Introduction

Previous Home Next Table of Contents

The Other Gospel

Scott R. Simpson

December 1988

Introduction

The Two Approaches to Interpreting Scripture

Many professing believers in Jesus Christ believe that it is possible for the church to function effectively with theological diversity among the members. Consequently, various biblical interpretations that are embraced are stated not to be, and should not be, a decisive factor for continuing in fellowship. The argument is usually stated by indicating that “a brother or fellow believer does not agree with me on this principle or belief, but that is not what is important.” Only that “we love each other and accept each other as part of Christ’s body” is what is important. When this is accepted, the basis of the Christian unity is found to be resting in the evangelical endeavors that are in common, or because each says they believe in Jesus, rather than any “narrow” doctrinal dogmas. It is further suggested that to base unity around doctrinal interpretation and dogma is to deny the reality of the “Priesthood of the Believer” and thus impinges upon the autonomous nature of the local church.

This type of reasoning is most readily seen in the current conflict among Southern Baptist churches where different groups holding different doctrinal positions are trying to unite in the proclamation of the gospel to the world. While this is the most visible example of the above reasoning, this conflict is not foreign to other denominations and religious groups. As noble, however, this reasoning may be, it is the intention of this book to demonstrate that this type of “unity” is un-scriptural and unworkable as a basis for the work of the church. Moreover, the Body of Christ, which is the pillar and ground of the truth, should spare no effort in exposing false doctrinal positions. Neither should the church have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.

The reality of theological diversity in the Body of Christ is not a concept that is found in Scripture. On the contrary, Jesus Christ said that “true worshipers shall worship the Father in Spirit and truth” (John 8:23 KJV). This statement suggests that wherever truth is neglected for the spirit of cooperation, the result can only be false worship. In fact, the idea of theological diversity is in opposition to other scriptural exhortations, like Jude 3 where the church is exhorted to “earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints” (KJV). Theological diversity goes against the truth presented by Paul to the church at Ephesus when he indicated the purpose of gifted men. “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by sleight of men, and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (4:11-14 KJV).

Paul implies in this passage that truth is not so fleeting that the saints cannot with certainty have a sure foundation by which to grow unto maturity and discern the deceptions of the devil. Paul in fact goes on to exhort the saints to have no fellowship with those who embrace falsehood and to expose the falsehood of the devil, “And have not fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:11 KJV). Equally, it was theological diversity which Paul was dealing with when he wrote to Timothy, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith” ( I Timothy 6:20 KJV). It is clear from these verses that one of the tasks of the church is to reprove and expose false doctrine, as well as, defending and teaching the received truths to successive generations.

If this is the ideal, what is the reason and cause of theological diversity in the church? It must be admitted that the basis of the current diverse theological climate is actually a question of authority and how Scripture is interpreted for the faith and practice of the church. While each side will claim to have the Bible as the basis of authority, it is clear that doctrinal cleavages have resulted from two ways in which Scripture is approached. Of equal importance is the fact that the nature of the approach will directly influence the interpretation. One method of approach is to accept and interpret the Bible as an objective Word from God. In this method, the interpreter comes to God’s Word and subjects his life, thoughts, beliefs, opinions, experiences, habits, etc., to what is revealed in God’s Word. Whenever the interpreter is unclear on an issue, he seeks to find what similar passages and events in Scripture reveal about that issue. The interpreter does not seek outside authorities, such as philosophies, commentaries, etc., but seeks other areas of the Bible to provide authoritative information about the subject in question. In this method, the interpreter keeps God’s Word as the ultimate authority.

The other approach is more subjective in nature. In this method, the interpreter subjects the Word of God to external authorities by using idea, experiences, previous beliefs, impressions, opinions, feelings and other external criteria to interpret the meaning of a passage. As a result of this type of approach, the ultimate authority rests not in God’s Word, as such, but in the external criteria which has been used in the process of interpretation. As this book will demonstrate, this approach has been used predominately with regard to the current theological scholarship, and unfortunately, with many professing to be followers of Jesus Christ.

Needless to say, it is from these different types of approaches to the Scripture that the current diversity has come about. While both approaches may begin with the Bible, the actual ground of authority rests in different places. On one hand, a multitude of interpretations and beliefs have arisen due to a subjective approach to Scripture. In this type of approach, the authority rests not in God’s Word but in man. In the objective approach, the ground of authority rests in the revealed truths of the Bible. All matters of faith and practice in the church are subject to the objective Word of God.

The question is whether these two approaches can remain equally valid and useful in the Body of Christ. The answer of this book will be no. J.I. Packer has correctly stated that the “deepest cleavages in Christendom are doctrinal; and the deepest doctrinal cleavages are those which result from disagreement about authority. Radical divergence’s are only to be expected when there is no agreement as to the proper grounds for believing anything.....Those who disagree as to the principle of authority and, in consequence, as to the right method in theology, can reach no significant agreement on anything else” (Packer, 1985, p.44). There is no doubt that the current diversity in doctrine is a result of the diverse approaches to Scripture. Furthermore, to continue in this manner can only lead to further division and confusion, or to fellowship based upon something other than truth.

This being the truth, the current cleavage in theological endeavors cannot be sidestepped just for the sake of the survival of any church, organization or denomination. Both the local assembly and the denomination are the results of men being faithful to the decrees of God. The basis of their functioning, however, does not rest simply in the goals or vision they proclaim. The true foundation of any evangelistic endeavor is based on the eternal truths of who Jesus Christ is, what He has said, what He has commissioned us to do, and unto what we are to look forward. This was the basis of Paul’s exhortation to the doctrinally diverse Corinthians when he stated, “I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For no other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest” (I Corinthians 3:10-13 KJV). Thus the church is commanded to take heed of how it builds upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ being the Chief Cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20 KJV). If it be asked what the “foundation” consists of, the reader may turn to the Book of Hebrews in the sixth chapter and find six foundational doctrines listed. These represent some of the truths and principles which have been delivered to the church and are to be the basis for its fellowship and evangelistic endeavors. They are foundational in the sense they need to be in place to prevent an unsound building from being built. Equally, they are truths which stand the trials and tests of time.

It must be accepted, if the foundation is not sound, the church will be unable to accomplish what God has designed and brought it together to do. Thus to avoid a faulty foundation, certain truths and dogmas must be in place. It is true that doctrinal differences can be passed over for the sake of united efforts in evangelism. However, at the point of evangelistic outreach, a worth and truthful declaration of the faith is a necessity. Lewis Chafer illustrates this point by comparing the Calvinists and the Arminians.

There are truths, such as the lost estate of man through sin and and the

need of salvation, that are common to Arminians and Calvinists alike. On

the ground of these common beliefs a degree of united effort in evangelism has been possible between the representatives of these two

systems.....What may be passed over in the interests of harmony in united

Christian service cannot as easily be passed over when a worthy declaration of truth is called for (Chafer, 3:273).

It is obvious that the current theological diversity can neither be passed over in the interests of harmony. With multitudes perishing in the world, with the confusion and ungodliness which surrounds the church, a true proclamation of the Gospel is paramount. It cannot be passed over for the sake of harmony, or for the survival of a denomination or a church. Furthermore, this diversity will not be settled until the true basis of authority is settled, one centered in God’s Word and nothing else.

While it is true that the issue of authority has been a problem facing the church since its inception, only lately has it become the major problem facing the church. Ever since Jesus was asked the question, “By what authority doest thou these things? And who gave thee this authority? (Matthew 21:23 KJV), men have been challenging the truth of what Jesus said and claimed to be. While the modern reader may not be able to openly confront Jesus, His words, the words of His apostles, and the truths left for man’s instruction have become the object of man’s questioning and inquiry. This is partly due to the rise and development of science and the corresponding treatment of the Bible as a book similar to all others preserved from history. The current theological perspective is that the dogmas and principles, which have been drawn from Scripture, do not deal honestly with the seemingly discrepancies between the modern understanding of the world and the world view presented in the Bible. Any objections to the critical “liberty” which is directed toward the Bible are met with the charge that one is trying to turn back the clock on theological study. As a result of this “liberty," however, some have gone to extremes in theological study and have approached the Bible using standards of authority other than God’s revealed Word. This is an approach which places God’s Word, even God himself, under the scrutiny of man and his subjective impressions and ideas.

Reasoning for this type of approach and interpretation is given by George Davis as

follows:

Realizing the discrepancy between their scientific knowledge and the

mythical language of the Bible...Can I be a sincere Christian when I am burdened by the incongruities of the mythical material contained in the

New Testament?...To save from this horrible mistake those who want to

face seriously the question of God and his activity, Bultmann regards

demythologizing as imperative (Davis, p.14).

While subjecting God’s Word to man’s reasoning may help people who are burdened by “incongruities,” this approach places the ground of authority in something other than the revealed Word of God. Equally alarming, the theological and biblical understandings are placed at the mercy of modern scientific theories and methods. Moreover, these theories and understandings are based upon man’s observation and study, not revelation. Thus the interpretation which is drawn by this method rests upon man’s philosophies, learning and abilities to relate biblical truths to modern ways of thinking. This is a clear contradiction to the Scriptural imperative that all theories, opinions, thoughts and philosophies are to be subjected to the revealed Word of God. Nonetheless, Bernard Ramm shows that this type of scholarship is avowed by other theologians who subject Scripture to modern understandings. Bernard Ramm expresses the present theological dilemma as follows:

....how can we be modern and Christian at the same time? The answer

was to go beyond the rationalism and deism of the Enlightenment to the

new synthesis of modern learning, modern philosophy, and the

reinterpretation of historical Christian dogma. In passing, Tillich says this

is his way too, for it is the only viable option for the twentieth century

(Ramm, p.8).

Is this the only viable option? Does historical dogma need to be reinterpreted? Does the sinner under the conviction of the Holy Spirit need a new gospel message? Will replacing the fact of Jesus’ resurrection with a modern view of its symbolic meaning help man on the day of judgment? Not only is this not a viable option, but, as this book will demonstrate, it represents a serious breach of theological truth which has corrupted and changed the gospel of Jesus Christ for on which is no gospel. Even more serious, no matter how appealing it may be to the theologians and philosophers, preacher and layman who embrace these reinterpretations are in danger of hell-fire and on the way to making others who follow them a two-fold child of hell (Matthew 23:15).

This will only be averted, and millions saved from a false gospel, when a return to a true basis of authority in God’s Word, with an objective approach in Scriptural interpretation, takes place. It is not a matter of turning the clock back, it is a matter of truth and salvation. J.I Packer has correctly stated the issue this way:

Evangelicals do not wish to put the clock back to the days before

scientific study began. What they desire is that modern Bible study

should be genuinely scientific - that is to say, fully biblical in its method.....It is true that Evangelicals call for a return to principles

of Bible study which have a long history in the Christian Church,

and for some revision of modern critical methods in light of them.

But that is not because these principles are tradition; it is because

they are biblical (Packer, 1985 p.20).

The historical principles of Bible study have been based in a belief that the Word of God is an objective and inerrant revelation, inspired by the Holy Spirit, as holy men of God were moved by the same Spirit. This being the case, the Bible commanded for itself an authority which was unique with reference to all other types of literature. The Bible is unique in that it is revealed to man from heaven while all other literature is derived from human fallible efforts and reasoning. Thus if the study of the Bible is to be truly scientific in nature, it must from the starting point admit this unique nature of Scripture. Inquiry, questions, and seeming contradictions must be cleared by the interpreter by comparing what the different biblical writers and biblical events reveal. The final appeal in settling any question must always be Scripture. A.H. Strong has stated, “in defining theology as a science, we indicate its aim. Science does not create; it discovers. Theology discovers facts and relations, but it does not create them....As theology deals with objective facts and their relations, so its arrangement of these facts is not optional, but is determined by the nature of the material with which it deals” (Strong, p2). Consequently, the interpreter studies the relations of biblical material to other biblical material to arrive at truth. As the prophet has stated well, “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10 KJV). There is a massive difference between this objective approach and one which compares Scripture with science, or even subjects Scripture to science and philosophy, as modern theologians advocate.

Moreover, it must be logically deduced that since the nature of the Bible is “God-breathed” and its truths deal with the world from a heavenly and eternal perspective, it is wrong to subject these truths to the vain speculations of finite man who can only experience, discover and think from a very limited earthly perspective. In fact, Jesus Christ, being born from above and existing from eternity, has come from beyond the grave, so to speak, to reveal what is reality and truth. This was the declaration of John the Baptist when he said, “He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. he that has received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him” (John 3:31-34 KJV). Thus, to subject Jesus’ Word to ours is to subject his eternal and perfect knowledge and truth to our imperfect and partial understanding. It is to subject the thoughts of God to the thoughts of man; it is to make man the god and this is idolatry and the height of rebellion. Consider this truth:

It is not the theologian, but the undevout astronomer, whose science

is one-eyed and therefore incomplete. The errors of the rationalist are

errors of defective vision. Intellect has been divorced from heart, that

is, from a right disposition, right affections, right purpose in life (Strong, p. 4).

Given the present call for diversity, the only way to stem a departure from the historical faith and truths of the church is to return to a totally objective and submissive approach to biblical study. Not only will much of the confusion of the present hour be stemmed, but it will also provide a solid foundation upon which the church can be spiritually effective in a condemned world. This means, contrary to many theologians’ desires, the Bible must be affirmed as inerrant and infallible. As J.I. Packer has pointed out, biblical inerrancy “is a very positive and significant notion, for it is basic to the doctrine of biblical authority. Only truth can be authoritative; only an inerrant Bible can be used...in the way that God means Scripture to be used” (Packer, 1985 p. 20).

While many will argue that “inerrancy” is a recent term and not used by the early church, it must be pointed out that God’s Word unto recent history was not the center of controversy. Scripture attests to the fact that the saints of old look to an infallible rule for the faith and practice of the church (2 Peter 3:16). The need for a term such as “inerrancy” has arisen in part due to the current questioning and debate concerning the nature of Scripture. There was no need for a term such as “Trinity” until the controversy arose which necessitated the need for the term. The same need for an all encompassing term exists within the present biblical controversy. The term “inerrancy” provides a useful medium by which a critical truth may be expressed to challengers. To say that the term “inerrancy” is not found in Scripture, and thus is meaningless, is to suggest that “Trinity” is also meaningless. This is not the case, however. Furthermore, just as the issues and controversies of the past have arisen due to the false and destructive whims of man, this controversy has arisen out of man’s departure from a useful and historical approach to biblical interpretation.

The question facing the church today is will it continue to subject the Bible to the subjective whims of man’s rationalism and experience, or will all of man’s thoughts, experiences and ideas be subjected to the revelation of God found in the Bible? Will the student of God’s Word approach the Bible as objective truth of real events, of real historical prophecy which will take place, or will it be viewed as fictional stories which must be demythologized by modern scientific theories and philosophies? Will pastors allow the life of the church, what it teaches and imparts to its members, to be based upon soundly interpreted doctrine and truth, or based upon doctrines interpreted by the rationalizing of man’s fancies? The issue is too critical to be dismissed for the sake of evangelistic harmony and unity. The survival of any church or denomination is not worth the price of such compromise in truth and principle. Let the reader be reminded of God’s Word where it is stated by God, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9 KJV).

Equally, the basis upon which the church will guide its course and conduct is at stake. Karl Mannheim, a secular writer, has made the observation that “the most important role of thought in life consists....in providing guidance for conduct when decisions must be made. Every real decision (such as one’s evaluation of other persons or how society should be organized) implies a judgment concerning good and evil, concerning the meaning of life and mind” (Mannheim, p. 19). If this is true concerning secular thought, is this not even more true for the church? At stake are not only decisions made with regard to conduct of society, but decisions which may potentially affect the eternal destiny of millions. At stake is how the church guides and determines its purpose and goals. If this responsibility seems to be too much, let the church be assured that God has left in its hands an infallible rule by which it can make decisions if His children are willing to submit to its authority. Let the church be assured that the Spirit of Truth has come. As Jesus reminded his disciples, “...he will guide you into all truth...and he will show you things to come” (John 16:13 KJV). This suggests the church will not be lead into diversity but into one faith. This also suggests that the future is not so vague but will be known by the church.

Equally at stake in this issue is the gospel of Jesus Christ which is man’s only means of salvation. Let the reader echo the words of Paul when he spoke to the Galatians, “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9 KJV). The present reinterpreters of the faith are in reality nothing more than “grievous wolves” who have entered into the flock of God. These are “murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaking great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage” (Jude 16 KJV). Their advantage in this case is their subjective method of interpretation which is supported by scholarly degrees and the approval of man, while they boast of their “liberty” in academic pursuits. All the while, many who follow their “pernicious ways” are in danger of eternal damnation. Is it no wonder that the church is full of sin and ungodliness? How can a gospel that is no gospel deliver those who are held captive in their depravity?

It is the task of this writer in the following pages to expose how these “diverse” falsehoods have, are, and will corrupt the truth and purpose of the church. Section I will examine the issue of biblical authority and how this authority has changed from the inerrant, infallible, and objective Word of God, to an authority which is based upon the subjective reasoning of modern man, namely the existential approach. Having exposed this dangerous departure, Section II will show how four critical areas of faith and practice, Jesus’ divinity, the nature of Jesus’ work, Jesus’ second coming, the moral principles and purpose of the church, have been reinterpreted by a subjective approach to Scripture. At the same time, these reinterpretations will be compared to biblical statements which concern these areas. Section III will deal with how the subjective approach to Scripture has effected the view of the future and its effect upon evangelism and education. The conclusion answers the question of whether diversity is desirable and exhorts the people of God to be submissive to the truths revealed in God’s Word.

At the outset, I must remark that I have attempted to use quotations which will clarify the different positions. I have often used extensive quotations to adhere to this policy. However, I do not argue in depth with regard to many doctrines, such as the substitutionary work of Jesus, for the sake of brevity. This is because these basic truths have been adequately defended and explained by others with greater scholarship. It is my hope that Christians will be illuminated to the truth which is at issue and not be swept away in the flood of apostasy and powerlessness which is occurring in Christendom today. My desire is that spoken by Paul, that we might all “study to show ourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15 KJV).

Previous Home Next Table of Contents