Review of “Voices of Concern” . . . No. 5

CHRIST AND THE WORD
James D. Bales

Christians must be concerned with Christ and His word. We cannot magnify Him while minimizing His word. It seems to me that some are in danger by trying to do this. Ralph Graham, in his essay on “Why I Left the ‘Churches of Christ’”, states that: “Christ is the Lord of the Bible. He is greater than the Bible and the Bible must fit Him, not He the Bible. I believe that the Bible is a trustworthy account of the Incarnation of the Living Word and of man’s encounter with God. It is the normative witness for our faith and practice. But great as the Bible is, it is not big enough to exhaust the meaning of Christ for Christian faith. Once we learn of Him through the Bible, we will continue to seek Him ‘beyond the sacred page.’” (p. 132)

First, Christ is the Lord of the Bible. The Old Testament was the preparation for Him, and the New Testament is the revelation of the Son of God manifested in the flesh. He is Lord of His word because it is His word. The word is the expression of Him who is our Lord, and it is a contradiction to acknowledge Him as Lord and to refuse to do the things which He has commanded (Lk. 6:46). We are to be judged by Christ (Acts 17:31), and Christ said that if we reject Him and His word we shall be judged by His word (John 12:48). This word is the word of the Father (John 12:49- 50), which He gave to the apostles (John 17:8). It is the word of truth (John 17:17) through which we believe (17:20).

Second, I am not sure just what Graham means by saying that the Bible does not “exhaust the meaning of Christ for Christian faith,” and what he means by seeking Him, in the words of a song, “beyond the sacred page.” The Bible does exhaust the revelation of Christ’s will to man, for it is the full and final revelation of God to man in this dispensation; which dispensation ends with the end of time and the judgment (Acts 2:34-35; I Cor. 15:24-28; Rev. 20:11-14). “All truth” was revealed to the apostles, or Jesus’ promise failed (Matt. 26:20-25; John 13:1-2; 14:26; 16:12-13). The faith has once for all been delivered to the saints (Jude 3). And Graham himself stated that the Bible “is the normative witness for our faith and practice.” (p. 132).

Third, our love is not for an impersonal book but for the personal Christ. However, since the book is the word of God, we love Christ’s word. We, with the attitude David had, can sing of our love for the word of God (Psa. 119:97-104).

Fourth, we are not saved by a personless word but by the person Jesus Christ. However, His words tell us of the Savior and what we must do to be saved (Acts 11:14).

Fifth, the Bible does not exhaust the meaning of Christ for us in that we pray to God and to Christ (Matt. 6:9; Acts 7:59). We are instructed by the word to do this, but we do not pray to the word; although we should pray as the word directs.

Sixth, the Bible does not exhaust the meaning of Christ’s truth for us in that we are not merely to commit it to memory, and store it up in our hearts, but we are also to follow it in our lives. The truth when applied becomes more meaningful to us than the truth in the Bible on the shelf, or simply committed to memory. In fact, saving knowledge of the word of God is not merely an intellectual grasp of God’s word but also the application of it to life. (I John 2:3-6)

Furthermore, any truth is more meaningful to us when practiced than when merely memorized. By living it we know that truth in our own personal experience.

Seventh, the Bible does not exhaust the meaning of Christ for our faith in the sense that He will come again and receive us unto Himself in eternal glory where we shall personally be with Him. In some sense Christ is now with us; but He is not here in person. The Lord’s supper is a communion with Him (I Cor. 10:16), and yet the Lord’s supper indicates that He is not here with us personally; for we observe the supper “till he come” (I Cor. 11:26). We seek Christ beyond the sacred page in the Lord’s supper in that we do this discerning the Lord’s body, for so the word has instructed us (I Cor. 11:24-29).

Bible A Blueprint?

Graham affirmed that: “The Bible was never intended as a detailed blueprint of faith and practice. When everything is forbidden that is not commanded, and everything commanded that is not forbidden, believers are no longer free sons but slaves of tyranny.” (p. 132). What shall we say to these things?

First, Graham has acknowledged that the Bible is a blueprint, but maintains that it is not a detailed blueprint. That it is a blueprint is indicated not merely in his statement that it is not a “detailed blueprint,” but specifically in his affirmation that the Bible is “the normative witness for our faith and practice.” (p. 132). Normative has reference to a standard, and the normative witness for our faith and practice establishes the pattern or standard in the light of which we are to measure our faith and practice. If Graham stays with this position, then the disagreement with us would not be over whether the Bible is a blueprint, but over how detailed is the blueprint. A blueprint contains regulations, guidelines, plans of procedure, and such like. If the Bible contains but one principle, or any authoritative instruction, it is to that extent a blueprint.

Second, since Graham acknowledges that the Bible is a blueprint, one could turn his own assertion against him when he says that some of us have made Christians slaves instead of sons. For someone could say: If there is anything that a Christian must do, then to that extent he is a slave of tyranny and not a son. A son, however, is under authority; and Christians are also slaves of God.

Third, Christ has placed us under authority. God speaks to us today through His Son and His word constitutes the standard, the norm, the blueprint, by which men shall be judged (Matt. 17:5; Heb. 1:1-2; 2:3-4). God expected men in the Old Testament to obey Him, according to His commandments (Gen. 6:22; Ex. 25:40; I Chron. 28:7, 11-13, 19). Moses built according to the pattern (Heb. 8:5). According to Graham’s logic, this made him a slave of tyranny. God expects obedience under the New Covenant. Christ not only commanded that the gospel be preached, but He also said that those who are converted are to be taught to observe all things whatever He has commanded (Matt. 28:20). Faithful men are to teach others, who in turn are to teach the doctrine which they were taught from the word of God (2 Tim. 2:2). Instead of speaking as the traditions of men, we are to speak as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11). Regardless of how detailed the pattern is, should we be any less careful than Moses to build according to the revealed pattern? (Heb. 8:5). Certainly not (Heb. 2:1-4; 12:25). Graham rightly observed that Christ exalted “His word above tradition” (p. 135). Men ought not to make God’s word void through their traditions (Matt. 15:8-9). However, without the blueprint we would not have any means of distinguishing between His word and the traditions of men. However, some people would say that if we must exalt His word above traditions, we have become the slaves of tyranny.

Fourth, where did Graham get the idea that “everything is forbidden that is not commanded, and everything commanded that is not forbidden” (p. 132). We are to be regulated by Biblical precepts (or detailed commandments) , by examples, and by principles. Much of our life is regulated by principles. There are areas in which Christ has left us free, and we are free but still within the boundaries which the Bible has set for that freedom. Surely Graham must admit that there are areas in which there are express commandments which forbid us to do certain things, and there are areas in which there are express commands which authorize us to do certain things. Some would say that even this makes us a slave of tyranny. But, of course, such an attitude would show that we have not submitted our wills to the will of God. Sometimes a commandment leaves us free within certain areas. We are told to preach the gospel and to go into all of the world to do it. We are not left free as to whether we are to go and to preach, but we are left free as to how we shall go, and to what specific places we shall go—since it is obvious that each individual cannot go every place.

There are things which are forbidden because they are not commanded, and there are things which are authorized although they are not specifically commanded. This may sound like a contradiction, but within its proper context it is not a contradiction. (a) When God specifies something in a commandment, the only thing authorized by that command was what God had specified. If something else was authorized, it was authorized by another command. (b) On the other hand, when God gave a general command which included a wider territory, but did not exclude anything in that territory, then everything in that general area was included in the general command. For example, if God had said take priests from the people of God, it would have been right to take priests from any of the tribes of Israel. If God had said for them to take priests from any of the tribes, except Benjamin, any tribe not expressly excluded would have been included in the general command. What did God say? He said to take them from the tribe of Levi. He was specific as to tribe, and thus any tribe not expressly included was excluded. (Heb. 7:12-14).

Bible Authoritative?

Although Graham states that the Bible is trustworthy and normative, there are some ideas in his chapter which undermine its authoritativeness.

First, his assertion concerning the work of the Spirit. “The Holy Spirit works dynamically in sanctifying believers; His work is not limited to the effect of the words of the Bible on the human heart and mind. He works when, and where, and how He pleases, rather than according to predictable and fixed patterns.” (p. 134) (a) Who said that there are no predictable and fixed patterns of the Spirit’s working? If the Spirit has said so in His word, we shall accept it. If Graham’s word, or any other man’s, is the only authority for this statement, we shall not accept it. (b) If there are no fixed patterns, is there any possible way to tell whether or not something is the Spirit’s work? Is His work without bounds? If so, what are the bounds? There are people who maintain that the Spirit has led them to commit adultery, to kill themselves, to write new revelations, etc.

How could Graham predict and know that the Spirit did not do this, if there are no predictable and fixed patterns of the Spirit’s operation? (c) How can Graham maintain that the Bible is normative, since he can have no idea how the Spirit will work (for he said there is nothing predictable about it), and there are no patterns to His working? Whatever way the Spirit works would be normative for the particular person or persons for whom the Spirit worked, and in whom the Spirit worked. The Bible could not be normative, for in such a case if we studied it sufficiently we could learn how the Spirit works in conversation and sanctification. (d) Obviously God, Christ, and the Spirit work as they please, but this does not mean there are no fixed and predictable patterns of their operations. Are they so changeable that we can never tell what might come next? Have they not revealed anything to us concerning their workings on which we can depend? (e) The Spirit does do work beyond His work through His word, but we can know of this work only by what the word has revealed. As we have brought out in our book on The Holy Spirit and the Christian, the Spirit assists us in our prayers (Rom. 8:26-27); He works with God in God’s overruling providence; He works through the lives and influences of others (1 Per. 3:1); and the fact that He dwells in us (1 Cor. 6:19-20) influences us for good in that we want to live upright in the presence of such a Guest.

Second, the normative nature of the Bible would be undermined by Graham’s position that the Bible is not normative on worship and on church government. In fact, he renounces what he calls the “‘blueprint’ concept of the Bible.” (p.141).

Third, Graham took away the normative value of the Bible when he said: “They should be willing to let consensus of rational opinion of all Christian scholars of whatever church and age be the decisive factor in matters of interpreting the Bible.” (p. 141). Who could have the time to study this many scholars? Or is there an individual or a group who is to tell us what this is? And who is to decide who are the scholars? and which are the rational opinions of those who are scholars? and how it is possible to get a consensus of all these scholars? As a matter of fact, many of the positions which are held by churches of Christ are positions which many scholars from many different denominations say are Biblical positions. And yet, we accept these positions not because they see them, but for at least some of the same good reasons that they see these positions are Biblical.

Then, too, there are many scholars today who discredit the Bible, and who thus think that it does not really make any difference what the Bible teaches. They may know what it teaches but think that something else is just as good. Does Graham think that we should accept the position of various modernists concerning the nature of the Bible itself? Of course, one could not accept the position of all of them for all of them do not take the same position. But if one accepts their effort to explain away in varying degrees the miraculous in the Bible, he is left without a normative Bible.

—Harding College, Searcy, Ark.