F.. THE 0 LOG I CAL J 0 URN AL. r r T H B 0 LOG I CAL S C H 0 0 L. of the PRO T EST ANT REF 0 R M E D C H U R C H B S. Grand Rapids, Michigan

Transcription

1 F.. 'L PRO TEST ANT REF 0 R.M ED ~ L1 THE 0 LOG I CAL J 0 URN AL T H B 0 LOG I CAL S C H 0 0 L of the PRO T EST ANT REF 0 R M E D C H U R C H B S May, 1971 Gand Rapids, Michigan Vol. IV, No.2

2 l F l! Phis Jou~naZ is published and di8t~ibuted in limited quantities, at no chage, by the Theologioal School of the P~ote8tant Refo~med Chuches. Inteested pesons desiing to have thei names on the mailing list should addess the Edito, Pof. H. Hanko, at the addess of the 8chooZ~ 1146 Fanklin Steet, S.E., Gand Rapids, Michigan ii-

3 i. [, :f'. l TABLE OF CONTENTS The Authoity of Sciptue l Pof. H. Hanko As To The Doctine Of Holy Sciptue (4) Pof. H. C. Hoeksema **** l i~ ~ -iii-

4 . THE AUT II 0 R I T Y o: 8 C ~ I P T U R E --Pof. H. Hanko-- The debate concening the inspiation of Sciptue which has ocked the Chuch fo the last decade o so is not, in the fist place, a debate which 'centes in the doctine of inspiation, and is not, in the fist place, a question of plenay inspiation, o vebal inspiation o mechanical VB. oganic inspiation. The deepe oot of this contovesy is the question of the authoity of Sciptue. To this most basic question the Chuch has addes~ sed itself. The doctine of the inspiation of Sciptue is eally a coollay of the tuth of the authoity of Sciptue. Those who have made epeated attacks on the doctine of inspiation have done this in ode to escape, in one way o anothe, Sciptue's authoity. And those who have defended the tuth of inspiation have done so to defend the tuth of the absolute authoity of the Wod of God. Thee ae many who, while denying the tuth of infallible inspiation, nevetheless contend that they maintain the tuth of the authoity of Sc"liptue. But a cj.ose examina-tion of thei views leads nevethelcss~ to the conclusion that the doctine of the authoity of SC1'iptn.E~ is denied in some key 'espects. An example of these is to be fou.!1d in the posi-tion of those who deny that the fist chaptes of Genesis ae sobe histoy. They will defend thei position 0:1 the c.1.1'i.thoit"y of Sciptue by saying that while Sciptue i8 authoitative with espect to the tuth of the gospel, it ic not authoitative in mattes of science. The eo of this is clea. An altogethe aise disjunction is made between the t'uth of -~:h~ gospel a.nd science. And, ~o1hile some of Sciptue is put into the pigeon-hole of f!the tuth of the gospel", othe pats of Sciptue, such as Genesis 1-3, ae put into the pigeon-hole of science. This is wong. The fist thee chaptes of Genesis belong as much to the evelation of God in the face of Jesus Chist as any oth~ pat of Sciptue. But the point is that, in this way, a seious linlitation is placed upon the tuth of Sciptue's authoity. It ig well to note fom the outset of ou pape that this becomes a spiitual question. The doctine of inspiation, if - 1 -

5 J isolated fom any othe doctine, can be teated, in the abstact, as a puely doctinal question. But the whole tuth of authoity is an aspect of the question which cannot be isolated so easily fom questions of inspiation. And then the question is a sp11 tual question. Fo the doctine of Sciptue is not a doctinal question which can be discussed fom a puely intellectual viewpoint. It is a question of the Wod of God. A man can conceivably (as many have done) discuss fom a puely intellectual viewpoint whethe o not Home is the autho of the Illiad; and it makes no essential diffeence in one's life what one's conclusion is on the matte. But the sciptues (egadless of what men may say about them) ae not to be compaed with Home's Illiad. They ae the vey Wod of God. One's attitude towads them and position oveagainst them ae but outwad manifestations of one's attitude towads God Himself. The Sciptues demand allegiance and faith in themselves. Not in ode that a book may be woshipped; but because God equies faith in His own divine being. The issues ae issues of life o death, heaven o hell. Rejection of the Sciptues is sin and ebellion which cannot and will not go unpunished. And this is the issue at stake in the question of authoity. Will one attempt in whateve way possible to escape fom the authoity of Sciptue? Many do; and thei way of doing this is to attack the Sciptues themselves and deny in some measue the tuth that the Sciptues ae God's Wod. Thei ebellion is not against a book; it is against God Himself. The believe is theefoe, intent on defending the tuth of inspiation as vebal and infallible, not because he delights in the abstact doctine itself; not because he is intent on peseving some vestige of Bibliolaty; but because this tuth is an essential pat of the tuth of Sciptue's authoity. And it is his desie to bow, as a humble child, in complete obedience befoe God's Wod, and, in this way, befoe God Himself. When the authoity of Sciptue as the Wod of God is a bandoned, men tun inevitably to anothe authoity. Sometimes this authoity is the mystical and SUbjective expeience of man

6 A man j s own pesonal eligi6us expa1"ie:::-:c 6 may ~2cc~ne o.n auth0:;,"ity in thei~ own ight. This was (and is> tue of the' mysticism ~hich has peiodically appea~ed in the Chu~ch. At othe times, the eason of man has been aised to a position of supeme authoity in man's life. This is the fundamental pinciple of all ationalism and is suely, the undegiding commitment of humanism. Thee have been peiods since the time of the Refomation when the ceeds of the Chuch have been lifted up to a position of authoity above the Sciptues. The esult of this is dead othodoxy. It is a dange to be esisted. But pehaps the geatest evil of ou pesent day is the ise of science as an authoity in its own ight. This is but anothe fom of ationalism and the pinciple that eason is the supeme abite of life. But, especially within the Chuch, this dange has been the chief cause of the unelenting attacks upon the Sciptues. The eo has its oots in the ationalism of the 17th and 18th Centuies; it came to expession in the Deism which an ampant in England especially and which attacked fom its basic commitment to eason, the whole tuth of God's soveeign ule in His ceation; it eceived a mighty push fom the highe citicism of the following centuies and it continues unabated today with the moden explosion of scientific knowledge. It, moe than anything, is the immediate cause of the violent attacks which have been made against the Sciptues even within Refomed cicles. It lies in man's natue as a ceatue that he needs an authoity of one sot o anothe. He is ceated as a dependent ceatue, and he cannot escape his consciousness of dependence. Even while he aises his own mind to a position of final authoity, he still acknowledges, though it be in sin, that authoity is necessay in his life. Fo the authoity which must goven man is an authoity which demands of man commitment to a body of knowledge which is at the same time egulative fo his life. It is the pupose of this essay to examine the teachings of the Refomation on the tuth of the authoity of Sciptues, and, thus, to emphasize that those only ae faithful to the Potestant Refomation of the 16th Centuy who maintain this absolute authoity of the Wod of God

7 , The Refomation '-'las, above all el.:;e:, a T'8 tul'n 1:0 -the holy Sciptues. It was, of couse, many othe things. It was a etun to the tuth of God. In the case of Matin Luthe, the monk of Wittenbug, it was a etun to the cental tuth of justification by faith alone. The Refomation was a efomation of the Chuch as institute and a libeation of the Chuch fom Romish hieachy. But, though it was all these things and moe, it was essentially a etun to Sciptue. A efomation in doctine and Chuch polity was possible only because the Refomes, with- \ out exception, bought the Chuch back to the fountain of the tuth and the ule fo all the govenment of the Chuch--the saced Sciptues. Aleady when Luthe nailed his theses to the chapel doo of the Chuch at Wittenbug, when all thoughts of beaking with Rome wee fathest fom his mind, he wote in thesis 62: ftthe tue teasue of the Chuch is the holy gospel of the gloy and the gace of God." And when he stood at the Diet of Woms befoe the empeo of the Holy Roman Empie and all the might and powe of Rome, he summed up the whole of the Refomation in the damatic and pophetic wods: uunless I am convinced by the testimony of the Sciptues o by clea eason,l I am bound by the Sciptues I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Wod of God. 1I "Captive to God's Hod lt ; this was indeed to become the battlecy of the Refomation. IBy adding the wods "by clea eason", Luthe did not intend to aise the powe of eason to a position of authoity in its own ight. This is evident fom all of Luthe's witings on the subject of Sciptue. Cf. A. Skevington Wood's impotant book: "Captive To The {'\lod ii; Wm. B. Eedmans Publishing Co., This is also evident fom Luthe's shap denunciation of the use of unaided and unenlightened eason-which he could unblushingly call ~ f'the devil ~ s whoe". Almost all chuch histoians ae ageed on this point

8 Thee wee many aspects to this doctine of the Sciptues which the Refomes developed; fo they possessed a thoough and complete view of the tuth of Sc~iptue. This included thei view of Sciptue's infallible inspiation, Sciptue's authoity, pespicuity and canonicity. But we limit ouselves to a discussion of thei view of the authoity of Sciptue. In thei emphasis on this tuth, the Refomes wee establishing a pinciple concening the Sciptues which was denied by Roman Catholicism. In the Roman Catholic Chuch had gadually developed the idea of tadition as an authoity in its own ight. This idea had not come about ovenight, but was the end of a long development of Romish thought closely bound up with othe ideas. No had the Romish Chuch eve definitely settled its ideas on this scoe; and thee emained diffeences of opinion on the SUbject. But, in geneal, the pevailing view of Roman Catholicism was that tadition occupied a position of, at least, equal authoity with the Sciptues. By tadition was meant the whole body of teachings which had oiginated with the apostles, but had not been included in the Sciptues; the teachings of the chuch fathes; the ponouncements of chuch councils; and the declaations of the magesteium, o teaching Chuch, especially as the Chuch spoke though the pope. While, in many cases, this body of tadition was based upon Sciptue and was intepetation of Sciptue, at some impotant points it went beyond what Sciptue itself taught eithe explicitly o implicitly. But even when this body of tadition was, in the opinion of the theologians of the Chuch, based upon Sciptue, its authoity was not deivative <i.e., based upon the authoity of Sciptue, and authoitative only insofa as it expessed what Sciptue taught), but its authoity was an authoity which it possessed in its own ight having eceived the seal of authoity fom the Chuch. But it was inevitable that, in many peiods of the histoy of the ChuCh, this authoity of tadition was not simply placed on a pa with that of Sciptue, but became an authoity which supassed the authoity of the Wod of God

9 L L ~ t l Chuch. This had impotant and fa-~eaching consequences in the Exegesis of Sciptue was bound by this tadition and the intepetation of Sciptue was no longe fee; it was shackled to the Chuch. If anyone within the Chuch wanted to explain the Sciptues, he was bound, fist of all, to consult mothe Chuch and lean what mothe Chuch taught. He might not make any intepetation of Sciptue which would disagee, even so much as a faction, with what the Chuch held to be the tuth. If it was leaned that tadition went beyond the Sciptues (as it did, e.g., in its doctine of pugatoy), o if it was leaned that tadition even contadicted the Sciptues (as it did, e.g., in its doctine of the woks of meit), this made no essential diffeence. The exegete who set himself to the task of explaining Holy Wit was bound by the Chuch to intepet God's Wod in full hamony with the Chuch's teaching. Even William of Occam (c ), who emphatically set foth the tuth of the sole authoity of Sciptue and insisted that Scintue's authoity was based on its infallible inspiation, nevetheless taught that the foundation of Chistian tuth is not the Bible alone, but also the apostolic tadition and the continuing disclosues of the Holy Spiit. 2 This idea of the authoity of tadition has neve finally been settled in Romish thinking. The Council of Tent which met to answe the Refomation faced this poblem and spoke concening it. While the decisions of the Council wee not paticulaly addessed to this poblem, nevetheless) a cetain authoity was ascibed to tadition. In the "Decee Concening the Canonical Sciptues" adopted at the Fouth Session held Apil 8, 1546, the Council said: The saced and holy, oecumenical, and geneal Synod of Tent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same thee legates of the Apostolic See pesiding theein,--keeping this always in view, that, eos being emoved, the puity itself of the Gospel e peseved in the Chuch: which (Gospel), befoe pomised though the pophets in the Holy Sciptues, ou Lod Jesus Chist, the Son of God, fist pomulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be peached by 2 Cf. Wood,. cit., pp

10 i t t His Apostles to evey ceatue, as the fountain of all, both saving tuth and moal discipline; and seeing clealy that this tuth and discipline ae contained in the witten books, and the unwitten taditions which, eceived by the Apostles fom the mouth of Chist Himself, o fom the Apostles themselves,the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, tansmitted as it wee fom hand to hand: (the Synod) following the examples of the othodox Fathes, eceives and veneates with an equal affection of piety and eveence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the autho of both--as also the said taditions, ~ well those appetaining to faith as to moals,~s having been dictated, eithe by Chist's own wod of mouth, o by the Holy Ghost, and peseved in the Catholic Chuch by.. 3 a cont~nuous success2on. The Vatican Council~ held in 1870, also spoke to this issue. In Chapte II, the Chapte "Of Revelation", the Council eiteated what Tent had said; and then added: And as the things which the holy Synod of Tent deceed fo the good of souls concening the intepetation of Divine Sciptue, in ode to cub ebellious spiits, have been wongly explained by some, we, enewing the said decee, declae this to be thei sense, that, in mattes of faith and moals, appetaining to the building up of Chistian doctine, that is to be held as the tue sense of Holy Sciptue which ou holy Mothe Chuch held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of' the tue sense and intepetation of the Holy Sciptue; and theefoe that it is pemitted to no one to intepet the Saced Sciptue contay to this sense, no likewise, contay to the unanimous consent of the Fathes. 4 Again in Chapte III, "On Faith H th= Council declaed: 3 Quoted fom "Ceeds of Chistendom", Vol. II, by Philip Schaff, Hape & Bos., New Yok. The undelining is mine. 4 Schaff, Eo cit

11 Futhe, all those things ae to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which ae contained in the Wod of God, witten o handed down, and which odinay and univesal magiste~ium, poposes fo belief as having been divinely evealed. The Second Vatican Council which was called togethe by Pope John XXIII also adopted a pape on "Divine Revelation" in which this subject was teated. Since the time of the Refomation, two steams of thought wee pesent in the Romish Chuch. One school, while not denying what Tent had said concening the ole of the Chuch and its authoity in mattes of faith, nevetheless held to the idea that Sciptue was the sole souce of tuth. Even this school howeve, while denying an authoity on a pa with Sciptue in tadition, nevetheless held to the supeme authoity of the magisteium ove Sciptue. Anothe school of thought held to "the two souces theoy'l \-lhich taught that both Sciptue and tadition ae souces of tuth. ~he Council delibeately steeed away fom this buning issue in the Chuch and made no effot to settle it. But it did make some stiking statements concening the ole of tadition. Afte explaining, in Paagaph 8, what the Council meant by tadition fl, the Council goes on to wite in Paagaph 9: Holy tadition, then, and Holy Sciptue ae closely inteconnected and they intecommunicate. Fo flowing fom the same divine souce, they both somehow join into one and un towad the same end. Holy Sciptue is God's own speech as witten unde the influx of the divine Spiit; by holy Tadition, God's Wod, entusted to the apostles by the Lod Chist and the Holy Spiit, is elayed integally to thei successos, so that,following the light of the Spiit of tuth, these may faithfully peseve, expound and spead it in thei discouses. Consequently, the Chuch does not daw he cetainty about all that is evealed with the help of Holy Sciptue alone. Both ae, theefoe, to be eceived and veneated with equal pious affection 5Schaff, E. cit

12 and eveence. 6 One commentato of this pape wites concening these wods: The theoy known as t!the two souces of evelation" (Sciptue and Taditi9n) is missing fom the text; if one confines oneself to the Dogmatic Constitution and the inteventions which explain it, one cannot say that evealed tuths ae handed on by Tadition alone, and which Sciptue does not contain in any way. Yet Tadition is not assigned a ole that is meely intepetative of Sciptue. It seems that an advance is being made towads the idea that evelation is found wholly in Sciptue and wholly in Tadition, which ae theefoe not two distinct souces but two conjoined foms, both of which yield the whole evealed tuth, the Gospel of Chist, accoding to modes that ae diffeent and pope to each.? Whethe the commentato intepets coectly the concilia decision may be open to question. But the fact is that the paa~ gaph speaks of a tadition which has authoity in its own ight apat fom Sciptue. This idea is stengthened by what the council says in Paagaph 10: Holy Tadition and Holy Sciptue fom the one saced deposit of God's Wod which has been entusted to the Chuch.. The task of poviding an authentic intepeta~ tion of God's Wod in Sciptue o Tadition has been entusted only to the Chuch's living magisteium, whose authoity is wielded in the name of Jesus Chist. This magisteium is not above God's Wod; it athe seves the Wod, teaching only what has been tansmitted, as, by divine mandate and with the Holy Spiit's assistance, it listens to God's Wod with piety, keeps it 6 Quoted fom HRevelation, A Potestant View. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. 'l Roge Schutz and Max Thuian; Newman Pess, 1968, p Schutz and Thuian, ~p.cit., pp. 40,41-9 -

13 I. in awe and expounds it with fidelity. All that it puts fowad to be believed as divinely evealed, it daws fom this one deposit of faith. Patently, theefoe, Holy Tadition, Holy Sciptue and the Chuch's magisteium ae, accoding to God's wise design, so inteconnected and united that none can stand without the othes, and that all togethe effectively contibute) each in its own way, unde the motion of the one Holy Spiit, to the salvation of souls. 8 Again, in Paagaph 21, the Council speaks of "Holy Tadition as the supeme ule of faith." While the Council neve spelled out clealy the elation between Sciptue and tadition, the commentatos efeed to above suggest the possibility that the idea is of Sciptue enlightened by tadition. But whateve may be the. details of intepetation, one thing is clea: Rome has not moved in any significant espects, fom the position against which the Refomes ebelled. In connection with this position of the Romish Chuch, and closely elated to it, was the position of Rome that the Sciptues wee an obscue book. The Medieval Roman Chuch denied the pespicuity of the Sciptues and took the position that the Sciptues wee so dak and obscue that they wee incapable of being undestood by anyone except a tained clegy led by an infallible pope. It was dangeous in the exteme fo anyone to take the Sciptues into his own hands. That this position is c'losely elated to the idea of the authoity of tadition and the authoity of the Chuch institute is clea. Only the Chuch is able to speak authoitatively on the meaning of Sciptue. The "laity" cannot undestand it. The clegy alone, though the sacament of odination, ae qualified to ascetain Sciptue's meaning. The laity must accept, without question, what the Chuch teaches. Luthe himself ebuked Easmus, the Pince of the Humanists, fo teaching tthat impudent and blasphemous saying, 'the Scip- tues ae obscue. tt 9 8Schutz and Thuian,. cit. 9wood, ~. cit., p _ 10 _

14 And in close connection with this was the Romish denial of the piesthood of all believes. The Spiit of Chist which is the Spiit of tuth ~s not given to any except the clegy. Hence, the I1laity'i wee in no position to take the Sciptues in thei own hands and intepet them. It was shee folly and cass iesponsibility to give the Sciptues to people who wee incapable of undestanding them anyway; and the esults could only be disastous. Thee have been some moden claims among Romish theologians that the Chuch neve took the Sciptues away fom the people. And, while this may be tue if one seeks an authoitative chuch declaation on the subject, the ovewhelming mass of evidence is that Rome did exactly this. Only this can explain, fo example, why the Romish Chuch aised such vehement objections against the tanslations in the conmon tongue which came fom the pens of Wycliffe and Luthe. I1 And it is clea why Rome would do this. The magisteium was esponsible fo all the teaching of the Chuch and fo detemining the content of the faith of he membes. Fo the supeme authoity of faith and life ested with the Chuch itself. To put the Sciptues in the hands of the "laity!f could easily esult in a discoveing of ideas which the Chuch consideed heetical. The people wee pemitted no fee thinking o fee exegesis of Sciptue. Sciptue was not, in its own ight and standing a lone, authoitative. The people wee to bow befoe the teaching Chuch. The esult of this was a complete denial of the fundamental pinciple of fee intepetation of Sciptue. Intepetation was bound by an authoity outside Sciptue and Sciptue's authoity was subjected to the Chuch as the custodian of tadition. ***;t~ A fundamental pinciple of the Refomation was the pinciple of the absolute authoity of Sciptue and the pinciple of the fee intepetation of the Wod of God. What did this pinciple mean? The Refomes, without exception, epudiated the position of Rome. They pointed out that the chuch fathes, the councils

15 And the popes had all eed. tadition could not be authoitative. This, in itself, was poof that The Refomes did not, with a caeless wave, dismiss all tadition to the junk heaps of histoy. They did not dispense with all tadition and band it all as useless. Rathe they claimed that tadition had no authoity in its own ight. Only that pat of tadition had authoity and could be accepted as the content of faith which popely expessed the tuth of Sciptue itself. Then its authoity was not autonomous; its authoity was deivative. The authoity of the taditions of the Chuch was the authoity of Sciptue itself. This was even tue of the geat confessions of the Chuch. The Refomes did not epudiate these confessions. On the contay, with veneation fo the confessions, the yeas of the Refomation wee the geatest yeas in chuch histoy fo confessional witings. But they insisted that the Confessions could only lead us to the Sciptues. They must be constantly tested by and compaed with Sciptue, and the authoity they cay must be the authoity of the Wod of God. But this same pinciple of the Refomes was opposed to the pinciple of the authoity of the teaching Chuch as well. It had to be. If the Refomes epudiated the idea of the authoity of tadition and stood upon the pinciple of the authoity of Sciptue, then it was but a logical and necessay step to deny the authoity of the magisteium, the institutional keepe of tadition. It is a stiking fact that on these points all the Refomes wee in complete ageement. They had thei diffeences on vaious subjects. E.g., Luthe and Calvin disageed on the doctine of the Lod's suppe. But all the Refomes both on the continent and in England and Scotland wee ageed on these fundamental questions. And because they wee ageed on these questions, they wee ageed on the positive teachings of Sciptue on the othe questions as well. The Refomes saw vey clealy that this implied the pinciple of the fee intepetation of Sciptue. Absolutely nothing could stand between the intepete and the Wod of God. Nothing could dictate to him how Sciptue had to be

16 l explained. Nothing and no one could bind him when he came to Sciptue. The pinciple of, absolutely fee exegesis was inheent in the whole concept of authoity. If the Chuch inteposed itself o the taditions of the apostles, fathes, councils o popes between the intepete and the Wod of God, seious and heinous cime. it was gui~ of a And fom this it followed that the Sciptues wee, in thei own ight, pespicuous. It is plain that this follows. It is only if Sciptue is dak and obscue, difficult of intepetation, that it needs an authoitative intepete outside itself. But if the Sciptues ae authoitative in thei own ight and claim fee intepetation, this can alone be because they ae clea and easily intepeted. They ae undestandable even by small childen. And so it was but natual that the Refomes easseted the pinciple of the piesthood of all believes. This meant many things, to be sue, especially oveagainst Roman Catholic sacedotalism. But, in this connection, it meant that all believes have the Spiit and ae able to intepet the Sciptues. not and cannot be left to the theologians of the Chuch. All believes can and must paticipate in this labo. * * * * * This wok must It was soon appaent to Rome and to the Refomes that this pinciple involved a vey seious poblem. Basically, the poblem was that such a view as this is extemely dangeous. On the one hand, Rome ealy waned that this pinciple would lead inevitably to a situation in which evey man would intepet the Sciptues as he saw fit. If the Bible was given to evey man and e vey man was his own intepete, the esult would be chaos and anachy as evey man intepeted God's Wod accoding to his own pesonal ideas. No longe would thee be any unifomity and a geement of belief. Rome epeatedly waned the Chuches of the Refomation that this would be the inevitable esult. On the othe hand, this would, in tun, lead to a fagmenting of the Chuch. It would lead to denominationalism and a factuing of the body of Chist And Rome was quick to point out

17 p;i'ilq [ gleefully that this was pecisely what did happen and poof of the wothlessness of the pinciple. Hence it was asseted by Rome that thee must be some authoitative voice othe than Sciptue. The Chuch can seve in such a capacity and pevent such anachy fom taking place. And always the temptation is stong to follow Rome's sien call. Always, even in ou own day, thee is a stong tendency to set up some authoity which can dictate belief and impose unifomity of faith in mattes of Sciptual intepetation. The feas which Rome expessed and the citicism levelled against the Refomation have continued to touble Potestantism. lo But what was the answe of the Refomes to this poblem? They did not simply dodge the poblem and act as if it did not exist in the hope that it would go away. They did not simply efuse to answe it. No did they take the position as is sometimee maintained, that, while it is tue that thee is isk involved in this pinciple, the isk is well woth taking. Some have asseted this. They have acknowledged that isk exists; but they have thought the pinciple impotant enough to take the isk. ll To take this position is a tacit admission that the pinciple is defective. What Rome said was the weakness of this position of the Refomes was not acknowledged by them to be so in fact. The Refomes wee pleading fo feedom and wee willing to lay down thei lives fo it. Rome intepeted this plea fo feedom as a kind of licentiousness. Rome was saying that by abandoning the authoity 10 Thee is anothe solution to this poblem posed by moden ecumenism. This solution maintains that what a man believes is of seconday impotance. His actions ae all that eally count. Evey man may, fo the most pat, intepet Sciptue as he pleases. And in this way all Chuches can find shelte unde the same ecclesiastical oof. This is supposed to be the supeme vitue of toleance. And many tend, to a geat o lesse degee, in this diection. But what is stiking about such moden toleance is that, while it embaces evey deviation and heesy invented by men, it is fightfully intoleant of the tuth. Thee is oom unde such an ecclesiastical oof fo anyone who believes anything, except the man who bows befoe the tuth. This man is the exception, and fo him thee is no oom. 11 Schaf seems to suggest this idea in his lthistoy of the Chistia: Chuch. 1i Vol. VII, pp \'1m.B.Eedmans Publishing Company

18 ~ of the Chuch, the Refomes wee denying all authoity, fo this is essentially what licentiousness is. But this was not tue and a slande of the position which the Refomes had taken. They did not say that intepetation of Sciptue was without authoity. They insisted emphatically that the authoity of intepetation was the authoity of Sciptue itself. To deny an outside authoit} which impinges upon the Sciptues, is not to deny all authoity. The Sciptues ae authoitative in thei own ight. And because this is tue, they ae the authoity of all intepetation. It is befoe Sciptue alone that we must bow. How did all this wok out in the actual development of this tuth? Thee wee two pinciples which the Refomes developed in this connection--both of geat impotance. The fist pinciple is the tuth that Sciptue intepets Sciptue. Because Sciptue is, in its own ight, authoitative, Sciptue is also its own intepete. This is tue because of the natue of Sciptue. It is not a book like any othe book which has been witten. It stands among all books as unique. Sciptue is a unity, an oganism, a whole. Even though witten ove the couse of some two thousand yeas, it nevetheless is one complete book to which nothing can be added and fom which nothing can be taken away. It is such an oganism because God is its one Autho. Sciptues ae the full evelation of God in Jesus Chist. The Togethe they constitute a whole. Without any single pat, the pictue is incomplete. Fo this eason, Sciptue cannot contadict itself. And fo this eason, Sciptue intepets itself. Evey single pat of Sciptue must be intepeted in the light of the est of Sciptue. Just as no single piece of a jigsaw puzzle makes any sense taken by itself, so also does not Sciptue make any sense if each piece is taken in sepaation fom the est. Just as any piece of a jigsaw puzzle has meaning and significance only as it is a pat of the whole, so also does each pat of Sciptue have meaning and significance only when taken with the whole. It is in this connection that the Refomes spoke of the analogia fidei, the analogy of faith. By this they meant that the

19 ' [ i l. whole of Sciptue must be taken into account in the intepetation of any given passage. As Luthe himself wote: Such is the way of the whole Sciptue: it wants to be intepeted by a compaison of passages fom eveywhee, and undestood unde its own diection. The safest of all methods fo discening the meaning of Sciptue is to wok fo. t b d h d t 12 ~ Y aw~ng toget e an scu ln~z~ng passages. The Refomes neve weaied of eminding thei audiences that this was the way the Lod Himself dealt with Sciptue and that this was the constant pactice of the New Testament wites in thei teatment of the Old Testament. It was always chaacteistic of heetics that they ignoe this fundamental pinciple. They base thei eoneous views on selected passages without intepeting them in the light of all Sciptue. Any heesy can thus be poved. Luthe was well awae of this. He wote: The abominable sophists... suppot themselves with Sciptue because they would look laughable if they tied to foce only thei own deams on men; its entiety. but they do not quote Sciptue in They always snatch up what appeas to favou them; but what is against them they eithe clevely conceal o coupt with thei cunnj.ng g osses. This pinciple of the analogia fidei howeve, implies a moe fundamental pinciple. much That pinciple is that the only Ihtepete of Sciptue is God Himself. He is Sciptue's Autho; He alone can intepet Sciptue. He does so by means of the Sciptue itself. As Luthe wote; God alone can intepet the Sci.ptues. God does not open and explain Holy Wit, no one can undestand it; it will emain a enveloped in dakness. 14 If closed book, 12 Wood, op.cit., pp. 161, Ibid., p

20 '. Not even the believe can, of himself, intepet God's Wod. Because God is the Autho, God is the Intepete. This evey believe must ecognize o he will neve undestand what Sciptue says. Among Chistians the ule is not to ague o investigate, not to be a smat aleck o a ationalistic know-it-all; but to hea, believe, and pesevee in the Wod of God, though ~1hich alone we obtain whateve knowledge we have of God and divine things. We ae not to detemine out of ouselves what we must believe about Him, but to hea and lean it fom Him. IS The Anabaptists think that they can measue the wod of God. with thei own yadstick and judge it on the basis of thei own education and thei own notion as to its meaning. This settles it fo them, and God ends up playing the ole of pupil to all men. IS This then, is the fist pinciple so emphatically insisted upon by the Refomes when thei position on Sciptue's authoity was challenged by Rome. The second pinciple is that the believe is the only one who is able to undestand the Sciptues. This is closely elated to the fist pinciple, fo the point is not that the believe possesses this powe in himself; athe he possesses this powe because of the opeation of the Holy Spiit in his heat. Thus the point of connection is that God always emains the sole intepete of Holy Wit. Objectively, He intepets the Sciptues by the Sciptues. SUbjectively, He gives His people powe to intepet the Sciptues by means of the Spiit of Chist. This is the Spiit pomised by Chist Himself Who would lead into all tuth. Lu On this point too, the Refomes wee vey insistent. the wites: 14 Ibid., p. ISO IS-- Ibid., p IS-- Ibid., p

21 God's Wod has to be the most mavellous thing in heaven and on eath. That is why it must at one and the same time do two opposite things, namely, give pefect light and gloy to those who believe it, and bing utte blindness and shame upon those who believe it not. To the fome it must be the most cetain and best known of all things; to the latte it must be the most unknown and obscue of all things. The fome must extol and paise it above all things; the latte must blaspheme and slande it above all things. So does it opeate to pefection and achieve in the heats of men no insignificant woks, but stange and teible woks. l? And again: Undestanding of these wods (of Sciptue) that I hea must be wought in me by the Holy Spiit. He makes me spiitual too. The Wod is spiitual and I also become spiitual: fo He inscibes it in my heat, and then, in bief, a 11 1.S sp1.l.t When Luthe was witing about the intepetation of John 1, he said: It is foeign and stange to eason, and paticulaly to the woldly-wise. No man can accept it unless his heat has been touched and opened by the Holy Spiit. It is as impossible of compehension by eason as it is inaccessible to the touch of the hand. 19 Calvin, too, stessed this point. He wites: Religion appeaing, to pofane men, to consist wholly in opinion, in ode that they may 17 Ibid., p. 136 IS-- Ibid., po Ibid., pp. 160,

22 t ' pq I I not believe any thing on foolish o slight gounds, they wish and expect it to be poved by ational aguments, that Moses and the Pophets spake by divine inspiation. But I eply, that the testimony of the Spiit is supeio to all eason. Fo as God alone is a sufficient witness of Himself in His own wod, so also the wod will neve gain cedit in the heats of men, till it be confimed by the intenal testimony of the Spiit. It is necessay, theefoe, that the same Spiit, who spake by the mouths of the pophets, should penetate into ou heats, to convince us fuat they faithfully deliveed the oacles which wee divinely intusted to them. 20 And again: Let it be consideed, then, as an undeniable tuth, that they who have been inwadly taught by the Spiit, feel an entie acquiescence in the Sciptue) and that it is self-authenticated, caying with it its own evidence, and ought not to be made the subject of demonstation ana aguments fom eason~ but it obtains the cedit which it deseves with us by the testimony of the Spiit. Fo though it conciliate ou eveence by its intenal majesty, it neve seiously affects us till it is confimed by the Spiit in ou heats. Theefoe, being illuminated by Him, we now believe the divine oiginal of the Sciptue, not fom ou own judgment o that of othes, but we esteem the cetainty, that we have eceived it fom God's own mouth by the ministy of men, to be supeio to that of any human judgment, and equal to that of an intuitive peception of God Himself in it Institutes of the Chistian Religion, I, VII, 4~ tion; Wm. B. Eedmans Publishing Co., Allen tansla 21 Ibid., I, VII,

23 I ~ I i! [ Thus the pinciple which was emphatically set foth was that the man devoid of the Spiit could not possibly undestand God's Wod. If he offeed his explanation, it would be clea ~1at it was incoect by the testimony of the Sciptues themselves. Only the believe, enlightened by the Spiit, was able to be a tue and coect intepete. This pinciple, in tun, has two aspects to it. The fist is that the believe himself is the only one who can function as an intepete of Sciptue because he has been given the Spiit Who is the Autho of faith wheeby he bows in humility befoe the Wod of God and eceives its good instuction. He does not come to the Wod of God with peconceived notions. He does not talk to the Hod. He does not impose his own ideas upon that Wod and make the Sciptues agee with him. He listens to what the Spiit says to the Chuches--objectively though the Wod and SUbjectively in his heat; fo only then is God the Divine Intepete of His own speech. The believe bows in humble adoation, as a little child, and listens to God. Secondly, the believe can and does do this only in connection with the whole Chuch. If a believe isolates himself fom the Chuch he fofeits his ight to function as an intepete of Sciptue. The Sciptues ae known only in communion with the peo pie of God. Within the fellowship of the saints alone is it possible fo the child of God to hea Sciptue speak. He must, fist of all, stand in communion with the Chuch of his own time, with the saints who live with him upon the eath. And he must do this in connection with and in submission to the peaching of the Wod as it comes to the gatheing of believes and thei seed on the Lod's Day. But he must also stand in communion with all the saints who have seached the Sciptues befoe him and have now gon to join the company of just men made pefect. Fo one Spiit, enlightening the saints of evey time, has dwelt in the Chuch fom the day of Pentecost onwad. And that one Spiit guides the saints mutually into the tuth. The believe does not despise the wok of the Spiit in the Chuch gone by. This is why the Confessions of the Chuch can suely lead him to Sciptue. No does he tun his back upon the saints with whom he shaes the blessings of the

24 ~ II I IT I evelation of God in Chist. In living communion with them all, he comes to Sciptue in humility and eveence. But he neve places anything fom the Chuch of the past above the Sciptues as an authoity in its own ight. Befoe the Sciptues alone he bows. When this is done, thee will be ageement among believes. It cannot be diffeent. And, in all the ages of time, it has not been diffeent. The Wod 'of God speaks one language; and one Spiit leads and guides into all tuth. When believes togethe bow in faith befoe the Wod of God, they hea the one speech of God as it comes to the Chuch thoughout all time. Thee will always be heetics who deny the tuth and seek to cloak thei heesies with eoneous appeals to Sciptue. Thee will always be diffeences on minute points of exegesis between saints. Hee too feedom must be pemitted. But in the tuths of the evelation of God the Chuch will agee and heesies will be clealy shown fo what they ae. The Chuch will hea what the Spiit has to say to he. I~ is all aptly summed up in the Belgic Confession: We eceive all these books, and these alone, as holy and canonical, fo the egulation, foundation, and confimation of ou faith; believing without any doubt, all things contained in them, not so much because the Chuch eceives and appoves them as such, but moe especially because the Holy Ghost witnesseth in ou heats, that they ae fom God, wheeof they cay the evidence in themselves. Fo the vey blind ae able to peceive that the things foetold in them ae fulfilling. (Aticle IV). And:... Neithe do we conside of equal value any witing of men, howeve holy these men may have been, with those divine Sciptues, no ought we to conside custom, o the geat multitude, o antiquity, o succession of times and pesons, o councils, decees o statutes, as of equal value with the tuth of God, fo the tuth is above all; fo all men ae of themselves lias, and moe vain than I

25 i I t vanity itself. Theefoe, we eject with all ou heats, whatsoeve doth not agee with this infallible ule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, Ty the spiits whethe they ae of God. Likewise, if thee come any unto you, and bing not this doctine, eceive him not into you house. <Aticle VII). Always the temptation is to inteject between the believe and God's Wod anothe authoity, othe than the authoity of Godls Wod itself. It has happened befoe. It is happening again. The gavest theat is now to inteject the authoity of science between the believe and Sciptue. This is but anothe fom of ationalism. But it is vey eal. Repeatedly we ae taught that we must eintepet the Sciptues because the findings of science demand this. The findings of science not only show that the eath is much olde than fomely supposed, but the findings of science give clea indication of how ceation came about; i.e., in some sot of evolutionay fashion. And the abundance of scientific mateials make such alteations impeative. But the findings of science ae, afte all, the conclusions of men's minds. Do they have authoity in thei own ight? This is suely the assumption. Science must, it is said, tell us not only the "when" of ceation; but also the "'how". And Scintue must be intepeted in this light. But if the Chuch pemits this to happen, it will have fallen into the same old eo of Rome, in a modified fom, and it will have fosaken the vey pecious pinciple fo which the Refomes fought. The believe must be on guad against all this. If the wod of scientists is to be believed, then the Sciptues ae no moe clea; they ae obscue; and the uninfomed laymen must leave the intepetation of Sciptue at key points to the expets. Then the office of believes is once again denied, fo the simple and uneducated child of God cannot hea any longe the Wod of God. He must let othes intepet fo him. But if the believe pemits this to happen, then the child of God is obbed of God and of His Wod. He has let othes snatch this Wod out of his hands. He has pemitted othes to take that Wod fom him

26 U!i!!t I l Has he not then lost it in a vey eal sense? It is not his; not his to ead) to study, to use to instuct his childen) to take with him down the difficult way of life. It belongs to those who have special abilities to undestand it. And it is suendeed to authoities othe than the authoity of God. The Sciptues must have fee couse. Thee is a spiitual issue involved hee. It is the spiitual issue of faith and unbelief. It is the spiitual issue of bowing in humility befoe God in Chist o exalting one's self in poud unbelief above the Sciptues. It is an issue that elates to the salvation of ou souls. The child of God who clings to Sciptue, clings to God in Chist--and finds etenal peace. l. f'r I l

27 ., AS TO THE DOCTRINE OF HOLY (4) --Pof. H. C. Hoeksena-- SCRIPTURE The main buden of this seies of essays has been to emphasize the tuth that Holy Sciptue is wholly divine. In ou discussion of this doctine we ae now eady to discuss the tuth of what has come to be called oganic inspiation. The latte is the tem which has been devised in dogmatics to expess dogmatically the fact of the wonde of Holy Sciptue and the fact of the wonde-wok of God wheeby He poduced Holy Sciptue. What is meant by oganic inspiation? To this question we shall devote ou attention both negatively and positively. And in connection with this question, theefoe, we shall discuss the alleged human facto and human element in Sciptue. Only too often when the subject of oganic inspiation is discussed, it is simply intepeted to mean that inspiation is non-mechanical. It is explained that the Holy Spiit did not use the human wites as mee machines, as we use ou typewites o pens o ecodes; neithe did He use these human wites as mee amanuenses, as an office may employ a staff of stenogaphes o secetaies. But, thus it is explained, the Holy Spiit used the wites of Holy Sciptue as living and thinking and willing men, with thei mind and will, and without suppessing thei individuality. It is pointed out fequently that the individuality of each human wite becomes clealy manifest in his witings. Thee is individuality as to choice of wods, style, manne of agumentation. Thee is a maked diffeence between the style of Amos and of Isaiah, o between the manne in which the apostle John pesents the tuth and Paul's method of agumentation. Now all this is pefectly tue. But it is not all the tuth. And because it is not all the tuth, but in fact eally fails to give expession to the heat of the tuth concening oganic inspiation, this pesentation becomes dangeously eoneous. It leads to the distinction which is commonly made, even in Refomed -24-

28 { t I, cicles, between a human facto and a divine facto in the poduction of Holy Sciptue. And this, in tun, leads to anothe commonly made distinction between a human element and a divine element in the cont~nts of Holy Sciptue. This question as to the human and the divine facto~ ih the Bible was one of the chief points of contovesy in the famous D. R. Janssen Case in the Chistian ~efo~med chuch, deait with by the synods of 1920 ahd D. Janssen taught that thee was a human facto as well as a divine invoived in Holy Sciptue, atd that, theefoe, w1~h a view to the human facto, mee human, i.e., histoical aid 1iteay,ditical methods could be followed to account fo the oigin of Holy Sciptue. D. Janssen's fellow pofessos disageed with and debated his conclusion, that is, that thee is also a divine and a human element in the contents of Holy Sciptue, and that theefoe the methods of histoical and liteay citicism may be applied to Holy Sciptue. Howeve, they conceded the fact, namely, that thee is a divine and a human facto involved in the poduction of Holy Sciptue. Accoding to this view, fo example, Isaiah was thee with all his individual taits, with his mode of thinki.ng and educ~tion; and the Holy Spiit in oganic inspiation did not suppess Isaiah's individuality, but in inspiation simply employed it as it was. And so the human Isaiah and the divine Spiit united and colaboed to wite the Wod of God. Thus undestood, the esult is necessaily that thee is not only a divine-human facto in the poduction of Sciptue but also a divine and a human element in the contents of the Bible. One may attempt to avoid this conclusion, but he cannot do so logically if he clings to the idea of a divine and a human facto in the composition of the Bible. The theoy of a divine and a human facto leads inevitably to the \ conception held by D. R. Janssen at the time of the Janssen Case --the vey same conception, essentially, that is held today by the adheents of the so-called Itnew theology" and "new hemeneutics" who ae so fee in thei citicism of Holy Sciptue. But it is evident that if Sciptue is the poduct of a human and a -25-

29 . ( :', I, ' divine facto, it is not absolutely the Wod of God. In the instance of the Janssen Case mattes took the peculia tun which led ultimately to the co~on gace contovesy. In connection with his theoy of Sci~tue, D. Janssen explained this human and divine facto~ as the happy coopeation,of so-called common gace and special gace; and it was no wonde~ that he began to accuse his opponents of a denial of common g~ace, something which ultimately led to a division among those who w~e at fist united in thei opposition to b. Janssen's teachitgs. this same concession with espect to a human facto and even a human element in Holy Sciptue--although shap distinction is not always made between Ufacto" and lielement"--is vey commonly found among what would be classed as consevative theologians today. It is to be expected, of couse, that vaious adheents of the new theology and the new hemeneutics in the Refomed community must somehow find and even emphasize such a human facto and human element in Holy Sciptue. But in ou opinion this concession on the pat of those who othewise stand opposed to the new theology is as fatal today as it was in the Janssen Case. We will gladly admit that some of these theologians today do not see, o at least do not want, the consequences which may be infeed fom thei concession of some kind of human facto o human element in Sciptue. We also gla" ~ ~i' admit that some want to limit seveely the extent of such a human facto o element, to limit it, fo example, to mattes of fom and style. But ou point is that those who concede such a human facto have in effect conceded a fundamental pinciple and have made themselves weak in defending the tuth of the infallibility of the Wod of God. Ultimately, on that basis such a defense becomes impossible because it is inconsistent. Moeove, we believe, too, that histoy confims ou contention. It may be possible~ by foce of tadition, to maintain fo a time the tuth of the infallibility of Holy Sciptue. Eventually, howeve, concessions ae made; and finally the entie stuctue of inspiation and infallibility comes unde attack and collapses o