Duty to Vote ChallengedI'm writing concerning your editorial

"Let's Vote!" in the October issue of theGuardian. You stated that to vote "is partof what is required of us in subjection to'the powers that be:" This implies thatthose who don't vote aren't, at that point,in subjection to the civil authorities. It'strue that Christians are to be in sub­jection to the powers that be, unless ofcourse such subjection conflicts with theirobedience to the commands of God. Butthat such subjection requires that one voteseems to me difficult to defend.

I'm not against voting. I believe thatone should vote, under certain conditions.The whole subject seems to revolvearound whether or not one should votefor persons who are required to uphold aconstitution that doesn't recognize Christ.I believe that a constitution that doesn'trecognize the crown rights of Christ overthe nations isn't neutral but is really anti­Christian.

And the U.S. Constitution doesn't rec­ognize Christ as the king of the nations.And further, by the time the Constitutionwas written the influence of John Lockeand Scottish Realism was in evidence.This gave it a humanistic coloring. So Ibelieve that those who don't vote in theU.S. elections, because of the Constitu­tion's humanistic flavor and its failure toacknowledge Christ, are on valid ground.

James A. HughesScarborough, Ontario

Editor's response: I fully agree with Dr.Hughes that the U.S. Constitution is ahumanistic, or at best deistic, document.Those who argue that the United States isa Christian nation in any constitutionalsense are engaged in wishful thinking.

Failure to recognize the kingship ofChrist, however, is not a valid groundfor refusal to participate in a government,either as an office-holder or voting citizen.There is no evidence in Scripture thatChristian converts were required to with­draw from participation in governmentalaffairs under pagan Rome. Cornelius,Sergius Paulus, the Philippian jailer, allbecame Christians; there is no suggestionthat they were required to abandon their

*Correction: The U.S. PostalService lost this issue onits way to the printer-­another ten-day delay!

service in the Roman system.The U.S. system involves every CItizen

in the obligation of participation at leastthrough the ballot. For those who cannotconscientiously vote, on grounds like thosementioned by Dr. Hughes, the present sys­tem has no coercive penalties - for whichwe may be grateful. But we do not be­lieve that this conscientious refusal tohold office or vote has any valid groundin Scripture.

- J. J. M.

Correcting "mistakes"Mr. Edwards E. Elliott's letter in the

November Guardian titled "McIntire'sMistakes" prompts me to make a com­ment, for whatever historical footnotevalue it may have.

He says that Dr. Carl Mcintire refusedover the years to retract falsehoods in "aparticularly vicious attack on WestminsterTheological Seminary," presumably car­ried in the Christian Beacon.

One of my earliest and unfortunatelymost unforgettable lessons in authoritar­ian journalism-the brand Dr. Mcintireuses, in my opinion-came shortly after Ijoined the Christian Beacon as managingeditor in 1964.

I made an error in an article for whichI was responsible, and when the error wasbrought to my attention, I promptly pub­lished a correction in the following edit­ion. Dr. Mcintire subsequently informedme that the Christian Beacon does notpublish corrections, a policy I found un­believable in any publication with thename "Christian" attached to it. Whatseems equally unbelievable now, so muchso that I have to attribute it to my youthat the time, is that despite my knowledgethat this silently-implied infallibility wastotally inconsistent with any code ofjournalistic ethics, I continued as aneditor with the Beacon for another fouryears.

Jon R. KennedyStanford, California

Ed. note: Mr. Kennedy is editor of WholeBody Christian Journal which servesmany Christian groups in the San Fran­cisco Bay area and is a project of Christi­anity on Campus, Inc., centered at Stan­ford.

A BLESSINGof the LordIf your January Guardian seems evenlater than usual, don't blame it this timeon the postal service.*Blame it on theeditor. Or, perhaps the editor's wife. OnDecember 20 was born Sarah AnnMitchell, all of 6 pounds, 13 ounces-andsomewhat earlier than expected. What adelightful Christmas present, as motherand daughter came home the day before,in time to enjoy and be enjoyed by all thecousins and relations.

But the birth of babies is a marvelousthing. It upsets the otherwise cool domainof the editor. It upsets his schedule ofgetting out the Guardian. It upsets hisnormally placid existence. And it is adelight, a blessing of the Lord.

So, if you were wondering whathappened, that's the story. We don't ex­pect to have another good excuse likethis. But we hope you will understandand rejoice with us in this blessing fromthe Lord.

-John Mitchell

Elisabeth who?Although this has probably been

pointed out to you already [Ed.-Manytimesl], I hasten to .correct the error thatappeared in the recent report about theconference on women held at Westmins­ter Seminary. The speaker's name isElisabeth Elliot Leitch, not Scott, as ap­peared twice in the article. Her secondhusband was the late Dr. Addison Leitchof Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary and Gor­don-Conwell Seminary.

I leap to' her "defense" here becauseshe is one of my best heroes. There arevery few clearer voices than hers-at leastin these parts-when it comes to speakingfor orthodox faith and practice. I mightadd that she was greatly encouraged tomeet Mrs. Van Halsema and the manyat Westminster who agree with her onthis issue.

Kenneth A. Ironside, pastorS. Hamilton, Mass.

P.S.: I must now correct my own correc­tion. The error appeared three times, nottwo!

The Presbyterian Guardian is published eleven times each year, every month except for a combined issue in Jul~-August, by the Presbyteri.anGuardian Publishing Corporation, 7401 Old York Road, Philadelphia, PA 19126, at the following rates, payable In advance, postage prepaid:$4.25 per year ($3.75 in clubs of ten or more; special rate for "every-family churches" on request). Second class mail privileges authorized atthe Post Office, Philadelphia, Pe,

Page 2 The Presbyterian Guardian

Inerrancy Conflict (Continued)

Two "Strange Cases ... "

An editorial lamentation

"The bombshell of the year among evan­gelical Christians"-that's what we calledit when we reviewed Dr. Harold Lindsell'sThe Battle tor the Bible in the June 1976issue of the Guardian. Now that 1976 iswell over, we still believe this book wasthe bombshell-in spite of such things asBill Bright's "Here's Life, America!"campaign or Jimmy Carter's open profes­sion of an evangelical faith.

As Lindsell sees it, the "battle for theBible" is still going on-not between"Modernists" and "Fundamentalists"-butwithin the ranks of Evangelicals. Will theEvangelical churches and institutions ac­cept the Bible as the infallible, inerrantWord of God in all that it proclaims?Lindsell was warning the Evangelicals ofthe erosions in a once solid commitmentto inerrancy on the part of many of theirchurches and organizations.

In fact, the shrapnel is still flying,counter barrages have been launched, anda good deal of smoke generated. Discus­sion of infallibility/inerrancy was a majortopic at the meeting of the EvangelicalTheological Society held at WestminsterSeminary on December 28. (The ETS re­quires members to profess inerrancy;Lindsell says that many of them do notreally believe it.) The National Associa­tion of Evangelicals, to meet in lateFebruary, has for its convention theme:"God's Word: Our Infallible Guide"­which will undoubtedly generate morestrong discussion.

Though we hope to report on some ofthese developments later, our interest nowis with two reactions to Lindsell's book,one by Fuller Seminary (a major targetin the book) and one by the editor ofThe Banner.

January 1977

... of Fuller SeminaryAs a founding faculty member and

later acting administrative head of theinstitution, Lindsell speaks with intimateknowledge in his chapter, "The StrangeCase of Fuller Theological Seminary."Basically, Lindsell charges that Fuller hasopenly abandoned its earlier commitmentto biblical inerrancy and, moreover, didso while assuring its constituency thatthere were no such changes being made.

Now there comes from Fuller a rebut­tal. The alumni publication, Theology,News and Notes (Special Issue, 1976),devotes 32 pages to a beautifully orches­trated defense of Fuller's present. positionon Scripture. We can only note some high­lights here; interested readers-who wantto know how this current "battle for theBible" will be fought-may secure a copyof TN &- N from: Alumni Office, FullerTheological Seminary, 135 N. OaklandAve., Pasadena, CA 91101.

Certainly a major theme is given inthe article on "What We Believe andTeach" by Fuller's president, David AllanHubbard. Dr. Hubbard insists that thechange in Fuller's position was due to adesire to be more biblical, even in theinstitution's doctrine of Scripture. "Wehave only one aim: to believe and toteach precisely what the Bible teachesabout itself." Whether Fuller has under­stood what the Bible teaches about itselfis. doubtful; but the sincerity of motiveseems genuine.

Hubbard is concerned to distinguishFuller's view from that of neoorthodoxy,and there is indeed a clear distinction. Healso says Fuller's view might be dis­tinguished "from that of some of ourbrothers who perceive their view of

Scripture as more orthodox than ours" inthe following points:

"1) We would stress the need to beaware of the historical process by whichGod brought the word to us.

"2) We would emphasize the carefulattention that might be given to thehistorical and cultural contexts in whichthe various authors lived and wrote, aswell as to the purposes which each had inmind-convinced as we are that the Spiritof God used the human abilities andcircumstances of the writers in such a waythat the word which results is truly divine.

"3) We are convinced that this investi­gation of the context and purpose is es­sential to a correct understanding of anyportion of God's word.

"4) We would urge that the emphasisbe placed where the Bible itself places it-on its message of salvation and its in­struction for living, not on its details ofgeography or science, though we acknow­ledge the wonderful reliability of theBible as a historical source book.

"5) We would strive to develop ourdoctrine of Scripture by hearing all thatthe Bible says, rather than by imposing onthe Bible a philosophical judgment ofour own as to how God ought to haveinspired the w6rd" (TN &- N, p. 4) .

Since it is evident that Hubbard andother professors at Fuller see their ownview as a "corrective" to the traditionalinerrancy position of B. B. Warfield (andmen like Machen, Young, or Murray whofollowed him), it seems fair to ask whatWarfield might have thought of thesefive points. Certainly he would likelyhave wanted to strengthen them here andthere, but it seems clear enough that hewould have agreed to all of them, exceptfor part of the fourth one. All this con­cern with historical process and contexthas also been a concern for the ablerdefenders of biblical inerrancy.

Even the fourth point states a truth­we should be concerned to place our em­phasis where the Bible places it. But whenthe Bible mentions "details of geographyand science," they always-without excep­tion-have something to do with the con­text in which our "salvation and instruc­tion for living" are revealed. Fuller hasclearly abandoned a position on iner­rancy, at least in "details of geography

(Continued on page 8.)

Page 3

SCRIPTURE'S

Inspirationand Authority

John Murray

The following discussion is part of aseries of articles on the doctrines of Scrip­ture by the late Professor John Murray.This part appeared in the April 10 and25, 1941, issues of the Guardian. Whatis said here by Professor Murray is as truetoday as it was over thirty-five years ago.

THE INSPIRATIONOF SCRIPTURE

When we speak of the inspiration ofScripture, we are not thinking of anyeffect that is produced in us by Scripture.Sometimes, no doubt, in common speechwe use the word "inspiration" to expressthe intellectual, moral or spiritual stimu­lus which we derive from our reading ofthe masterpieces of literature or evenfrom the example of great and good men.In such cases the inspiration is somethingthat is effected in us by the quality orcharacter of that by which we have beeninspired.

At other times in common speech we dospeak, in literary fashion, of the inspira­tion of works of human genius. For ex­ample, men speak of the inspiration ofShakespeare. This may mean severalthings. Sometimes it may refer to thegenius of Shakespeare by reason of whichhe was able to write such masterpieces ofliterature. Or it may refer to the peculiarquality residing in the works of Shake-

Page 4

speare because they are the products ofhis master genius.

But this is not what we mean by theinspiration of Scripture. It is true thatwe derive from Scripture the very highestkind of stimulus. It is also true that someof the writers of holy Scripture were menof great natural genius, and this verygenius was used by God so that the markof it is left on what they wrote. The in­spiration of Scripture, however, is some­thing very different and something ab­solutely unique. Scripture is unique. Itdoes not belong to a class of writings, allof which are characterized by inspiration.Scripture stands alone, or, as we oftensay, it stands in a class by itself. And itoccupies this unique position just becauseof its inspiration.

Meaning of "inspiration"

The word "inspiration" when appliedto Scripture refers to one of two things:(1) It may refer to the supernatural in­fluence of the Holy Spirit exerted uponthe writers of Scripture, or (2) It mayrefer to the quality residing in Scriptureas a result of that supernatural influenceexerted by the Holy Spirit.

In the first case, we are thinking of thedivine activity by which Scripture wasproduced-in a word, of its divine originand authorship. In the second case, weare thinking of the result of this divineauthorship-in a word, of its divine char­acter and authority. In either case we areled to the conclusion that Scripture is theWord of God and, therefore, infallibleand inerrant. It is in the supreme senseGod's Word, not man's.

An objection may very readily be urgedagainst this latter conclusion. For havewe not said that there were humanwriters? And if human writers, how canScripture escape the fallibility that at­taches to infirm and erring men? It isthis objection that has led many to makea distinction between the human elementsand the divine elements of Scripture, or,as sometimes stated, the distinction be­tween the human element and the divineelement in inspiration. And so it is heldthat, attaching to the human element,there is error and fallibility, while to thedivine element there is attached inerrancyand infallibility.

It must, of course, be granted that there

were human writers, and that is just say­ing that the Scripture has come to usthrough human instrumentality. But ifthat fact argues for the fallibility ofScripture, then we shall have to concludethat fallibility attaches to the whole ofScripture. For let it be remembered thatthere is not one word from Genesis toRevelation that has come to us apartfrom human instrumentality. So far asScripture is concerned, and it is withScripture we are now dealing, every parthas come to us through some humanwriter.

The distinction, then, between the hu­man element and the divine element willnot give us any basis for the discovery ofthe divine and infallible element as dis­tinguished from the human and fallibleelement. We must face the issue squarely.If the human instrumentality rendersinerrancy or infallibility impossible, thenwe do not have an infallible word fromGenesis to Revelation.

We must fully recognize the fact thatScripture came through human writers.But what we must also recognize is thatthe Holy Spirit used human writers insuch a way that what they wrote theywrote under an all-pervasive supernaturalinfluence, so that Scripture is wholly theWord of God. There are, therefore, noexceptions to, or degrees of, the influencewe call inspiration.

Whence do we derive this notion ofinspiration? The answer to that questionis just the asking of another: Whence dowe derive our notion of, or authority for,any doctrine? The answer is plain. Fromthe Scripture itself. And so we derive ourdoctrine of inspiration from the Scripture.

We might quite properly say that wederive our doctrine of inspiration fromChrist and his apostles. The attitudeexemplified and inculcated by our Lordand his apostles must be our attitude. No

Scripture occupies a uniqueposition just because

of its inspiration.

The Presbyterian Guardian

one may dare to deviate one whit fromwhat Christ, who is the truth, and thebrightness of the Father's glory and theexpress image of his person, taught andcommended. But our knowledge of whatChrist and his apostles taught comes tous through Scripture, and so ultimatelywe must say that we derive our doctrineof inspiration from Scripture.

2 Peter 1:16-21

We shall have to limit ourselves to oneor two of the high points of Bible teach­ing on this question. We shall take up,first of all, 2 Peter 1:16-21. In this passagePeter says that "no prophecy of scriptureis of private interpretation. For no pro­phecy ever came by the will of man: butas borne by the Holy Spirit men spakefrom God" (verses 20, 21) .

Here Peter fully acknowledges the hu­man authorship. Speaking of Scripture hedoes say "men spake." This fact makes allthe more significant what he says inaddition. We may be inclined to arguethat human authorship impairs thestability of Scripture and that it detractsfrom the divine authorship and character.It was not so with this apostle, wholearned of him who said to his disciples,"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth,is come, he will guide you into all truth"(John 16:13). For while, on the onehand, Peter says "men spake,' he on theother hand makes three very astoundingstatements-"no phophecy of scripture isof private interpretation," "no prophecyever came by the will of man," "as borneby the Holy Spirit men spake from God."

When Peter says that Scripture is notof private interpretation, he does notrefer to our interpretation of Scripturebut rather to Scripture as product. It isnot the mere product of human reflectionor imagination. Again, when he says thatit was not brought by the will of man, he

Ultimately we must say thatwe derive our doctrine of

inspiration from Scripture.

January 1977

excludes mere human volition and de­termination. And finally, when he says"borne by the Holy Spirit," he becomesquite positive in affirming, in Dr. B. B.Warfield's words, that "the men whospake from God are here declared, there­fore, to have been taken up by the HolySpirit and brought by His power to thegoal of His choosing. The things whichthey spoke under this operation of theSpirit were therefore His things, nottheirs. And that is the reason which isassigned why the 'prophetic word' is sosure."

Perhaps the most amazing features ofthis passage in 2 Peter is what he says inverse 19: "We have also a more sureword of prophecy." The more sure wordof prophecy is the Scripture with whichhe deals in the following verses. Thatwith which it is compared as being moresure or steadfast is the word that Peter,together with James and John, heardspoken from heaven on the Mount ofTransfiguration when the Father gavewitness to the Son, saying, "This is mybeloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."There could not possibly be any questionin Peter's mind as to the stability andinfallibility of that word that Peter withthe others received on the holy mount. Itwas the voice of the eternal Father. AndPeter was profoundly aware of all thesolemn implications of the privilege andresponsibility that was his. In virture ofall this he introduces the subject by tell­ing his readers, "We did not follow cun­ningly devised fables."

But the astounding fact is that Peteralso says, "We have a more steadfast wordof prophecy." The written Word givesground for stronger and more stable as­surance than the very word spoken onthat occasion on the mountain. He is af­firming the absolute trustworthiness ofScripture. In Scripture, Peter and hisreaders have not simply a word spokenon a particular occasion, but the Word ofGod that has received, because it is Scrip­ture, permanent form and authentication.Could anything more emphatically expressthe security, trustworthiness and infallibil­ity of Scripture? May anyone question theinfallibility of the Father's witness to hiswell-beloved Son? Scripture possessessimilar infallibility, and only on such abasis could Peter say, "And we have the

Scripture is breathed out by God.It is God's mouth, God's breath,

God's oracle.

word of prophecy made more sure."

2 Timothy 3:16

The next passage we shall study is 2Timothy 3:16, where Paul says, "All scrip­ture is given by inspiration of God." OurEnglish phrase, "given by inspiration ofGod," quite properly conveys the thoughtof the Greek word, namely, that Scriptureowes its existence to a divine activity.That is the main emphasis and it is borneout by our English phrase. But there isalso something in the Greek word thatis not fully expressed in our Englishversion. The Greek word means, literally,"God-breathed." "All Scripture is God­breathed"-it is breathed out by God.

Paul is not speaking of an inbreathingon the part of God into Scripture. Nor ishe speaking of any influence which isbreathed into us through the medium ofholy Scripture. Indeed, Paul is not evenspeaking of an inbreathing on the partof God into the human writers of Scrip­ture. But what he is saying, in the mostemphatic and terse way, is that Scriptureis breathed by God. It is God's mouth,God's breath, God's oracle. Paul couldnot have adopted a word that moresimply and directly affirms that Scriptureis spoken by God, that it is the speech orword of God.

In speaking thus of Scripture hemakes no reservations and no qualifica­tions. He does not say that Scripture isthe vehicle by which such words of Godare conveyed to us. He does not speakof degrees of inspiration. No, what heaffirms is that all Scripture is God­breathed. It may very well be that weshould translate it thus, "Every Scriptureis God-breathed." But this renderingmakes no difference in the effect. Forif every particular part of Scripture isthus inspired, then the sum-total ofScripture partakes of the same character.

Page 5

The whole will not have less of thischaracter of inspiration than do the in­dividual parts that compose that whole.

We must not fail to grasp the forceof this testimony of the apostle. Breathis a very direct expression of the life thatis in us. Scripture stands in as close arelation to the truth and will of God asdoes breath to us.

It might be asked, What is the scopeof that Scripture of which Paul says thatit is God-breathed? In the preceding con­text Paul speaks of the holy scriptureswhich Timothy knew from a child. Thesemust, of course, be the Old Testamentscriptures. We know the scope of thecanon of Scripture accepted and ap­proved by our Lord and the apostles. Itwas the Jewish canon, coextensive withour Old Testament. Of nothing less thanthat does Paul say that it is given by in­spiration of God.

But Paul may also be thinking of allthat could properly be embraced in thecategory of Scripture, even though all ofthe New Testament scriptures were notyet written. In any case, he speaks thusof the Old Testament. And that estab­lishes a principle; it fixes a doctrine,namely, the doctrine of Scripture.

If the Old Testament could be thuscharacterized by an apostle, can we be­lieve that the scriptures of the New Test­ament, which are the embodiment ofthe revelation God gave to men throughthe incarnation of the eternal Son andthe pentecostal outpouring of the HolySpirit, belong to a lower category? Canwe believe that the New Testament econ­omy, characterized as it is by the moreabundant effusion and operation of theHoly Spirit, does not possess that whichthe older economy had, namely, an in­fluence of the Spirit that provides uswith a God-breathed and infallibleScripture?

The questions carry their own answers.We can surely say of the whole Biblethat it is "given by inspiration of God,and is profitable for doctrine, for re­proof, for correction, for instruction inrighteousness: that the man of God maybe perfect, thoroughly furnished unto allgood words" (2 Timothy 3: 16, 17).

THE AUTHORITYOF SCRIPTURE

The authority of Scripture is that char­acteristic whereby there is required of usunquestioning faith and instant obedi­ence. On what does this authoritydepend? The informed Christian willvery readily reply that the authority of

Page 6

Scripture resides in the fact that it isGod's Word.

Other answers have, however, beengiven to the question, and so it is neces­sary to deal with some of these in orderthat the full meaning of the answer givenabove may be appreciated and its truthguarded against misapprehension anderror.

The Romish Church formally acknow­ledges that the authority of Scripture re­sides in the fact that God is its author.But it is characteristic of Rome to givewith one hand and take away with theother. One of the cardinal errors of theRomish communion is that it intrudesthe church in the place that belongs toGod. The church, according to Roman­ists, is the infallible and living voice ofGod. And so Protestants have contendedthat the position of Rome is virtuallythat the church, called by Rome "holymother Church," determines what rever­ence is due to the Scripture. When weremember that Rome pleads the author­ity of "tradition" and of the church, aswell as the authority of Scripture, we canreadily perceive how necessary it is thatthe church should determine the extentof the authority that is inherent in holyScripture.

Inspiration makes Scriptureauthoritative; the inward

testimony of the Spirit bringsthat authority home to us.

Now, it is true, as the WestminsterConfession says, that "we may be movedand induced by the testimony of theChurch to a high and reverent esteem ofthe Holy Scripture." We must appreciatethe fact that the church, when properlyconceived, is a divine institution, andthat God has used it as his instrument forthe preservation and vindication of hisWord. It is a fact not to be minimizedor despised that we do not have theScriptures in our possession apart fromthe function the church has performedand the testimony it has borne. It isthrough the medium of this witness thatthe Scripture has been brought to us,and it is in the context of that testimonythat our faith in Scripture as the Wordof God received its birth.

But just as we fully accord to thechurch the place that God has given it inhis wise ordination and providence, we

must not allow the church to usurp aplace that does not belong to it. Theauthority of Scripture does not proceedfrom any decision or proclamation of thechurch. It is the duty of the church toproclaim the authority that belongs toScripture, but we must not ground theauthority of Scripture in any prerogativethat is vested in the church. Surely noth­ing should be more obvious than that theWord of God needs no intermediary toinvest it with authority, nor any decisionon the part of men to determine whatreverence is due to it.

To teach or insinuate that the Word ofGod needs human authentication beforeit can wield authority over us is to oustGod from his place of supremacy, andit is to make man more absolute thanGod. God is truth itself, and there canbe nothing addressed to us more absolutethan his Word. "If we receive the witnessof men, the witness of God is greater"(I John 5:9).

The Spirit's inward testimony

There is another view held today withrespect to the authority of Scripture thatmight appear at first to be eminently cor­rect and honoring to the Holy Spirit. Itis that the authority of Scripture proceedsfrom what we call the inward testimonyof the Holy Spirit, and so Scripture, it issaid, is authoritative only as it is bornehome to our hearts and minds by thisinward work of the Holy Spirit.

The truth of the inward testimony ofthe Holy Spirit bearing witness by andwith the Word in our hearts is, of course,a very important and precious one, for itis by this testimony alone that we canproperly recognize the authority of Scrip­ture and have that full persuasion of itsinfallible truth and divine authority. Yetit is a great perversion of the truth tosay that the inward work of the HolySpirit makes Scripture authoritative. Thefunction of the inward testimony of theSpirit is not by any means to investScripture with authority; it is rather tobring to our hearts conviction of thatauthority. The Holy Spirit when heoperates in our hearts does not do any­thing to Scripture; rather, he does some­thing in us.

When we are dealing with any fact, ourconviction with respect to that fact doesnot cause that fact to be, nor does thetestimony by which we are convinced ofthat fact cause that fact to be. The exist­ence of the fact is one thing, the evidenceby which it is evinced to be a fact is an­other, and the conviction we may have onthe basis of that evidence is still another.

The Presbyterian Guardian

Exodus 4:11and InerrancyA Bible study

And Moses said unto the Lord, "0 myLord, I am not eloquent, neither be­fore now, nor since thou hast spokenunto thy servant. But I am slow ofspeech, and of a slow tongue." And theLord said unto him, "Who has mademan's mouth? or who makes the dumhor deaf, or the seeing, or the hlind?Have not I the Lord? Now thereforego, and I will be with thy mouth, andteach thee what thou shalt say" (Exo­dus 4:10, II).

How is it that a sinful human being, eventhe most nearly perfect one, could everhave written an infallible sentence, muchless a whole book? How is it that Godcan so use a man, with his personaltalents and gifts, so that the man writeshis own composition, characterized by hisown personality and gifts, and yet theresult can still be the infallible, inerrantWord of God?

Moses had a problem with this quest­ion. Whether Moses was fully honest inhis estimate of his own abilities, even sohe had reason to wonder how a mere man

So is it with the authority of Scripture.The inward testimony of the Holy Spiritpresupposes the authority of Scripture; itdoes not produce this authority. Our con­viction on the basis of that testimony re­spects an authority that is inherent in theScripture itself.

It is indeed true that the authorityresident in Scripture owes its very exist­ence to the operation of the Holy Spirit.But this operation of the Holy Spirit isnot that of the continuous work of theHoly Spirit in the hearts of believers, ashe bears witness by and with the Word,but that once-for-all completed operationwhich we know as inspiration. In a word,it is the fact of inspiration that makesScripture authoritative and it is the in­ward testimony of the Spirit that bringshome to us that authority.

January 1977

could faithfully serve as God's spokesman.And this passage, dealing with the firstwriter of Scripture, tells us a great dealabout how God revealed himself throughmen.

God had no problem with the question."Who has made man's mouth? ... havenot I the Lord?" The creator God is fullycapable of using his creature man to ac­complish his own purposes. Not only isthis true in the abstract, but God goes onto give some clue to how the whole pro­cess would work.

When Moses continued to argue withGod, "modestly" suggesting that God goand find someone else, the Lord becameangry and said,

"Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother?... Thou shalt speak unto him, andput words in his mouth. And I will bewith thy mouth, and with his mouth,and will teach you what you shall do.And he shall be thy spokesman untothe people; and he shall be, he shall beto thee instead of a mouth, and thoushalt be to him instead of God"(verses 14.16).

What a remarkable statementl Godwould so control the mouths of bothMoses and Aaron that they would speakwhatever God taught them. Here we seethe basic pattern of biblical inspiration:Aaron would be spokesman for Moses,Moses would be as God to Aaron. It wasnot mere dictation; Aaron was still Aaron.But behind it all the active power of Godwas present-"I will be with thy mouth,and with his mouth, and will teach you[both] what you shall do."

This view with which we have now beendealing, the view that rests the authorityof Scripture on the inward testimony, inreality denies the objective and intrinsicauthority of Scripture. If it is the work ofthe Spirit in our hearts that accordsScripture its authority, then Scripture isnot authoritative in itself, and it is notauthoritative for those who do not enjoythe inward testimony of the Spirit. It be­comes apparent how devastating for theauthority of Scripture this view becomes.

Furthermore, it must be said that theresort to the inward testimony as the basisof authority, though it appears to dohonor to the Holy Spirit, rests upon theabandonment ot another activity of theSpirit, namely, the plenary inspiration ofthe Bible. We must, on the contrary, dohonor to the whole work of the Spirit and

With God in such control, is there anypossibility of error creeping in? Can wedoubt that when Moses wrote Genesis,for example, he was writing anything lessthan the inerrant words of God? If themaker of Moses' mouth was "with hismouth," is it conceivable that an errorgot by?

Even so, it was Moses who spoke andMoses who wrote. And when we read thebooks of Moses we need to look at themthrough the eyes of Moses. We need tounderstand these scriptures as Moseswould have understood them. At the sametime, we have the added advantage ofseeing the full significance of many thingsthat Moses could only glimpse dimly.After all, though it's important to readthrough Moses' eyes, it is also importantto read through the Spirit's "eyes," for heis the ultimate author.

When we read Moses, we read God.That is the assurance we have from thesewords of God addressed to Moses in thewilderness. Perhaps no other passage inScripture comes as close to revealing themysterious work of inspiration by whichGod gave his infallible truth.

That God meant the people then toreceive the message from Moses as indeedthe message from God is abundantly clear.And that the people then-and ever since-should understand that the messagewas from God, the Lord authenticated hisspokesman and his revelation throughmiraculous signs:

"And thou shalt take this rod in thinehand, with which thou shalt do signs"(verse 17).

-J. J. M.

realize that without the intrinsic author­ity of Scripture, resting upon its plenaryinspiration, we cannot have even the in­ward testimony of the Spirit. For it isonly to the Word that is intrinsically andin its own right divinely authoritative thatthe Holy Spirit can bear witness as theWord of God.

Authority and obedience

Finally, what does the authority ofScripture involve for us? The word"authority" always suggests binding force.It demands acquiescence and obedience.To the binding force of Scripture as theWord of God there attaches an ultimacyand finality that belongs to no otherstandard. And so the only attitude in usthat is appropriate to the authority ofScripture is that of unreserved acceptance

Page 7

and wholehearted subjection.The authority of Scripture is the

authority of God, for it is God who speaksin it. To God we are responsible, on himwe are dependent, and that not in onecompartment of life but in all of life. Aswe can never move outside the sphere ofresponsibility to God or of dependenceon him, so we can never at any time or inany department of life pass beyond thebounds of subjection to his Word.

It is this principle of the supremacy ofthe Word of God that makes the authorityof Scripture an intensely practical matter.We are prone to think that the Bible con­cerns merely the sphere of what is called"religion," and does not bear upon the"secular" activities. How dwarfed andwarped is such a conception of the Wordof God! It is worse than that; it is godless!

The authority of the Bible releases itsgrip at no point, and if we think other­wise or conduct our life on the basis ofanother supposition, it is because we haveexcluded God from his domain. "Whithershall I go from thy spirit? or whither shallI flee from thy presence? If I ascend up

TWO STRANGE CASES ...

(Continued from page 3.)

and science."Now Warfield might also question the

fifth point. As it reads, he could agreeto it. But it might be interpreted inpractice as something else. And when wesee how one Fuller professor "hears allthat the Bible says" about itself, we cansee the problem clearly. The article byWilliam Sanford LaSor, "Life under Ten­sion-Fuller Theological Seminary and'The Battle for the Bible,''' is a lengthyreminiscence of the history of Fuller's"strange case."

But when LaSor comes to explain hisown approach to inerrancy, and what theBible teaches about itself, we find himexamining-not such texts as 2 Timothy3: 16-but all the supposed inaccuraciesand contradictions to be found in Scrip­ture. Having found all these "problems,"particularly in areas of history, science,and the like, LaSor concludes that theBible can be said to be inerrant only inthe area of faith and practice, not in themore technical or scientific areas.

Fuller's present position is that "all thebooks of the Old and New Testament,given by divine inspiration, are thewritten word of God, the only infalliblerule of faith and practice." These words

PageS

into heaven, thou art there: if I make mybed in hell, behold, thou art there. . . .How precious also are thy thoughts untome, 0 God! how great is the sum ofthem!" (Psalm 139:7, 8,17). "I have seenan end of all perfection: but thy com­mandment is exceeding broad" (Psalm119:96).

The authority of Scripture is a bindingforce. But it is also the condition andguarantee of liberty. It is the perfect lawof liberty. It was Jesus who said, "Andye shall know the truth, and the truthshall make you free" (John 8:32).

Authority always relates itself very di­rectly to conscience and it is God alonewho is Lord of the conscience. Consciencenever performs its function truly nor doesit enjoy its liberty except as it is thebondservant of an authority that is ab­solute, bondservant too in willing andintelligent subservience to judgment fromwhich there is no appeal.

The authority of Scripture is the veryguarantor of liberty of conscience. In theeloquent words of the Westminster Con­fession, "God alone is Lord of the con-

are adapted from the first ordination vowof most Presbyterian churches (not fromthe Westminster Confession as LaSorsays). And countless Presbyterian office­bearers have affirmed such words, fullysatisfied that they were affirming a fullyinfallible Scripture. But Fuller under­stands these words as applying only to thearea of "faith and practice."

But perhaps the saddest note in thisspecial issue of TN &- N is the report onthe seminary's decision with respect toPaul King Jewett, whose book Man asMale and Female has generated quite astir. Professor Jewett, frankly admittingthat Paul teaches the subordination ofwomen in the church, puts this teachingneatly aside as a product of Paul's Jewishbackground and not of his better Chris­tian thinking. That is to hold that theseScripture teachings are erroneous, eventhough they clearly have to do with anarea of "faith and practice" in the church.

The committee that dealt with thisproblem did not want to endorse Jewett'sconclusions, but neither did they want tocondemn the man. They got around theproblem by criticizing Jewett's methodsof interpretation but granting that he hada full right to use them. This neat trickwas accomplished by asserting that whatJewett was doing was to use the "analogyof faith" in his interpretation, or as itis sometimes stated, letting Scripture in­terpret Scripture.

science, and hath left it free from thedoctrines and commandments of men,which are in any thing contrary to HisWord; or beside it, if matters of faithor worship. So that, to believe such doc­trines, or to obey such commands, out ofconscience, is to betray true liberty ofconscience: and the requiring of an im­plicit faith, and an absolute and blindobedience is to destroy liberty of con­science, and reason also" (XX, 2).

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

John Murray, Collected Writings, Vol.I, 390 pages, list price: $10.95.Volume I will be available for sale inthe U. S. by mid-February. Copies maybe ordered before March I at the speci­al pre-publication price of $7.75 plus50¢ postage, cash with order. Send to:

Banner of Truth TrustP. O. Box 652Carlisle, P A 17013

Now that is certainly a valid approachused by all sober students of Scripture.But never before has one scripture beenused to find some other scripture in clearerror as Jewett has done. For Fuller, notonly is the Bible infallible only in areasof faith and practice, but it may be falli­ble even there if someone is sharp enoughto find some apparent contradiction; thenyou are free to choose whichever side youprefer.

All of this, no matter how sincereFuller's desire to be taught by Scripture,amounts to a simple dethroning of God'sauthority in Scripture and replacing it bya human and error-prone judge of whatis true and what is not. Lindsell is right;from here the road is downhill all theway to the bottom.

... of editor De KosterThe other "strange case" is a long series

of editorials in The Banner, official organof the Christian Reformed Church. Theeditor, Dr. Lester De Koster, devotes allthis space to a rambling discussion ofLindsell's book and two recent "cases"within the Christian Reformed Church.

De Koster has little use for Lindsell'sbook. "It is a highly incompetent work,at most a reservoir of unseemly gossip.Unfortunately it has secured some hastyendorsement by Reformed writers who,on reflection, will have occasion to recon­sider, I think, their enthusiasm" (Banner,

The Presbyterian Guardian

PRINCIPAL WANTED

MEXICO SUMMERTRAINING SESSION

Eleven weeks of academic and practicalmissionary orientation beginning June9, 1977, in Mexico City. Tenth season.Studies in Spanish, Bible, and Missions.Field Training Assignments. Required:high school graduation 1976 or earlier,church sponsorship.

Ask for complete details.

A Ministry in HoustonThe Covenant Presbyterian Church in Amer­ica of Houston, Texas, desires to minister tothe needs of any who would welcome our min­istry and who are here to undergo treatmentin the Medical Center. If you have peoplewho need the ministry of other loving Chris­tians, contact: Rev. Lourie Jones (713-497­774) or Rev. Tom Hoolsema (713-495­7891), or write to the church at 2110 GrayFalls Dr., Houston, TX 77077.

REFORMED BIBLE COLLEGE

1869 ROBINSON ROAD, S.E.

GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49506

616-458-0404

moving???please let us know at least threeweeks in advance. it costs youonly 9¢ and the special card youget at the post cfiice. otherwiseit costs us 25¢ and lots of trouble.thanks!

Covenant Christian School (grades 1­6) of St. Louis, Missouri, will have anopening for a teaching principal for the1977-78 school year. The present staffconsists of certified, experiencedteachers. Interested candidates shouldhave teaching experience on the ele­mentary level and show evidence ofadministrative capabilities. Contractprovisions require membership in achurch of Reformed faith. Letters ofapplication and resumes should besent to: The Education CommitteeCovenant Christian School, 2143 NorthBallas Road, St. Louis, MO 63131.

•

in its own right. All the inner witness ofthe Spirit does is to affirm to our heartsthat Scripture is indeed the authoritativeWord of God.

But if it is indeed the Word of God, ofwhich we have been convinced by theSpirit'S inward testimony, then it is alsoauthoritative in what it teaches aboutitself. And it is here that we learn, fromScripture (as well as from the "theologicalargument" perhaps), that God's writtenword is indeed inerrant in all that it pro­claims.

In his final editorial on the subject, DeKoster notes that many evangelicalleaders are "deploring the division amongevangelicals being caused by Lindsell'sbook." And he adds, "Let us take carethat such division does not invade us" (inthe November 26 issue). But it alreadyhas. Dr. Walhout's views of Scripture arenot those of the great Reformed theolo­gians of the past. Neither are Dr. AllenVerhey's. Neither, apparently, are theviews of the synodical committee that DeKoster mentions whose report on womenin church office was rejected by Synod.

The division is already there-betweenthose who believe the Scriptures to be thevery word of God, infallible and inerrantin all that they teach, and those who saymany fine things about Scripture but arewilling to find errors in it. It is sad thatthis is so. But it is even sadder if theleaders of once sound churches are nolonger willing to make a "battle for theBible" in our day.

-John J. Mitchell

The 1977 convention of the NationalAssociation of Evangelicals will have as itstheme: "God's Word: Our InfallibleGuide." This choice of theme is particu­larly sensitive due to the stir generatedby Dr. Harold Lindsell's The Battle forthe Bible. The NAE convention will meeton February 22-24 in Arlington Heights,Illinois.

The NAE was organized in the 1940sas a counter to the National Council ofChurches and to provide evangelicals withgreater fellowship and mutual help. Itsservice agencies are frequently used bysmaller denominations in preference toestablishing their own. Many of thefounding figures of the NAE and stilllargely influential in its counsels are alsointimately involved in the current debateon Scripture inerrancy (for which see thevarious articles elsewhere in this issue).

NAE to focus onScripture authority

August 20, 1976). Well, I trust I am Re­formed. I gave Lindsell's book lengthystudy before writing a review of it. Andon further reconsideration, I can onlywonder whether (1) De Koster really readthe book, or (2) De Koster really under­stands the Reformed doctrine of Scripture.

For example: In commenting on theviews of Dr. Edwin Walhout, views thateven to De Koster seem to have gottenonto the "wrong track" so far as Scrip­ture's unique infallibility is concerned,the Banner editor says: "As ... Dr. HenryStab likes to say, in echo of Calvin (andKarl Barth), we Christians stand in theworld with a Book in our hands. And thatBook is sui generis, a Latin phrase mean­ing 'of its own kind.' Unique!" (Septem­ber 17).

I don't know if Dr. Stab wants to be anecho of Karl Barth or not. But doesDe Koster not realize that Calvin's Bibleand Barth's Bible may both be sui generis,but they are not of the same genus. ForBarth the Bible was unique because some­how God manages to bring his Word tomen through it. For Calvin the Bible wasunique because it was, in its very nature,the Word of God, fully authoritative andfully infallible-whether or not the readeror hearer actually accepted it as such.

Then De Koster, who never really givesany analysis of Lindsell's book at all,faults Lindsell for failing to appreciatethe Reformed doctrine of the inwardtestimony of the Spirit to the Scriptures asGod"s Word. It's true that Lindsell is notall that clear on this point. But then,neither is De Koster, and that is sad to see,

Lindsell's concern is with how we knowthat the Bible is inerrantly the Word ofGO,d. And, as Lindsell says, there are onlytwo answers: If God is the author, andGod cannot lie, then Scripture cannot lie(the theological argument, if you will).The second answer is that Scripture itselfclaims to be inerrant (the biblical argu­ment, we may call it) . Then Lindsell doesconfuse the issue by suggesting that theinner witness of the Spirit to the heartsof believers may be a "third possibility."But that is not the purpose of the innertestimony, and De Koster fails to see thepoint even as Lindsell failed to keep itclear.

The believer accepts Scripture as theauthoritative Word of God because theSpirit has indeed exercised an inwardtestimony in his heart affirming that fact.The inner witness of the Spirit does notcreate the authority of Scripture (as theBarthians tend to see it); neither does itdo anything else to the already existingnature of Scripture as fully authoritative

January 1977 Page 9

What God HasJOINED

Stephen L. Phillips

In every age the church of the Lord JesusChrist faces issues that test her commit­ment to her sovereign Head and hisWord. One such issue is the challenge ofpresent-day views and practices concern­ing marriage and divorce. This is by nomeans the only place where Scripture andsociety are in conflict, nor is it necessarilythe area of greatest deviation and sinwithin the visible church. But this is onebattlefront of the faith that has been, isbeing, and no doubt will continue to beunder attack.

One must expect that the sinful worldwill not be in agreement with the teach­ings of Scripture in true discipleship. Jesussaid no less in John 15: 18-25. Exchangingthe truth of God for a lie is the naturalinclination (Romans 1:25) . So, the philo­sophy expressed on a current TV show,"One Day at a Time," is to be expected:"Divorce is against everything I was evertaught, but it's better to have two rela­tively calm, intelligent [divorced personsliving separately] than two screamingmaniacs living together."

But to read the same philosophy,though put more critically, by a professorof theology is shaking to the Christianconscience: "To maintain a destructivemarriage on the basis of being loyal to aChristian ethic of no divorce is hardlyjustifiable" (Dr. Bernard L. Ramm ofEastern Baptist Seminary in his book,The Right, the Good, and the Happy).The heart of the issue is brought to us inthe words of Dr. Howard Hart (in Hopefor the Family, pp. 46f.): "There are noconcrete rules or ways: . . . the laws ofMoses, the teachings of Christ, and theletters of Paul all give different responsesto the principle of fidelity in mar­riage. . . A change in our most honored,most time-established and most sacredinstitutions should not be resisted but

Page 10

welcomed...."The heart matter is whether God has

spoken, whether the Scriptures are God'sWord written, and whether God's Wordis binding.

Permanency of marriageMarriage is God-ordained. Jehovah

said that it was not good for Adam to bealone and that he would make a helpersuitable for him. After forming Eve fromAdam's rib, the Lord God brought her tohim (Genesis 2: 18-22).

The responsibility in this marriage andall marriages is for the husband to cleave(stick like glue) to his wife (Genesis 2:24:Ephesians 5:31). Both God the Father andGod the Son designed marriage to be acommitment of a male and female that isof necesssity broken only by death(Matthew 19:3-6).

One reason for denying the preman­ency of marriage may come from viewingit as based on love-by which is oftenmeant also an unbiblical concept of loveas emotional feelings of affection orsexual attraction. Certainly the Scriptureknows of this concept, but frequently inrelation to disastrous effects (David andBathsheba; Amnon and Tamar) .

But even a proper biblical understand­ing of love as "giving" rather than "feel­ing"-"as Christ also loved the churchand gave himself up for her" (Ephesians5:25) -is not the basis for marriage.(Actually, this giving love is required inall our relationships.) The basis for mar­riage, and therefore the key to its per­manence, is the commitment that is made.

A marriage is the coming together ofone man and one woman so that whatwere two is now one, and that oneness inScripture is repeatedly called "one flesh."It is the physical, sexual union of a manand a woman that is the essence of mar­riage. That is so important that Paul seesthe casual union with a prostitute in thesame terms (1 Corinthians 6: 15, 16). Yetthat physical union, "one flesh" though itis at least for the moment, is not a mar­riage. There is no lasting commitment.

Marriage in covenantThe commitment that makes a marriage

real is called a "covenant" in Scripture(Malachi 2: 14) . It is the bond that joinstwo people who were not naturally re­lated. To break this covenant-bond, re­gardless of spiritual carelessness, wrongmotives, immaturity, or any other foiblesthat may enter the picture is to breaknot only that covenant but also one'scovenant with God (Proverbs 2: 17) . (SeeDr.Jay E. Adams's discussion of this in

Christian Living in the Home, P: 45.)It is only in the face of a life-long corn­

mitment that a true relationship ofbiblical love-giving can develop properly.With this covenant commitment as thefoundation, a statement like "I don't lovehim/her anymore" is shown for what ittruly is-a "feeling," an emotion thatmust be labelled as a sinful attitude con­trary to God's own designs for humanrelations in general and for marriage inparticular.

We need to instill in our young peoplethis covenant concept of marriage andthe .biblical reasons for it. Only so willthey approach marriage with all theseriousness of our Lord's requirements forthat blessed state.

Ruptures in marriageScripture permits only two circum­

stances under which this covenant bond ofmarriage may be broken, and even thenonly by allowance and not by necessity.

Physical adultery is the one ground fordivorce of which our Lord made mention(Matthew 5:32; 19:9). By restricting per­

missible divorce to this one cause, Jesusnegated the liberal interpretations ofDeuteronomy 24: 1-4 under which thescribes allowed almost anything as areason for divorce, by the man at least.

The other ground for divorce is statedby Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15. If anunbeliever insists on leaving a believinghusband or wife, then the believer is nolonger bound.

This passage in no way allows a believerto contract marriage with an unbeliever.The situation in view is where one part­ner, by God's grace, is brought to con­version after the marriage was begun, orperhaps a previously professing believerhas now openly repudiated the faith.

Nor does this passage give the believ­ing partner any freedom to seek dissolu­tion of the marriage. The Christian isalways under obligation to seek reconcilia­tion. But if the unbeliever persists inwanting out, the believer is permitted tobe released from the marriage bond. (Fora discussion of the significance of thewords "depart" and "not bound" see John

The basis for marriage, andthe key to its permanence,

is the commitment that is made.

The Presbyterian Guardian

Murray's Divorce, pp. 72ff.)Divorce on any other ground than one

of these must be called what it is: sin.And our definitions of and attitudes to­ward sin must be determined by Scripture,not by our cultural conditioning.

Approaching problemsFrequently the church, including ~er

elders, is unaware that there are mantaldifficulties of such a nature that divorceis being seriously considered. It may bethat the church has simply neglected orfailed to see various signals for help. Itmay also be true that there never was anysignal for help. Both situations are wrong.

We are commanded to bear one an­other's burdens (Galatians 6:2; 1 Thes­salonians 5:14; Romans 15:1) as well aspersistently call on our brethren for help(James 5:14; Acts 6:1; 16:9). Believers

must be encouraged to put aside pride andresponsibly seek help from others in bring­ing God's Word to bear on the problems.Believers must be encouraged also to help.comfort, and advise one another withlove, patience, and wisdom from above.

To break the covenant-bondof marriage is to break

one's covenant with God.

Although with God nothing is impos­sible yet, like any disease, the longer suchproblems are left unattended, the harderand more drastic become the means to acure. It is God's wisdom that tells us thatputting off a problem until tomorrow al­lows the Devil to gain a foothold (Ephes­ians 4:26, 27). It is also God's wisdom,especially in areas of such serious stressas sometimes arise in a marriage, that Godwill not permit us to be tempted beyondour ability to endure (I Corinthians10:13) and that is true simply because thegrace of God is sufficient for every trial(2 Corinthians 12:9).

Actions requiredOne of the best ways to promote these

biblical principles is for the elders of thechurch to encourage parents to presentGod's view of marriage and God's way ofhandling the problems of sin, especiallyin their daily living before their childrenand by regular instruction (Deuteronomy6:4-9). The church should also require

January 1977

Reconciliation is the onlytrue sign of repentance.

pre-marriage counseling for those wishingto be joined in covenant bonds. Mutualbiblical counsel and the continuing min­istry of the Word and prayer are also tobe part of the church's program.

Such preventive measures are mostdesirable. But the reality of the stub­borness of sin and the hardness of heartmust be also faced. When there is abreakdown in a covenant household, theelders must ascertain the problem, urgeand pray for reconciliation, and as neces­sary enter into the proper exercise ofchurch discipline. Because of the per­sonal stress usually associated with separa­tion and divorce, and for the honor ofChrist and his church, it may be necessaryto suspend such persons from leadershipin the church even before it is clear whatthe degree of guilt may be.

Reconciliation, or the honest seeking ofreconciliation, is the only true sign ofobedience and repentance, Repentance isnot limited to sorrow and tears andapologies; but Will seek to reverse theeffects of sin (Luke 19:8; Ephesians 4:28) .To insist that reconciliation is impossible,because of "incompatibility," "mentalcruelty," or "irreconcilable differences,"is to deny the justifying work of Christand the transfonning power of the HolySpirit (I Corinthians 6: II) .

To express forgiveness without intend­ing to reconstruct broken bonds and re­store broken vows is presumptive; it is"cheap grace." Paul forcefully condemnsthis in Romans 6 when he answers thequestion, "Are we to continue in sin thatgrace may abound?" Through our unionwith Christ we are dead to sin and aliveto God. We cannot, therefore, let sinreign in us but must rather present our­selves to God so that we are instrumentsof righteousness in our mortal bodies.

Dedication to obedient service to Christis our life-long goal. That is true not onlyin the divinely ordained state of marriagebut in every facet of our lives. God de­mands no less; we owe him much more.

The Rev. Mr. Phillips is pastor ofMemorial Orthodox Presbyterian Churchand prepared this article tor use with hissession and congregation.

Page II

The Giving PlanWith Two Abns

1. The GIFf ANNUITY allows youto make a substantial gift toWestminster Theological Semi­nary which extends your Chris­tian outreach.

2. The GIFf ANNUITY assuresyou guaranteed annual pay­ments for the rest of your life, ata rate based on your age at thetime the payments begin. Youcan also provide a supplemen­tary income for a loved onethrough a joint and survivor­ship gift annuity, at a rate basedon your age and that of thesecond person.

For further information on thegift annuity, use the handy clip­out below to request our freebooklet Giving through GiftAnnuities. There is no cost orobligation.

Westminster Theological SeminaryP.O. Box 27009Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19118

D Please send your free booklet Giv­ing through Gift Annuities.

Name _

Address _

City _

State Zip _

L -----------~

Baptism unto

DEATH

Edwards E. Elliott

The Ganges is a river of death. Yetthousands bathe in its waters to gainsome immunity from death. The Styxis the mythical river of death. Did abath in that stream give Achilles im­munity from death? Yet his mother hadimmersed him - all but his heel. Hewas a champion, of sorts, but in theTrojan war a heel wound was his un­doing.

"There is a river ...." says Psaim46. There is a "river of the water oflife," says Revelation 22. Could thisstream of living water, flowing forth fromthe throne of God, also be viewed as astream of fire, issuing forth as an expres­sion of the wrath of God revealed fromheaven against all ungodliness and un­righteousness? Could the crystal sea ofglass, the scene of godly triumph, alsobe seen as the lake of fire? Could Jor­dan be viewed at once as the river ofjudgment sweeping all sin away, and asthe refreshing brook by which theMessiah lifts up his head?

A two-sided signThe Christian doctrine of baptism has

been the subject of ongoing study. Somescholars are firmly convinced that itsprimary meaning is not that of cleansing,though this aspect is not to be omitted.But the primary significance is seen asthat of ordeal, or trial. The ordeal ofJesus Christ at the cross, the victory andthe vindication that followed, and theunion of the Christian with the Christof that ordeal and victory-that is whatbaptism symbolizes.

The stream of fire issuing from thethrone (Daniel 7: 10) constitutes a bar-

Page 12

rier, a gulf, a hazard, that must be ad­dressed by all who would enter theMessianic kingdom. For this fiery floodcarries away all things that offend (Psalm90:5). No Canute can command thiswave to recede. No dictator-beast can"horn" his way through. The fury ofthis baptism is too much of an ordeal.

Noah, in the years before the flood,preached of this. Those who found gracein the eyes of the Lord would survivethe coming world-baptism, and passthrough it as heirs of the world to come.Those who rejected the "preacher ofrighteousness" and despised the God­ordained ark of salvation, passed underthe destroying flood of judgment. Thegreat flood was a two-edged sword-forsalvation and for judgment.

So also it was this two-sided ordealthat was shown at the Red Sea, in abaptism that vindicated God's chosenpeople Israel and that condemnedPharaoh's army to destruction. It wasthis ordeal that gave point to the preach.ing of Jonah, who had himself comethrough a mighty baptism-ordeal. Theescape of the acid-bleached prophet fromthe sea provided reason enough forNineveh to seek its own escape and tojoin in crying, "Salvation is of the Lord."

The baptism of JohnWhen our Lord asked, "The baptism

of John, was it from heaven, or frommen?" he indicated his approval of thatbaptism as "from heaven." In that bap­tism, the wrath of heaven was revealedagainst a generation of vipers. The floodof wrath could sweep them away. Infact, Daniel had prophesied of thatrebellious Jerusalem, "Its end shall comewith a flood" (Daniel 9:26).

The favorite and most frequent self­designation of our Lord was the title,"Son of Man." This Messianic title mustbe seen as originating in Daniel 7: 13.The kingdoms of beasts must give wayto the kingdom of "one like a son ofman." To him would be given a king­dom that could meet the demands ofthe divine ordeal, and then endure for­ever. He would salt that kingdom, andeach one entering it, with the salt ofheavenly fire (Mark 9:49). He wouldbaptize each citizen in the river of divinejudgment.

The true meaning of the baptism atJordan was to be sought beyond themere idea of cleansing in water. "I bap-

tize you with water," said the Baptist,"but he who is coming after me ismightier; . . . he will baptize you withthe Holy Spirit and with fire" (Matthew3: 11).

For the Messiah himself to appearhumbly as a candidate for John's baptismwas to John something astounding. "Ihave need to be baptized of thee, andcomest thou to me?" But to our Lord,it was of great significance. "Thus itbecomes us to fulfill all righteousness"(Matthew 3: 13, 14). The Messiah andhis people with him would come throughthis test or ordeal, as those who metthe requirements of kingdom right­eousness.

The baptism of wrathAs Jesus went through this water bap­

tism, it was to him not merely a symbolof undergoing the fiery stream of divinejudgment, but also a pre-enactment ofthe actual "baptism" into the wrath andcurse of God that would take place atGolgotha. And so we read that, as heentered upon this preview baptism, hewas praying (Luke 3:21). This prayerwas of the same orientation as thatpouring out of his soul in the anguishof Gethsemane.

The psalms contain many referencesto the agony of the Messiah as he facedthe prospect of the suffering to be en­dured in such deep waters. "Let notthe flood sweep over me, or the deepswallow me up, or the pit close itsmouth over me" (Psalm 69: 15). Theclosing verses of this psalm portray thevindication of the Messiah and his peopleas heirs of the kingdom, in contrast tothose who fail the test and are there­fore not "enrolled among the righteous."

The valley of Baca with its sweat andtears has become instead a well of over­flowing blessing and power. And so atJordan, the voice of the Father's goodpleasure, and the visible coming of theSpirit as a dove, were to the Christ a

Christian baptism shouldbe viewed primarily as

an ordeal sign.

The Presbyterian Guardian

promise of what awaited him on thatcoming day when he would be "declaredto be the Son of God with power, ac­cording to the Spirit of holiness, andby the resurrection from the dead"(Romans 1:4).

Meanwhile, during his earthly min­istry, our Lord was straitened, disciplined,and prepared, that he might be thequalified sprinkler and sanctifier of hispeople. He who would send fire on theearth must himself first be baptized(Luke 12:49, 50).

So it was that the Christ entered intothe stream of God"s wrath and curse,the stream of separation from all creaturecomforts, or even of heavenly comforts.Others would walk in the fire with theLord at their side. He went through italone.

The world that would crucify the Sonof God afresh, if it could, is a worldfacing the overwhelming flood of judg­ment. A world that killed the Princeof Life is a world that will be baptizedin "blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke,"with "the sun turned into darkness andthe moon into blood." It will be a bap­tism in the very elements of the divinepresence. It is a world that should cryout for a way of escape, saying, "Menand brethren, what shall we do?"

The answer comes loud and clear:"Repent and be baptized every one ofyou into the name of Jesus Christ forthe forgiveness of your sins, and youshall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"(Acts 2:38). The man joined to Christ

in his baptism need fear no other.Christ's baptism was a baptism for

those dead in sin, to bring his electpeople through the ordeal, from deathto life, by the power of his resurrection."Because I live, ye shall live also." Thekingdom, prepared from the foundationof the world, is given to those who areChrist's, united to him in baptism.

Christian baptism should be viewedprimarily as an ordeal sign. We arebaptized into his death, and we are for­ever united to his victory.

The Rev. Mr. Elliott is pastor of theGarden Grove (Calif.) Orthodox Presby­terian Church. This article, and its viewof baptism as a sign of ordeal, grew outof discussions within the Orthodox Pres­byterian Church concerning the wordsof institution and explanation of baptismin the Directory for Worship.

January 1977

Come now, and let us reason together,saith the Lord: though your sins be asscarlet, they shall be as white as snow(Isaiah 1:18).

SNOWI look upon a winter's day;The earth and sky climb gray

on gray.I walk and watch the lightened

linesOf snow against the darkened

pines.But it is when I see the crow,I know the whiteness of the snow!

Winter snow has a deaner, purer, andmore beautiful whiteness than almostanything else we call white. Yet we donot always see the snow in that purity.Its whiteness seems to change accord­ing to its environment. It becomes grayin tone beneath the gray sky. It ap­pears lighter against the trunks andboughs of winter trees. But when itis seen in contrast to true blackness,snow's whiteness is fully appreciated.

The forgiveness that Christ accom­plished on the cross is like the whitesnow upon the land. It is pure andcomplete. But many time we do notappreciate that forgiveness. We see it

against the background of gray sins.It is only when we realize the black­ness of sin that we can truly compre­hend the whiteness of forgiveness.That forgiveness then becomes bothbeautiful and amazing to our sight.

This truth is illustrated in the parableJesus told to Simon the Pharisee inLuke 7:36-48. As Simon watched theprostitu te woman anoint Jesus' feet,he was told by the Lord: "Her sins,which are many, are forgiven; for sheloved much: but to whom little is for­given, the same loveth little" (verse 47).

Jesus was helping Simon to understandthat while his forgiveness would pro­vide for the one who sins much as wellas for the one whose sins seem less, itwould be more appreciated by the onewho realizes how much has been for­given. Knowing the blackness of sin,the forgiven sinner would be over­whelmed by the whiteness of forgive­ness. In accepting that grace of sinswiped away, the sinner would love theForgiver with a zeal understood by fewothers.

May we come to comprehend fully thatpowerful contrast of which God speaksin Isaiah 1:18, when he says,

Though your sins be as scarlet,they shall be as white as snow;

Though they be red like crimson,they shall be as wool.

- Ellen Bryan Obed

Page 13

~Genes~s 2:22

"WE EATtogether a lot!"

Dorothy Stukey

I held in my hand a letter from SandySnavely, president of the Women's Pres­byterial of the Northwest (OPC). A presi­dent who is working hard at her job,Sandy had sent each church a letter re­questing that four or five items be taken

Remember theHYMNS?Audrey Van Dyk

"Do you remember the hymns you sangin worship last week?"

A searching question! It came fromMary Ellen Godfrey as she confronted heraudience on a Saturday night fellowshipdinner at our church. (Mrs. Godfrey,wife of Dr. Robert Godfrey of Westmin­ster Seminary, is a writer of Sunday schoolmaterials for Great Commission Publica­tions).

Sunday morning I woke in a state ofapprehension. Two weeks earlier thedoctor had found high pressure in myeyes and had used the term "glaucoma." Isuppressed the idea until that Sundaymorning-two days before the final diag­nosis. I shared my anxiety with my hus­band on the way to church that morning.

"Hymn number four," our pastor an­nounced at the beginning of the service.

Page 14

care of before we met together late inSeptember. One of these items had todo with the activities of each group.

"What have we been doing?" I won­dered out loud, for the summer monthsin western Montana could be called"Tourist Entertainment Time." The firstyear we lived in Polson, I was informedthat all organizations ceased their activi­ties with the May meeting. "Why?" Iqueried. "You'll find out after you'velived here a while."

And so I have. Although we ourselveshave not had too many visitors (our for­mer home in Denver being a little toofar away for weekend guests) , most of thepeople in .the Mission Valley end thesummer feeling as though they havemaintained "open house" for threemonths. As a result, church activitiessometimes slow down to a crawl.

"All praise to God, who reigns above,The God of all creation.The God of wonders, pow'r, and love,The God of our salvation!"The congregation responded with words

of praise."With healing balm my soul he fills.The God who ev'ry sorrow stills,To God all praise and glory!"

Yes, I thought, all praise and glory toGod. As the stanzas unfolded the poetryand meaning of that hymn, I felt myselfbecoming totally involved. I knew whatthe psalmist meant when he said, "Allthat is within me, praise the Lord!"

"His watchful eye ne'er sleepeth ."He kept my feet from falling ."The Lord forsaketh not his flock ."He is their Refuge and their Rock "God used that hymn in a quick, direct

way to calm my fears and refocus my emo­tions. He promised strength for each dayand I have found that he continues togive me what I need.

"For this my thanks shall endless be;0, thank him, thank our God, with me,To God all praise and glory!"

Mrs. John W. Van Dyk is a member ofEmmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian Churchin Wilmington, Del. This note of thanksand praise first appeared in the congrega­tion's newsletter.

"Tell them we eat!"JoAnne Ross laughed at my question.

"Tell them we eat together a lot!" Andwe all laughed. You could put "a lot" inseveral places in that sentence and itwould be true in every case.

Twice a month we have a potluck din­ner. The first Sunday in each month wetravel to Kalispell, sixty miles to thenorth, for an afternoon service; and theAndersens and the Rosses are too hos­pitable to allow us to return homehungry. Then on the second Sunday ofeach month they travel the seventy-threemiles south to the Mission Valley Ortho­dox Presbyterian Church in Ronan forservices; and since we do not like thethought of their going home hungry, wehave another dinner together. Thisworked out so well that when we beganto plan for a missionary outreach, it wasdecided to have it on this second Sundayof the month so that they could partici­pate in it.

Now maybe not every church is blessedwith an outreach sixty miles or moreaway. But maybe it would be well toconsider having one. Why? What are theadvantages of "eating together a lot"'?

The first one is that you get acquaint­ed. You become real sisters and brothersin Christ. You become so well acquaintedthat you become aware of one another'sneeds, and you know how and what topray for concerning each other, and youshare in one another's joys. For example,Bob and Maria Ross have just becomethe proud parents of Paul Robert Ross,born October 7; and we rejoice with thewhole family as though they were ourown son or daughter - which in Christthey actually are.

And a second blessing equal to thefirst: Church-sponsored activities areshared activities, and no one person orgroup feels that they must carry the"whole load." For example, it was sug­gested that we have a family camp overthe Fourth of July. The CornerstoneO. P. Church from Missoula joined withus and we had a perfectly delightfultime - sharing cooking and dishwashingand deep philosophical discussions.

And I guess the moral of this story is:If your church is not eating together alot, and you are not getting acquainted,and you are not sharing in the work of

The Presbyterian Guardian

HIGH SCHOOLJUNIORS and SENIORS

orRev. Theodore J. Georgian65 Hoover Dr.Rochester, NY 14615716-865-9168

EVERYBODY SAYS,"PITY THE POORSUNDAY SCHOOL

TEACHER"We do ... and we've done somethingabout it! Like offering teaching mate­rials designed to make the Bible aliveand full of meaning - even to active,inquiring Juniors.

It's a totally new concept in Sundayschool curriculum and we call it theBible- in-perspective. We've built it intoour course for Juniors. Together withour courses for Primaries, Junior Highs,and Senior Highs it will give yourteachers help - fast!

Great Commission Publications' Bible­in-perspective concept helps fight teacherheadaches three ways: It puts Bibletruths in the perspective of redemptivehistory; it places the Bible in the per­spective of today's world; and it focuseson the Bible in the perspective of per­sonal living. That, after all, is whatSunday school should be all about.

Send for your free samples today.

GREAT COMMISSIONPUBLICATIONS7401 Old York RoadPhiladelphia, Pa. 19126Dept.

Please send me my samples of the Bible-in­perspective Sunday school materials.

o Primary 0 Junior Higho Junior 0 Senior High

City.....

State. . .Zip...

Great Commission Publications is the publishinghouse serving the Presbyterian Church in America.

Address ..

Name.

I---------------------------

REFORMED BIBLE COLLEGE

1869 ROBINSON ROAD, S.E.

GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49506

616-458-0404

CONTACTS DESIREDAnyone living in the Syracuse, New Yorkarea desiring to join a Bible study group withthe prayerful hope of establishing an Ortho­dox Presbyterian Church, please contact:

Dr. & Mrs. Quinton J. BianchineP. O. Box HDe Witt, NY 13214315-445-1769

Before deciding on a college, be sure to find outwhat only RBC can give you:

- Four year Bible College training for youthleaders, church Christian education work­ers, missionaries. Bachelor of ReligiousEducation degree (B.R.E.).

- Two years of Bible college with transferto another college for liberal arts degreein education, etc.

- Two year associate degree (A.R.E.), inBible and Christian doctrine.

We'll be glad to hear from you!

If you know anyone in the vicinities ofMedford, Grants Pass, or Roseburg, Oregon;Pocatello, Idaho; or Kalispell, Montana, whomay be interested in worshipping an OrthodoxPresbyterian Church, please notify the North­west Presbytery Missions Committee, I 18N.W. Newport, Bend, OR 97701. Phone:503-389-7040..

If you know of people living in ar nearMissoula, Montana who might like to be apart of our fellowship, please send theirnames, addresses, telephone numbers and­if possible-their degree of interest to GlenJunckert, 2828 S. 7th Street West, Missoula,MT 59801. All replies greatly appreciated.

•

From the small beginnings in Ronan,Montana, which the Stukeys helped start,a second congregation is now formed inMissoula, together with a prospect for thefuture in Kalispell.

the church, maybe, just maybe, you oughtto try it.

Margaret I. DuffOn Friday, November 19, 1976, the

Lord took the soul of his humble servant,Miss Margaret I. Duff, into his gloriouspresence. Her body was laid to rest untilthe resurrection. A memorial service, con­ducted by the Rev. Larry G. Mininger,was held at the Lake Sherwood OrthodoxPresbyterian Church in Orlando, Florida;the funeral service, conducted by the Rev.Henry P. Tavares, pastor of CovenantO. P. Church in Grove City, Pa., was heldin the Nashua O. P. Church, Edinburg,Pa., of which Miss Duff was a chartermember.

Before the Orthodox PresbyterianChurch had come into existence, MissDuff worked for five years in connectionwith the Presbyterian Church at Avella,Pa., as a presbyterial missionary in themining communities of WashingtonCounty, Pennsylvania. In the 1940s sheassisted in the work of Christian educa­tion, canvassing, and general church workin several Orthodox Presbyterian con­gregations including those in Middle­town, Pa., West Collingswood, N.J., SilverSpring, Md., and the chapel in OakCreek, Col. In 1946 she was asked to writea Primary Department Manual for Sum­mer Bible Schools, which was publishedby the Committee on Christian Educa­tion.

Her loyalty to the Orthodox Presby­terian Church was very deep. She wasvaliant in defense of the truth. Her in­fluence for good was notable in the livesof members of her own family, of many ofthe students who studied under her inhigh schools and at Westminster andThiel Colleges, and of a wide circle offriends. She sought to give her whole lifeto God's glory and the advancement ofChrist's kingdom.

January 1977 Page 15

Postmaster: Send Form 3579 to

7401 Old York RoadPhiladelphia, Pa. 19126

News and Views

Reformed Seminaryin FranceThe Reformed Seminary in Aix-en-Pro­vence began its third year of operation inmid-October with a record 47 full-timestudents. The previous fall, there hadbeen only 33! (With part-time studentsincluded, the enrollment is well over 50.)The large student body has led to seriousovercrowding in the seminary building,designed for a school of 25 students; var­ious expansion possibilities are under con­sideration.

The faculty has been strengthened thisyear by the arrival of Gerald and EleanorBoyer, who are beginning to develop aSchool of Doxological Music at Aix. Theyhope to see a musical revival in theFrench Reformed churches aiding andabetting the current spiritual revival.Gerald is the younger brother of theRev. Eugene Boyer, director of the Semi­nary. He and Eleanor serve as bilingual(French and English) missionaries of the

Presbyterian Evangelistic Fellowship.

The Seminary continues to build aworld-wide student body, with studentscoming from Lebanon, Switzerland, theBritish Isles, and French-speaking Africa,as well as France. The potential of theSeminary in Aix is immense; it is the onlyconfessionally Reformed seminary in theFrench-speaking world, which numbersalmost 200 million world-wide.(This report comes by courtesy of TomReid who has an abiding interest in theReformed Seminary in Aix.)

Page 16

Reformed Bible Instituteopens

The Reformed Bible Institute of Dela­ware Valley began classes on January 10;it meets on Monday evenings for threehours on instruction. The program isdivided into trimesters, the first endingon March 28; the second running fromApril 11 to June 27; and the third fromSeptember 12 to November 28.

"Convinced that the Christian com­munity can profit from the ministry of aBible institute whose teaching is distinc­tively reformed in its perspective, ... theReformed Bible Institute has been es­tablished for the building up of the bodyof Christ on ... a biblical and reformedfoundation faithful to the teachings ofthe apostles and the prophets, ..." (fromthe brochure). Courses are given in basicBible study, doctrine, church history, andvarious special electives.

The Institute, committed to the West­minster Confession of Faith, was organ­ized by several interested persons fromvarious Reformed and Presbyterianchurches in the Delaware Valley. Readersinterested in further information maywrite to: Mr. Robert Koehler, Box 21,Gibbsboro, NJ 08026. Classes are beingheld in the Camden County (N.J.) Chris­tian School, Haddon Heights.

Professor Knight receivedby RPCES

Dr. George W. Knight, III, was re­ceived into the Midwestern Presbytery ofthe Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evan­gelical Synod, at its October 8 meeting.Dr. Knight was ordained by the Presby­tery of Philadelphia of the OrthodoxPresbyterian Church and has been aministerial member of that communionfor several years. His transfer to theRPCES came following several years offaculty service at that denomination'sCovenant Theological Seminary in St.Louis.

Second Class Postage PaidAt Philadelphia, Pa.

Dunahoo new PCAChristian Ed. coordinator

The Rev. Charles H. Dunahoo has beennamed Coordinator (i.e., General Secre­tary) of the PCA's Committee for Chris­tian Education and Publications, succeed­ing the Rev. Paul G. Settle who recentlybecame pastor of the Second PresbyterianChurch (PCA) in Greenville, S. C.

Mr. Dunahoo has been pastor of theSmyrna (Ga.) Presbyterian Church andwas active in the formation of the Presby­terian Church in America. He served asChairman of the General Assembly'sConstitutional Documents Committee,guiding the new church in the adoptionof its constitutional standards of doctrine,government, discipline, and worship.

The PCA's Committee for ChristianEducation and Publications is engagedwith the corresponding committee of theOrthodox Presbyterian Church in GreatCommission Publications, Inc., a jointpublishing venture of the two churches.Mr. Dunahoo takes up his new duties inMontgomery, Ala., this January, and isthe first replacement for such a leader­ship post among the PCA's major com­mittees.

(In other changes, the Rev. KennedySmartt of Hopewell, Va., replaces theRev. Donald C. Patterson of Jackson,Miss., as chairman of the Committee onMission to the World. The Rev. FrankBarker of Birmingham, Ala., replaces theRev. Cecil Williamson of Selma, Ala.,as chairman of the Committee on Missionto the U.S. For the Committee forChristian Education, the Rev. HaroldBorchert of Miami, Fla., has been suc­ceeded by ruling elder Ed Robeson ofChester, S. C. The Rev. Harold Pattesonof Columbia, S. C., succeeds the Rev.Gordon Reed as chairman of the Com­mittee on Administration. The PCA re­quires that service on these major com­mittees be limited to three years at a time,thus involving a frequent change of facesin the elected committees.)

The Presbyterian Guardian