John Walvoord Interpretation

8/11/2019 John Walvoord Interpretation

1/26

Contemporary Problems in Biblical InterpretationPart I:

Is the Bible the Inspired Word of God?

[Editors Note: This article is the first in a series on the general subject, Contemporary

Problems in Biblical Interpretation.]

The Bible has always occupied the central place in the Christian faith. From the time of the

writing of the first books of the Old Testament in the days of Moses until modern times the HolyScriptures have been regarded by all Christian theologians as the unique and incomparable Word

of God. According to Murray: Christians of varied and diverse theological standpoints aver that

the Bible is the Word of God, that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it occupies a uniqueplace as the norm of Christian faith and life.1More books have been written and more has been

said about the Bible than any other book in all the world. Though sometimes neglected and the

object of constant attack, the Scriptures today continue to be read and believed more than any

other writing coming from the pens of men.

Modern Questions about the Bible

Contemporary Biblical interpretation, however, makes plain that there are many problems inreceiving the Bible as the Word of God. In the twentieth century more than any previous periodof the Christian era there is a rising tide of unbelief and rejection of the authority of Scripture.

For sincere Christians who realize that their own faith in God and their joyous hope of the future

is vitally related to Scripture there is the demand to re-examine the claims of the Scriptures andto determine, at least for their own satisfaction, whether God has spoken authoritatively in His

Word. Rival claims of the Roman Catholic Church for final authority in matters of faith, the

beliefs of non-Christian religions, and the conclusions of various national systems of thoughttend to oppose the authority of Scripture. As Bernard Ramm states in beginning his study onauthority: The concept of authority has become one of the most controversial notions of modern

times.2In this study a careful distinction must be observed between various aspects of Biblical

investigation. One of the primary questions is, What is the Bible? or the question of canonicity.The unique place of the sixty-six books of the Bible is being challenged today and the

Apocryphal books formerly rejected are being included in the new edition of the Revised

Standard Version of the Bible.3

Another vital question is whether the Bible is actually the inspired Word of God. In other words,

when the Bible speaks can we accept the words of Scripture as having infallible, divineauthority? A further question arises if it is determined that the Bible is inspired. If the Bible is

indeed Gods Word, how shall it be interpreted and how shall its revelation be understood?

Historically, all errors in the Christian faith and every departure from divine truth has originated

in the answers to these three important questions. Obviously, the first two questions are the mostvital. Is our Bible of sixty-six books the inspired Word of God? If so, what do we mean by this

affirmation of faith? As Loraine Boettner writes: The answer that we are to give to the question

What is Christianity? depends quite largely on the view we take of Scripture.4
http://www.walvoord.com/article/77http://www.walvoord.com/article/77http://www.walvoord.com/article/77http://www.walvoord.com/article/77http://www.walvoord.com/article/77http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A11http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A11http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A11http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A12http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A12http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A13http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A13http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A13http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A14http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A14http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A14http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A14http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A13http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A12http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A11http://www.walvoord.com/article/77http://www.walvoord.com/article/77


2/26

The Meaning of Inspiration

Much of the modern confusion about the inspiration of the Bible stems from misconceptions of

the word inspirationitself. The English word inspiration, derived from the Latin word inspiratio,

refers to the act of breathing in, specifically, the drawing of air into the lungs.5Ascommonly used, however, it refers to the stimulus of the intellect or emotions from some

experience from without and in this sense one might properly speak of an inspiring sunset. As

used in reference to the Bible, however, inspiration has quite a different meaning. As defined byWebster, inspiration is a supernatural divine influence on the prophets, apostles, or sacred

writers, by which they were qualified to communicate truth without error; a supernatural

influence which qualifies men to receive and communicate divine truth.6Even this definition

contains only part of the full meaning of inspiration of the Scriptures.

The Bible itself seldom uses the word inspiration, the English word occurring only twice in the

entire Authorized Version of the Bible (Job 32:8; 2 Tim 3:16), and it is questionable whether

either of these references are correctly translated. A careful study of2 Timothy 3:16,however, ismost rewarding in introducing us to the precise teaching of the Bible on inspiration.

As translated in2 Timothy 3:16in the Authorized Version the statement is made: All scripture

is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for

instruction in righteousness. Though there has been some debate on the meaning of the phraseall scripture, the preceding verse referring as it does to the holy scriptures, gives us an

important lead. It makes plain that verse 16 is not referring to all writings, but rather to those

regarded as the Word of God, such as the Old Testament Scriptures and those portions of the

New Testament which had been written at that time. Such Scriptures are declared to be given byinspiration of God.

Translators have had considerable difficulty in expressing precisely the thought of the Greektext, due partly to omission of the verb, and this is illustrated in the various ways in which this

phrase is translated. The American Standard Version translates the first phrase, every scripture

inspired of God. The Revised Standard Version and the Berkeley Version return essentially tothe authorized translation and render this phrase, All scripture is inspired by God. Actually

none of these translations capture the precise thought of the Greek New Testament and follow

the Latin Vulgate instead of the Greek New Testament. What the Greek states, if the verb besupplied, is, All Scripture is God-breathed (Greek, theopneustos). Though this is not

recognized in any popular translation, it is essentially what is suggested in YoungsLiteral

Translation of the Holy Bible, Every Writing is God-breathed, and is according to the

suggestion of B. B. Warfield, Every Scripture seeing that it is God-breathed.7This Scripturedoes not teach, then, that God breathed into the authors, but rather that the product, the Holy

Scriptures, is that which God has breathed out.

As Warfield explains in supporting his translation: The Greek term has, however, nothing to say

of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of a spiring or spiration. What it says of Scripture

is, not that it is breathed into by God or is the product of the Divine inbreathing into itshuman authors, but that it is breathed out by God, God-breathed, the product of the creative
http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A15http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A15http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A16http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A16http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A16http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A17http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A17http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A17http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A16http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A15


3/26

breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the

Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indication of how God has operated in producing

them.8

Second Timothy 3:16is therefore a flat affirmation that the Bible in distinction to all other

literary works is a product of divine power and intelligent will. The Bible is the breath of God,an Old Testament expression translated usually as equivalent to the Word of God (cf.Ps 33:6).

It is fair to conclude that the Scriptures claim inspiration, that is, that the writings of the Bible are

the product of divine power and therefore carry divine authority.

The Mode of Divine Inspiration

The mode of divine inspiration like many other operations of God is not precisely defined in the

Bible. Though in some instances dictation is the rule, as in the Ten Commandments, in othercases Scripture is produced without direct dictation. accomplished. A brief survey of the various

theories of inspiration will illustrate the extent of this problem.9

Theories of Inspiration

Natural inspiration. Among extreme liberal interpreters of Scripture the Bible is regarded as a

purely natural book written by human authors endowed with no special gifts or supernatural

ability who wrote using their normal and natural intelligence. From this point of view the Bibleis regarded as no different than any other book, and is unusual but only a human product. In

effect, this view denies completely any inspiration of the Scripture and of course removes any

supernatural element such as would be required in direct revelation of God of any facts of the

past, present, and future which are not normally open to the discovery of man. If this theory iscorrect, the Bible has no more authority than any other book. This view is held by non-

Christians.

Mystical or dynamic inspiration. This view is one step removed from a purely natural origination

of the Bible and views the author of Scripture as being especially empowered for his task by God

much as any work or service for God is accomplished by divine enablement. The human authorswere under this theory enabled to do their very best and possessed some measure of divine power

in achieving their task. Adherents of this view are not all agreed as to the extent of this divine

enablement, whether it is supernatural or whether it determined the actual text of Scripture. The

Scriptures produced according to this view, however, are no more authoritative than a well-delivered sermon, and the resultant text of Scripture falls short of bearing the imprint of divine

authority or infallibility.

Concept theory. In an effort to avoid the difficulties of claiming actual inspiration of the very

words of Scripture, some have resorted to the concept theory, namely, that God gave to the

writers of Scripture the ideas, some of them of supernatural origin which would otherwise havebeen unknown to human intelligence. The authors incorporated these ideas in their own words.

The resulting Scripture, however, is no more than a record of their experience of this divine
http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A18http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A18http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A19http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A19http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A19http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A19http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A18


4/26

revelation. It may be postulated under this point of view that the revelation as received by the

writer had the authority and accuracy which one would expect of divine revelation, but its

embodiment in the words of the author inevitably carried with it a lack of completecomprehension and contains inevitable coloring by the authors perspective and environment.

Though the ideas are inspired, therefore, the words are not. Under this interpretation the

Scriptures fall short of verbal infallibility, and the appeal to particular words and expressions asbeing the precise revelation of God is therefore unjustified. In the end, the Bible according to thistheory is still a fallible book.

Degrees of inspiration. Some have attempted to explain the inspiration of the Bible as being

subject to degrees; that is, certain portions of the Bible, particularly moral areas, have supreme

revelation, whereas others dealing with history, creation, and prophecy have only relative

inspiration. Under this theory, portions of Scripture which have to do with our relationship toGod are authoritative, but other portions may not be. The weakness of this point of view, of

course, is its subjective character, namely, that no two will be of one mind on the degree of the

inspiration of any particular passage. The ultimate judgment is transferred from the statement of

Scripture to the decision of the reader. A variation of this point of view is the moral or partial-inspiration theory which holds that parts of the Bible are inspired, but others are not. Scripture

from this point of view is considered authoritative in matters of morals, but not in scientificmatters. Here again, the interpreter is faced with the impossible task of distinguishing whatportions of Scripture are inspired and what are not, and the ultimate authority rests in the opinion

of the reader and not in the Scripture itself.

The mechanical or dictation theory. The most extreme of conservative views of inspiration is the

theory that all parts of the Bible were dictated by God and that the human authors were no more

than stenographers. This view was held by some in the early church, is said to be the view ofsome of the Protestant Reformers, and is commonly represented by liberal opponents of

inspiration as the view held today by orthodox and conservative Biblical interpreters. Floyd

Filson for instance in analyzing the conservative point of view contends that only two possible

views of inspiration can be held, that the Bible is either the subject of absolute divine dictation oris a human product.10He further holds that the human origin makes inevitable that the Bible

contains many errors. Filson states in regard to the human factor that the canon so plainly

exhibits this factor that any theory of inerrancy is a strained and misleading way of expressingthe rich and continual effectiveness of the Bible.11

Some of the confusion on the proper theory of inspiration stems from the strong language usedby the Reformers in claiming inspiration. John Calvin, for instance, flatly affirmed the dictation

of the Scripture. Kenneth Kantzer in his discussion on Calvin cites Calvins statement that the

Holy Spirit dictated to the prophets and apostles and Calvins description of writers of Scripture

as clerks and penmen as supporting this idea.12In his other writings, however, Calvin freelyadmits the human element.13What Calvin was actually affirming was infallibility rather than

dictation in the absolute sense.

It is obvious from Scripture that certain portions of the Bible claim to be dictated (cf.Exod 20:1-

17). On the other hand, most of the Bible could not have been dictated according to the record

itself for it embodies the prayers, feelings, fears, and hopes of the individual who wrote that
http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A110http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A110http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A110http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A111http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A111http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A111http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A112http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A112http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A112http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A113http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A113http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A113http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A113http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A112http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A111http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A110


5/26

portion of Scripture. Such passages as Pauls expression of his sorrow for Israel (Rom 9:1-3)or

Davids prayer of confession inPsalm 51would lose all meaning if they were dictated by

another. Many of the psalms are obviously the heartcry of a psalmist in distress, in joy, orsorrow, in fear or hope.

Because of these obvious human factors in the Bible, even among orthodox Christians there islittle support for the mechanical or dictation theory today. Liberals who accuse conservatives of

holding this position today are either ignorant of what contemporary conservatives actually

believe or are willfully misrepresenting the situation. Among evangelical Christians who believethe Bible to be the Word of God, the most accurate description of their theory of inspiration is

contained in the words verbal and plenary inspiration.

The verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture. Those who uphold the infallible inspiration of

the entire Scriptures as they were originally written by the human authors contend that nothing

other than verbal inspirationthat is, divine guidance in the very choice of the words usedis

essential to a complete and Biblical view. In terms of formal definition: God so supernaturally

directed the writers of Scripture that without excluding their human intelligence, theirindividuality, their literary style, their personal feelings, or any other human factor, His own

complete and coherent message to man was recorded in perfect accuracy, the very words ofScripture bearing the authority of divine authorship.14

Though human authors are recognized in the Scripture itself and their human characteristics,vocabulary, and modes of thought are often traced, the supernatural process of the inspiration of

the Bible is deemed sufficiently operative so that the human author in every case uses the precise

words that God intended him to choose, and the resulting product therefore contains the accuracy

and infallibility of Scripture just as if God wrote it Himself. Usually added to the description ofthis theory of inspiration is the wordplenary, meaningfull, that is, that the inspiration extends

equally to every portion of Scripture and that all parts therefore are equally infallible and equallyauhoritative within the limitations of the context. This point of view does not regard the humanelement in Scripture as introducing human fallibility. Any tendency to error was overruled and

the human mind influenced so that even in its human experiences there was divine preparation

and sovereign arrangement to produce the desired Scripture.

Much of the difficulty expressed in the opposition of unbelieving liberals to the inspiration of the

words of Scripture is caused by the fact that inspiration as a supernatural work of God is notsubject to rational analysis. The Bible does not attempt to explain inspiration, but merely states

the fact that, on the one hand, God or the Holy Spirit is said to be the author and, on the other

hand, frequently refers to the human author in such expressions as Isaiah said or Moses said.

Lewis Sperry Chafer cites a number of instances where dual authorship, that is, both human and

divine, is recognized in Scripture. Chafer writes: The command, Honor thy father and thy

mother bears the authority of God commanded inMatthew 15:4;but inMark 7:10Christintroduces the words Moses said. In like mannerPsalm 110:1may be compared withMark

12:36, 37; Exodus 3:6, 15withMatthew 22:31; Luke 20:37withMark 12:26; Isaiah 6:9, 10with

Acts 28:25; John 12:39-41; Acts 1:16withActs 4:25.Certain passages, and there are many,combine a reference to both authorships in the one passage:Acts 1:16; 4:25;Matthew 1:22; 2:15
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A114http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A114http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A114http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A114http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


6/26

(R.V.). The Holy Spirit is declared to be the voice speaking through the Psalms as quoted in

Hebrews 3:7-11;through the LawHebrews 9:8;and in the ProphetsHebrews 10:15.15

It is clear from many Scriptures that the Bible itself claims the words of Scripture to be inspired.

Frequent quotation of Scripture as authoritative when the argument hangs upon a word (John

10:34-35)or even the singular or plural (Gal 3:16)demonstrates this claim. Though men maydisbelieve if they wish, this is the theory of inspiration taught by the Bible itself. Unbelief in

inspiration springs from unbelief in the Bible. Word of God, it has no more authority than an

opinion of the one who claims that he has heard the voice of God.

The Extent of Inspiration

According to the orthodox conservative opinion, the inspiration of the Scripture must extend to

every word. As Lewis Sperry Chafer has stated it emphatically: The Bible claims for itself thaton the original parchments every sentence, word, line, mark, point, penstroke, jot, or tittle was

placed there in complete agreement with the divine purpose and will. Thus the omnipotent andomniscient God caused the message to be formed as the precise reproduction of His Word.19

This for centuries has been the orthodox faith. Though many particular problems remain whichcan be discussed only in works devoted to their detailed study, for most Christians there is

transparent evidence that the Bible vindicates its claim to inspiration and that all problems have

been adequately met by the voluminous writing of the great orthodox scholars of the past and thepresent. Apart from, textual problems, which do not vitally affect the teachings of Scripture, the

reader of Scripture can be assured that he is studying the infallible Word of God, the treasure

house of divine truth.

Dallas, Texas

(Series to be continued in the Apr-Jun Number, 1959)

This article was taken from theTheological Journal Library CDand posted with permission ofGalaxie Software.

1John Murray, The Attestation of Scripture, The InfallibleWord, a Symposium, p. 1.

2Bernard Ramm, The Pattern of Authority,p. 9.

3Cf. Floyd V. Filson, Which Books Belong in the Bible?, pp. 12-13.

4Loraine Boettner, The Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 9.

5S.v., Inspiration, Websters New International Dictionary, second edition, p. 1286.
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A115http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A115http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A119http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A119http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A119http://www.galaxie.com/http://www.galaxie.com/http://www.galaxie.com/http://www.galaxie.com/http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A119http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/77#G59A115http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


7/26

6Ibid.

7B. B. Warfield, Inspiration,International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, III, 1474. Cf.

Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, pp. 131ff.

8

Ibid.9Cf. Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, I, 68ff.

10Filson, op. cit.,pp. 30-37.

11Ibid. This author, who is Dean and Professor of New Testament Literature and History in

McCormick Theological Seminary, nevertheless continues to affirm that the Bible is the

infallible rule of faith and practice as required of teachers in this Presbyterian seminary.

12Kenneth S. Kantzer,Inspiration and Interpretation, John F. Walvoord, editor, pp. 137-38. Cf.

Calvin,Jeremiah, IV, 229;Harmony, I, 127;Psalms, III, 205.13

Cf. ibid., pp. 139ff.

14John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit, pp. 59-60.

15Chafer, op. cit., I, 71.

19Lewis S. Chafer, op. cit., I, 22.

Contemporary Problems in Biblical InterpretationPart II:

How Can Man Know God?

[Editors Note: This article is the second in a series on the general subject, Contemporary


I. The Quest to Know God

From ancient times thinking men have searched for some explanation of the world in which they

live and some key to the purpose and meaning of life. The Bible records that God revealed

Himself to Adam and to some of his immediate posterity, but as the human race enlarged muchof what had been revealed was forgotten. The great mass of mankind became increasingly

ignorant of God and His way, though it is possible that much more was known about God in the

early history of the race than has been preserved in any written form. The Book of Job, recording

the thoughts of Job and his friends living centuries before Scripture was written, shows aremarkable knowledge of God, but this seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
http://www.walvoord.com/article/78http://www.walvoord.com/article/78http://www.walvoord.com/article/78http://www.walvoord.com/article/78http://www.walvoord.com/article/78http://www.walvoord.com/article/78http://www.walvoord.com/article/78


8/26

The beginning of modern intellectual development and philosophic thought as recorded in the

writings of the early Greeks is theologically far below the level of Jobs time. Evenbrilliant men

among Greek philosophers seem to have little knowledge of God. Their writings, however,testify to the insatiable curiosity of the keenest minds in the ancient world as they searched for

some explanation of the origin and nature of their world.

The problems which the Greeks attempted to solve have again occupied the center of the stage in

the twentieth century. The modern mind, having discarded Scripture as an authoritative voice

and retired to the somewhat agnostic position that the nature of God cannot be known withcertainty, has taken a new approach. The events of the twentieth century have demonstrated the

mockery of any explanation of life which is not centered in God. The pressures of fear and

uncertainty and the obvious shallowness of material prosperity have triggered the desire for an

explanation of the enigma of life itself. In a world which has discovered so much scientificallyand so little about God there was demand for a renewed study of what man can know about God.

Though much of the philosophic world is still agnostic and naturalistic, the theological world at

least has come up with a new explanation of how man can know God.

That new answer, in a word, is crisis theology, the idea that man by a supernatural experience or

crisis can bridge the gap between his finiteness and the infinite God. By this means man can, ineffect, know God. The God thus revealed is an infinite, transcendent God who is sovereign over

His creatures. Such a God cannot be known by ordinary scientific investigation. God can only be

known as He reveals Himself. The renewed emphasis on the supernatural character of the divine

revelation of God, with its admission of human finiteness and depravity, though bypassing theproblem of Scriptural authority, has created a new orthodoxy, a neo-orthodoxy. Though only a

pseudo theology as compared to the old orthodoxy, it has captured the modern mind more

quickly than any previous departure from Biblical Christianity. Its elements are not new, but it isnevertheless different from any of its ancient counterparts such as mysticism, intuitive

knowledge, or direct revelation from God. Neo-orthodoxy has raised new questions about the

nature of divine revelation as it relates to the Bible, to human experience, and the natural world.

II. Is God Revealed in Nature?

There was a certain legitimacy in mans ancient attempt to know God on the basis of the created

world. After all, that which is created should bear witness to the character of its Creator. Eventhe psalmist David bore testimony to this when he wrote: The heavens declare the glory of God;

and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night

showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language; their voice is not heard. Their line is gone

out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world (Ps 19:1-4). The physicalheavens do declare the infinite perfections of God. The magnitude of the mass and distances

which characterize the starry world, the millions of light years which separate one portion of the

universe from the other, the obvious design and adaptation to purpose, the evident uniformity in

many of the physical laws, in a word the astronomical world as well as the microscopic worldtestifies to the power, wisdom, and personality of God.
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


9/26

It is for this reason that the Apostle Paul, debating the difficult subject of how the heathen world

which has never heard the gospel can be justly condemned before God, states that their

condemnation is based not on the rejection of what they have never heard but on the revelationof God in nature which they chose to ignore. Paul therefore writes: For the wrath of God is

revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth

in unrighteousness; because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifestedit unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen,being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that

they may be without excuse: because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God neither

gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened (Rom1:18-21). The heathen are without excuse because Gods everlasting power and deity are clearly

revealed in the things that He has made. Though they had knowledge in this way of such a God,

they did not worship Him or give thanks to Him.

Great as is revelation in the natural world, it is evident that this in itself has not been sufficient to

end mans quest for God. In fact, the great majority of the world has not sought God, but has fled

from Him, and for this reason was blinded in its ordinary capacities to understand the meaning ofthe physical world. Paul in this way explains why men of ordinary intelligence worship idols

patterned after the lowest beasts. The resulting immorality and depravity are seen both in historyand in Scripture. It is evident that something more was needed than the revelation found in thehandiwork of God. In this conclusion the neo-orthodox and orthodox agree. Natural revelation is

not enough. can bear no certain voice and only through spoken or written words could God

communicate to man that which was in His heart and mind for those who otherwise would gropewithout finding Gods perfect plan. The startling contrast between a devout student of the

Scripture and his knowledge of God as compared to that of an idol worshipper in the heathen

world untouched by the written Word shows at once the tremendous extent of the divine

revelation in the written Bible.

The existence of the written Word of God would seem at first thought to solve the problem of

how man can know God. Two immediate difficulties arose, however. The first is summed up inthe word unbelief. From the beginning some have rejected the inspired Word of God and have

doubted its accuracy, its authority, and its claim to being the supreme revelation of God. The

sneer of Satan in the Garden of Eden concerning the spoken Word of God, Yea, hath Godsaid (Gen 3:1)has found many echoes in human unbelief. Once the false prop of the

authority of the Roman Church was removed by the Protestant Reformation, the way was open

for criticism to begin its whittling work on the inspiration of Scripture, and by arguments againstthe authenticity of Scripture to destroy for its adherents any thought of a final Word of God in

the Scriptures. Lower criticism, or the study of the text of Scripture, though uncovering many

problems, in the last analysis was not too damaging to orthodox Christian theology, as even the

worst texts yield essentially the same doctrines as the best. It is taken for granted, however, inmodern liberalism that the battle for absolute inspiration of the original Scriptures is lost and the

question is no longer subject to debate by true scholars. The fact that some of the most brilliant

scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have refuted these attacks upon inspiration is

brushed aside without attempting an answer.
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


10/26

Among those still clinging to the inspiration of Scripture, however, another major difficulty has

arisen in the field of interpretation. It is sadly true that even those who accept Scriptural authority

are by no means agreed as to the content of the revelation of Scripture. Principally by use of thedevice of denying the literal meaning of Scripture in favor of an allegorical or so-called spiritual

interpretation, many of the plain teachings of Scripture are negated. In its worst form this is

illustrated in the Alexandrian school of theology in the third century which allegorized allScripture. The modern tendency is to allegorize only portions which in their literal renderingwould yield doctrine unacceptable to the interpreter, as in the case of an amillenarian dealing

with prophecies of a future millennial reign of Christ. Though the doctrine of inspiration solves

many of the problems, obviously interpretation can make the meaning of Scripture quite differentthan its actual statement.

Neo-orthodoxy has introduced another element into the picture. Though accepting the mostextreme higher critical findings and thereby denying the inspiration of the Bible, neo-orthodoxy

has nevertheless restored the Bible to the role of being a principal channel of revelation, i.e., that

through which God speaks. The Scripture is not authoritative in itself, but in neo-orthodoxy

authority is attributed to the experience of the interpreter, that is, the truth is revealed to theindividual through the means of the written Word. While filling to some extent the vacuum

created by denial of inspiration, it transfers authority from the Scripture to an experience ofrevelation which is almost completely subjective, not guided by norms or even qualified byrational examination. The authority of the experience is allowed to rest on its own self-evident

character. From the standpoint of orthodoxy, this point of view is little removed from the

situation before the Bible itself was written. Neo-orthodoxy is based on a spurious claim toauthoritative immediate revelation of God, which actually is a substitute for the written Word.

IV. Barriers to Understanding the Bible

Though the extensive and detailed revelation given in the Scriptures would seem to be acompletely adequate answer to mans quest to know God for those who accept inspiration, it

obviously has not brought light to a great majority of the worlds population even though the

Bible has been printed and distributed on a scale never achieved by any other literature. Readersof Scripture first of all become aware of the language barrier, the fact that the Old Testament was

written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. The necessity of translation into their given

language interposes to some extent the human hand of the translators and gives rise to the

question as to whether the precise thought has been reproduced. The background of a givenportion of Scripture as provided in the customs of the people and the geography of the land are

often quite strange to the reader, and, unless he is instructed by information gained from other

sources, the Scripture in itself is not clear.

Often a given Scripture has a historical and Biblical setting which is unknown to the reader, and,

until he becomes a thorough student of the entire context, a particular Scripture might

communicate little to him by way of knowledge of the true God. Take, for instance, the lot of anovice stumbling through the Book of Ezekiel or trying to read Ecclesiastes or the Song of

Solomon. The visions of Zechariah and the revelations given to John on Patmos do not easily

engage the modern mind and transmit the intended sense.


11/26

These obvious barriers are made insuperable when it is realized that natural man, untouched by

the grace of God and without any God-given insight into the meaning of Scripture, is unable to

arrive at the true sense even with determined application and research on a high scholarly level.As Paul expressed it succinctly: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:

for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged

(1 Cor 2:14). The Scriptures are an unsolvable enigma to the natural man attempting to find thetrue God. Obviously something more is needed to satisfy the desire of the human heart to knowGod than either the revelation of God in nature or the written Word of God itself.

V. The Ministry of the Holy Spirit

Just as God provided the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Savior of men through His work on the

cross and thereby made it possible for a righteous and holy God to manifest His love and

forgiveness to the sinner, so in the human situation where man could not know God by his best

efforts God has provided one to open his eyes and make him understand in the person of the

Holy Spirit. This provision of God of course is not an isolated or unrelated aspect of Godsdivine purpose, but it is part of the gracious plan of God by which sinners estranged from God

and ignorant of His person and works could come to know Him in a wonderful intimacy whichanticipates the eternal fellowship of the soul with God. The qualifications for entering into such a

relationship are made clear in Scripture. Those who receive the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior

and recognize Him as their Lord and their God are made new creatures in Christ. They are given

eternal life, joined to the large company of those who share eternal life with them, and are giventhe personal presence of the Holy Spirit of God who makes their bodies His temple and by His

presence constitutes the seal of God which assures them eternal redemption. As physical life is

necessary for ordinary human consciousness and capacity to see and know, so eternal life opensa new vista, a new capacity to know God and to receive divine revelation. Those who were blind

now see. Those who were dead are now alive. Those who considered the gospel foolishness, now

find it the power of God.

In a profound passage in1 Corinthians 2,the Apostle Paul unfolds this tremendous work of God.

The truth of God which has been hidden, which was unknown by even the great men of thisworld who in ignorance crucified the Lord of glory, is now revealed. As Paul states it: But as it

is written, things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which entered not into the heart of

man, whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him. But unto us God revealed them

through the Spirit (1 Cor 2:9-10). Here is an epistemology that transcends the human senses.God is known by a process that does not involve the eye or the ear, nor does it originate in the

heart, or human consciousness. Here is a frontal denial of empiricism, the idea that all knowledge

comes through the senses. Knowledge comes through the ministry of the Holy Spirit,of God.

He goes on to explain: We received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from

God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God (1 Cor 2:12). The new

revelation is contained and transmitted not in words which mans wisdom teaeheth, but whichthe Spirit teacheth (1 Cor 2:13). Though Paul and the apostles undoubtedly experienced direct

revelation from God, the norm of experience for the ordinary Christian is given, namely,
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


12/26

revelation through the words used by the Holy Spirit, i.e., the Scriptures themselves. The Holy

Spirit makes known the truth of God to the child of God through the written Word.

The full experience of this, however, according to Paul is dependent upon the believer being

spiritual. The Corinthian Christians did not qualify and Paul calls them carnal (1 Cor 3:1). It

is evident then that even the tremendous work of God in salvation and making the individualbeliever the temple of the Holy Spirit is not in itself enough so that every believer will

understand the Word of God.

VI. The Transformed Mind

The classic utterance of Paul in the inspired Epistle to the Romans, chapter 12, verses one and

two , answers the question as to the qualifications of an intelligent and Spirit-directed interpreter

of Scripture. In this familiar passage Paul beseeches the Christian brethren at Rome: Presentyour bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. And be

not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, thatye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. It is understood from

this utterance that the revelation of God both in nature and in the written Scriptures and theprovision of God in the salvation of the individual believer are all to no avail in transmitting to

his mind that which God would have him to know about Himself. In order to enter in and

comprehend the intimate revelation of the mind and will of God, it is necessary for the believerto present or yield his entire life to the Lord. In this act, on the one hand, he will be delivered

from conformity to a wicked and ignorant world. On the other hand, he will be delivered from

the depraved mind by being transformed by the power of God and renewed to such an extent that

the mind can contemplate and recognize that which is the good and acceptable and perfect willof God.

The answer to the question as to how man can know God is therefore embodied in the Scripturesthemselves. Man can know something of God from nature, namely, His power, His wisdom, and

His personality. From the written Scriptures those who put their trust in Christ can find in God

One who is their Savior, who though He is righteous, sovereign, and almighty can neverthelessmanifest His love and grace to those who will accept the person and work of His blessed Son. A

deeper understanding, however, of God, His plans and purposes, His revelation of Himself, and

His perfect will can only be known through the ultimate step of complete dedication in which thetransforming work of grace achieves its goal and brings to the ultimate limits the experience of

the knowledge of God such as is within mans capacity in this present world.

That there is a contemporary revelation of God in human experience, orthodoxy will affirm as

well as neo-orthodoxy. The true doctrine, however, is not a divine revelation which is something

more than the written Word, but is rather a divine illumination, a divinely given insight into that

truth which was in the written Word from the time it was inscribed. The process, althoughsupernatural, is subject to the test of harmony with the entire Bible rightly interpreted. New

applications of truth may be given to a particular human problem. God will guide and direct His

own in their use of the Scriptures. The truth thus embraced, however, is no greater in its
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


13/26

circumference than the truth once for all delivered to the saints in the Holy Scriptures. Man

cannot truly know God except as He is revealed in the written Word.

Contemporary Problems in Biblical InterpretationPart

III: The Doctrine of Assurance in Contemporary Theology[Editors Note: This article is the third in a series on the general subject, Contemporary


The New Context for Assurance

Except for the question of inspiration of Scripture and its infallibility, few theological doctrines

are of more direct concern to the individual believer than the basis for assurance of salvation.Here the fundamental issues of the deity of Christ, the work of redemption, and the experience of

divine grace meet. The rise of neo-orthodoxy has introduced a new context in the discussion ofthe historic doctrine of assurance of salvation. Neo-orthodox theology has raised many questions.In almost every aspect of important Biblical truth neo-orthodoxy has provided a strange blending

of the old liberalism and the old orthodoxy, and has provided its own explanation of the basic

concepts of systematic theology.

In the doctrine of assurance of salvation neo-orthodoxy has also provided a new approach. Like

the old liberalism, neo-orthodoxy has delivered itself from dependence upon the ipsa verbaofthe Scriptures and has transferred the authority for assurance from the exact wording of Scripture

to the experience of the believer.1Like the old orthodoxy, the neoorthodox view has given to

spiritual experience a supernatural quality in which the natural and the supernatural meet and

combine in creating a valid experience of knowledge in the believer. The resultant doctrine ofassurance of salvation, however, raises grave doubts, at least among conservative scholars, as to

the validity of this new assurance. There is good cause for questioning whether the neo-orthodox

doctrine of assurance is a solid ground on which the believer can trust the certainty of his eternalsalvation.

Characteristics of False Assurance

In the contemporary situation as well as in the historic church many false bases for assurancemay be observed. Among those uninstructed in Biblical truth the tendency to trust in a relative

morality sometimes expressed in the standard of doing the best one can is frequently observed.

This has been encouraged by affirmations of the more learned that God always deals in love and

that this is a supreme principle overruling any standard of absolute righteousness. In like manner,the tendency to trust in religious works or in religion itself as embodied in acts of ritual,

morality, or worship is another common area for false assurance of salvation. Many rely on

church membership, acts of benevolence, or other good works as a ground for their eternalsalvation. This common misapprehension was embodied formerly in Jewish orthodoxy where

salvation consists of having more good works than bad. To these general areas of false assurance
http://www.walvoord.com/article/79http://www.walvoord.com/article/79http://www.walvoord.com/article/79http://www.walvoord.com/article/79http://www.walvoord.com/article/79http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C11http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C11http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C11http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C11http://www.walvoord.com/article/79http://www.walvoord.com/article/79


14/26

of salvation may be added confidence in the worship of Mary as a Mediatrix, in the value of

prayers for the dead, and the general approach of modern liberalism that moral reformation and

character transformation constitute the real basis for assurance for salvation. Some have foundassurance in the denial that man is spiritually lost and view the problem of salvation as relative

rather than absolute.

Into this milieu of conflicting opinions as to the ground of assurance of salvation, neo-orthodoxy

interposes a new context. Unlike the old liberalism which questioned the evil nature of man, neo-

orthodoxy emphasizes his sinfulness and depravity, viewing man as finite and God as infinitewith a chasm between them humanly impossible to bridge.2Salvation from the neo-orthodox

point of view is made possible only by the experience of crisis which is defined as the meeting of

the finite and the infinite in a supernatural revelation of God to the darkened heart of man. In this

revelation God reveals Himself as Redeemer and Savior. As to the exact character of the way ofsalvation, however, neo-orthodoxy gives a variety of opinions which are difficult to reduce to a

norm. On the right is Karl Barth, approximating in many ways the definition of redemption as

found in the creeds of the historic church.3On the left is Paul Tillich whose definition of

salvation is vague and abstract, quite removed from the definitive terms of Biblical theology.4On one point, however, all truly neo-orthodox theologians agree, that is, that the absolute

authority for divine truth and therefore the ground for assurance of salvation is not the precisewords of the Bible but is rather the divine revelation of truth experienced by the believer as hereads the Scripture. The authority or ground of assurance is transferred from the Bible itself to

the experience of the one seeking assurance. It is this faulty basis for assurance which raises

grave questions as to the effect of modern neo-orthodoxy as it relates to the efficacy of gospelpreaching. It suggests that neo-orthodoxy has no more valid ground for assurance than the old

liberalism which it tends to supplant. What are then the proper grounds for assurance of

salvation?

The Biblical Ground for AssuranceThe promise of God: The authoritative Word. It should be evident that assurance of salvation just

as assurance of any other fact can be no more sure than the authority upon which it rests. Just asownership of a given piece of property depends upon the precise wording of its title deed and the

recognition of that title by a proper human government, so the title deed for salvation rests upon

the promise of God. Because of widespread confusion in contemporary theology on the precise

definition of the inspiration of the Scriptures and the character of the authority which is basedupon it, there is a tendency observable, particularly in liberal and neo-orthodox theology, to by-

pass the question of authority and transfer the basis of assurance to human experience.5

The dangers of building doctrine upon human experience have been often pointed out and are

demonstrable by the variety of opinions which human experience has engendered. The difficulty

is that human experience may be far from a norm, may be inaccurately analyzed, and may be

made the basis of an induction which in the last analysis is based only on fragmentary evidence.

The fact that a person has assurance of salvation therefore is not in itself an infallible evidencethat he is truly saved in the Biblical sense. The only sure basis for salvation is the promise of
http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C12http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C12http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C12http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C13http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C13http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C13http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C14http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C14http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C14http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C15http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C15http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C15http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C15http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C14http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C13http://www.walvoord.com/article/79#G59C12


15/26


16/26

5:10; 11:15;Col 1:21). The work of God in the act of redemption, propitiation, and

reconciliation as provided in the death of Christ and applied to the true believer is a solid basis

for assurance for salvation. Apart from this work of God there can be no sure ground ofassurance of salvation. The confidence of the modern liberal in the attribute of divine love as

being sufficient in itself or the assurance of the neo-orthodox believer who rests in his own

experience is inadequate ground for true Biblical assurance.

The terms of salvation. Though such passages as2 Corinthians 5:17-21seem to justify the

conclusion that God has provided salvation for all, nothing is plainer in Scripture than theconclusion that all are not saved. The death of Christ in itself saves no one except as it is applied

to the particular individual according to the terms of salvation provided in the Word of God.

Scripture revelation makes clear that there are both human and divine conditions which must be

met before a lost soul comes into the place of safety in Christ. On the divine side, there is theconvicting work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-11)and the gift of divine grace which enables one

spiritually dead, enslaved by sin, and opposed by Satan to understand the terms of salvation and

believe. The human terms of salvation are summed up in the word believeas defined in the

Scripture. The Philippian jailer, desperately seeking to know the way of salvation, was informedin words of beautiful simplicity by Paul and Silas: Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be

saved, thou and thy house (Acts 16:31). Such belief is not described as mere intellectual assentnor as an emotional response, but an act of the whole man involving intellect, will, andsensibility or emotion. The terms of salvation are limited to faith in Christ because of the

inadequacy and insufficiency of any other approach. Salvation is pictured therefore as a gift

(Rom 6:23), as obtained by those dead throughtrespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). Salvation istherefore not a work of man for God or a work of God assisted by man, but rather a work of

divine salvation effective on those who are willing to receive Jesus Christ as Savior. Assurance

of salvation, then, comprehends both the authoritative promise of God and the effective work of

redemption. As far as the individual believer is concerned, the certainty of assurance is alsodependent upon his own decision in meeting the terms of salvation.

The application of salvation. The ground of assurance as stated in Scripture is something morethan an intellectual comprehension of the theology of salvation and more than a conviction that

the terms of salvation have been met. Scriptures make plain that there is a corresponding

experience of transformation which attends the work of salvation in a believer. Some aspects ofthis are nonexperimental, but the new life in Christ is manifested in many ways. The believer in

Christ possesses eternal life and a new divine nature which tends to change his whole viewpoint.

He is indeed a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new (2Cor 5:17). The believer in Christ is indwelt by the Spirit of God, which opens a whole new field

of spiritual experience. He now knows what it is to have fellowship with his heavenly Father and

with His Savior the Lord Jesus Christ. His eyes are opened to spiritual truth, and the Scriptures

take on a true living character as the Spirit of God illuminates the written Word. He experiencesa new relationship to other believers as he is bound to theme by ties of love and common faith

and life. The believer is relieved from the load of condemnation for sin and experiences hope and

peace such as is impossible for the unbeliever. His experiences include deliverance from the

power of sin and from opposition of Satan. He enters into the joy of intercessory prayer andexperiences, answers to prayer. The new life in Christ, therefore, provides a satisfying and

Biblical new experience which is a confirming evidence of the fact of his salvation and a vital
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


17/26

and true basis for assurance. Unlike the faulty basis of experience as contained in liberal and

neo-orthodox theology, the true spiritual experience of a believer in Christ is according to the

Biblical pattern confirmed by Biblical promises and in keeping with the whole work of God forthe newborn child of God.

The Biblical ground of assurance therefore rests first in the promise of God in the authoritativeand inspired Word of God; second, in the work of God in the act of redemption in that Christ

died for the sinner upon the cross; third, in the meeting of the terms of salvation as revealed in

the Scripture; and fourth, in the experience of the fruits of salvation, the new life that is in ChristJesus. Apart from this solid basis for assurance of salvation there can be no human certainty in

respect to eternal salvation. Properly understood and apprehended, however, the believer in

Christ need not remain in agonizing uncertainty as to this all-important question, but may have

quiet assurance and confidence that God has saved his soul and has begun a good work whichwill be consummated in eternity.

Problems of AssuranceIn the practical outworking of the doctrine of assurance in the life of a believer in Christ manyproblems exist. These, however, are all clearly related in one way or another to the four major

grounds for assurance as outlined in the preceding section. Failure to apprehend the promise of

God, the work of God, or to enter fully into the meaning of the terms of salvation or toexperience the fullness of life in Christ Jesus frequently breed uncertainty in the matter of

assurance of salvation.

Resting in the promise of God. Much of the confusion that exists in the matter of assurance of

salvation may be traced to a failure to rest in the written promises of the Word of God. Those

who tend to introspection, to examination of feelings, and are unwilling to take the promises ofGod at their face value have a corresponding loss in their experience of assurance of salvation.Just as assurance rests upon Gods promise, so lack of assurance inevitably stems from a failure

in this area. Ultimately the question is not what a person feels, but what the Word of God states.

Misunderstanding of the work of God in salvation. Another area of confusion in the matter of

assurance of salvation is the failure to understand that salvation is a work of grace based on thework of Christ for man, not on supposed acts of righteousness of men before men. AsEphesians

2:8-9states clearly: For by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it

is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory. Assurance of salvation that is based

upon ritual, administration of sacraments, membership in a local church, acts of benevolence orworship, or any other supposedly good work reveals a basic failure to comprehend that Gods

work of salvation is sufficient in itself and cannot be supplemented by human works of any kind

or character. Those who are trying to be good enough to be saved will never achieve a true

Biblical assurance and in fact may miss the way of salvation completely. The assurance ofsalvation can be no more certain than the confidence that is derived from a comprehension of the

complete work of Christ on the cross in our salvation.
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


18/26

The experience of belief. Another intricate problem in the doctrine of assurance is the question as

to what constitutes true faith in Jesus Christ. The Scriptures make clear that a mere intellectual

faith or assent to the theological proposition is not what is meant in the Scriptures when we areexhorted to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Those given to introspection and to psychological

analysis of their own emotions and mental attitudes may often have difficulty in achieving

assurance of salvation. The problems inherent in the question of whether one has met the termsof salvation, however, can be dissolved by a frank facing of the issues. One who has anyquestion as to whether he has actually received Christ should decisively settle this issue before

God. Often the indecision that is reflected in such an attitude is born of an unwillingness to

accept all the implications of the deity and lordship of Christ. There is a corresponding holdingback from a true resting in the divine promise and the divine work. Such individuals need

thorough grounding in the doctrine of salvation as revealed in the Scripture and careful teaching

as to the extent and implications of salvation in Christ. Some have found relief from nagging

doubt by following the simple formula of offering the prayer: If I have never trustedin Christbefore, I do it now. Ultimately the rest of faith embodied in assurance of salvation does not

come from self-analysis or introspection, but from full confidence in the plan of God for the

salvation of those who will put their trust in Christ.

Experience as a ground of assurance. Though a faulty assurance of salvation sometimes resultsfrom dependence upon experience, the Scriptures make clear that the true child of God mayexpect certain confirming experiences. The child of God who is filled with the Spirit and

manifesting the fruit and normal experiences of the Spirit-filled life has little difficulty with the

question of assurance. Christians, however, who are unyielded to God and in whose life there issin grieving the Spirit of God may often come under a cloud in which their assurance of

salvation is subject to question. Often a lack of assurance is an indication not of an unsaved

condition but rather the evidence that the believer is out of fellowship with God. There is no

ground of assurance more satisfying than that of intimate fellowship with the triune God which isthe supreme fruit of Biblical salvation. The God who intends that every believer should rejoice in

His presence throughout all eternity in glory intends also that the child of God even in a sinful

world should know the joy of constantly beholding the Fathers face. The assurance of salvation

is therefore not only the result of meeting the theological conditions, but is the normal andjoyous estate of the child of God walking in the will of God.

This article was taken from theTheological Journal Library CDand posted with permission ofGalaxie Software.

1According to Barth, revelation takes place as an event, when and where the word of the Bible

becomes Gods Word, i.e. when and where the word of the Bible functions as the word of awitness, when and where Johns finger points not in vain but really pointedly, when and where

by means of its word we also succeed in seeing and hearing what he saw and heard (Karl Barth,

The Doctrine of the Word of God-Prolegomena to Church Dogmatics, Vol. I, Part I, p. 127; cf.also pp. 111-35; Emil Brunner,Revelation and Reasonpp. 3-57).
http://www.galaxie.com/http://www.galaxie.com/http://www.galaxie.com/http://www.galaxie.com/


19/26

2According to Emil Brunner, sin has not destroyed all freedom, but the central freedom, the

freedom to answer God as He wills it. Therefore before God everyone is a sinner, and all that one

does, says, or thinks is sinful (Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and

Redemption, Dogmatics, II, 39; cf. also Emil Brunner,Revelation and Reason, pp. 50-57).

3

Barth, op. cit., pp. 457-533;Dogmatics inOutline, pp. 101-7.4Paul Tillich, The New Being, pp. 92-100, 175-79; Systematic Theology, I, 168-82.

5Brunner,Revelation and Reason, pp. 10-11.

Contemporary Problems in Biblical InterpretationPart

IV: The Nature of the Church

[Editors Note: This article is the final in a series on the general subject Contemporary


Any intelligent observer of modern Christianity soon becomes aware of the widespread

confusion that exists concerning the nature of the church. If it is true that the church is thepresent divine undertaking, a lack of understanding on this important subject will blur not only

the theological perspective, but will make impossible a practical approach to the present task of

the church.

The student of church history early discovers the major trends of development from the earlyapostolic church, where local congregations seemed to have been linked chiefly by the presence

of apostolic authority. The unfolding scene portrays the church, first as persecuted and hated by

the world, then under Constantine combined with the world and its pagan religions, andemerging into its two major divisions of the Roman and the Greek churches. Out of the decadent

church of the Middle Ages the Protestant Reformation was born and with it a new division of theorganized church as well as a new theological approach. Out of Protestantism in succeeding

centuries arose many diverse movements which crystallized into modern denominations. The

diversity of the modern church both in its government and its theological convictions is apparent.In such a context has been born, particularly in our generation, the desire to unify these diverse

elements and ecumenicalism has become a substantial movement in the twentieth century.

Out of the study of the history of the church and the problems causing its diversity have come

many questions concerning the nature of the church. Is there any underlying unity which binds

together its diverse elements? Is division within its organization contrary to the unity whichshould characterize it as an undertaking of God? Is schism within the organized church a heresy,or is it an act of obedience on the part of the individual to the Word of God? Many answers have

been given to these questions and few of them have been categorical. The problem is very

difficult, but it all stems from the major question, What is the nature of the church?

In attempting to answer such a question, much more is needed than an analysis of contemporary

Christianity and a series of propositions as to what the church ought to do. The early church does
http://www.walvoord.com/article/80http://www.walvoord.com/article/80http://www.walvoord.com/article/80http://www.walvoord.com/article/80http://www.walvoord.com/article/80http://www.walvoord.com/article/80http://www.walvoord.com/article/80


20/26

not seem to have occupied itself with the study of the nature of the church. As Dillistone points

out, No systematic treatment of the doctrine of theChurch can be found in the Christian

writings of the second century A.D.1He then cites Professor Bethune-Baker in support of theidea that the unity of the church is implied from the first.2Something more is needed,

however, than implication. The root of the problem lies in the Biblical doctrine of the church,

and then the attempt must be made to apply this doetrine to the contemporary situation. It shouldbe clear that the Bible does not cover all the contingencies of the modern problem, but theprinciples laid down in the early church as contained in the Scriptures are sufficient in their

guidance to enable an intelligent believer to arrive at some solid conclusions.

I. The Church as the Body of Christ

Much of the modern confusion on the doctrine of the church comes from a failure to understand

the Scriptural revelation of the church as the body of Christ. Though there is a large area of

agreement among evangelical scholarship that the church fundamentally is the work of God

rather than an institution of men, one is soon lost in difference of opinion as to the exact natureof that unity. One of the large causes for this is the failure to distinguish the church from the

nation Israel. The idea that Israel and the church are essentially the same divine undertaking is acommon error which arose principally in postmillennialism and amillennialism. Howard Hanke,

for instance, writes: There is ample evidence in Scripture to show that the Church of the Living

God has been in existence from the days of Eden, when righteous Abel became its first member.

This institution, the Church, made up of God Believers is referred to by many different namesand designations, but in substance the Church has always been the same.3

Some are not as careful as Hanke to limit the church in the Old Testament as being coextensivewith Israel. Oswald Allis, for instance, labels as extreme literalism the concept that Israel must

mean Israel and not mean or represent the church.4

Gabriel Hebert in his sharp criticism of fundamentalism argues against any division in the

organized church. His argument is based on the faulty identification of Israel, the organized

church, and the church as the body of Christ. He states: The Unity which God has made doesnot depend on our faith or our faithfulness; it has been set up in spite of our sins. Christ is the

Ground of Unity, the Foundation-stone which God has laid.5He then argues that the visible

church is part of the gospel. He writes, Nothing could be plainer than this in Holy Scripture.From the beginning, the Purpose of God for mans salvation has been worked out through the

believing and worshipping community, Israel the People of God.6That there is an underlying

unity between all truly redeemed people is accepted by all. That this involves or necessitates one

organized church embracing Israel and Christendom in the New Testament is based on confusionof the unity of the body of Christ with the supposed unity in the organized church and Israel.

In the New Testament the church as the body of Christ, however, is represented as a newundertaking of God quite distinct from Gods plan and purpose for the nation Israel. The

confusion of Israel and the church has not only confused the two programs relating to the divine

undertakings of God, but has also introduced a blurring of distinction between those that are trulysaved and those who are not. One who belonged to the nation Israel was not necessarily a saint,
http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D11http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D11http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D11http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D12http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D12http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D13http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D13http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D13http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D14http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D14http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D14http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D15http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D15http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D15http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D16http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D16http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D16http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D15http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D14http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D13http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D12http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D11


21/26

and, though a bona fide member of the nation both in its religious and national characteristics, he

could in no sense claim the blessings of salvation from sin or the promises of the future grace of

God.

The body of Christ as it is presented in the New Testament is that which is joined to Christ in a

living union. This union is effected by the baptism of the Spirit as stated in1 Corinthians 12:13:For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether

we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. The body of Christ is

therefore not a superficial unity effected by geographic association or an organizationalfellowship, but is rather a union of life in which the various members of the body are joined one

to another. It is an organism rather than an organization. This is implied in the discussion of the

one body in Ephesians chapter 4:15-16 , where Christians are exhorted to grow up into him in

all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together andcompacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure

of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

The church as the body of Christ, therefore, is composed of every individual believer in thispresent age and is not constituted by membership in a local fellowship nor by subscribing to

some creed or organizational arrangement. It is constituted by a work of God in grace in whichthe individual is taken out of his estate in Adam and placed in Christ, given eternal life, and

made one not only with Christ but with all other believers. This unity therefore is not something

to be attained, but is that which is already effected. Paul states this dogmatically inEphesians

4:4:There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. Thebody of Christ is therefore entirely a divine undertaking and not a matter of human attainment. It

should also be apparent that the diversity and difficulty seen in the church of Jesus Christ today,

though it may obscure the manifestation of this unity, does not in any wise contradict it. To someextent there is agreement on this point and most commentators on the doctrine of the church,

whether conservative in their theology or subscribing to neo-orthodox or liberal concepts,

recognize this basic unity, even though they may not always define it in precisely the same

terms.

II. The Local Church

In the New Testament presentation of the doctrine of the church, in addition to the revelationconcerning the church as the body of Christ, there is frequent reference to local churches

embodying in their existence and government the concept of the organized church. Passages

which deal with this subject should not be confused with those which belong to the church as the

body of Christ. One of the principal causes for confusion in the nature of the church is theapplication of passages which belong to the body of Christ to the local church.

In the New Testament many local churches arose as a result of the missionary activities of theapostles. In some cases it consisted in no more than a group of believers meeting at one place. As

the church grew, however, the New Testament records that a certain amount of organization

evolved. Elders or bishops were recognized in the local church, and deacons were appointed,each office with its respective duties. These local congregations were called churches, not
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


22/26

because of their organizational character, nor because they constituted a segment of the body of

Christ, but because they were a geniune ecclesia, an assembly of believers in one geographic

location. Almost fifty references in the New Testament refer to the local church. Such phrases asthe church which was at Jerusalem (Acts 8:1), the church which is at Cenchrea (Rom 16:1),

and the church of the Thessalonians (1 Thess 1:1), and many similar references give witness to

this concept. The reference to churches in the plural as, for instance, in the statement that Pauland Silas went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches (Acts 15:41), makes plainthat each of the local assemblies was regarded as a separate church.

A sharp distinction is maintained between the nature of these local churches and the body of

Christ. This is evident in the messages of Christ to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation,

chapters 2 and 3 . The church of Laodiceans, the seventh of the churches addressed, is

recognized as a local church, but from the words of Christ to them it is clear that they are notregarded as members of the body of Christ. Christ declares of them, I will spue thee out of my

mouth (Rev 3:16), a statement which would not be addressed to true believers. From this it

becomes evident that the local church in contrast to the concept of the body of Christ is a group

of professed believers including some who may not actually be true followers of the Lord Jesus.Further, the concept of a local church has a geographic character which is not true of the body of

Christ whose members are both in heaven and on earth. The concept of a professing church issometimes offered in Scripture without reference to locality, e.g.,Romans 16:16,where Paulsays the churches of Christ salute you. He has in mind local churches regardless of their

locality.

Though it is customary in some circles to assume the unity of the apostolic church as Dillistone

does,7a liberal scholar, John Knox of Union Seminary, New York, takes the opposite viewpoint.

He begins his study of early church order with the affirmation: We have seen that there was nosingle comprehensive organization of the churches; nor can a universal pattern of organization be

traced among all the churches severally. Not only was there no such thing as organic union;

there was a great amount of regional, even local, independence, and conflicts and divisions

among the churches were not infrequent.8The idea that the early church had organizationalunity from which the church subsequently strayed is without factual foundation. The unity which

did exist was spiritual, not organizational.

In the Scriptures themselves two major concepts emerge: (1) the church as the body of Christ

formed as a work of God uniting all true believers in Christ in an organic union of life and

fellowship; (2) the local or professing church not organizationally related to other local churches.It was composed of all those who were outwardly believers in Christ and who assembled in one

place to worship. It inevitably included some who were only superficial followers of the Lord

Jesus. This basic bifurcation of the concept of the church is essential to any contemporary

understanding of the nature of the church as it relates to modern Christianity.

III. The Unity of the Church and the

Theological Problem
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D17http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D17http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D17http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D18http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D18http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D18http://www.walvoord.com/article/80#G59D17http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


23/26

In the apostolic church some of the problems which face the modern church existed only in

elementary form. In each locality there seems to have been only one church, in some cases very

large as at Antioch with a number of teachers and pastors, and in other cases very small, meetingin a house and probably numbering only a dozen or two. The multiplied divisions of our modern

day had not yet come into existence.

With the growth of the church however there was not only an increase in numbers but questions

arose as to the extent of authority of the local church. The inroads of paganism and departure

from the faith which plagued the church in the Middle Ages created problems which were notcommon in the early church. If it be assumed that the unity of all true believers is just as valid

today as it was in apostolic times, the question still arises as to whether all believers should be in

the same church organization.

A survey of Scriptural revelation as it pertains to this problem should make evident that there

should be no needless division within the organized church. There is constant exhortation to

preserve a unity of fellowship in the instructions of Christ to the seven churches of Asia. Even

though some of them had departed from the faith, it is significant that those who formed a part ofthese local congregations are not given any mandate to withdraw from that fellowship but rather

are commanded to preserve their own testimony and do what they can to alleviate the situation.They were to accept persecution that would result from their faithfulness to the Lord and they

were under no circumstances to compromise their testimony.

Alongside this evident intention that the unity of the church should be preserved as much as

possible, there is however clear-cut testimony in Scripture to the principle of separation from

those who are unsaved or from those who are grossly immoral. Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousnesswith unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath

Christ with Belial or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? (2 Cor 6:14-15). TheCorinthian believers were forbidden to have any organic relationship with the pagan religionswhich were about them and they were to withdraw themselves from such unbelievers as far as

organic or organizational relationship was concerned. This did not mean that they were to have

no contact with unbelievers in such matters as preaching the gospel to them, but it meant thatthey should not participate in their idolatrous feasts. The exhortation, therefore, is given:

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the

unclean thing; and I will receive you (2 Cor 6:17).

Some have attempted to prove on the basis of this passage that this justifies separation of

believers from other believers whenever there is a theological conflict. In fairness to the context,

it should be observed that this passage does not teach separation from fellow Christians, butrather from unbelievers and from pagan religions. It would seem evident, however, that the

principle of separation from unbelievers and not having union with them would apply at such

time as a church organization departed from the fundamentals of the faith.

Pertinent to this problem is the exhortation inRevelation 18:4where instruction is given to the

believers in the time of the tribulation to have no part in the apostate church of that day. Johnwrites: And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Comeout of her, my people, that ye be
http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/http://%7B%7D/


24/26

not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not her plagues. From this Scripture as compared

to others, it would seem evident that a Christian should have no part in a church organization

which is in fact apostate, even though it claims the name of Christ. On the other hand, separationshould not be on trivial grounds, whether theological or moral. There were indeed separations in

the early church of a lesser character, as, for example, the separation of Paul and Barnabas and

their resulting separate missionary journeys. But this is not given the approbation of the Word ofGod. Moreover, the Scriptures do not teach a blind and unreasoning loyalty to an organizedchurch that has ceased to fulfill the Scriptural definition. In a word, the modern problem as it

exists today is not treated specifically in the Word of God and this has occasioned much of the

discussion.

IV. The Problem of Schism

Throughout the history of the church, many schisms in the unity of church organization can be

observed even in the early days of the Roman Church. There is evidence that at least a segment

of the church always maintained its independence of Rome. A major division occurred in theseparation of the Greek from the Roman churches. The principle was recognized that basic

theological difference made impossible organizational unity. A further major division took placein the separation of the Protestants from the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.

Subsequently, divisions have multiplied, sometimes on trivial grounds, sometimes on basic

difference in theological point of view. Most observers would agree that schism would be wrong

Documents

John Walvoord Interpretation