Foundations Journal volume 02

8/12/2019 Foundations Journal volume 02

1/67

foundTheological Journal

published y heBritish Evangelical

Council

f th foundationsbe destroyed what

canth

righteous do?


2/67

ISSUE No. 2

May 1979

C N T E N T S

FUNDAMENTALISM

Eryl Davies

THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE: SOME OLD

TESTAMENT PROBLEMS

Rev John C.J.Waite BD

THE DANGERS OF N INTELLECTUAL

APPROACH

Rev Donald MacLeodM

EVANGELICALS ND SOCIAL ACTION

Rev Alan F.Gibson BD

MYSTICISM ND A TOUCH OFEASTERN PROMISE

Dr R.M.Jones

BOOK REVIEWS

Pr in ted y W.A.Back Brighton

r i c e 75p

P 1

p.lO

p.27

p . 34

p.38

p.48


3/67

FOUNDATIONS

EDITOR:

i s a Theological Journal

published in November andMay by the Br i t i sh Evangelical

Council.

Rev Dr Eryl navies M DD23 Bryn EithinogBANGOR Gwynedd, N .WalesUK 1157 2LAA l l MSS E d i t o r i a l Corres-pondence and Publ ica t ionsfor Review should be s e n tto the Edi tor.

ASSOCIATE EDITORS: Rev Alan Gibson BDRev Hywel R.Jones MRev Peter Naylor MTh

BUSINESS MANAGER: Mr Aubrey J .Rober ts58 Woodstock Road NorthST ALBANS HertsEngland UK ALl 4QFTel: St Albans 0727) 53148

Evenings only)

A l l orders fo r t h i s Journal must be pre-pa idand should be s e n t to the Business Manager.Please make out cheques and postal /money orderst o the BRITISH EV NGELIC L COUNCIL i n s t e r l i n g The p r i c e per i s su e i s 75p pos t f r ee .


4/67

1.

FUNDAMENTALISM

Eryl Davies

The message i s loud and c l ea r. Conservat ive evangeli c a l s are wrong. Our doc t r ina l pos i t ion and en t i r ei n t e l l e c t u a l apologet ic are ' i ncoheren t ' and wrong;Yes, aff i rms James Barr, Completely wrong Funda-menta l i sm, p8 , SCM 4.95) . That i s not a l l . edescr ibes us as a pa tho log ica l condi t ion of Chr i s t ian i ty (p318). Clear ly the Oxford Professor f ee l ss t rong ly and pass iona te ly about us ; in f ac t , his int o l e r an t , b i t t e r approach i s hardly the bes t way to

debate theo log ica l ques t ions .Barr i s convinced t ha t 'Fundamentalism' (a term hedoes not define) i s based on a p a r t i c u l a r kind o fre l ig ious t r a d i t i o n in which Bib l i ca l au thor i tyfunct ions only as a ' form' providing a sh ie ld fori t s cher i shed t r a d i t i o n (p l l ) The poin t i s bas ic 1nhis ana lys i s . This t r a d i t i o n includes an emphasis onthe necess i ty of personal convers ion and an ins i s t ence

on t rue doct r ine which Barr f inds d i s t a s t e f u l .Coupled with t h i s there i s a l so a d i s t r u s t of e x i s t -ing churches, the emergence of evangel ica l organisat ions l i ke U.C.C.F. which provide a remarkablys t ab l e ideo log ica l cent re and point of re ference aswel l as the importance o f preaching, prayer, evangel ism and eschatology. Our d i s t i n c t i v e view and useo f the Bible are then seen as a bas ic , dominating andcohesive force within the t r a d i t i o n . At t h i s poin t ,Barr r i gh t l y concludes tha t the point of conf l i c tbetween ourselves and o the r s i s not over l i t e r a l i t ybut over iner rancy. However, our hermeneutic procedure i s deemed incons i s t en t , swinging between l i t e r a land n o n l i t e r a l i n t e rp re t a t i ons in a despera teat tempt to preserve iner rancy. The HarmonisationPr inc ip le i s f i rmly re jec ted and r i d i c u l e d (ppSS-70)while our reasons fo r aff i rming iner rancy fare no

b e t t e r . For example, the appeal to our Lord ' s a t t i -tude to Sc r ip tu re i s descr ibed as a grotesque argument (p74) while , in Bar r ' s view, i t i s nonsense to


5/67

2 ,

t a lk of the Bible ' s claims about i t s e l f , There i sno ' t he Bible ' tha t ' c la ims ' to be divinely inspired, there i s no i t tha t has a view of i t s e l f . There is only t h i s or that source, l ike 2 Timothyor 2 Peter, which make statements about cer ta inother wri t ings , these ra ther undefined , , . , (p78)His conclusion which we must challenge i s tha t thel ink between insp i ra t ion and inerrancy r e s t s onone basis only: supposi t ion , Here evangel ica ls goover to a purely philosophical and non-Biblicalargument; i f i t was insp i red by God, then how couldthere be e r r o r of any kind in i t ? (p84) , Our a t t i -tude to ' sound' l i t e r a t u r e as well as the qua l i ty

and inconsistency of our scholarship are then deplored (ppl20-159) and a r r accuses us a t the sametime of l a rge-sca le r a t i ona l i z ing and na tura l iz ingof miracle s to r i e s (p259) , Professor Barr concludes h i s book with the prbvocat ive statementtha t we have to recognise tha t the l i be ra l questi s in pr inc ip le a fu l ly legi t imate form of Chr i s tian obedience within the church, and one tha t hasdeep roots within the older Chris t ian theologica lt r ad i t i on and even within the Bible i t s e l f (p344) ,

Despite i t s underlying b i t t e rnes s , t h i s i s animportant book l i ke ly to exerc ise s ign i f ican tinf luence upon contemporary re l ig ious thought , Theauthor - Oriel Professor of the In t e rp re t a t i on ofHoly Scr ipture a t Oxford Universi ty = i s a Bibl ica lscholar of renown and his aim in t h i s book is toprovide theological analys is of 'Fundamental is t 'be l i e f s and prac t ices , while he i s addressing thewhole church, he feels a par t i cu la r concern towrite for those people who remain uncer ta in concerning t he i r view of the Bible y e t who are a t thesame time a t t r ac t ed by the conservat ive evangel ica lpos i t ion . He hopes tha t through the reading of t h i sbook such people wi l l be dissuaded from acceptingour posi t ion and wil l make ins tead what he ca l l s a

more i n t e l l i gen t and de l ibera te decision (plO) .For these reasons alone we dare not ignore t h i s


6/67

book nor deal with i t in a perfunctory mariner.

Another reason for the importance of the book i sBarr ' s sus ta ined a t tack on our doct r ine of Scr ip tureand, in p a r t i c u l a r, iner rancy. Iner rancy i s a key

doct r ine cur ren t ly overshadowing a l l other i s sues .Bar r ' s book i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s and ind ica tes how cont roversy over the Bible i s a t bo i l ing point , e darenot remain s i l e n t a t such a c r i t i c a l time . Forexample, he denies tha t our pos i t ion i s 'or thodox'(pl68) andviews inerrancy as a development of thel a t e r nineteenth century with i t s roots in thescholas t i c Calvinism of theologians l i ke Turre t in .At the same time Barr regards i n sp i r a t i on as involving a long process of development involving theuse of sources, mult ip le previous ed i t ions , t ex tua lchanges and addi t ions . The impl ica t ions of such aview are far- reaching . There was in fac t , aff i rmsBarr, no s ing le point a t which the Scr ip tura l t ex twas 'o r ig ina l ly given ' (p294) . These and otherarguments need to be answered responsib ly .

I want to suggest another reason why we should cons ider Barr ' s book . Some of h i s observat ions are perceptive and accura te . e chas t i ses non-evangel icalsfor t h e i r inconsistency in accept ing a c r i t i c a l viewo f the Bible while represent ing to t he i r congregat ions the inc idents and sayings in the Gospels asi f they were r ea l inc idents and actual words ofJesus (p335). Their approach i s dishones t . Barr a l sofee l s s t rongly t ha t i t would be a more honest and

s incere pos i t ion (p332) for evangel ica l c lergywithin the Church of England and other mixed denomi-nat ions to withdraw and form s t r i c t l y fundamental i s t churches , e h e a r t i l y agree . Barr i s a l sopercept ive enough to recognise the emergence of a

newer current o f evangel ica l opinion (p228) whichhe a l so c a l l s the younger and new conservat ives(p229) who have since the s i x t i e s adopted a moreopen, c r i t i c a l approach to the Bible. e i l l u s t r a t e s

extens ively how conservat ive evangel ica l scholarshiphas compromised increas ingly by moving markedly


7/67

4.towards the acceptance of standard c r i t i c a l pro-cedures and r e su l t s . (pl45). Some of his examples are taken from the New Bible Commentary andDictionary . In addi t ion, he c r i t i c i s e s our fa i lu reto grapple in depth with complex e th ica l quest ions(p328) and our lack of creat ive theological th ink-ing (p l6 l ff ) e descr ibes us as having doctr inesr a the r than a theology and what theology we have i sfos s i l i s ed , fragmented and uncreat ive . There i sconsiderable t ru th in t h i s charge . For some yearsnow we have tended to s tagnate in theology and toconcentrate on i so l a t ed doctr ines l i ke tha t ofscr ip ture to the neglect of others .

I mention these de ta i l s in order to ind ica te theimportance and, surpr i s ing ly, the usefulness ofBar r ' s book. Our react ion should not be e n t i r e l ynegative. 'Fundamentalism' provides us with theopportunity of looking more c r i t i c a l l y a t our-se lves and, a t the same t ime, of grappling withsome of the more important i ssues ra i sed by Barrand other c r i t i c s .

e intend to discuss these quest ions and c r i t i -cisms in some depth in our Journal . e are notprepared to ignore them . For example, in t h i si ssue we have included an a r t i c l e on the sub jec tof inerrancy in the Old Testament. This a r t i c l e i sin t roductory in i t s aim and i s not intended asreply to Barr; i t s ro le i s the more r e s t r i c t e d anduseful one of ind ica t ing what i s our r igh t approachto the Scr ipture . The author not only emphasisesour Lord's a t t i t u d e to the Old Testament but , inaddi t ion, he touches on the quest ion of l i t e r a l i smand re fe rs to some of the apparent contradic t ionswhich Barr argues not only disprove inerrancy butalso make i t appear ludicrous (p225).

Barr ' s claim tha t there i s no essen t i a l -connectionbetween insp i ra t ion and inerrancy wi l l be discussedin the next i ssue of the Journal . This i s a quest ionof major importance which wi l l be considered along-s ide the h i s to r i ca l argument tha t inerrancy i s


8/67

5.

post-Reformation scho l a s t i c doc t r ine with a concomit an t r a t i ona l apo loge t i c unfor tunate ly adopted, i t i sclaimed, by the Prince ton Theologians Hodge and Warf ie ld , Many c r i t i c s l i ke Barr argue t ha t , apar t fromthe unwholesome inf luence o f Ar i s to t e l i an -Scho la s t i c

philosophy, which a l l eged ly came in to Protes tant i smvia Turre t in , there i s no support for the doct r ineof iner rancy , e are to ld t h a t even men l i ke August i n e , Luther and Calvin re jec ted iner rancy , Inadd i t ion , we in tend to include a r t i c l e s in the nexttwo i ssues on form and redact ion c r i t i c i sm and amore general a r t i c l e on the theology o f James Barr ,

Why are we discuss ing these ques t ions and tak ing

not ice o f contemporary theologica l th inking ?Basica l ly, we want to express , discuss and contendfor Bib l i ca l t r u th in a re levan t , theo log ica l mannerwithout , l i ke many c r i t i c s , j e t t i son ing the f a i t h"which was once del ivered to the sa in t s " Our - consciences are capt ive to the Word of od but we arenot obscuran t i s t s ; by con t r a s t , we are prepared togive "a reason for the hope t ha t i s in us" ,

A f ina l word by way of in t roduct ion , One immediatec r i t i c i sm of Barr i s t ha t he uses important termswithout care fu l de f in i t i on and such an impreciseuse of terms does not f a c i l i t a t e theo log ica l d i scussion ,

One term t ha t needs care fu l handling i s 'Fundamental i sm' Barr i s not prepared to def ine the termbecause he claims i t i s pa r t o f a "complex r e l i g i -

ous movement" which i s e a s i e r to descr ibe than define ,He submits t ha t ' fundamentalism' has three pronouncedc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : (a) a very s t rong emphasis on theiner rancy of the Bible (b) a s t rong h o s t i l i t y tomodern theology and c r i t i c a l methods and (c) a conv ic t i on t ha t those who do not share t h e i r r e l i g iousviewpoint are not r e a l l y " t rue Chr i s t i ans" a t a l l

p l ) .

According to i t s or ig ina l meaning in the per iod 1910-20 when i t re fe r red to those in North America who uphe ld the fundamental doct r ines of the Bible , every


9/67

6.

evangelical should be a ' fundamenta l i s t ' . Morerecent ly, however, the term has acquired an unfortunate connotation and some evangelicals are par t lyto blame . Some have implied t ha t inerrancy involvesa crude l i t e r l i s t i n t e rp re t a t ion of the Bible andt h i s has often been coupled with an opposi t ion toscholarship as being i n t r i n s i c a l l y devi l i sh . Thissegment of evangelical ism has of ten been obscurant i s t and sensa t iona l i s t employing evange l i s t i cmethods tha t many of us deplore , s ear ly as 1947,Carl Henry in the United States expressed t h i s disquie t in his book The Uneasy Conscience o odernFundamentalism and in the f i f t i e s a considerablenumber of evangelicals on both sides of the Atlant i c attempted to remove the fundamentalist label .Fo r example, in America H . J . Ockenga was one of thef i r s t to propose New Evangelical ' as an a l te rnat ive descr ip t ive term . In 1958 Dr Packer in hisFundamentalism and t he Word o f God r igh t ly des

cr ibed ' fundamentalism' as an object ionable termused more of ten as a term of ' e c c l e s i a s t i c a l abuse'and a ' t heo log ica l swear-word' (p30) . While Barr ' s

use of the term i s e l a s t i c and his terminologyf luc tua tes from 'o ld-fashioned Chris t ian fundamental ism' , ' average fundamenta l is t ' , 'normal fundamenta l i s t ' , 'extreme and cons i s ten t fundamental ism' to ' fundamenta l i s t -evangel ica l ' e tc . yet hei s not prepared to dis t ingu ish between fundamental i s t s or ' ex t remis t s ' and 'modera tes ' e are l lt a r red with the same brush . This i s unfortunatebecause there are very important differencesbetween us . e accept inerrancy without reservat ionand i n s i s t tha t inerrancy i s a d i s t inc t ive tenetof evangel ical ism. On the other hand, we r e j ec t thel abe l ' fundamental is t ' because inerrancy does notcommit us to a naive l i t e r a l i sm nor does i t e n t i a lthe despising of scholarship .

Furthermore, Barr ' s knowledge of evangelical ism i sextremely l imi ted . To claim, for example, tha t theScof ie ld Reference Bible i s "perhaps the most im-por tan t single document in l l fundamentalist


10/67

7,

l i t e ra tu re (p45) and a p i l l a r of conservatism'(p348) i s to betray his ignorance of wide areas ofevangelical ism in Great Bri ta in where t h i s pa r t i cu l a rBible i s ne i ther read nor consulted, Barr ' s fa i lu reto define what he i s at tacking leads him to makegenera l i sa t ions and a car ica ture t ha t i s far removedfrom r ea l i ty, His rea l t a rge t of a t tack , of course,i s not so much the extreme l i t e r a l i s t but the doct r i ne of inerrancy, In th i s major l ine of a t tack hei s prepared to be imprecise and to import in to aterm l ike ' fundamentalism' what he personal ly f indsto be offens ive ,

A prec i se use of terms in the contemporary theological debate i s extemely important i f only for thereason tha t complex and dis turbing changes are takingplace within evangelical ism i t s e l f , A new type ofevangelical has appeared who accepts the fundamentaldoctr ines of the Gospel yet acknowledges in the l i gh tof higher cr i t i c i sm tha t the Bible contains er ror andtha t some of i t s teaching i s cu l tu ra l ly and h i s t o r i -ca l ly condit ioned, Terms even l i ke ' i ne r rancy ' and' i n f a l l i b l e ' have been re - in te rpre ted and adjusted toc r i t i c a l thought , thus emphasising the need for prec i s ion and vig i lance , Clark Pinnock, for example,claims to bel ieve in an ' ine r ran t ' Bible ye t he alsomaintains tha t the Bible contains er ror, e thinksi t i s an ' ove rbe l i e f ' to i den t i fy God's Word withthe words of the Bible ( B i b l i c a l Author i ty ed i t edby Jack Rogers; Word, 1977) . Minute inerrancy , heclaims, may be a cent ra l i ssue for the telephone

book but not for Psalms, Proverbs, Apocalyptic andParables and he goes on to argue tha t b e l i e f in inerrancy of d e t a i l i s poss ib le only for those, l ikeWarfield, who do not take the d i f f i c u l t i e s of theBible ser iously (see Hywel Jones, The Bib le underA t t a c k pp 9-31; Evangel ical Press, for otherexamples), Terms l ike ' i ne r r ancy ' , ' i n f a l l i b l e ' ,' t r u s twor thy ' , e tc , are a l l being qua l i f i ed in thecontemporary debate by c r i t i c s and evangel ica ls ,

Simi la r ly, Barr ' s at tempt to bend the term


11/67

8.

' evange l ica l ' to embrace modern theology and Bib l ical c r i t i c i sm i l l u s t r a t e s the presen t ambiguity ofthe term. One can also c r i t i c i s e Barr ' s use of aterm l ike ' s cho la rsh ip ' which he assumes to besynonymous with a l i b e r a l , c r i t i c a l method. For

Barr t h i s method i s unquest ionably r igh t . Hispos i t ion , he claims, i s an 'open ' one whereas oursi s a closed pos i t i on ' (pl85). But the Professorneeds to be more s e l f - c r i t i c a l . Furthermore, i f a' c losed pos i t i on ' means refus ing to bel ieve t ha t

od has l i ed or made mistakes in h i s se l f - r eve lat ion , we accept the descr ip t ion . e prefe r tobel ieve tha t the Scr ipture i s the iner ran t Word of

od ra ther than the f a l l i b l e words of men. Believing th i s we cannot approach the Bible in the sameway as Barr, This does not mean t ha t we stopthinking. Far from i t . I t does mean, however, tha twe stop th inking s in fu l ly and unbib l ica l ly.

Cer ta in ly the r e s u l t s of Barr ' s al legedly 'open 'approach are c l ea r for a l l to see. I t i s s i g n i f icant t ha t on the same day Fundamentalism waspublished the same press published T h e Myth o

od Inca rna te . Barr is unrepentant . The Fundamenta l i s t s , he acknowledges, have perhaps beenr igh t in one major poin t , more r i g h t , indeed, thanthe main body of Chris t ian opinion. They have perceived, however dimly, t ha t modern theology and thec r i t i c a l study of the Bible have i n i t i a t e d , andare i n i t i a t i n g , massive changes in the way inwhich Chris t ians understand od and Jesus Chris t .

Well-meaning persons, dazed and perplexed by thefury of fundamental is t at tacks on modern developments, have often answered tha t no essen t i a l ofthe f a i th is changed . . . Conservatives are perhapsr i gh t in t h e i r i n s t i n c t tha t t h i s i s not so, andt ha t major changes are taking place , with perhapseven grea te r ones to come (ppl85-6) .

e are aware of these rad ica l changes in b e l i e f

and deem i t c ruc i a l t ha twe

i n s i s t on the doct r ineof Scr ipture taught by our Lord and His Apost les .Those who r e j ec t inerrancy w i l l , as Barr


12/67

9.

acknowledges, r e j e c t other ca rd ina l doc t r ines , sooneror l a t e r . What i s a t s take i s nothing l e s s thanChr i s t i an i t y i t s e l f .

Reply to Art ic le by Hywel Jones in Foundations 1,(Nov 1978)

In h i s discuss ion o f The Bearing of Regeneration onSome Aspects of Pas to ra l Work (Foundat ions , ) , HywelJones argues the value of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g theo log ica l lybetween bege t t ing and bearing . In bege t t ing , theS p i r i t works sec re t l y and without the means of theWord ,, However, when sc r ip tu r e speaks o f regenera t ion

being ' by the ~ o r of God (Jas 1:18 , 1 Pe t .1 :23) weare to understand i t of the conscious possess ion ofthe new b i r t h which comes with e ff ec tua l c a l l i ng andconversiono

From one point of v1ew i t mat ters l i t t l e whether thed i s t i n c t i o n i s made or not , in t ha t wr i t e r s on e i t h e rs ide a re equal ly concerned to maintain the sovereigntyof od in sa lva t ion . What causes anxie ty i s the use

to which such a d i s t i n c t i o n is put o The danger l i e sin p o s i t i n g a temporal gap between regenera t ion andca l l i ng or conversion , Archibald Alexander uses i t int h i s way when discuss ing the regenera t ion of peoplebrought under convic t ion during the 18th centuryawakening a t Northampton. Berkhof and Hywel Jones aremore concerned with the s p i r i t u a l experience of thech i ld ren of be l i eve rs , Berkhof speaks of a seed ofregenera t ion ly ing 'ungerminated ' ( ? ) u n t i l perhapsyears a f t e r and goes as fa r as to say tha t i n thecase o f those who are regenerated i n i n fancy the rei s n e c e s s a r i l y a temporal separa t ion between regene-r a t i o n and convers ion [Systemat ic Theology, p491].

While the d i s t i n c t i o n may be sa fe i n Hywel Jones 'hands, i t i s open to much poten t ia l abuse. I t c l ea r l yimpl ies , for ins tance , tha t a person may die uncal led ,unconver ted and ye t regenera te ( I f od has regener-a ted them they w i l l be brought to b i r t h apar t fromdeath i n t e r v e n i n g H.Jones, ~ 2 6 . I s such a person


13/67

10.

saved or not?

The b ib l i ca l pos i t ion i s tha t regenera t ion , ca l l i ngand conversion stand and f a l l together. Regenerat ionhas no meaning apar t from the t ru th of the gospel

addressed to our consciousness . There i s no b i b l i -ca l or theologica l warrant fo r preachers to expecta time lag between the e ff ec t ive work of the S p i r i tand the exerc ise of f a i th . Pas tora l d i f f i c u l t i e s ofdiscerning s p i r i t u a l experiences should not lead usaway from the c l ea r teaching of sc r ip tu re .

What then, of infants? John MUrray s pos i t ion onth i s i s safe and sc r ip tu ra l :

The s a l v a t i o n which i s o f t he gospel i s neverapar t from f a i t h . This i s t rue even i n thecase o f i n f a n t s , for i n regenera t ion t he germo f f a i t h (not , not ice , of regenera t ion - IS)i s implanted . . . The person who i s merely re -generate i s no t saved , t he s imple reason beingt h a t t he re i s no such person. The saved personi s a l so c a l l e d , j u s t i f i e d and adop ted .

J . Murray, Romans p27

The bl ind man must open his eyes before he can see,but t h i s gap between the two i s not one of time . InThomas Boston s words, When t he Lord opens t hes l u i c e s o f grace on t he s o u l s new b i r t h d a y, thewaters run through the whole man .

Ian Shaw (Cardi ff )

THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE

SOME OLD TESTAMENT PROBLEMS

Rev John C.J.Waite D(Barry)

Our b e l i e f in the inerrancy of the Old TestamentScr ip tures r e s t s upon the unambiguous declara t ionsof the Lord Jesus Chris t Himself as recorded inthe Gospels. t i s evident to any unbiased mind


14/67

11.

t ha t the Saviour went out of His way to vouch fo r thet o t a l t rus twor th iness o f the Old Testament, when Heaff i rmed: Think no t t h a t m come to des t roy t he law,o r t he prophe ts : m no t come to des t roy bu t to f u l -f i l . For v e r i l y say unto you, T i l l heaven and ea r thpass , one j o t o r one t i t t l e s h a l l i n no wise passfrom t he law, t i l l a l l be f u l f i l l e d [Matt .5 :17,18] .

Without doubt , says Robert Lightner, the l a s tpar t o f t h i s quota t ion gran ts i n s p i r a t i o n to t he mostminute par t o f S c r i p t u r e and t thus a l s o emphat i -c a l l y g ives C h r i s t ' s view o f t he i n s p i r a t i o n o f t hewhole . [T,S. T.S . p . 61] On every occasion tha t Heappeals to the Old Testament, we are l e f t in not the

s l i g h t e s t doubt tha t the Lord holds i t to be the veryword of od wr i t t en , I t i s worth remembering t ha twhen He thus va l ida ted the iner rancy of the e n t i r eOld Testament, none of the or ig ina l autographs was inexis tence , The t ex t of the Old Testament wri t ings hadby t h i s time suffe red minor defec ts through s c r i b a lt ransmiss ion , The s tandard au tho r i t a t i ve Hebrew t ex twas not e s t a b l i s h e d u n t i l a t l e a s t the end o f thef i r s t century A D I t w i l l not do, then, to urge t ha ti t i s now poin t l ess to i n s i s t on the iner rancy of theOld Testament seeing tha t the or ig ina l autographshave been i r r e t r i e v a b l y l o s t

Many modern evange l i ca l s on both s ides of the A t l a n t i care uneasy about using the term ine r rancy withre ference to the Scr ip tu res , Indeed, we can put i tmore s t rong ly, They are ac tua l ly contending aga ins tthe use of t h i s term, This i s not in fac t something

a l toge ther new James Orr as ear ly as 1910 r a i s e sthe poin t : Does t he B ib le i t s e l f c la im o r i n s p i r a -t i o n n e c e s s i t a t e such an e r ro r l e s s record i n mat te r so f minor d e t a i l ? t h i s i s a v i o l e n t assumptionwhich t h e r e i s noth ing i n t he B ib le r e a l l y to support[R p.214] His s ta tement was made with re ferenceto what he considered to be minute matters of h i s -t o r i c a l geographica l , and s c i e n t i f i c d e t a i l Evere t tF.Harr i son wri t ing in 1958 concludes an essay on ThePhenomena of Scr ip tu re with t h i s as tonish ing s t a t e -ment: Unquest ionably t he B ib le t eaches i t s own


15/67

12.

i n s p i r a t i o n . I t i s t he Book o f God I t does no trequ i r e us to ho ld ine r r ancy, though t h i s i s anatura l c o r o l l a r y o f f u l l i n s p i r a t i o n . The wholet enor of h i s essay impl ies t ha t he himself hasdoubts on the score of iner rancy.

Are we being pedant ic and unnecessa r i ly prec1se ini n s i s t i n g upon the Bib l i ca l doc t r ine of iner rancy?I s i t something worth contending for? I s i t ane s s e n t i a l pa r t of our contending f o r the Fai thonce de l ive red to the sa in t s ? This i s no minor orsecondary doc t r ine . I t i s by no means enough toclaim merely, as Bernard Ramm does, t ha t thelanguage of S c r i p t u r e i s t ru s twor thy fo r a l l t he

theo log ica l and moral requirements o f the h i s t o r ica l e x i s t e n c e o f t h e Church [S.R. W.G.p. l79] .Nor to say with a n o t h e r t was no t God'si n t e n t i o n o r purpose to secu re iner rancy i n p e r i -pheral mat t e r s . ' Pe r iphe ra l m a t t e r s ' i nc ludeScr ip tu ra l data which have no th ing to do wi thf a i t h and l i f e , such as minor h i s t o r i c a l d e t a i l s ,grammatical cons t ruc t ions and t h e l i k e [T.S .T.S .p . l 5 8 - ~ s e p hA . H i l l ] . But these pe r iphe ra lm a t t e r s t u rn out to be not so per iphera l . Theymay inc lude anything t h a t , in the sub jec t iveopinion of an ind iv idua l , i s not e s s e n t i a l to f a i t hand l i f e .

Our Lord s view of the Old Testament was t ha t i twas e n t i r e l y f ree from e r r o r of any kind. e madeno d i s t i nc t i on between fac t s of h i s t o ry, geography,sc ience or theology. What some are p leased today toc a l l minut i ae o r pe r iphe ra l m a t t e r s ' , theSaviour encompassed with in His c l ea r and unequi-vocal a s s e r t i o n s regard ing the absolu te t r u s t -worthiness o f the Old Testament Scr ip tu res - Thyword i s t r u t h . The S c r i p t u r e cannot be broken .Dr J . I . Pa ck e r has put the mat te r most pointedly,

The ques t ion , 'What t h i n k ye o f t he Old Testament? 'r e s o l v e s i n t o t he ques t ion , 'What t h i n k ye o fChr i s t ? ' and our answer to t he f i r s t proc la ims ouranswer t o t he second . . o undercu t C h r i s t ' st each ing about t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e Old Testament


16/67

13.

i s to s t r i k e a t His own a u t h o r i t y a t t h e most funda-mental po in t [F. W.G. pp59f] The Old Testament i sd iv ine ly a u tho r i t a t i ve on a l l the mat ters of which i tt r e a t s . e are not a t l i b e r t y to s e t as ide nor toexp la in away any s ta tement in any pa r t of the OldTestament w r i t i n g s . I t has a l l been out -brea thed bythe od o f t r u th who cannot l i e . Says E.J.Young I fGod has communicated wrong in format ion even i n s oc a l l e d unimportant m a t t e r s , e i s no t a t r u s twor thyGod [T.W. I .T.p . l64 ] . A.A . Hodge and B.B.Warf ie ldp l a i n ly revea l what i s a t s t ake in contending fo r ani n e r r an t Bible when they j o i n t l y dec la red A provede r r o r i n Scr ip tu re con t rad ic t s no t on ly our doc t r ine ,

b u t t h e S c r i p t u r e c la ims , and t h e r e f o r e i t s i n s p i r a -t i o n i n making t hose cla ims [P.R. Vol . I Ip .245] .

Seeing then t ha t the iner rancy of the Old Testamentwas c l ea r ly taught by Chr i s t to deny t i s a t thel e a s t to f a l t e r in our submission to His Lordshipand a t t he most to impugn His charac te r as the onlywise God. e hold to the doc t r ine because Chr i s tt aught i t . Taking t h i s as our s t a r t i n g - p o i n t we

confront the d i f f i c u l t i e s and problems which t h i sdoct r ine gives r i s e to . Some of these problems aredue to the presen t s t a t e of the Hebrew t ex t ; somea r i s e through c o n f l i c t with modern s c i e n t i f i c theory;o the r s stem from the d i f f i c u l t y of harmonising B i b l ica l h i s to ry and chronology with archaeologica l r esearch and ex t r a -B ib l i ca l chronologica l d a t a andye t others may be t raced to wide di ffe rences of int e r p r e t a t i o n r e s u l t i ng from divergent hermeneuticpr inc ip l e s . At the same time i t has to be acknow-ledged t ha t many a l l eged discrepancies and cont rad i c t i o n s a re due simply to a supe r f i c i a l misreadingo f the t ex t while a hos t of r ea l problems y i e l df u l l y to pa t i en t and r eve ren t s tudy.

There i s a tendency among us to subscr ibe wholehear t ed ly to t h i s doct r ine because we see t to bec l ea r ly t augh t in the Bible and ye t to f a i l to cometo terms with the problems t ha t i n e v i t a b l y a r i s ewhen we r e l a t e the doct r ine to what we f ind in the


17/67

14.

c r ~ p t u r e sas they have come down to us. There aree r ro r s in the ex tan t Hebrew text of the Old Testament. There are what appear to be contradic t ionsand discrepancies . All these must be hones t ly confronted and examined in the l i gh t of the doct r ine .

e may have to admit tha t some of these problemscannot be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y explained for the present .f th i s i s the case, we ought not to hes i t a t e to

say so . This does not inva l ida te the doct r ine . Whatwe can be cer ta in about i s tha t none of these problems cons t i tu tes an er ror in the Scr ip tures as theywere or ig ina l ly given . Our i n a b i l i t y to solve them~ s due to the incompleteness of our knowledge.

The Most Basic Question of In t e rp re t a t i ons we approach the various types of problems

occasioned by the doctr i ne of iner rancy, we do wellto remind ourselves of the ext raordinary divers i tyof sub j ec t -mat te r and l i t e r a r y forms which are tobe found within these t h i r t y -n ine books of the OldTestament a ve r i t ab l e Divine l ib ra ry His to r i ca lna r r a t i ve occupies about a t h i rd and prophet ica l

d iscourses about a quar te r of the whole . Sublimepoet ry i s to be found not only in the Psalms, Job,the Song of Songs and Proverbs, but extens ively inthe Prophets and elsewhere . There are parables anda l l ego r i e s and apocalypt ic with i t s spec ia l use ofsymbols. Even in what i s s t ra ight forward nar ra t ivethe Bibl ica l wri te r s make use of v iv id metaphorand simile . The doct r ine of i nerrancy implies tha tthe Bible means what i t says . So of ten problemsa r i s e for us because we have mistaken the rea lmeaning of what the Bible says. For example, whenwe read in Exodus in the account of the crossingof the Red Sea tha t t he ch i ld ren o f I s r ae l wenti n t o t he mids t o f t he sea upon t he dry ground: andt he waters were wal l unto them on t h e i r r i g h thand and on t h e i r l e f t , we are not necessa r i ly tothink of the waters pi led up perpendicular ly l ikea l i t e r a l wall . Moses i s using metaphorical language here . The par ted waters of the Red Sea gave


18/67

5 .

the s r a e l i t e s complete pro tec t ion on both f lanks sotha t they were immune from a t tack . Similar ly, when weread in Joshua tha t the waters of the Jordan s toodand rose up upon an heap when the fee t of the pr i e s t scarrying the ark of the covenant touched the br ink of

the r i v e r, i t i s probable t ha t we are not to understand the language l i t e r a l l y but metaphorical ly , Thedamming of the Jordan some miles upstream from wherethe s r a e l i t e s were to cross , was s t i l l an ex t r aordinary event fu l ly miraculous in i t s timing i f nota l toge ther supernatura l in i t s character .

e must be care fu l t ha t we do not unwi t t ingly disparage the doct r ine of inerrancy by l i t e r a l i z i n g

what i s intended to be understood metaphorical lyfanalogica l ly, symbolical ly or typ ica l ly , In Jeremiah sprophecy agains t Babylon in chapter 51, he employs anumber of v iv id metaphors which would be sheer nonsense i f taken l i t e r a l l y . He descr ibes Babylon as a

des t roy ing mountain though the c i t y was s i t ua t ed inan a l luv ia l p l a i n with not a mountain in s igh t , BabyIon i s so described e i t h e r because of i t s high wallsor i t s inordinate pr ide and ambition , Later in thesame chapter the overthrow of Babylon i s expressedthus: The sea i s come upon Babylon; she i s coveredwith t he mul t i t ude o f t he waves t he reo f Yet t hevery next verse seems to s t a t e the exact opposi te

Her i t i e s are a deso la t ion , a dry l and , and awi lde rness , a l and where no man dwel l e th , n e i t h e rdoth any son o f man pass thereby But there i s nocontradic t ion here . Jeremiah represents the invasion

of the Babylonian kingdom by the Medo-Persian army asa t i d a l wave t ha t overwhelms the e n t i r e nat ion .

On the other hand, we are not to t -ake what was c lear lyintended to be understood l i t e r a l l y as metaphor ora parable or an al legory . The th i rd chapter of Genes i s i s presented as an h i s t o r i c a l event and i s sot r ea t ed in the New Testament , t i s a record o f whatac tua l ly t ranspired . (See 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 2

Timothy 2:13) . The Book of Jonah i s not a parable butsober h i s to ry through and through. The words of the


19/67

16.

Lord Jesus in Matthew 12: 39-41 s e t t l e the matter,sure ly, beyond any doubt . At l e a s t one would havethought so , Yet the t u to r in Hebrew Li te ra tu re andLanguage a t London Bible College does not hes i t a t eto c l a s s i fy the l i t e r a r y form of the book as aparable wi th c e r t a i n a l l e g o r i c a l fea tures [N.I .C .p . l B l ] . For one who would claim to be an evangel ica li t i s as tonishing to see how he disposes o f theSaviour ' s testimony . t i s not s t r i c t exeges ist h a t i s r e f l e c t e d i n Jesus ' use o f the nar ra t ive o fJonah and t he f i s h , bu t t he popular Jewish under-s t and ing , which t he Lord took up and employed as av e h i c l e for t r u t h concerning Himself . Elsewhere r

Allen aff i rms h i s b e l i e f in verbal i n sp i r a t i on , buthe seems to be merely playing with words f wedeplore such a misuse of Scr ip tu re , we must be carefu l tha t we do not f a l l in to the prevalent e r ro r offar- fe tched s p i r i t u a l i z a t i o n s . f we hold the doct r i ne of inerrancy dear to us , l e t us beware t ha twe are not gu i l t y of imposing a meaning upon the

c r i p t u r ~ w h i c hdoes not r i gh t ly belong to them .

e paymere l ip - se rv ice to

thedoct r ine

ofinerrancy i f we f a i l to take in to account the var ie ty

o f l i t e r a r y forms to be found within the Old Testament , Our aim must be to ar r ive a t the meaningwhich was intended by the Holy S p i r i t when He movedthe minds and the pens of the men He used to recordi n f a l l i b l y His revela t ion , Poetry must be t r e a t ed aspoetry , Hence when Isa iah prophesies tha t themountain o f t he LORD s house s h a l l be es t ab l i shed i n

t he top o f t he mountains , and s h a l l be exa l t ed abovet he h i l l s [ I sa .2 :2] he i s not to be taken to meant ha t l i t t l e Mount Zion wi l l r i s e higher than Everes t This i s a poe t i c way of descr ib ing the s p i r i t -ual pre-eminence of Zion through the coming of theSon of God Himself and His great work of redemptionso tha t the glor ious Gospel f i r s t sounded for th fromJerusalem. So Zion would become so conspicuous asto be known eventual ly in the remotest par t s of theear th . When godly Job declares , I brake t he jawso f t he wicked [Job 29:17] , he i s f a r from saying


20/67

tha t he resor ted to phys ica l vio lence to curb thepower and oppression of unscrupulous men. This i s thelanguage of poet ry He means t ha t he used his author-i t y and in f luence to br ing to an end t h e i r rapac iousc ru e l t y.

His to r i ca l nar ra t ive must be t r ea ted as h i s t o r i c a lna r r a t i ve and not a l l egor ized , though we must recog-n i s e t ha t metaphorical language can be found in therecord of h i s t o r i c a l events . He not in f requen t ly f indanthropomorphic desc r ip t ions of God in prose n a r r a -t i ve . This i s a unique form of metaphor. l-Jhen we readin Genesis chapter 11, And t h e LOR came down t os e e the i t y and t h e tower 1 which t h e c h i l d r e n o fmen had b u i l d e d , we are not to i n f e r t ha t t h i spoints to any l im i t a t i on in God This language i s anaccommodation to us t ha t we may know tha t God i s aPerson though He be an i n f i n i t e S p i r i L Such l a n -guage as t h i s must be i n t e rp re t ed in the l i gh t ofthose statements which declare t ha t God i s bothomnipresent and omniscient .

Especia l care must be taken in i n t e rp re t i ng thelanguage of prophet ic pred ic t ion l e s t we claim ameaning for Scr ip tu re which was not intended. Takefo r example the remarkable prophecy concerning Godand Magog in Ezekie l chapters 38 and 39. Ezekie lrepresen t s the land of I s r a e l as being invaded by avas t army comprising cont ingents from both remotena t ions and more adjacent kingdoms equipped withcavalary, char io t s , bows spears and swords, Thisarmy i s almost e n t i r e l y des t royed upon the mountainso f I s r a e l . The magnitude of God s vic to ry over Hispeop le s enemies i s v i v i d l y por t rayed: t h e i r d i s -carded weapons w i l l provide I s r a e l with supply ofwood for t h e i r f i r e s which wi l l l a s t seven years andt he corpses of the s l a in so ld ie r s w i l l take sevenmonths to bury, Now are we to take Ezek i e l s lan-guage l i t e r a l l y I s there to be some fu ture war inwhich the na t ions w i l l make an assau l t upon Pales -t i ne and r eve r t to the use of cavalary and char io t sand a l l the pr imi t ive weapons of war? Pat r i ck Fa i r-burn r i g h t l y poin ts out the absurd consequences of a


21/67

18.

l i t e r a l approach. I t would be bu t a very moderateal lowance, on t h e l i t e r a l suppos i t ion , to .say tha ta m i l l i o n men would be thus engaged, and t h a t onan average each would consign two corpses to thetomb i n one day; which, for t h e 180 working days

o f the seven months , would make an aggregate o f360,000,000 o f corpses Then the p u t r e f a c t i o n ,t h e p e s t i l e n t i a l vapours a r i s i n g from such masseso f s l a i n v i c t i m s befo re they were a l l bur i ed hocould l i v e a t such a t ime? I t b ids def iance to a l lt h e laws o f na tu re , as wel l as t h e known p r i n c i -p l e s o f human ac t ion ; and to i n s i s t on such adesc r ip t ion be ing unders tood according to thel e t t e r , i s to make t rank wi th the most ext rava-gant t a l e s o f romance, o r t he most absurd legendso f Popery". [Com. on Ezek.p.423]

In contending for the doct r ine of inerrancy wemust spare no pains to ensure tha t we are not misrepresent ing the t rue meaning of the Scr ip tures byi n s i s t i ng upon a l i t e r a l i n t e rp re t a t i on where suchwas not intended . I t i s of the utmost importancetha t we formulate and implement va l id pr inc ip lesof in te rpre ta t ion . This may mean par t ing with somecherished notions tha t we have always assumed tob.e cor rec t . I t may even revolut ionize our wholeunderstanding of Old Testament prophecy. I t i showever, a necessary coro l la ry of the doct r ine ofiner rancy tha t our in te rpre ta t ion should be inharmony with the meaning tha t the Holy S p i r i tintended to convey through the var ie ty of l i t e r a r y

media tha t e has seen f i t to employ .Having sa id t ha t , we must also add tha t because weare f a l l i b l e and s in fu l men our appl ica t ion ofva l id pr inc ip les of i n t e rp re t a t i on may s t i l l becoloured unwit t ingly by pre judice arid presupposit ion . Therefore, we must be careful not to i n s i s ttha t our in te rpre ta t ion i s the only correc t one.For example, the meaning of the word day in

Genesis chapter one; i s i t to be understood of al i t e r a l day of twenty-four hours? I t might seem in


22/67

19.

the l i gh t of Exodus 20:9-11 tha t t h i s must be so, Thereason given for the keeping of the sabbath day holyi s "For i n s i x days t he LOR made heaven and ea r th ,the sea and a l l t h a t i n them i s and r e s t e d t he seventhday . . Yet the l a t e Professor E.J,Young who was afirm upholder of the doctr ine of inerrancy s t a t e s ,"For our pa r t , we i n c l i n e toward t he view t h a t t h edays were per iods o f t ime longer than twenty- fourhours . We do t h i s however, no t i n order to f ind anexpedien t for harmonizing Scr ip tu re wi th geology b u ts imply upon exege t i ca l grounds. We are i n c l i n e d tot h i n k t ha t the Bib le i t s e l f impl ies t h a t t he dayswere longer than twenty- four hours i n l ength" [T.WoLT

p . l67].

Some of us may feel tha ti t

i s prec i se ly onexeget ica l grounds t ha t we are driven to a l i t e r a li n t e rp re t a t ion here, I t i s i n t e re s t ing and perhapss ign i f i can t tha t Professor Young's son, Dr David AYoung i s an associa te professor of geology a t theUniversi ty of North Carol ina and in a recent book hasfound fau l t with what he terms the " f lood-geo log i s t s "The fac t remains, however, tha t we must not claimtha t our i n t e rp re t a t i on i s iner ran t , We may have tosay with regard to ce r t a in statements and passages inthe Old Testament, I believe tha t t h i s i s what theScr ipture teaches , though others with equal s ince r i t yhave in te rpre ted i t d i ff e ren t ly ,

Having dea l t with t h i s basic quest ion of how toi n t e r p r e t the Old Testament, we now turn to considerother problems to which the doctr ine of inerrancygives r i s e F i r s t we deal with:

Problems due to the Present State of the

Hebrew Text

None can dispute the fact tha t the t ex t of the HebrewOld Testament has not been preserved f au l t l e s s , Errorshave crept in to the t ex t through sc r iba l t ransmission,There are about 1353 var ian t readings in the margin ofthe Hebrew Bible noted by the Massoretes - those

genera t ions of Jewish scholars who sedulously workedon the Hebrew t ex t between D 500-1000 to ensure i t saccurate preservat ion. Most of these var ian t readings


23/67

20.

are of minor importance amounting to no more thana di ffe rence in spe l l i ng . Some of the marginalreadings appear more appropr ia t e than those in thet e x t . But what i s important i s t ha t the Jewishsc r ibes did not at tempt to a l t e r the t ex t i t s e l feven when t he re was an obvious s c r i b a l mistake .Their suggest ions were always placed in the margin,So t ha t we may say t ha t these very er ro rs in thet ex t are remarkable evidence o f the reverence withwhich the sc r ibes handled t he Sc r ip tu r e s . They wereso concerned to hand on the t ex t exac t ly as i t hadcome down to them. o other wri t ings in the wholeof human h i s to ry have been handled with such careand f a i t h fu lne s s as t he Old Testament wri t ings .

Clear ly i t i s poss ib le to give only one or twoexamples of t h i s kind o f t r ansc r ip t i ona l e r ro r.Frequent ly numbers su ff e r in t ransmission Forexample in Kings 4:26 we read , And Solomon had40,000 s t a l l s o f horses for h i s cha r io t s and12,000 horsemen . A l i t t l e l a t e r in chapter 10:26we f ind , And Solomon had 1 ,400 cha r io t s and12,000 horsemen. The i d e n t i c a l statement i s foundin 2 Chronicles 1:14. But in 2 Chronicles 9:25there i s the s t a t ement , And Solomon had 4,000s t a l l s fo r hor ses and c h a r i o t s and 12,000 horsemen .Taking the four s ta tements toge the r we can eas i l ysee tha t 40,000 f igure in Kings 4:26 should read

4 ,000 , In the p a r a l l e l records of Kings andChronicles t he re are a number of places where at r ansc r ip t i ona l e r ro r can be detec ted and put r i gh t

with confidence,One other example must su ff i ce . In 2 Chronicles 22:2 we read t ha t Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king ofJudah was 42 years old when he began to re ign . Inthe previous chapter h i s fa the r Jehoram i s twices ta ted to have been 32 years old when he began tore ign and t ha t his re ign l a s t ed only e igh t years(2 Ch.21:5,20) . Fur ther in t h i s same chapter we are

t o ld t ha t Ahaziah was the youngest son of Jehoramv. l 7 ) , and a l so in chapter 22:1. Ahaziah 's age i sc l e a r l y wrong and by looking a t the p a r a l l e l passage


24/67

21.

in 2 Kings 8:26 we f ind t ha t h i s age when he succeed-ed his fa the r was in fac t 22 years Of course theJewish sc r ibes were every b i t as much aware of theobvious discrepancy as you and I a r e but on noaccount would they amend the t e x t

These t r ansc r ip t i ona l e r ro r s in no way a ff ec t thedoc t r ine of iner rancy For the most pa r t they are notd i f f i c u l t to reso lve They are to be found mainly inthe realm of s t a t i s t i c s . Sometimes names of peopleand places have suffe red d i s to r t i on When i t i sremembered tha t Hebrew was o r i g i n a l l y a consonantallanguage with no vowel l e t t e r s s imi l a r words weremore eas i l y confused. The marvel i s t h a t the Hebrew

t ex t has been preserved so l a rge ly f ree from sc r iba lmistakes .

Problems ~ the Realm of Bib l i ca l Chronology

I t i s customary in many quar te r s these days to sneera t the chronological system devised by ArchbishopJames Ussher in the 17th Century from the b i b l i c a ldata But Ussher was not only a d i s t ingu i shed s c h o l a rhe a l so bel ieved imp l i c i t l y in the iner rancy of theScr ip tu res e took the chronological data o f theBible se r ious ly e may ag r ee perhaps tha t the mat teri s less s t r a igh t fo rward than he assumed . I t i s poss i -b le t ha t the genealogica l l i s t s in Genesis chapters5 and 11 are incomplete There may wel l be gaps inthese l i s t s which seem to display evidence of asymmetrical arrangement I f t h i s i s so we cannoti n s i s t upon the year 4004 B. C. as the year in which

crea t ion took place . The date of crea t ion must bepushed back wel l before t h i s i t would seem . Even soin the l i gh t o f Scr ip tu re i t does not seem conceivablet ha t t h i s date can be e a r l i e r than about 10 000 B C Ins t ead o f r i d i c u l i n g Ussher we ought to applaudhim for his consis tency . Bel iev ing the Scr ip tu res tobe i ne r r an t he placed the utmost confidence in t h e i rstatements r e l a t i n g to chronology.

emight wish t h a t there were more s ta tements in theOld Testament giv ing prec i se d e t a i l s of chronology.

Those tha t occur are c l ea r ly o f grea t importance. e


25/67

22.

learn from Exodus 12:40,41 t ha t I s r a e l spent 430years in Egypt . This f igure i s given twice in theseverses and therefore has some s t r e s s l a id upon i t .I t i s not an approximate or round f igure but anexact f igure . The other date of cruc ia l importancefor Old Testament chronology i s t ha t given in 1Kings 6:1 , This s t a t e s t ha t the fourth year ofSolomon s re ign - the year in which he commenced tobui ld the temple coincided with the four hundredand e igh t ie th year a f t e r the Exodus , The twoperiods together enable us to account for over ninehundred years of I s r a e l s h i s to ry . ew evangel ica lscholars are prepared to take the second date a t

i t s face value because i t would point to an Exodusin the 15th century and th i s conf l ic t s with most ofthe archaeological eviden ce we are told . The f igureof 480 years i s reduced by regarding i t s an idealf igure corresponding to twelve genera t ions of 40years each . But as a generat ion would be s t r i c t l ynearer 25 years than 40, the period can be reducedto about 300 years which is much more convenientfrom the archaeological point of view , The NewBible Commentary R) deals with the s tatement in as t i l l more high-handed way by suggest ing, Thereare i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t t h i s ver se m y be l a t e g lossi n t he t e x t . In f ac t there i s no evidence to cas tany doubt upon the accuracy of the t ex t a t th i spoint . I f we bel ieve in the inerrancy of the OldTestament, tha t f igu r e must be taken as i t standsand i t must be regarded as key-stone in Bibl ica l

chronology . That i t conf l i c t s with archaeologica levidence i s problem tha t has to be faced . But wewi l l come to t ha t in a moment .

Another area of d i ff i cu l ty in the realm of Bibl ica lchronology concerns the regnal years given for thekings of I s r ae l and Judah during the per iod of thedivided monarchy . The problem i s how to harmonizethe two se t s of data for Judah and I s r a e l . A datewhich a l l are agreed upon i s t ha t for the f a l l ofSamaria, i . e . 722 B.C . I t i s also genera l ly agreedt ha t Solomon s re ign commenced about 971 B.C. This


26/67

23,

l t t e r date i s arr ived t on the assumption t ha t twonames in Assyrian records r e f e r to the Ahab and Jehuof the Bible , The only way of f i t t i n g l l the regnalyears mentioned in the Books o f Kings in to t h i speriod of 25 years i s by pos tu la t ing tha t there weresevera l eo-regencies in Judah, The work of Edwin RThiele in solving many of the problems of the chronology of th i s period in t h i s way has ce r t a in ly demon-s t r a t ed tha t l l the f igures can be s t i s f c t o r i l yharmonized, But everything depends upon the cor rec tness of ident i fy ing two names in Assyrian recordswith the Bibl ica l Ahab and Jehu, The l a t e Dr, OswaldT,Al l i s , an Old Testament scholar of great s t a tu re ,

was unconvinced by The i l e s t he s i s and held tha t thealmost universa l assumption t ha t the kings mentionedin the Assyrian records are the Bib l i ca l Ahab andJehu, was unproved, Al l i s was uneasy t ha t some ofThei le s harmonizat ions were t the expense of someof the Bib l i ca l data ,

Again the point for us to bear in mind i s t ha t wemust not claim t ha t such so lu t ions as Theile and

others have proposed are unquest ionably co r r ecL edo value l l reverent endeavours to deal with theproblems of Bibl ica l chronology, e may not becompletely successfu l in our e f f o r t s to f ind solut ions , But whatever be the degree of our success , thechronological data in the Old Testament are s e l f -cons i s ten t , That we may not be able to prove themto be so does not impair the doc t r ine of iner rancy,

Problems Aris ing from the Confl ic t BetweenArchaeology and the Old Testament

Let us acknowledge r i gh t away tha t the science ofarchaeology has in many ways provided backgroundinformation which has shed no l i t t l e l i gh t upon thet ex t of the Old Testament, Ancient Near Easterns tudies came i n to t h e i r own during the nineteenthcentury, Through the decipherment of Egyptian h i e roglyphs and Mesopotamian cuneiform along with extens ive excavat ions of ancient ru ins , cen tu r i es of


27/67

24.

human h i s t o r y have been unvei led and vanished c i v il i s a t i o n s have been rediscoveredo The H i t t i t e s sof requent ly mentioned in the Bible were completelyunknown outs ide the Scr ip tu res u n t i l the l a t t e rpa r t of the l a s t century . Their s t a t e archives were

recovered through archaeologica l excavat ions inAsia Minor provid ing a wealth of in format ion aboutt h e i r h i s to ry and ~ u t u r Yet we must be care fu lnot to exaggera te the importance of archaeology forthe s tudy o f the Old Testament . Al l i s puts the wholematter i n t o proper perspec t ive when he commentsWe need however to remember t h a t whi l e i n many

cases t h e b i b l i c a l w r i t e r s assume a .nd presuppose ,on t he pa r t o f t h e i r r eade r s , knowledge which we o ftoday do n o t posses s and which we must ob ta in , ia t a l l from e x t r a - b i b l i c a l sou rces , t he reasont h a t much o f t he in format ion o f t h i s na tu re i s no trecorded i n t he Bib le i t s e l f i s t h a t howeveri n t e r e s t i n g and even valuable i t may b e , i t i s n o to f v i t a l importance . (T . O.T . I . C . C. p . J )

There i s a very r e a l danger t ha t we may pay too mucha t t en t i on to the evidence provided by archaeologica lresearch and accept i t s f indings u n c r i t i c a l l y . Witha l l sc iences we confront the problem o f how tot e rp r e t the objec t ive evidence se t before us Inarchaeology t h i s problem i s fu r the r complicated bythe p o s s i b i l i t y t ha t a s i t e being excavated has beenwrongly i den t i f i ed This p o s s i b i l i t y i s very r e a lone in Pa l e s t i n e . The very fac t of i t s being theland-br idge between the two grea t c i v i l i z a t i o n s of

the Ancient Near Eas t meant t ha t i t was r e l a t i v e l ydensely populated and t h a t many d ive r se r acess e t t l e d there in the course o f the cen tur ies . dd tot h i s the fac t t ha t only a smal l p a r t o f any s i t e i snormally excavated and i t becomes r a the r evidentt ha t our confidence in archaeology must be l e s s thant o t a l . The c l a s s i c example i s su re ly Je r i cho . Thes i t e of what i s bel ieved to be anc ien t Je r i cho hasrece ived a grea t deal of a t t en t i on from success ivegenera t ions of archaeo log i s t s . Professo r JohnGarstang was conf ident as r e s u l t o f the


28/67

25 .

excavat ions which he car r i ed out in the 1930s tha tthe Bronze Age c i t y of Je r i cho was destroyed about1400 B C For the next twenty years o r so a 15thcentury date fo r the Exodus was widely accepted Since 1952, Miss Kathleen Kenyon has c a r r i ed out

fu r the r exp lo ra t ions and her conclusion i s t ha tthere i s almost nothing l e f t of the town which Joshuacaptured She i n s i s t s tha t the town he captured musthave been very smal l . Although the na r r a t i ve inJoshua makes i t c l e a r t h a t Je r i cho was a formidablec i t y and immensely s t rong, the modern archaeologis ton the bas i s of his very s l ender and ambiguous ev i -dence i s ready to cor rec t the b i b l i c a l account rG E Wright makes t h i s pronouncement: I n v e s t i g a -t i ons a t t he s i t e o f Jer icho i t s e l f , however, havebeen i nconc lus ive Perhaps i n Joshua ' s t imeJer icho was already an uninhabi ted t e l l or mound orru ins ; or perhaps t he c e n t u r i e s have mez'e ly erodeda l l s i g n s o f t he I s r a e l i t e v i c t o r y . . G . M 195 7 ] .

Yet i t i s prec i se ly on the bas i s o f archaeologi c a lf indings t ha t Old Testamen t s c hola r s who cons iderthemselves thoroughly evangel ica l a r e prepared tomodify and a l t e r the c lea r statements of Scr ip tu re ,whether chronologica l o r c i r cums t a n t i a l , t o t i e inwith archaeology For example Arthur Cundall i n h i sTyndale Commentary on Judges r educes the e n t i r eper iod of the Judges to a ba r e two cen tu r i es on thebas i s o f the a rchaeo log ica l evidence for the des-t r uc t i on of s i t e s in Pa l e s t i ne Yet Jephthah whosecareer f a l l s well within the Judges per iod speaks

of I s r a e l s occupat ion of Transjordan fo r 300 years(Jdg l l : 2 6 ) , Mr Cundall remarks on how close ly t h i sper iod of t ime corresponds to the t o t a l years givenfor the var ious judges up to t h i s po in t But he goeson to say t he ac tua l i n t e r v a l between I s r a e l s con-ques t o f Transjordania and t he r i s e o f Jephthah wasno more than 160 years . [T.C. p . l 4 5 ] . What do wedo about Jeph thah s prec i se sta tement? Mr Cundal l sso lu t ion cu t s a t the roo t s of Bib l i ca l iner rancy,

The r e fe rence to t he 300 years , he says, may b ean e d i t o r i a l ampl i f i ca t ion o f t he remainder o f t he


29/67

26 .

verse , o r t may be a broad genera l i za t ion forapproximately seven o r e i g h t genera t ions , o r t mayrepresent Jephthah ' s rough guess , s i n c e he wouldhard ly have access ~ r e l i a b l e h i s t o r i c a l records .

This , a las , i s ra ther typ ica l of much so-cal ledevangel ica l scholarship today. Archaeology i s thef ina l cour t of appeal . The Old Testament must beadjusted so tha t i t s statements do not conf l ic t withwhat the archaeologist claims the object ive evidenceof excavated Bibl ica l s i t e s implies . A more recentexample of th i s is to be found in r Allen scommentary on Jonah . He considers the author of theBook wrote long a f t e r the c i ty of Ninevah had beendestroyed . One reason he advances for th i s i s I t scolossa l s i z e i n 3:3 r e f l e c t s the exaggerated t r ad i t i on echoed by t he four th-century Ctes ias r a the rthan l i t e r a l f ac t I C p l 86 ] .

The tendency to re ly upon archaeology on the pa r tof conservat ive scholars stems from the e a r l i e ryears of th i s century when the spade seemed to beconfirming the Bible and confounding the c r i t i c s .But i t s help was grasped for the wrong reasons . twas as though the Old Testament needed t h i s kind ofevidence to confirm i t s verac i ty. So tha t confidencein the t ru th of the Scr ip tures was not b u i l t uponthe doct r ine of inerrancy, but upon external ev idence brought to l igh t through archaeologica l explora t ions . Having leaned upon archaeology forsupport , many evangel ica ls f ind themselves in ad i f f i c u l t pos i t ion when i t s f indings do not corroborate the Bibl ica l record .

The sa lu ta ry lesson tha t we may learn from th i s i ssure ly tha t our confidence in the complete t r u s t -worthiness of the Old Testament must r e s t not uponthe a v a i l a b i l i t y of external corroborat ion whetherin the realms of his to ry, geology or archaeology,but so le ly upon the claims which the Scr ip tures makefor themselves supremely upon the ca tegor ica ldeclara t ions of the Son of God Himself.


30/67

27 0

Abbreviations used 1n The Inerrancy of Scr ip ture

T . S . T . S . The Saviour and the Scr ip turesR I Revelat ion and In sp i r a t i onS . R. W. G Special Revelation and the Word of GodF . W G. Fundamentalism and the Word of God .T. W I .T. Thy Word i s TruthP . R. Presbyter ian ReviewT. O. T . I . C. C. The Old Testament i t s Claims and Cri t i csN. I .C . New In te rna t iona l CommentaryN. G. M. National Geographical Magazine

THE DANGERS OF N INTELLECTUAL APPROACH

Rev Donald MacLeod M (Glasgow)

Let me f i r s t of a l l make c lea r my own pos i t ion . Myr e l a t i o n to r ea l s cho la r sh ip w i l l probably remain l lmy l i fe t h a t o f an unfor tuna te lover - these wordsof Emil Brunne r express i t per fec t ly . I am not ascho la r, but I do share Machen s convict ion tha t ,

Never was there a s t ronge r c a l l o f od than t he rei s today for a vigorous and scho la r ly defence o ft he f a i t h . In the wilderness of contemporaryi r ra t iona l i sm, evangel ica l Chr is t i an i ty must proj e c t i t s e l f as an oasis of reasonableness .

Never the less , there are very r ea l p e r i l s in thehabi t s of the studious and book-minded Chris t ian ,and my duty for the present i s to draw a t ten t ion tosome of these .

The basic danger i s tha t we sha l l forget thedepravi ty of the human i n t e l l e c t We qui te wi l l i ngly grant tha t s in has enslaved the wi l l and a l ienated our affec t ions from what i s good and t rue . Butwe are inc l ined to overlook the e ff ec t s of s in inthe realm of pure reason, to imagine t ha t the Fal lhas l e f t our cognit ive faculty i n t ac t and tha t i fwe only l ived up to our convict ions a l l would be


31/67

8 .

wel l . The Bib l i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , however, i squi te d i f f e r e n t . Our unders tandings a re darkened,and t h i s has been only p a r t i a l l y correc ted even inthe case of the regenera te . The Fa l l has l e f t in themind a carnal bias and pre jud ice which wi l l alwaysse r ious ly hinder us in our e f f o r t s to a r r i ve a tt ru ly s p i r i t u a l judgements There i s no more d i f f i -cu l t t a sk in the b e l i e v e r s l i f e than to t h inkChr i s t i an ly, and to do so c ons i s t en t l y . I t requi rescons tant and conscious e f f o r t , and in a l l ourreading and study we have to remember the manya f f i n i t i e s with the world, the f l e sh and the Devilwhich our minds s t i l l r e t a i n .

Again, orthodoxy, v i t a l l y important though i t i s ,is not sa lva t ion . We may be i n t e r e s t ed in the t r u th ;we may be enamoured of the theo log ica l process; wemay be met iculous ly accura te both in our apprehens ion and expos i t ion o f the Chr i s t i an f a i t h ; we maybe zealous in i t s propagat ion and defence as weunders tand i t - we may be a l l t hese and s t i l l bes t r a n g e r s to the grace of God may speak with thetongues of men and of angels , we may have the g i f to f prophecy and understand a l l myster ies and a l lknowledge, and ye t be noth ing . 1 Cor . 13: 1-2) . Menmay c o n t i n u e t o m n t a i n i n t h e o r y an o r t h o d o xc r e e d , and y e t may m a n i f e s t s u c h d e a d l y h o s t i l t y t ov i t a l p i e t y t h a t t h e y must b e c o n s i d e r e d t h e enemieso f t h e c a u s e o f God and t h e work o f t h e S p i r i t .These solemn words from Archibald Alexander placein c lea r focus before those o f us who cher i sh our

orthodoxy the need for cons tan t se l f -examinat ion .And there i s , o f course , a c o r o l l a r y - the need fo rchar i ty in our judgment of the l e s s orthodox Thed e e p e s t l i f o f g o d l i n e s s , sa id Rabbi Dun can,

may c o e x i s t w i t h muddled d o c t r i n e . But t h a t i s noa rgumen t i n f a v o u r o f o b s c u r i t y .

The t h i rd danger i s t ha t reading and s tudy may become a cu l t in i t s own r i gh t , engross ing our a t t en

t i o n to the neg lec t or exc lus ion of o ther dut ies .I t may become a t y r a n t i n to l e r an t of prayer, Biblestudy, Chr i s t i an fe l lowship and even publ ic worship.


32/67

29.

This i s insuffe rab le . To be in a pos i t i on where wep re f e r any book of human composit ion to the Word of

od i s to be backs l idden . We must r u t h l e s s ly subord i -na te a l l our s tudy to the glory of God, our own ed i -f i c a t i o n and the evange l i sa t ion of the world . I haveno i n t e r e s t whatever 1 sa id James Denney, in t heo lo -gy which does no t h e l p us t o eva.ngel ise . Nor shouldwe be b l i n d to the fac t t ha t one may s tudy theologyand r e l a t e d sub jec t s from very wrong motives , Sinces tudy o f any kind i s an e x h i l a r a t i n g , p leasu rab lea c t i v i t y the des i re o f t heo log ica l knowledge, asCunningham poin ted ou t , may o r i g i n a t e i n a merel o v e o f knowledge as a means o f i n t e l l e c t u a l e x e r -

c i s e and c u l t i v a t i o n ; o r in what i s worse - azegaz d to weal th o r power o r fame .

Another very rea l danger i s t h a t we may give theimpression, or succumb to the impression, t ha tScr ip tu re can be unders tood only by the academi-ca l l y i n i t i a t e d , I t would be u t t e r l y wrong to der idethe value o f a knowledge of the o r ig ina l languagesand of commentaries, expos i t ions , d ic t i ona r i e s and

o the r helps , to those who are i n t e r e s t ed ina r r ~ v n g

a t a t rue understanding of the Word o f od , The l o g i -ca l conclusion o f such an argument would be to putthe preacher himsel f out of bus iness , s ince , in thel a s t ana lys i s , h i s o ff i c e i s simply to be a he lp 'towards a p r a c t i c a l understanding of the Scr ip tu res .But we must no t i n s t i t u t e a pr ies thood of theexper t , nor imbibe tha t h a b i t whereby men despai rof understanding a p a r t i c u l a r passage simply becausethey have no commentary to hand . Every such tendencymust be met with a f i rm emphasis upon the P r o t e s t a n tdoc t r ine o f the p e r s p i c u i t y o f the Word . I t i s forwayfar ing men . All t h ings i n Scr ip tu re a r e nota l i k e p l a i n i n themselves 1 nor a l i k e c lea r unto a l l 1 says the Westminster Confession; y e t those th ingswhich a r e necessary t o be known 1 be l i eved and obsez-ved1 for s a l v a t i o n 1 are so c l e a r l y propounded and

opened i n some p lace o f Scr ip tu re o r o the r 1 t ha t noton ly t h e l ea rned 1 b u t t he unlearned 1 i n a due s e n s e -o f t he ord inary means 1 may a t t a i n unto a s u f f i c i e n t


33/67

30.

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o them . This appl ies equal ly toChris t ian doc t r ine . The ordinary Chris t ian commonlyregards such doct r ines as the Tr in i ty, the Incarnat ion , the Sovereignty of God and so on, as somehow beyond him and i r r e l evan t to him . Yet thesedoct r ines are the s tu ff of the most elementaryChris t ian experiences . Every bel iever, howeverde f i c i en t h i s acquirements in theologica l l i t e r -tu re , should make i t h i s hab i t to meditate uponthem and l ea rn to handle them to h i s comfort anded i f i ca t ion in every kind of s p i r i t u l s i t ua t ion .

Yet another danger facing us as evangel ica ls i st ha t of becoming pre-occupied with i n t e l l e c t u a lr e spec t ab i l i t y . Symptoms of th i s abound: thedes i re among s tudents for the minis t ry to securethe imprimatur of the un ive r s i t i e s , regardless ofthe fac t t ha t the courses of study are seldomevangel ica l and have but l i t t l e bearing upon ther ea l work of the minis t ry ; the tendency to demon=s t r t e os ten ta t ious ly tha t we are academical lycontemporary, having read l l the most recentworks, espec i a l l y of non - Evangelicals , regard-less of t h e i r i n t r i n s i c value; the wil l ingness toconcede to science as much as Evangel icals poss ibly can; the i n t e r e s t in ecumenical involvement

which has t r a g i c a l l y diver ted our best scholarsfrom the despera te ly needed work of pos i t ive ex =pos i t ion , e spec ia l ly in Bibl ica l and SystematicTheology); a growing re luctance to l ink i n sp i r at ion with inerrancy; and such an over-eagernessto welcome the pro-Chr is t ian ut terances of the

famous tha t we of ten give the impression tha tChris t i s immeasurably indebted to any leader ofpubl ic opinion who does im the honour of beingconverted . Behind l l these i s the fac t tha t weare fa r too much in t imidated by the b r i l l i n t arra,yo f scholarship which stands agains t the Church; weforget t ha t the world i s inev i tab ly aga ins t theChurch; we forget tha t by and la rge the scholars ,espec ia l ly the second-rate ones, have always beenin opposi t ion; tha t i t was the pr inces of t h i s


34/67

31.

world who cruc i f ied the Lord of glory, and the leadersof public opinion who re jec ted Him. True C h r i s t i a n i t y,now as a lways , sa id Machen i s r a d i c a l l y cont ra ry tot he natura l man, and t cannot poss ib ly be mainta inedwithout cons tan t s t rugg le . o expect a rapprochmenti s u t t e r l y f u t i l e .

e must fu r the r remember the s p i r i t u a l p e r i l involvedin reading the arguments of other men against theChr i s t i an fa i th . This i s not to say tha t we are a tl i be r ty to opt out of t h i s labour, In t e l l i gen t andmeaningful contact with the world must be based on anunderstanding o f i t s pr inc ip les and p r i o r i t i e s ; andthe task of theologica l demoli t ion (one of the mosturgent of the hour) , demands an expert knowledge ofthe s t ruc tu ra l weaknesses of non-Evangelical systems.But our a t t i t u d e to the books and arguments of unbel ievers must never be cava l ie r. I t may be f a t a l toapproach them in a se l f -conf iden t s p i r i t . After a l l ,our basic premise i s the depravi ty of even the regenerate i n t e l l e c t . In other words, our minds cont inue to have a f f i n i t i e s with the scep t i ca l argu

ments; which, in addi t ion (and l e t us make no mistake about t h i s , are of ten highly plaus ib le and uns e t t l i n g . Every time we approach an an t i -Chr i s t i anor ant i -Evangel ica l book, we need to put on the wholearmour of God. Otherwise we most cer ta in ly sha l l notbe able to stand agains t the wiles of the Devil . Thedanger i s pa r t i cu l a r ly acute for those students whoare a t tending non-Evangelical colleges. With only aminimal pr io r knowledge of the content of theChris t ian f a i th , and the arguments in favour of i t sva l id i ty, they venture, sometimes with a boundlessconfidence, i n to the l ions den of the wor ld sspecious arguments, imagining themselves immune. I ti s not surpr is ing that the casua l ty - ra te should behigh.

Final ly, there are dangers in the appl ica t ion ofphilosophy, reason and scholarship to the theologica l process i t s e l f .

e must abandon, for example, the hope of


35/67

32.

demonstrating, upon the ground of logic alone, theva l id i ty of Chr i s t i an doctr ine , Not even the a r t i -cle of the divine exis tence i s a t ru th of reason I t i s a t r u th of reve la t ion Not tha t we have l e ssthan cer ta in ty upon t h i s quest ion, but t ha t thebeing of od i s an ineradicable datum of the humanconsciousness, and not a fac t which requi res specul a t i ve demonstration e be l i eve in order to understand .

Then there i s a prec i se ly opposi te danger - tha tf ami l i a r i t y with Chris t ian teaching may bl ind usto the sheer marvel lousness of i t s cen t ra l emphas i s upon the love of od . The fac t of such a lovei s very fa r from being se l f -ev iden t Consciencedoes not teach i t ; providence does not teach i t ;the mind of man did not conceive i t I t i s asovereign, opt ional thing, ce r t a in ty upon which i sposs ib le only because od has revealed i t by HisS p i r i L

Again, we must beware of re lu c tance to accept onet ru th because we cannot reconci le i t with anothe r ,This i s espec ia l ly t rue of such doct r ines as divinesovereignty and human r e spons ib i l i t y Those whow i l l only b e l i e v e what t hey can r e c o n c i l e , sa idSpurgeon, w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y d i s b e l i e v e much o fd iv ine r eve la t ion , I t were much b e t t e r to b e l i e v et he t r u t h s and l e ave the Lord to show t h e i r con-s i s t e n c y. I b e l i e v e i n p r e d e s t i n a t i o n withoutc u t t i n g and t r imming i t , he wri tes l a t e r and Ib e l i e v e i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y without adu l t e ra t ing andweakening i t . e must be prepared to receive adoct r ine on i t s own independent evidence, i r r e s -pect ive of whether or not we can reconci le i t withothers .

Similar ly, we must beware of t ry ing to impose oursystem upon the Word of od . This charge i s of tenbrought agains t Calvinism, but here , I t r u s t i swhere i t i s l e a s t appl icable . Calvin s system,according to Professor J . K. S . Reid, i s c e r t a i n l yl og ica l i n t he sense t h a t t he argument moves


36/67

c a r e f u l l y s t e p by s t e p from one p o i n t to t he nex t .But , i nc lud ing elements no t e a s i l y (or a t a l l )

33,

capable o f being harmonised - a complexio opposi torum.t i s against Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism t ha t

t h i s charge may most ap t ly be brought, since both ofthese s t a r t out from the phi losophica l premise t ha ta b i l i t y l imi ts obl igat ion , Man i s not able to bel ieve ,therefore he cannot be required ' to be l ieve , says theHyper-Calvinisto Man i s required to bel ieve , therefore he must be able to be l ieve , says the Arminian .But we are a l l l i ab l e to t h i s e r ro r, even in ourtreatment of s ingle t ex t s . That i s t r u t h , JamesDenney would sometimes reply to a suggested exegesis ,

butt

i s no t t he t r u t h taughti n

t het e x t .

In conclusion, l e t us remind ourselves of the need tobe care fu l tha t a l l our opinions are brought to thebar of Scr ipture . t i s very easy, in support of apar t i cu l a r opinion, to c i t e a great name, and to becontent with tha t , But no ex t ra -Bib l ica l wri te r s -not the Fathers , not the Reformers, not the Pur i tans -are to be followed implic i t l y Let us follow themaxim, See t h i s i n t he ew Testament for y o u r s e l f ,and then we sha l l not have cause to lament withHamish MacKenzie, Some who were t r a ined i n a theo-l o g i c a l school which scorned ' p roof t e x t s ' and lookedupon t he employment o f Holy Writ a lmost as a s i g n o fc u l t u r a l bar renness , are now deeply ashamed o f t h e i rl a c k o f f a c i l i t y there They w i l l never make t up i nt h i s l i f e . Certa in ly experience teaches t ha t manyEvangel icals profoundly loyal to such doct r ines as

the dei ty o f Chris t , the subs t i tu t ionary nature ofHis work, the personal i ty of the Holy S p i r i t and theendlessness o f fu ture woe are se r ious ly embarrassedwhen asked to subs tan t ia te these convict ions from theWord of God , The consequences for the effect iveness ofour witness are incalculable .

Evangel icals today are gradual ly recovering t he i r confidence a f t e r a long period of i n t e l l e c t u a l i ne r t i a ,

They are awakening to the fac t tha t the conf l i c tbetween them and Modernism i s not , even on the


37/67

34.

academic l eve l , by any means an unequal one. But,even as we en t e r with a new zes t and zeal in to thes t ruggle we must exerc i se a constant watchfulness ,The symptoms o f i n t e l l ec tua l i sm al ready ex i s tnot to a ffo rd opportuni ty to hur l the one a t theother the charge of backs l id ing and apostasy; butto a l e r t us toge the r to the dangers which lurk inthe Church s perennia l commitment to give a reasonfor the hope t ha t i s in her,

Reprinted with permiss ion from t he Evangel icalLibrary B u l l e t i n )

EV NGELIC LS ND SOCI L CTION an agenda forcons idera t ion

Rev Alan F. Gibson BD(Canterbury)

NECOSE i s the mnemonic not fo r a l i t t l e knownt rade union but fo r a l i t t l e known conference held

in the Autumn of 1978. I t s f u l l t i t l e was theNational Evangel ical Conference On Socia l Eth icsand i t was a ref reshingly f rank brother ly (ands i s t e r l y ) explora t ion of the t heo re t i ca l bas isfo r evangel ica l engagement in the realm of soc i a lact ion . Like many other conferences i t managedto ask more quest ions than i t answered and i t wouldbe sa lu ta ry for us to. consider what some of thesequest ions are . They are suggested here as an agendafor evangel ica l discuss ion , in the hope t ha treaders of t h i s journal might a l so be among those beingprovoked to th ink and wri te about them fo r ourmutual good.

For s t a r t e r s , as they say, cur ren t pos i t ions needto be explored. Socia l e th i c s i s a growth indus t ryamong evangel ica ls and any who have followeddevelopments s ince Lausanne wi l l be aware of t h i s .

In t h i s country the a c t i v i t i e s of the Shaftesbury


38/67

35.

Pro jec t and the emergence of the Third Way magazine,al though ne i the r owes t he i r or ig in to Lausanne, areindica t ions of the t rend. Those of us who are not yeti n t o soc ia l e t h i c s w i l l need to be appraised of what

i s being thought, sa id and proposed as t h i s i s thechief a rea of theologica l reconst ruct ion in ThirdWorld count r ies . We ourselves do not l ive in a vacuumand we cannot affo rd to be insu la ted from a l l th i s Since, theologica l ly speaking, t h i s i s where theact ion i s , then we ought to be asking what our brothersare saying to us and why.

To be spec i f ic we sha l l need to make a c r i t i c a lassessment of the theology of con tex tua l i sa t ion . Theword c r i t i c a l i s not used here to be de l ibe ra te lynegat ive but , theologica l band-wagons being whatthey are , i t i s b e t t e r to look care fu l ly before weleap on . There i s already evidence tha t some are tooready to discard most t r a d i t i o n a l theologica l ins ightas out -da ted . e are even being to ld tha t i t i s nolonger j u s t i f i a b l e to speak of one theology for theworld Church and we must have a p a r t i c u l a r theologyworked out for each cu l tu r a l context . Does t h i s

thinking involve our re jec t ing a l l the abso lu t e sSchaeffer speaks of? Or should we ra ther be learn inghow to apply one t imeless theology to each cu l tu ra ls i t ua t i on? When Paul urges Timothy to k e e p t h ep a t t e r n o f s o u n d t e a c h i n g [2 T i m . l :1 3 ] he uses thenoun U n O T U n W O ~ ~a word used for the a r c h i t e c t s outl i ne sketch of the bui ld ing he i s planning . e wi l ll a t e r go on to f i l l in the de ta i l s , but he does notdiscard the or ig ina l out l ine . Orthodox evangel ica lshave humbly recognised t ha t what has been revealedto them i s God s out l ine pa t t e rn . e sha l l need tof i l l in the de ta i l s for t ha t pa r t of the bui ld ingto be occupied by each cu l tu ra l group, but i s tha tthe same as i n s i s t i ng tha t the whole plan has to bere-drawn?

The pos i t ive value for us of theologica l thinking inother contexts , however, must not be overlooked . Theco lon ia l days of export ing the white man s missionary


39/67

36.

complete with p i th helmet and pre-packed theologyhave given way to a c r o s s f e r t i l i s a t i o n o f ideas asrec ip roca l as i n t e rna t i ona l t rade In some placesour bro the r s a re hammering out t h e i r ideas inchurches see ing growth r a t e much more rapid than

our own In t e r ac t i on with them i s going to be ane s s e n t i a l fea tu re of any theology which claims tobe contemporary and the soc i a l dimension i s one ofi t s s t r i k i n g fea tu res . ow e l s e could we expectchurches in r evo lu t iona ry Lat in America, c r i s i s -r idden Afr ica or famine-s t r icken Asia to speak tous?

Since t r ue evangel ica l i sm i s def ined in terms of

our a t t i t u d e to the au thor i ty of Scr ip tu re i t i sof ten the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t ha t Scr ip tu re whichgives r i s e to d i ffe rences among us This i sc e r t a i n l y the case in respec t o f soc i a l e th i c s anda cons idera t ion o f cur ren t hermeneut ica l p r inc ip l e smight uncover the bases underlying the va r i e ty ofp r a c t i c a l p o l i c i e s with in the evange l i ca l worldSuch s tudy would take i n the r e l a t i onsh ip of OldTestament moral teaching to the f u l l e r l i g h t o fNew Testament revela t ion Our methods of exege t i ca lstudy would a l so come under t h i s heading ande spec i a l l y the v a l i d i t y of induct ion ism whenappl ied to e th ics Is t h i s an a t t r a c t i v e shor t -cu tto solve today ' s press ing problems o r does i t havep a r t i c u l a r dangers? What i s being ca l l ed the 'newhermeneut ic 1 a l so r a i s e s the mat ter of der iv ingour p r i nc ip l e s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n frnm wi th in

S c r i p t u r e i t s e l L A man may be an evangel ica l butnot a c o n s i s t e n t evange l i ca l and unaware of hisdepar ture from Bib l i c a l pr inc ip les In a lovings p i r i t we should r e f l e c t on the impl i ca t ions oft h i s for ourse lves as wel l as others ,

Another i ssue to be faced today i s the r e l a t i onsh ipbetween soc ia l ac t ion and the verbal communicationof the gospel . Is the cur ren t vogue fo r evange l i ca l

engagement in the world d i v e r t i n g some from t h e i rpreaching minis t ry to the world? There are


40/67

evangel ica ls who seem to suggest t ha t the Kingdom ofGod can be brought in without evangelism , I s i t va l idto speak of s t ruc tu res being redeemed without the menwho comprise and opera te these s t ruc tu r e s be i ng re -deemed? Would we be b e t t e r to view soc i a l ac t ion asan imi ta t ion of God s wo r k as Creator r a the r than Hiswork as Redeemer? Since there i s c l ea r Bib l i c a l man-date for both good works and good words as par t ofour Chr i s t i an test imony how are they to be r e l a t ed ?

Perhaps the answer to t h i s l a s t quest ion l i e s in astudy o f the ro le o f the lo c a l chur ch in nur tu r i ngsoc ia l ac t ion as well as worship and evangel i sm .I t i s unders tandable t ha t those Chr i s t i ans who givemost thought to the f i e l d o f e th i c s are those witha profess iona l i n t e r e s t in s o c i e t y s moral i s sues But are t h e i r churches provid ing them with thet heo log ica l too l s and Bib l i ca l support for t h e i rwork? How can we expect the pas to r to do t h i s whenmany o f the moral dilemmas faced by the churchmembe r s are posed by a f a s t moving t echnologica ls o c i e t y in whi ch the pas to r i s a layman ? Unless he

i s aware of t h e i r problems, however , he wi l l be i l l -f i t t e d to include t r u ly r e l evan t app l i ca t ions i n hispreaching minis t ry . Think too, of the pressures beingfaced by our members , miss ionar ies or otherw i se , whoare working in developing coun t r i e s overseas , Arethese bro the r s and s i s t e r s r i gh t to look to t h e i rhome church for moral guidance ? nd j u s t how success-fu l are the churches in the U, K. in in f luencing asoc ie ty so l a rge ly i nd i f f e r en t to the c lamant needso f the s t ranger next door in our global v i l l age?

The Rev John S t o t t c losed the NECOSE discuss ions byurging those present f i r s t of a l l to go beyondq u e s t i o n s to answers . There i s however, j u s t onep r i o r obl iga t ion ; we must be sure tha t the ques t ionswe are asking are the r i gh t ques t ions . Only then wi l lwe have any confidence to go on from words to a c t i o n s .

This i s modestly offe red as a d r a f t agenda of top ics ,i nv i t i ng readers reac t ions . I t is being proposed tot he execut ive o f the Br i t i sh Evangel ica l Council in the


41/67

38.

hope tha t they can arrange some means by which thesematters can be considered more fu l ly. Like a fewother d i f f i u l t i e s facing the servants of Christ inthese days, we can be sure of t h i s , tha t i f we shutour eyes to them they wil l not go away.

MYSTICISM - ND A TOUCH OF EASTERN PROMISE

Dr R M Jones (Aberystwyth)

Drugs, the occul t and gurus on the pop-scene havecombined to bring mysticism in to popular focusduring recent years . Amongst theologians, thein f lux of experience-centred re l ig ion together withecumenical lack of discr iminat ion (proverbia lt o l e r a n c e ) have consorted to import numerous

eas t e rn . cu l t s in to the centre of much contemporaryre l ig ious discussion in the west. A new book 'TheInner Eye o f Love, Mystic ism and Rel ig ion ' wri t t en

by a Jesu i t , William Johnston, and published byColl ins a t 4.95, provides a useful and st imulat ing survey of some of the considera t ions facingthe Chris t ian a t such a juncture .

For evangel ica ls there are many obvious warnings ignals in the volume. For example, the authorsays I came to t he conc lus ion t h a t mys t i ca lnothingness . . i s dynamite. I t i s t he power t h a t

moves t he universe and c rea t e s r evo lu t ions i nhuman minds and hea r t s . He a l so gives some hin tson how to get in to contact with the All :

Concre te ly, one can concent ra te on a par t o f t hebody - t h e space between t he eyebrows, t he t i p o ft h e nose , the lower abdomen . he second po in twas cont ro l o f t he b rea th ing . All th i s i s f r ivolous and hopeless ly i r r e l evan t , hardly the type ofthing Paul or Augustine or Athanasius, Calvin orJohn Owen Whitefield or William Williams, Spurgeonor Ann Gri ff i ths would indulge in .

Foundations Journal volume 02

Documents

Transcript of Foundations Journal volume 02