| Many
Americans are caught up in a "personal rights" craze. At least
that is the opinion of a federal judge who hears and sees much
as he travels from one federal court to another.
Americans
are ready to resist any authority whatsoever that hampers or restricts
"rights of free expression." Pollsters seem to confirm the accuracy
of the judge's reading of the national pulse. 1
Undoubtedly
the protection of personal rights is very important. It is as
American as apple pie.
But the present
fascination for the defense of personal rights has an unsettling
dimension: the refusal to acquiesce before the laws of government
or the teachings of churches, or the instruction of educational
institutions if they cross personal feelings or judgments.
Many Americans
are inclined to do what is right in their own eyes. Two illustrations
may be cited. Internal Revenue Service officials bemoan an epidemic
of tax cheating that has swept the land.
And Roman
Catholic clergy know only too well that many of their flock ignore
the teachings of their church about artificial birth control.
Not that all
Americans are law-breakers or disloyal. But as the federal judge
put it, there is reason to wonder if in fact a moral majority
exists. Or perhaps it might be better to ask if a majority exists
which agrees on a fixed set of ethical principles.
Biblical
Authority in a "Me" Decade
It might seem odd to begin a series on the topic "Recent Interpretations
of Biblical Authority" with these all too brief comments about
the present cultural scene. Nonetheless this does seem appropriate.
There is reason to believe that in part the virulent rhetoric
and criticism issuing from some opponents of biblical authority
stems not so much from the emergence of any remarkable new data
to which they are privy but from a more broad-based anti-authoritarian
impulse within the land.
For on the intellectual side of things, biblical authority has
fared reasonably well within the last 20 years or so. 2 In the
field of church history a number of scholars are confirming what
evangelicals have long argued: until the 18th century the Christian
churches in Europe generally maintained a commitment to biblical
infallibility.
By contrast, a neoorthodox construction that suggests that biblical
infallibility was created in the late 16th and early 17th centuries
is less persuasive today than it was for scholars in the 1940s
and 1950s.
In biology, a number of scholars are experiencing gnawing doubts
about what was an assured given of "educated" people a few decades
ago: the theory of evolution. They reckon that aninsufficient
amount of time has transpired to allow for the emergence of diverse
speciesencountered today. 3
The lack of evidence to sustain patterns of slow evolutionary
development is forcing scientists such as Steven Gould at Harvard
University to propose radical modifications of current hypotheses.
4 Many Americans who say they believe in evolution probably do
not have a good understanding of the rapidly shifting contours
of evolutionary theories.
The intellectual challenges against the evangelical view of
Scripture, then, do not seem to be as massive as they were in
the not-too-distant past. Nonetheless they remain substantial
and should not be treated lightly. In the broader culture they
continue to erode Americans' confidence in the Scriptures. Well-trained
Christian apologists are needed to answer them.
If the intellectual tide is not moving as forcefully against
the Bible today as it did a generation ago, why are attacks on
those who want to uphold biblical teachings apparently intensifying?
Undoubtedly Bible believers have not always been circumspect
in their actions and words. But one of the principal reasons for
today's onslaughts against biblical authority has to do with a
previous point: many Americans want to live their lives according
to their own fancies.
A "Gospel of Self-Fulfillment" swept through the United States
in the 1970s and helped nurture the spirit of a perverse narcissism.
5 Anne David, professor of sociology at Miami University in Oxford,
Ohio, puts the matter bluntly:
"Our culture
promotes a type of pathological (disturbed) narcissism . . .
. We have a lot of grown-up 2-year-olds out there expecting
to be happy 'now'" 6
Millions of Americans heeded the siren-likemessage of the "Gospel
of Self-Fulfillment." Now they sense that obeying the Bible's
teachings would rain on their narcissistic parade.
Their suspicions are correct. Scripture does indicate that Christians
are to love others; it denounces pride and greed; it condemns
sexual exploitation, including homosexuality, the chic sin of
the 1980s; it portrays marriage as sacred; and it infers that
the putting to death of an unborn infant grieves the Savior.
God's Word repudiates manifestations of the perverse narcissism
that has its iron grip on the minds and bodies of many people
today. In 1976 Tom Wolfe shrewdly christened the present times
"The Me Decade."
Understandably those persons whose lifestyles are challenged
by Scripture are tempted to discredit its authority. Some go so
far as to deny that the God of the Bible is really the true God.
Is not this line of thought familiar? People are saying, "The
God I am interested in is the God of love and freedom. He or she
does not judge anyone for their deeds.
He or she is tolerant. He or she allows all to find their way
to heaven by following their own paths. Certainly the Bible is
a worthy piece of literature, but don't let anyone tell me that
I should live according to its teachings.
And no church or individual should seek to incorporate its moral
precepts into the laws of the land." What would become of America's
liberties if this gambit succeeded?
Not surprisingly many who think this way think of defenders
of biblical authority as narrow, bigoted, and given over to totalitarian
schemes that would make George Orwell envious.
They see themselves as the defenders of personal ethics based
on an individual's rights of freeexpression. Their own ethical
commitments often create their discomfort with the concept of
biblical authority.
Intellectual problems and concerns for personal rights are sometimes
evoked as a screen for a basic unwillingness to heed God's Word.
But evangelicals should not become smug; they too do not always
submit to God's Word even though they uphold a high view of biblical
authority.
This approach to the problem of explaining in part the motivations
behind recent attacks on the Bible's authority is reminiscent
of Charles Hodge's perception of why individuals were accepting
theories of evolution in the 1860s when they had rejected them
in the 1840s. 7 Hodge, a theologian at Princeton Seminaxy, wrote:
How then is it, that what was scientifically false
in 1844 is scientifically true in 1864? When a drama is introduced
in a theatre and universally condemned, and a little while afterward,
with a little change in the scenery, it is received with rapturous
applause, the natural conclusion is, that the change is in the
audience and not in the drama. 8
Hodge argues
that the evidence for evolution had not improved since the 1840s
when the anonymously written Vestiges of Creation appeared and
Americans and Englishmen generally refused to entertain the theory.
But in the 1860s many Anglo-Saxons were accepting it. What had
changed their minds?
Hodge proposed that the denial of design by Charles Darwin's theory
was "the main cause of its 9 popularity and success." 10 Hodge
believed that this denial permitted Darwin's radical disciples
to find confirmation for what they had already denied on other
grounds: the existence of God. 11 They sought an intellectual
justification after the fact for their earlier rejection of theism.
The premise behind Hodge's analysis is intriguing: a person
will sometimes accept an intellectual option not because evidence
for the position has suddenly become more convincing, but because
the position appears to legitimatize prior moral and spiritual
commitments.
If this premise of Charles Hodge is correct, it is reasonable
to expect that strong attacks on the Bible's authority will emerge
in days ahead.
These challenges will be mounted not so much because new arguments
make the attacks warranted, but because those who want to escape
the Bible's teachings can do no better than to try to discredit
it. The conflict over biblical authority will sometimes reflect
deep-seated spiritual struggles far more than surface intellectual
exchanges apparently indicate.
If the anti-authoritarian impulse grows in strength, many Americans
will find it intolerable for any person or group to claim that
their faith is the only way, and that there are ethical absolutes.
Evangelicals who proclaim without hesitation that Jesus Christ
is the Way, the Truth, and the Life will become the great iconoclasts
of this age.
Like the early Christians who were accused of atheism because
they did not believe in the pagan gods of the day, these evangelicals
will be considered atheists because they do not bow down to the
contemporary gods of moral relativism and epistemological skepticism.
They must be explained away. Evangelicals must be made to look
like obscurantists who simply do not understand the cultural forces
that have shaped their thinking. Or in a worse scenario, they
will be portrayed as fanatics who have all the trappings of Muslim
fundamentalism. Neither characterization is particularly pleasant.
How should evangelicals respond to this type of caricaturing
and rhetoric? They should refrain from responding in kind. They
should seek the Lord's help in attempting to answer firmly but
graciously those who deny the Bible's authority in any form.
Evangelicals should also speak with both firmness and charity
to some of their Christian brethren who are apparently prepared
to let personal judgments and reason determine a canon within
a canon of Holy Writ and to deny the infallibility of God's Word.
Recent
Views on Biblical Authority
A good number
of scholars believe that the evangelical stance on biblical authority
is untenable not only from a biblical point of view but also from
a historical perspective. 12 They would utterly reject the notion
that the refusal to acquiesce before biblical authority has anything
to do with spiritual matters.
Rather, some
would say, those who reject any form of biblical authority or
for that matter the idea of biblical infallibility do so in the
name of intellectual honesty.
This claim
should not be dismissed out of hand. Even though the acceptance
or rejection of biblical authority does depend on the persuasive
work of the Holy Spirit, inquirers' objections should be answered.
The Holy Spirit may use carefully conceived responses in His persuasive
activity.
More specifically,
many scholars who object to the evangelical view of biblical authority
believe that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy constitutes a
departure from the beliefs of the Reformers and the early church.
These scholars share a common conviction that conservative evangelicals
(whom they sometimes dismiss as fundamentalists) are innovators
who erroneously imagine that their position about Scripture reflects
what Christians in the past thought about the subject.
Forseveral
neoorthodox historians the roots of biblical inerrancy extend
back to the late 16th century at the earliest, for Jack Rogers
and Donald McKim to the late 17th century, for Bruce Vawter towhat
he calls "the scientific age and the age of rationalism," and
for several contemporary historians to the early days of fundamentalism.
13
Why are critics
of biblical inerrancy intent on cutting off conservative evangelicals
from the Reformers and the church fathers?
Their stratagem
is an old one. In the history of theology doctrinal innovation
has generally been associated with heterodoxy. Victories were
claimed if one theological party could demonstrate that their
antagonist's beliefs were novel.
This is the
import of Eck's barbed questions to Martin Luther: "Martin, how
can you assume that you are the only one to understand the sense
of Scripture? Would you put your judgment above that of so many
famous men and claim that you know more than they all?" 14
Now Luther
did give the famous reply that unless he were convinced by Scripture,
and plain (regenerated) reason, he would not change his mind.
And Luther
did deny the ultimate authority of popes and councils because
they have contradicted each other. 15 have erred as men will;
therefore I am ready to trust them only when they prove their
opinions from Scripture, which has never erred" (cited in Paul
Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther 16, p. 6, n. 12, Weimar
Ausgabe, 7.315). ] And Luther did note that his conscience was
captive to the Word of God. Nonetheless on occasion this same
Martin Luther also parried the type of questions Eck asked by
arguing that his beliefs recaptured those of the early church.
He by no
means viewed the early church fathers as infallible, but he did
not want his teachings to depart from theirs unless the Scriptures
dictated.
Martin Luther
did not want to be viewed as an innovator in any definitive sense.
Rather he portrayed himself as one who was recovering the gospel.
He charged the Roman Catholic Church itself with innovation. According
to Luther's reckoning, this had occurred about 300 years before
his own day.
In the 17th
century French Protestants followed the same line of argument
against Roman Catholics who had alleged the perpetual character
of their own beliefs. 17 In their apologetic duels with each other,
both Roman Catholics and Protestants often concurred that if a
doctrinal formula was successfully tagged as a theological innovation,
its orthodoxy was doubtful.
Various opponents
of biblical inerrancy have attempted to exploit this principle.
Johann Semler tried to do so in the 18th century as did Samuel
Coleridge in the 19th. Contemporary opponents of biblical inerrancy
have taken the same tack.
If they make
the charge of innovation stick, they believe they have taken a
major step forward in their struggle to trivialize the belief
or discredit it completely.
A
Neoorthodox Interpretation of Biblical Authority
Several interpretations of the history of biblical authority
seek to portray the evangelical stance on biblical authority as
innovative. The first is what might be called a neoorthodox interpretation.
This historical analysis is widely accepted in Germany. To question
it is to question an "assured resultof scholarship."
Even though Karl Barth's star began to fail from the theological
heavens of Europe in the 1950s, the interpretation of the history
of biblical authority by his disciples has remained a guiding
light for many historians who have written on the subject.
According to this construction the existential faith motifs
of the 16th-century Reformers began to be swallowed up in the
writings of second-generation Protestants.
They say that whereas the Reformers believed that Christ was
the Word of God, their disciples like Theodore Beza, Philip Melanchthon,
and Lambert Daneau began to identify the Word of God with the
Bible as well and to fail into bibliolatry.
Whereas the Reformers defined faith as trust, their disciples
began to identify faith with intellectual assent. Whereas the
Reformers assumed God's existence as a given, their disciples,
influenced by a resurgent Aristotelianism, attempted to prove
God's existence by constructing theistic proofs drawn from natural
theology.
Whereas the Reformers viewed the Scriptures as a human, fallible
book which witnesses to the true revelation of Christ, their disciples
perceived the Scriptures as a revelation in itself. 18. pp. 389-90).]
Using syllogistic logic, they argued that because God is the
author of truth and He is likewise the author of the Bible, it
follows that the Bible is infallible and inerrant.
Whereas the Reformers were open at least in principle to the
type of higher biblical criticism that 20th-century critics practice,
their disciples rejected attempts to study the Scriptures in this
way out of concern to have a fixed, certain word.
Whereas the Reformers did not believe that the Bible necessarily
presented the truth about the natural world and history, their
disciples argued that it did.
Given this aeneral analysis, Ernst Bizer, one of the prominent
spokespersons for this kind of "neoorthodox" construction, called
on his readers to overcome the nascent rationalism of the late
16th-century Protestants and to return to the teachings of the
Reformers. 19
The
Neoorthodox Historiography Found Wanting
This version
of a neoorthodox historical construction is a large edifice. It
will not suddenly collapse. Barth's disciples put it together
very carefully. 20
Moreover, orthodoxies of historical interpretation are difficult
to dig out, especially when they are designed to sustain a theological
system as this one apparently is.
On the other hand, the first major cracks in the substructure
of the edifice have appeared within the last 10 years or so. Respected
nonevangelical scholars have begun to chip away at the synthesis.
In 1981, Jill Raitt, for example, wrote with jackhammer blows:
General studies of the period 1560-1600 are few in number and
tend to reflect either a denominational bias, or a preestablished,
and usually derogatory, thesis about the relation of these years
to the period of the Reformation.
According to this thesis, the rich insights of Luther and Calvin,
their powerful use of the vernacular, their impatience with scholasticism,
all are seen to fall into the pit of Protestant scholasticism
because of the lack of first-rate minds in the latter half of
the sixteenth century.
Latin again prevails, scholastic forms of debate govern style,
and the fresh wind of the Gospel promise dies away in a desert
of propositions. Recently, a number of scholars have challenged
this facile set of generalizations. From their detailed studies
of the theologians of the late sixteenth century have come new
insights . . . . 21
Fatio, of the University of Geneva, asks this question about
Lambert Daneau, who is frequently portrayed as an archetypical
Protestant scholastic:
Why, then, should scholars criticize the rational framework
to which he resorted as a corruption of the existential discoveries
of the Reform? It would be better to recognize it as a pedagogical
support favoring the presentation of ideas easily put to use and
corresponding to the process of scholarly transmission and the
establishment of the Reform. 22
Fatio specifically criticizes Ernst Bizer's interpretation of
Lambert Daneau in this regard. In a word, Bizer's "neoorthodox"
historiography, which according to Raitt was widely accepted "as
late as ten years ago," 23 is under siege.
It is difficult to know what bearing the critics attacks will
have on the viability of neoorthodoxy as a theological system.
Neoorthodox apologists had made it one of their ringing claims
that their teachings recaptured the beliefs and emphases of the
Reformers. That claim is more doubtful today in the academic community
than it was 10 or 20 years ago.
How strong is the siege against the neoorthodox historiography?
It is becoming fairly formidable, if judged by the names of respected
scholars who are lending their names to it. In 1981, David Lotz
of Union Theological Seminary, New York City, published an article
on Luther's view of biblical authority in which he launched a
bold frontal attack:
Scripture for Luther is God's Word since it has God the Holy
Spirit as its ultimate author. One may not invoke Luther's authority
in defense of such familiar formulas as "Scripture witnesses to
the Word of God," or "Scripture becomes God's word when heard
in faith," or "Scripture is the record of God's revelation". .
. . These formulas have their provenance in modern theology chiefly
in Protestant neoorthodoxy. They can be attributed to Luther only
by reading them back into his theology in an anachronistic, hence
erroneous, fashion. 24
Lotz also assumed that Luther believed in biblical inerrancy.
25 Steinmetz of Duke University Divinity School declares that
he has recently revised his interpretation of the relationship
between late 16th-century Protestants and the Reformers:
The tendency to deplore the return of Protestant thinkers to
Aristotelian metaphysics and to regard the reintroduction of scholasticism
as an abandonment of the insights of the Reformation may, after
all, prove to be historically naive and to rest on a misconception
of scholasticism and the Reformation itself. 26
These evaluations by Lotz and Steinmetz are important. They
cannot be ignored by the wider academic community. One may expect
other distinguished scholars to join the ranks of those who find
the neoorthodox historiography to be deficient.
Recent research is also making it more evident that Calvin and
Luther upheld the doctrine of biblical infallibility. Nonevangelical
scholars such as Edward Dowey and H. Jackson Forstman had pointed
this out several decades ago.
27 Nonetheless so strong has been the staying power of the neoorthodox
historiography in American scholarship that to this day many scholars
have been reluctant to accept their analyses.
Several of the most recent studies of the Scriptures in the
Reformation do not lend support to a neoorthodox reading of this
matter, however. Bentley has noted how daring Erasmus was on one
occasion in his biblical studies:
At one point he 28 even ventured the daring suggestion that
the original authors of Scripture themselves introduced error
into their work. At Matt. 2:6 the evangelist reversed the meaning
of prophecy quoted from Mic. 5:2. In his note to this passage
Erasmus attributed the error to a slip of the memory, unlike earlier
commentators, who had strived mightily to explain away the evangelist's
mistake. 29
Bentley, who is not a defender of biblical inerrancy, paints
the context for Erasmus's proposal. He makes it clear that the
proposal cut across the grain of Christian thought in the early
16th century by inferring that an original author of Scripture
could have made a mistake.
Further research confirms the accuracy of Bentley's contention.
30 Before Martin Luther and John Calvin put quill to paper as
Reformers, conservative Roman Catholics believed that the Vulgate
Edition of the Bible was infallible.
When Erasmus pointed out textual errors in the Vulgate, generally
blaming these errors on mistakes of textual transmission or faulty
translations, conservative Roman Catholics like Maarten Dorp responded
that Erasmus might inadvertently overthrow the Catholic religion.
Several scholastic doctrines of the church depended on the wording
of the Vulgate text.
If the wording were defective, these doctrines could not stand.
Thus on the eve of the Reformation many Roman Catholic theologians
believed in the infallibility of the Vulgate.
Moreover, it was inconceivable to them that any Christian would
let Erasmus get away with an even worse move, attributing an error
to an original writer of Scripture. John Eck scolded Erasmus on
his suspect treatment of Matthew 2:6.
Listen, dear Erasmus: do you suppose any Christian will patiently
endure to be told that the evangelists in their Gospels made mistakes?
If the authority of Holy Scripture at this point is shaky, can
any other passage be free from the suspicion of error? 31, pp.
289-90). ]
Quite simply, Eck could not imagine that any Christian would
allow for error in the Scriptures. Moreover, he summoned the great
Saint Augustine to testify that a real error in Scripture would
have devastating consequences for its authority. 32
Into this theological environment fell the writings of Martin
Luther, John Calvin, and other Reformers. Though Roman Catholics
accused these men of badly misinterpreting Holy Writ, they did
not apparently ever charge them with saying that an original writer
of Scripture made an error.
That charge would have been an irresistible one if there had
been the slightest grounds for making it. Even the slippery Erasmus
(Luther called him an eel) in his hardfisted debates with Martin
Luther over free will acknowledged that the Reformer reverenced
Holy Scripture. 33 And interestingly Erasmus himself reversed
his controversial interpretation of Matthew 2:6 because it was
so offensive to his contemporaries. 34
When this theological context is placed beside the formal statements
of the Reformers that they upheld biblical infallibility, only
one conclusion follows: like Augustine, the Reformers Luther,
Calvin, and Bucer believed that the Bible was without error.
And unlike several evangelical commentators of today, the Reformers
averred that the denial of infallibility had serious implications
for the authority of the Bible. Luther said this about God's precious
Word:
Whoever is so bold that he ventures to accuse God of fraud and
deception in a single word and does so willfully again and again
after he has been warned and instructed once or twice will likewise
certainly venture to accuse God of fraud and deception in all
of His words.
Therefore it is true, absolutely and without exception, that
everything is believed or nothing is believed. The Holy Spirit
does not suffer Himself to be separated or divided so that He
should teach and cause to be believed one doctrine rightly and
another falsely. 35
It does not appear that Luther, at least, fits the pattern of
a person unconcerned about the truthfulness of the very words
of Scripture. Calvin, who spent much effort harmonizing biblical
texts, does not fit the pattern either. 36 The neoorthodox characterization
of the Reformers' thinking simply cannot account for their commitment
to biblical infallibility.
In summary, the neoorthodox historiography does not convincingly
countermand the claim of evangelicals that their beliefs regarding
biblical inerrancy are similar to the teachings of the Reformers.
Even these brief comments should make this clear.
But evangelicals should not adopt a spirit of triumphalism, the
influence of the neoorthodox historiography is still pervasive.
The Rogers and McKim proposal is quite indebted to it. Moreover,
Ramm and Bloesch are projecting aspects of neoorthodox theology
as defining characteristics of who an evangelical is. 37, p. 165,
n. 67). ]
It would be ironic if neoorthodoxy becomes especially prominent
in evangelical circles at the very time the historical interpretation
which sustains it is under siege in the wider academic community.
God's written Word which speaks of Christ the Living Word tells
about man's salvation. The Bible also relates the truth when it
touches on the natural world, history, and ethics. Evangelical
Christians stand in the long line of Christian brothers and sisters
who affirmed these same things. The evangelical view of biblical
authority is not novel.
It is very old. Therefore evangelicals ought to go forth in
the Holy Spirit's power, not only proclaiming the truths of the
Word of God, but also submitting themselves to its authority in
daily life. And may the mind of Christ develop more fully in evangelicals'
minds as they meditate on His precious Word.
Editor's Note
This is the first in a series of four articles delivered by
the author as the W. H. Griffith Thomas Memorial Lectures at Dallas
Theological Seminary, November 6-9, 1984.
Footnotes
1 In the fourth article in this series the findings of several
pollsters regarding this trend will be cited.
2 Probably the most serious challenges to biblical authority
in the last two decades have emerged in the area of hermeneutics
and linguistic theory.
3 For a valuable introduction to criticisms of Darwinism, see
the article signed simply R. B. and entitled,"Heresy in the Halls
of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism," Scientific Research
(November 1967): 59-66.
4 Steven Gould, "Massive Extinctions Helped to Determine Evolution
of Species, Geologist Asserts," The Chronicle of Higher Education
, June 6, 1984, pp. 5, 7.
|
