Some time ago I read an article which said in effect that we as Chris­tians ought to have the spiritual and in­tellectual maturity to be able to question the Scriptures. In the name of academic freedom, we ought to be able to put questions to the Bible without being vilified by fellow Christians. Now that sounds plausible, in­deed commendable. Certainly, we Christians ought to be charitable towards one another. The fallacy in this approach, however, is the failure to distinguish the kinds of questions which may be asked of the Scriptures. The church through the centuries has always put questions to the Scriptures. It must continue to do so in every age if it is to survive as a living vital wit­ness of God's truth to each generation.

However a few principles must be kept in mind if we are to ask the right questions of the Bible. The first is this: we may only question the Scripture about subjects which the Bible itself in­troduces. It would be utter foolishness to look to the Bible for information on how to fix a car, fly an airplane, or per­ form open heart surgery. Obviously it does not address these issues.

The Bible, however, does speak of creation, the fall into sin, redemption in Christ, the hope of the Christian life, suffering, the issue of authority, life in the church, marriage, and a host of other issues. Nicodemus asked Christ, "How can a man be saved?" That is a question that can and must be asked of the Scripture. Or, one might ask how a passage is exegeted. What is the primary emphasis on the parable of the sower? Is it on the sowing of the seed or the reception of the gospel? One might even ask ques­tions about Jewish wedding customs in order to better understand the con­text of Christ's first miracle in the wed­ding of Cana. These are questions which the Scripture itself introduces and without asking questions of the Bible we will never arrive at a better understanding of God's Word. The Catechism is full of questions.

The second principle has always been basic to a Reformed herme­neutic; Scripture must be used to inter­pret Scripture. That is not to say that Christians should not use other dis­ciplines such as archaeology or science, or sociology or history but these disciplines are of secondary im­portance. If they conflict with the clear teaching of Scripture they are not to be accepted.

The third principle is that questions must be addressed to the Scripture confessionally. The parameters of our questioning must be set by the con­fessions of the church. The form of subscription is quite correct in this emphasis. We live in a very individ­ualistic age. Individualism leads to lawlessness. From a certain perspec­tive there is not much difference be­tween the theological liberal and the charismatic fundamentalist. Both are subjectivistics, both care little about the historic confession of the church. Both are rather cavalier in their treat­ment of the scriptures. For the liberal, the Bible is subservient to a certain in­tellectual mind-set and for the charis­matic fundamentalist the Scripture is secondary to the subjective emotional religious experience. If the church decides the confessions are unbiblical, they ought to be changed or discarded. But that is to be done ecclesiastically. If that is not done, then questions ad­dressed to the Scriptures must be ad­dressed within the context of and in agreement with the historic confessions of the church.

The fourth principle is that ques­tions must be addressed to the Scrip­ture in the humble awareness that the Bible is a regal word. The Scriptures come with the force of royal com­mand. They are marching orders from the King. As such they are to be un­derstood and obeyed. They are not to be re-interpreted and disobeyed. God's Word does not come to us as polite suggestion or soothing advice. It may not be received with indif­ference, nor may it be intellectually patronized. We servants are not greater than our Master. Far too often the Bible is re-interpreted as an ex­cuse for disobedience. This disobe­dience is validated by pious platitudes about the Spirit's leading, heartwarming anecdote, and handwringing sincerity. But the force of the Scripture as a regal word to be obeyed is totally eclipsed.

The fifth principle is that the Bible must speak for itself. It must be under­stood not merely literally but "literari­ly." If there is a poetic line, if there is a parable, if there is a metaphor or a simile in the Scriptures they must be understood and interpreted as such. Also, when the Bible presents history, we accept it as history, when it pre­sents miracles we accept them as miracles and when it presents facts we believe them as such. If the Bible presents something as history and it is re-interpreted as a parable we do violence to the very nature of Scrip­ture and stifle the proclamation of the Word of God.

This is the crux of the problem the church now faces. It is not that ques­tions are being put to the Scriptures. That has always been the case. But there are new categories of questions that are being raised — questions that are not appropriate to the text of the Scriptures, and answers are being of­fered that are no longer shaped by the authority of the Scriptures themselves. These questions involve "re-interpret­ing" the Bible. Is the account of the creation a parable? Do we have to believe that miracles actually hap­pened? Is the Bible merely the mythol­ogy of Christianity? These questions are being asked by those who claim they are Christian and who often sin­cerely believe they are making the Bible more acceptable or more palatable to the modern mind. But they boil down to asking, is the Bible true, is it trustworthy, can we accept its "event-character?"

These questions are not really a frontal assault on the Scriptures but are more subtle. It is one thing to say, I do not believe in the existence of God and I think the Bible is false. It is quite another thing to say, I believe in God, but the Bible must be under­stood differently than it has historical­ly been understood by the church. The modern educated, scientific mind simply will not accept it. So questions are being asked about the doctrine of creation, about miracles, about the his­torical veracity of the Scriptures.

There is something about the Scrip­tures that is antithetical to modern science. Miracles are beyond the pale of science. The German theologian Rudolph Bultmann cut to the heart of the matter when he asserted flatly "Resurrections don't happen." From an observable scientific perspective he is correct. Something does not come from nothing, seas are not parted, axe heads do not float, giant fish do not swallow people, virgins do not con­ceive, men do not walk on water, and there is not a living soul that has ever witnessed a resurrection. But it is not merely the modern scientific mind that knows these facts; the average Roman citizen in the first century un­derstood this as well. The Athenians mocked the Apostle Paul on Mars Hill when he preached concerning the physical resurrection of Christ.

Some think that it is a mark of Chris­tian academic freedom to cultivate a healthy skepticism regarding the Scriptures. Indeed to vigorously defend the Scriptures is to run the risk of being labeled a "Biblicist." That is the rhetoric of unbelief. Far better to cultivate a childlike faith, than a per­verse skepticism. Modern liberal theology, because it asks the wrong questions, has become a barren spiritual wasteland. The study of God's word is reduced to an empty, hollow exercise in theological jargon and linguistic trivialties. The plain clear sense and teaching of the Scrip­tures is ignored. In a word, it promotes another gospel and, as such, is anathema.

The Scripture notes that ultimately we understand things by faith (Hebrews 11:2). Faith is not irrational but it does challenge our sin-tainted powers of reason. It is the "conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). That is why it must be a gift of the Spirit. Calvin once noted that he who is to be schooled by the Spirit must at­tend the Spirit's school. The school of the Spirit is the Scripture, the Word of God. Students at this school will not only be judged by the answers they give, but also by the questions they ask.