Previous Home Next Table of Contents
2.
Merits of the Objective Approach
The greatest problem, as has been shown,
is when man comes or approaches the Bible and subjects it to man’s
ideas and opinions. How man
approaches the Bible is a very important issue.
The result of one’s interpretation is determined by the approach.
As an example of this point, look at the exhortation of Paul in I
Corinthians 14:39: “Wherefore,
brethren, cover to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues” (KJV)
When this is taken as an objective word of truth with reference to the
functioning of the local assembly, two conclusions can be drawn.
One, prophesying is to be desired by the believers.
Two, those with the gift of tongues should not be forbidden to speak.
(It must be noted that Paul limits tongues and their interpretation to no
more than two or there in any service.) When,
however, the interpreter comes to this passage and subjects it to an external
presupposition like, “The gift of tongues is only for the first,” the
natural objective sense of this passage is distorted.
If this presupposition is accepted, the first question to explore is
whether anywhere in God’s revealed truth it is stated that the gift of tongues
will cease at the end of the first century.
In this way, the theological premise will be subject to God’s Word,
rather than the other way around.
It is not the scope of this book to examine in depth the current
controversy regarding the issue of tongues, but to illustrate the point of how
interpretation is often made. Whenever
you approach Scripture and begin to subject it to presuppositions, opinions,
philosophies, feelings, experiences, desires, etc., a person no longer
approaches the Bible as the authority for faith and practice.
Rather, the standard by which the Bible is subjected has become the true
basis of authority for faith and practice.
It is clear that there is no statement in God’s Word that says tongues
will cease in the first century. This type of premise has to stand or fall with
what other Scriptures say on the matter. No doubt, there are other passages
dealing with tongues which give a proper understanding of this issue.
So it is with all matters that concern the salvation to which we have
been called and blessed to be a part of. The
problem is how many are willing to invest the time to search the Scriptures.
Have modern believer’s resorted to the same problem of the
pre-Reformation days when they took the word of the priest, scholar, theologian,
philosopher, or the like, over the authority of God’s Word?
My reader, your eternal state rests on how you deal with this matter.
Without a doubt, the objective approach to Scripture is still the only
valid approach for discerning the faith and practice of the church.
Furthermore, the merits of an objective approach to the Bible, receiving
it as infallible and inerrant truth, are many.
From an internal examination, the evidence suggests that God’s Word was
intended to be used in an authoritative manner.
This is what Paul meant when he spoke of the Word of God as being
profitable for “doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all
good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV).
Peter, down playing the authority he could have commanded by his presence
at the transfiguration of Jesus, speaks of Scripture as a more sure authority
than his testimony and experiences. Peter writes, “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 arise in your
hearts....” (2 Peter 1:19-21 KJV).
Listen to the words of the Psalmists concerning God’s revelation:
“They word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Psalm
119:105 KJV).
Proverbs contains this saying, “The
law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is
sure, making wise the simple. The
statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord
is pure, enlightening the eyes” (19;7-8 KJV).
Listen to the words of Moses as he instructed the Israelites concerning
God’s revelation: “Keep,
therefore, and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the
sight of nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, surely this
great nation is a wise and understanding people”
(Deuteronomy 4:6 KJV). Even Jesus Christ did not speak of truth as a
subjective matter which changed with time. Jesus would use Scriptures
authoritatively as a final appeal when speaking on matters of faith and
practice. On the basis of these
Scriptures and many more, the truth that God’s revealed Word is an objective
revelation by which God’s people can guide their life, try the spirits, learn
about God and self, is the accepted fact. Thus
man is provided an infallible and inerrant means for knowing truth.
That this was necessary and must be necessary for man is seen in the
logical fact that man must have some infallible rule by which to judge his
impressions, thoughts, ideas, and fancies, if he is to know truth.
God in his infinite mercy and grace has provided man with Scripture as a
standard by which he may guide his life and be saved.
While there will always be those who would deny the possibility of
revelation, those who are honest enough to admit the fallible nature of man, his
ignorance of many things in this universe and his partial understanding of much
that he does claim to know, will accept that the only way for man to know an
unseen and infinite God, and know with certainty that what he knows is the
truth, is for God to choose to reveal Himself to man in some objective manner.
This objective revelation is revealed in Scripture.
J.I. Packer expresses this truth in this manner:
[Scriptures are]...the word which God spoke and speaks to His Church,
and is finally authoritative for faith and life.
To learn the mind of God, one
must consult His written Word. What
Scripture says, God says. The Bible
is inspired in the sense of being word for word God-given.
It is a record
and explanation of the divine revelation which is both complete....and
comprehensive...that is to say, it contains all that the Church needs to
know in this world for its guidance in the way of salvation and service,
and it contains the principles for its own interpretation within itself.
The
Bible, therefore, does not need to be supplemented and
interpreted by tradition, or revised and corrected by reason. Instead,
it demands to set in judgment on the dictates of both; for the words
of men must be tried by the Word of God.
The Church collectively,
and the Christian individually, can and do err, and the inerrant
Scripture
must ever be allowed to speak and correct them.
(1985, p. 48)
Many would find little in this quote to argue with as long as this
approach does not ascribe authority
to the specific words. When it is
suggested that every word of Scripture is God’s Word, a steady stream of
objections are raised. The belief that every word is God’s Word has been
referred to as “verbal revelation.” While
there are several objections used to disparage this position, verbal revelation
has several merits to support it. Since
I do not wish to subject God’s Word to this premise, I will begin with God’s
Word which gives merit to this premise. Paul
considers “all Scripture” as being God breathed (II Timothy 3:16).
Peter says that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation (2 Peter 2:20 KJV).
Concerning the commands which Paul gave to the church at Cornith, he
says, “the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (I
Corinthians 14:37 KJV).
Moses commanded the people of Israel that they should “not add unto the
word that I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may
keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I commanded you” (Deuteronomy
4:2 KJV).
This is a warning that is repeated in the final chapter of the Bible
(Revelation 22: 18,19). In Proverbs
is found this truth: “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and
thou be found a liar (30:6 KJV).
Jesus declared, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18
KJV). It is clear from the
testimony of God’s Word that all which was revealed and recorded was to be
considered authoritative, true and binding upon all mankind.
Furthermore, the idea of every word being God’s Word can be best
understood by the nature of the prophets’ proclamation.
When Isaiah and others declared, “Hear the word of the Lord,” he was
not asking his listeners to grasp the general idea of what he was about to
speak. If this were the case, the
hearers would have to somehow distinguish between which words were directly from
God and those which had been added by Isaiah.
Furthermore, each individual would be left to decide for himself how much
or which parts to consider as true. Is
this what God had in mind when He sent the prophets?
On the contrary, when the prophets declared, “Thus saith the Lord,”
they were not opening the word to be questioned.
Rather, they expected the hearer to respond to the truth or to reject the
message all together. It definitely was not simply the message contained in the
words but the very words themselves which were seen as authoritative.
Does not every word of Scripture still command this authority?
Needless to say, the prophets exercised verbal revelation.
Another merit of the position of verbal revelation has to do with the
proper understanding of events in history.
For instance, the connection of Joseph’s captivity in Egypt could not
rightly be connected to God’s redeeming activity unless He reveals the
significance of this event to His purpose.
As J.I. Packer has stated, verbal revelation implies that “no
historical event, as such, can make God known to anyone unless God Himself
discloses its meaning and place in His plan.
Providential happenings may serve to remind us, more or less vividly,
that God is at work (cf. Acts 14:17), but their link, if any, with His saving
purpose cannot be know until He Himself informs us of it....All history is in
one sense, God’s deed, but none of it reveals him except insofar as He Himself
talks to us about it. God’s
revelation is not through deeds without words...any more than it is though words
without deeds; but it is...through words which His deeds confirm and fulfill”
(1965, p. 51).
Thus, verbal revelation is a necessity if man is to know the importance
of an event which declares a truth concerning God or His nature.
This brings up another merit of the verbal revelation position.
If man was left to his impressions and feelings about something, he may
err since he knows only in part. How
could he know that the impressions he was receiving were not wrong or deceptive?
Thus the impressions of biblical writers could never be viewed as
infallible. Furthermore, God’s
revelation must be given in a sense that is understandable.
How can a person grasp truths and concepts which have no intelligible
form. The only way for revelation to occur was that godly men were guided by God
to speak and write the words that God wanted to communicate.
While the idea of propositional revelation is often rejected, it must be
admitted that revelation can be nothing less.
Communication is a process of making factual statements either about
oneself or some event. In the
process, the concepts or statements reveal specific truths which are related to
others by means of speaking. It is
the same for God who is making truths know about Himself, events and the nature
of this world. In fact, God is a
personal Being, not just an
influence.
There are several objections to verbal revelation.
One says that if this concept is true, the biblical writers were mere
amanuensis’ or “pens” in the hands of God.
Thus, all Scripture should have the same grammar, style and cultural
idiosyncrasies since the same Spirit verbally inspired it all.
This objection has been adequately met by other scholarly works.
Suffice for the present argument, a quotation which describes the process
by which the biblical writers wrote is sufficient.
...inspiration is to be defined as a super-natural, providential
influence
of God’s Holy Spirit upon the human authors which caused them to
write what he wished to be written for communication of revealed truths
to others. (Packer, 1985,
p. 77)
We are to think of the Spirit’s inspiring activity...as...concursive,
that is,
as exercised in, through and by means of the writer’s own activity, in
such a way that their thinking and writing was both free and spontaneous
on their part and divinely elicited and controlled, and what they wrote
was not only their own work but also God’s work. (Packer, 1985, p. 80)
The idea of cooperation between men and God is not
new to theology. In fact, in the
life of the Christian, when the Spirit of God is empowering and using a person,
the personality, abilities and dispositions are not set aside.
This is only true in demonic possession where the person is given over to
the control of another spirit. In
the divine economy, there is always a conscious cooperation between the believer
and the Spirit of God dwelling within.
Another objection is raised against verbal revelation, and its relevance
for today, by saying that this concept is only true for the original manuscripts
if it be accepted. What the reader
has today is full of scribal glosses and mis-translations which occur in handing
down the biblical material. Pious
objectors are always smirking with delight as they ask, Which version is the one
without error?” If one succumbs
to this objection, then man is indeed at the mercy of his own powers of
reasoning. Afterall, how is the
average man going to decide between what is from the original manuscript and
what is not? The problem with this
view, however, is that it places God at the point of the inspiration of
Scripture, but removes Him from any continued involvement or in preserving His
Word in the transmission of Scripture. This
view seems to resurrect the old Deist notion that God has left an important
means for man to learn truth at the mercy and haphazardness of
fallible man.
Let the reader, however, examine the facts.
Did God stop His involvement in the affairs of the world at creation?
Did God stop His involvement with the Israelites with the giving of the
Law? Did God stop His involvement in the world with the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ? Did
Jesus stop being involved in the life of the church after His death?
Does the Spirit of God stop His involvement in the life of the believer
at the point of salvation? Of
course the answer to these questions are no.
Thus, why should it be assumed that God stopped all his involvement with
Scripture with the production of the autographs?
Consider the fact that if Scripture is God’s revelation to man, the
only means to know Him with certainty and in truth, the only way to guide the
affairs of the life and practice of the church, then it is also likely that God
has not let the Bible become full of error at the hands of man.
In fact, with all the ancient manuscripts which have been uncovered, like
the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is amazing that the message and significance of the
events and words have not changed. It
may be that modern man has the closest thing to the original autographs since
their existence in the first century. As
J.I. Packer has stated, “If God gave the Scriptures for a practical purpose -
to make men wise unto salvation through faith in Christ - it is a safe inference
that he never permits them to become so corrupted that they can no longer
fulfill it” (1985,
p. 90).
From the above arguments, it is only logical to believe that God, who in
his great mercy and grace desires that none should perish, would give an
infallible and inerrant and trustworthy Word in order for man to be saved.
Equally, unless this is a certain word, one which is related verbally in
a means that man can fully understand, then man could be held fully accountable
for his response to the truth revealed.
Man, however, is held accountable to every word of Scripture.
Jesus reminded the people of His day that “He that rejecteth me, and
receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him:
the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day”
(John12:48 KJV).
Let not man try to remove his accountability to God’s Word because he
imagines it to be full of errors and mistakes.
To do so is to place oneself in immense danger of hell.
Moreover, with many theologians and teachers saying the Bible contains
errors, it is no wonder so many are wallowing in ungodliness.
When those who profess to believe in Jesus Christ destroy all confidence
in God’s Word by dissecting it, how can the average church-goer find any firm
foundation for salvation? The only
place to turn it to a subjective approach where one picks and chooses what he
thinks is right or turns to some external authority for determining truth.
I have dealt with this issue in length because it is important for the
church to regain confidence in the Bible. Without
a doubt, the church has a truthful and authoritative text by which man may judge
his faith and practice. It is on
this firm foundation which the church must proceed. Scripture must become the interpreter of all knowledge,
understanding, feelings, experiences, thoughts, opinions, philosophies, visions,
prophecies, and beliefs. Any other
approach places the source of authority in something other than God’s Word.
I have no doubt this type of approach will be characterized as
Bibliolatry. Yet let the reader examine a few other approaches or views of
Scripture, none of which have scriptural support, and see that the basis of
their authority is truly man.
There are basically five views or approaches to Scripture, all subjective
in nature, which affect interpretation. All
of these approaches are popular and considered valid premises concerning the
Word of God: (1) Some suggest that the truths in Scripture are merely a record
of observations, impressions and opinions of devout religious men,
(2) Others suggest that
Scripture is nothing more than a record of the religious sentiments of those
expressing them, (3) Another
position speaks of Scripture as
“containing” the words of God, but not being the actual words of God,
(4) some regard Scripture as the result of man being mystically
illuminated to the facts which are recorded,
(5) Others suggest that the Bible is a record of man’s attempt
to reach out and know God. However
popular these beliefs may be, they all place the production of the Bible in a
subjective apprehension of errant man. In
each of these positions, the choice becomes between accepting an inerrant Word
of God verbally and objectively revealed, or accepting the word of errant man
who has subjectively derived truth from their contemplation’s or the recesses
of their mind. I ask, which do you
wish to place your eternal truth in? Let us look closer at these positions and see that in all of
them the ultimate authority becomes man.
The first idea, that the Bible is a mere record of the impressions and
opinions of the writers, has been dealt with in the discussion on verbal
revelation. The fact remains that
no event or individual could rightly be connected to God and His saving activity
unless this fact is objectively revealed. If
this position is accepted, and there is a desire to use the Bible
authoritatively, a person would have to believe that the biblical writers were
infallible in their impressions, experiences and opinions.
If this infallibility of the biblical writers is rejected, and rightly it
should, then these impressions, opinions and the like of the writers
would be open to question. In fact,
a person could charge that their impression was wrong.
Who could truthfully stop them? In
fact, even the writings of Joseph Smith, Mormonism, might have to be accepted as
legitimate religious impressions. In
any case, this view leaves authority in the subjective impressions of man.
The second view, that the Bible reflects the religious sentiments of the
writers, makes Scripture nothing more than the wishful commentary or emotional
sentimentalism of the biblical writers. In
this position, the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, equal to the Father, could
not be accepted as fact. It could
only be said that certain people ascribed this fact to Him, or that He claimed
Sonship and others agreed with Him. This
is why many can speak of the “myths” of Scripture.
What this view implies is that the historical fact of a given statement
may not be true. What becomes
important in this view, therefore, is the existential or moral meaning. This view will also have to deal with the many other
religious sentiments which have appeared in the world, such as, Buddhism,
Confucianism, Mohammedism, Mormonism, etc., if it is accepted. Afterall, how could one determine that one sentiment was a
more true expression than the other? In
this view, the authority becomes man and his understanding or sentiments of the
world.
The third position, that the Bible contains the Word of God, is a popular
view. This equally has been dealt
with in part earlier. Suffice for
the present, the interpreter in this view is left to decide how much and what
part is to be considered inspired and valid.
A person would almost have to be a well-educated theologian, a scholar in
his own right, to be able to authoritatively guide his life with a degree of
assurance. In fact, if the message
is contained in the words, the message can be interpreted in many different
ways, as is being done today. But
this just shows where the true basis of authority is in this view, man.
J.I. Packer writes concerning this position:
It is easy to say that Scripture “inspires and mediates the Word of
God,”
but what is the cash-value of such formulae when we have constantly
to allow for undetectable possibilities of error on the part of each
biblical writer. (1965,
p. 8)
A similar way of stating this view is to say that
Scripture does not truly become God’s Word until it is cognitively received as
such. The foolishness of this
statement is that just because a person refuses to acknowledge God’s commands
and exhortations, it does not relieve him of the responsibility to answer to
them. This is to suggest that
God’s judgment is predicated on whether man fully understands his predicament.
All of which suggests that man is the basis of authority.
The fourth position, that the writers were mystically illuminated, is
also a view filled with problems. A.H.
Strong presents the major problem of this view in this way:
...inspiration cannot be mere illumination, because the objective
proceeds
the subjective, the truth revealed precedes the apprehension of that
truth.
(Systematic, p. 207)
This says that for a mind to be illuminate to a truth
in the first place, there must be an objective fact to apprehend.
In other words, words and concepts must already be fixed before they can
be understood and related. Thus
before a person can be illuminated there must already be some truth established.
In the case of the Bible, truth is revealed and not mystically received.
This position also carries with it the problem of how one illuminated
could know for sure that the ideas he receives are actual truths.
A sure guide or standard would have to be used to judge the validity of
the knowledge. As a result, the
reader could challenge Scripture by claiming a new illumination.
This is often happening today. New
interpretations are often justified by saying, “This is what God revealed to
me.” The results are many
fanciful ideas and falsehoods. If
it is believe the biblical writers wrote in this subjective character, it is
doubtful man could know truth or even God.
The fifth idea suggests that the Bible is a record of man’s quest for
God. The question I ask is where does man search for an invisible and infinite
God? Equally, how can a person be
sure that he has correctly come to know God rather than Satan? Some of the greatest minds in the world have demonstrated the
Bible could not have come about by man’s quest to know God.
Consider Socrates, Plato, Epicurius and other great thinkers of the past.
Has any of them come close, without contradicting each other, in their
description of God or His existence? Has
any of them produced truth and its connection to historical fact as the Bible
has revealed? It is certain man can
never come to a knowledge of God by his own efforts or quest.
In fact, this idea goes against the very concept of what revelation
consists of: the revealing of facts
which cannot be known in any other way. J.I.
Packer expresses the truth concerning revelation:
In revelation, God is the agent as well as the object. God speaks for
Himself, and talks to us in person.
The New Testament message is that
in Christ God has spoken a word for the world, a word to which all men
in all ages are summoned to listen and to respond. (1965, p. 29)
The inherent fact that all of the above views contain is that man becomes
the ground of truth, his own authority. Moreover,
whenever any of these views are accepted, it becomes possible, as often is the
case, to reject those portions of Scripture which man finds objectionable or
irrelevant. In the first view,
man’s impressions and opinions become the foundation of authority.
These impressions and opinions can be dismissed, accepted, or changed as
new impressions occur. In the
second view, man’s sentiments and wishes become the foundation of authority.
If the reader does not agree with the message of the “myth,” then the
truth can be discarded. Equally, if
one “feels” the biblical expression of faith is inadequate, he can change it
to express new sentiments. In the
third view, man’s judgment becomes the foundation of authority.
If a person judges the message or story is more from man than God, it can
be rightly rejected. Equally, the interpreter can charge that the original writer
was unduly influenced by the culture and prejudices of his age, thus rendering
the truth invalid. In the fourth
view, the mystical contemplation and experience of the writer become the
foundation of authority. If the
reader is mystically illuminated to further truths, then it is no longer
necessary to accept what is written. In
the fifth view, man’s logic and deduction become the foundation of authority. If a reader deduces the fact or truth is wrong, then he can
reject it.
I ask, does the church want to base its life and truth upon such shaky
foundations? Have not the shifting
sands of man’s logic been time after time proven to be false, even disastrous?
Since man’s logic and reason has ruled, it is not surprising that
thousands of teenagers are killing themselves each year.
It is not surprising that depression is growing steadily among young
children. It is not surprising that a general uneasiness about the
future prevails in a society which has no sure authority for determining what to
believe. It is not surprising that
people feel they have to develop their own value systems, no mater how they
affect others, when there is no sure standard to guide life’s affairs.
Karl Mannheim has made an interesting observation about man’s
confusion:
...too many conflicting sources from which meanings with regard to a
given object are derived in the same society lead in the end to the
dissolution of every system of meaning.
(p.23)
There is no doubt that this is what is currently
happening in the American culture. Yet
theologians continue to cry out for academic “liberty” in their critical
discussions. The sad truth about
this scholarship is that even when the beliefs are accepted from Scripture as
being true, they are not accepted because they are divinely revealed, but
because they meet some other standard of acceptability. This is a truth which J.I. Packer has written saying:
Instead of subjecting their own judgment wholly to Scripture, they
subject Scripture in part to their own judgment.
They treat the
question of the truth and the authority of Scripture, which God
has closed, as if it were still open; they assume the right and
competence of the Christian student to decide for himself how much
of the Bible’s teaching should be received as authoritative.
They
accept what they do accept, not simply because it is Scripture, but
because it satisfies some further criteria of credibility which they
have set up; so that even
when they believe the right thing....they
do so for the wrong reason. (1985,
p. 40)
It is a sad commentary that many who consider
themselves conservative are that not
Previous Home Next Table of Contents
© CopyRight 2002 Scott R. Simpson