GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE AS THE WORD OF GOD, AND THE ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE (PART 4)

By J. W. McGarvey (1829-1911)

IV. GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE AS THE ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.

We now pass to the last division of our subject, the grounds on which we regard the Bible as the only rightful rule to direct the faith, and to control the conduct of men; in other words, the rounds on which we hold it to be the only right­ful creed and book of discipline for the church. We receive it thus, because it was given to us by God for this very purpose. The fact that it is from God makes it our duty to believe it, even though nothing were said of this duty in the book itself; and the same fact makes it our duty to observe all the precepts in it which are ad­dressed to us. But we are not left to inferences, however necessary, for a knowledge of this duty; it is set forth clearly in the book itself. At the close of the opening sermon of Jesus con­cerning his kingdom, it is declared that men stand or fall before God, as they hear and do, or hear and do not the sayings of Jesus. He de­clared to his apostles when sending them forth, "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." He also assured them that during the regeneration, while he should be sitting on his throne, they should sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel; and consequently, we find them, from Pentecost onward, speaking as ambassa­dors of Christ, and requiring obedience from all the disciples. Among the last words of the chief man of the Twelve are these: "This is now, be­loved, the second epistle that I write to you, and in both of them I stir up your sincere mind by putting you in remembrance that you should re­member the words that were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles." But why argue a proposition which is not disputed? All who receive the Bible as the word of God agree that it is a divinely appointed rule of faith and conduct. They agree that if a man denies any part of the Bible, interpolated passages ex­cepted, he is to that extent unsound in the faith; if he refuses to obey any precept among those now binding, he is to that extent sinful; and that in both cases he is to be dealt with accordingly by the church and by individual disciples. Believ­ers differ only as to the parts of the Scripture which should govern us now, and as to their ex­clusiveness as a rule of discipline.

Because the Old Testament was the God-given law of the old dispensation, and is still binding on the faith of Christians, many have concluded that it is still binding as our rule of conduct; but the New Testament makes it clear that this conclusion is erroneous. The voice of God in the scene of the transfiguration, pro­claiming, in the presence of Moses the lawgiver and of Elijah the prophet, "This is my beloved Son; hear ye him," made Jesus not only the su­preme, but the only lawgiver in the new dispen­sation. In compliance with this proclamation, we are taught by the Apostle Paul that while the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, now that faith is come we are no longer under the tutor; that Christ has abolished, in his flesh, the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that the first covenant, having been found defective, has vanished away and given place to the sec­ond. In this change from the old to the new, much of the old has been re-enacted, including all that was originally intended to be perpetual and universal. This part is binding now, not be­cause it was in the old, but because it is re-enacted in the new. The New Testament is, then, the divine rule of discipline under Christ; and our final question is, whether it is the only rule, whether it excludes all rules devised by the wis­dom of men.

All Protestants agree that it is the only infalli­ble rule, but many hold that we are at liberty to frame creeds and rules of discipline based on our own fallible judgment. This question has been decided for us by Jesus in deciding for the Jews one which involved the same principle. Their wise men, in the course of ages, had con­cluded that in addition to the law which God had given them, some other rules were important, if not indispensable; and they adopted such rules, one by one, until they accumulated a large body of them, which they styled the tradition of the elders. These they enforced on the consciences of the people, and Jesus was himself adjudged a sinner when he neglected to observe them. He dealt with these rules in a most summary man­ner. He first pointed out the fact that at least one of them made void a commandment of God; and, adopting the language of one of their prophets, he indignantly repudiated the whole body of their tradition, and laid down a law to govern all such matters, in these, words: "In vain do they worship me, teaching as their doc­trines the precepts of men." This rule perempto­rily excludes from the realm of observance and faith in the church of God every precept of men; and it limits our worship and our teaching to that which God has appointed and taught. We are to stand fast in this freedom with which Christ has made its free, and not be entangled in any yoke of bondage under the rules and precepts of men. We are to repel as a usurpa­tion any attempt, from whatever source, to bind on us any rule which our Lord has not given.

With this rule of our King agree all the deduc­tions of human reason and experience. If we have an infallible rule which cannot mislead us, it is but a dictate of common sense to say that we have no use for a fallible rule on the same subject. Why should a merchant have two yard sticks, one of the standard length, and one a lit­tle longer or shorter? What honest man keeps two pairs of balances, one which he knows to be correct, and one which may weigh heavier or lighter? Why, then, should men who wish to please God, both in what they do themselves and in what they enforce on their brethren, make a fallible rule in addition to the infallible one which God has given?

Is it said that we need fallible rules to aid us in explaining and enforcing the one that is infal­lible? We answer that it argues a want of faith in God to assume that the rule which he in his infi­nite wisdom has given demands any such help at our hands. It is certainly as easy to enforce a rule given by God as one given by men; and in enforcing the former, we have the consolation of knowing that we are enforcing that about the lawfulness of which there call be no doubt. We cannot be misled if we follow this rule, or do in­justice if we enforce it. If it fail to accomplish some results which appear to its desirable, we shall not be blamed for the consequences; the Lawgiver takes these on himself. Certainly He will not be, displeased with us if we follow as best we can the rule which he has given, and if at the same time we show our faith in his wis­dom by refusing to follow any other.

Finally, that unity which Christ requires his church to maintain, and for which he offered a most earnest and touching prayer; that unity which is now so sadly broken, call never be re-established on the basis of any human creed or book of discipline. The past experience of Chris­tendom, if it has demonstrated anything, has clearly demonstrated this. The "Apostles' Creed," the shortest one ever drafted, proved insufficient for this purpose, and it was suc­ceeded by others more elaborate. Every one of these has proved insufficient to maintain unity among even its own adherents, as appears from the fact that every sect in Christendom is more or less agitated by teachings that are heretical according to its own standards, and by acrimo­nious disputes as to the meaning of these stan­dards on important points of doctrine and disci­pline. Dissatisfaction is everywhere springing up and avowing itself, and many of the earnest men in the creed-bound sects are urging a return to the "Apostles' Creed," forgetting, apparently, that it was tested long ago and proved a broken reed to those who leaned upon it. Surely this bitter experience of fifteen centuries ought to have taught us all that the only way out of pre­sent strife and into the unity which  Christ de­mands and for which our own hearts cry out, is to return to the creed and book of discipline which Christ gave, and which the church main­tained before its unity was broken. This is the only rule which all believers alike acknowledge, and it certainly furnishes the only basis of union which is within our reach, as it is the only one which the Lord of the church has authorized. We should return to it, not with the expectation that even by the common adoption and enforcement of it all heresy or schism will or can be avoided; for those could not be prevented even when this divine rule was being enforced by inspired apos­tles; they are the unavoidable results of human depravity, and they will never cease to trouble us till all men shall become subject to the law of the Spirit of Christ; but if we seek to prevent them by the enforcement, to the best of our ability, of the rule of life which God has given, and lean not to our own understanding, we shall have done our duty, and when the conflict is over the Captain of our salvation will say to us, "Well done."

Our final conclusion is, that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice which can be rightly accepted by Christians, and that it is so because it is the word of God, and because it was given by God to serve this purpose. &

OBJECTIONS TO DEISM

By C. C. Crawford

Deism [is] the view that there is a God, that He created the world and set it going, and then withdrew from all further intercourse with it, much as a man winds a clock and then expects it to run forever of its own accord. (a) Deism came into existence in the age in which Newton’s concept of the rigidity of “the laws of nature” dominated all sci­ence. As someone has put it, having brought God into the picture to account for these “laws of nature,” it then bowed Him out with thanks for His provisional services. (b) To accept deism is to reject special providence, prayer, miracle, redemption, inspiration, revelation, resurrection, immortality, etc., in short, the entire Plan of Re­demption that is revealed in the Bible. (c) The concept of an infinite God who would create and then take no further interest in His Creation sim­ply makes no appeal to man’s spiritual con­sciousness. Such a concept of God has nothing to offer in the way of meeting human aspiration and human need. Such a God is not, cannot be, a God of Love. (Genesis, The Book of the Beginnings, Vol. I. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1966, page 381) &