By the REV. DONALD MACLEAN, Portree.
I.—AUTHORITY OF GOD’S WORD.
THE vast majority of church-going people in Scotland are connected with the present Church of Scotland. They attend its services, take part in its worship and listen to the doctrines taught. To a greater or less extent, they take part in its activities and fondly hope that when death will overtake them all will be well at last. It is obvious, therefore, that the Church of Scotland is either an organisation exercising an influence for the greatest good, or an instrument of the greatest harm. From the point of view of Biblical Christianity it would be an easy matter to show from the practices of this Church that it must be placed in the latter category. The practices of the true Church of Christ distinguish it from the world: indeed these very practices incur the hatred of the worldly-minded. “If ye were of the world,” said Christ to His disciples, “the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world therefore the world hateth you.”1 John xv. 19. The Church of Scotland is guilty of engaging in most worldly practices, and endeavouring to unite the world and the Church, thus manifesting the ignorance of divine realities reigning in the minds of both ministers and people.
Two instances of this may be mentioned. The Gateway Theatre in Edinburgh is run under the auspices of the Home Mission Board of the Church of Scotland. As the theatre and all it stands for belongs to the world that lieth in wickedness, such a circumstance occasions amazement in every Christian heart. At the recent anniversary of the opening of this theatre, it was stated that the Church of Scotland was the only church in Christendom which had a theatre in this sense! Such is the sad state into which Scotland has now fallen. Another practice indicative of this spirit is to be found in the erection of new churches, particularly in new housing areas. In these buildings, it is reported, a pulpit is erected at one end, while a platform is erected at the other. When the people are professing to be engaged in the worship of God they face the pulpit: when they are being entertained by some play or amusement they face the platform! This blatant attempt at facing both ways, and serving God and the world shews how little people at the present day understand of the essence of true godliness.
It should ever be remembered, however that as boils on the human body are evidences of poison in the blood stream, so these outward extravagances in practice are symptomatic of a deeper disease. The blood-stream of the Church is its doctrine. When the doctrine is pure and in accordance with the Word of God, then the practice may be expected to be a proper reflection of Christian conduct. When the stream of doctrine is contaminated by error, however, these outbreaks of inconsistent practice are inevitable. It is here one can find the primary cause for a professing Christian Church sinking to such a low level that the entertainments of the world have their part in its life, and not a voice raised in protest.
The 35th series of the Croall Lectures was delivered in 1949 by the Rev. W. D. Niven, D.D., LL.D., sometime Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Glasgow, and a minister in the Church of Scotland. The lectures were published in October, 1953, under the title of Reformation Principles after Four Centuries. The present writer had intended to comment on this publication long before now, but pressure of other work prevented his doing so. The subject, however, appears to him to be of such importance that he feels it his duty to set before our people some of his impressions on reading a book which deals with matters of the greatest importance.
Professor Niven’s lectures deal with two fundamental Reformation Principles—those of the Supremacy of the Word of God as the rule of faith and practice, and Justification by Faith alone. No one will deny the importance of these two principles. By returning to the Word of God as their only rule, the Reformers overthrew the false doctrine of Rome, cast out its idolatrous worship, and overturned the tyrannical form of government which had the Pope as its head. In its place they set up the Church of Christ, founded in its doctrine, worship and practice upon the Word of God, the precious light of which had shone into their souls by the unction of the Holy Ghost. By setting forth the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, the Reformers not only demonstrated God’s way of salvation, but struck a mortal blow at the authority of the priestcraft which was so largely founded on sinners obeying the priest in order to obtain the pardon of their sins. The very great importance of these two doctrines must appear to all, and any modifying of them on the part of the Protestant Church must be attended by the greatest dangers. Dr. Niven’s book is an endeavour to show not only that a change of attitude has taken place, but also to indicate the present views of the Protestant Church in general, and the Church of Scotland in particular, on these two Reformation Principles.
It is evident that Dr. Niven welcomes the change and his book is written from this viewpoint. In his introduction, he mentions the ecumenical movement expressed in the World Council of Churches and wonders “wistfully whether there is any shade of hope that the greatest breach of all in which the Reformation of the sixteenth century eventuated can be healed.”1 These are ominous words and express the hope which lies deep in the hearts of many churchmen and which they know can never be realised as long as the Reformed Faith is held in its fulness. Whatever doubts we may entertain as to Dr. Niven’s spiritual capacity for weighing the points at issue, we can approach this book with the knowledge that it contains a fair presentation of what is taught to the rising ministry in the Church of Scotland. In this connection, it is interesting to note that Dr. Niven thinks that the strong anti-theological movement with its slogan, “Back to Jesus,” can be no longer maintained, “Because a Christianity which discards Paulinism turns out to be in many points vague and uncertain.”2 Put in brief compass, the supporters of this theory held that Paul had superimposed ideas of his own upon the teachings of Jesus and, by discarding these teachings, they affected to get back to what they called “the simple gospel.” Professor J. S. Stewart in his book A Man in Christ, also thinks that the idea should be abandoned and says, “Many of the assumptions on which the theory of a hiatus between Jesus and Paul rests can only be called precarious in the extreme.”1 As neither of these Professors, in our view, is a friend of the Gospel of Christ, their opinion on this point is of value if only from the controversial angle. The following quotation from Professor Stewart’s books shows the darkness which floods his mind on spiritual truth, “God’s wrath is God’s grace. It is His grace smitten with dreadful sorrow. It is His love in agony. It is the passion of His heart going forth to redeem.”2
In entering upon discussion of these two principles it is further to be noticed that it is not a fair method of assessing the principles of any movement to make use of isolated statements or views of its leaders. Every one knows that in the heat of controversy, statements were made by Luther and others which have given a handle to the enemies of the Reformation to charge the movement with unsound principles. But surely the proper method of discovering the Reformed position is to look at the principles as they became crystalized in the Confessions of the Churches. As far as Scotland is concerned, the Westminster Confession of Faith embodies the reformed doctrine and states these with a clarity and Scriptural fulness which has no been surpassed. It is these positions we are called upon to maintain and defend and it is from these positions that the Church of Scotland had sadly drifted with respect to the two points at issue.
In dealing with the canon of Scripture, Dr. Niven raises the question of the position of the Apocrypha. The books of the Old and New Testaments, contained in our Bibles, were considered by the Reformers to be given by the inspiration of God as the rule of faith and life. “The Books commonly called the Apocrypha not being of Divine inspiration are no part of the canon of scripture; and therefore are no authority in the Church of God nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of, than other human writings.”3 This statement made the position clear and was set down in opposition to the view of the Papal church which, at the Council of Trent in 1546, included some of the books of the apocrypha in the canon of scripture. Obviously, it was most essential that a clear distinction should be drawn between human writings and the divinely inspired Word of God. Dr. Niven shows, however, that the climate of thought has changed and that there is a great desire now to read the apocrypha and give it a place that it did not have before. He mentions that in the Revised Church Hymnary there is a canticle from a passage of the apocrypha, “Let us now praise famous men.” In passing, it may be remarked that this gives an instance of how error is often introduced through hymns. He also cites another verse from the apocrypha in the burial service of the Church of Scotland. “The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God and there shall no torment touch them . . . they are in peace.” He also discloses that the new translation of the Bible in Britain is to include the apocrypha. Giving such a place to the apocrypha is a distinctly retrograde step and many will conclude that it is part of the inspired Word of God. Is this not a step towards the position of the Church of Rome?
In his chapter on The Bible and the Word of God, Dr. Niven reaches the core of the controversy between the modernist and the Reformed Faith. The question is on the inspiration of God’s Word and its consequent authority. It is clear, not as a mere theory but as a fact of history that loose teaching on the inspiration of God’s Word weakens its authority in the consciences of men. It is this, above all else, which has emptied the churches in Scotland and turned our nation into a people whose ignorance of divine things is appalling. In discussing this subject, it is necessary to draw a distinction between inspiration and illumination. By the former we mean that God is the Author of Scripture and that the Holy Spirit so led men that they recorded infallibly and inerrantly His mind, giving us the Bible as the Word of God; “and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.”1 That this is the Reformed position is clear from the Confession which says that the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek “being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic.”2 By illumination, on the other hand, we mean the work of the Holy Spirit enlightening the mind in the knowledge of divine things. This is referred to also in the Confession in the following words: “yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth thereof (i.e., of the Scripture) is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”3 In other words, inspiration is a special influence of the Holy Spirit granted to the writers of the Bible to ensure that the mind of God was infallibly revealed there: illumination is the inward experience of that Word being applied by the Holy Ghost to the soul of a sinner. From these two positions it is clear that the inspiration of God’s Word does not depend on the enlightenment of any sinner. For instance, does the fact that there are multitudes in India and China at the present time who have never even heard of the Word of God, make any difference to its inspiration. Surely not! It is therefore very necessary that this distinction be kept before our minds.
Dr. Niven raises many objections to this view of inspiration, but we have every confidence that these can be answered by any reverent student of Scripture. Indeed, most of them have been answered already and they need not detain us at the present time. The view of inspiration expressed by Dr. Niven, and held by many, presents difficulties of a far more serious nature than any that can be raised against the Biblical doctrine. Briefly stated, this view is that the Scripture is not the Word of God but contains the Word of God, and that the Holy Spirit speaking in the heart and in the Church recognises, as it were, the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. In other words there is a confusion here between inspiration and illumination. It is obvious that a man with this view may reject parts of God’s Word as not being of Divine authority and, in practice, this is exactly what happens as Dr. Niven, himself, abundantly illustrates. Such a view means that, instead of the Word of God being a judge of the reality of such spiritual experiences as a sinner may have, spiritual experience becomes the judge of what is, and what is not, the Word of God! How can anyone truly determine what is indeed the Word of God upon such principles? If he contents himself with listening to the voice of the Church, he inclines to the popish position. If he listens to his own heart or what he imagines is the Holy Spirit speaking in his heart, how can he have any assurance that it is the voice of God, when the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked? This most serious departure from the Reformed Faith strikes at the whole authority of God’s Word. In virtue of its inspiration, the Scripture was in the Reformed view, the only rule of Faith and Life. By departing from this view of inspiration, modernists have reduced the Word of God to be the supreme rule, which implies that there may be other rules having their place in the doctrine, worship and practice of the Church.
Dr. Niven then begins to illustrate how right he considers this new view to be by applying it to the question of life and faith. With regard to the former, he argues that there are other rules which have to be obeyed by the Christian such as Acts of Parliament and rules of Society. This, of course, is quite true, as was recognised by the Reformers, but the fact remains that such Acts, etc., cannot claim the obedience of the Christian if they are contrary to the general principles of God’s Word. For instance, we all recognise that the Bible gives no rules for the filling up of an Income Tax form, but the Bible does require that, in doing so, we should be completely honest in declaring our income. It governs in the spiritual and moral realm and is the only rule to guide our consciences. The command to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s is, in other words, a scriptural principle. On worship, Dr. Niven rejects the principle that God is to be worshipped in the way “instituted by Himself and so limited by His own revealed will that He may not be worshipped according to the decrees or imagination of men, or any other way not prescribed in Holy Scripture.”1 With regard to doctrine, Dr. Niven contends that difficulties and obscurities in the Bible led to the rise of sects and to the formation of Confessions to state with clarity the Church’s beliefs. He seems to ignore the fact that heresies arose because of the darkness and the spiritual ignorance in the minds of men. He does, however, acknowledge that a creedless Church is almost a contradiction in terms.2 The point is, that the Reformers held that their Confession was founded upon the Word of God, which was their sole rule and guide with regard to the doctrine they laid down. This appears more plainly when Dr. Niven comes to speak of the place to be given to tradition and conscience. The Reformers gave no place to tradition, and it is here that the importance of the real distinction between the Bible as the only rule and the supreme rule comes clearly into focus. If the Bible is just the supreme rule, then tradition can have its own place. Dr. Niven has to acknowledge that the Reformers “took the Word of God as the touchstone by which everything handed down from the fathers must be tested. Whatever contradicted the Word of God was rejected: what godly men of the past had achieved in the way of rejecting error and formulating truth they accepted.”3 This, of course, is vastly different from accepting tradition contrary to or unwarranted by the Word of God. He comes to the crux of the matter when he says, “By the Church of Scotland it is expressly declared that the Church has the right to change or modify her subordinate standard, as she may be led to do under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, provided that such change shall be agreeable with the Word of God, and the fundamental doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession, of which agreement the Church herself shall be the sole judge.”4 In other words, the Church is, in reality, the only rule as to what new views may be entertained. Dr. Niven further remarks, that, curiously enough, this has always been the view of the Quakers who evaluate by the “general sense” of the General Meeting any new view which an individual may obtain from his inner light. He might have added, curiously enough, that this view is also that of the Church of Rome which promulgates new views through the Pope and General Council.
The conclusion reached is quite consistent with the low view of inspiration already mentioned. As the individual accepts or rejects parts of the Bible dependent upon his subjective experiences, so Church Courts are to accept or reject new views of doctrine, worship and practice according to the spirit reigning in the generation at any particular time. This is a clean break from the Reformed Faith where we find it expressed, “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the scripture.“1 The new view, which was fathered on Scottish religious life through the Declaratory Act of 1892, has opened the door to a flood of unscriptural error and rendered the Church of Scotland one of the greatest menaces to the souls of men.
In another article, notice will be taken of the departure from the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone.