John Quincy Adams said, the first and almost
the only book deserving of universal attention is
the Bible.
I speak as a man of the world,
to men of the world, and I say
to you, search the scriptures.
Now, the Bible is not only a book
of divine revelation, it's also a book of
sublime influence, of human interest, of amazing accuracy,
of perfect unity, and of universal challenge.
Let's consider first of all the Gospels, the
good news of Jesus Christ, because they tell
the story of his life and teachings.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
are four accounts written from four different points
of view.
Matthew's Gospel is written from a Jewish point
of view, and Luke's Gospel from a Greek
point of view, with Mark's Gospel telescopic and
John's Gospel retrospective.
Now, some people may think it's a weakness
to have four different stories.
Actually, it's a strength.
If some were to take another to court
and sue for damages, producing four witnesses who
told identical stories of how some accident occurred,
the judge would throw the case out of
court upon grounds of obvious collusion.
In a street accident, a policeman sees things
from a different point of view to the
bus driver, and a passerby sees it quite
differently to the pedestrian unfortunately knocked down.
The Gospels were compiled from the stories of
eyewitnesses written by those who witnessed events or
who were interviewed afterwards.
If asked, was Jesus Christ really transfigured on
the mountain, Peter and James and John could
affirm that they had seen him.
The authority lay in these apostles' testimony, and
the same witnesses and their associates wrote the
epistles, letters to newly founded churches, explaining difficult
doctrine, correcting wrong ideas.
The New Testament includes also the Acts of
the Apostles and the Revelation of John, vastly
differing books by apostolic writers.
The evangelical school of thought teaches that the
final court of appeal regarding the life and
teachings of Jesus Christ rests in the New
Testament.
In fact, apart from New Testament authors, people
would know very little about Jesus Christ, for
contemporary historians dismiss him with a sentence or
a paragraph.
A student at California Institute of Technology challenged
me once, Sir, is it not a fact
that there is a Gospel of Thomas and
a Gospel of Peter?
Why then were such writings omitted from the
New Testament?
I added that not only were spurious books
omitted, but also good books, such as the
Shepherd of Hermas and the Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles.
For the simple reason they were not considered
apostolic writings.
Is it not a fact, he asked again,
that 300 years or so after Christ, the
Church decided which books should be included in
the New Testament?
When I agreed that this was the case,
quickly he suggested that such a procedure proved
that the ultimate authority lay not in the
scriptures, but in the Church continuing.
From a conclusion such as this, I descended
very strongly.
Supposing, said I, World War III destroyed civilization
as we know it.
After the year 2000, the children of the
survivors emerged from the caves and decided to
reconstitute civilization as they had heard about it
from their parents.
So they appointed a committee on law, a
committee on education, a committee on politics, a
committee on commerce, and a committee on religion.
The committee on religion decided that the first
business on hand was to collect the sacred
writings of the Christian faith.
One man reported that he had found a
book in the ruins of Los Angeles, the
front pages burned, but the remainder indicating that
it was a life of Jesus Christ and
related material.
Another man reported that he had found a
book in the ruins of London, the back
pages burned, but the title clearly stating that
it was the New Testament of the Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ.
Other copies in other languages were produced.
Another researcher produced a copy of the Old
Testament, and yet another of the Old and
New Testaments bound together.
An enthusiastic youngster announced that he had found
a missing book of the Bible, one entitled
The Robe, by a prophet named Lloyd Douglas.
Another wished to add science and health by
a prophetess named Mary Baker Eddy.
Another proposed for inclusion in the Bible, the
Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith.
What method would the committee use to determine
whether or not these books were what they
were supposed to be, eyewitnesses, accounts of the
life and teachings of Jesus Christ?
Well, the historical method could be applied.
They could ascertain that The Robe had not
been known before 1925, that science and health
had not been known before 1875, and that
the Book of Mormon was unknown to the
press in 1825.
The committee could decide that these books could
be read for what they're worth.
But that they were not authentic apostolic writings.
Now this was one of the methods employed
by the early fathers in settling the New
Testament canon.
The sum total of the accepted New Testament
is quoted in the writings of the earliest
church fathers, with the exception of eight verses
from the Gospel of John.
A cross-reference of such writings shows that
the Gospels and the Epistles were accepted by
the early church, and that the rejected writings
were rejected after careful study.
The Old Testament is an unfolding revelation of
God, whereas the New Testament is a final
revelation of God.
This does not mean that the Old Testament
is not inspired.
Rather, it means that while the Old Testament
has been superseded in certain points as a
revelation of God's will, the New Testament has
never been surpassed.
In a North African country, I found that
an Arab who had lost interest in his
wife need only to clap his hands three
times and say before witnesses, I divorce thee.
The woman had no recourse, but was compelled
to return to her father's house.
This was the practice of the Jews in
the days of Christ.
But the master hated the system, and told
his countrymen that this license had been allowed
them by Moses because of the hardness of
their heart.
And so he established the rules of Christian
marriage, which are infinitely superior to the previous
Old Testament standard.
In the case of the law of retaliation,
it was the same.
The law said an eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth.
But Jesus Christ superseded that with the commandment
to love one's enemies.
New Testament standards were unsurpassed and final.
Why?
Because Jesus Christ was the final revelation of
God, unsurpassed, unique.
What then should one's attitude be to the
Old Testament?
For a Christian, the best example is Jesus
Christ himself.
He quoted it as having fullest authority.
He said, it is written, man shall not
live by bread alone.
And his quotations demonstrated his reliance on Scripture.
The canon of Old Testament Scripture was established
by the Hebrew rabbis, just as the canon
of New Testament Scriptures was established by Christians.
The Jews did not acknowledge the authority of
the apocryphal books.
All of Christendom is united in considering the
66 books of the Old and New Testaments
authentic.
Some denominations add to the list the disputed
books of the apocrypha.
Most Christians profess to believe that the Old
and New Testaments are inspired, but there's by
no means agreement on what constitutes inspiration.
The New Testament itself contains a definite statement
on inspiration.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man
of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to
all good works.
Inspiration is a word of Latin derivation.
The Greek word essentially means God-breathed.
It was my privilege once to address a
student body at Gordon College in Boston.
A foreign student stood to his feet to
ask, may I say a word?
The oldest translation of the Bible into a
vernacular language is the Armenian.
I come from Armenia in Asia Minor.
It is interesting that the title of the
Armenian Bible was taken from a Bible text
from which the verse which is translated in
English, All Scripture, is inspired.
In consequence, the Armenian translators called their scriptures
as dwadze shunch, the breath of God.
So the Scripture itself claims that all Scripture
is God-breathed.
But what does it mean to be God
-breathed or inspired?
No one knows.
The scriptures themselves say that only holy men
of God spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost.
The scriptures declare that God breathed into man's
nostrils the breath of life, and he became
a living soul.
No one knows by what method God breathed
into the nostrils of man, but everyone, including
the first avowed agnostic Thomas Huxley, can see
that between man and the higher mammals there
is a great gulf, a divergence immeasurable, practically
infinite.
Likewise, as a result of God breathing into
the holy scriptures, there is a divergence immeasurable
between the Bible and non-biblical literature.
One of our planes crashed at Westover Field
in Massachusetts, at which I was base chaplain
during the war, and it was her husband's
death.
Her father had died five months before, her
mother had died at her birth, and her
husband had been all she possessed.
She wept.
As I wanted to comfort her, I began
to read the 23rd Psalm till I came
to the phrase, Though I walk through the
valley of the shadow of death, I will
fear no evil, for thou art with me.
And she was comforted.
Why did I not read a line from
Omar Khayyam or William Shakespeare?
No, I know the transforming power of Scripture.
One of my friends who described himself as
a modernist told me very cheerfully, Of course,
I believe the Bible is inspired.
It inspires me, so I know it's inspired.
That amused me.
By the same token, one could say that
Shakespeare is inspired, Kipling inspired, Longfellow inspired, and
practically anyone whose writings appeal to anyone else.
That's not what is meant by inspiration, where
Scripture is concerned.
On the other hand, one of my friends
who was an extreme fundamentalist told me that
he believed every word from cover to cover
of the version was inspired.
I thought he was being rhetorically extravagant until
I found that he really did believe in
the inspiration of the committee appointed by King
James, for he included the dedication to his
majesty as well as the chapter headings.
His was a rare case.
One of the theories popular among extreme fundamentalists
is a kind of verbal dictation theory that
God dictated each word to his prophets and
apostles the way one dictates to one stenographer.
Not many real evangelicals, certainly not educated evangelicals,
hold such a position.
In his letter to the Corinthians, the apostle
Paul complains about the divisions in the church.
He says, I thank God that I baptized
none of you.
Then he adds, except Crispus and Gaius.
Then the explanation, lest any should say that
I baptized my own name.
In another afterthought, the apostle added, I also
baptized the household of Stephanus.
His final afterthought stated, beyond that, I do
not know whether I baptized anyone else.
It is obvious from this paragraph that the
apostle was allowed the latitude of his memory,
and that the actual words were not dictated
to him consciously or unconsciously.
Does this mean then that the passage was
not inspired?
By no means.
What then is the purpose of inspiration?
The scripture itself is explicit.
It is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and
instruction in righteousness.
It is not meant to be a textbook
of chemistry, physics, mathematics, geology, biology, or the
like.
Though allowing for pictorial language, it is free
from the glaring scientific errors of contemporary religious
books.
The scripture claims that its own inspiration is
dynamic and plenary.
It is not only a literary work of
God, it is also a literary work of
man, with human manifestations aplenty.
The Holy Spirit allowed the sacred writers their
own styles, figures of speech, symbols, and the
like.
And scripture contains personification, history, poetry, drama, proverb,
allegory, and other fine literary devices which by
no means conform to the exact language of
law or science, though there is the latter
in the Bible.
The Bible is a collection of human books,
God-inspired.
The human style of the writers of scripture
is clearly seen by anyone who can detach
himself from the 16th century style of the
English translators in the authorized version.
I have a sister-in-law who is
an abbreviationist.
She contracts everything possible and impossible.
My wife has a sister-in-law who
is a protractionist.
She takes 20 minutes to describe what anyone
else could do in five.
Everyone has his own style.
The Apostle Paul, for example, is prone to
make a statement, insert a parenthesis, add a
footnote, return to the statement, adjoin an explanation,
just like a university professor.
No wonder the Apostle Peter, a fisherman lacking
the academic background of his confrere, said of
his epistles, there are some things in them
hard to understand.
Figures of speech are permitted in the sacred
writings.
I heard a man describe a vacation he
spent in the Hudson's Bay country, where insects
multiply in the muskeg.
He said that he was bitten a hundred
thousand times.
His exaggeration was not deceitful, it was hyperbole,
a recognized literary device.
And hyperbole is employed in the scriptures also.
The Gospels declare that John the Baptist appeared
in the wilderness preaching, and that all the
country of Judea and all the people of
Jerusalem went out to him.
All?
Every man, woman, youth, maiden, boy, girl, baby,
and babysitter?
No, not all in that sense.
The word all is used in the same
sense that one today uses the expression everybody
is talking about him.
Symbols occur plentifully in scriptures, especially in the
apocalyptic writings.
The revelation of John declared that out of
the mouth of Christ issued a two-edged
sword, a statement obviously not to be taken
literally.
It is difficult to define the nature of
the inspiration of scripture.
There are at least half a dozen varieties
of scripture seen in the book.
For example, there appears to be direct revelation
in which Almighty God has spoken verbally to
men, as in the case of giving the
law to Moses, and God spoke all these
words.
Second, there's likewise revelation with inspiration, as in
the instance of the Lord speaking to John
the Divine, write the things which thou hast
seen.
This was not stenographic dictation.
Then in the introduction of the Gospel of
Luke, there's inspiration without revelation.
Dr. Luke says, inasmuch as many have undertaken
to compile a narrative of things which have
been accomplished among us, just as they were
delivered to us by those who from the
beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,
it seemed good to me also, having followed
all things closely for some time past, to
write an orderly account for you, most excellent
Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning
the things of which you've been informed.
The text indicates that Luke collected and arranged
his material in the best of journalistic style
from reliable eyewitnesses.
Then there are occasional passages in Scripture where
the source of the material is stated to
be solely inward in illumination, where, to take
one example, the Apostle Paul offers good advice
on the subject of marriage.
Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command
of the Lord, but I give my opinion
as one who by the Lord's mercy is
trustworthy.
I think that in view of the impending
distress, it is well for a person to
remain as he is.
He gives other advice to married people, and
likewise qualifies it.
I say this by way of concession, not
of command.
Now there's also evident inspiration with illumination.
The Apostle Paul says we impart this in
words not taught by human wisdom, but taught
by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those
who possess the Spirit.
Then, according to the writer himself, there is
demonstrated inspiration without illumination.
The Apostle Peter, writing the Old Testament prophets,
declared, They inquired what person or time was
indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them
when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the
subsequent glory.
It was revealed to them that they were
serving not themselves but you.
In other words, the prophets who predicted the
sufferings and glory of Christ had no idea
who their Messiah would be.
They wrote as men who were inspired in
their hearts but unenlightened in their minds.
In view of this variety of inspiration noted
in the Scripture, it's very difficult to try
and make the Scriptures fit a particular theory.
Rather, it's wiser to make the various theories
fit the pattern of Scripture.
The Church of England has an interesting article
in Holy Scripture.
Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to our
salvation.
We have a sure authority for our faith
in the Old and New Testaments of the
Holy Bible.
But is it wise to say that the
Scriptures alone are the all-sufficient guide?
Anyone who has ever discussed religion with a
cultist knows that these determined folk are ready
and willing to quote the word of Scripture,
particularly verses that can be wrested to suit
their arguments.
Jehovah's Witnesses quote texts to disprove the deity
of Christ and the deity of the Holy
Spirit.
No, it's not enough to rely on Scriptures
alone.
A believer needs the interpreter of Scripture, the
paraclete promised by Christ to guide him into
all truth.
The one who inspired is the one who
alone can interpret.
I'm reminded of an incident of student evangelism.
I was walking along the corridor of a
dormitory in Seattle Pacific College.
I heard a group of students having an
argument, so I stopped to listen.
I did not mean to eavesdrop.
I just wanted to hear what they were
saying.
Listen, Joe, said one, I'll tell you what
Orr teaches on sanctification.
And he told it with a very Methodist
flavor.
Just a minute, Jim said another, I've heard
Orr five times too, and I'll tell you
what he teaches on sanctification.
And he told it with a very Presbyterian
flavor.
Then we heard the voice of authority, a
sophomore.
Pipe down, everybody, I'll tell you what Orr
teaches on sanctification.
His exposition showed that he was an air
force flying totally off the beam, so I
thought it was time for me to intervene.
Good evening, men, I said.
I was greeted by a chorus of voices
telling me that they'd just been talking about
my lectures and they wanted me to settle
an argument.
A spokesman said, what is meant in your
book, Full Surrender, by positional, critical, and progressive
sanctification?
I told them it would take a few
minutes.
They urged me on, so I explained what
I meant by positional, critical, and progressive sanctification.
The Methodists were satisfied, the Presbyterian was satisfied,
but the sophomore, never.
Are you sure you meant that, Dr. Orr?
I'm sure, I replied.
Well, are you sure you're sure, he persisted.
Well, I assured him, I'm certain.
He turned to the crowd of students.
Listen, Jim, you've had your say, and Joe,
you've had your say, and Dr. Orr's been
kind enough to explain his thoughts in the
matter, but allow me to have my say
and explain to you what I think that
Dr. Orr must have meant when he wrote
that book.
We were all amused, for surely an author
ought to know what he meant in his
writings, and the author of scripture who inspired
Moses, and David, and Paul, and the others,
surely knows how to interpret the word to
those whose hearts he indwells.
The supreme authority for the Christian is the
Lord Jesus Christ, and the vehicle of authority
is the holy scriptures of the Christian faith,
as interpreted by the Holy Spirit of God
to every trusting believer.