There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth. (Guess who)
(Guess who…You may be surprised.)
Martin Luther. from his table talks.
(RC Sproul, Following a discussion of Aquinas and the distinction between Nature and Grace.
How do we explain the fact that the scientific and religious communities have frequently found themselves in conflict with each other, especially in the modern era? Indeed, as far as the general population is concerned, science and religion are seen as being completely at odds. In an ideal world, of course, there would be no such conflict between reason and faith, nature and grace.
And this was Aquinas’s point; even though we do not live in an ideal world, nature and grace are nonetheless entirely complementary. If a theory is false in science, then it must be false in theology as well (and vice versa.) Obviously, the problem is that sinners are doing both the science and the theology. On one side scientists are prone to mistakes, to reading the data wrong, according to bias; and on the other side, the same apples to the theologian. During the sixteenth century, virtually everyone thought that the earth was the center of the solar system. Copernicus was the “devil’s agent,” and it was not just the pope and his bishops who though this; Luther and Calvin thought the same---That Copernicus has somehow undermined the integrity of Scripture. But Copernicus not only proved his position, he proved that the Roman church’s official teaching on the subject was wrong. What he did not do, and this is very important to remember, is correct the teaching of Scripture; rather, he corrected the churches misunderstanding of Scripture. The church leaders had, in effect, treated the Bible as an astronomy manual, and as a result and produced glaringly unsound doctrine. This does not mean, however, that every time conflict arises between science and theology, the scientists are right. On the contrary, the scientist is just as susceptible to poor judgments as the theologian. When a scientist was to argue that the entire universe is evolving slowly as a result of atoms randomly slamming into one another, the church has an obligation to correct the scientist. (RC Sproul, Defending Your Faith (Natural Theology and Science. Pg 84)
The meaning of “day” in Gen 1 has been debated in the church at least since the days of Augustine. The literary form of the passage in its relation to other scriptures is important for its interpretation. Responsible Reformed theologians have differed as to whether Gen 1 teaches a young earth or allows for an old earth. While one of these interpretations must be mistaken, we believe that either position can be held by faithful Reformed people.Note: John Gresham Machen was a professor at Princeton Seminary in the early 1900s, and was founder of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He is best known as a defender of Christian orthodoxy in the face of rising theological liberalism in the churches of his day. Perhaps his most famous book was Christianity and Liberalism, in which he made the case that theological liberalism, with its de-emphasis on human sin and denials of the power of God, is not just a different form of Christianity, but is actually a rival of Christianity.
John Gresham Machen (The Christian View of Man)
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7].
St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, written in about AD 415.: from the John Hammond Taylor translation of 1982)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/lettercastelli.html
Each member of the Rate team holds to a high view of Scripture. This means that we regard the Bible as a uniquely inspired book given to mankind by the Creator. The original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text of Scripture includes a rich variety of literature. These forms include historical narrative, poetry, law, apocalyptic writings, and letters. Of special interest to the study of earth history is the proper interpretation of the Genesis creation account. The details of creation are recorded in the 34 verses of Genesis 1:1-2:3. Over the years there has been much discussion and debate over the meaning of this passage, and three distinct views have surfaced.
First, some readers of Genesis assume the book is an outdated, pre-scientific document which is riddled with errors and is simply wrong. Genesis is said to be just one of many mythical stories form the distant past. Clearly, this view does not recognize Scripture as uniquely inspired by the Creator.
In the second approach to Genesis, the creation passage is seen as a form of poetry which should not be read as literal history... It is said to convey a sense of truth about origins, but it is not a literal description of actual events. The days of creation may represent long geologic periods in deep time. That is, the biblical creation week is a figurative expression for gradual changes which occurred on the earth, perhaps millions or billions of years ago.
The third view takes the creation account a literal narrative history. The RATE group filmy holds to this third position, regarding Genesis 1:1-2:3 as a literal description of how the world and the universe began. The Book of Genesis describes the supernatural, literal, creation week with 24-hour days. Certainly God could have created the physical universe in just six microseconds, or in contrast, over pan of trillions of years. It is clear, however, that the six day period is pattern established for the benefit of humanity. In fact, these six days, plus the day of rest, give rise to our calendar system with its seven-day week.
(The non-literal view) is somewhat inviting because the alternative, the young-earth creation view, conflicts directly with the well established conventions of modern science. However, the important question remains, whether it is legitimate to read the Genesis account as non-literal poetic literature.
Dr. Don DeYoung (Physics Professor, young-earth creationist) Thousands, not Billions P 158-59
Thousands… Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution (Questioning the Age of the Earth) c2005 Master Books. (Note: In the rest of the this Chapter Dr Don DeYoung makes a case for a literal reading by comparing the word choices, tenses, etc of passages in scripture which are considered to be history, with those considered to be poetry. According to DeYoung, Genesis 1 employs style elements and word choices more in keeping with other historic narratives in scripture.
Notes:
to be developed
Question. Those of us with a high view of scripture understand that the Bible is not a science manual. On the other hand, our view of inspiration suggests that the Bible will not make mistakes about matters of fact, science or otherwise. How then are we to read these verses? (List to follow) Are they compatible with a scientific understanding. If not, is the science wrong… or our expectation of language?
Here are the questions I have for you, which are expanded in the links:
Questions by Karl:
http://biologos.org/blog/how-should-biologos-respond-to-dr-albert-mohlers-critique-karls-response/
1.You say that General Revelation cannot trump Special Revelation. Of course, the word “trump” is metaphorical here, and “special” and “general” are loaded terms, but I am taking you to mean that we should not let information from outside the Bible change our minds about what is inside the Bible. The example in your talk would suggest that information from geological records, radioactive dating, cosmic expansion and so on—all of which suggests that the universe is billions of years old—should not persuade us to set aside the natural reading of Genesis which suggests that the earth is young. Is this a fair statement of your position?
No comments:
Post a Comment