Contemporary Problems in Biblical InterpretationPart I:

Is the Bible the Inspired Word of God?

[Editors Note: This article is the first in a series on the general subject, Contemporary
Problems in Biblical Interpretation.]
The Bible has always occupied the central place in the Christian faith. From the time of the
writing of the first books of the Old Testament in the days of Moses until modern times the Holy
Scriptures have been regarded by all Christian theologians as the unique and incomparable Word
of God. According to Murray: Christians of varied and diverse theological standpoints aver that
the Bible is the Word of God, that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it occupies a unique
place as the norm of Christian faith and life.1 More books have been written and more has been
said about the Bible than any other book in all the world. Though sometimes neglected and the
object of constant attack, the Scriptures today continue to be read and believed more than any
other writing coming from the pens of men.
Modern Questions about the Bible
Contemporary Biblical interpretation, however, makes plain that there are many problems in
receiving the Bible as the Word of God. In the twentieth century more than any previous period
of the Christian era there is a rising tide of unbelief and rejection of the authority of Scripture.
For sincere Christians who realize that their own faith in God and their joyous hope of the future
is vitally related to Scripture there is the demand to re-examine the claims of the Scriptures and
to determine, at least for their own satisfaction, whether God has spoken authoritatively in His
Word. Rival claims of the Roman Catholic Church for final authority in matters of faith, the
beliefs of non-Christian religions, and the conclusions of various national systems of thought
tend to oppose the authority of Scripture. As Bernard Ramm states in beginning his study on
authority: The concept of authority has become one of the most controversial notions of modern
times.2 In this study a careful distinction must be observed between various aspects of Biblical
investigation. One of the primary questions is, What is the Bible? or the question of canonicity.
The unique place of the sixty-six books of the Bible is being challenged today and the
Apocryphal books formerly rejected are being included in the new edition of the Revised
Standard Version of the Bible.3
Another vital question is whether the Bible is actually the inspired Word of God. In other words,
when the Bible speaks can we accept the words of Scripture as having infallible, divine
authority? A further question arises if it is determined that the Bible is inspired. If the Bible is
indeed Gods Word, how shall it be interpreted and how shall its revelation be understood?
Historically, all errors in the Christian faith and every departure from divine truth has originated
in the answers to these three important questions. Obviously, the first two questions are the most
vital. Is our Bible of sixty-six books the inspired Word of God? If so, what do we mean by this
affirmation of faith? As Loraine Boettner writes: The answer that we are to give to the question
What is Christianity? depends quite largely on the view we take of Scripture.4
The Meaning of Inspiration
Much of the modern confusion about the inspiration of the Bible stems from misconceptions of
the word inspiration itself. The English word inspiration, derived from the Latin word inspiratio,
refers to the act of breathing in, specifically, the drawing of air into the lungs.5 As
commonly used, however, it refers to the stimulus of the intellect or emotions from some
experience from without and in this sense one might properly speak of an inspiring sunset. As
used in reference to the Bible, however, inspiration has quite a different meaning. As defined by
Webster, inspiration is a supernatural divine influence on the prophets, apostles, or sacred
writers, by which they were qualified to communicate truth without error; a supernatural
influence which qualifies men to receive and communicate divine truth.6 Even this definition
contains only part of the full meaning of inspiration of the Scriptures.
The Bible itself seldom uses the word inspiration, the English word occurring only twice in the
entire Authorized Version of the Bible (Job 32:8; 2 Tim 3:16), and it is questionable whether
either of these references are correctly translated. A careful study of 2 Timothy 3:16, however, is
most rewarding in introducing us to the precise teaching of the Bible on inspiration.
As translated in 2 Timothy 3:16 in the Authorized Version the statement is made: All scripture
is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness. Though there has been some debate on the meaning of the phrase
all scripture, the preceding verse referring as it does to the holy scriptures, gives us an
important lead. It makes plain that verse 16 is not referring to all writings, but rather to those
regarded as the Word of God, such as the Old Testament Scriptures and those portions of the
New Testament which had been written at that time. Such Scriptures are declared to be given by
inspiration of God.
Translators have had considerable difficulty in expressing precisely the thought of the Greek
text, due partly to omission of the verb, and this is illustrated in the various ways in which this
phrase is translated. The American Standard Version translates the first phrase, every scripture
inspired of God. The Revised Standard Version and the Berkeley Version return essentially to
the authorized translation and render this phrase, All scripture is inspired by God. Actually
none of these translations capture the precise thought of the Greek New Testament and follow
the Latin Vulgate instead of the Greek New Testament. What the Greek states, if the verb be
supplied, is, All Scripture is God-breathed (Greek, theopneustos). Though this is not
recognized in any popular translation, it is essentially what is suggested in Youngs Literal
Translation of the Holy Bible, Every Writing is God-breathed, and is according to the
suggestion of B. B. Warfield, Every Scripture seeing that it is God-breathed.7 This Scripture
does not teach, then, that God breathed into the authors, but rather that the product, the Holy
Scriptures, is that which God has breathed out.
As Warfield explains in supporting his translation: The Greek term has, however, nothing to say
of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of a spiring or spiration. What it says of Scripture
is, not that it is breathed into by God or is the product of the Divine inbreathing into its
human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, God-breathed, the product of the creative
breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the
Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indication of how God has operated in producing
them.8
Second Timothy 3:16 is therefore a flat affirmation that the Bible in distinction to all other
literary works is a product of divine power and intelligent will. The Bible is the breath of God,
an Old Testament expression translated usually as equivalent to the Word of God (cf. Ps 33:6).
It is fair to conclude that the Scriptures claim inspiration, that is, that the writings of the Bible are
the product of divine power and therefore carry divine authority.
The Mode of Divine Inspiration
The mode of divine inspiration like many other operations of God is not precisely defined in the
Bible. Though in some instances dictation is the rule, as in the Ten Commandments, in other
cases Scripture is produced without direct dictation. accomplished. A brief survey of the various
theories of inspiration will illustrate the extent of this problem.9
Theories of Inspiration
Natural inspiration. Among extreme liberal interpreters of Scripture the Bible is regarded as a
purely natural book written by human authors endowed with no special gifts or supernatural
ability who wrote using their normal and natural intelligence. From this point of view the Bible
is regarded as no different than any other book, and is unusual but only a human product. In
effect, this view denies completely any inspiration of the Scripture and of course removes any
supernatural element such as would be required in direct revelation of God of any facts of the
past, present, and future which are not normally open to the discovery of man. If this theory is
correct, the Bible has no more authority than any other book. This view is held by non-
Christians.
Mystical or dynamic inspiration. This view is one step removed from a purely natural origination
of the Bible and views the author of Scripture as being especially empowered for his task by God
much as any work or service for God is accomplished by divine enablement. The human authors
were under this theory enabled to do their very best and possessed some measure of divine power
in achieving their task. Adherents of this view are not all agreed as to the extent of this divine
enablement, whether it is supernatural or whether it determined the actual text of Scripture. The
Scriptures produced according to this view, however, are no more authoritative than a well-
delivered sermon, and the resultant text of Scripture falls short of bearing the imprint of divine
authority or infallibility.
Concept theory. In an effort to avoid the difficulties of claiming actual inspiration of the very
words of Scripture, some have resorted to the concept theory, namely, that God gave to the
writers of Scripture the ideas, some of them of supernatural origin which would otherwise have
been unknown to human intelligence. The authors incorporated these ideas in their own words.
The resulting Scripture, however, is no more than a record of their experience of this divine
revelation. It may be postulated under this point of view that the revelation as received by the
writer had the authority and accuracy which one would expect of divine revelation, but its
embodiment in the words of the author inevitably carried with it a lack of complete
comprehension and contains inevitable coloring by the authors perspective and environment.
Though the ideas are inspired, therefore, the words are not. Under this interpretation the
Scriptures fall short of verbal infallibility, and the appeal to particular words and expressions as
being the precise revelation of God is therefore unjustified. In the end, the Bible according to this
theory is still a fallible book.
Degrees of inspiration. Some have attempted to explain the inspiration of the Bible as being
subject to degrees; that is, certain portions of the Bible, particularly moral areas, have supreme
revelation, whereas others dealing with history, creation, and prophecy have only relative
inspiration. Under this theory, portions of Scripture which have to do with our relationship to
God are authoritative, but other portions may not be. The weakness of this point of view, of
course, is its subjective character, namely, that no two will be of one mind on the degree of the
inspiration of any particular passage. The ultimate judgment is transferred from the statement of
Scripture to the decision of the reader. A variation of this point of view is the moral or partial-
inspiration theory which holds that parts of the Bible are inspired, but others are not. Scripture
from this point of view is considered authoritative in matters of morals, but not in scientific
matters. Here again, the interpreter is faced with the impossible task of distinguishing what
portions of Scripture are inspired and what are not, and the ultimate authority rests in the opinion
of the reader and not in the Scripture itself.
The mechanical or dictation theory. The most extreme of conservative views of inspiration is the
theory that all parts of the Bible were dictated by God and that the human authors were no more
than stenographers. This view was held by some in the early church, is said to be the view of
some of the Protestant Reformers, and is commonly represented by liberal opponents of
inspiration as the view held today by orthodox and conservative Biblical interpreters. Floyd
Filson for instance in analyzing the conservative point of view contends that only two possible
views of inspiration can be held, that the Bible is either the subject of absolute divine dictation or
is a human product.10 He further holds that the human origin makes inevitable that the Bible
contains many errors. Filson states in regard to the human factor that the canon so plainly
exhibits this factor that any theory of inerrancy is a strained and misleading way of expressing
the rich and continual effectiveness of the Bible.11
Some of the confusion on the proper theory of inspiration stems from the strong language used
by the Reformers in claiming inspiration. John Calvin, for instance, flatly affirmed the dictation
of the Scripture. Kenneth Kantzer in his discussion on Calvin cites Calvins statement that the
Holy Spirit dictated to the prophets and apostles and Calvins description of writers of Scripture
as clerks and penmen as supporting this idea.12 In his other writings, however, Calvin freely
admits the human element.13 What Calvin was actually affirming was infallibility rather than
dictation in the absolute sense.
It is obvious from Scripture that certain portions of the Bible claim to be dictated (cf. Exod 20:1-
17). On the other hand, most of the Bible could not have been dictated according to the record
itself for it embodies the prayers, feelings, fears, and hopes of the individual who wrote that
portion of Scripture. Such passages as Pauls expression of his sorrow for Israel (Rom 9:1-3) or
Davids prayer of confession in Psalm 51 would lose all meaning if they were dictated by
another. Many of the psalms are obviously the heartcry of a psalmist in distress, in joy, or
sorrow, in fear or hope.
Because of these obvious human factors in the Bible, even among orthodox Christians there is
little support for the mechanical or dictation theory today. Liberals who accuse conservatives of
holding this position today are either ignorant of what contemporary conservatives actually
believe or are willfully misrepresenting the situation. Among evangelical Christians who believe
the Bible to be the Word of God, the most accurate description of their theory of inspiration is
contained in the words verbal and plenary inspiration.
The verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture. Those who uphold the infallible inspiration of
the entire Scriptures as they were originally written by the human authors contend that nothing
other than verbal inspirationthat is, divine guidance in the very choice of the words usedis
essential to a complete and Biblical view. In terms of formal definition: God so supernaturally
directed the writers of Scripture that without excluding their human intelligence, their
individuality, their literary style, their personal feelings, or any other human factor, His own
complete and coherent message to man was recorded in perfect accuracy, the very words of
Scripture bearing the authority of divine authorship.14
Though human authors are recognized in the Scripture itself and their human characteristics,
vocabulary, and modes of thought are often traced, the supernatural process of the inspiration of
the Bible is deemed sufficiently operative so that the human author in every case uses the precise
words that God intended him to choose, and the resulting product therefore contains the accuracy
and infallibility of Scripture just as if God wrote it Himself. Usually added to the description of
this theory of inspiration is the word plenary, meaning full, that is, that the inspiration extends
equally to every portion of Scripture and that all parts therefore are equally infallible and equally
auhoritative within the limitations of the context. This point of view does not regard the human
element in Scripture as introducing human fallibility. Any tendency to error was overruled and
the human mind influenced so that even in its human experiences there was divine preparation
and sovereign arrangement to produce the desired Scripture.
Much of the difficulty expressed in the opposition of unbelieving liberals to the inspiration of the
words of Scripture is caused by the fact that inspiration as a supernatural work of God is not
subject to rational analysis. The Bible does not attempt to explain inspiration, but merely states
the fact that, on the one hand, God or the Holy Spirit is said to be the author and, on the other
hand, frequently refers to the human author in such expressions as Isaiah said or Moses said.
Lewis Sperry Chafer cites a number of instances where dual authorship, that is, both human and
divine, is recognized in Scripture. Chafer writes: The command, Honor thy father and thy
mother bears the authority of God commanded in Matthew 15:4; but in Mark 7:10 Christ
introduces the words Moses said. In like manner Psalm 110:1 may be compared with Mark
12:36, 37; Exodus 3:6, 15 with Matthew 22:31; Luke 20:37 with Mark 12:26; Isaiah 6:9, 10 with
Acts 28:25; John 12:39-41; Acts 1:16 with Acts 4:25. Certain passages, and there are many,
combine a reference to both authorships in the one passage: Acts 1:16; 4:25 ; Matthew 1:22; 2:15
(R.V.). The Holy Spirit is declared to be the voice speaking through the Psalms as quoted in
Hebrews 3:7-11; through the LawHebrews 9:8; and in the ProphetsHebrews 10:15.15
It is clear from many Scriptures that the Bible itself claims the words of Scripture to be inspired.
Frequent quotation of Scripture as authoritative when the argument hangs upon a word (John
10:34-35) or even the singular or plural (Gal 3:16) demonstrates this claim. Though men may
disbelieve if they wish, this is the theory of inspiration taught by the Bible itself. Unbelief in
inspiration springs from unbelief in the Bible. Word of God, it has no more authority than an
opinion of the one who claims that he has heard the voice of God.
The Extent of Inspiration
According to the orthodox conservative opinion, the inspiration of the Scripture must extend to
every word. As Lewis Sperry Chafer has stated it emphatically: The Bible claims for itself that
on the original parchments every sentence, word, line, mark, point, penstroke, jot, or tittle was
placed there in complete agreement with the divine purpose and will. Thus the omnipotent and
omniscient God caused the message to be formed as the precise reproduction of His Word.19
This for centuries has been the orthodox faith. Though many particular problems remain which
can be discussed only in works devoted to their detailed study, for most Christians there is
transparent evidence that the Bible vindicates its claim to inspiration and that all problems have
been adequately met by the voluminous writing of the great orthodox scholars of the past and the
present. Apart from, textual problems, which do not vitally affect the teachings of Scripture, the
reader of Scripture can be assured that he is studying the infallible Word of God, the treasure
house of divine truth.
Dallas, Texas
(Series to be continued in the Apr-Jun Number, 1959)

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of
Galaxie Software.

1
John Murray, The Attestation of Scripture, The Infallible Word, a Symposium, p. 1.
2
Bernard Ramm, The Pattern of Authority, p. 9.
3
Cf. Floyd V. Filson, Which Books Belong in the Bible?, pp. 12-13.
4
Loraine Boettner, The Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 9.
5
S.v., Inspiration, Websters New International Dictionary, second edition, p. 1286.
6
Ibid.
7
B. B. Warfield, Inspiration, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, III, 1474. Cf.
Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, pp. 131ff.
8
Ibid.
9
Cf. Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, I, 68ff.
10
Filson, op. cit., pp. 30-37.
11
Ibid. This author, who is Dean and Professor of New Testament Literature and History in
McCormick Theological Seminary, nevertheless continues to affirm that the Bible is the
infallible rule of faith and practice as required of teachers in this Presbyterian seminary.
12
Kenneth S. Kantzer, Inspiration and Interpretation, John F. Walvoord, editor, pp. 137-38. Cf.
Calvin, Jeremiah, IV, 229; Harmony, I, 127; Psalms, III, 205.
13
Cf. ibid., pp. 139ff.
14
John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit, pp. 59-60.
15
Chafer, op. cit., I, 71.
19
Lewis S. Chafer, op. cit., I, 22.
Contemporary Problems in Biblical InterpretationPart II:
How Can Man Know God?
[Editors Note: This article is the second in a series on the general subject, Contemporary
Problems in Biblical Interpretation.]
I. The Quest to Know God
From ancient times thinking men have searched for some explanation of the world in which they
live and some key to the purpose and meaning of life. The Bible records that God revealed
Himself to Adam and to some of his immediate posterity, but as the human race enlarged much
of what had been revealed was forgotten. The great mass of mankind became increasingly
ignorant of God and His way, though it is possible that much more was known about God in the
early history of the race than has been preserved in any written form. The Book of Job, recording
the thoughts of Job and his friends living centuries before Scripture was written, shows a
remarkable knowledge of God, but this seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
The beginning of modern intellectual development and philosophic thought as recorded in the
writings of the early Greeks is theologically far below the level of Jobs time. Even brilliant men
among Greek philosophers seem to have little knowledge of God. Their writings, however,
testify to the insatiable curiosity of the keenest minds in the ancient world as they searched for
some explanation of the origin and nature of their world.
The problems which the Greeks attempted to solve have again occupied the center of the stage in
the twentieth century. The modern mind, having discarded Scripture as an authoritative voice
and retired to the somewhat agnostic position that the nature of God cannot be known with
certainty, has taken a new approach. The events of the twentieth century have demonstrated the
mockery of any explanation of life which is not centered in God. The pressures of fear and
uncertainty and the obvious shallowness of material prosperity have triggered the desire for an
explanation of the enigma of life itself. In a world which has discovered so much scientifically
and so little about God there was demand for a renewed study of what man can know about God.
Though much of the philosophic world is still agnostic and naturalistic, the theological world at
least has come up with a new explanation of how man can know God.
That new answer, in a word, is crisis theology, the idea that man by a supernatural experience or
crisis can bridge the gap between his finiteness and the infinite God. By this means man can, in
effect, know God. The God thus revealed is an infinite, transcendent God who is sovereign over
His creatures. Such a God cannot be known by ordinary scientific investigation. God can only be
known as He reveals Himself. The renewed emphasis on the supernatural character of the divine
revelation of God, with its admission of human finiteness and depravity, though bypassing the
problem of Scriptural authority, has created a new orthodoxy, a neo-orthodoxy. Though only a
pseudo theology as compared to the old orthodoxy, it has captured the modern mind more
quickly than any previous departure from Biblical Christianity. Its elements are not new, but it is
nevertheless different from any of its ancient counterparts such as mysticism, intuitive
knowledge, or direct revelation from God. Neo-orthodoxy has raised new questions about the
nature of divine revelation as it relates to the Bible, to human experience, and the natural world.
II. Is God Revealed in Nature?
There was a certain legitimacy in mans ancient attempt to know God on the basis of the created
world. After all, that which is created should bear witness to the character of its Creator. Even
the psalmist David bore testimony to this when he wrote: The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night
showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language; their voice is not heard. Their line is gone
out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world (Ps 19:1-4). The physical
heavens do declare the infinite perfections of God. The magnitude of the mass and distances
which characterize the starry world, the millions of light years which separate one portion of the
universe from the other, the obvious design and adaptation to purpose, the evident uniformity in
many of the physical laws, in a word the astronomical world as well as the microscopic world
testifies to the power, wisdom, and personality of God.
It is for this reason that the Apostle Paul, debating the difficult subject of how the heathen world
which has never heard the gospel can be justly condemned before God, states that their
condemnation is based not on the rejection of what they have never heard but on the revelation
of God in nature which they chose to ignore. Paul therefore writes: For the wrath of God is
revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth
in unrighteousness; because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested
it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that
they may be without excuse: because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God neither
gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened (Rom
1:18-21). The heathen are without excuse because Gods everlasting power and deity are clearly
revealed in the things that He has made. Though they had knowledge in this way of such a God,
they did not worship Him or give thanks to Him.
Great as is revelation in the natural world, it is evident that this in itself has not been sufficient to
end mans quest for God. In fact, the great majority of the world has not sought God, but has fled
from Him, and for this reason was blinded in its ordinary capacities to understand the meaning of
the physical world. Paul in this way explains why men of ordinary intelligence worship idols
patterned after the lowest beasts. The resulting immorality and depravity are seen both in history
and in Scripture. It is evident that something more was needed than the revelation found in the
handiwork of God. In this conclusion the neo-orthodox and orthodox agree. Natural revelation is
not enough. can bear no certain voice and only through spoken or written words could God
communicate to man that which was in His heart and mind for those who otherwise would grope
without finding Gods perfect plan. The startling contrast between a devout student of the
Scripture and his knowledge of God as compared to that of an idol worshipper in the heathen
world untouched by the written Word shows at once the tremendous extent of the divine
revelation in the written Bible.
The existence of the written Word of God would seem at first thought to solve the problem of
how man can know God. Two immediate difficulties arose, however. The first is summed up in
the word unbelief. From the beginning some have rejected the inspired Word of God and have
doubted its accuracy, its authority, and its claim to being the supreme revelation of God. The
sneer of Satan in the Garden of Eden concerning the spoken Word of God, Yea, hath God
said (Gen 3:1) has found many echoes in human unbelief. Once the false prop of the
authority of the Roman Church was removed by the Protestant Reformation, the way was open
for criticism to begin its whittling work on the inspiration of Scripture, and by arguments against
the authenticity of Scripture to destroy for its adherents any thought of a final Word of God in
the Scriptures. Lower criticism, or the study of the text of Scripture, though uncovering many
problems, in the last analysis was not too damaging to orthodox Christian theology, as even the
worst texts yield essentially the same doctrines as the best. It is taken for granted, however, in
modern liberalism that the battle for absolute inspiration of the original Scriptures is lost and the
question is no longer subject to debate by true scholars. The fact that some of the most brilliant
scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have refuted these attacks upon inspiration is
brushed aside without attempting an answer.
Among those still clinging to the inspiration of Scripture, however, another major difficulty has
arisen in the field of interpretation. It is sadly true that even those who accept Scriptural authority
are by no means agreed as to the content of the revelation of Scripture. Principally by use of the
device of denying the literal meaning of Scripture in favor of an allegorical or so-called spiritual
interpretation, many of the plain teachings of Scripture are negated. In its worst form this is
illustrated in the Alexandrian school of theology in the third century which allegorized all
Scripture. The modern tendency is to allegorize only portions which in their literal rendering
would yield doctrine unacceptable to the interpreter, as in the case of an amillenarian dealing
with prophecies of a future millennial reign of Christ. Though the doctrine of inspiration solves
many of the problems, obviously interpretation can make the meaning of Scripture quite different
than its actual statement.
Neo-orthodoxy has introduced another element into the picture. Though accepting the most
extreme higher critical findings and thereby denying the inspiration of the Bible, neo-orthodoxy
has nevertheless restored the Bible to the role of being a principal channel of revelation, i.e., that
through which God speaks. The Scripture is not authoritative in itself, but in neo-orthodoxy
authority is attributed to the experience of the interpreter, that is, the truth is revealed to the
individual through the means of the written Word. While filling to some extent the vacuum
created by denial of inspiration, it transfers authority from the Scripture to an experience of
revelation which is almost completely subjective, not guided by norms or even qualified by
rational examination. The authority of the experience is allowed to rest on its own self-evident
character. From the standpoint of orthodoxy, this point of view is little removed from the
situation before the Bible itself was written. Neo-orthodoxy is based on a spurious claim to
authoritative immediate revelation of God, which actually is a substitute for the written Word.
IV. Barriers to Understanding the Bible
Though the extensive and detailed revelation given in the Scriptures would seem to be a
completely adequate answer to mans quest to know God for those who accept inspiration, it
obviously has not brought light to a great majority of the worlds population even though the
Bible has been printed and distributed on a scale never achieved by any other literature. Readers
of Scripture first of all become aware of the language barrier, the fact that the Old Testament was
written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. The necessity of translation into their given
language interposes to some extent the human hand of the translators and gives rise to the
question as to whether the precise thought has been reproduced. The background of a given
portion of Scripture as provided in the customs of the people and the geography of the land are
often quite strange to the reader, and, unless he is instructed by information gained from other
sources, the Scripture in itself is not clear.
Often a given Scripture has a historical and Biblical setting which is unknown to the reader, and,
until he becomes a thorough student of the entire context, a particular Scripture might
communicate little to him by way of knowledge of the true God. Take, for instance, the lot of a
novice stumbling through the Book of Ezekiel or trying to read Ecclesiastes or the Song of
Solomon. The visions of Zechariah and the revelations given to John on Patmos do not easily
engage the modern mind and transmit the intended sense.
These obvious barriers are made insuperable when it is realized that natural man, untouched by
the grace of God and without any God-given insight into the meaning of Scripture, is unable to
arrive at the true sense even with determined application and research on a high scholarly level.
As Paul expressed it succinctly: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:
for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged
(1 Cor 2:14). The Scriptures are an unsolvable enigma to the natural man attempting to find the
true God. Obviously something more is needed to satisfy the desire of the human heart to know
God than either the revelation of God in nature or the written Word of God itself.
V. The Ministry of the Holy Spirit
Just as God provided the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Savior of men through His work on the
cross and thereby made it possible for a righteous and holy God to manifest His love and
forgiveness to the sinner, so in the human situation where man could not know God by his best
efforts God has provided one to open his eyes and make him understand in the person of the
Holy Spirit. This provision of God of course is not an isolated or unrelated aspect of Gods
divine purpose, but it is part of the gracious plan of God by which sinners estranged from God
and ignorant of His person and works could come to know Him in a wonderful intimacy which
anticipates the eternal fellowship of the soul with God. The qualifications for entering into such a
relationship are made clear in Scripture. Those who receive the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior
and recognize Him as their Lord and their God are made new creatures in Christ. They are given
eternal life, joined to the large company of those who share eternal life with them, and are given
the personal presence of the Holy Spirit of God who makes their bodies His temple and by His
presence constitutes the seal of God which assures them eternal redemption. As physical life is
necessary for ordinary human consciousness and capacity to see and know, so eternal life opens
a new vista, a new capacity to know God and to receive divine revelation. Those who were blind
now see. Those who were dead are now alive. Those who considered the gospel foolishness, now
find it the power of God.
In a profound passage in 1 Corinthians 2, the Apostle Paul unfolds this tremendous work of God.
The truth of God which has been hidden, which was unknown by even the great men of this
world who in ignorance crucified the Lord of glory, is now revealed. As Paul states it: But as it
is written, things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which entered not into the heart of
man, whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him. But unto us God revealed them
through the Spirit (1 Cor 2:9-10). Here is an epistemology that transcends the human senses.
God is known by a process that does not involve the eye or the ear, nor does it originate in the
heart, or human consciousness. Here is a frontal denial of empiricism, the idea that all knowledge
comes through the senses. Knowledge comes through the ministry of the Holy Spirit,of God.
He goes on to explain: We received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from
God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God (1 Cor 2:12). The new
revelation is contained and transmitted not in words which mans wisdom teaeheth, but which
the Spirit teacheth (1 Cor 2:13). Though Paul and the apostles undoubtedly experienced direct
revelation from God, the norm of experience for the ordinary Christian is given, namely,
revelation through the words used by the Holy Spirit, i.e., the Scriptures themselves. The Holy
Spirit makes known the truth of God to the child of God through the written Word.
The full experience of this, however, according to Paul is dependent upon the believer being
spiritual. The Corinthian Christians did not qualify and Paul calls them carnal (1 Cor 3:1). It
is evident then that even the tremendous work of God in salvation and making the individual
believer the temple of the Holy Spirit is not in itself enough so that every believer will
understand the Word of God.
VI. The Transformed Mind
The classic utterance of Paul in the inspired Epistle to the Romans, chapter 12, verses one and
two , answers the question as to the qualifications of an intelligent and Spirit-directed interpreter
of Scripture. In this familiar passage Paul beseeches the Christian brethren at Rome: Present
your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. And be
not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that
ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. It is understood from
this utterance that the revelation of God both in nature and in the written Scriptures and the
provision of God in the salvation of the individual believer are all to no avail in transmitting to
his mind that which God would have him to know about Himself. In order to enter in and
comprehend the intimate revelation of the mind and will of God, it is necessary for the believer
to present or yield his entire life to the Lord. In this act, on the one hand, he will be delivered
from conformity to a wicked and ignorant world. On the other hand, he will be delivered from
the depraved mind by being transformed by the power of God and renewed to such an extent that
the mind can contemplate and recognize that which is the good and acceptable and perfect will
of God.
The answer to the question as to how man can know God is therefore embodied in the Scriptures
themselves. Man can know something of God from nature, namely, His power, His wisdom, and
His personality. From the written Scriptures those who put their trust in Christ can find in God
One who is their Savior, who though He is righteous, sovereign, and almighty can nevertheless
manifest His love and grace to those who will accept the person and work of His blessed Son. A
deeper understanding, however, of God, His plans and purposes, His revelation of Himself, and
His perfect will can only be known through the ultimate step of complete dedication in which the
transforming work of grace achieves its goal and brings to the ultimate limits the experience of
the knowledge of God such as is within mans capacity in this present world.
That there is a contemporary revelation of God in human experience, orthodoxy will affirm as
well as neo-orthodoxy. The true doctrine, however, is not a divine revelation which is something
more than the written Word, but is rather a divine illumination, a divinely given insight into that
truth which was in the written Word from the time it was inscribed. The process, although
supernatural, is subject to the test of harmony with the entire Bible rightly interpreted. New
applications of truth may be given to a particular human problem. God will guide and direct His
own in their use of the Scriptures. The truth thus embraced, however, is no greater in its
circumference than the truth once for all delivered to the saints in the Holy Scriptures. Man
cannot truly know God except as He is revealed in the written Word.
Contemporary Problems in Biblical InterpretationPart
III: The Doctrine of Assurance in Contemporary Theology
[Editors Note: This article is the third in a series on the general subject, Contemporary
Problems in Biblical Interpretation.]
The New Context for Assurance
Except for the question of inspiration of Scripture and its infallibility, few theological doctrines
are of more direct concern to the individual believer than the basis for assurance of salvation.
Here the fundamental issues of the deity of Christ, the work of redemption, and the experience of
divine grace meet. The rise of neo-orthodoxy has introduced a new context in the discussion of
the historic doctrine of assurance of salvation. Neo-orthodox theology has raised many questions.
In almost every aspect of important Biblical truth neo-orthodoxy has provided a strange blending
of the old liberalism and the old orthodoxy, and has provided its own explanation of the basic
concepts of systematic theology.
In the doctrine of assurance of salvation neo-orthodoxy has also provided a new approach. Like
the old liberalism, neo-orthodoxy has delivered itself from dependence upon the ipsa verba of
the Scriptures and has transferred the authority for assurance from the exact wording of Scripture
to the experience of the believer.1 Like the old orthodoxy, the neoorthodox view has given to
spiritual experience a supernatural quality in which the natural and the supernatural meet and
combine in creating a valid experience of knowledge in the believer. The resultant doctrine of
assurance of salvation, however, raises grave doubts, at least among conservative scholars, as to
the validity of this new assurance. There is good cause for questioning whether the neo-orthodox
doctrine of assurance is a solid ground on which the believer can trust the certainty of his eternal
salvation.
Characteristics of False Assurance
In the contemporary situation as well as in the historic church many false bases for assurance
may be observed. Among those uninstructed in Biblical truth the tendency to trust in a relative
morality sometimes expressed in the standard of doing the best one can is frequently observed.
This has been encouraged by affirmations of the more learned that God always deals in love and
that this is a supreme principle overruling any standard of absolute righteousness. In like manner,
the tendency to trust in religious works or in religion itself as embodied in acts of ritual,
morality, or worship is another common area for false assurance of salvation. Many rely on
church membership, acts of benevolence, or other good works as a ground for their eternal
salvation. This common misapprehension was embodied formerly in Jewish orthodoxy where
salvation consists of having more good works than bad. To these general areas of false assurance
of salvation may be added confidence in the worship of Mary as a Mediatrix, in the value of
prayers for the dead, and the general approach of modern liberalism that moral reformation and
character transformation constitute the real basis for assurance for salvation. Some have found
assurance in the denial that man is spiritually lost and view the problem of salvation as relative
rather than absolute.
Into this milieu of conflicting opinions as to the ground of assurance of salvation, neo-orthodoxy
interposes a new context. Unlike the old liberalism which questioned the evil nature of man, neo-
orthodoxy emphasizes his sinfulness and depravity, viewing man as finite and God as infinite
with a chasm between them humanly impossible to bridge.2 Salvation from the neo-orthodox
point of view is made possible only by the experience of crisis which is defined as the meeting of
the finite and the infinite in a supernatural revelation of God to the darkened heart of man. In this
revelation God reveals Himself as Redeemer and Savior. As to the exact character of the way of
salvation, however, neo-orthodoxy gives a variety of opinions which are difficult to reduce to a
norm. On the right is Karl Barth, approximating in many ways the definition of redemption as
found in the creeds of the historic church.3 On the left is Paul Tillich whose definition of
salvation is vague and abstract, quite removed from the definitive terms of Biblical theology.4
On one point, however, all truly neo-orthodox theologians agree, that is, that the absolute
authority for divine truth and therefore the ground for assurance of salvation is not the precise
words of the Bible but is rather the divine revelation of truth experienced by the believer as he
reads the Scripture. The authority or ground of assurance is transferred from the Bible itself to
the experience of the one seeking assurance. It is this faulty basis for assurance which raises
grave questions as to the effect of modern neo-orthodoxy as it relates to the efficacy of gospel
preaching. It suggests that neo-orthodoxy has no more valid ground for assurance than the old
liberalism which it tends to supplant. What are then the proper grounds for assurance of
salvation?
The Biblical Ground for Assurance
The promise of God: The authoritative Word. It should be evident that assurance of salvation just
as assurance of any other fact can be no more sure than the authority upon which it rests. Just as
ownership of a given piece of property depends upon the precise wording of its title deed and the
recognition of that title by a proper human government, so the title deed for salvation rests upon
the promise of God. Because of widespread confusion in contemporary theology on the precise
definition of the inspiration of the Scriptures and the character of the authority which is based
upon it, there is a tendency observable, particularly in liberal and neo-orthodox theology, to by-
pass the question of authority and transfer the basis of assurance to human experience.5
The dangers of building doctrine upon human experience have been often pointed out and are
demonstrable by the variety of opinions which human experience has engendered. The difficulty
is that human experience may be far from a norm, may be inaccurately analyzed, and may be
made the basis of an induction which in the last analysis is based only on fragmentary evidence.
The fact that a person has assurance of salvation therefore is not in itself an infallible evidence
that he is truly saved in the Biblical sense. The only sure basis for salvation is the promise of
God in the inspired Word of God which properly accepted by faith gives validity to assurance.
One clear promise sustained by Thus saith the Lord is better than a thousand testimonies of
human conviction without a specific ground. A proper doctrine of assurance of salvation is
therefore inseparable from a belief in the inspired Word of God. This is not to say necessarily
that no one can be saved apart from acceptance of plenary and verbal inspiration of Scripture, but
it is rather that assurance based on anything less is open to serious question.
The work of God in the act of redemption. The assurance of salvation is not only based on the
promise of God that He will bestow salvation on those who qualify, but it is sustained by the act
of redemption of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As stated in orthodox theology, this consists
in the work of Christ in dying on the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice for sinful man. This
work of Christ is represented in Scripture as first of all an act of redemption, or purchase, in
which Christ by His death on the cross pays the price demanded by divine justice for the sin of
the human race. It is defined in Romans 3:24 as being justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Because of the death of Christ, the sinner who participants in
its benefit is declared righteous or justified by God without any payment on the sinners part.
This transaction is made possible by the grace of God released through the act of purchase
accomplished in the death of Christ. The Greek terminology expressing the action of redemption
includes not only the basic idea of purchase (Gal 3:13; 1 Tim 2:6; 1 Pet 1:18), but embraces also
the idea of deliverance from slavery and bondage in that the sinner is set free (Gal 4:4-5; 5:13 ;
Rom 8:21).
The redemptive act of Christ is also revealed as constituting a propitiation or satisfaction of God
meaning that the death of Christ fulfills the righteous demands of God for judgment upon the
sinner. Accordingly, in connection with divine redemption Jesus Christ is referred to as the One
whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness
because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God (Rom 3:25).
This satisfaction of the righteousness of God is described as satisfying the principle of divine
justice in the forgiveness of sin in the Old Testament as well as sins committed subsequent in
time to the act of redemption. The act of propitiation therefore is for the showing, I say, of his
righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that
hath faith in Jesus (Rom 3:26). The work of Christ on the cross according to Scripture provides
a solid basis of assurance of salvation in that the redemptive act has satisfied the righteous
demands of a holy God as it relates to judgment upon a sinner.
The work of Christ in salvation is further described as a reconciliation of the sinner to God. This
has reference to the effect of the death of Christ upon the sinner himself in removing him from
his former state and condition of condemnation to his new estate in Christ. It is therefore
especially related to the work of God in the believer based upon the death of Christ and describes
the complete change that is thereby wrought. This is described in 2 Corinthians 5:17-20 in these
words: Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away;
behold, they are become new. But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through
Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling
the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us
the word of reconciliation. We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God
were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God (cf. Rom
5:10; 11:15 ; Col 1:21). The work of God in the act of redemption, propitiation, and
reconciliation as provided in the death of Christ and applied to the true believer is a solid basis
for assurance for salvation. Apart from this work of God there can be no sure ground of
assurance of salvation. The confidence of the modern liberal in the attribute of divine love as
being sufficient in itself or the assurance of the neo-orthodox believer who rests in his own
experience is inadequate ground for true Biblical assurance.
The terms of salvation. Though such passages as 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 seem to justify the
conclusion that God has provided salvation for all, nothing is plainer in Scripture than the
conclusion that all are not saved. The death of Christ in itself saves no one except as it is applied
to the particular individual according to the terms of salvation provided in the Word of God.
Scripture revelation makes clear that there are both human and divine conditions which must be
met before a lost soul comes into the place of safety in Christ. On the divine side, there is the
convicting work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-11) and the gift of divine grace which enables one
spiritually dead, enslaved by sin, and opposed by Satan to understand the terms of salvation and
believe. The human terms of salvation are summed up in the word believe as defined in the
Scripture. The Philippian jailer, desperately seeking to know the way of salvation, was informed
in words of beautiful simplicity by Paul and Silas: Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be
saved, thou and thy house (Acts 16:31). Such belief is not described as mere intellectual assent
nor as an emotional response, but an act of the whole man involving intellect, will, and
sensibility or emotion. The terms of salvation are limited to faith in Christ because of the
inadequacy and insufficiency of any other approach. Salvation is pictured therefore as a gift
(Rom 6:23), as obtained by those dead throughtrespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). Salvation is
therefore not a work of man for God or a work of God assisted by man, but rather a work of
divine salvation effective on those who are willing to receive Jesus Christ as Savior. Assurance
of salvation, then, comprehends both the authoritative promise of God and the effective work of
redemption. As far as the individual believer is concerned, the certainty of assurance is also
dependent upon his own decision in meeting the terms of salvation.
The application of salvation. The ground of assurance as stated in Scripture is something more
than an intellectual comprehension of the theology of salvation and more than a conviction that
the terms of salvation have been met. Scriptures make plain that there is a corresponding
experience of transformation which attends the work of salvation in a believer. Some aspects of
this are nonexperimental, but the new life in Christ is manifested in many ways. The believer in
Christ possesses eternal life and a new divine nature which tends to change his whole viewpoint.
He is indeed a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new (2
Cor 5:17). The believer in Christ is indwelt by the Spirit of God, which opens a whole new field
of spiritual experience. He now knows what it is to have fellowship with his heavenly Father and
with His Savior the Lord Jesus Christ. His eyes are opened to spiritual truth, and the Scriptures
take on a true living character as the Spirit of God illuminates the written Word. He experiences
a new relationship to other believers as he is bound to theme by ties of love and common faith
and life. The believer is relieved from the load of condemnation for sin and experiences hope and
peace such as is impossible for the unbeliever. His experiences include deliverance from the
power of sin and from opposition of Satan. He enters into the joy of intercessory prayer and
experiences, answers to prayer. The new life in Christ, therefore, provides a satisfying and
Biblical new experience which is a confirming evidence of the fact of his salvation and a vital
and true basis for assurance. Unlike the faulty basis of experience as contained in liberal and
neo-orthodox theology, the true spiritual experience of a believer in Christ is according to the
Biblical pattern confirmed by Biblical promises and in keeping with the whole work of God for
the newborn child of God.
The Biblical ground of assurance therefore rests first in the promise of God in the authoritative
and inspired Word of God; second, in the work of God in the act of redemption in that Christ
died for the sinner upon the cross; third, in the meeting of the terms of salvation as revealed in
the Scripture; and fourth, in the experience of the fruits of salvation, the new life that is in Christ
Jesus. Apart from this solid basis for assurance of salvation there can be no human certainty in
respect to eternal salvation. Properly understood and apprehended, however, the believer in
Christ need not remain in agonizing uncertainty as to this all-important question, but may have
quiet assurance and confidence that God has saved his soul and has begun a good work which
will be consummated in eternity.
Problems of Assurance
In the practical outworking of the doctrine of assurance in the life of a believer in Christ many
problems exist. These, however, are all clearly related in one way or another to the four major
grounds for assurance as outlined in the preceding section. Failure to apprehend the promise of
God, the work of God, or to enter fully into the meaning of the terms of salvation or to
experience the fullness of life in Christ Jesus frequently breed uncertainty in the matter of
assurance of salvation.
Resting in the promise of God. Much of the confusion that exists in the matter of assurance of
salvation may be traced to a failure to rest in the written promises of the Word of God. Those
who tend to introspection, to examination of feelings, and are unwilling to take the promises of
God at their face value have a corresponding loss in their experience of assurance of salvation.
Just as assurance rests upon Gods promise, so lack of assurance inevitably stems from a failure
in this area. Ultimately the question is not what a person feels, but what the Word of God states.
Misunderstanding of the work of God in salvation. Another area of confusion in the matter of
assurance of salvation is the failure to understand that salvation is a work of grace based on the
work of Christ for man, not on supposed acts of righteousness of men before men. As Ephesians
2:8-9 states clearly: For by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it
is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory. Assurance of salvation that is based
upon ritual, administration of sacraments, membership in a local church, acts of benevolence or
worship, or any other supposedly good work reveals a basic failure to comprehend that Gods
work of salvation is sufficient in itself and cannot be supplemented by human works of any kind
or character. Those who are trying to be good enough to be saved will never achieve a true
Biblical assurance and in fact may miss the way of salvation completely. The assurance of
salvation can be no more certain than the confidence that is derived from a comprehension of the
complete work of Christ on the cross in our salvation.
The experience of belief. Another intricate problem in the doctrine of assurance is the question as
to what constitutes true faith in Jesus Christ. The Scriptures make clear that a mere intellectual
faith or assent to the theological proposition is not what is meant in the Scriptures when we are
exhorted to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Those given to introspection and to psychological
analysis of their own emotions and mental attitudes may often have difficulty in achieving
assurance of salvation. The problems inherent in the question of whether one has met the terms
of salvation, however, can be dissolved by a frank facing of the issues. One who has any
question as to whether he has actually received Christ should decisively settle this issue before
God. Often the indecision that is reflected in such an attitude is born of an unwillingness to
accept all the implications of the deity and lordship of Christ. There is a corresponding holding
back from a true resting in the divine promise and the divine work. Such individuals need
thorough grounding in the doctrine of salvation as revealed in the Scripture and careful teaching
as to the extent and implications of salvation in Christ. Some have found relief from nagging
doubt by following the simple formula of offering the prayer: If I have never trusted in Christ
before, I do it now. Ultimately the rest of faith embodied in assurance of salvation does not
come from self-analysis or introspection, but from full confidence in the plan of God for the
salvation of those who will put their trust in Christ.
Experience as a ground of assurance. Though a faulty assurance of salvation sometimes results
from dependence upon experience, the Scriptures make clear that the true child of God may
expect certain confirming experiences. The child of God who is filled with the Spirit and
manifesting the fruit and normal experiences of the Spirit-filled life has little difficulty with the
question of assurance. Christians, however, who are unyielded to God and in whose life there is
sin grieving the Spirit of God may often come under a cloud in which their assurance of
salvation is subject to question. Often a lack of assurance is an indication not of an unsaved
condition but rather the evidence that the believer is out of fellowship with God. There is no
ground of assurance more satisfying than that of intimate fellowship with the triune God which is
the supreme fruit of Biblical salvation. The God who intends that every believer should rejoice in
His presence throughout all eternity in glory intends also that the child of God even in a sinful
world should know the joy of constantly beholding the Fathers face. The assurance of salvation
is therefore not only the result of meeting the theological conditions, but is the normal and
joyous estate of the child of God walking in the will of God.

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of
Galaxie Software.

1
According to Barth, revelation takes place as an event, when and where the word of the Bible
becomes Gods Word, i.e. when and where the word of the Bible functions as the word of a
witness, when and where Johns finger points not in vain but really pointedly, when and where
by means of its word we also succeed in seeing and hearing what he saw and heard (Karl Barth,
The Doctrine of the Word of God-Prolegomena to Church Dogmatics, Vol. I, Part I, p. 127; cf.
also pp. 111-35; Emil Brunner, Revelation and Reason pp. 3-57).
2
According to Emil Brunner, sin has not destroyed all freedom, but the central freedom, the
freedom to answer God as He wills it. Therefore before God everyone is a sinner, and all that one
does, says, or thinks is sinful (Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and
Redemption, Dogmatics, II, 39; cf. also Emil Brunner, Revelation and Reason, pp. 50-57).
3
Barth, op. cit., pp. 457-533; Dogmatics in Outline, pp. 101-7.
4
Paul Tillich, The New Being, pp. 92-100, 175-79; Systematic Theology, I, 168-82.
5
Brunner, Revelation and Reason, pp. 10-11.
Contemporary Problems in Biblical InterpretationPart
IV: The Nature of the Church
[Editors Note: This article is the final in a series on the general subject Contemporary
Problems in Biblical Interpretation.]
Any intelligent observer of modern Christianity soon becomes aware of the widespread
confusion that exists concerning the nature of the church. If it is true that the church is the
present divine undertaking, a lack of understanding on this important subject will blur not only
the theological perspective, but will make impossible a practical approach to the present task of
the church.
The student of church history early discovers the major trends of development from the early
apostolic church, where local congregations seemed to have been linked chiefly by the presence
of apostolic authority. The unfolding scene portrays the church, first as persecuted and hated by
the world, then under Constantine combined with the world and its pagan religions, and
emerging into its two major divisions of the Roman and the Greek churches. Out of the decadent
church of the Middle Ages the Protestant Reformation was born and with it a new division of the
organized church as well as a new theological approach. Out of Protestantism in succeeding
centuries arose many diverse movements which crystallized into modern denominations. The
diversity of the modern church both in its government and its theological convictions is apparent.
In such a context has been born, particularly in our generation, the desire to unify these diverse
elements and ecumenicalism has become a substantial movement in the twentieth century.
Out of the study of the history of the church and the problems causing its diversity have come
many questions concerning the nature of the church. Is there any underlying unity which binds
together its diverse elements? Is division within its organization contrary to the unity which
should characterize it as an undertaking of God? Is schism within the organized church a heresy,
or is it an act of obedience on the part of the individual to the Word of God? Many answers have
been given to these questions and few of them have been categorical. The problem is very
difficult, but it all stems from the major question, What is the nature of the church?
In attempting to answer such a question, much more is needed than an analysis of contemporary
Christianity and a series of propositions as to what the church ought to do. The early church does
not seem to have occupied itself with the study of the nature of the church. As Dillistone points
out, No systematic treatment of the doctrine of the Church can be found in the Christian
writings of the second century A.D.1 He then cites Professor Bethune-Baker in support of the
idea that the unity of the church is implied from the first.2 Something more is needed,
however, than implication. The root of the problem lies in the Biblical doctrine of the church,
and then the attempt must be made to apply this doetrine to the contemporary situation. It should
be clear that the Bible does not cover all the contingencies of the modern problem, but the
principles laid down in the early church as contained in the Scriptures are sufficient in their
guidance to enable an intelligent believer to arrive at some solid conclusions.
I. The Church as the Body of Christ
Much of the modern confusion on the doctrine of the church comes from a failure to understand
the Scriptural revelation of the church as the body of Christ. Though there is a large area of
agreement among evangelical scholarship that the church fundamentally is the work of God
rather than an institution of men, one is soon lost in difference of opinion as to the exact nature
of that unity. One of the large causes for this is the failure to distinguish the church from the
nation Israel. The idea that Israel and the church are essentially the same divine undertaking is a
common error which arose principally in postmillennialism and amillennialism. Howard Hanke,
for instance, writes: There is ample evidence in Scripture to show that the Church of the Living
God has been in existence from the days of Eden, when righteous Abel became its first member.
This institution, the Church, made up of God Believers is referred to by many different names
and designations, but in substance the Church has always been the same.3
Some are not as careful as Hanke to limit the church in the Old Testament as being coextensive
with Israel. Oswald Allis, for instance, labels as extreme literalism the concept that Israel must
mean Israel and not mean or represent the church.4
Gabriel Hebert in his sharp criticism of fundamentalism argues against any division in the
organized church. His argument is based on the faulty identification of Israel, the organized
church, and the church as the body of Christ. He states: The Unity which God has made does
not depend on our faith or our faithfulness; it has been set up in spite of our sins. Christ is the
Ground of Unity, the Foundation-stone which God has laid.5 He then argues that the visible
church is part of the gospel. He writes, Nothing could be plainer than this in Holy Scripture.
From the beginning, the Purpose of God for mans salvation has been worked out through the
believing and worshipping community, Israel the People of God.6 That there is an underlying
unity between all truly redeemed people is accepted by all. That this involves or necessitates one
organized church embracing Israel and Christendom in the New Testament is based on confusion
of the unity of the body of Christ with the supposed unity in the organized church and Israel.
In the New Testament the church as the body of Christ, however, is represented as a new
undertaking of God quite distinct from Gods plan and purpose for the nation Israel. The
confusion of Israel and the church has not only confused the two programs relating to the divine
undertakings of God, but has also introduced a blurring of distinction between those that are truly
saved and those who are not. One who belonged to the nation Israel was not necessarily a saint,
and, though a bona fide member of the nation both in its religious and national characteristics, he
could in no sense claim the blessings of salvation from sin or the promises of the future grace of
God.
The body of Christ as it is presented in the New Testament is that which is joined to Christ in a
living union. This union is effected by the baptism of the Spirit as stated in 1 Corinthians 12:13:
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether
we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. The body of Christ is
therefore not a superficial unity effected by geographic association or an organizational
fellowship, but is rather a union of life in which the various members of the body are joined one
to another. It is an organism rather than an organization. This is implied in the discussion of the
one body in Ephesians chapter 4:15-16 , where Christians are exhorted to grow up into him in
all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and
compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure
of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
The church as the body of Christ, therefore, is composed of every individual believer in this
present age and is not constituted by membership in a local fellowship nor by subscribing to
some creed or organizational arrangement. It is constituted by a work of God in grace in which
the individual is taken out of his estate in Adam and placed in Christ, given eternal life, and
made one not only with Christ but with all other believers. This unity therefore is not something
to be attained, but is that which is already effected. Paul states this dogmatically in Ephesians
4:4: There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. The
body of Christ is therefore entirely a divine undertaking and not a matter of human attainment. It
should also be apparent that the diversity and difficulty seen in the church of Jesus Christ today,
though it may obscure the manifestation of this unity, does not in any wise contradict it. To some
extent there is agreement on this point and most commentators on the doctrine of the church,
whether conservative in their theology or subscribing to neo-orthodox or liberal concepts,
recognize this basic unity, even though they may not always define it in precisely the same
terms.
II. The Local Church
In the New Testament presentation of the doctrine of the church, in addition to the revelation
concerning the church as the body of Christ, there is frequent reference to local churches
embodying in their existence and government the concept of the organized church. Passages
which deal with this subject should not be confused with those which belong to the church as the
body of Christ. One of the principal causes for confusion in the nature of the church is the
application of passages which belong to the body of Christ to the local church.
In the New Testament many local churches arose as a result of the missionary activities of the
apostles. In some cases it consisted in no more than a group of believers meeting at one place. As
the church grew, however, the New Testament records that a certain amount of organization
evolved. Elders or bishops were recognized in the local church, and deacons were appointed,
each office with its respective duties. These local congregations were called churches, not
because of their organizational character, nor because they constituted a segment of the body of
Christ, but because they were a geniune ecclesia, an assembly of believers in one geographic
location. Almost fifty references in the New Testament refer to the local church. Such phrases as
the church which was at Jerusalem (Acts 8:1), the church which is at Cenchrea (Rom 16:1),
and the church of the Thessalonians (1 Thess 1:1), and many similar references give witness to
this concept. The reference to churches in the plural as, for instance, in the statement that Paul
and Silas went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches (Acts 15:41), makes plain
that each of the local assemblies was regarded as a separate church.
A sharp distinction is maintained between the nature of these local churches and the body of
Christ. This is evident in the messages of Christ to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation,
chapters 2 and 3 . The church of Laodiceans, the seventh of the churches addressed, is
recognized as a local church, but from the words of Christ to them it is clear that they are not
regarded as members of the body of Christ. Christ declares of them, I will spue thee out of my
mouth (Rev 3:16), a statement which would not be addressed to true believers. From this it
becomes evident that the local church in contrast to the concept of the body of Christ is a group
of professed believers including some who may not actually be true followers of the Lord Jesus.
Further, the concept of a local church has a geographic character which is not true of the body of
Christ whose members are both in heaven and on earth. The concept of a professing church is
sometimes offered in Scripture without reference to locality, e.g., Romans 16:16, where Paul
says the churches of Christ salute you. He has in mind local churches regardless of their
locality.
Though it is customary in some circles to assume the unity of the apostolic church as Dillistone
does,7 a liberal scholar, John Knox of Union Seminary, New York, takes the opposite viewpoint.
He begins his study of early church order with the affirmation: We have seen that there was no
single comprehensive organization of the churches; nor can a universal pattern of organization be
traced among all the churches severally. Not only was there no such thing as organic union;
there was a great amount of regional, even local, independence, and conflicts and divisions
among the churches were not infrequent.8 The idea that the early church had organizational
unity from which the church subsequently strayed is without factual foundation. The unity which
did exist was spiritual, not organizational.
In the Scriptures themselves two major concepts emerge: (1) the church as the body of Christ
formed as a work of God uniting all true believers in Christ in an organic union of life and
fellowship; (2) the local or professing church not organizationally related to other local churches.
It was composed of all those who were outwardly believers in Christ and who assembled in one
place to worship. It inevitably included some who were only superficial followers of the Lord
Jesus. This basic bifurcation of the concept of the church is essential to any contemporary
understanding of the nature of the church as it relates to modern Christianity.
III. The Unity of the Church and the
Theological Problem
In the apostolic church some of the problems which face the modern church existed only in
elementary form. In each locality there seems to have been only one church, in some cases very
large as at Antioch with a number of teachers and pastors, and in other cases very small, meeting
in a house and probably numbering only a dozen or two. The multiplied divisions of our modern
day had not yet come into existence.
With the growth of the church however there was not only an increase in numbers but questions
arose as to the extent of authority of the local church. The inroads of paganism and departure
from the faith which plagued the church in the Middle Ages created problems which were not
common in the early church. If it be assumed that the unity of all true believers is just as valid
today as it was in apostolic times, the question still arises as to whether all believers should be in
the same church organization.
A survey of Scriptural revelation as it pertains to this problem should make evident that there
should be no needless division within the organized church. There is constant exhortation to
preserve a unity of fellowship in the instructions of Christ to the seven churches of Asia. Even
though some of them had departed from the faith, it is significant that those who formed a part of
these local congregations are not given any mandate to withdraw from that fellowship but rather
are commanded to preserve their own testimony and do what they can to alleviate the situation.
They were to accept persecution that would result from their faithfulness to the Lord and they
were under no circumstances to compromise their testimony.
Alongside this evident intention that the unity of the church should be preserved as much as
possible, there is however clear-cut testimony in Scripture to the principle of separation from
those who are unsaved or from those who are grossly immoral. Paul wrote to the Corinthians:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness
with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath
Christ with Belial or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? (2 Cor 6:14-15). The
Corinthian believers were forbidden to have any organic relationship with the pagan religions
which were about them and they were to withdraw themselves from such unbelievers as far as
organic or organizational relationship was concerned. This did not mean that they were to have
no contact with unbelievers in such matters as preaching the gospel to them, but it meant that
they should not participate in their idolatrous feasts. The exhortation, therefore, is given:
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the
unclean thing; and I will receive you (2 Cor 6:17).
Some have attempted to prove on the basis of this passage that this justifies separation of
believers from other believers whenever there is a theological conflict. In fairness to the context,
it should be observed that this passage does not teach separation from fellow Christians, but
rather from unbelievers and from pagan religions. It would seem evident, however, that the
principle of separation from unbelievers and not having union with them would apply at such
time as a church organization departed from the fundamentals of the faith.
Pertinent to this problem is the exhortation in Revelation 18:4 where instruction is given to the
believers in the time of the tribulation to have no part in the apostate church of that day. John
writes: And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be
not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not her plagues. From this Scripture as compared
to others, it would seem evident that a Christian should have no part in a church organization
which is in fact apostate, even though it claims the name of Christ. On the other hand, separation
should not be on trivial grounds, whether theological or moral. There were indeed separations in
the early church of a lesser character, as, for example, the separation of Paul and Barnabas and
their resulting separate missionary journeys. But this is not given the approbation of the Word of
God. Moreover, the Scriptures do not teach a blind and unreasoning loyalty to an organized
church that has ceased to fulfill the Scriptural definition. In a word, the modern problem as it
exists today is not treated specifically in the Word of God and this has occasioned much of the
discussion.
IV. The Problem of Schism
Throughout the history of the church, many schisms in the unity of church organization can be
observed even in the early days of the Roman Church. There is evidence that at least a segment
of the church always maintained its independence of Rome. A major division occurred in the
separation of the Greek from the Roman churches. The principle was recognized that basic
theological difference made impossible organizational unity. A further major division took place
in the separation of the Protestants from the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.
Subsequently, divisions have multiplied, sometimes on trivial grounds, sometimes on basic
difference in theological point of view. Most observers would agree that schism would be wrong
if everyone interpreted the teaching of Scripture in the same way. The problem remains whether
there should be organizational relationship between Christians who are, in some cases at least, in
radical disagreement.
The Dutch theologian Gerrit C. Berkouwer, in his illuminating chapter on The Guilt of the
Church, points out that the justification for the Protestant movement as originating in Calvin
and Luther was not based on evils within the Roman Church alone, but on the principle that the
Roman Church had departed so far from the truth as no longer to have the power to recover and
reform itself. Even the Council of Trent did not alter this fundamental conviction. From real
apostasy there is no recovery.
As Berkouwer expresses it: It will have to be admitted that Rome did not allow the light of
the gospel of grace to shine on the decay of the church. This was the cause of the definitive
conflict. Distress and decay in themselves never justify rebellion in the church. But there will
inevitably be an irrevocable breach in the church when it is no longer possible in such distress
and decay to fall back upon the full, unobscured gospel. It is here that the harmony in Luthers
action is to be found which is unintelligible to Rome; the harmony between his sorrow and his
deed, his rejection of perfectionism and his reformation. Here also are found the deepest causes
of the Reformation and its unshakable right.9
Berkouwer makes the additional incisive judgment that the contemporary controversy between
modernism and Reformed Protestantism is the same in kind as the Roman and Reformed
controversy and requires similar schisms: It is, and will remain, the enormous task of the
Reformed Confession constantly to reflect on the conflict with Rome and on the modernist
confusion of the Reformation of the sixteenth century. The two fronts are closely connected
insofar as the Reformed confession will be able to resist the temptation and the attack of Rome
only if by a living faith it succeeds in keeping at a distance from the modernist, Neo-Protestant
religion.10
The strenuous efforts of some to provide a unity for the church in the ecumenical movement of
our day is evidence of the desire to bring together the diverse elements in Christendom. There is
still as much basic theological difference among individuals and churches now as formerly,
however, and there is bona fide reason for believing that the ecumenical movement is not based
upon sound Scriptural or theological consideration. Within the ecumenical movement itself there
is the widest kind of theological difference of opinion, not simply on incidentals, but on such
basics as the precise definition of the deity of Christ, the character of redemption, and the
authority and inspiration of the Scriptures. It is questionable whether some of the leaders of the
ecumenical movement actually qualify as genuine Christians in the Scriptural definition of one
who is born again and who has become a child of God. The unity being sought is therefore far
from the Scriptural unity which would seem desirable for true children of God. The basic
problems which have caused schism in the church are not going to be solved by denial of them
and an attempt to form a unity without theological conviction or agreement.
V. A Practical Approach to the Problem of
Unity
In view of the fact that there seems little likelihood that there will ever be theological agreement
among the diverse elements that now exist within the professing church and in view of the
express command of Scripture that a believer should not have fellowship with unbelievers, it
would seem that a practical program is called for quite different from that suggested by the
ecumenical movement. Such a practical program would involve, first, the principle that believers
should not be in organic relationship with an ecclesiastical organization which is predominately
non-Biblical and non-Christian in its actual belief. Second, needless divisions and conflicts
within the church should be avoided and minor differences and doctrines should be submerged in
the interest of the common task. Third, it is better for organizations having differing theological
convictions to carry on their ministry separately than to attempt to work together with no sound
theological agreement.
There does not seem to be any prohibition in Scripture of local churches joining in a
denominational relationship in which a specific system of doctrine is recognized as the teachings
of the Scripture. On the other hand, there is nothing to prohibit the independent church from
continuing its ministry without affiliation in any organizational way with other churches. Any
program of action should recognize the fact that a true believer in Christ is a member of the body
of Christ and therefore a Christian brother. He is entitled to be treated in this way. On the other
hand, because one is a Christian brother, it does not mean that other Christians should
necessarily support a program which he advocates or join hands with him in some task which
God may have committed to him. The nature of the church, including not only diversity of gift
but difference in point of view and difference in geographic and political situation, makes it
possible for Christ, who is the true Head of the church, to direct individual believers as well as
groups of believers in the path of His appointed will. The idea of a superchurch, organizing all
churches into one authoritative body, is not authorized in Scripture, nor is it essential to the
consummation of the purpose of the church in the world.

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of
Galaxie Software.

1
F. W. Dillistone, The Structure of the Divine Society, p. 87.
2
Ibid.
3
Howard Hanke, Christ And The Church In The Old Testament, p. 23.
4
Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p. 19.
5
Gabriel Hebert, Fundamentalism and The Church, p. 120.
6
Ibid., p. 121.
7
Dillistone, ibid.
8
John Knox, The Early Church and the Coming Great Church, p. 83.
9
Gerrit C. Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome, p. 70.
10
Ibid., p. 71.