Dr. William Hendriksen is professor of New Testament at Calvin
Theological Seminary. Prof. Hendriksen is in wide demand as a lecturer.
Also a prolific writer, his more important titles are More Than
Conquerors, a commentary on the book of Revelation, Bible Survey,
The Covenant of Grace, Sermon on the Mount, And So All Israel Shall
Be Saved. Dr. Hendriksen is at present preparing a commentary on
the Gospel of John for the forthcoming International Reformed Commentary
series.
I. A Dangerous Attack
Self-Contradictions In The Bible is the title of the book. Do
not ask me to tell you the name of the author or the name of the
publisher, for instead of mentioning one author and one publishing
house, I would have to list a score or more. In the course of history--particularly, the last century--ever so many books or pamphlets have
appeared bearing that title or a somewhat similar one.
In order to create a self-contradiction two passages with entirely
different contexts are placed next to each other; for example, Gen.
17:10 and Gal. 5: 2; or Mat. 5:16 and Mat. 6: 1; and the question
is asked: is it not clear that these texts contradict each other?
Does not the one institute circumcision while the other forbids
it? Does not the first tell us to "show off" with our good
works, while the second frowns upon this practice? Sometimes the
author fails to inform the reader that a seeming contradiction receives
a reasonable explanation by a reference to the original; for example,
Act. 9: 7; cf. Act. 22: 9. Then again the writer will become downright
foolish: for example, when, relying on the popularity of the Authorized
(or King James) Version, he asks us how anyone is able to believe
what is recorded in 2Ki. 19:35:
"And when they arose early in the morning, behold they were all
dead corpses." A mere glance at the preceding context (or else a
comparison with the translation as given in the American Standard
Version) clears up that kind of difficulty.
Let us not say that attacks of this kind are unharmful. They
are definitely dangerous, especially for those who lack a thorough
knowledge of Scripture and a heart that is ready to take God at
his word.
II. A More Dangerous Attack
The kind of attack which I am now going to describe is more dangerous
because it is more subtle. The author of the pamphlet which is lying
on my desk begins by affirming that he loves the Bible and resents
every attack upon it. He regards it as one of his cherished possessions.
We begin to feel that this is our man, and that we shall be richly
rewarded by reading what he has to tell us. But as soon as he has
gained our confidence, he springs his surprise: he informs us that
he is not going to deny that the traditional view of the inspiration
of Scripture could be correct, but. after all, are we not ready
to agree with him that it is somewhat static? By contrast, his own
theory is "dynamic, living, and growing." Is the Bible the Word
of God? Surely. let no one deny it; but it is not the only Word
of God. Natural Science, too, is a Word of God, equal in importance
to the Bible. Has it not given us the glorious doctrine of Evolution?
The Word of God, he concludes, is really never finished: "each age,
each kindred, adds a verse to it."
Subtle is also the attack upon the Bible by men such as Barth
and Brunner. I once heard a Barthian deliver a lecturer on The Infallibility
of the Word of God. However, let not this phrase deceive you. In
the camp of the Barthians infallibility is affirmed only of the
message which the Holy Spirit brings home to the believer. That
book, as it lies there, is not infallible. H. Roiston in A Conservative
Looks To Barth and Brunner, pp. 97, 98, states:
"The freedom in the attitude toward Scripture taken by many members
of the Barthian school is apt to strike at the very heart of the
message of the Bible. Between such an attitude and the attitude of
the Reformers there is a chasm as deep as the sea."
And then there is the attack by the Dispensationalist. This,
too, I call an attack. It is true that the men of this school of
thought loudly proclaim that they accept Scripture from cover to
cover as being thoroughly inspired. The only trouble is that they
regard a very large portion of it as being without any normative
significance for the church of the present day. They try to justify
their position by a most peculiar appeal to 2Ti. 2:15, Authorized
Version: "rightly dividing the word of truth." And so they
begin to divide. The "pieces" fly in every direction, especially
in the direction of the Jews, whom they love very dearly. So Israel
gets the biggest part of the Bible, and aside from the Pauline epistles,
very little is left for you and me. Now, whether one says: this
part of the Bible is not inspired, or: it is not for us, makes little
difference. The practical result is about the same. Yes, Dispensationalism
is dangerous, and we should oppose it with every legitimate weapon.
III. Possibly The Most Dangerous Attack
"Most dangerous," because seemingly it is not an attack at all,
and yet, in reality, it is. I have reference now to the man who
affirms that he subscribes completely to the Reformed view of the
infallibility and inspiration of Scripture but who does not even
try to make a real study of Scripture. He is ever ready to make
use of such terms as "biblicist" in characterizing the views of
those who earnestly endeavor to make a careful, painstaking, exegetical
study of the Bible.
He confesses that he believes in Scripture...but he goes all
out in support of the Democratic Party, the New Deal, the Fair Deal,
or, perhaps, the Republican Party. and he does this without ever
showing that this or that political philosophy or lack of any political
philosophy is in harmony with the prevailing teachings of Scripture!
By his silence about Scripture, a silence evident too often, he
attacks it and undermines its authority.
Again, he confesses that he believes in the inerrancy of Scripture..
. but he refuses to give his employer an honest day's labor, or,
perhaps, he pays his employees starvation wages. He never even tries
to be guided by the light which Holy Writ sheds on the question
of our social, economic, or political responsibilities.
That is what is wrong with us: we have failed in too many instances
to begin at the beginning: we have too often neglected to construct
a philosophy of life on the basis of a careful and penetrating exegetical
study of the Word of God. We have all too frequently welcomed whatever
is new -- for example, some novel theory that is in conflict with
this or that article of our confession -- we have hailed it as if
it were the quintessence of real "scholarship." In the meantime
we ignored the old, tried and tested. With what enthusiasm do not
some turn to Barth and Brunner, while they know next to nothing
about Kuyper or Bavinck or Warfield.
A return to the Word of God, to our confessions, to what is best
in Reformed literature, is what we need. Not until we do this shall
we be able to convince the best and more stable portion of our constituency
that our views on any burning issue are correct. May God's Spirit
help us to do just that.
