The subject of the infallible Scriptures is almost everywhere today the subject of discussion and of a large measure of controversy in the churches. The inspired Scriptures are the center of much attack; and so this subject may indeed be said to be a very current issue and one of concern to those who would keep the faith once delivered to the saints.

Let me mention some examples.

In the first place, of course, there is out-and-out modernism, which always attacks the Scriptures and which has no real use for Holy Scripture whatsoever. That spirit of modernism has arisen especially since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. With this modernism we are not much concerned; with respect to it the lines of demarcation have been drawn long ago. There is, in the second place, the "new modernism," sometimes called neo-orthodoxy, represented in men like Barth and Brunner and the demythologizing school of Rudolph Bultmann, which also attacks the infallible Scriptures and does not really recognize them as infallible. The more one investigates this new modernism, however, the more one discovers that it is not actually new at all, but essentially the same old modernism. Our concern with it lies in the fact that this theology, with its denial of the Scriptures, has found its way in more than one instance into orthodox areas and even into Reformed churches; and in that respect its influence must be guarded against. Thirdly, as is well known, there has been considerable discussion of this subject of the Scriptures in connection with the recent Vatican Council. There have been those who look, in my opinion, in vain,--for signs that Rome will return to the principle of the absolute and sole authority of Holy Scripture.

Coming a little nearer home, we may point to the fact that among the Lutherans this same subject of Holy Scripture is very much an issue. Particularly among those Lutherans who are classified as orthodox, for example, a denomination like the Missouri Synod,--Scripture is under attack. There is no little degree of stress and strain, and even separation, in that denomination because, principally, of this issue of the infallible Scriptures. In Presbyterian churches, too, the Scriptures have been under attack for a long time already. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, for example, had its origin in part because of the liberal denial of the Scriptures and of their absolute authority that was rampant in the parent denomination. And today still, the issue is a live one, to some extent, in Presbyterianism,--witness the attempt to set aside the Westminster Confession completely in the so-called Confession of 1967 that is being proposed in the United Presbyterian Church.

One finds, still nearer home as far as the Reformed faith is concerned, similar symptoms in the Netherlands today. In the Reformed Churches (Gereformeerde Kerken) of the Netherlands the movement has gained ground, for example, to set aside the decisions of the Synod of Assen in the case which involved Dr. Geelkerken in 1926 and which was concerned really with the first three chapters of the book of Genesis and with those articles of the Confession which deal with the infallibility and authority of Holy Scripture. I read just recently that a decision in that matter has been postponed for another year by the Synod of Lunteren. Nevertheless, this is an example of the ecclesiastical stress and strain which is connected with the question of Scripture and its infallibility and its authority today.

Also in Reformed circles in this country you find phenomena of, this kind. The Reformed Church in America has had its difficulties with this matter of the Scriptures. Particularly in a seminary like New Brunswick the liberal tendencies with a view to Holy Scripture have arisen. Scripture was the basic issue, for example, in the case just a few years back in New Jersey which involved the historicity of the first part of the Book of Genesis. And I have no doubt that somewhere, buried not too deeply among the issues, this same question of Holy Scripture is involved in the merger proposal between the Reformed Church in America and the Southern Presbyterian Church. You find the same phenomena in the Christian Reformed Church in our country. Back in the twenties, of course, there was the Dr. Janssen case, which involved principally this same question of Holy Scripture. In the thirties there was a case which is perhaps less known, the Wezeman case, which also involved the issues of higher criticism. And, more recently, just a few years back, in fact, there was that flurry that resulted in the adoption of a Report on Infallibility and the decision to commend this report to the churches.

Today there is much discussion in various churches centering on questions involving the book of Genesis, especially the truth of creation and the theory of a theistic evolution coming under discussion. And all of this discussion involves, principally, the same issue of the inspiration and infallibility and authority of Holy Scripture.

I mention these items for two reasons. First of all, I want to show how current and how widespread this issue is at present. Various attacks on Holy Scripture have become a very common phenomenon even in churches which are generally to be classified as orthodox. Secondly, however, I mention these various examples in order to point out that in almost all of these instances there is one common element, namely, the element that the entire question of Genesis and of creation and of theistic evolution and the historical reality of the fall and the so-called scientific findings and evidence concerning the age of the earth and concerning evolution,-- that one issue involving Genesis is found in many of these cases which center on the authority of Holy Scripture. For that reason, therefore, in order to discuss the subject of creation, together with the related questions concerning the book of Genesis, it is essential to have a clear understanding of the truth of the infallibility of Scripture.

Let me also say a word about my approach to this subject. I want to emphasize that it is not my purpose to throw barbs at any particular group of churches or at anyone's church, nor to reproach anyone personally. I have no interest in that whatsoever. My subject is far too serious and far too important to use it for such a purpose. In the nature of the case, I am going to be critical; and I am going to be concretely critical of various positions that are held. But I ask you to remember what I have said here about my purpose. My purpose is to clarify the issue and to remind you of the truth that has always been Reformed, and to sound a warning. That is my purpose, for the sake of the truth, the truth of the Reformed faith; and that is my purpose for the sake of the cause of the church of Jesus Christ. This issue is of the utmost importance to the church.

I also want to say from the outset that I shall not attempt to furnish a long discourse and proof and argumentation on inspiration and infallibility. That would take us too far afield and would needlessly lengthen this discussion. I rather wish to set forth briefly and pointedly the truth as it has always been maintained by the Reformed faith and by the churches of the Reformation. And I want to point out the importance of that truth for the entire structure of the truth and of the faith of the church. And I want to point out the practical significance of all this for us as members of Christ's church who seek and love the truth.

Hence, I shall treat my subject, "The Divine Foundation: The Infallible Scriptures," under the following three divisions:

I. The Truth that the Scriptures are Inspired and Infallible.

II. The Truth that those Scriptures Constitute the Foundation of the Church.

III. The Calling Carefully to Guard and Strictly to Adhere to that Foundation.

First of all, our subject is the Scriptures. By the Scriptures we mean the sixty-six books of the Old and of the New Testament, commonly called "the canon of Holy Scripture." I do not intend to discuss that canon as such and the formation of the canon at this point. That is a subject all by itself; and the discussion of that subject would take us too far afield. I will simply proceed on the basis that the sixty-six books mentioned are the canon of Holy Scripture, and on the basis that the so-called apocryphal books are excluded from the area of our discussion. This mention of the term canon, however, provides an occasion to point to the importance of our subject. For the term canon means basically "measuring rod," and therefore, "standard, criterion, rule." It is in connection with that term that the well-known expression,--almost a motto of the Reformation,--has arisen, namely, that the Scriptures are our only infallible rule of faith and life, or of doctrine and practice.

Secondly, it should be kept in mind that when we refer to the infallibility of Scripture, that means, strictly speaking, the Scriptures as they were originally written, or the autographs, as they are called. And those original Scriptures, those autographs, we do not have any more. As you probably know, there are in the original languages only thousands of copies and partial copies of the Scriptures; and the documents as they were written first by the prophets and the apostles are providentially no more in existence today. Now the principle of infallibility, I say, applies, strictly speaking, to those original documents. Nevertheless, I want to add immediately that this does not mean that the infallibility of Scripture for this reason has no meaning for us today. For while we do not have the autographs, that makes no real difference for us for several reasons. In the first place, we should remember that though there are literally thousands of variations in the readings of Scripture in the various manuscripts, or copies, which have been discovered, yet in these many thousands of variations there is not one in which an article of faith is at stake. In the second place, among those thousands and thousands of variations in readings there is only a very small fraction that is of any significance at all for the meaning of the text and for the meaning of Holy Scripture. In the third place, in our time the Biblical science of what is called textual criticism (not to be confused with unbelieving higher criticism), the science which busies itself properly with the question of what is the correct reading of a certain passage from among the various readings, --that science has been very highly developed, so that even with all these variations our Bible is today very accurate. In the fourth place, I would call your attention to the fact that even Scripture itself does not consider the lack of those autographs a serious obstacle. Timothy, in the apostle Paul's time, certainly did not possess the autographs of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Scriptures in which he was trained from his childhood. They were gone. And yet in II Timothy 3:16 the apostle does not hesitate to say concerning those Scriptures as Timothy possessed them and had been instructed in them: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God...." This also applies to the Scriptures as they were mentioned in II Peter 1:20, 21. Those Scriptures as we have them are the Word of God, or, more accurately, the written record of the Word of God.

I would like to stop right at this point for a moment to emphasize that this is a great wonder. We should never forget that. From among all books and all writings you may single out that one Book, the Scriptures, and say, "This Book is the very Word of God Himself!" That, I say, is a tremendous wonder!

Revelation, the fact that God speaks and makes known His Word in earthly language, human language, on our level,--that is a wonder!

And inspiration, the fact that God causes holy men to speak and to write His Word, --that is also a tremendous wonder!

We must, by all means, not forget this!

It is very important to remember this, also as far as our approach to the Bible is concerned. From a practical point of view, this is important with respect to the whole matter of inspiration and infallibility and the various problems and questions that may arise in connection with these truths. We are sometimes inclined to forget this, I fear. And when we do forget it, we are inclined to take a rationalistic approach to these matters. We then attempt to meet the opponent of the Scriptures and of infallibility on his own rationalistic ground; and then, when we cannot succeed in overcoming his apparently well-reasoned arguments, we weaken and begin to have doubts concerning inspiration and infallibility, and probably become inclined to compromise.

Hence, we must remember that the Bible and its inspiration and its infallibility are a matter of faith, strictly a matter of faith. This means principally that the whole matter of infallibility is after all a spiritual matter: not, in the first place, a matter of the head, but a matter of the heart. The unbeliever cannot recognize the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God. He cannot! That is a matter of the heart, a matter of faith.

We stand, therefore, on holy ground when we talk about Scripture; and we ought to be deeply aware of this. Faith does not start with the question: Is the Bible the Word of God? Faith starts with the proposition: The Bible is the Word of God. And all the questions and the problems that may arise and may be faced in connection with that Bible,-- and there are undeniably many of them: many problems, many apparent conflicts (even many apparent conflicts which we cannot with our minds reconcile; that makes absolutely no difference, however) -- all these questions and problems must all be considered and discussed within the confines, the limits, of the conviction that the Bible is the Word of God. That means that they must always be considered and discussed, therefore, in reverent fear of God. We must always remember that the Bible as the Word of God in its divinely inspired and infallible character towers far above anything of man. It towers above any human, sinful efforts to contradict that Bible. And it towers above any merely human efforts to defend it. The truth of the Bible depends on neither one of the two. It depends on God! And God's Word and its truth is not dependent on your and my understanding. The matter stands just the other way around. Our understanding is dependent on that Word of God.

With the above in mind, we may next consider the question of inspiration. What is it? What is inspiration? For this matter of inspiration is necessarily involved in the whole question of infallibility. The latter stands or falls with the former.

In general, we may say that inspiration is that wonder of God's grace whereby holy men were so moved by the Holy Spirit that what they spoke and wrote was the Word of God. That is the general statement of the truth of inspiration.

However, this truth of inspiration came under attack. These attacks have arisen, in the main, since the time of the Reformation. They have arisen for the most part since the time when our confessions were written. It is true, of course, that the Reformation itself was concerned with the truth of Scripture. But the concern of the Reformation was principally about the absolute, or sole, authority of Holy Scripture. Rome recognized sources of authority other than and next to Scripture. After the Reformation the attacks upon Holy Scripture took a different form. They took the form of attacks upon the inspiration and the infallibility of Scripture. Also in these attacks, of course, the authority of Scripture is ultimately at stake. Nevertheless, when the Reformation had returned to the principle of the sole authority of Scripture, that authority came under attack by way of attacks upon the inspired character and the infallibility of Scripture.

And over against these attacks various terms came into use which further describe and define the truth of inspiration. Let me briefly call your attention to these terms.

There is, in the first place, the term graphic inspiration. The term graphic comes from a root which means "to write." And the expression "graphic inspiration" simply means that the Holy Spirit inspired, moved, holy men to write the Word of God. Men not only spoke God's Word, but they were also used to write down the Word of God.

But that term, which is certainly quite sufficient in itself, because of attack proved to be insufficient. It was not enough merely to say that men were moved by the Spirit to write the Word of God. Another term came into use as a description of inspiration, a term designed to make the meaning of inspiration more explicit. That term is plenary. Plenary inspiration means that the Bible is fully inspired, that is, totally inspired, inspired in all its parts. That limitation is designed to make it impossible for men to say that they believe the truth of inspiration and at the same time to deny that the Bible is in its entirety the written record of God's Word. It is designed to make it impossible for anyone to say that the Word of God is only in the Bible, so that parts of the Bible are the Word of God and parts of it are not the Word of God. Plenary inspiration insists that the Bible is from beginning to end the written record of the Word of God, the Word of God in all its parts. One cannot go through the Bible picking and choosing what part is the Word of God and what part is not the Word of God, or deciding that one part is inspired and infallible while another part is not inspired and infallible. It is all or nothing!

In the third place, there is the term verbal inspiration. This term also has become necessary because there were and are those who even with the term plenary wanted to say, inconsistently, of course,--that the thoughts of the Bible were inspired, but the expression of those thoughts, the language, the words, in which those thoughts were conveyed, was not inspired. The expression of the thoughts, the language, was left to human writers and is fallible. Now I say again: there is actually no room for any such notion in the concept of inspiration, and especially not in the idea of plenary inspiration. It is simply inconceivable and utterly inconsistent to make such a separation between thoughts and words. But due to the fact that men have very inconsistently attempted to make that distinction, it became necessary to use the term verbal. Verbal inspiration emphasizes that inspiration is such that the Bible is in its very expression, words, language, completely the Word of God.

Finally, the term organic inspiration has arisen. I think that historically it has arisen chiefly because there were those who ridiculed the idea of verbal inspiration as a "dictation theory." This ridicule claims that the whole concept of plenary and verbal inspiration makes of the holy men who wrote the Bible nothing but secretaries, stenographers. That is a very wicked ridicule! For there have been no churches and no theologians of note who have at any time adhered rigidly to a strict dictation theory even though they may have employed the term dictation. The Reformer John Calvin himself used the term dictation; that may be freely admitted. But Calvin did not believe in any dictation theory! But the rise of this ridiculing criticism accounts, at least in part, for the use of the term organic inspiration.

What does this mean?

With respect to the Bible itself, it means that the Bible is an organism, that it is one, has one principle, one center, Christ, and that all its books and writings have their central principle, or, if you will, their root, in Christ. The Bible is the Word of God in Christ. Or you could phrase it this way: principally the whole content of the Word of God is revealed in the protevangel, the great mother-promise, of Genesis 3:15; and all the rest of Scripture is principally nothing else than a further elucidation and an ever clearer and brighter revelation of the promise that was first given in Paradise. It all grows, so to speak, out of that one promise.

But we are interested now in the meaning of this organic conception with respect to inspiration itself and the method of inspiration. What does that imply?

There are especially four elements implied.

First of all, just as God conceived sovereignly and from eternity of His people as an organism in Christ, so He conceived in His eternal counsel of the whole of Scripture as one organism as a revelation of Himself in Christ Jesus, the heart of that entire revelation. In other words, that Bible that was written over the course of many centuries in many different places and by many different men under many different circumstances did not simply come into being by accident. Nor was it mechanically put together, either by God or by men. But it was planned from before the foundation of the world in such a way that all its parts would arise out of and reveal one principle and one idea: the Word of God in Christ. And each book and each part occupies its own place and serves in its own particular way in that whole of the Word of God which was not wholly revealed until John wrote the book of Revelation.

Secondly, organic inspiration means that God from eternity and sovereignly conceived of and determined upon, ordained, special organs of Christ's body as organs of inspiration, to write His Word. I mean that God ordained them entirely. It is not thus, that the Holy Spirit has a certain book and a certain purpose in mind and that He goes about searching for the proper man to write that book. The Holy Spirit does not merely find and use men to write His Scriptures. They were planned, planned from before the foundation of the world. Their personalities, their characters, their talents, their experiences, their time, their historical circumstances, -- all of those things were so planned and designed from before the foundation of the world that each one of those men would be a fit instrument to write a certain part of God's Word and have a place in the writing of the whole of Scripture.

Thirdly, the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of Christ, in time calls and prepares and forms and fits these divinely ordained organs of inspiration for their divinely ordained task. This is also God's work. Isaiah could never have prophesied as he did unless he were Isaiah, with his peculiar character and place in history, and so forth. John would never have been able to write his epistles in exactly the form and style in which he wrote them unless God had made John exactly what he was. All this is the purpose and work of God with a view to the inscripturation of His own Word.

Then, finally, there is the element that the same Spirit actually inspires holy men, moves, carries, illumines, and guides them to write infallibly God's own Word, the Word of the revelation of God in Christ. Hence, men spoke and men wrote; and they spoke and wrote entirely in harmony with their peculiar personality and style and circumstances and experiences and times. But when they spoke and when they wrote, the product was not the word of man, but the Word of God.

That is organic inspiration.

Now when you take all those various aspects of inspiration together, the result is the infallible Scriptures, the written Word of God without error.

Let me say a word about those terms: the term infallible and the term inerrant.

These are also terms which have arisen out of controversy. They have been occasioned by opposition to and denial of the truth. Essentially, of course, it is unnecessary to say that Scripture is infallible. And historically it was not always necessary to say this. You could simply say, "Scripture is the Word of God. Period!" But it became necessary because of denials to emphasize this truth over against the error. It became necessary, on account of error and denial of the truth, to make explicit what is, in fact, implicit in the very fact that the Bible is the Word of God. A fallible Word of God, an errant Word of God, is nothing but a contradiction in terms. That is the simple truth. For a fallible Bible means that God errs, that God lies, that God makes mistakes, that God's speech is inaccurate. We may well remember this. This truth is after all very simple. As soon as you maintain that the Bible is the Word of God, and then at the same time try to maintain that the Bible is fallible, you have a contradiction in terms. Essentially, in order to maintain that Scripture is in any sense fallible, one must first get rid of the idea that the Bible is the Word of God; otherwise he must needs accuse God of fallibility. And thus these terms infallible and inerrant have come into use in order to emphasize the truth over against the error. Inerrant simply means "not erring" or "without error." Infallible is the stronger term; it means "not capable of error."

Hence, these terms, applied to the Scriptures, mean that the Bible as the written record of the Word of God is altogether free from and incapable of error, inaccuracy, mistake, contradiction, conflict. It is altogether the Word of God Who cannot lie and Who cannot make a mistake.

Right here is the proper point to emphasize again that this is a matter of faith. That Scripture is infallible is true whether or not you or I can demonstrate it to be infallible. Our belief in the infallibility of that Word does not depend upon our understanding and our solving whatever problems may arise in our study of Scripture. It does not depend on our ability to answer and to solve various questions and apparent contradictions and conflicts to which men may point. We must not take that approach. We must not question whether the Bible is indeed the Word of God and whether it is indeed infallible. Faith starts out from the position that Scripture is indeed the infallible Word of God.

This, therefore, is the simple truth of infallibility.

This is the Reformed position. It always has been the Reformed position; and it is the Reformed position today. And it is the Reformed position because it is the truth of Scripture.

I do not intend to argue that point or reason about it at length.

Let me point you to a few passages of Scripture.

There is II Timothy 3:16, which I have already mentioned: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...." The term rendered "given by inspiration of God" is literally "God-breathed." All Scripture is God-breathed. That is a very beautiful idea. Do you realize what that means? It means this: God breathed, and the Bible resulted! That is all; that is inspiration! Notice, by the way, that this passage does not even so much as mention men or the activity of men. They are not even in the picture here. Only this: "All Scripture is God-breathed...."

Then there is the Scriptural proof from II Peter 1:19-21: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Here, to be sure, the human writers are under consideration. But what does the text say about them? Notice: "No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." And again: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man." That is the negative: it came not by the will of man! To be sure, these men did not write inspite of their own will or against their will. Yet the Bible that they wrote was not the product of the will of man. On the contrary, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

In John 10:35 you find the rather well-known statement of our Lord Jesus, "...and the scripture cannot be broken...." In this conversation of Jesus with the Jews this particular statement constitutes the strength, the foundation, of Jesus' argument. If the Scripture could be broken, then Jesus' argument on the basis of Psalm 82 in this connection would simply fall away; it would be of no authority. But it is of authority simply because "the scripture cannot be broken." Its authority is absolute and unimpeachable because it is divine and infallible.

One more significant passage is that from John 5:45-47, a passage which assumes inerrancy and therefore absolute authority with respect to the writings of Moses: "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" Very plainly, according to this passage, if you don't believe Moses (that is, if you don't believe the Old Testament), you don't believe Christ. And, vice versa, if you don't believe Christ, you don't believe Moses. The two are inseparable. It is very evident, therefore, that denial of the inspired and infallible character of the Scriptures of the Old Testament is contrary to faith in Christ.

So much for Scripture quotations.

Let me also point out that this truth of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture is the current thought of those articles of our Confession of Faith, the Belgic Confession, which speak of Scripture, Articles 3 to 7. It is true, of course, that you do not find all the terms there which I mentioned previously: graphic, verbal, plenary, and organic. For the most part the use of these terms was not necessary at the time when our confessions were written. But there are several expressions in our Confession which are very noteworthy and very clear with respect to the Scriptures.

The whole of Article 3 emphasizes very strongly and without any limitation or qualification that the Scriptures are the Word of God: "We confess that this Word of God was not sent, nor delivered by the will of man, but that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, as the apostle Peter saith. And that afterwards God, from a special care, which he has for us and our salvation, commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit his revealed word to writing; and he himself wrote with his own finger, the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures."

Article 4 gives the list of the canonical books, but there is a very significant statement in this article which we should note: "We believe that the Holy Scriptures are contained in two books, namely, the Old and New Testament, which are canonical, against which nothing can be alleged." (emphasis mine) The point is that if there were error in these books, you could allege something against them and challenge the rightful place of such errant books in the canon of Holy Scripture. But they are inerrant, infallible. You can allege nothing against them.

Again, in Article 5 there is a significant statement which presupposes infallibility and freedom from error. This is the article concerning the dignity and authority of Scripture. Here we confess: "We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing without any doubt, all things contained in them......" (emphasis mine) This very plainly implies that they are free from error. If these books were known to be fallible and known to contain error, you could never profess to believe all things contained therein. Note, too, that term "all things." This occurs here without any limitation.

Article 6 rather indirectly teaches the same idea when it speaks of the difference between the canonical and the apocryphal books. For this article sets up the canonical books as the absolute standard of authority with respect to the apocryphal books. The church may "read and take instruction from" the apocryphal books "so far as they agree with the canonical books." And the apocryphal books can never "detract from the authority of the other sacred books." This absolute authority of the canonical books again presupposes their infallibility.

Finally, Article 7, which speaks of the sufficiency of Scripture, contains, among several other very clear and strong statements, the well-known statement: "Therefore, we reject with all our hearts, whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, Try the spirits whether they are of God. Likewise, if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house."

The above, briefly, is the Reformed and Scriptural truth of inspiration and infallibility from a positive point of view.

This truth is the divine foundation of the church.

In connection with the above statement I refer you to Scripture itself. It speaks of the importance of the Scriptures for the church and for the whole structure of the truth in many places. But l have in mind now especially a passage like Ephesians 2:19, 20: "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone."

This passage plainly refers to the apostles and prophets not as so many persons. In that sense the apostles and prophets are dead and in the grave. But it refers to the teaching and the preaching of the apostles and prophets. In other words, it refers to the Word of God by them as that Word of God has as its chief and determining content, its cornerstone (the determining stone of the entire foundation; not a mere decorative stone, as today) in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. That is the foundation upon which the church, the household of God, the temple of God, is built. Hence, the Word of God, the Scriptures, may rightly be called the foundation of the church.

Now a foundation is of the utmost importance to any building. The foundation of any building determines the building, determines its shape and its size and its outline and its strength. That is true of any building. You cannot build an Empire State Building, for example, on the foundation of a two-stall garage. It will not fit. Such a foundation will not hold up such a building. Well, here in Ephesians you have that figure of the foundation as the determining factor of a building, that which determines the entire building, with respect to the church as the spiritual building of God, in which He dwells and has fellowship with His people. We may conclude from this, therefore, that the whole shape, the whole belief, the whole confession, the whole doctrine, the whole manner of life, the entire manifestation of the church is built upon the Word of God. That is the divine foundation: the Word of God, as it has its infallible written record in all the Scriptures. That is God's own foundation for His church!

You have here, therefore, first of all, the principle of the absolute authority of Scripture. The church, God's church, is only built upon that foundation. That is the only foundation for the church, the only foundation upon which the church can be built up. That foundation determines the building. Anything built upon any other foundation cannot be built as the church. That is plain. If you are not on that foundation, the only proper foundation, the determining foundation for the whole church, then your building, whatever else it may be, cannot be the church! That is important. Any confession, any belief, any doctrine, any manner of life, in order to be recognized as of the church, the house of God, must be found upon Scripture.

This fact is also important from the point of view of the significance of that foundation and attacks upon the divine character and authority and infallibility of that foundation. When you begin to chip away and to hammer away at those Scriptures, you are chipping away at the very foundation of the church. I know: that foundation cannot be destroyed! No one has ever destroyed it yet, and no one will ever destroy it. The foundation of God standeth! There is no question about that! But in the practice and in the confession of a given church or denomination of churches or of a given member of the church here on earth that is indeed possible. You can chip away at the foundation and deny the divine authority and strength of that foundation; that simply means, of course, that you ultimately come to stand on a different foundation, not on God's foundation. But to cling to the figure, you know what happens when the foundation is attacked. If you knock out a whole wall of a foundation, the building is not going to stand. It will tumble and crumble. The same is true of the Scriptures. When you chip away at those Scriptures, you are chipping away at the very foundation of the church. That may seem very insignificant at first, just as you may begin to destroy the foundation of a building by knocking a little chip out of one block in the wall. In fact, that has usually been the way the foundation of the Scriptures has been attacked: just a little chip knocked off! But if you keep on chipping, after a while an entire block goes out of the foundation; and then the whole wall goes out; and finally the entire foundation is gone. And if the foundation is destroyed, the entire building topples; or even if the strength of the foundation is destroyed, the strength of the building is gone too. You cannot build the church, you cannot serve in the gathering and building of the church, on any other foundation than the divinely appointed and the divinely constructed foundation of the Scriptures.

That is why this whole issue of the infallibility of Scripture is so deadly serious. It concerns the foundation, the foundation of the church !

But today attacks are being made on that foundation. That has been done in the past, and it is being done today in many ways. They are chipping away at the foundation!

Let me mention some of these attacks.

There is that totally inconsistent idea of thought--inspiration in distinction from word--inspiration. Under this conception, as you can readily see, there are parts of Scripture that are said not to be the Word of God. Or there are parts which are said to be erroneously or inaccurately or imperfectly recorded and presented.

There is the conception of two factors in the Bible: a divine factor and a human factor. I think that this expression of two factors is used well-meaningly sometimes. But it is a dangerous expression! The Bible is the Word of God, produced by one factor: divine inspiration. To the extent that you speak of a human factor you must also speak of a human word.

The same is true of another expression that is also used sometimes with good intentions. I refer to the idea of a primary Author (God) and secondary authors (men). The trouble with an expression like that is that no matter how mightily you strive to distinguish between the primary and the secondary, you are still saying that men are authors. They are not! The Author of the Scriptures is God! It is His Word! It came not by the will of man, but by the will of God.

Another method of attack is that which denies the historicity and the historical accuracy of various parts of the Bible and covering that up by calling such parts of Scripture figurative or allegorical or mythical, or what have you. The most serious aspect of this particular attack is not that it denies the historicity of a certain passage of Scripture. That is bad enough. But basically such attacks are attacks upon the authority and infallibility of Scripture itself.

The same is true, principally, of the distinction that has been made that the Bible is accurate as far as its revelational purpose is concerned, accurate as far as sacred history is concerned, but that it can be inaccurate when it comes to the periphery and when it comes to mere history and "historiography," as it is called, --the writing of history. It is at this point that the weakness of the Report on Infallibility, commended to the churches in 1961 by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church, is glaring. That report was principally a compromise. It failed to settle the most crucial issue in the whole discussion that occasioned it. It left room. A plain instance of this is seen in the fact that M. Hoogland in the Reformed Journal (November, 1961, pp. 9-12) came right out and said that the report leaves room for historical inaccuracies in Scripture. In his article he makes a rather detailed analysis of this Report; and I could quote several statements in which Mr. Hoogland maintains that the Report leaves room for maintaining that there is a sense in which it can be said that Scripture is inaccurate. The following paragraph is an example:

The report, therefore, supports the conclusion that it is possible to look at inaccuracy from more than one point of view, and consequently that it is possible to speak of historical inaccuracy while at the same time maintaining Scriptural accuracy in terms of sacred history. That is, what is seen as inaccurate from a merely historical point of view is recognized as wholly accurate for the reporting of sacred history. This conclusion being established by the report and the report serving as the larger context in which the synodical declaration of 1959 must be seen (p. 190), it becomes evident that the "actual historical inaccuracies" ruled out by the Synod of 1959 has reference to historical inaccuracies from the point of view of sacred history and not from the point of view of modern historiography.

No one challenged the above statement or the article in which it appeared. The sad part is that the whole issue seems, at least for the present, to be buried in silence. That is a bad thing. I predict that in some form or other that same issue of Scripture's infallibility is going to arise again because principally it was not settled.

The above are some of the implications of this foundation--idea and some of the methods of attack upon the foundation.

All these devices have this one element in common, that they exalt man's subjective judgment above the Word of God. Man, then, decides what is the Word of God and what is not, what is accurate and what is inaccurate, what is truth and what is error. This may be done with regard to relatively insignificant things at first; it often begins that way. That has been the history of every attack on the authority of Scripture. But the principle is the important thing here. When you begin to follow this method and this principle, then principally you have sacrificed the whole truth of infallibility. And if you don't back-track and return to the strict principle of infallibility, that error is going to blossom out and have dire effects in time to come. That also is history.

Hence, that divine foundation must always be built on. Every thought must be in submission to the Scriptures, the only infallible rule. All our doctrine and all our life must conform to that rule. It is the absolute authority. We must not come with outside evidences and philosophy and science in order to see whether we can make Scripture conform. It is the other way around. This principle is important for all the truth and life of the church. But I have in mind particularly the rather wide-ranging discussions on the various questions that are at stake in the book of Genesis: creation, the flood, evolution, the age of the world, etc. Those questions must be decided solely in the light of and on the basis of Scripture. It is especially to some of those questions that we will give our attention in our next two chapters. But that must be done on the basis of the position taken in the present chapter.

In conclusion, let me emphasize, first of all, that we must guard that foundation.

We must never allow anyone to chip away at it. If this is allowed, then soon nothing will be left. The large denominations today that have departed completely from the infallible Scriptures began that way. They all did. You cannot compromise when it comes to Scripture. You cannot allow yourself to compromise even in this regard, that you will stand side by side in the same church-communion and act as though you are standing on the same basis with men who do deny or compromise this truth of Scripture. That is an inconsistent position. If you do that, you lose your ability to fight for the maintenance of the truth.

We must adhere strictly to this as churches, in our doctrine, in our confession, in our teaching and preaching.

That is important for the preaching too, something that might well be kept in mind today. This means that the preaching that comes from any pulpit of a church which holds to the infallible Scriptures must be expository preaching. Its content must be that Word of God. We must not have all of this topical preaching and preaching on the social issues of the day which is so common today, even in Reformed churches. We must expound the Scriptures. This is important because it is after all the preaching of the Word that is the strength of the church. The preaching, therefore, must never depart from that foundation of the Scriptures!

As individual members of the church, too, we must all adhere to this principle. We must be on our guard in this respect. I would say that especially young men and young women, and especially young people of intellectual inclination, who can very easily be flattered that they are intellectuals, and who can have their ego tickled by the idea that they can really learn something from philosophy and science as over against Scripture,--such young men and young women must be on guard.

One of the favorite ways of the devil is to attack the faith of young people with respect to the Word of God. Hold, therefore, to the Word of God as infallible in your personal faith, as members of the church.

This also includes the calling to speak out on this issue. You must speak out on it not only in discussion and in writing. That is good; but ultimately, if nothing more is done, that will do no good. If the Scriptures are attacked, speak out officially. Speak out ecclesiastically. Whether such protest looks hopeful or hopeless, that makes no difference. It is your right and your calling as members of the church, as children of the Reformation, to speak out in the church. You must speak out, or ultimately you will lose this principle by default.

Let us hold to these Scriptures, therefore. We cannot stand on two different foundations. We cannot stand on a half foundation. We cannot stand with those who attack the very foundation. We must be uncompromising!

Finally, I want to emphasize that our Protestant Reformed Churches, who stand on the basis I have outlined above, pledge help and support, and, if need be, shelter to anyone who wants to stand foursquare on that foundation, the only foundation on which the church may stand.

Preface

1. The Divine Foundation: the Infallible Scriptures
   
   • The Scriptures Inspired
   • Graphic, Plenary, Verbal Inspiration
   • Organic Inspiration
   • The Infallible Scriptures
   • Scriptural Proof
   • Our Reformed Confession
   • The Divine Foundation
   • Attacks on the Foundation
   • Our Calling To Guard the Foundation
   
   
2. The Creation Record: Literal or Not?
   • The Issue: Creation versus Evolution
   • In What Sense Is Evolutionism the Issue?
   • The Literal or Non-Literal Issue
   • An Exegetical Question
   • The Non-Literal and Literal Views
   • Evaluation
   • The Proper Scriptural Interpretation
   
   
3. Genesis and Science
   • What Is Science?
   • The Scientist and Revelation
   • The Evolutionist and God's Book of Creation
   • The Science of the Theistic Evolutionist
   • The Proper Approach of Faith
   • Alleged Scientific Evidences
   • A Brief Critique of This Alleged Proof
   • Positive Suggestions Toward A Proper Christian View