As much as I’m tired of the hoopla surrounding Calvin, I liked these first two quotes.
I’m not up for a debate right now but wanted to post these. I will say that regarding the third quote, I realize there is some room for leeway and some people believe in an older earth not necessarily just because of science (I hope). You can still comment if you’d like but I won’t be able to respond to this post.
——
‘Lamenting that many churches today have lost confidence in the truthfulness and authority of the Bible, Julius Kim, associate professor of Practical Theology at Westminster Seminary in California, called Christians to heed Calvin’s voice.
“In many of our churches the Bible has been functionally rejected in place of what we could gain from some sort of rational exercise on the one hand or some sort of emotional experience on the other,” Kim said at the national conference, hosted by Desiring God Ministries, on Friday.
“We need to hear Calvin’s voice once again calling us back to the Scriptures as our only source of truth and life,” he emphasized.’
Evangelicals Urged to Heed Calvin’s Voice
——
So long as your mind entertains any misgivings as to the certainty of the word, its authority will be weak and dubious, or rather it will have no authority at all. Nor is it sufficient to believe that God is true, and cannot lie or deceive, unless you feel firmly persuaded that every word which proceeds form him is sacred, inviolable truth.
–John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008) 359 (3.2.6).
HT: Michael Metts
——
Question: Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible!
This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man’s fallible dating methods to interpret God’s Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can’t be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God’s Word. Once this ‘door’ has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible.
A young Earth—it’s not the issue!
Jeff,
Since I have not yet fully formed an opinion on the issue of the historicity of Gen 1-11, I am not criticizing your conclusion, but I do have two questions regarding the hermeneutical limitations in the quote above.
1. If scientific conclusions do not play a role in our interpretation of the Bible, at what point to we allow extra-textual information to influence our Bible reading?
2. Are you willing to be consistent in your application of this hermeneutical principle across the text? Examples would include Josh 10,(Did the moon stop moving, how did the sun stand still when it does not move?) and Ex 12 (600,000 men came out of Egypt in the Exodus).
Hi Daniel,
Although I’m not in a state of mind to debate as I mentioned in my post I can mention a few things.
1. Extra biblical writings are important for linguistics, learning about the thought of the people at the time which would include the Apocrypha and other writings of the times etc. as opposed to scientists who the majority of are looking for answers specifically to exclude God. I’m not a “Bible only” fundamentalist.
2. We still say that the sun sets as if the sun revolves around the earth. Yet we know this isn’t the case. I’m saying the Biblical writers knew this, but it isn’t in the same vein as God being the creator in the way that it was written.
There are other Answers In Genesis that would address those things. What they say isn’t the gospel truth of course but I personally would agree with much of what they say.
I’m sorry but I have to leave it at that. I’m really not feeling well. But I’m glad you commented and hopefully others can chime in. I’ll be reading.
Jeff
If God can’t stop the earth in its tracks he is not.
The Bible trumps everything. If something seems to contradict it just wait around and sooner or later the extra Biblical assertion will be proven false. Evolution’s day is coming.
Jeff,
Thanks for the reply. Sorry, you are not feeling well, and I hope you recover soon. Like I said I am not really disagreeing your conclusions, simply some of the hermenietical conclusions I perceive you to operating from. If my perception is wrong, please correct me.
1. Why do you differentiate between linguistics/history/sociology and science. Both groups are attempts by fallible humans to explain the world around them. What is you basis for accepting some disciplines and not other?
1a. In the realm of history and literature, in all of this debate over the last few weeks, many people have claimed that Gen 1-3 is not written as myth but as concrete history. This is contrary to the vast amount of opinions and work done in Gen. That does not automatically mean it is false, but I have not yet seen any justification for such a claim.
2. I think the evidence is against your conclusion that people in the ANE knew the Earth rotates around the sun. Did you mean “I’m NOT saying the Biblical writers knew this.” If so then see rest of the comment to Stan.
Stan,
I am not arguing that God could not have stopped the Earth, he certainly could have, but that’s not what the text says. The text says the Sun stood still. If then we are required to take that claim as absolute without any other information, then we must believe that the sun rotates around the Earth and not vice versa.
I think Jeff’s comment moves in the right direction. We can say that Josh 10 is phenominological only because scientific input has shown us that the Earth’s rotation makes it appear as though the Sun rises and sets. If we did not have that scientific input we would then accept the claim that Sun actually stopped moving. But since we do have that scientific input we describe Josh as phenominological.
So then my question is, if we allow scientific discovery to effect our understanding of Josh 10, why not our interpretation of Gen 1-3.
Hi,
Quickly, I’m differentiating between scientists who are basically trying to prove how the earth came about presupposing there is no God and Christian scholars who use linguistics, extra Biblical writings, history that are relevant to better determine how words were used, how culture influenced them etc.
I’m a terrible apologist. I’m not that smart.
In Genesis:
-I believe Adam was one person even though the name is referred to as mankind in a couple or a few places
-I believe days are days, but respect the opinions of people who don’t believe that’s necessarily what the writer was saying or knowing
‘Did you mean “I’m NOT saying the Biblical writers knew this.”’
Correct. Sorry for the typo.
Jeff
Jeff,
Like I said, I have not made up my own mind yet, but I am glad to hear you say “but respect the opinions of people who don’t believe that’s necessarily what the writer was saying or knowing.” They probably won’t change your mind but there are some great Christian scientists and philosophers who accept evolutionary theory but argue very well for intelligent design and take Biblical authority seriously.
Hope you are feeling better.
I have absolutely no respect for the opinion that man evolved from apes or anything else. None. It is unbelief pure and simple. People can try to use fancy arguments to try and sound all sophisticated about it but the result is still unbelief and is worthy of nothing more than scorn.
“Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible!”
I believe in OEC. I really dislike when people assume that my OEC view means that I have a low view on Scripture. A lot of YEC advocates seem to think that the only possible way of interpreting Genesis is that it means 7 literal 24-hour days (despite the fact that the majority of the ECF’s that commented on it did not believe in the 24-hour day interpretation).
Jeff, I do appreciate that you said that you respect the opinions of others who do not believe in the same interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. Sadly that is not an attitude that everyone displays when discussing the Creation account.
As far as the days thing goes, I don’t think that’s a primary issue. But if people absolutely reject it as if it isn’t a possibility, that would be as bad as a fundamentalist condemning OEC.
As Stan said, I do reject evolution as far as humans evolving from some other species or God not able to create species that already have characteristics so that they can live well in their environment.
Jeff
Thanks for the link Jeff.
Daniel,
Those are thoughtful (and thought-provoking) questions. Here’s my take . . .
The difference between the Joshua account and the Genesis account is this: science can prove with reasonable certainty that the earth rotates around the sun. However, in dealing with the issue of origins, science has no ability whatsoever to offer provable answers. On such matters it can only theorize and philosophize. The theories of origins presented by mainstream science are driven by the underlying assumptions of the scientists. So I would accept the scientific proof of the earth revolving around the sun very seriously, yet completely discount the scientific establishment’s views on matters that are way beyond their purview (e.g. origins).
This is not to say that scientific research has nothing to contribute to our understanding of origins. Both young earth and old earth creationists have done a good job of studying the observable data (fossils, rock layers, astronomy, etc.) and interpreting them within a basic Biblical framework. Atheistic evolutionists take this exact same data and interpret it within their own philosophical framework.
What I find most egregious is when people who claim to be Bible believers allow the non-Christian’s philosophically-driven theory to influence their interpretation of Scripture, rather than using Scripture to take apart both the underlying philosophy and the theory which springs from it.
So, the Joshua account deals with an issue that is provable, observable and repeatable (the earth circling the sun), but the Genesis account deals with an issue that is requires an underlying philosophy to augment the scientific data.
Hope this is helpful.
Blessings,
Derek
Derek,
Thanks for the helpful input. A few questions though.
You say: “The theories of origins presented by mainstream science are driven by the underlying assumptions of the scientists.” By this do you mean an assumed atheism. If so, then I would have to disagree. There are many Christian scientists and philosophers who believe that God is the ultimate creator, yet believe in evolutionary development. Intelligent Design theory is a very viable option to atheistic evolution and literal creationism. (Again, not saying that is my position, I think it still has a few theological problems. Like I said I have not made up my mind yet.)
Also, you say you accept the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun, because science proves it. Yet, that is in direct contradiction to the propositional claim of Josh 10. You do not accept evolution because it has not been proved, and therefore still accept the Gen 1-3 account as the literal creation account. Such a hermeneutical process says that you accept the Bible to be true until science proves it wrong. It seems to reason that in an attempt to retain Biblical authority you have actually lowered it. Do you get my reasoning here?
Also, you say: “the Genesis account deals with an issue that is requires an underlying philosophy to augment the scientific data.” but so does the Josh 10 account. Prior to our modern knowledge of mathematics the Western world thought the Bible taught the Earth was center of the universe. When the scientific data showed otherwise the underlying philosophy had to be changed. If the astronomers and mathematicians had retained their same philosophical assumptions then they would not have come to the conclusion that the Earth rotates around the Sun.
Finally, my point in all of this is not to argue for evolution, but for a consistent application of hermeneutics. If you reject the scientific claims in regards to Gen 1-3 a priori because they contradict the propositional statements therein, then you must also a priori reject the scientific claims in regards to Josh 10, because they contradict the propositional statements there in the same way. If you reject evolution because you think the scientific conclusions do not match the data, then you are on stable hermeneutical ground. However, if you reject evolution only because it seems to contradict the claims of Gen 1-3 you must be consistent and reject all scientific conclusions that seem to contradict the Bible.
Does that help?
Daniel,
You should really move past Joshua 10. As Jeff said: We still say that the sun sets as if the sun revolves around the earth. Yet we know this isn’t the case. I’m saying the Biblical writers knew this, but it isn’t in the same vein as God being the creator in the way that it was written.
It seems to me that this is an example of phenomenological language. At least I think that’s the term. It’s been a while.
Referring to the sun standing still in Joshua has no bearing whatsoever on Genesis.
Sunset. Sunrise. It’s how we earthlings see it.
I’ve never said to my wife: How beautiful the sun looked as it disappeared from sight due to the rotation of the earth.
Instead I say: What a beautiful sunset.
Does that have anything to do with my understanding of our solar system? No.
The weather forecaster on the news speaks of sunrise and sunset. I don’t question his knowledge of weather systems.
OK. I do question his knowledge of weather systems but it has nothing to do with his use of sunrise and sunset.
Stan,
Thanks again, but I think you are proving my point. We can still say the Sun sets and the Sun rises even though we know that is not the actual reality of the situation because of the scientific data we now have. So then, why can’t we understand Gen 1-3 as describing God being the creator without it having to be the actual literal reality IF the scientific data we now have shows it to be otherwise?
Daniel,
Yes, that helps me to see that you’re not quite catching what I’m saying. I share your concern for a consistent hermeneutic, and that is primarily what I am addressing. I’m going to break this down very specifically now.
You said: you say you accept the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun, because science proves it. Yet, that is in direct contradiction to the propositional claim of Josh 10. You do not accept evolution because it has not been proved, and therefore still accept the Gen 1-3 account as the literal creation account. Such a hermeneutical process says that you accept the Bible to be true until science proves it wrong. It seems to reason that in an attempt to retain Biblical authority you have actually lowered it. Do you get my reasoning here?
You certainly mistook my meaning. I see no contradiction between the heliocentric nature of our solar system and what is stated in Joshua 10, and I would never advocate an either/or relationship between science and Scripture with one canceling out the other. Real science can only confirm the Bible, never contradict it.
Joshua 10 is written from the perspective of a person standing on the earth. The Holy Spirit wisely expressed Himself through that person in a way that neither confirmed nor denied heliocentrism. He did not address the issue at all. It would indeed appear that the sun “stopped” to a person standing on the earth, and that is what the Israelites recorded – exactly what they saw with their own eyes, in the most literal terms. It was an accurate account of an observable event in human history, a recorded miracle. The heliocentric nature of our solar system is an observable, repeatable, and provable phenomenon, and it is certainly not denied (nor even addressed) in Joshua 10. When we compare our provable, scientifically enlightened observations with Joshua’s primitive observation of a miracle, there is no contradiction between them.
When we talk about origins, the game changes because we don’t have any provable theories (the theories are not just unproven, they’re inherently unprovABLE). No human being saw the creation of the universe. We’re not comparing a Biblical writer’s eye witness observation with a provable fact of science. We’re comparing GOD’S OWN ACCOUNT of creation with the unbiblical assumptions of unbelievers. The evolutionary theory of history is not observable, repeatable, or provable (in any normal sense). Therefore, it cannot be considered real science, but a scientific philosophy. It’s not necessarily an atheistic philosophy, but certainly a non-Biblical and sometimes an anti-Biblical philosophy. Christians who believe in evolution are following non-biblical thinking about origins, whether they like it or not. Genesis addresses the issue of origins directly and in a way that limits the possibilities, and it gives us an alternative scientific philosophy to that held by unbelievers. Shame on us if we choose their theories over God’s Own Words.
I’m all for understanding the physical universe according to real science, and adjusting hermeneutics accordingly if needed. Science sometimes shows us that we have misapplied Scripture, and that’s helpful. Real science deals with what is observable, repeatable, and provable – things that can be subjected to the scientific method, which is the foundation of all true science. My point is that evolution and the heliocentrism of our solar system are two completely different matters when viewed in light of the scientific method. Thus, they can (and should) be treated differently from a hermeneutical standpoint. Where Scripture deals with provable phenomena, let’s use science to confirm an interpretation, or adjust the interpretation if needed. Where Scripture deals with unprovable phenomena, let’s not substitute man’s opinions for God’s Truth. This doesn’t make for an inconsistent hermeneutic, it makes for a consistent view of both science and Scripture.
I don’t think I can say it any more clearly than that.
Blessings,
Derek
Thanks Stan and Derek.
Jeff
Daniel,
IF the scientific data we now have shows it to be otherwise?
That’s a HUGE IF. And I completely disagree with the evolutionists on the interpretation of the data. Evolution has not been proven by any stretch of the imagination.
I would suggest that many ideas expressed by some of the Intelligent Design folks are correct. Some slip into some form of common descent which I think is unfortunate. Irreducible complexity cannot be denied by a rational mind. It can be denied by a mostly rational mind that is blinded by a commitment to naturalism.
What’s phenomenological about creation as described in Genesis?
Good stuff Derek.
Derek,
That is very clear and helpful to understand your reasoning. Thanks for the specificity and I hope my own specificity is understood in the same way. Here are a few observations.
1. This sentence: “I would never advocate an either/or relationship between science and Scripture with one canceling out the other. Real science can only confirm the Bible, never contradict it.” These two statements are contradictory. If real science can only confirm Scripture then it follows that all science that does not confirm Scripture is false. If all science that does not confirm Scripture is false then it follows that Scripture cancels out all none confirming science.
2. Your suggestion about the Josh text not making a claim for or against heliocentricity only works because we now the world is not geocentric. Until the discovery of the Earth’s rotation everyone reading this passage would have understood it to be making a literal claim, ie the literally Sun stopped moving, including the author and original readers. Because we now know that this is not the case we can correctly call the description phenomenological, but only because science has shown such.
Therefore in order for this text to not be claiming geocentricity you are left with 3 options:
1. The author understood the solar system to be heliocentric and himself knew he was speaking phenomenologically.
2. Extracting assumed knowledge from a description is not valid in reading the text (ie. Even though we know the author thought the world was geocentric and described is as such, since he did not make a specific proposition concerning such the text does not speak to it). I would add if you follow this you have difficulty saying God exists in the OT since there is not statement “God exists”.
3. Authorial intent here does not matter and is somehow superseded by the Holy Spirit’s control of the writing so that no specific proposition of helio or geocentricity is made (ie, The text is phenomenologically true because the Holy Spirit guided him to not write a statement that would not cohere with objective reality, even though the author’s intent is false).
Only #3 is tenable, and while I would disagree with it, it is an accepted understanding of inspiration by many Christians throughout the centuries. This is the position you seem to take when you say “The Holy Spirit wisely expressed Himself through that person in a way that neither confirmed nor denied heliocentrism.” However, I would also point out this would require us see the Holy Spirit’s message differing from the author’s.
3. Again you claim that evolutionary theory is requires unbiblical assumptions. This is a circular argument. You can only claim that the assumptions of evolution are unbiblical if you first interpret the text to rule out evolution. And your claim that evolution theory should not be included in interpreting the text is based on the claim that it is unbiblical.
4. Your discussion of provability boils down to your statement “Where Scripture deals with provable phenomena, let’s use science to confirm an interpretation, or adjust the interpretation if needed. Where Scripture deals with unprovable phenomena, let’s not substitute man’s opinions for God’s Truth.” Therefore, you are saying that provable scientific conclusions have authority to change our interpretation of the text but not unprovable ones. Therefore when science proves our interpretations wrong we can change them. What then if something we think unprovable becomes provable?
5. “The evolutionary theory of history is not observable, repeatable, or provable (in any normal sense). Therefore, it cannot be considered real science, but a scientific philosophy.” If science must be “observable, repeatable, or provable” then most mathematics and physics cannot be considered science for most are not empirical. Also, it something must be observable and repeatable we do not have much recourse when it comes to history.
6. You say “Genesis addresses the issue of origins directly and in a way that limits the possibilities, and it gives us an alternative scientific philosophy to that held by unbelievers.” This is only true if you can produce a tenable interpretation that shows the text to be actually making claims to literal origins and not written as ANE myth.
Stan,
Yes! That’s exactly what I am trying to say! If you disagree with evolution because you think the scientific conclusions do not match the data, then I have no problem whatsoever. I just don’t think you should reject them a priori because of Gen 1-3.
Daniel,
Sheer volume of arguments does not make a position correct. In my view, conformity to the Word of God is the standard of Truth. I do not believe the Bible contains mere myths.
I will not have the time to go through your counter-arguments point by point. Suffice it to say we are now disagreeing on the presuppositional level, so until one of our presuppositions changes, we’ll just be arguing ad infinitum. Scripture prohibits that (hopefully not in a section you take as a myth – sorry, that was a low blow – but it does illustrate my point.)
Please do not take my lack of response for a lack of argument. I believe that you and I could make arguments and counters on this topic for many years to come. Fruitlessly.
I hope my underlying thesis has not gone entirely unnoticed: you can’t say we have to accept or reject the conclusions of scientists wholesale for the sake of hermeneutical consistency. Different passages require different types of analysis; and every idea proposed by scientists has to be weighed on its own merits. Facts are one thing. Theories are another. Opinions are another. Assumptions are another. The argument linking Genesis/Evolution to Joshua/Heliocentricity is broken.
I enjoyed the exchange but must move on now . . .
Thanks and God bless you,
Derek
Thanks Derek,
I too had fun!
Derek said: In my view, conformity to the Word of God is the standard of Truth. I do not believe the Bible contains mere myths.
That sums it up for me. I’m not saying Daniel doesn’t believe the same.
Thank you guys for picking up the conversation. I would like to leave it there too.
Jeff
Early in this thread, there was a long back and forth about the “sun standing still.”
Even science knows that the solar system is not stationary in space; so all of your “objective statements about it really meaning the earth stood still” are poppycock.
The Bible said the sun stood still; hence, the sun stood still. The consequence of the sun standing still in its solar orbit was described in the immediately following words of the Joshua passage.
The point is that there were consequences when the sun stood still. The Bible is inerrant, trustworthy, and “2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
“Instruction in righteousness” includes science. There have been scientists throughout the ages who have found answers in God’s word to the questions raised in scientific endeavors. Daniel’s experiment in Dan 1 is a fine example of the scientific method.
We can always trust the Bible. We can never trust our interpretation of the Bible if it does not interpret itself.
If
Thanks Dave.
I like these quotes. I may put them in a post if I get brave enough:
You can find them in this excellent post: Scripture or Science?