Berkouwer, De Triomf der Genade in de Theologie van Karl Barth, (Kampen : Kok, 1954) .

J. T . Bakker (et. al.), Septuagesimo Anno (Kampen: Kok, 1973), p. 86.

4 5 H. Berkhof, "De methode van Berkouwers theolgie," in R. Schippers (et. al), Ex Auditu Verbi, (Kampen: Kok, 1965). Hereafter EAV. 6 EAV, 40.

7 EAV, 41 .

G. C. Berhouwer, Het Probleem der Schriftkritiek, (Kampen: Kok, 1938) , p. 44 .

8 9 For those who would like to read more this important matter, see Sidney Greidanus, Sola Scriptura. Problems and Principles in Preaching Historical Texts, (Toronto : Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1970).

10 G. C. Berkouwer, Zoeken en Vinden, Herinneringen en envaringen, (Kampen : Kok, 1989) , pp. 254-258.

11 EAV, 48.

12 The great balance that Bavinck was able to achieve and maintain in his theology is part of what made him such an accomplished theologian . Dr. S. Meijers has written extensively about this balance in Bavinck's theol ogy in Objectiviteit en Existentialiteit, Een onderzoek naar hun verhouding in de theologie van Herman Bavinck en in door hem beinvloede concepties, (Kampen: Kok, 1979). This work is a doctoral disserta­ tion defended at the Free University of Amsterdam.

13 G. C. Berkouwer, De Hei/ige Schrift, 2 Vols., (Kampen : Kok, 1966-1967) , Vol. 1 :32 . Hereafter HS plus volume and pages.

14 HS, 1:35 .

15 HS, 2 :17 .

16 HS, 2 :19. In this chapter, Berkouwer is addressing the whole question of

inspiration.

17 HS, 2:49. .....

18 HS, 2:210-211 .

19 " EAV, 49 . Berkhof quotes from an article that Berkouwer wrote in the periodical,

Gegeformeered Theologisch Tijschrift, 1963 (63) , pp . 1-41, "Vragen rondom de

belijenis," (Questions concerning the confession).

20 G. C. Berkouwer, De Verkiezing Gods, (Kampen: Kok, 1955) .

The Rev. Ron Gleason is the pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church (P. C. A.). He studied at The Citadel, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, The Free University of Amsterdam, and obtained his "doctorals" (Drs.) from the Theological School of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, and is currently a candidate for the Ph . D. at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA.

modern REFORMATION

... in California! ...where you can join students from throughout the world, eager to share the Good News of the Lord Jesus Christ, developing their gifts through solid training in the Bible, theology, biblical languages, counseling, and Christian ministry.

• Continuing Westminster's historic commitment to the absolute authority of the inerrant Scriptures and to academic excellence in an independent, interdenominational setting • With a fresh accent on the practice of ministry (our M.Div. offers extensive supervised field education and reflection seminars) • Taught by a complete resident faculty of respected scholars (such as W Robert Godfrey, John Frame, Robert Strimple, Peter Jones... ) • On our beautiful, growing campus near scenic San Diego . "\.

• Offering fully accredited Master ofArts, Master of pir inity, and Doctor of Ministry degree programs

Discover Westminster in California

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN CALIFORNIA

For more information, contact the Office ofAdmissions today!

1725-Bear Valley Parkway • Escondido, CA 92027 Voice: 619/480-8474 • Fax: 619/4~0-0252