Previous Home Next Table of Contents
3.
The Alternative Suggested
Let us turn the attention to the present dilemma facing the theological
and Christian community. It must be
granted that when the Bible loses its inerrant authoritative position, then some
other criteria must be set up to judge what is truth. Indeed, man has to have some standard by which to judge the
affairs of man, his ideas and opinions. Experiences,
whether religious in nature or not, must have a guide or reference point to give
them meaning and value. If the Bible is not accepted as authoritative, it also
must be subject to some system or standard.
While I have maintained and demonstrated that in many of the approaches
to Scripture man becomes the ultimate authority (which equally subjects God to
man and makes God what man imagines him to be, which is idolatry), it must be
recognized that some system, whether ethical in nature or empirical, must be
used to guide the affairs of life. It
is this system or method that I now want to examine and expose.
While it is true that man has become the center for determining what is
truth, man is not on an individual basis able to develop a useful standard of
authority without some objective guide to go by.
Having attacked and diminished the value of external guides of authority,
such as the Bible, man has developed a popular philosophy by which a majority of
the population might make day to day decisions.
These criteria may be described as
the existential and humanistic models. It
is alarming that these philosophies, no matter how appealing and noble they may
appear in the eye of man, have not been subject to Scripture with regard to
their truthfulness. On the
contrary, the Scriptures have been subjected to these methods of logic.
Proponents, like Rudolph Bultman, have boldly asserted that since the
facts of God’s Word have been rendered useless and unintelligible by modern
understandings of the world, there is a need for a more meaningful expression of
truth. Thus, to make Scripture
meaningful, an application of modern questions concerning man’s existence
becomes the key to interpretation. This
is expressed in the following quotes:
The men who wrote the New Testament in personal witness to their
Lord Jesus Christ naturally sought to explain what he meant to them
in the cultural style of their day and age.
They expressed their faithful
understanding in the myths by which men then understood the world....
Today men seeking Christ are put off by the archaic form in which his
saving work was directed. To
reach modern man Christianity should
free the Christ from the mythic descriptions of his life and acts.
(Borowitz, p. 142)
What is central to Christianity...is not what happened as such, but what
it meant to the lives of those who witnessed it and what it continues
to mean today....At that first Easter the disciples truly realized the
strength of their faith in him, of what he meant to them and other
men....They recognized at the very core of their being that as they
identified with him, living their lives in terms of his life, they, too,
would live reconciled to God. A new, fulfilled existence had come
into history. (Borowitz,
p. 154-155)
In these quotations, interpretation is achieved by
asking questions about Scripture with focus on the existential meaning to the
biblical writers and to man today. The
modal for interpretation becomes existentialism.
If its message speaks of the meaning of
existence, then the most
thoughtful and searching questions concerning human existence
are desired. These can be
found...only in a philosophy that has
concentrated on the nature and structure of human existence. For
Bultmann this means existentialist philosophy.... (Borowitz, p.149)
It is clear what is happening with regard to this type of thinking and
approach to Scripture. Having
determined the truths and facts recorded, nay revealed, in Scripture as being
possible fables, myths and potentially untrue, proponents have effectively
destroyed the authority which the Bible commands for itself.
This being done, some other authority becomes necessary by which matters
may be judged as to their truthfulness. This
other authority is existentialism. The
fact or truthfulness of a biblical event is no longer the important
consideration. Only the existential
or spiritual truth is what matters.
The alarming deception that occurs when this approach is taken is that
the historical significance of events in the Bible becomes of no importance.
It is only the moralistic or ethical or existential meaning that is of
importance. Modern theological and
pastoral reflection and exposition have become increasingly leavened by this
type of approach to Scripture. When
questioned about the importance of the historical basis of biblical truths, the
historical basis is seen as unnecessary. What
has occurred is the teachings of Lessing, that “authentic” faith is not
based upon historical fact, have become the dominating characteristic of modern
belief of Scriptural truths.
With regards to Christology, modern scholarship has provided a means by
which a re-interpretation of biblical events can occur. This “means” is most often referred to as the “kerygma.”
Kerygma is a term which describes the content of the Christian
proclamation concerning Jesus. C.H.
Dodd has identified seven aspects of the gospel proclamation of Jesus. (1) An
affirmation that the Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled in Christ. (2) Jesus
was born from the seek and lineage of David.
(3) Jesus was crucified, died on the cross, and was buried.
(4) Jesus arose from the grave on the third day.
(5) Jesus is now seated at the right hand of God in
power. (6) Jesus is declared
to be the Lord of both the living and the dead.
(7) Jesus will return again to the earth as Savior and Judge.
These basic truths concerning Jesus have been found in the writings of
the gospel writers, and the writings of Paul and John.
While these are looked upon as historical and present realities by
conservative scholarship, modern subjective approaches tend to neglect the
historical significance of these facts and stress another message: one of
fulfillment, death to self, rising to a new attitude or decision toward life.
The Kerygma is re-interpreted to express an existential meaning of
Scripture rather than objective fact.
The fact that the historical significance becomes unimportant in modern
scholarship is demonstrated by the following statements.
...the kerygma given in Jesus Christ can live in any world view and be
be joined to a variety of philosophies...it can be acceptable to a man
espousing a scientific world view just as it was to a first century man
nourished on a world view of three dimensions.
To both of these it
comes with wisdom for existence whether man lives soon or late in
the history of the race. Here
is basic knowledge for men of all times,
races and cultures. it
offers them what they cannot truly and fully
live by. (Davis, p. 22)
Therefore one may recognize as mythical attachments to Christianity
the sole sonship of Jesus, his miraculous conception by the Holy
Spirit, his Virgin Birth, his descent into hell, his resurrection, his
ascension, his heavenly rule from the right hand of God, and his
eschatological judgment without the slightest surrendering the
essence of Christianity. How
can this be? It can be because the
essence of Christianity lies in none of these, but rather in the crucial
proclamation (kerygma) of the event of God in Jesus Christ.
(Davis, p.10)
The Christian message is based on the mystery of the Christ, but he
is best spoken of today in existential terms.
The kerygma is most
fruitfully proclaimed in the existential interpretation.
(Borowitz, p. 152)
This type of interpretation subjects the message of
Christ to rationally derived philosophies of the present century.
It removes the historical fact and makes Scripture and its truths nothing
but ethical and moral stories on how man answers his quest for meaning and life.
In effect, the meaning becomes whatever the interpreter finds as valuable
for helping him answer questions concerning life’s dilemma.
What is further suggested by this type of approach is that the kerygma,
the story, the idea behind the statements, is what saves man. It reduces the truth of Jesus Christ to a character in a
fairy tale with a deep moral and ethical message.
What is alarming about this is that it is no longer Jesus Christ saving
man on the cross of Calvary, it is the kerygma, the story of the cross which
saves. In an objective
proclamation, faith is directed toward the act of grace of God in Jesus Christ,
his substitutionary death on the cross for man’s sin. In the above approach, while the story may touch the soul,
the real salvation is based in man’s ability to respond to the story: that a
person can rise up from the perceived bondage’s of life, from the systems of
oppression which keep men from reaching their potential.
A lot of preaching currently being done uses truth in this manner.
In the end, however, it reduces faith to positive confidence in self,
rather than in the power and promise of Jesus.
It turns salvation from being conversion through the Holy Spirit’s
convicting power, to a conversion by seeing the potential and liberty man has in
directing his life. Instead of
repentance, it invites a change of attitude toward life rather than godly sorrow
for sin. Instead of a life-changing
experience with the Holy Spirit taking residence within the believer and
transforming him, a person makes a choice to live up to his potential through
the “nurturing” relationships of other believers.
This existential approach turns heaven and hell into a myth and makes the
only place for man’s consummation to be here on earth.
A greater problem with this approach is that the unperceiving listener in
the pew cannot always know which message is being proclaimed. In fact, the preacher may not even be aware that he is
preaching a gospel which is pure existentialism. This is because both objective
preaching and subjective existential preaching uses the same texts and events of
the Bible. However, the power of
God rests only in one type of proclamation, the objective. Equally, both approaches may use the Bible in an
authoritative manner week after week, but only the objective type of
proclamation is truly eternally worthwhile.
The following is a brief existential exposition concerning Scripture. While not taken from a sermon, this passage could be
preached, heard and accepted in many churches without concern.
Now the fact is that through his Word God calls men to a decision for
him and his ways as against the world and its ways. In this life man
finds himself placed in a realm wherein he is gripped by things
transient. All changes and
passes away. He learns that when he
seeks
to hold on to tangibles, sooner or later they slip away like sand between
his fingers. The sensory
world of science leads to no enduring
satisfaction and hence to no salvation, but finally only to ruin.
In the midst of
such impermanence, the Word of God functions
as a rending reality, tearing man away from the world and his love
for it to a decision for God and his purpose.
The Word sets a man
“before God, in whose sight he is to give account of what he has made
of himself and his life.”...The Word sets him out in from of the world
view in which he seeks to hide himself, causing him to stand in God’s
presence as “an isolated human being” responsible for his existence.
Only in the recognition of such personal accountability and decision
is responsible existence found. The
Word faces man with the
knowledge that He who is creator and judge calls men to decision.
The individual then knows that he is under the demand of personal
obedience to God whose will is made clear by the Kerygma given
in history. (Davis,
p. 50-51)
The basic message of this little passage is that man must die to his
selfish ways and learn to live responsibly with the knowledge he must give an
account of his actions. What the
Bible does is to show man his shortcomings and how he lives selfishly in the
world. This type of behavior is not
to be viewed as “responsible existence.”
It is interesting how the Bible is used as an authoritative text, but
only as it is a useful means of trying to get people to see their unsociable
behavior or un-responsible existence. The
aim is to try to get the hearer to become accountable for how he is living.
This is an attractive message but it suggests truths which are not
scriptural. For one, God is not
really necessary as a personal being since God becomes a concept for the object
to which we must give an account
for our life. It is interesting
that one of the great promises of the gospel hope is that the individual will
not be held in judgment but that they are cleansed by the blood of Jesus. In fact, the only judgment which the saints are called unto
is one of reward (I Corinthians 3:14; I
Peter 5:4; Revelation 22:12).
The message above seems to suggest that punishment will be received by
those who fail to live responsibly. Equally,
instead of sin being rebellion and an offense against the living God, sin
becomes the failure of living up to one’s potential in the world which is
interacted with daily. This message
is not a call to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ so that a person will be
forgiven, but it is a call to “grow up,” to “turn over a new leaf,” or
to “start living responsibly for your life.”
I am curious as to who is going to give an infallible definition of what
“responsible existence” is. This
message could easily go on to describe what “authentic living” means for the
individual, an existential term that will be examined in more detail later.
For the present, the concept is a catch word for the type of life which
is viewed as being the goal of ministry and education.
It involves a belief in the potential of self-actualization in both
society and individuals.
The danger of the above message is that it is so acceptable and
desirable. Preachers in pulpits
everywhere desire nothing better than to help people overcome their unsociable
behavior. Equally, the desire to get individuals to choose to live responsibly
is valued as ministry. The sad
thing about this type of preaching is that individuals can turn over new leaves.
They can in the fellowship of a “nurturing” congregation overcome
many of the unlikeable aspects of their lives.
They can come to live by the ethical standards which are valued by the
congregation and perhaps even based in Scripture.
However, unless they have been born again, unless the power of God has
taken hold of them, unless they have repented of their sin and trusted by faith
in the blood cleansing sacrifice of the cross, they are still going to spend an
eternity in hell. Is it no wonder that people in congregations have shed the
more undesirable sins but have no power to overcome those they want to keep?
The reason is the flesh is still alive and the power of sin still reigns.
This is also why the church is full of people who have reached a certain
level of ethical and moral acceptability and are growing no further and have no
desire to do so. This is why the
message of Jesus Christ is no longer proclaimed by a majority of church members
since their faith is nothing more than a “Christianized” ethical system.
This is why a person can hear from both teachers and students that the
“blood sacrifice of Jesus was not important nor necessary.”
This is why preachers can fill the pulpit, maybe even in the church where
you sit, and not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, his Virgin
Birth, or that He is the Son of God. What
becomes important to these ministers is that you learn to live responsibly and
reach your potential while using your gifts
in the nurturing community of the church.
The faithful become those who most responsibly support the program or
desires of the minister.
I ask, is this the type of approach and interpretation you desire to have
in the pulpit? The results have
already been devastating on the church leaving it powerless and ungodly.
The only way to stem this crisis is to return to an objective approach to
the use of Scripture. Let it define
the nature of existence. Let it be
the guide for the affairs of man. I
concur with J.I. Packer who states that “we may not turn narratives which
clearly purport to record actual events into mere symbols of human experience at
our will; still less may we so do
(as has been done) in the name of biblical theology!” (1985,
p. 105)
The results of such scholarship also indicate that biblical
interpretation can come to mean just about anything man decides is credible,
just as long as it falls within the definition of “responsible existence.” This is why there is so much confusion in the church today.
This is why whole congregations cannot discern between good and evil.
This is why the autonomy of the local church is claimed so highly.
Since every other church is interpreting Scripture by a different idea of
what “responsible existence” represents, who is to say which one is right.
This is why seminaries and colleges are filled with blasphemous errors
and deceptions. Ultimately, this is
why skeptics laugh at the church’s confusion and scorn its belief in “fairy
tales." In the meantime, the world is perishing!
I anticipate that I will be accused of trying to “box” God and make
him what I think He is. This is
assumed because God is infinite and eternal.
For finite man to know him in the limitations of an objective word is
said to be limiting God who is limitless. The
problem with this shallow and seemingly pious statement is that it was God who
chooses to limit himself. It was
God who limited himself so that man who knows only in part might be partakers of
His mercy and grace. Is this not
the lesson of Philippians 2 where it is written of Jesus that He limited Himself
from His eternal glory? As it is
written, Christ “being in the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness
of men: and being fashioned as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient
unto death, even the death of the cross” (2:6-8
KJV). The truth of the
matter is that God has limited Himself in a way that man may come to know him in
truth (John 1:14). It is because of
this self-imposed limitation by God which allowed a drunken fool, like myself,
to come and know God through the truth of Jesus Christ. I praise God for His wisdom and grace in declaring Himself in
this manner for I would have never known Him otherwise.
Usually, the ones who are afraid to speak anything certain and
dogmatically concerning God are the same ones who teach and embrace error at its
worse. A.H. Strong provides a good
understanding of the self-limitations which God has placed on Himself for our
benefit.
That God should not be able thus to limit himself in creation and
redemption would render all self-sacrifice in him impossible, and so
would
subject him to the greatest limitations.
We may say therefore that God’s
1. Perfection involves his limitation to (a) personality,
(b) trinity, (c)
righteousness; 2. Revelation
involves his self-limitation in (a) decree,
(b) creation, (c) preservation, (d) government, (e) education of the
world;
3. Redemption involves his
infinite self-limitation in the (a) person and
(b) work of Jesus Christ. (Strong,
p. 9-10)
Thus revelation in Jesus Christ and Scripture, rather
than placing God in a “box," are a needed objective self-limitation by
which many might come to know God and truth. I agree with Peter when he wrote, “ We have a more sure
word of prophecy: whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that
shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arises in your
hearts....” (II Peter 1:19
KJV). Scriptures are an
infallible and perfect prophecy whereby we might know God in His holiness,
righteousness, long-suffering, mercy grace, loving-kindness, goodness, justice
and love. Also Jesus Christ is the
expressed image of the Godhead within the limitations of time and space.
The church, instead of subjecting Scripture to man, needs to follow the
example of it Head, Jesus Christ, who always appealed to Scripture as a final
authority when he said, “It is written.”
When Jesus said the Old Testament spoke of him, he was appealing to the
Scriptures as an authoritative witness that He was who He claimed to be.
In fact, Jesus would often connect the idea of being saved with the idea
that a person must receive and respond to his instructions (Luke 6:46 f.;
John1:12. 3:11. 5:37-40, 8:31). This
indicates that Jesus’ words and instructions were to be received as final and
ultimate truth, not just as existential symbols of life and what it means to be
man.
The church equally needs the confidence of the apostles who
authoritatively quoted from the Old Testament as a final appeal.
Consider the Book of Hebrews carefully and see how every part of the
argumentation is based upon scriptural references drawn form the Old Testament.
Read the epistles of Paul and see how many times he quotes from the Old
Testament to present a point or explain an event.
Listen to the preaching in the Book of Acts where Peter on Pentecost
calls attention to the prophet Joel to explain the occasion.
Listen to the message of Stephen before he was stone to death and see how
he used the Scriptures authoritatively. In
all of these uses, there is not a hint of an existential attempt to define life. On the contrary, objective truths are presented to be
believed and responded unto. If it
is argued that this objective authority is limited to the Old Testament, then
consider the words of Peter:
...even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom which
was given him hath written you as also in all his epistles, speaking in
them these things: in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the
other
scripture, unto their own destruction.
( 2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV)
This passage shows that in the days of the apostles
certain epistles were looked upon with authority and as God’s Word.
This passage also shows they held an authority equal to that of the
“other scriptures.” No doubt, this is the approach and attitude that the church
must return to today. This is the
only method which will remedy the shift from an objective authority to a
subjective authority.
As this section has demonstrated, scholarship has moved from the approach
of “sola Scripture” of the reformation to an authority which lies in the
philosophical subjectivism of the existential modal.
The question before the church is whether these two approaches can
honestly and safely be embraced at the same time.
Can one group which believes in the historicity of Scripture and the
sobering implications of these truths, have fellowship with those who have
little or no faith in the historicity of the Bible, but who are only interested
in authentic living or responsible existence?
Can those who have faith in God’s method of salvation have fellowship
with those who have faith in man’s potential?
You can, but the basis of the fellowship is not Jesus Christ and His Word
but something else. I suspect with
the Southern Baptist Convention it is the all-important Cooperative Program.
My question to this type of basis for fellowship is which message is
going to be presented at the point of evangelistic outreach?
Which approach and teaching is going to be used in training those called
to serve in ministry? Will the
authority for the faith and practice of the church rest in Scripture, which is
God-derived, or in the existential answer to man’s dilemma, which is
satanically derived?
The thought which comes to my mind is the word written by Paul to the
theologically diverse congregation at Cornith.
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what
fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?
And what
communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with
Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ( II Corinthians
6:14-15 KJV)
The obvious answer to these questions was that there
should not be fellowship. The
church needs to be equally honest today. When
Paul stated that he was not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, he was not
speaking of the kerygma or the story as being powerful.
Paul was speaking of the power of God that is wrought in believers, the
reconciliation to God which is available to man, due to Jesus’ substitutionary
death on the cross, when they believe. The
affect of this type of faith on the believer is much different from the positive
enthusiasm which is gained by existential responses.
The only way for the church to regain its confidence and power is to
center all preaching and teaching on the efficacious act of Jesus Christ on the
cross. That the two approaches to
Scripture are in contradiction to each other has been shown by what has been
said, as well as, what will be shown in the following sections of this book.
It may be claimed that the objective approach to Scripture leads to head
knowledge only and does not guarantee salvation.
I agree this is possible and occurs often. However, when an individual places himself under the
authority of Scripture, using it to discern all matters of faith and practice,
he will find himself in a position to respond to the true gospel and not a
substitute. This will also place
the individual in a position for the Spirit of God to lead him into truth rather
than being led about by every wind of spiritual deceit.
In fact, the individual will be in a position to cognitively apprehend
the truth of Jesus Christ. Then, in
experience, he may receive the power of the Holy Spirit demonstrated in
regeneration and baptism as God prepares him for glory.
It is hard to imagine a person subjecting themselves to the Word of God
in this manner and not being able to discern whether they had a true experience
of regeneration. Equally, it is hard to imagine an assembly of saints who
subject themselves to God’s Word not being able to discern whether they have
experienced the fullness and richness of the faith that the Scriptures
demonstrate was present in the early church.
Only when a person subjects the Bible to present ideas and experiences
does a head knowledge develop.
be examined more closely. Four critical doctrines and areas of
church life will be compared to see how far apart the two
approaches are in reality. The reader will also find out just how
deceptive these subjective beliefs can be due to their
attractiveness. As a result of this attractiveness, untold millions
have had their biblical ideas shaped by these falsehoods and
reinterpretations.
Previous Home Next Table of Contents
© CopyRight 2002 Scott R. Simpson