Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 14
September 13, 1962
NUMBER 19, PAGE 8b,13c

Why Was The New Testament Written?

Robert C. Welch

Bernard Ramm thinks that the New Testament was brought into existence as a result of the needs of the church. Thus following the lead of the schools of modernism, neo-orthodoxy and existentialism he has put the cart before the horse. The epistles and other books of the New Testament did not come as a result of the needs of the church. The problems of the churches furnished the occasions for the writing of many of the epistles. But the writing of all of it came by inspiration and was given to meet the needs and instruction of the churches whether the need or problem had already arisen in some congregation or not.

This is not intended to imply that Ramm is a modernist. He is considered by many as one of the outstanding conservatives of this day. But because of this general confidence in him it is easy to be led into some of the borrowings which he perhaps has inadvertently been led into as he studied the works of the modernists. This seems to be the case with the idea mentioned above.

This theory is to be found in his book published in 1961 and entitled, Special Revelation and the Word of God. This is the way he describes the theory on page 168:

"But then the complex problems created by the spread of the Church demanded that the Christian Church created her own graphe. This was no official or formal apostolic action. It was an unconscious creation. The concrete problems of the missionary churches called into existence the first Christian graphe, the apostolic letter."

The Catholic Church has arrogantly made the false claim that the Church, meaning herself, produced the Scriptures. This she has done to establish in the minds of men an authoritativeness for herself above the Scriptures. For if they read the Scriptures they will find no authority for the Catholic Church. Modernists have given sanction to the claim by saying that the Scriptures were produced by the church; though they have not intended to imply that this was the Catholic Church in part or exclusively. Now Ramm follows their error in saying that "the Christian Church create(d) her own graphe."

This is an easy slip. Momentarily, it is difficult to make the distinction between the occasion for a statement and the causation of it. The adultery which was being condoned within and by the church at Corinth did not create the teaching on the subject; it did not cause the teaching, it was the occasion for the teaching. The teaching against adultery and the relationship of the church toward adulterers would have been given anyhow, by the same inspiration which gave it in First Corinthians, five. But the case at Corinth furnished the example and opportunity to give the teaching.

Such a statement as that made by Ramm may seem altogether innocent, in view of the difficulty in making proper distinction, but that is the method used by the modernist. Unlike the atheist, he does not forthrightly declare his denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures. He makes the move inch by inch with such imperceptible and apparently innocent expressions that the reader has gone with him in his departure without ever realizing it.

This is the tragedy of depending upon the teachings and writings of modernists for our information about the Scriptures. Ramm has followed them into one of their gradual departures. A similar departure occurred with Guy N. Wood in the Gospel Advocate literature series of 1951. He was following and quoting from modernists and taught that "The domestic tragedy which characterized his (Hosea) life tinged his prophecy with a strange note of sadness; and equipped him with the ability to see the deeper things of God's inexhaustible love."

He failed to make the distinction between Hosea's life's being the occasion and example for the teaching in the book, and his life's being the cause of it. The theory loses sight of the fact that the prophets spoke from God being moved by the Holy Spirit, and teaches that they spoke from and were moved by their own experiences. Thus Woods further teaches: "In these ways Hosea interpreted the unique message dictated by his afflicted heart." But the man who has read 2 Peter 1:21 would know that Hosea spoke as he was moved by the Holy Spirit, rather than from the dictation of his afflicted heart.

— 1102 N. Mound St., Nacogdoches, Texas