ReformationUCC.org

Product Details
SPEAKING THE TRUTH IN LOVE: Life & Legacy of Roger Nicole

* Hardcover: 233 pages
* Publisher: Solid Ground Christian Books (October 30, 2006)
* Language: English
* ISBN-10: 1599250934
* ISBN-13: 978-1599250939

Roger Nicole is a major figure in contemporary American Evangelicalism. His life (he is today in his 90’s) has spanned the heyday of America’s mainline as well as its tailspin to date. David Bailey’s new biography SPEAKING THE TRUTH IN LOVE: Life & Legacy of Roger Nicole, therefore, provides, a wonderful opportunity to reflect on life and theology within the mainline in dialog with evangelical and reformation theology during the same time frame. Observing how Nicole’s theology developed in light of changes in the mainline is instructive for our witness today.

After coming to the United States from Switzerland and a scholarly pietistic reformed home , Nicole received immersion here and served as a mainline minister - an American Baptist - while teaching at what is now known as Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Wenham, MA. He taught there until his retirement and then at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL. Bilingual in French and English, he received two earned doctorates, the second, most notably, from Harvard. While teaching continuously he served ethnic French speaking congregations as well as other pastorates.

While the mainline was drifting away from the authority of scripture, Nicole and various colleagues like James Boice and J.I. Packer were seeking to restate the doctrine of scripture anew. In doing so Nicole and his companions favored the word “inerrant” to describe the Bible’s historical reliability and doctrinal teaching authority in a single term. In arriving at this stance, Nicole found himself gravitating towards the “deductive” presuppositionalist apologetic of Cornelius Van Til instead of B.B. Warfield’s “inductive” evidentialist apologetics. In other words, Nicole believed that one’s doctrine of scripture must start with scripture’s own declarations of its integrity and, most of all, with the words of Jesus himself who said “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).  Based on this approach, Nicole considered apologetic “evidence” for scripture’s truthfulness and accuracy is helpful, plentiful, and persuasive to those willing to hear it. Ultimately though Nicole realized, we adhere to scripture first because Jesus Christ our Lord did. This realization on Nicole’s part hinted at where many in the mainline were headed. First they claimed only to doubt the integrity of the scriptures while still claiming to follow Jesus. Ultimately many in the mainline would reject the supreme Lordship of Jesus as well.

Though scholars may prefer a term other than “inerrant” for one reason or another (as even some stalwart evangelicals like John R. W. Stott did in those days), Nicole’s use of the word “inerrant” was chosen to drive the issue of authority beyond the issue of texts and the historical nit picking which some in the mainline used to discredit the scriptures. Nicole insisted on the word “inerrant” to send the discussion back beyond the texts themselves to the One who endorsed the scriptures - Jesus Christ. It was Jesus Himself who said in John 7:17 “If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own” (NIV) . In other words, Jesus Himself taught us to say with the Church Father Augustine “I believe so that I may understand”.

Along with a general tend to downplay the Bible’s credibility, others in the mainline were finding ways to soften the Bible’s teaching on human sinfulness and the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross. In response, Nicole painstakingly showed the errors in their argumentation by taking on one of the leaders in the movement to eliminate the doctrine of the wrath of God from the teaching of the church: C.H. Dodd. Nicole did this by examining the references Dodd put forth to argue his case, only to show Dodd wrong time after time.

While Dodd attempted to do his work by arguing from the alleged meaning of words in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible known as the Septuagint, Nicole was not satisfied with refuting Dodd. It was not enough, as a reformed man, to argue that we are sinful and that Jesus Christ’s death turns away God’s legitimate wrath. That was the nature of Nicole’s debate with Dodd. More must be taught about the Atonement Nicole insisted to be truly biblical in our theology.

Nicole thought it crucial to also emphasize the complete effectiveness of Christ’s death on the cross and this was the subject of his second doctorate. This concept is sometimes known as “Limited Atonement” but Nicole seemed to prefer the term “Definite Atonement”. By “Definite Atonement” Nicole affirmed that Jesus Christ’s death was perfectly conceived from eternity and perfectly carried out in history to guarantee that the sins of God’s elect would be completely covered and salvation secured. Nicole taught that just as humans cannot offer anything to the Father for their salvation, so too atonement must be all God’s work and not dependent on a human choice for its effectiveness. An illustration Nicole used to explain Christ’s atonement as freely offered to all while effective only for the elect is that of a newspaper advertisement announcing a sale on washing machines. The store does not have to have one washing machine for every issue of the newspaper that’s printed to make this offer in good faith, because not all who hear the offer will buy a new washing machine in this instance.

In the mainline today, evangelicals are overjoyed simply to find another mainline Christian who believes Jesus Christ had to die for our sins and that Jesus is the only way to heaven! As a result this last emphasis of Nicole’s on “Definite Atonement” will seem a bit esoteric to many. Nicole, however, considered it as essential as his teaching on Biblical authority. He even allocated precious research time in defending it with the same zeal used to defend the Bible. Given that fact mainline Christians may wish to reexamine this issue.

Lastly, the mainline defenders of “progressive” thought have attempted at the end of the 20th century to write off the scriptures as “oppressive to women” so they may write off the Bible as oppressive whenever desirable. The argument went something like this: “the Bible portrays women as second class citizens, so we need to ignore the Bible because it’s oppressive.” Nicole, as this biography shows, would find that to be a ridiculous assertion. For his part, Nicole has drawn “friendly fire” from many in the reformed camp outside the mainline for his views on women’s ordination. An advocate of women’s ordination in principle though critical of it’s handling in the mainline experience, Nicole considers his view to be the logical result of believing in an inerrant Bible. This intramural debate will continue, but the point for mainline Christians seeking to maintain an evangelical witness should not be missed though: there is no reason to accept the assertion that the Bible is “oppressive to women” when one of the modern day “Fathers” of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy derives his doctrine of women’s ordination starting with the belief that the Bible as a whole is inerrant!

Bailey’s work has much to commend it. We in the mainline seeking to remember, celebrate, and build on our reformation roots will do well to consider Roger Nicole’s work as a guide to where we may wish to strengthen our own witness in the day’s ahead.

Related books by Nicole: Our Sovereign Saviour