From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Inerrancy/Sufficiency
Date: 15 Sep 92 07:01:13 GMT
Organization: FNAL


     Some of you may be familar with William (Guillaume) Farel.  It was "this
read-headed, hot-tempered, strong-voiced, prophetic individual, (who)
established the Reformation in Geneva."  In November of 1527 in Bern, he helped
organize a meeting where many people would gather to discuss what the truth
was.  As these men met, they met first of all, limiting themselves to the
Scriptures.  Out of this came 10 propositions by Zwingli that were to be
discussed.
     One of the propositions was: "The holy Christian church, of which Christ
is the sole head is born of the Word of God, abideth in it, and listeneth not
to a voice of a stranger."  Of course, they were not referring to the Word of
God as some very strange thing as neo-orthodoxy would propose, ie Karl Barth
contrasting the Bible to the Word of God, rather it was that of the reformers. 
Now a certain RC monk stood up immediately after the reading of this
proposition, and stated that 1) the word "sole" was not in the Scriptures, and
2) Christ had left a Vicar to interpret them, referring, of course, to the Holy
RCC.  It that he based himself in the Scriptures, it is good.  However his 2nd
point was answered by Howler thusly: The Vicar that Christ left, is the Holy
Ghost."  And that was that.  Howler sat down and the monk remained quiet!
     Well immediately the question arises that if we then have an objective
Word of God, what or who is THE means of interpretation?  The Westminster
states it thus: "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the
Scripture itself...."  The Word of God is objective and its is total.  It is
something we have to judge truth objectively *and* without becoming immersed in
any subjective morass.  This is a very important point in our generation of
relativistic thinking, because the great adversary of the Scriptural position,
the position of the early church and the reformation, is this very relativistic
theology, whether it comes down from RC circles or the Protestant circle.  It
matters not which because the effect caused is the same.  In the Protestant
circles we would mention Barth, Brunner, Tillich, Bultmann and Niebuhr and all
those who follow them in various combinations.  Though I care little to get
into to a discussion at this point, I would note that following a certain line
laid down by Kierkegaard, by the time you come to Barth, it is clearly
developed to such an extent that neo-orthodoxy begins by accepting implicitly
the position of German "higher" criticism.  This being so, the Body no longer
has an objective Word of God.  It is now, rather, some kind of judgment
concerning it.  Barth and those who would follow him, would put the authority
at the point of a subjective work "within" the reader.
   [a parenthetical note:  In 1947, in Oslo, a youth conference was held
gathering young people from all over the world.  This was right after WW2 and
had the backing of the World Council of Churches, which at the time was in its
infancy.  One of the sessions held was a Bible study with one of the topics of
discussion being "How can we know what the Word of God in the Bible is?"  For
me, the question is actually a startling one, entirely counter to the whole
position set forth by the reformation and the great confessions such as the
Westminster Standard and the Heidelberg Confession.  The question itself is
wrong, of course.  The reformation position was that the Word of God is the
Bible.  As amazing as the question was, the answer was even more so.  The
answer goes something like this:  Any portion of the Bible is the Word of God
if it shows the spirit of Jesus Christ.  This is terrible.  It is nothing less
than a very crass presentation which, of course, came forth under the guidance
of the theologians that were there.  The final authority is now put in the
hands of the reader, a subjective authority.]
   Now, this is a very important parenthesis.  For it is not a mixture of truth
but rather, the Word of God is one Truth.  It is not a mixture of
contradictions, it is one whole.  There is unity.  Therefore, the Westminster
states: "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be
determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines
of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are
to rest, *can be no other but the Holy Spirit in the Scripture" (Ch 1. art. 10)
 
   In art. 5 & 6 of the WCF, the objectivity of the Scriptures is very
carefully stated.  The inspiration is not subjective, it is not in the reader,
it is in the Bible itself.  However, it is also clearly stated that the HS is
needed.  I see 3 possible positions here.
     1)  Karl Barth who makes interpretation purely subjective by making
           the final authority in the reader.  It is the reader that is
inspired.
     2)  The opposite extreme with its emphasis on the objectivity of the 
           inspiration of the Scriptures without an emphasis on the work of 
           the HS.  Merely dry objectivity which is mathematically interpreted.
Now these are clearly objected to by the Scriptures and by the subordinate
standards such as the Westminster.  "There is a Vicar on earth," and He is the
Holy Spirit.  This is important because if someone asks us what is Truth in a
certain area, we do not need to go into some sort of trance, and say certain
things about certain empirical experiences.  We point to the Bible itself,
which all men may discuss.  It is to be understood simply, according to the
words as they were written.  So... it is important to see that there is a
Vicar, and the Vicar that Christ left is the HS, and it is He who enlivens the
Word of God to our hearts.
   It is not "the Bible containing the Word of God," it is God revealing
Himself and then the giving of this in writing.  "All of which are given by
inspiration of men to be the rule of faith and life."  Now the RCC says that
the RCC is the infallible interpreter, but the Scriptures themselves illustrate
a parallel to this in the case of the Jews at the time of Jesus.  The
Rabbinical writings were given as the certain, definitive interpretation of the
Scriptures.  However, Jesus says at this juncture, that they had destroyed the
actual authority of the OT by doing so.  By their very tradition, they had made
the Word of God of non-effect.  Now Rome has done the same thing with both the
Old and New Testaments by saying that the RCC is the infallible interpreter.
   However, I think the reformers were correct by saying "The Bible is yours." 

     1)  No church or man stands between the individual and the Bible (66
books)
     2)  The necessary things are easily understood.
     3)  The Bible speaks in common language.  
For me, this is all warm and wonderful.  It is an evidence of the love of God
to those of us who are sinners.  Let us remember the implications of X's work
as Prophet, Priest and King.  What men need first is true knowledge, and God
has given man knowledge in the most wonderful form possible - a written work
with these characteristics we have been speaking of.  
   Let there therefore be no criticism of the Bible.  Jesus is very, very
strenuous at this particular place.  Jesus insisted that if one didn't listen
to the Scriptures, there was no hope for him.  Those of you who are of the
liberal camp, hear what I just said -no hope!  Christ also clearly made
understood the term "Scriptures."  This word was a technical term meaning the
39 books of canon.  When Jesus used the word "Scriptures" He was not using a
vague term.  It was for Him the technical Rabbinical term the same way that
"Bible" is now used as a technical term.  

   OK, time for a little Bible study.  

Luke 16:19ff.  Here we find the rich man who has gone to Hades and is now
speaking with Abraham.  In this remarkable passage, we have the statement, "If
they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded thou
one rose from the dead."  It is remarkable in that Jesus is saying, that if
they will not hear what Moses & the prophets have to say, (precisely what
Higher criticism aims at) if they will not hear this.....nothing _ will _
change _ their _ hearts.  Even if one were to be raised from the dead, nothing
will change their hearts.  Nothing I have said up to this, could possibly say
it any stronger than what Jesus has said at this place.

Jn 5:39ff.  "for he wrote of Me."  "If ye believe not his writings, how shall
ye believe My words?"  Simply put, the Scriptures are enough. Man needs no
further revelation.  

Ex.  9:20,21.  "he that set his heart no unto the Word of the Lord"  God tells
what is going to happen.  There is a greater judgment coming than the
hailstones.  There is the eternal lostness to the sole of the unbeliever and an
eternal lostness of the reward to the believer.

So you say, "Is this really true?  The passage in Luke, surely Jesus is
speaking in hyperbola."  Is He?  Turn to  Jn 11 and the raising of Lazarus from
the dead.  Jesus did raise somebody from the dead in a very public fashion. 
Did the Pharisees believe?  Well, did they?  v. 53: "So from that day on they
planned together to kill Him."  Read on to Jn 12:10: "But the chief priests
took counsel that they might put Lazarus to death also.."  This is not only
true of Lazarus raising from the dead, but is it not also true of the
resurrection of Jesus?  They didn't believe Lazarus, have they believed Jesus? 
The answer is sadly, profoundly sad, that thousands and millions of times, the
answer is no.  Therefore Jesus' words are a most sobering word looking back to
Luke 16. 
      "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, 
        neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead."....no
matter what,
       no _ matter _ what, ......NO _ MATTER _ WHAT.

2 Sam. 3:27 So when Abner returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside into the
middle of the gate to speak with him privately, and there he struck him in the
belly so that he died on account of the blood of Asahel his brother.
2 Sam. 3:33 And the king chanted a {lament} for Abner and said, # "Should Abner
die as a fool dies?

Abner was a fool in that he went with Joab outside of Hebron.  Why was Abner a
fool?  Because Hebron was a city of refuge.  So David says, you fool, you fool,
you fool.  In just such a vein, those who *choose* to leave the objective
standard of the Scriptures, Christ Himself calls a fool, for you have left your
city of refuge!

2 Cor. 3:4, 5 & ff.  "And such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 
Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as {coming} from
ourselves, but our adequacy is from God...."

Those who *choose* to hold to a doctrine of the inspiration or interpretation
being in and of the reader (relativism), claim to have adequacy in and of
themselves, quite in contrast to the teachings of Christ and the Scriptures.

Rex