1 - 12-98.pdf

Introduction James K. Bridges Historically, the Assemblies of God has tenaciously held to the belief that the Bible is the Word of God. In its formation meeting in 1914 in Hot Springs, Arkansas, the brethren unanimously adopted a “Preamble and Resolution of Constitution” to guide the fledgling move...

Introduction James K. Bridges Historically, the Assemblies of God has tenaciously held to the belief that the Bible is the Word of God. In its formation meeting in 1914 in Hot Springs, Arkansas, the brethren unanimously adopted a “Preamble and Resolution of Constitution” to guide the fledgling movement for the first two years of its existence. The first “whereas” of the document declared our allegiance to God, our Heavenly Father, and His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, sent to be our Savior. The second “whereas” declared our allegiance to the “Holy Inspired Scriptures” given by God as our all-sufficient rule for faith and practice. In the 1916 General Council, a “Statement of Fundamental Truths” was adopted to strengthen and clarify the doctrinal position of the Fellowship. With few modifications, this statement continues to serve as the official position of the church to this day. Our founding fathers placed first on the list: “The Scriptures Inspired.” It presently reads as follows: “The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to 11 12 JAMES K. BRIDGES man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct (2 Tim. 3:15-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21). Prior to the turn of the twentieth century, most of the protestant denominations in the United States held to the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture. However, the influx of higher criticism, so-called, from Germany infecting the pulpits of the churches and the classrooms of the seminaries, robbed the historic denominations of this truth. Liberalism and modernism, as it is termed, has so captured the churches which have emerged out of the Reformation that only a few, such as the Southern Baptists and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, remain faithful to the doctrine of Inspiration. But the Assemblies of God stands in good company with those who have held to the Scripture as the Word of God. Our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles, the authors of the Old and New Testaments, along with the Early Church, are unanimous in their attitude toward the Scriptures: They not only accepted it as the very Word of God, but they submitted to its authority without reservation. For the first eight centuries of the Christian era, the doctrine of Inspiration was unquestioned. Among the church fathers who spoke strongly of the Scriptures as the Word of God are Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, Origin, Jerome, and Irenaeus. “According to Louis Gaussen, except for Theodore of Mopsuestia (condemned by the Fifth Council at Constantinople in 553), not one authority could be cited throughout all the first eight centuries of Christianity who failed to acknowledge the full inspiration of the Scriptures except for the heretical enemies of the Christian faith.” INTRODUCTION Gregory wrote: “Even the smallest lines in Scripture are due to the minute care of the Holy Spirit so that we must pay careful attention to every slightest shade of meaning.” Athanasius wrote: “They [the Scriptures] were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God…these are the fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. Let no man add to these, neither let him take aught from these.” Origin wrote: “The sacred Scriptures come from the fullness of the Spirit, so that there is nothing in the prophets, or the law, or the gospel, or the apostles which descends not from the fullness of the Divine Majesty.” The great reformers Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, and the great confessions of Protestantism such as The French Confession of Faith, 1559; The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England; The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647; the Second Helvetic Confession, 1566; and the Belgic Confession, 1561—all attest to the Bible as the Word of God. Luther said, “The preacher must preach only the Word of Holy Scripture, for the Bible is the very Scripture of the Spirit…It cannot be otherwise, for the Scriptures are divine; in them God speaks, and they are His Word. To hear or to read the Scriptures is nothing else than to hear God.” Added to the reformers are the Huguenots, Puritans, Covenanters, and Evangelicals. Names such as Baxter, Owen, Wesley, Whitefield, and Edwards have loudly proclaimed the truth of divine inspiration. John Wesley wrote: “I beg leave to propose a short, clear, and strong argument to prove the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. 1. It could not be the invention of good men or 13 14 JAMES K. BRIDGES angels…for they neither would nor could make a book, and tell lies all the time they were writing it, saying, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ when it was their own invention. 2. It could not be the invention of bad men or devils; for they would not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity. 3. Therefore, I draw this conclusion, that the Bible must be given by divine inspiration.” Other great men, such as Hudson Taylor, William Carey, Charles Finney, D. L. Moody, George Muller, Charles Spurgeon, J. C. Ryle, and currently Billy Graham, have held firmly to the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Spurgeon said: “We contend for every word of the Bible and believe in the verbal, literal inspiration of Holy Scripture. Indeed, we believe there can be no other kind of inspiration. If the words are taken from us, the exact meaning is of itself lost.” Bishop Ryle pointed out the danger of assuming anything less than full inspiration: “We corrupt the Word of God most dangerously when we throw any doubt on the plenary inspiration of any part of the Holy Scriptures. This is not merely corrupting the cup, but the whole fountain. This is not merely corrupting the bucket of living water, but poisoning the whole well.” In his early ministry Billy Graham confessed to his doubts about the inspiration and authority of the Bible. He spent time in the high Sierra Nevada mountains in prayer where he came to a firm conviction that the Bible was indeed the authoritative, inspired Word of the living God. After that experience he testified that the Bible became a sword in his hand. As a young seminarian attending an extremely liberal seminary back in the late 1950s, I endured the INTRODUCTION liberal theology of Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and Rudolf Bultmann whose teachings had “liberated” the church from the Bible. Using King Jehoiakim’s penknife, they stripped, gutted, and demythologized the Bible until there was very little that could be trusted as true and accurate. I am so glad I have lived to see the Bible survive these massive assaults. The teachings of these theologians—representing the very best of the skeptical, unbelieving mind—are encased in dusty old textbooks which have given way to a new generation of humanistic theologians who, like their predecessors having rejected the authority of Scripture, are also at the mercy of everchanging theories of human philosophy. But the Bible, as the Word of God, continues to traverse the world, crossing religious, geographical, language and political barriers, bringing life and hope to Adam’s fallen race. Some have likened the Bible to the Lord Jesus Christ. As He was both human and divine, so the Bible has both a divine and human side. Some theologians use this analogy to imply that it is the human side of Scripture wherein error can reside. But, the Bible, in its original autographs, is without error. As has been pointed out, “just as the Word of God incarnate was without sin, even so, the Word of God ‘inscripturated’ is without error. The humanity of Jesus is like our own in all things except sin. The humanity of the Bible is like that of every human book except for error.” The incarnate Word was without sin in His humanity and the written Word is, like the humanity of our Lord Jesus, without error. As our founding fathers understood, this doctrine is fundamental to all other of our doctrines. As we study the materials in this volume, let us do so with prayer, 15 16 JAMES K. BRIDGES requesting the Spirit of Truth to reaffirm in our hearts the attitude which our Lord Jesus Christ exemplified toward the Scriptures. Let us recommit ourselves to the inspiration and authority of the Bible so that we, as the Thessalonian believers, may “receive it, not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1 Thess. 2:13). (Sources for the material in the Introduction may be found in The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11; Wesley’s preface to his Sermons on Several Occasions; The Divine Inspiration of the Bible, Louis Gaussen; and The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, Rene Pache.) 1 The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture John W. Wyckoff INTRODUCTION During the first century Apostolic Church and the Early Church periods, the Bible was the final authority for Christian doctrine and practice. Since then, this has not always been the case, at least not in the highest sense of the idea. Often, this principle has been at least compromised in practice, if not seriously qualified by additions or openly repudiated. An alteration of the principle of Scripture as final authority that developed by the time of the Middle Ages proved widely influential. Following the first century, as the Church grew and moved into new situations it endeavored to make the eternal truths of Scripture relevant and applicable by formulating appropriate doctrines and practices. Eventually these grew into a large body of teachings that may be termed “church traditions.” The endeavor of making the eternal truths of Scripture relevant and applicable was necessary, but eventually church traditions gained authority over Scripture. Although Scripture was still held in 17 18 JOHN W. WYCKOFF high regard, it was reinterpreted in such a way as to support and reaffirm established church doctrines. In actuality, Scripture was no longer the supreme authority. Near the beginning of the sixteenth century, Martin Luther recognized this as a problem and enunciated the principle of sola scriptura—Scripture alone. He declared that the Church and its teachings are not the final authority, but rather Scripture is the authority that tells the Church what to teach and practice. In this way, during the Reformation, Protestantism was established upon the earlier principle of Scripture having final authority. Unfortunately, following the sixteenth century, Protestantism did not hold strongly to its ideal of Scripture as the final authority. During this postReformation era (1600-1700), Protestantism became woefully divided into various creedal groups. All too often, so-called biblical exegesis degenerated into nothing more than a handmaiden to varying dogmas.1 Not unlike pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism, Protestant “proof-texting” had the effect of elevating its own traditions, subordinating the authority of Scripture once again to the Church. Such subordination of Scripture to Church traditions is serious and the problem will be considered more closely later in this paper. But during both preReformation Catholicism and post-Reformation Protestantism, Scripture was at least still held in very high regard. In fact, many who engaged in the practice of proof-texting continued to hold to the ideal of Scripture’s final authority. They simply did not realize that their practice was not in keeping with their ideal. Thus, Clark Pinnock contends: “Theology in the pre- THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE modern period was always done on the assumption that the Bible was the written Word of God.”2 That is, until the end of the seventeenth century, the ideal, if not always the practice, of Scripture’s final authority was still intact throughout Christendom. The next century, however, would change all of this. The impact of the eighteenth century Enlightenment upon all areas of life simply cannot be overstated. Immanuel Kant called it “man’s emergence from immaturity.”3 Stunning advances in the natural sciences, with an emphasis upon empiricism, and the philosophical shift toward extreme rationalism profoundly changed all areas of thought. Humankind’s so-called maturing moved on to the questioning of all external authorities.4 The Bible and God himself were not off limits. The Enlightenment challenged Scriptural authority in ways far more profound and complex than it had ever been challenged. One could wish that these challenges would never have arisen or that they could be dispelled with simple answers. However, that is not reality. In these modern times the full range of challenges to the final authority of Scripture—compromising practices, altering additions, and open denials—must be dealt with directly by the Church. Such times call for a reexamination of the Bible as the Word of God. This chapter will first simply state some basics: the grounds for holding Scripture to be the final rule for faith and practice, and why this position is essential. Next, it will briefly review the modern challenges to Scripture’s authority that have come out of the Enlightenment. Then, it will move on to deal with some contemporary, practical issues related to the application of this principle. 19 20 JOHN W. WYCKOFF THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE Inspiration of Scripture Discussion of the principle of Scripture’s authority must begin with the premise of divine inspiration. The following is a contemporary, evangelical definition of inspiration: Inspiration was that miraculous process in which the Holy Spirit influenced divinely chosen human authors to produce the infallible and authoritative writings which include only those books commonly recognized to be in the canon of Scripture.5 This definition provides only the elements essential to the idea of inspiration. Given the profundity of this doctrine, further elaboration is in order. All wise elaborations on the inspiration of Scripture, however, will begin by noting that this was a “miraculous process.” A level of mystery regarding the exactness of this process will always remain. Like any miracle, it can never be fully explained from the human perspective, no matter how much one elaborates upon it. Also, since inspiration of Scripture was a mysterious process, it cannot be proven in the rationalistic sense. Rather, it is ultimately one’s affirmation of faith made certain by the convincing work of the Holy Spirit. He “proves” its reality in the hearts and minds of believers. Evangelicals, however, contend that this view is also supported by reason, which many scholars have adequately set forth. The allotted length of this chapter does not allow it to be restated here.6 Let’s just say that for believers the ultimate evidence of Scripture’s inspiration and authority is its matchless power. The message of its writings, when properly understood and responded to in faith, produces unparalleled results. THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE That is, Scripture has the ability to uniquely revolutionize the believer’s life and provide definitive, spiritual guidance. Pinnock rhetorically asks: “Why, in the last analysis, do Christian people believe the Bible is God’s Word?” His answer: “Not because they have all studied up on Christian evidences and apologetics, however useful these may prove to some. Christians believe the Bible because it has been able to do for them exactly what Paul promised it would: introduce them to a saving and transforming knowledge of Christ.”7 Inspiration of Scripture was a divine-human cooperative project. On the one hand, the writings of the Bible are not merely human writings, as some contend. Rather, the divine agency of the Holy Spirit mysteriously worked in and through the human writers in such a way that the product is properly termed “the Word of God.” Consequently, the Bible is the final, infallible, trustworthy authority on all matters pertaining to God. On the other hand, the human authors were not overpowered mantic ecstatics, nor even mere passive amanuenses. The Holy Spirit did not violate their wills nor work aside from their human individualities. Rather, as Carl F. H. Henry notes: “The Spirit of God made full use of the human capacities of the human writers so that their writings reflect psychological, biographical, and even sociohistorical differences.”8 Their unique styles are apparent throughout the canon. Also, “full use of the human capacities” means that the contributions of the human writers were not illusionary or meaningless but real and substantive.9 Finally, in relationship to the above definition, the inspiration that pertains to the canonical books of the Bible was ultimately and absolutely unique. One may 21 22 JOHN W. WYCKOFF speak of other kinds of inspiration. But the inspiration of Scripture was of a totally supernatural quality such that only these particular writings possess this unique, divinely authoritative character. There are no other writings like these writings. That is to say, the canonical writings of Scripture are uniquely authoritative precisely because they are uniquely inspired by the Holy Spirit. Henry notes: “The evangelical view believes that God revealed information beyond the reach of the natural resources of all human beings, including prophets and apostles. Biblical doctrine has an authoritative basis only because of communication of specially revealed truths to chosen messengers.”10 Therefore, Scripture is properly recognized to be “special revelation.” Scripture’s Authority in Relationship to Jesus Christ Scripture is only one aspect of special revelation; Jesus Christ is another aspect. Further, evangelicals correctly recognize that the person of Jesus Christ is the ultimate of God’s special revelation to mankind. The following questions, then, should be asked: What is the relationship of the “final authority of faith and practice” to the “ultimate of God’s special revelation”? And what are the implications of this relationship? Millard J. Erickson notes: “The most complete modality of revelation is the incarnation.”11 The writer of Hebrews observes: “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son….The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Hebrews 1:1-3, NIV).12 The apostle John explains that the “Word,” who was God, “became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1,14). Likewise, the apostle Paul states: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God….For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 1:15 and 2:9). Evangelicals contend that the Bible is the Word of God. At the same time, as noted above, we affirm Jesus Christ to be the ultimate of God’s revelation. That is, on the one hand, what is provided in Scripture by inspiration of the Holy Spirit is God’s Word to us. Also, as special revelation it is complete and fully adequate in providing all that is necessary to human redemption. On the other hand, God’s ultimate revelation of himself could not be contained in any number of books.13 He is infinite! Therefore, Donald Bloesch’s observation must be acknowledged: “The word of the prophets and apostles in the Bible corresponds to . . . the truth embodied in Jesus Christ, but it is not identical with it.”14 If Jesus Christ is the ultimate of God’s special revelation, can Scripture be the final rule for faith and practice? Evangelicals see this as an epistemological question. Therefore, they contend that the two ideas are neither mutually exclusive nor contradictory, but complementary. Jesus Christ is the ultimate of God’s special revelation, but this should not “cloud the epistemic significance of Scripture as the word of God,” Henry declares. He adds that “for man in his fallen state, Scripture is the decisive and normative source of all doctrine about God.”15 Pinnock concurs: “Inspired Scripture constitutes a term in the rich pattern of revelation given to humanity in Jesus Christ. It is a capstone and…it conveys in a reliable manner the freight and burden of revelation secured in an appropriate form by 23 24 JOHN W. WYCKOFF God’s own action….In no way does this fact affect the sheer centrality of Jesus Christ in revelation.”16 Bloesch explains it this way: “The biblical witness is binding because the prophets and apostles were ear- and eyewitnesses to what God did for us in the sacred history culminating in Jesus Christ. Moreover, these persons were guided by the Holy Spirit…and their writings now function as the vehicle of the Holy Spirit.”17 The Importance of Scriptural Authority Christianity would be completely true even if there were no such thing as an inspired, written record of its development and content. That is, transcendent God providing redemption for fallen humanity by sending His Son to die for them does not seem to be logically dependent upon the existence of a written account. All of the developments leading up to the Christ event could have happened without any written record of them. Jesus’ teachings and activities and all that happened to Him could have occurred whether a written report or interpretation was provided. Likewise, following Christ’s ascension, the Church could have developed even if no written description had been made of it. However, it is difficult to imagine what the present state of Christianity would be, or even if it would exist today, had there been no written account of God’s redemptive activities. The fact is that the Bible is such an account. At special times, God singled out certain prophets and apostles to record and write about His redemptive activities. This account provides not only a truly accurate, and therefore official, record of God’s redemptive activities, it is also the official interpretation of those activities.18 “The necessity of the Scripture principle [i.e., as final author- THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE ity] is,” Pinnock admits, “practical rather than absolute, but a practical necessity of the greatest importance.”19 That God intends for Scripture to serve in a special role of authority is, then, an idea that is inherent in the concept of divine inspiration itself. As Henry says: “Precisely because of its written form as inspired Scripture, the Bible is the permanent standard and norm by which all the church’s doctrine is to be validated.”20 Without Scripture the Church would have no objective standard for knowing and understanding God and His redemptive plan. “At stake,” Henry declares, is the “far-reaching controversy over the real nature of man and his destiny.” Because, “for man in his fallen state, Scripture is the decisive and normative source of all doctrine about God.”21 Inspired Scripture—the “official” account of God’s redemptive activities and the “official” interpretation of them—is the only objectively sound epistemological foundation for authentic Christianity. Pinnock concludes: “The reason Christians have felt historically that the authority of the Bible is a crucial conviction is that they have realized the Bible is needed to give us a reliable knowledge of the truth, without which we cannot exist long as Christians.”22 MODERN CHALLENGES As already noted, developments coming out of the Enlightenment resulted in serious challenges to the above conviction about Scripture’s authority. In fact, the whole discipline of biblical criticism, consisting of various forms of and approaches to the study of the Bible, emerged from the Enlightenment milieu. Some ultraconservative evangelicals have viewed biblical criticism negatively, concluding that it is 25 26 JOHN W. WYCKOFF always destructive. But criticism, wherever it is applied, is not inherently negative. It can be positive and constructive. As Ladd suggests, it “is not an enemy of evangelical faith, but a necessary method of studying God’s Word.”23 On the other hand, “[t]here is also a kind of biblical criticism that,” as Pinnock points out, “has played a disastrous role” in biblical studies. It is “biblical criticism of the kind that treats Scripture as a merely human document.” In this negative critical approach to Scripture, the Bible is considered to be ancient but otherwise ordinary human literature, not the inspired Scripture of the Church. Pinnock provides a thorough discussion of both the positive and the negative aspects of biblical criticism.24 Other evangelical scholars have also addressed the issue. For example, Millard Erickson provides an excellent presentation of the modern challenges to biblical authority. Following a brief description of the various kinds of biblical criticism, he presents some of their contributions and liabilities.25 Here it is sufficient to note that such challenges to biblical authority have a common element. They share the view that the Bible is fallible, human literature rather than the inspired Word of God. However, when the Bible is lowered to this status, human criticism itself assumes the position of final authority. Scripture is special revelation, and as such, it provides knowledge, understanding, and wisdom beyond that normally accessible through human reasoning. And since criticism is a function of human reason, the authority of Scripture stands above it. By means of normal human scholarship, biblical criticism provides valuable knowledge and understanding of and about Scripture. But it can neither supercede nor judge THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE Scripture’s authority. Therefore, evangelicals affirm that the canonical writings of Scripture, rather than human criticism, are the final authority because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. CONTEMPORARY, PRACTICAL ISSUES Beyond the challenges to Scripture’s authority are the more immediate, pragmatic issues of how Scripture actually functions as authority for doctrine and practice in the Church today. Two questions especially need attention in this present discussion. The first one is: What is the relationship of Church tradition to Scripture? The second one is similar: What is the relationship of experience to Scripture? Church Tradition and the Authority of Scripture The question of tradition’s role and function as authority in relationship to Scripture is certainly not new. The two have always been related, even if that relationship has sometimes been misunderstood, improperly maintained, or even unrecognized. Whatever one may think, in practice, tradition always plays some role in the development of Christian doctrine and practice. Pinnock acknowledges, “For all our talk about ‘sola scriptura,’ the Bible is seldom left ‘alone’.”26 Elsewhere, he more specifically observes that “biblical faith is never found apart from tradition.”27 When properly understood and maintained in relationship to Scripture, tradition plays a necessary, positive role in the development and service of doctrine and practice. John Van Engen defines tradition as: “The entire process by which normative religious truths are passed on from one generation to another.”28 Edward J. 27 28 JOHN W. WYCKOFF Yarnold offers this description: “Tradition is the process by which the revelation made by Jesus Christ is passed on and interpreted from age to age.” He adds that it consists of “the particular beliefs and practices which are handed down in this way.”29 Tradition is the product of the Church’s continuing endeavor to interpret and apply Scripture in an appropriate way in every generation of the Church. That is, tradition is how the Church in each age attempts to make Scripture culturally relevant and thereby authoritative everywhere in the world. “Tradition in this sense can be recognized as a viable authority in the life of the church so long as it is appraised in the light of the written Scriptures.”30 Thus, when their relationship is properly understood, Scripture and Church tradition should not be viewed as opposed to each other. Church tradition began with the apostles in the first century. In fact, the Old Testament was their “Scriptures,” and what we have in the New Testament was their “Church tradition” or “doctrine and practice.” Church tradition continued to develop following the close of the first century as the Church continued its effort to translate the eternal truths of Scripture into relevant doctrine and practice wherever the Spirit led. As necessary and as valuable as tradition is, it is not inspired in the same sense as Scripture. Thus, tradition is not infallible. Pinnock notes that “the essence and the forms [of Scripture and tradition] are not identical and must not be equated.”31 Bloesch also cautions concerning the necessity to “distinguish between the prophetic and apostolic traditions out of which Scripture emerged and the ecclesiastical traditions, which interprets Scripture in every generation after apostolic times.”32 Therefore, tradition should never be viewed as THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE a source or criterion of final truth over or beside Scripture. In view of this, tradition must always be monitored by Scripture. This is the primary idea of the Protestant Reformation. During the Middle Ages prior to the sixteenth century, the conflict between Scripture and tradition became extreme. Luther and the other Reformers recognized this and asserted that Scripture must be the standard against which all tradition is tested. Fortunately, the “Protestant Reformation did not jettison church tradition,” but it “definitely relegated it to secondary status on the grounds that Scripture has primacy (sola Scriptura).” Thus, Protestants insist that when the relationship between Scripture and tradition functions in the proper manner, “Scripture judges and corrects tradition and in this way keeps tradition faithful to the gospel.”33 The idea of Scripture’s primacy as the final rule of faith and practice seems straightforward enough. But always allowing Scripture to properly monitor tradition in such a way as to keep it truly faithful to Scripture is not easily done. Church groups are often quite unaware of the authoritative status their traditions have gained. Protestants, who are quick to chide Roman Catholics for subordinating Scripture to their traditions, are sometimes unconsciously guilty of the same.34 Bloesch suggests that “[i]n modern Protestantism there seems to be a movement away from sola scriptura to a view that coincides with a sectarian Catholicism that denigrates Scripture by elevating church authority.”35 The problem is that tradition can be a two-edged sword. On the one hand, tradition serves a necessary function. Without it the Church cannot fulfill its God- 29 30 JOHN W. WYCKOFF ordained purpose of making the truths of Scripture relevant and applicable in each generation. Usually, Church groups deem it necessary to write down the fundamental essence of at least their most essential doctrines and practices. The purpose is to provide clear communication of these doctrines and practices both in the present and to future generations. In Protestant circles, the purpose also includes having these in a form in which they can supposedly be evaluated in light of Scripture. On the other hand, tradition may become problematic. As Pinnock says, “Tradition never mirrors purely and perfectly the truth of the gospel.” Inevitably there are conflicts between the two.36 Tradition may develop in such a way that it seriously distorts the pure, infallible truth set forth in Scripture. When traditions are written down, in the form of doctrines and practices (even for the positive reasons noted above), they tend to become fixed and viewed with increasingly high regard and reverence. Often, such creedal statements are defended as if they provide the ultimate way to state the particular truth.37 Without realizing what is happening, Church groups may even proof-text or interpret Scripture in such a way as to guard their traditions. Whether it is realized or not, in this manner tradition is venerated above Scripture. Perhaps we Pentecostals would like to think that we could not, or at least would not, be guilty of venerating our doctrine and practice statements above Scripture. If so, we would not be as wise as our founding fathers. The Pentecostal leaders who came together in 1914 to form the Assemblies of God were keenly aware of the problem. They were greatly concerned about the potential of their own beloved Fellowship allowing creeds to THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE gain authoritative stature. William Menzies observes that at Hot Springs, Arkansas, in 1914, “[o]ut of fear of ‘creedalism’ the Founding Fathers…assiduously avoided any attempt at articulating precise doctrinal statements as a test of faith.”38 In fact, the “Preamble and Resolution on Constitution” adopted at that founding Council declared: “We recognize ourselves as members of said General Assembly of God…and do not believe in identifying ourselves as, or establishing ourselves into, a sect, that is a human organization that legislates or forms laws and articles of faith.”39 However, as Menzies also notes, “In spite of the solemn vow expressed at Hot Springs that the Assemblies of God would never adopt a formal creed,” two years later, out of the necessity created by doctrinal controversy, such action was taken.40 The leaders of the new Fellowship recognized the wisdom of clearly articulating “a set of fundamental beliefs”—a “creed.”41 But this was done only after heated debate over the advisability of taking such action. The Fourth General Council of the Assemblies of God in 1916, then, formulated and adopted a set of 17 doctrinal statements in a document entitled “A Statement of Fundamental Truths Approved by the Assemblies of God.” Their continuing concern about “creedalism”42 was evidenced not only by the heated debate that preceded this action but also by the wording of the preamble paragraph in this document: “This Statement of Fundamental Truths is not intended as a creed for the Church….The human phraseology employed in such statement is not inspired nor contended for.”43 Later General Council action further strengthened their resolve to guard against creedalism by adding, “The Bible is our all-sufficient rule for faith and practice” at the beginning of the preamble paragraph.44 31 32 JOHN W. WYCKOFF Also, their desire to give priority to Scripture was evidenced by the very order of the doctrinal statements that they included. They might have started with their doctrine of God, since all that they believed was about Him, and especially since the nature of God was the focus of their doctrinal controversy at that time. Or, they might have been tempted to begin with their distinctive doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, first in the list is their statement on the authority of Scripture.45 Strictly speaking, they did adopt a creed. Of course, all Christian groups have them, whether or not they are stated. The Assemblies of God simply found it necessary to state theirs in order to resolve controversies. To their credit, their hearts and intentions were right. In effect, they came to believe that they could be creedal without succumbing to creedalism. Heretofore, our “Statement of Fundamental Truths” has served us well. We have usually managed to wield the two-edged sword of our creeds in such a way that it has provided positive results. However, being now 100 years into the Pentecostal Movement, we, even more than our founding fathers, must be aware of the possible dangers of creedalism. As noted in the introduction, by about 100 years into the Reformation, Protestantism was all too often subordinating Scripture to its creeds. Like our Protestant forerunners, we have now had our creeds long enough that we hold them with very high regard (as we should). Therefore, we must heed Bloesch’s admonition: “Tradition as the amplification and interpretation of the Word in the community of faith is to be respected and honored, but it is not to be accepted uncritically.” All “church traditions must be measured in the light of the transcendent THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE meaning of the gospel of God that shines through Holy Scripture.”46 We must guard against the very attitude, as well as the practice, of venerating our doctrine and practice statements above Scripture. Creedalism begins as a subtle attitude before it issues into a practice. If we develop the attitude that our Pentecostal beliefs are so special and so well stated that we should guard them against any change, then without even realizing it, we open ourselves up to the problem of using Scripture in a proof-texting manner to preserve them. All aspects of our traditions must remain open to discussion and be genuinely amenable to Scripture. For example, this was the intent of our Pentecostal forefathers who first developed and adopted our statements of faith. Consequently, they preceded their doctrinal statements with “[t]he phraseology employed in this Statement is not inspired or contended for, but the truth set forth in such phraseology is held to be essential to a full gospel ministry.” Likewise, we must never “contend for” the phraseology as though it is sacred and non-amendable. If we do, we are subtly subordinating the authority of Scripture to human expressions. Rather, however, we should strongly hold to “the truth set forth” in our doctrines. Finally, with our Pentecostal forefathers, we affirm and hold to “[t]he Bible [as] our all-sufficient rule for faith and practice.”47 Despite having a creed, let us nevertheless continue to avoid creedalism. Experience and the Authority of Scripture Besides the question of the authority of Church tradition, what is the authority of the believer’s experience? That is, what is the relationship of experience to 33 34 JOHN W. WYCKOFF Scripture in the process of developing and maintaining proper Christian doctrine and practice? Like the question of Church tradition, the question of experience’s role in this endeavor is not new. Especially in view of the Pentecostal emphasis upon spiritual experiences, it has contemporary significance for us. Also, this question has further significance in light of the current focus in some segments of evangelicalism on a rationalistic view of Scripture’s authority. An appropriate position must be found somewhere between an extreme subjectivism related to experience and an extreme objectivism related to rationalism. In his excellent article “Of Tidy Doctrine and Truncated Experience,” Robert K. Johnston, himself an evangelical, highlights the problems associated with an imbalanced rationalistic view of Scripture. “Evangelical intellectualism based on a rationalistic and idealistic philosophy has so abstracted the Christian faith that it risks missing the heart of the Gospel. In their desire for precision, evangelicals have become so analytical, so mired in contrived conceptual schemas, that correct doctrine has superseded faith and life as the focal point of Christianity.”48 As Scott A. Ellington points out, all too often the “Evangelical movement has chosen largely to defend its notion of biblical authority with the limits of modern rationalism.”49 Such a rationalistic approach to sola scriptura leaves the Church with a “straight-jacketed epistemology.”50 The problem does indeed have to do with an adequate epistemology—how one comes to know and understand truth. In our case, the issue is how we come to know and understand divine, revelational truth. Bloesch notes the problem in his discussion of how “rationalistic orthodoxy fails to grasp the dynamic, THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE inaccessible nature of revelation.” He explains that Protestant orthodoxy has recently leaned too heavily toward a “scholastic model” of biblical authority in which “faith is basically an intellectual assent to propositional truth.”51 This model is not wrong, but it needs to be complemented with a model that understands revelation as a present, dynamic work of the Spirit. The special illuminating work of the Spirit is absolutely essential. Scripture is given to be the context in which we encounter God’s presence and therein not only learn about God, but also truly come to know Him and His will through the miraculous work of the Spirit. We understand and know the ultimate, God-intended meaning of Scripture only when, by the Spirit, we encounter God’s presence therein. Scripture, then, is recognized to be authoritative and it is made the final authority by the present, miraculous work of the Spirit. Bloesch is among an increasing number of evangelicals who join some Pentecostals in insisting that to have an adequate method of developing useful doctrine, sola scriptura must be coupled with an appropriate “pneumatic epistemology.” “Surely, the Spirit is the key to the proper functioning of biblical authority,” Pinnock declares. He adds: “Both religious liberals and conservative evangelicals have conspired to leave the Spirit out of hermeneutics, and this must come to an end.”52 We must allow the Spirit to show us how to recognize and adequately respond to Him in this process and yet not be swept into the eddy of subjectivity. Bloesch and Pinnock join other scholars such as James B. Shelton in insisting upon “the continued activity of the Holy Spirit as epistemologically essential.”53 They, along with Johnston, recognize that “if the Church is ever again to set forth a relevant and ade- 35 36 JOHN W. WYCKOFF quate theology, it must begin . . . with reflection on our experience with him [Jesus Christ] through the Holy Spirit.”54 As Ellington observes, “This has clear implications for a doctrine of the authority of Scripture. The Bible is not simply a text about whose propositions we can debate, it is the authoritative word of God because the same Holy Spirit who inspired its writers meets us today in its pages.”55 The clear implication is that spiritual experiences do affect doctrine and practice. That is, when the Holy Spirit’s role of being “epistemologically essential” is properly recognized, then spiritual experiences are allowed to function in a dynamic relationship with sola scriptura. Those who recognize this “utilize doctrine to describe and verbalize lived experience,” Ellington says. Their understanding of the authority of Scripture is influenced by “their experiences of encountering a living God, directly and personally.”56 Again, the notion of spiritual experiences playing a role in understanding truth and developing doctrine is obviously not a new or strange idea to authentic Christianity. With all of its focus on sola scriptura, the Reformation started with the dynamic relationship between Scripture and experience in proper perspective. “The ‘sola scriptura, sola fides’ of Luther included a focus on personal experience of divine grace,” as James Martin notes.57 James Atkinson also shows this in a quote from Luther: “When I had realized this I felt myself absolutely born again. The gates of paradise had been flung open and I had entered. There and then the whole of Scripture took on another look to me.”58 For good reasons, serious concerns are raised by the notion that experiences play a role in understanding truth and developing doctrine and practice.59 How can THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE excesses, extremes, and erroneous teachings be avoided? Experiences are subjective and their role in relationship to sola scriptura may be uncertain. Ellington, who strongly advocates the epistemological role of spiritual experiences, acknowledges this. “Personal and communal experience is quite obviously, a precarious basis for faith, being more open to subjectivity and self-deception.”60 Some are tempted in their religious enthusiasm to formulate inappropriate doctrines and follow extraneous practices by appealing to their own experiences. But there is a corrective. “To stress one’s experience, which is an experience of the Spirit, is not, according to evangelicals, to ignore the Word as manifest both in Scripture and in Christ himself.”61 When the epistemological role of the Spirit is advocated, the proper function of Scripture as the final rule of faith and practice is especially important. In the dynamic relationship between sola scriptura and experience, the importance of sola scriptura simply cannot be overstated. Ultimately, as Ellington points out, “the Bible is the basic rule of faith and practice and supplies the corrective and interpretive authority for all religious experience.”62 Again, we especially emphasize that all experiences of the Spirit must be judged by their faithfulness to the whole Word of God. Thus far I have made a case for the idea that to have relevant and adequate doctrines and practices, spiritual experiences must be coupled with the principle of sola scriptura. That is, I contend that Scripture and experience, Word and Spirit, function in dynamic union, with neither violating the other. Without this, as Ellington says, “Scripture becomes a place where we go to acquire information about God and not a place where we go to meet the person of God in a direct 37 38 JOHN W. WYCKOFF encounter through the words of the text.” In this dynamic union of Word and Spirit “the Bible is experienced as authoritative as the Holy Spirit is found to be at work in and through Scripture in the lives of each member of the church community.”63 The next question is: How do such experiences function epistemologically in relation to Scripture? To begin with, all interpretation is affected by personal experiences. The old Enlightenment Age notion that one can approach the study of Scripture with absolute objectivity, as a “clean slate,” simply is not tenable.64 As Gordon Anderson points out, “All interpreters intentionally or inadvertently incorporate personal experience in their hermeneutics.”65 The result may be either positive or negative. The negative side is part of the reason for the concerns discussed in this paper. On the positive side, many students of the Bible are realizing the significance of personal experiences in understanding Scripture. For example, at age 20, when I read Paul’s great discussion about the resurrection of believers in the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians, I understood it very well. But when I read it 30 years later following the death of my godly mother, my understanding rose to a new level. I did not obtain some “new” revelation; the text simply took on different nuances of meaning because of the experience I then brought to it. Similarly, Roger Stronstad notes that “the Christian who has been healed will understand the record of Jesus’ healing ministry or that of the apostles better than the one who has never experienced it.”66 Experiences, including those distinctive moments when the Holy Spirit illuminates the text, are a special part of what Anthony Thiselton and others call the “hermeneutical spiral” of understanding Scripture.67 THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE The hermeneutical spiral begins with certain “preunderstandings” every student of the Bible brings to the task of understanding Scripture. Preunderstandings include all of the information, attitudes, and ideas that the reader already has about the Scripture when he or she begins the study. As the reader studies the text, the understanding he or she gains is affected by these preunderstandings. The reader’s new understanding of the text, in turn, changes his or her preunderstandings, if not fundamentally at least by adding new understandings to them. When the reader returns to the text with these new understandings, they in turn enable the student to gain yet new understandings. And the “spiral” continues with ever-increasing understanding.68 Experiences are only one of many constituent elements in this hermeneutical spiral; however, they add a distinctive dimension and a special dynamic to the process of understanding Scripture. Without the dimension that experiences provide, we simply do not have the phenomenological context necessary to gain the level and kind of understanding that the Spirit desires. Stronstad cites German theologian Hermann Gunkel of a century ago to make this point. “What was true of the primitive church’s daily experience of the Spirit was not true of the church in Gunkel’s own day.” Stronstad uses a quote from Gunkel to show that he considered “the church of his day to be handicapped in its ability to understand the apostolic witness to the Holy Spirit because it lacked any analogous experience of the Spirit.”69 This is the reason the discussion on rationalism above is so important. Because again, as Bloesch says, “The knowledge of God’s Word is never merely conceptual knowledge but also existential knowledge.”70 That is, ultimately “knowing” revela- 39 40 JOHN W. WYCKOFF tional truth is experiential. As Ellington points out, “for the Bible to be truly ‘authoritative’ in the life of an individual and the community, God must be experienced and encountered by that person and community in and through Scripture.”71 The idea here is profound yet plain. Certainly the Bible is authoritative in one sense, whether it is ever recognized or experienced as such. However, for a truth to be actually authoritative, it must be “known.” And what one does not “know” will not be practically authoritative. That is, the authority of the text is affected positively or negatively by one’s experiential preunderstandings. For example, as Stronstad points out, “Pentecostals bring a valid experiential presupposition to the interpretation of Acts…which enables them to understand the charismatic life of the Apostolic Church…better than those contemporary Christians who lack this experience.” They “bring positive and sympathetic experiential presuppositions” to the interpretation of the biblical data on the charismatic activity of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, non-Pentecostal evangelicals often “bring negative and hostile experiential presuppositions” to the interpretation of those same texts.72 The typical doctrinal position of a non-Pentecostal is stated by Morris, “[W]e must regard them [the charismata] as the gift of God for the time of the Church’s infancy.”73 In effect, these biblical materials are not “authoritative” to non-Pentecostals as they are to Pentecostals. Pentecostals are prepared to affirm the doctrine that the charismata are for the Church today as a biblical truth because they have—by the Spirit—experienced these gifts. Also, Pentecostals contend that this doctrine is correct because the Bible does not teach “cessationism,” that the charismata ceased at the end of the New Testament writing period. THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE Besides the influence of one’s experiences at the beginning of the interpretative process, they bring still another dimension to the process of developing doctrine and practice. Menzies identifies it as the “verification level.” “If a biblical truth is to be promulgated, then it ought to be demonstrable in life.” That is, in the development of theology or doctrine, there is a connection between revelation and experience. Menzies gives this example: “It was the inductive study of the Bible that led the students at Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas, in 1900-01 to expect a baptism in the Spirit with the accompanying sign of speaking in tongues. When they in fact experienced precisely what they thought the Bible was teaching, they were then able to affirm the continuity between biblical concept and experiential reality.”74 Note that in talking about “biblical truth” being “promulgated,” Menzies is talking about the idea of biblical truth being passed on as authoritative. Thus, here he is discussing how experience functions in relationship to the principle of Scriptural authority. Though experience does not establish doctrine, it does verify the authoritative truth derived from Scripture. In the case of the students at Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas, the students first came to believe, on the basis of their study of Scripture, that speaking in tongues accompanied the baptism in the Holy Spirit. In a similar way, a person may, because of experience, change his or her mind about a biblical teaching or practice. Jack Deere, former professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, tells how he knew of the biblical accounts of healings and other spiritual gifts but did not believe they were for the Church today. His doctrine was this: “I knew that God no longer gave the 41 42 JOHN W. WYCKOFF miraculous gifts of the Spirit.” Then he began to have experiences which convinced him that in fact the charismata are for the Church today. In his words, he was “surprised by the Holy Spirit.”75 For Deere, experience verified the contemporary validity of this particular doctrine and practice. Besides verification, there is yet another dimension that experience brings to the hermeneutical spiral. At the verification level, the reader has at least already been exposed to a truth in Scripture. Experience then follows as an affirmation, a verification. Both the students at Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas, in 1900-01 and Jack Deere serve as examples. But sometimes we may not be aware of any specific teaching in Scripture that relates to our experience. We experience something dynamic that we are not expecting. It is unusual, fresh, and transforming. Here we are referring to what should be termed “extrabiblical” experiences, experiences not clearly found in Scripture. Although these experiences may not have clear biblical precedents, nevertheless, if we believe they are authentic experiences of the Spirit, we may conclude that what we have learned from them should influence our understanding of doctrine and practice. In practice Pentecostals have held to this notion from the beginning of the Pentecostal movement. For example, Pentecostals believe in (doctrine) and experience (practice) what they term being “slain in the Spirit,” “dancing in the Spirit,” and “laughing in the Spirit.” These are extrabiblical in that they are not plainly taught in the New Testament. Yet, many hold them to be acceptable, contemporary Pentecostal practices. Pentecostals believe that even though these experiences are extrabiblical, that does not mean they are “contra- THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE biblical.”76 Certainly if such extrabiblical experiences are also contrabiblical, then obviously they are not authentic and should not be allowed to continue. But if extrabiblical experiences are not contrabiblical, Pentecostals believe they are worthy spiritual experiences in which God is doing special supernatural works in the lives of believers. There are broad Scriptural principles, norms, and truths by which these and other experiences must be judged. These events occur and they have this impact precisely because God cannot be confined to the theological boxes framed by human dogma or limited to even the historical examples He himself has provided in the Bible. He is so infinite and His ways of relating to humankind are so dynamic, we must always be open to being surprised by the Spirit’s activity. Thomas F. Torrance suggests that “a theology faithful to what God has revealed and done in Jesus Christ must involve a powerful element of apocalyptic, that is epistemologically speaking, an eschatological suspension of logical form in order to keep our thought ever open to what is radically new.”77 As God promised, He is pouring out His Spirit in these last days! Therefore, we must always be open to the Spirit revealing God to us in wonderfully fresh and dynamic ways. So again I submit that there is another important dimension that spiritual experiences add to the hermeneutical spiral. In that this dimension of understanding is grounded in the experiences of our spiritual existence as God’s people, we might term it the existential level. Here we are not suggesting or implying that God is adding any uniquely new revelation beyond that revealed in the Bible and the person of Jesus Christ. The canon of Scripture is closed, but God, 43 44 JOHN W. WYCKOFF in keeping with His inherent character, certainly is still actively revealing himself in the personal and corporate experiences of those who respond positively to His Spirit. And Pentecostals affirm that Scripture is the final rule for faith and practice. But Pentecostals also agree with Bloesch who discusses how that often in our present situation “the creative, transforming power of God…seizes us and points us in a new direction.” We agree that “[r]evelation happened in a final and definitive form in the apostolic encounter with Jesus Christ.” And the inspired record and interpretation of that is provided for us in the New Testament. However, “revelation happens again and again in the experience of the Spirit of Christ.”78 Certainly we recognize that the idea of allowing such extrabiblical experiences to influence doctrine and practice raises serious concerns. As already noted, all experiences are subjective and open to personal interpretation and application. Certainly these extrabiblical experiences could, and admittedly sometimes do, lend themselves to generating excessive, extreme, and even totally erroneous teachings. When this happens, remedies must be sought and implemented. No matter what experiences may indicate, doctrines and practices that are contrary to biblical principles, norms, and truths must not be allowed. The Bible must continue to be the final rule for faith and practice. Further, any and all teachings and practices that are derived from extrabiblical experiences must also be controlled. That is, even if they do not seem to be contrary to biblical teachings, if they are excessive or extreme, they must be guarded against. The apostle Paul provides principles for this in 1 Corinthians 12–14. A detailed discussion of them in this paper is not pos- THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE sible. Here it must be sufficient to note that, for example, Paul insists that even utterances in tongues, which are inspired by the Spirit and are clearly biblical manifestations, must be controlled. Certainly, then, he would likewise insist that extrabiblical practices be properly controlled. Also, phenomena that are associated with extrabiblical experiences, even if one believes they are of the Spirit, must never be set forth as norms and should never be developed into standard doctrines and practices for the Church. There must be safeguards. But Pentecostals hold that sola scriptura does not mean that authentic extrabiblical spiritual experiences have no r