The Nature Of Scripture
Biblical Authority, edited by Jack Rogers (Word, 1977, 196 pp., $6.95, $4.50 pb), is reviewed by Norman L. Geisler, professor of philosophy of religion, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.
Seven scholars here respond to Harold Lindsell’s Battle for the Bible. In the foreword, Paul Rees claims that what is at issue “is not evangelical commitment but evangelical comprehension.” Many who defend the inerrancy of Scripture, he charges, “are hard put to show wherein their positions differ practically from the dictation formula they repudiate.” With regard to Lindsell’s claim of “total inerrancy that extends to the minutiae of chronology or geography or grammar” Rees gives a resounding “No.” He feels that the discussion occasioned by Lindsell’s book “threatens to create a serious cleavage in the evangelical community.”
Jack Rogers of Fuller Seminary rethinks the history of Christianity and concludes that, apart from the unwholesome influence of Aristotelian-scholastic philosophy, which allegedly came into Protestantism via Turretin, there is no support for the classical doctrine of inerrancy. According to Rogers, even the great Christian thinker Augustine believed that “the Holy Spirit had ‘permitted’ one of the Scripture writers to compose something at variance from what another biblical author had written.” And contrary to the claim of a scientifically errorless Bible, Rogers maintains that “for Augustine, Scripture was not a textbook of science.” The great Reformer Luther did not accept the inerrancy of Scripture, says Rogers: “for him, Christ alone was without error and was the essential Word of God.” It may also come as a surprise to many Calvin scholars to hear that this great Reformer neither believed in the inerrancy of every word of Scripture nor thought “that the Bible’s teaching had to be harmonized with science.” Not until what Rogers calls “post-Reformation scholasticism,” especially Turretin, did the doctrine of inerrancy emerge. At this point some Protestants adopted a thomistic “natural theology” and the belief in “rationally demonstrable external evidence of the Bible’s authority.” Before this, according to Rogers, the internal testimony of the Spirit was the basis for belief in the authority of Scripture. Rogers agrees that Scripture is “not to be used as a source of information in the sciences.” This post-Reformation scholastic doctrine of inerrancy with its concomitant rational and evidential apologetic was, according to Rogers, unfortunately adopted by the old Princeton theologians Hodge and Warfield. According to Rogers, Briggs, who opposed Warfield’s belief in inerrancy, “was historically correct in claiming that the Institutio of Francis Turretin has become the textbook at Princeton and that the Westminster Divines were ignored.” Rogers cites James Orr, Herman Bavinck, and Abraham Kuyper as men who did not hold to inerrancy. He quotes Bavinck as saying, “Historical, chronological and geographical data are never in themselves the object of the witness of the Holy Spirit.”
The sharp edge of Rogers’s sword is felt most in his conclusions. Of Lindsell he says, “It is historically irresponsible to claim that for two thousand years Christians have believed that the authority of the Bible entails a modern concept of inerrancy in scientific and historical details.” He accuses John Gerstner of being “equally irresponsible” in saying “that the old Princeton theology of Alexander, Hodge, and Warfield is the only legitimate evangelical, or Reformed, theological tradition in America.” Rogers chastises Francis Schaeffer for his demand for reasons prior to faith and for “a prior commitment to Aristotelian philosophy.” Pleading against the use of the word “inerrancy,” Rogers concludes, “We are called, not to argue Scripture’s scientific accuracy but to accept its saving message.”
In the third chapter Clark Pinnock, an alleged believer in inerrancy, makes a passionate plea to avoid the extremes of liberalism, neo-reformationalism, and the hyperfundamental “veneration for the divine authority of scripture.” He claims it is an “overbelief” to “identify God’s Word with the words of the Bible.” Pinnock too repudiates the Warfieldian approach to inerrancy. In an apparent change of position, Pinnock no longer holds that inerrancy refers to the autographs. In view of his admission that the copies do have errors, it seems strange that Pinnock wishes to claim that the Bible is still “inerrant.” Further, Pinnock claims that inerrancy is not a logical corollary of inspiration because “God uses fallible spokesmen all the time to deliver his word.” Likewise, Pinnock repudiates the belief that inerrancy is the necessary foundation for epistemology, calling such a belief an example of the “fortress mentality.” Likewise, Lindsell’s claim that “biblical inerrancy is the only sure bulwark against apostasy” is rejected as a “gross overstatement.” Neither is inerrancy theologically decisive for Pinnock. He claims, “Minute inerrancy may be a central issue for the telephone book but not for psalms, proverbs, apocalyptic, and parables.” Pinnock implies that belief in inerrancy of detail is possible only for those, like Warfield, who do not take the difficulties of the Bible seriously. In short “the Warfieldian theory of perfect errorlessness” is not the “evangelical badge” Lindsell claimed, says Pinnock. Another noticeable shift to a more subjective and experiential apologetic emerges in his conclusion that “the moving of the Spirit accomplishes more on behalf of biblical authority than all the arguments of conservative evangelicals ever could.” It is questionable whether such a disjunction of God and reason is legitimate.
Berkeley Mickelsen of Bethel Seminary attempts a survey of the Bible’s view of its own authority. He argues that one must begin inductively with the text of Scripture and not abstractly with any definition of authority. “Doctrinal statements … cannot be final.” Mickelsen claims that “the authority to which we go is still God and his Word, the Bible.” This raises a perplexing question as to how one would get to God apart from his Word. Are there other sources of revelation for us today? According to Mickelsen, “the things revealed are found in the words of the law” (this is in apparent contrast to the view reflected in First Corinthians 2:13 that it is words themselves that are revealed by God). He claims that “revelation involves truths about God” (in apparent contrast to the view indicated in John 17:7 that verbal revelation is the truth about God). Mickelsen believes that attempts to reconcile some apparent contradictions (which utilize the law of non-contradiction) are a “form of rationalization.” He believes that “instead of discussing what the Bible does not do (i. e., ‘have any errors’) we need to concentrate on the positive note. The Bible teaches truth.” One wonders what this will accomplish, for surely if the Bible teaches only truth, then it must be without error and we are right back to an inerrant Scripture—unless Mickelsen means to deny that the Bible teaches only truth. If the Bible teaches some error, then of course it is not errorless. Other ambiguous statements by Mickelsen are his claim that “biblical authority rises out of a unique series of relationships” and that “authority is felt and perceived in dialogue, by in-depth person-to-person communication.” This all sounds very subjective and existential. In surveying the biblical data on authority Mickelsen concludes that “the highest view of authority in the Bible is obedience surrounded by love.” The problem as he sees it with those on the other side of “the battle for the Bible” is a “printing press mentality” in which God’s authority is identified with the written Word. Rather, when we look “at the contents of the Bible, we sense authority as we perceive the interaction of God with his chosen servants.… The various linguistic expressions and categories highlight this interaction.” To my mind, this view is not perceptibly different from the neo-orthodox assertion that the Bible is not a propositional revelation but a record of the personal revelation of God with men.
Bernard Ramm’s response to Lindsell is to attack the premise that his “doctrine of Scripture is the essence of Christianity.” This claim is a theological oddity, says Ramm, because: (1) it reduces to a small group those who are true to Christianity; (2) it is contrary to the teaching of the Reformers; (3) God’s acts in history preceded their being written; (4) one would have to conclude that some cults are orthodox since they hold this inerrant view of Scripture; (5) the use of Scripture is more important than the theory of Scripture; and (6) it emerges from a “Bible-only” mentality that makes “the record of revelation more primordial than the original revelation.” Even if we overlook some questionable assumptions in Ramm’s arguments, they seem to be directed against a straw man. What evangelical—surely not Lindsell—believes that the Bible is the “essence of Christianity”? Many hold the Reformers’ view that “justification by faith alone” is the material principle of Christianity and that “the Scriptures alone” is the formal principle. But this is not to say that the Bible is the essence of Christianity. Ramm pleads for a broader view of revelation that includes the Bible as well as tradition, claiming that the “sola scriptura of the Reformers did not mean a total rejection of tradition.” Ramm implies that some evangelicals use Scripture as the only test for truth in all areas in such a way that they idolize Scripture and make it what Emil Brunner called a “paper pope.” However, by the same kind of argument would not Ramm have to conclude that one who uses the logical law of non-contradiction to assess all truth has made logic the essence of his faith? Does Ramm, like many existentialists, wish to give up this law of logic as a sine qua non of truth?
Earl Palmer in his chapter attempts to show how the Bible ought to function as an authority over experience, visions, and the like. With few exceptions the chapter seemed to fit better the other side of the “battle.” He argues against basing one’s faith on a “mystical Christ” apart from the concrete Christ of history. He warns against using visions as a source of our message and holds to the inspiration of the written Word. Palmer then offers a brief series of principles of interpretation to enable one to understand God’s authoritative Word and apply it to our lives. One would question what he means when he says the Bible “receives its authority in borrowed fashion from its center, who is Jesus Christ.” Does not the Bible receive its authority from the Spirit of God who inspired it? Was not Christ’s role one of confirming this authority to us (e.g., Matt. 5:17) and conveying the Father to us (e.g., Luke 24:27, 44)?
In the last chapter David Hubbard, Fuller Seminary’s president, offers “a way out” of the current “battle.” In essence his solution is to reject the classical Hodge-Warfield view that all parts of Scripture are inspired. Hubbard praises Rogers’s view of the history of biblical authority. Like others, Hubbard holds to an experiential test for truth based on “the inner witness of the Spirit as the chief evidence of the Bible’s inspiration and authority.” He finds it unnecessary “to try to harmonize all biblical statements with each other and with the result of scientific and archeological discovery.” Hubbard seems to go much beyond the evidence when he claims that defending literal inerrancy “may lead to a collapse of trust in the gospel itself.” Likewise, he wrongly blames the Lindsellian view of inerrancy for leading to neglect of major theological themes and for occasioning allegorical interpretations of Scripture. Hubbard denies that Genesis gives us an “academic account of our beginnings. They are a powerful sermon (almost a song) that celebrates God’s power and glory.” The Gospel must not be read as we read the newspaper (historically?), he says. Hubbard salutes but refuses to canonize Warfield’s view of inerrancy: “we can seek a better approach to leave with our children.”
Hubbard’s “way out” of the problem is to go back to the Reformation view of the subjective “internal testimony of the spirit” to the “self-authenticating power of the Word.” He does not tell us how we will maintain evangelical Christianity against the Mormon view of the self-authenticating witness of God for the Book of Mormon and other such fideistic claims.
Hubbard, Rogers, and Mickelsen have a distaste for evidential and rational apologetics, which they stereotype as “aristotelian,” “scholastic,” or “thomistic.” At times their overreaction to these “systems” seems to lead them dangerously close to denying the very laws of logic common to all “systems,” including their own. Hubbard at one point yields to the temptation warned against by his colleague, becomes very a priori, and legislates that “error theologically must mean that which leads us astray from the will of God or the knowledge of his truth.”
Like others, Hubbard admits that the Bible may err on “minute details of chronology, geography, history, or cosmology,” but nowhere does he prove there are such errors, nor are we told how to distinguish a minor error in history and science from a major one. Hubbard makes the errancy view even clearer when he says, “Scripture is not a collection of infallible rules …; proverbs used for raising children in an ancient society are not automatically binding on Christian youth today.… Psalms may not always be reproduced in the lives of God’s people.”
Hubbard concludes with a plea for a fresh interpretation of Scripture, which he briefly attempts on some crucial texts. He admits that “Jesus and the Jews shared a high view of the divine character of the Old Testament” as shown in John 10:34–36 and Matthew 5:17, but he strangely concludes that “we seem to get no help from this passage for our basic question: the definition of inerrancy”! The same is true, in his opinion, of Second Timothy 3:16, 17 and Second Peter 1:20, 21. What Hubbard is certain about is that we must maintain an openness to this kind of “biblical scholarship along with fresh exegesis.” His exhortation to be “aware today of the dangers of imposing a philosophy on the Scripture” is well spoken but not so well practiced, inasmuch as, in my opinion, at least, he himself has not avoided imposing critical and existential philosophies on his understanding of Scripture.
Overall the book is a helpful contribution to the task of clarifying essential differences on this crucial doctrine. It is a plea for continuing to use the term “evangelical” to include those who believe the Bible does contain “minor” factual errors and a plea not to divide Christians over this issue. The opponents are sure to ask: “Is this a plea for peace at any price—even the price of truth?” Some may agree with the late Edward John Carnell, “It is better to be divided by truth than to be united by error.” At any rate, let us continue the discussion; the nature of Scripture is certainly fundamental Christian doctrine.
A Pastor Fights Demons
Battling the Hosts of Hell: Diary of an Exorcist, by Win Worley (New Leaf, 1977, 244 pp., $2.95 pb), is reviewed by Lila Wistrand-Robinson, linguistic consultant, Topeka, Kansas.
In a manner that will bring either shock or disbelief to the ordinary evangelical, Win Worley recounts his experiences during the three years when he went from an orthodox, fundamentalist Baptist ministry to a charismatic ministry with rather frequent encounters with demonism. Part one consists of actual diary sketches, written after memorable occasions of exorcism that interrupted the author’s busy schedule as full-time public school teacher and pastor. Part two amplifies on his ministry of delivering individuals from evil spirits through the name of Jesus Christ. Part three, a most interesting section, gives testimonies of sixteen people delivered from many types of evil spirits through Worley’s ministry. Part four further explains this type of ministry.
The violent, loud, blasphemous actions of people under demonic attack that are described in this book are typical descriptions of demon activity as given in the book and movie The Exorcist. They also correspond to events told by missionaries from all parts of the world where exorcism is practiced. In any language or culture the symptoms are of the same general form as described by Worley. Missionaries and pastors who have dealt with demon-attacked individuals are acquainted with the violence and dangers that may accompany the spiritual battle of exorcism.
The majority of evangelicals have never observed exorcism, nor have they recognized overt demonic activity; that is, demons speaking as demons through the human agent. A missionary in a Mexican Indian village states that though all Indian children are dedicated to the devil in that village, and that the devil is regularly given offerings of appeasement, satanic activity is usually covert rather than overt, because it is not openly challenged by Christian forces. Only when strongly challenged in the name of Christ, or when meeting Christian forces in some manner, does the demon speak through the human medium.
Filmstrips
Here is the tool that many have been waiting for. In simple, but not simplistic language, with realistic, informal dialog, and with interesting pictures and collages, a series of four filmstrips presents a carefully orchestrated approach to evangelism. The Touch of His Hand is produced by World Home Bible League (16801 Van Dam Rd., South Holland, IL 60473). Included is a teacher’s manual, which makes unusually effective use of the filmstrips themselves, a take-home study, and the offer of home Bible correspondence courses. The general approach will be appreciated most by those who adhere to classical orthodoxy.
Mission agencies generally produce filmstrips not to sell but as aids to raising funds. Not Innocent, But Forgiven by The Evangelical Alliance Mission (Box 969, Wheaton, IL 60187) is a superior production. Longer than the typical filmstrip, it is about the ministry of TEAM in Irian Jaya, the Indonesian portion of New Guinea. It includes a very good interaction with contemporary theories of primitive cultures.
The Good News for New Readers program of the American Bible Society (1865 Broadway. New York. NY 10023) is described in So That They May Know. Mass literacy movements around the world have greatly increased the demand for literature, and the creation of simplified Scripture portions seeks to meet this need. Focusing on Latin America, Lives Filled With His Love shows the success of the Good
News for New Readers program, and notes the variety of government incentives to facilitate the distribution of simplified Scripture portions. While understandably accentuating the work of the ABS There Is Always Time is a compendium of ways to hand out Scripture that will spark the evangelistic imagination. This filmstrip will enhance any evangelistic endeavor.
The Churches in the 70’s succinctly grasps the genius of seven varieties of Christians (Eastern Orthodox. Roman Catholic, Lutheran. Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, and Baptist) and the nuances of their differences. The two filmstrips uncritically assume the framework of ecumenism to be the World Council of Churches. The text presents each variety in its traditional sense, rather than focusing on extremes. The photos and sound successfully capture the spirit of each church. The producer is Alba House (Canfield, OH 44406). From the same producer comes Friendship With God subtitled “The Catholic Message for a Contemporary World.” There is no doubt that the Roman Catholic Church in all its myriad parties is both in ferment and renewal. This film portrays the contemporary side of traditional Catholicism and its teaching. Photos reveal the pervasive influence of Protestantism: one sees a neon “Jesus Saves” sign and a girl hugging her Living Bible.
DALE SANDERS
Portland, Oregon
Why is it that Worley sees demon activity regularly and other pastors go through a lifetime of service without consciously recognizing demon activity or demon voices? Is it because Worley lives in a more wicked city than other pastors? Certainly the devil does not restrict his activity to particular large cities as in the metropolitan Chicago area of Worley’s church. The author implies that when a pastor learns to recognize the source of all hatred and enslavement—the devil himself—he will not stand helpless, as so many do today in the face of drug addiction, divorce, parental rejection, sexual sins, and other problems that are handed over to the psychologists or psychiatrists, who have now given even obvious demon possession a technical name. Aside from purely physiological causes, Worley says that the basic cause of all these problems is spiritual, and the counselor who refuses to accept this limits his ability to aid the troubled person. The world exerts pressure, the flesh responds, but the root of the problem is the devil. In Genesis 3, the fruit looked good and the flesh wanted it, but Satan was the one urging and arguing for breaking God’s clear ruling. Demons are his emissaries.
Two matters in this book will especially shock an evangelical: (1) that born-again believers are said to be inhabited by demons, and (2) that this type of ministry should characterize the Church when the noise and confusion appear to contradict the command to do all things “in decency and in order.” It is generally taught that when the Holy Spirit comes in through salvation (or subsequent to salvation, depending on one’s persuasion) he takes over and the individual cannot be indwelt by demons, temporarily or permanently. Repeatedly, individuals in this book say that they were attacked by demons, at times as many as thirty or forty of them, following their salvation experience, implying that at salvation these demons did not automatically leave. Worley is very careful to say that the believers are not possessed by demons, drawing a distinction between possession and temporary oppression. We are commanded to be “filled with the Spirit.” This has ordinarily been taken to mean an emptying of self-will and self-desire, with a submission to what God would have the believer say and do and be. Worley suggests that we have neglected the fact that, to be filled with the Holy Spirit, we must not only be empty of self but also of demons and demonic power over which the self has no conscious control. We have taken for granted that an intrinsic tenet of salvation is release from the power of sin and Satan, immediate and complete. Then why do so many professed believers fall into deep sin? We are told to reckon ourselves dead to sin, a definite decision of the will and of the mind. Then why must some outsider exorcise a Christian? Why can’t a person exorcise himself? Because “reckoning oneself dead to sin” is a matter of dealing with conscious types of sin. In demon activity no amount of conscious will can control what the demon will do when he takes control. Worley mentions the use of tongues in his exorcisms. Those opposed to glossalalia will probably be upset by this, but should not write him off completely.
A forthcoming sequel to Worley’s first book will be Conquering the Hosts of Hell-An Open Triumph. A missionary in Brazil practices exorcism without the noise and confusion of wrestling with the demons Worley reports. Following many violent battles and tumultous exorcisms, this missionary suffered a heart attack, which left him incapable of such violence. Now he speaks to the demons without touching the suffering person. Contrary to Worley’s belief, this missionary does not accept what he calls the “demons-in-believers heresy.” He feels that once Christ comes in, light casts out darkness.
In this day when weird, satanic movies are increasing on the market, and when witchcraft and devil worship are becoming more prominent, Worley’s book is timely. Christians, and pastors especially, must recognize that in propagating the Gospel we are battling the hosts of hell. Just as hosts of angels are on our side to protect and to aid in the battle, hosts of demons are unwilling to give ground unless actively opposed in Christ’s name.
Religion’S Role In Culture
Contemporary Transformations of Religion, by Bryan Wilson (Oxford, 1976, 116 pp., $6.50), is reviewed by Kenneth Zaretzke, Issaquah, Washington.
Here is a brief, accurate, and unusually clear and articulate discussion of the topic, though it is a little light on theory. According to the author, religion is transformed as society becomes dominated by technology and rational planning. Sociologists call it secularization. A community declines and relationships, defined by what people do rather than by who people are, become impersonal. Where this happens, the need for religion naturally declines. Personal styles no longer affect social structure.
In the process of secularization the problem is not so much that religion is challenged as that its values are difficult to apply in impersonal societies that are undergoing rapid social change. Although Wilson doesn’t come out and say it that way, traditional Christianity in particular just doesn’t fit into the technological order of things: secularism today has all the horses and all the king’s men.
Against this predominantly secular transformation of religion, such cults as Scientology, Hare Krishna, Children of God—and more recently in the “human potential” field—Transactional Analysis, Esalen Institute (the most sophisticated of them all; see George Leonard’s The Transformation), est, and TM have sprung up because of the deepest needs of people. These cults are “transient and volatile.” They “tell us that living in secular society is painful, and they intimate modern man’s permanent condition of bereavement at the loss of community. But they do not provide the basis for a new religious culture.”
Why is this so? The cults break away from tradition, which is often seen in the newer cults as a barrier to self-fulfillment. What the individual wants is the only consideration. The new cults cannot transform or renew society because their adherents consciously or unconsciously oppose culture. It does not necessarily follow, says Wilson, that if individuals only find themselves, society will somehow come into its own. (T.S. Eliot uses a similar argument in “The Idea of a Christian Society.”) Because of this, one cannot just recognize any event as genuinely religious. “Unlike some sociologists,” says Wilson, “I do not regard the Rolling Stones, because of the enthusiasm they engender, as the modern-day equivalents of Moody and Sanky.”
From a sociological perspective religions are always dying. But there is much to commend Wilson’s conclusion that “In the modern world it is not clear that they have any prospect of rebirth.” Today Christianity is becoming more individualistic, with socially marginal forms. Wilson may be right when he concludes that an integrated, religiously-informed culture is a thing of the past.
Briefly Noted
COPING WITH SINGLENESS. Singles are getting more attention as they voice their special needs and churches realize how overlooked this group has been. One out of every three American adults is a single—never married, separated or divorced, or widowed. Woman Alone: Confident and Creative (Broadman, 151 pp., $3.25 pb) by Sarah Frances Anders, a single herself, points out the myths surrounding the single woman in a “paired society” and gives a statistical description of single women in the U.S. Another single, James E. Towns, has written One Is Not A Lonely Number (Crescendo [Box 28218, Dallas, TX 75228], 125 pp., $1.95 pb). Towns discusses the identity crises of singles and includes sections on being a single parent, handling finances, and planning a church curriculum. An amusing, easy reading paperback, Old Maid Is A Dirty Word (Campus Crusade for Christ, 59 pp., n. p., pb) by Judy Downs Douglas is full of deep insights and illustrates the frustrations of the never-married.
