A reply to a message on the subject of animal rights and eating animals

Original Message sent:

___, I would like to clarify a few things. I am not opposed to eating meat...God gave us all a free
will to do as we wish. What I am opposed to is the smallness of some people's hearts when it
comes to treating animals in a humane way. In Eccles 3:19 it says, "Humans and animals are
equal and mankind has no advantage over the beasts."

Genesis 1:29, 30 states "In the beginning, God instructed Adam and Eve to eat only seeds and
fruit..."I have given you all plants that bear seed everywhere on earth, and every tree bearing fruit
which yields seed: they shall be your food..."

Even the animals at this time were vegetarians..."And to the animals on earth, and to all the birds
under the heavens, and to everything that creeps over the earth, wherein there is life, I have given
every green herb for food: and it was so. And God saw everything that He had made and it was
good." (Genesis 1:30)

It was only after the flood that animals were allowed to be eaten. As soon as Noah had left the
ark, he sacrificed many animals to God (Gen. 8:20). Keep in mind that God did not tell Noah to
do this. Evidently, Noah's sacrifice was based on his own beliefs and were not founded on the
word of God, as were neither the sacrifices of Cain and Able. Once God noticed Noah's sacrifice,
"...the Lord said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the
imagination of man's heart is evil..." (Gen. 8:21).

It was only during this time of darkness, (from the flood, up to about 700 BC), that God allowed
humans to eat meat. That is why we find certain passages, such as Leviticus 11:3-22 and
Deuteronomy 14:4-9 telling the Hebrews which animals they could eat and which ones they
could not. These dietary laws, along with the strict slaughtering procedures, were designed to
wean mankind from meat altogether and were never intended to serve as an example for all times

There can be no doubt that God wanted humanity to elevate itself above such barbaric practices,
for the Prophet Hosea says: "They love sacrifice, they sacrifice flesh and eat it, but the Lord has
no delight in them." (Hosea 8:13) Referring to animal sacrifices, God Himself says through His
Prophet Isaiah: "...I will hide my eyes from you: yea, when you make your prayers, I will not
hear: your hands are full of blood...put away the evil of your doings from my eyes; cease to do
evil." (Isaiah 1:11-16)

In closing, the Bible tells us that animals have a soul (Gen. 1:20) and that they possess also a
spirit, (Eccles. 3:19). The original Hebrew word used in this second passage is Ruach and
according to 'Strong's Complete Dictionary of Bible Words', Ruach/Ruwach is used to represent
spirit, "but only of a rational being." If we add this to the fact that God said; "He that killeth an ox
is as if he slew a man; he that sacrifices a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck;" then we must
conclude that, according to GOD, the killing of animals is wrong and St. Paul's anti-vegetarian
passage in 1st Timothy 4:1-5 must, most definitely, be ignored.
In this discussion, I shall respond the verses given. Then I will conclude with some remarks and
give a short extract from a book that I think deals with the root of the situation. All things taken
from other books or sources will be footnoted.1 If you wish to respond I am more than willing to
but please use Word or open office to make the comments.

Introductory remarks
Before starting there are several presuppositions that must be stated in order for the reader to best
understand my position. First, as a Christian in the Reformed Heritage, I confess the system of
doctrine as contained in the historic reformed confessions of faith2 and I believe they are all the
correct in their confession of what the Bible teaches. In addition to that, being an evangelical, I
hold to a High view of Scripture. I not only believe that these are human books but «the
authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not
upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author
thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (2 Pet. 1:19, 21, 2 Tim.
3:16, 1 John 5:9, 1 Thess. 2:13).»3 Not only is the bible true because of God’s own authority,
likewise I believe in the clarity, or the perspicuity, of the sacred Scriptures. Once again the
Westminster Confession of faith says it best: «The whole counsel of God concerning all things
necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in
Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which
nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.
(2 Tim. 3:15–17, Gal. 1:8–9, 2 Thess. 2:2). 4» And if the Bible is true and without error5 and the
basics things are clear, then it logically follows that the Bible is sufficient and that whether or not
«God speaks today» is a irrelevant question because He has once and for all times given us his
people a book.6 I do not believe unless ones holds to the supernatural nature of the Bible, one can
call themselves if they were to be consistent, a Christian of any sort given this doctrine of the
1
While, the citations will be cited, the actual quotations will be done in the French way of
writing. For a direct quotation it shall look like ‘’ : «». And for the integration of another
author’s words into my text they shall be put in brackets «» and a footnote at the end of the
sentence.
2
See :Westminster Standards and/or the 3 Forms of unity (google will pull them up for you
if you are not familiar with these historic protestant documents)
3
The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.,
1996).
4
The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.,
1996).
5
For a more complete and precise definition as to what inerrancy is please see the Chicago
Statement produced by the International Council on Biblical inerrancy :
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?
mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
6
This phrase refers to a popular slogan by the liberal denomination, the United Church of
Christ.
inerrancy and infallibility of scripture is something taught by all Christian traditions since the
very beginning of the Church.

Response to Biblical verses given: 7

_____ I would like to clarify a few things. I am not opposed to eating meat...God gave us all a
free will to do as we wish. Yes, but it must be admitted that the consequence of the fall (Genesis
3), human kind has such fallen into depravity (Jeremiah 17:9) that all aspect of their faculties are
subject to the sinfulness of sin and is flawed (Ephesians 2:1-3). What I am opposed to is the
smallness of some people's hearts This is a subjective problem not one of scripture. What is the
objective standard of «smallness»? Who are you to set the standard for all of humanity on what
is «smallness». This opposition has no rational basis or objective standard on which to make any
sort of moral judgement whatsoever. It comes down to your feelings at the moment of your day.
when it comes to treating animals in a humane way. Why ought we treat animals in «humane»
matter? Here is the problem: humane, according to the C.OED means has the two definitions of
being both benevolent and the original meaning of (stemming from Middle English) of simply
referring to the substance of being human. And no Bible reading person (even Atheists Richard
Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Bill Maher say this) can say with intellectual integrity that
the Bible teaches animal rights. As the great 20th Century theologian J.I. Packer summarizes in
one of his most important works: « The statement at the start of the Bible (Gen. 1:26-27, echoed
in 5:1; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9) that God made man in his own image, so that humans are like
God as no other earthly creatures are, tells us that the special dignity of being human is that, as
humans, we may reflect and reproduce at our own creaturely level the holy ways of God, and thus
act as his direct representatives on earth. This is what humans are made to do, and in one sense
we are human only to the extent that we are doing it.8 » And this is why God then tells Adam in
Genesis that He is to «have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens
and over every living thing that moves on the earth. (v. 28)» Yet, specifically it says man was
given plants to eat and not animals! Why is that and does the rest of the Bible treat animals as
food and sacrifices? The answer is found in Genesis 3 and Romans 5.
When Adam had sinned, he did not just sin for himself but rather all of humanity: «Therefore,
just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all
men because all sinned…»9 And because Adam was not just the head of all humans but has he
was given dominion over the animals and creation before the fall, God cursed Adam and all that
were under him in the pre-fall authority starting with Satan (Genesis 3:14-15), the the woman
(Genesis 3:16), then curses Adam (Genesis 3:17-18). God, in informing Adam says something
really interesting. In verse 17 God says: «because you have…Cursed is the ground» thus
meaning that all of creation is under the curse of the fall and death has entered the world
(Romans 5). And while God prophesies here that he shall eat the plants of the field by the sweat
of his face, there exclusive element is not there as it was in Genesis 1:29-30.
In Eccles 3:19 it says, "Humans and animals are equal and mankind has no advantage over the
beasts."
I have no idea what translation you are using here, but it seems to be very selectively chosen. Let
us look at this verse and the context with a globally respected English translation (NRSV=
7
I shall put in my responses to your original text by the usage of red text.
8
J. I. Packer, Concise Theology : A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale
House, 1995).
9
Romans 5 :12 English Standard Version
approved by the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, World Council of Churches, and was the basis of the
evangelical ESV translation/revision). Verses 18-22:
« I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are
but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the
other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is
vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether
the human spirit goes upwards and the spirit of animals goes downwards to the earth? So I saw
that there is nothing better than that all should enjoy their work, for that is their lot; who can
bring them to see what will be after them? ». Now we see several things that show the problem
with how you used this verse. First, it has to be understood that this Eccles.was not written as a
book of doctrine. It is the collective thoughts of a king who is writing for others about various
thoughts in life that is finally summarized in the last chapter. It is not given to be read as every
phrase is true, but rather every thought was the true though of the writer not that it is true
ontologically. That is the nature of this genre of literature. Job’s friends said things that were not
right and God himself corrects them to Job, yet they were true in the sense that they were things
actually said. In verse 18, the author actually doesn’t say all humans and animals are equal but
rather he is using animals as an insult by referring to the wicked in verse 17. Thus animals are
representing the wicked persons in verse 17 and 18 by humans represent the righteous. And by
saying in verse 19 that the fate of both humans and animals are the same, is paralleled to verses
17 and 18 and the idea of the wicked and righteous. Both the wicked and the righteous at the end
of the day will suffer the same fate of death as both humans and animals do. But the context
gives us more wisdom. In verse 21 it says the author doesn’t know about the after life completely
of that of both animals and humans and thus meaning righteous and wicked humans and he just
says we need to focus on the hear and now and our work. Jesus and his apostles through
revelation give this bit of knowledge to the world in the New Testament and all the questions that
the author has and deep questions are answered. That there is ultimately everlasting life to all
those who call upon the name of the Lord and turn from their sins! We are all animals, wicked
but God has graciously pitied us and offers Himself in Christ for all those who repent the gift of
true humanity, true righteousness and restore us ultimately in our proper place at the time of the
resurrection and starts at conversion.

Genesis 1:29, 30 states "In the beginning, God instructed Adam and Eve to eat only seeds and
fruit..."I have given you all plants that bear seed everywhere on earth, and every tree bearing
fruit which yields seed: they shall be your food..." Responded to these verses above.

Even the animals at this time were vegetarians..."And to the animals on earth, and to all the
birds under the heavens, and to everything that creeps over the earth, wherein there is life, I have
given every green herb for food: and it was so. And God saw everything that He had made and it
was good." (Genesis 1:30)
Responded to these verses above.
It was only after the flood that animals were allowed to be eaten. Yep, that is a part of the loving
gift of God that has continued all into the pages of the New Testament. After the flood Noah did
sacrifice (as Abel did!). The point of the flood was that the World was so wicked by nature
because of the fall that God’s special mercy is extended to a select few. The people of God are
always a minority in this world. And by continuing the example of sacrifice, and by God being
pleased with it (V.21 ‘’The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma) it shows that God has an
established a way of proper worship of him that includes sacrifice and blood. These things are at
this point in history are done because of cultural reasons and expectations, but later on God
would command a more precise and detailed system of sacrifice with a goal in mind. As soon as
Noah had left the ark, he sacrificed many animals to God (Gen. 8:20). Keep in mind that God did
not tell Noah to do this. Evidently,NO! You have Cain and Abel sacrificing before that, plus later
on in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc.. (Written all by Moses) there are animal sacrifices. The
point is not that Noah made something up wily-nilly but rather there is a precedent for these
actions! That is one point of the Cain and Abel account. Noah's sacrifice was based on his own
beliefs and was not founded on the word of God, as were neither the sacrifices of Cain and Able.
Once God noticed Noah's sacrifice, "...the Lord said in His heart, I will not again curse the
ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil..." (Gen. 8:21). There
is no logic to this argument. And in fact, while God did not demand the sacrifice itself, he had
«regard for» the sacrifice of Abel in Genesis 4:4. The point here is that God accepted and
delighted in the worship, which featured animal sacrifices, and saw no problem with it because it
was offered in charity and thankfulness. Cain, sacrificed also but didn’t worship or sacrifice in
the same spirit so it was not regarded with the same approval from the Lord.

It was only during this time of darkness, (from the flood, up to about 700 BC), that God allowed
humans to eat meat. That is why we find certain passages, such as Leviticus 11:3-22 and
Deuteronomy 14:4-9 telling the Hebrews which animals they could eat and which ones they
could not. These dietary laws, along with the strict slaughtering procedures, were designed to
wean mankind from meat altogether and were never intended to serve as an example for all
times… This paragraph is the stupidest thing every written. God commanded the killing of the
animals (as well as millions of humans I might add), there is not one shred of biblical argument
that these «procedures» (which they are NOT! It is Torah, It is law. If an animal killed a human,
then the animal was to be put to death (), yet God commands killing animals. God gives specific
instructions on how to kill the animals (Leviticus chapters 1-9)! Jesus obeyed them and never
spoke out against them! Psalm 19:7 says, « the law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul.»
Psalm 119 is all about the OT law of God. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law but fulfil
it referring to his sacrificial death on the cross (Yes, God requires Human sacrifice in order to
forgive sins.) Ironically during this «darkness», the vast portions of the Old Testament was
written. It was also in this time that God, in providence, helped nourish Elijah with Meat: 1 kings
17: 6 and the ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the
evening, and he drank from the brook. In Judges 6:20 we read this: And the angel of God said to
him, “Take the meat and the unleavened cakes, and put them on this rock, and pour the broth over
them.” And though the angel burned the meat (to prove he was an angel), it resulted not just the
wasting of an animal’s dead body but Gideon ends up killing another animal! Thus two were
killed and it is treated as a good and noble act.
There can be no doubt that God wanted humanity to elevate itself above such barbaric practices,
For over 5000 year of years, and over 99% of the world humans have engaged in these practices.
So are you are to be so culturally imperialistic and condescending to the vast majority of
Americans, North Americans, South Americans, Europeans, Asians, and the rest of the world?
God commands and delighted in the sacrifices of tons of persons (a basic word search will show
that). So yes, I doubt completely that God wanted humanity to «elevate» itself of the practices he
commanded. for the Prophet Hosea says: "They love sacrifice, they sacrifice flesh and eat it,
but the Lord has no delight in them." (Hosea 8:13) Referring to animal sacrifices, God Himself
says through His Prophet Isaiah: "...I will hide my eyes from you: yea, when you make your
prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood...put away the evil of your doings from my
eyes; cease to do evil." (Isaiah 1:11-16) This is what happens when you take verses out of the
entire context of Scripture and one doesn’t have a systematic theology to make sense of verses.
You can do what you want with them. Of course there is nothing in and of itself pleasing to God
by killing animals. No animal can remove sins because they are themselves full of sin as we saw
in the beginning at the fall! They are commanded to be killed to point to Christ the Lamb of God
and scapegoat for the people of God. They exist as a method of teaching to the future sacrifice of
the sinless sacrifice that is once and for all: The God man Jesus Christ. And all food is to be
eaten with thanksgiving.

In closing, the Bible tells us that animals have a soul (Gen. 1:20)No it does not. Read it. It says:
«And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the
earth across the expanse of the heavens. So God created the sea creates and every living creature
that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird
according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.»There is nothing about having a soul and
while they are a good part of creation, God made man in His own image and said man was «very
good». Man is treated as the high point of the created order. and that they possess also a spirit,
(Eccles. 3:19). See my first discussion of how abused this passage is used. And any person who
read Christian scholarship knows how stupid it is to use simply word studies. The context
defines the meaning of words above everything. The same word can be used in a million ways.
For example in English if I say «everybody has two eyes», there is a sense in which that is true
and in normal conversation that is easily understood. But I know known persons with a glass eye,
or lost an eye in an accident. Everyone knows that. There I go again, not every single person
knows that; Does an infant of 3 years? Language is flexible and basic layperson tools like
Stong’s exist for those persons who can’t read the original languages and exist as helping guides
until persons receive education and can understand nuances of the language. In my previous
posts, I have shown that animals are used in a pejorative sense to refer to the relationship between
the good and wicked. Read the context and the words carefully! The original Hebrew word used
in this second passage is Ruach and according to 'Strong's Complete Dictionary of Bible Words',
Ruach/Ruwach is used to represent spirit, "but only of a rational being." If we add this to the fact
that God said; "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrifices a lamb, as if he cut
off a dog's neck;" Once again we see a horrible use of hermeuntics and the ripping apart of verses
to prove points. To whom was the prophet speaking? Where is this Chapter? The prophet was
not speaking to eternal truths just randomly for all people here; rather he was speaking to an
audience in a culture and historic setting. Specifically if you study the book of Isaiah (which is a
good idea) Isaiah was speaking against the corrupt status quo Priests in the temple. As Dr. John
MacArthur explains these verses God« loathes even the sacrifices of the wicked (cf. Prov. 15:8;
28:9). They often killed children to offer in sacrifice (cf. Ezek. 23:39). Some of the Jews were
offering bulls as sacrifices with the same empty heartedness as the pagans offering “a man” on
the altar. breaks a dog’s neck. This refers to offering dogs in sacrifice, which, as unclean (Jer.
15:3; cf. 56:10,11), are associated with swine (Matt. 7:6; 2 Pet. 2:22). To sacrifice a lamb with an
attitude no different than if it were a dog betrayed the empty heartedness of the priest or he that
makes the sacrifice. All of these images are meant to illustrate the shallow hypocrisy of one who
makes an offering to God, but with no more heartbrokenness than a pagan who kills a child,
offers a dog, sacrifices pig’s blood, blesses an idol, and loves such abominations. God will judge
such (v. 4)».10 God demanded sacrifice but the sacrifice has to be brought and accepted in true
sincere saving faith. Otherwise it is pointless. then we must conclude that, according to GOD,
the killing of animals is wrong And because I just shredded that argument it shows we must not
come to this conclusion and St. Paul's anti-vegetarian passage in 1st Timothy 4:1-5 must, most
definitely, be ignored. Whosoever holds to this opinion might as well reject the Bible all together
along with the Christian faith. This is the problem summed up. Even if I was wrong on all other
things I have written so far, you are comforted with God’s clear word and you have to ignore it
just to justify a lie. This is a denial of Scripture. The Bible says «All Scripture is breathed out by
God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that
the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. »11 You either believe the
Bible or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose. Yes, there are differences in interpretation of
Scripture, but if you affirm the Bible as the Word of God, you ought not to be afraid of Bible
verses. Whoever wrote this was able to manipulate his or her selection of handpicked verses, and
choose translations that were not clear, or used flat out paraphrase, but at the end of the day this
person was confronted directly with a verse she couldn’t. It was too clear! I have more respect
for these guys12 who hate the Bible and support equality for all persons and animals but don’t try
to justify their beliefs under the Christian banner. Be consistent and respect the integrity of the
text. If the Bible is the Word of God, your position cannot be defended and if it does not than
why would you want to call yourself a Christian? Liberalism is not Christianity. 13
--------------------------
Conclusion:
The apostle Paul gave directions specifically on this subject in light of the cross and the New
Covenant in 1 Corinthians 8. In the first century Christians had problems with eating meat that
was bought at pagan markets and were dedicated and specifically sacrificed to false Roman gods
or idols. Paul in His wisdom says you may eat this food if your conscience is ok with it. But
then goes on to say: «9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a
stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating [3] in an
idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, [4] if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to
idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ
died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers [5] and wounding their conscience when it is weak,
you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest
I make my brother stumble. »14 Paul goes on to give instructions in other situations when it comes
to food in Chapter 10: « 23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are
lawful,” but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his
neighbour. 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground
of conscience. 26 For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” 27 If one of the
unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you
without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This
10
John Jr MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, electronic ed. (Nashville: Word Pub.,
1997). Is 66:3.
11
2 timothy 3 :16-17 English Standard Bible
12
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleViolence.htm
13
I have included at the end a Chapter from J. Grescham Machen’s Christianity and
Liberalism on the subject of Scritpure. It is excellent reading after this small reply that I
have written.
14
1 Cor. 8 :9-13 English Standard Version.
has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and
for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my
liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I
denounced because of that for which I give thanks?» Paul ends it by saying in verse 31: «So,
whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God». In the subject of meat,
the New Testament put it in the realm of liberty. If you really cared about animals rights you
would have a life style and let people know about it so I could accommodate your conscious, but
also let me remind you that because it was my Facebook account and page (or my home we can
apply the text to) you have an obligation to ignore it or tell me it bothers you and I would have
removed it as an act of kindness but I would not have been obligated to do so because it is my
account. If I posted a picture of a dead cow on your account you would have a right to be upset,
but instead you attacked me publically for a non-sin as demonstrated here (and even if it was the
scriptures give descriptions on how to deal with that). On the subject of animal treatment the
Bible is silent post fall. All we know is that one-day in Heaven: « death shall be no more »15.
Thus until then we have to liberty to eat what we want and an obligation to respect the choices of
others and not force our preferences down others throat (not a underhanded reference to Foie
gras) and because it was my account you were in the wrong, hand down. If you don’t like it keep
your mouth shut or tell me and I will remove it or unfriend you for the sake of your conscience,
but I am not a mind reader and I have no desire to be one and I’m far too busy to take care of the
feelings of all the hundreds of friends I have on Facebook. I have no problem with
accommodation if I am told what I need to accommodate. You have said you are not a vegetarian
for cultural reasons, yet there are many people who do not eat meat. It is your choice. If you
think it is wrong, then do it eat it and ff you don’t then continue. But don’t use my religion
Christianity to justify rudeness and don’t rape my with these arguments pretending that this is
actual Christianity. The reason why I took my time to respond to each point, is because I respect
you and love you, but your puerile comments were hurtful and uncalled for by all objective
standards of asking several persons to read every (both private and public16). I always have an
olive branch open to all persons and I hope you repent. I will as I always have treat you with
respect and love when I see you and I will take the time always to answer your question and
objections, but please realise you do not believe the Gospel, you believe in liberalism, in man. 17

What is the Gospel? : Please watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fp5cR5Bd7M

-JPG2

15
Rev. 21 : 4 English Standard Version
16
Note to reader : Given there were both public (on my Facebook profile page :
www.facebook.com/Grigoletti ) and private (through private message on Facebook), I have
decided to respond to a private message with the arguments given but post this publically
because of various public insults to my character.
17
I reccomend this book (very cheap) : http://www.amazon.com/What-Gospel-9marks-
Greg-Gilbert/dp/1433515008
 Chapter 4
“The Bible”18
Modern liberalism, it has been observed so far, has lost sight of the two great presuppositions of
the Christian message—the living God, and the fact of sin. The liberal doctrine of God and the
liberal doctrine of man are both diametrically opposite to the Christian view. But the divergence
concerns not only the presuppositions of the message, but also the message itself.
The Christian message has come to us through the Bible. What shall we think about this Book in
which the message is contained?
According to the Christian view, the Bible contains an account of a revelation from God to man,
which is found nowhere else. It is true, the Bible also contains a confirmation and a wonderful
enrichment of the revelations which are given also by the things that God has made and by the
conscience of man. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his
handiwork”—these words are a con- firmation of the revelation of God in nature; “all have
sinned and fall short of the glory of God”—these words are a confirmation of what is attested by
the conscience. But in addition to such reaffirmations of what might conceivably be learned
elsewhere—as a matter of fact, be- cause of men’s blindness, even so much is learned elsewhere
only in comparatively obscure fashion—the Bible also contains an account of a revelation which
is absolutely new. That new revelation concerns the way by which sinful man can come into
communion with the living God.
The way was opened, according to the Bible, by an act of God, when, almost nineteen hundred
years ago, outside the walls of Jerusalem, the eternal Son was offered as a sacrifice for the sins of
18
The entire book (Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen) can be found online
and downloaded as a pdf here : http://reformedaudio.org/audio/machen/Machen%20-
%20Christianity%20&%20Liberalism.pdf
men. To that one great event the whole Old Testament looks forward, and in that one event the
whole of the New Testament finds its center and core. Salva- tion then, according to the Bible, is
not something that was discovered, but something that happened. Hence appears the uniqueness
of the Bi- ble. All the ideas of Christianity might be discovered in some other re- ligion, yet there
would be in that other religion no Christianity. For Christianity depends, not upon a complex of
ideas, but upon the narra- tion of an event. Without that event, the world, in the Christian view, is
altogether dark, and humanity is lost under the guilt of sin. There can be no salvation by the
discovery of eternal truth, for eternal truth
47brings naught but despair, because of sin. But a new face has been put upon life by the blessed
thing that God did when He offered up His only begotten Son.
An objection is sometimes offered against this view of the contents of the Bible,1 Must we, it is
said, depend upon what happened so long ago? Does salvation wait upon the examination of
musty records? Is the trained student of Palestinian history the modern priest without whose
gracious intervention no one can see God? Can we not find, in- stead, a salvation that is
independent of history, a salvation that de- pends only on what is with us here and now?
The objection is not devoid of weight. But it ignores one of the pri- mary evidences for the truth
of the gospel record. That evidence is found in Christian experience.
Salvation does depend upon what happened long ago, but the event of long ago has effects that
continue until today. We are told in the New Testament that Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice
for the sins of those who should believe on Him. That is a record of a past event. But we can
make trial of it today, and making trial of it we find it to be true. We are told in the New
Testament that on a certain morning long ago Jesus rose from the dead. That again is a record of
a past event. But again we can make trial of it, and making trial of it we discover that Jesus is
truly a living Savior today.
But at this point a fatal error lies in wait. It is one of the root errors of modern liberalism.
Christian experience, we have just said, is useful as confirming the gospel message. But because
it is necessary, many men have jumped to the conclusion that it is all that is necessary. Having a
present experience of Christ in the heart, may we not, it is said, hold that experience no matter
what history may tell us as to the events of the first Easter morning? May we not make ourselves
altogether inde- pendent of the results of Biblical criticism? No matter what sort of man history
may tell us Jesus of Nazareth actually was, no matter what his- tory may say about the real
meaning of His death or about the story of His alleged resurrection, may we not continue to
experience the pres- ence of Christ in our souls?
The trouble is that the experience thus maintained is not Christian experience. Religious
experience it may be, but Christian experience it certainly is not. For Christian experience
depends absolutely upon an event. The Christian says to himself: “I have meditated upon the
prob- lem of becoming right with God, I have tried to produce a righteous- ness that will stand in
His sight; but when I heard the gospel message I learned that what I had weakly striven to
accomplish had been accom- plished by the Lord Jesus Christ when He died for me on the Cross
and completed His redeeming work by the glorious resurrection. If the
48
thing has not yet been done, if I merely have an idea of its accom- plishment, then I am of all men
most miserable, for I am still in my sins. My Christian life, then, depends altogether upon the
truth of the New Testament record.”
Christian experience is rightly used when it confirms the documen- tary evidence. But it can
never possibly provide a substitute for the documentary evidence. We know that the gospel story
is true partly because of the early date of the documents in which it appears, the evi- dence as to
their authorship, the internal evidence of their truth, the impossibility of explaining them as being
based upon deception or upon myth. This evidence is gloriously confirmed by present experi-
ence, which adds to the documentary evidence that wonderful direct- ness and immediacy of
conviction which delivers us from fear. Chris- tian experience is rightly used when it helps to
convince us that the events narrated in the New Testament actually did occur; but it can never
enable us to be Christians whether the events occurred or not. It is a fair flower, and should be
prized as a gift of God. But cut it from its root in the blessed Book, and it soon withers away and
dies.
Thus the revelation of which an account is contained in the Bible embraces not only a
reaffirmation of eternal truths— itself necessary because the truths have been obscured by the
blinding effect of sin— but also a revelation which sets forth the meaning of an act of God.
The contents of the Bible, then, are unique. But another fact about the Bible is also important.
The Bible might contain an account of a true revelation from God, and yet the account be full of
error. Before the full authority of the Bible can be established, therefore, it is necessary to add to
the Christian doctrine of revelation the Christian doctrine of in- spiration. The latter doctrine
means that the Bible not only is an ac- count of important things, but that the account itself is
true, the writers having been so preserved from error, despite a full maintenance of their habits of
thought and expression, that the resulting Book is the “infallible rule of faith and practice.”
This doctrine of “plenary inspiration” has been made the subject of persistent misrepresentation.
Its opponents speak of it as though it in- volved a mechanical theory of the activity of the Holy
Spirit. The Spirit, it is said, is represented in this doctrine as dictating the Bible to writers who
were really little more than stenographers. But of course all such caricatures are without basis in
fact, and it is rather surprising that in- telligent men should be so blinded by prejudice about this
matter as not even to examine for themselves the perfectly accessible treatises in which the
doctrine of plenary inspiration is set forth. It is usually con- sidered good practice to examine a
thing for one’s self before echoing the vulgar ridicule of it. But in connection with the Bible, such
schol-
49
arly restraints are somehow regarded as out of place. It is so much eas- ier to content one’s self
with a few opprobrious adjectives such as “me- chanical,” or the like. Why engage in serious
criticism when the people prefer ridicule? Why attack a real opponent when it is easier to knock
down a man of straw?2
As a matter of fact, the doctrine of plenary inspiration does not deny the individuality of the
Biblical writers; it does not ignore their use of ordinary means for acquiring information; it does
not involve any lack of interest in the historical situations which gave rise to the Biblical books.
What it does deny is the presence of error in the Bible. It sup- poses that the Holy Spirit so
informed the minds of the Biblical writers that they were kept from falling into the error that mar
all other books. The Bible might contain an account of a genuine revelation of God, and yet not
contain a true account. But according to the doctrine of inspira- tion, the account is as a matter of
fact a true account; the Bible is an “in- fallible rule of faith and practice.”
Certainly that is a stupendous claim, and it is no wonder that it has been attacked. But the trouble
is that the attack is not always fair. If the liberal preacher objected to the doctrine of plenary
inspiration on the ground that as a matter of fact there are errors in the Bible, he might be right
and he might be wrong, but at any rate the discussion would be conducted on the proper ground.
But too often the preacher desires to avoid the delicate question of errors in the Bible--a question
which might give offence to the rank and file—and prefers to speak merely against “mechanical”
theories of inspiration, the theory of “dictation,” the “superstitious use of the Bible as a talisman,”
or the like. It all sounds to the plain man as though it were very harmless. Does not the liberal
preacher say that the Bible is “divine”—indeed that it is the more divine because it is the more
human? What could be more edify- ing than that? But of course such appearances are deceptive.
A Bible that is full of error is certainly divine in the modern pantheizing sense of “divine,”
according to which God is just another name for the course of the world with all its imperfections
and all its sin. But the God whom the Christian worships is a God of truth.
It must be admitted that there are many Christians who do not ac- cept the doctrine of plenary
inspiration. That doctrine is denied not only by liberal opponents of Christianity, but also by
many true Chris- tian men. There are many Christian men in the modern Church who find in the
origin of Christianity no mere product of evolution but a real entrance of the creative power of
God, who depend for their salva- tion, not at all upon their own efforts to lead the Christ life, but
upon the atoning blood of Christ—there are many men in the modern Church who thus accept the
central message of the Bible and yet be-
50
lieve that the message has come to us merely on the authority of trust- worthy witnesses unaided
in their literary work by any supernatural guidance of the Spirit of God. There are many who
believe that the Bi- ble is right at the central point, in its account of the redeeming work of Christ,
and yet believe that it contains many errors. Such men are not really liberals, but Christians;
because they have accepted as true the message upon which Christianity depends. A great gulf
separates them from those who reject the supernatural act of God with which Christi- anity stands
or falls.
It is another question, however, whether the mediating view of the Bible which is thus maintained
is logically tenable, the trouble being that our Lord Himself seems to have held the high view of
the Bible which is here being rejected. Certainly it is another question—and a question which the
present writer would answer with an emphatic negative—whether the panic about the Bible,
which gives rise to such concessions, is at all justified by the facts. If the Christian make full use
of his Christian privileges, he finds the seat of authority in the whole Bible, which he regards as
no mere word of man but as the very Word of God.
Very different is the view of modern liberalism. The modern liberal rejects not only the doctrine
of plenary inspiration, but even such re- spect for the Bible as would be proper over against any
ordinarily trustworthy book. But what is substituted for the Christian view of the Bible? What is
the liberal view as to the seat of authority in religion?2
The impression is sometimes produced that the modern liberal sub- stitutes for the authority of
the Bible the authority of Christ. He cannot accept, he says, what he regards as the perverse moral
teaching of the Old Testament or the sophistical arguments of Paul. But he regards himself as
being the true Christian because, rejecting the rest of the Bi- ble, he depends upon Jesus alone.
This impression, however, is utterly false. The modern liberal does not really hold to the
authority of Jesus. Even if he did so, indeed, he would still be impoverishing greatly his
knowledge of God and of the way of salvation. The words of Jesus, spoken during His earthly
minis- try, could hardly contain all that we need to know about God and about the way of
salvation; for the meaning of Jesus’ redeeming work could hardly be fully set forth before that
work was done. It could be set forth indeed by way of prophecy, and as a matter of fact it was so
set forth by Jesus even in the days of His flesh. But the full explanation could naturally be given
only after the work was done. And such was actually the divine method. It is doing despite, not
only to the Spirit of God, but also to Jesus Himself, to regard the teaching of the Holy
51
Spirit, given through the apostles, as at all inferior in authority to the teaching of Jesus.
As a matter of fact, however, the modern liberal does not hold fast even to the authority of Jesus.
Certainly he does not accept the words of Jesus as they are recorded in the Gospels. For among
the recorded words of Jesus are to be found just those things which are most abhor- rent to the
modern liberal Church, and in His recorded words Jesus also points forward to the fuller
revelation which was afterwards to be given through His apostles. Evidently, therefore, those
words of Jesus which are to be regarded as authoritative by modern liberalism must first be
selected from the mass of the recorded words by a critical proc- ess. The critical process is
certainly very difficult, and the suspicion of- ten arises that the critic is retaining as genuine
words of the historical Jesus only those words which conform to his own preconceived ideas. But
even after the sifting process has been completed, the liberal scholar is still unable to accept as
authoritative all the sayings of Jesus; he must finally admit that even the “historical” Jesus as
reconstructed by modern historians said some things that are untrue.
So much is usually admitted. But, it is maintained, although not eve- rything that Jesus said is
true, His central “life-purpose” is still to be regarded as regulative for the Church. But what then
was the life- purpose of Jesus? According to the shortest, and if modern criticism be accepted, the
earliest of the Gospels, the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to
give his life a ransom for many” (Mark x. 45). Here the vicarious death is put as the “life-
purpose” of Jesus. Such an utterance must of course be pushed aside by the modern liberal
Church. The truth is that the life purpose of Jesus discovered by modern liberalism is not the life
purpose of the real Je- sus, but merely represents those elements in the teaching of Jesus—
isolated and misinterpreted—which happen to agree with the modern program. It is not Jesus,
then, who is the real authority, but the modern principle by which the selection within Jesus’
recorded teaching has been made. Certain isolated ethical principles of the Sermon on the Mount
are accepted, not at all because they are teachings of Jesus, but because they agree with modern
ideas.
It is not true at all, then, that modern liberalism is based upon the authority of Jesus. It is obliged
to reject a vast deal that is absolutely essential in Jesus’ example and teaching—notably His
consciousness of being the heavenly Messiah. The real authority, for liberalism, can only be “the
Christian consciousness” or “Christian experience.” But how shall the findings of the Christian
consciousness be established? Surely not by a majority vote of the organized Church. Such a
method would obviously do away with all liberty of conscience. The only authority,
52
then, can be individual experience; truth can only be that which “helps” the individual man. Such
an authority is obviously no author- ity at all; for individual experience is endlessly diverse, and
when once truth is regarded only as that which works at any particular time, it ceases to be truth.
The result is an abysmal skepticism.
The Christian man, on the other hand, finds in the Bible the very Word of God. Let it not be said
that dependence upon a book is a dead or an artificial thing. The Reformation of the sixteenth
century was founded upon the authority of the Bible, yet it set the world aflame. Dependence
upon a word of man would be slavish, but dependence upon God’s word is life. Dark and gloomy
would be the world, if we were left to our own devices and had no blessed Word of God. The Bi-
ble, to the Christian is not a burdensome law, but the very Magna Charta of Christian liberty.
It is no wonder, then, that liberalism is totally different from Christi- anity, for the foundation is
different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its
life. Liberalism on the other hand is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men.
FOOTNOTES 1. For what follows compare History and Faith, 1915, pp. 13-15.
2. It is not denied that there are some persons in the modern Church who do neglect the context
of Bible quotations and who do ignore the human characteristics of the Biblical writers. But in an
entirely unwar- rantable manner this defective way of using the Bible is attributed, by insinuation
at least, to the great body of those who have held to the in- spiration of Scripture.
3. For what follows, compare “For Christ or Against Him,” in The Presbyterian, for January 20,
1921, p. 9.