23
November 1926 A.D. Professors
Oswald Allis & J.G. Vos: Biblical
Study, Method & Error
Archivist. “November 23: Of
Method, and Of Error.” This Day in Presbyterian History. 23 Nov 2014. http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/2014/11/november-23-of-method-and-of-error/.
Accessed 23 Nov 2014.
November 23: Of Method, and Of Error
Having
written earlier this week of The League of Evangelical Students, we present
today two articles which appeared in the second issue of the League’s
magazine, The
Evangelical Student. The first article is by the Rev. Dr.
O.T. Allis, who was then in 1926 a professor at the Princeton Theological
Seminary. Following that, a brief article by Johannes G.
Vos, the son of Dr. Gerhardus Vos. This second article is titled “The
Spirit of Error.” We trust you will find both articles profitable.
THE SCRIPTURAL METHOD OF BIBLE STUDY
by PROFESSOR O. T. ALLIS, PH.D.
by PROFESSOR O. T. ALLIS, PH.D.
There
are certain things essential to the truly scriptural study of the Bible which
need to be emphasized today in view of the insistent claims which are so often
made by the advocates of the so-called “modern” or “critical” method of Bible
study.
The
first of these is the unity and harmony of the Bible. This characteristic has
impressed believing scholars in all ages as a signal proof of its divine origin.
The fact that so many different writers, so widely separated in time, wrote a
collection of many books which are in the truest sense one book, the Bible, is
a strong evidence of its unique inspiration. Yet one of the outstanding
characteristics of the “modern” method is the way in which it exhibits, and the
importance which it attaches to, the alleged disharmonies of the Bible. We
cannot read beyond the first chapter of Genesis without being confronted with
this cardinal doctrine of the critics; for the “second” account of creation
(Gen. ii) contradicts, we are told, the “first.” And this is but a sample. We
have, they tell us, two accounts of the Creation and the Flood; three accounts
of the Plagues and of the Crossing of the Red Sea; four of the Crossing of the
Jordan. Furthermore, these accounts disagree and contradict one another. The
theoretical Jehovist differs from the hypothetical Elohist; and the alleged
Priestly writer contradicts them both. Judges discredits the account of the Conquest
given in Joshua; Chronicles is proved unreliable by Samuel-Kings. The “great”
prophets are represented as the opponents of the priests and as the more or
less uncompromising foes of the ritual sacrifice. Micah and Zechariah are
divided between at least two authors, Isaiah is given to three; and many of
these documents are declared to be composite and to have been edited, or
revised, by a later compiler or “redactor.” All this partitioning and analyzing
is made necessary, it is argued, by differences in language, style, ideas and
manner of presentation, differences which not seldom amount to contradictions.
The result is that for the “modern” student the Bible, especially the O.T., is
characterized not by harmony and unity, but by discord and contradiction. How disastrous
this is should be apparent to everyone, for nothing is more certain to
discredit a book and destroy its influence with thinking people than to find
that it does not contain a consistent and harmonious presentation of the
matters which it aims to set forth HERE are certain things essential to the
truly scriptural study of the Bible which need to be emphasized today in view
of the insistent claims which are so often made by the advocates of the
so-called “modern” or “critical” method of Bible study.
Consequently
the reverent Bible student will be very slow to accept these alleged
contradictions. He will scrutinize them with the utmost care. If he does so, he
will find that many of them are purely imaginary. There is nothing inconsistent
about the statement in Num. xvi. that (i) a Levite and (2) three Reubenites
were leaders in a rebellion against Moses, nothing to indicate that we have
here two conflicting accounts of the same event The mention of two parties
simply shows that the revolt was widespread and serious enough to require
drastic measures. There is nothing contradictory about the statement that (1)
the Lord told Moses to lift up his rod and (2) to stretch forth his hand and
that then (3) the Lord caused a strong east wind to blow, in order that the Red
Sea might be divided before Israel (Ex. xiv. 16, 21). Such statements are
different only in the sense that they record distinct features of the story,
all of which are needed to complete the record. They become contradictory only
when each statement is treated as complete in itself and placed in opposition
to others which are designated to supplement it. Most events, especially if
they be great ones, are complex; there are many factors which enter into them.
Were the modern method of source analysis applied to almost any historical
narrative which dealt at all adequately with an intricate situation it could
easily be reduced to a mass of contradictions.
There
are other alleged contradictions which are due either to a failure to
recognize, or to ignorance of, all necessary facts. Thus, Hosea in pronouncing
vengeance on the House of Jehu (i. 4), is not denouncing Jehu for obeying the
command of Elijah as conveyed by Elisha. The explanation is given in 2 Kgs. x.
30 f. where the wilfulness of Jehu is exposed. And it is made still clearer by
the prophetic denunciation of Baasha who provoked the Lord “in being like the
house of Jeroboam; and because he slew him.” By following in the sins of the
House of Omri, Jehu’s House merited the same punishment. Yet Hosea is cited as
an instance of a later prophet denouncing what an earlier prophet had expressly
commanded!
The
second essential of which we would speak, is that the Bible student should
understand and accept the viewpoint of the Bible. Many of the difficulties
which the “modern” student finds with the Bible are the direct result of
failure to do this, or, to put it more strongly, of the determination to judge
and interpret the Bible by standards which are contrary to its whole teaching.
The
oft-repeated reference in the first chapter of Genesis to God and to His
sovereign acts is tremendously impressive: He spake and it was done. The Bible
is a record of God’s wonderful works for the children of men. No one can
understand it who does not accept its great major premise— God—or who seeks to
set limits to His power. The O.T. purports to be primarily the record of God’s
special dealings with a peculiar people to the end that through that people all
the nations might be blessed. The uniqueness of the religion of Israel, of the
Covenant with Abraham, of the Law given through Moses, is affirmed again and
again: “God hath not dealt so with any nation.” To study the religion of Israel
in the light of comparative religion as though it were similar in kind to the
ethnic faiths, is to reject its most insistent claim—“All the gods of the
nations are idols (worthless things), but the Lord made the heavens.”
The
religion of Israel is represented as the religion of revelation. God has
revealed Himself in word and in deed. He has made known what man could not
discover; He has wrought wonders beyond the power of man. Miracle and prophecy
are, according to the Bible, signal proofs that God has manifested Himself. The
supernatural is of its very essence. A student who rejects the supernaturalism
of the Bible, treats its miracles as legend, and post-dates its prophecies or
reduces them to shrewd conjecture, is taking offence at what the Bible declares
to be, and what the Church in all ages has regarded as, a unique and convincing
proof that God has indeed revealed Himself.
Finally
the Bible is the story of redemption, of salvation from sin. John the Baptist
sums up the Gospel and also shows it to be the fulfilment of O.T. religion with
the words, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
The Old Testament plainly teaches that the priestly sacrifices of the Law were
divinely ordained; and the New Testament as plainly interprets them as
prophetic of and fulfilled in the Cross of Calvary. To treat the priestly
ritual as a survival of paganism and to affirm that it was repudiated by the
“great” prophets of Israel leads logically to the rejection of the Cross which
is the central fact of Christianity, God’s sovereign remedy for sin.
In one
of our great historic creeds the statement is made: “The infallible rule of
interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.” We need to remember this.
“God is His own interpreter.” If the Bible is the Word of God, it must be our
final authority; it cannot be correctly interpreted by any standards but its
own. If its human authors were inspired of God, God’s Spirit will enable us to
understand it aright, if we seek His guidance. To the wise of this world the
Bible is a book of riddles, sealed with seven seals. It tells of a divine
revelation, miraculously conveyed; they would have it speak of man’s eager
quest of truth and of his wonderful discoveries. It tells of God’s great
salvation for lost sinners; they would have it describe the development of
man’s religious nature and its limitless possibilities. In short the “modern”
student is trying to restate in terms of a more or less frankly naturalistic
evolution what the Bible states in terms of supernatural redemption. No wonder
the “modern” student finds contradictions in the Bible and has to tear it
chapter from chapter, verse from verse, and line from line, since he would so
completely change its message. But those who study it reverently as the Word of
God and seek the guidance of His Spirit will be more and more impressed with
the harmony and the heavenliness of its glorious message of redeeming love in
Jesus Christ our Lord.
THE SPIRIT OF ERROR
J.G. VOS
J.G. VOS
Error
is always with us. It assumes many forms and makes various appeals. The systems
of falsehood are almost without number. There are errors as old as the ages,
and there are errors of recent origin. Errors appear, disappear, and reappear,
while the truth of God abides continually. So sporadic, indeed, have been the
errors, and so constant is the truth, that some have concluded that all error,
because it is error, is about to die; and that all truth, because it is truth,
is sure to survive.
This
conclusion is certainly fallacious. It is true that error often dies, and that
the truth usually survives; but the error does not die because it is error, nor
the truth survive because it is truth. If error dies, it is because the Holy
Spirit has used means to cut it off. If the truth survives, it is because the
Holy Spirit has used means to ensure its survival is always with us. It assumes
many forms and makes various appeals. The systems of falsehood are almost
without number. There are errors as old as the ages, and there are errors of
recent origin. Errors appear, disappear, and reappear, while the truth of God
abides continually. So sporadic, indeed, have been the errors, and so constant
is the truth, that some have concluded that all error, because it is error, is
about to die; and that all truth, because it is truth, is sure to survive.
Error
will not die of itself, because the natural heart of man clings to it and loves
it better than the truth. Idolatry, the worship of that which is not God, is
almost as old as the race, and a large part of humanity still adheres to it,
for the worship of the things that are seen appeals to the natural man.
Christian Science, with its denial of the reality of sin, flatters the sinful
heart of man. The idea of salvation by works, by character, by ideals, etc.,
appeals to the pride of man and conveniently removes the stumbling block of the
cross of Jesus Christ. While the heart of man is what it is, these errors will
never die of themselves.
Error
will not die of itself, because Satan is actively engaged in its propagation.
He is the father of lies, and there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie,
he speaks of his own. Error traces its origin back to him, for he is a liar,
and the father of it (John viii. 44). Errors and heresies are not indifferent
things which come from nowhere; they are devised and propagated by the
arch-enemy of the human race.
If
error is to be overcome, it must be by active opposition on the part of those
who acknowledge the truth. Christians must witness for the whole of revealed
truth and oppose all contrary error. If we merely state the truth and neglect
to point out and oppose the contrary error, we are not faithful witnesses. It
is only as the truth is distinguished from error that its real character can be
shown. The notion that we can forget about the error and merely preach the
truth, that we can ignore “modernism” and meantime engage in “constructive”
Christian work, is tragically mistaken. No doubt God could accomplish his
purposes without using men as his instruments; no doubt he could bring about
the victory of the truth without using our testimony, but He has called us to
be his witnesses, and it is our duty to testify.
The
visible Christian Church is divinely appointed to bear a corporate witness to
revealed truth, and therefore also to discountenance error. Christian students
by their membership in the body of God’s witnessing people support the truth
and oppose error. In our day, however, great sections of the Christian Church
have abandoned their testimony to the truth and their opposition to error, and
other great sections seem about to do so. Doctrinal indifference is the first
step; open toleration of error is the consequence. On this account Christian
students should consider earnestly and carefully the question of their relation
to a particular branch of the Christian Church, for membership in a witnessing
church is itself a witnessing act, and membership in a church which tolerates
error involves, to some extent at least, a tacit approbation of such
toleration.
The
League of Evangelical Students is essentially a witnessing body. We declare
that we “bear united witness to the faith of students in the whole Bible as the
inspired Word of God,” (Constitution, Article II, Section i). Those only are
eligible for membership in the League who have “faith in the Bible as the
infallible Word of God” and who accept “the fundamental truths of the Christian
religion,” (Constitution, Article III, Section i). Let us not be ashamed of the
testimony of our Lord. Let us not fear the charge of intolerance. God has
commanded his people to witness for the truth, but he has never commanded them
to tolerate error. If we who have banded ourselves together into a League to
witness for the truth and against error, are on that account called narrow-minded,
bigoted, intolerant, or even unchristian, let us call to mind the words of the
Lord Jesus which are recorded in Matthew v. x I: “Blessed are ye when men shall
reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you
falsely, for my sake.”
No comments:
Post a Comment