Outline:
3. Science Interpreting Scripture.
4. Science Interpreting Scripture: A Case Study (Galileo Galilei and Heliocentrism).
1. Science and Scripture. Return to Outline.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.
(Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad Litteram), 1.18.37; PL, 34:260; trans. The Literal Meaning of Genesis: Volume 1, Ancient Christian Writers, No. 41, trans. J. H. Taylor, [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1982], p. 41.) Preview.
Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Let us suppose that in explaining the words, And God said, “Let there be light,” and light was made, one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of spiritual light in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until unerring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion proposed by man in his ignorance.
(Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad Litteram), 1.19.38; PL, 34:260; trans. The Literal Meaning of Genesis: Volume 1, Ancient Christian Writers, No. 41, trans. J. H. Taylor, [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1982], p. 42.) Preview.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this 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 and 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.
(Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad Litteram), 1.19.39; PL, 34:261; trans. The Literal Meaning of Genesis: Volume 1, Ancient Christian Writers, No. 41, trans. J. H. Taylor, [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1982], pp. 42-43.) Preview.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
When I hear this or that brother Christian, who is ignorant of these matters and thinks one thing the case when another is correct, with patience I contemplate the man expressing his opinion. I do not see it is any obstacle to him if perhaps he is ignorant of the position and nature of a physical creature, provided that he does not believe something unworthy of you, Lord, the Creator of all things (1 Macc. 1:24). But it becomes an obstacle if he thinks his view of nature belongs to the very form of orthodox doctrine, and dares obstinately to affirm something he does not understand.
(Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, 5.5.9, PL, 32:709; trans. Saint Augustine, Confessions, Oxford World’s Classics, trans. Henry Chadwick, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008], pp. 76-77. Cf. NPNF1, 1:82; WSA, I/1:118-119; FC, 21:109.) Compare: ccel.org.
Charles H. Spurgeon:
Two sorts of people have wrought great mischief, and yet they are neither of them worth being considered as judges in the matter: they are both of them disqualified. It is essential that an umpire should know both sides of a question, and neither of these is thus instructed. The first is the irreligious scientist. What does he know about religion? What can he know? He is out of court when the question is—Does science agree with religion? Obviously he who would answer this query must know both of the two things in the question. The second is a better man, but capable of still more mischief. I mean the unscientific Christian, who will trouble his head about reconciling the Bible with science. He had better leave it alone, and not begin his tinkering trade. The mistake made by such men has been that in trying to solve a difficulty, they have either twisted the Bible, or contorted science. The solution has soon been seen to be erroneous, and then we hear the cry that Scripture has been defeated. Not at all; not at all. It is only a vain gloss upon it which has been removed.
(C. H. Spurgeon, The Greatest Fight in the World, [London: Passmore and Alabaster, 1892], p. 31.)
2. The “Book” of Nature. Return to Outline.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
These matters you set out most wisely with us, my God, through your book, your solid firmament so that we may discern everything by a wonderful contemplation, even though for the present only by signs and times and days and years.
(Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, 13.18.23, PL, 32:855; trans. Saint Augustine, Confessions, Oxford World’s Classics, trans. Henry Chadwick, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008], pp. 286-287. Cf. NPNF1, 1:198; WSA, I/1:358; FC, 21:428-429.) Compare: ccel.org.
Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
Some people read books in order to find God. Yet there is a great book, the very appearance of created things. Look above you; look below you! Note it; read it! God, whom you wish to find, never wrote that book with ink. Instead, He set before your eyes the things that He had made. [Alius, ut inveniat deum, librum legit. Est quidam magnus liber ipsa species creaturae: superiorem et inferiorem contuere, attende, lege. Non deus, unde eum cognosceres, de atramento litteras fecit ante oculos tuos posuit haec ipsa quae fecit.]
(S. Augustinus, Sermo Mai, 126.6; In: Patrologiæ Latinæ Supplementum: Volumen II, [Paris: Éditions Garnier Frères,1960], col. 505; trans. Vernon J. Bourke, The Essential Augustine, [Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1974], p. 123.)
Francis Bacon:
To conclude therefore, let no man, upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy: but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both; only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and not to swelling; to use, and not to ostentation; and again, that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together.
(Francis Bacon, “The two Books of Francis Bacon of the Proficience and Advancement of Learning Divine and Human,” Book I; In: The Philosophical Works of Francis Bacon, ed. John M. Robertson, [London: George Routledge and Sons Limited, 1905], pp. 45-46.)
Cf. Francis Bacon:
…for our Saviour saith, You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God; laying before us two books or volumes to study, if we will be secured from error; first, the Scriptures, revealing the Will of God; and then the creatures expressing His Power; whereof the latter is a key unto the former: not only opening our understanding to conceive the true sense of the Scriptures, by the general notions of reason and rules of speech; but chiefly opening our belief, in drawing us into a due meditation of the omnipotency of God, which is chiefly signed and engraven upon His works. Thus much therefore for divine testimony and evidence concerning the true dignity and value of Learning.
(Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning, No. 719 of Everyman’s Library, ed. G. W. Kitchen, [London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1915], pp. 41-42.)
Ezekiel Hopkins:
God hath composed two Books, by the diligent study of which we may attain to the knowledg of Himself, the Book of the Creatures, and the Book of the Scriptures. The Book of the Creatures is written in those great Letters of Heaven and Earth, the Air and Sea, and by these we may spell out somewhat of God. He made them for our Instruction, as well as for our Service. The least and vilest of them read us Lectures of his Glorious Attributes; nor is it any Absurdity to day, That as they are all the Works of his Mouth, so they are all the Words of his Hand.
(Ezekiel Hopkins, The Vanity of the World: With Other Sermons, [London: Printed for Nathaniel Ranew and Jonathan Robinson, 1685], “The Vanity of the World,” pp. 16-17.)
Cotton Mather:
Chrysostom, I remember, mentions a Twofold Book of GOD; the Book of the Creatures, and the Book of the Scriptures: GOD having taught first of all us διὰ πραγμάτων, by his Works, did it afterwards διὰ γραμμάτων, by his Words. We will now for a while read the Former of these Books, ’twill help us in reading the Latter: They will admirably assist one another. The Philosopher being asked, What his Books were; answered, Totius Entis Naturalis Universitas. All Men are accommodated with that Publick Library. Reader, walk with me into it, and see what we shall find so legible there, that he that runs may read it. Behold, a Book, whereof we may agreeably enough use the words of honest Ægardus; Lectu hic omnibus facilis, et si nunquam legere didicerint, & communis est omnibus, omniumque oculis expositus.
(Cotton Mather, The Christian Philosopher: A Collection of the Best Discoveries in Nature, with Religious Improvements, [London: Eman Matthews, 1721], “Religio Philosophica; Or, The Christian Philosopher,” p. 8.)
Note: Lectu hic omnibus facilis, et si nunquam legere didicerint, & communis est omnibus, omniumque oculis expositus. [This is easy for all to read, even if they have not learned to read, and it is common to all and it is open to the eyes of all. (Cotton Mather, The Christian Philosopher, ed. Winton U. Solberg, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994], fn. 5, p. 18.)]
A. H. Strong:
We must not limit revelation to the Scriptures. The eternal Word antedated the written word, and through the eternal Word God is made known in nature and in history. Internal revelation is preceded by, and conditioned upon, external revelation. In point of time earth comes before man, and sensation before perception. Action best expresses character, and historic revelation is more by deeds than by words. Dorner, Hist. Prot. Theol., 1:231-264—“The Word is not in the Scriptures alone. The whole creation reveals the Word. In nature God shows his power; in incarnation his grace and truth. Scripture testifies of these, but Scripture is not the essential Word. The Scripture is truly apprehended and appropriated when in it and through it we see the living and present Christ. It does not bind men to itself alone, but it points them to the Christ of whom it testifies. Christ is the authority. In the Scriptures he points us to himself and demands our faith in him. This faith, once begotten, leads us to new appropriation of Scripture, but also to new criticism of Scripture. We find Christ more and more in Scripture, and yet we judge Scripture more and more by the standard which we find in Christ.”
(Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium and Commonplace Book Designed for the Use of Theological Students: Three Volumes in One, [Philadelphia: The Griffith & Rowland Press, 1912], Vol. I, p. 13.)
Bernard L. Ramm:
If we believe that the God of creation is the God of redemption, and that the God of redemption is the God of creation, then we are committed to some very positive theory of harmonization between science and evangelicalism. God cannot contradict His speech in Nature by His speech in Scripture. If the Author of Nature and Scripture are the same God, then the two books of God must eventually recite the same story.
(Bernard L. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955], p. 32.)
Note: If there is such a thing as “general revelation” (and I firmly believe that there is, cf. Rom. 1:18-32; 2:14-15; Psa. 19:1-7; Act. 14:15-18; 17:23-29; etc.) then “general revelation” has the exact same ontological status and validity as “special revelation.” Both are equally veracious because both are God speaking (“general revelation” is revelation). God is truth (Jhn. 14:6 cf. Heb. 6:18), He does not speak some things that are more true and other things that are less true. This is not to say that the content of “special” and “general revelation” is identical, “general revelation” does not tell us of Christ or Salvation, but this does not make the content of “general revelation” any less true or authoritative. The difference between the two is a matter of content (and, to a degree, perspicuity) not veracity.
Cf. B. B. Warfield:
In its wider sense it includes all modes in which God makes himself known to men; or, passively, all knowledge concerning God however attained, inasmuch as it is conceived that all such knowledge is, in one way or another, wrought by him. In its narrower sense it is confined to the communication of knowledge in a supernatural as distinguished from a natural mode; or, passively, to the knowledge of God which has been supernaturally made known to men. The reality of general revelation is disputed by none but the anti-theist and agnostic, of whom one denies the existence of a God to make himself known, and the other doubts the capacity of the human intellect, if there be a God, to read the vestiges he has left of himself in his handiwork. Most types of modern theology explicitly allow that all knowledge of God rests on revelation; that God can be known only because and so far as he reveals himself.
(B. B. Warfield, “Revelation;” In: The Universal Cyclopædia: A New Edition: Vol. X, ed. Kendall Adams, [New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1900], p. 79.)
Cf. Romans 1:20:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood [νοούμενα, i.e. with the mind] through what has been made [ποιήμασιν, lit. done], so that they are without excuse.
(New American Standard Bible: 1995 Edition.)
Cf. John Murray:
We must not tone down the teaching of the apostle in this passage. It is a clear declaration to the effect that the visible creation as God’s handiwork makes manifest the invisible perfections of God as its Creator, that from the things which are perceptible to the senses cognition of these invisible perfections is derived, and that thus a clear apprehension of God’s perfections may be gained from his observable handiwork.
(John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968], on Rom. 1:20, p. 40. Cf. Idem, pp. 51-53.)
The Belgic Confession of Faith:
We know him by two means: first, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to contemplate the invisible things of God, namely, his eternal power and Godhead, as the Apostle Paul saith (Rom. i. 20). All which things are sufficient to convince men, and leave them without excuse.
Secondly, he makes himself more clearly and fully known to us by his holy and divine Word; that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to his glory and our salvation.
(The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article II; trans. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes: Volume III, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877], p. 384.)
Edmund Calamy:
Blessed be God, who has not only given us the Book of the Creatures, the Book of Nature to know himself and his Will by, but also and especially the Book of the Scriptures, whereby we come to know those things of God and of Christ, which neither the Book of Nature, nor of the Creatures can reveal unto us.
(Edmund Calamy, The Godly Man’s Ark: Or, City of Refuge in the Day of His Distress: The Eighteenth Edition Corrected, [London: for Tho. Parkhurst, 1709], p. 55.)
John Arrowsmith: (Westminster Divine)
The book of Scripture without doubt hath the pre-eminence in worth by many degrees; but that of the creatures had the precedency in time, and was extant long before the written word.
(John Arrowsmith, Armilla Catechetica: A Chain of Principles, [Edinburgh: Thomas Turnbull, 1822], p. 88.)
Matthew Poole:
…they had a natural knowledge of God, it was taught them, as before, by the light of nature, and by the book of the creatures. Though this was not sufficient to save them, yet it was sufficient to leave them without excuse.
(Matthew Poole, Annotations Upon the Holy Bible: In Three Volumes: Vol. III, [London: James Nisbet and Co., 1853], on Rom. 1:21, p. 481.)
Francis Turretin:
VIII. Rom. 1:19, 20 (concerning that which may be known of God, gnōstō tou Theou) does not favor a common religion by which all may be saved and which is sufficient for salvation. (1) Only that which may be known (gnōsio) is there spoken of and not that which is to be believed (pistō), which alone is saving. (2) Paul says the knowledge (to gnōston) of God is manifest in the Gentiles, but not all knowledge (pan gnōston) (viz., what may be learned from the book of nature, but not all that may be known of him from his word and which must be known in order to salvation, such as the mystery of the Trinity, and of Christ the Redeemer, etc.).
(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume One, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1992], 1.4.8, pp. 11-12. Cf. Idem, 1.3.4, p. 6; Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, trans. G. T. Thompson, ed. Ernst Bizer, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007], p. 1.)Matthew Henry:
Note, What we see of God, the part of the hand that writes in the book of the creatures and the book of the scriptures (Lo, these are parts of his ways, Job 26:14), may serve to possess us with awful thoughts concerning that of God which we do not see.
(Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Volume 4: Isaiah to Malachi, [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994], on Daniel 5:1-9, p. 828.)
J. V. Fesko:
Since God has written two books, Scripture and nature, should we not use them both when we defend the faith? Why would we leave half of God’s revelatory arsenal sitting on the shelf?
(J. V. Fesko, “Classic Reformed Theology and Defending the Faith;” In: Table Talk Magazine: July 2019: Faithfulness in the Little Things.) Online.
Note: Fesko is speaking on the use of “general revelation” in apologetic endeavors, but it is no less relevant here.
3. Science Interpreting Scripture. Return to Outline.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
For if reason be found contradicting the authority of Divine Scriptures, it only deceives by a semblance of truth, however acute it be, for its deductions cannot in that case be true. On the other hand, if, against the most manifest and reliable testimony of reason, anything be set up claiming to have the authority of the Holy Scriptures, he who does this does it through a misapprehension of what he has read, and is setting up against the truth not the real meaning of Scripture, which he has failed to discover, but an opinion of his own; he alleges not what he has found in the Scriptures, but what he has found in himself as their interpreter.
(Augustine of Hippo, Letter [To Marcellinus] 143.7; PL, 33:588; trans. NPNF1, 1:492.) See also: ccel.org.
Galileo Galilei:
…it seems to me very prudent of her to propose and of you to concede and to agree that the Holy Scripture can never lie or err, and that its declarations are absolutely and inviolably true. I should have added only that, though the Scripture cannot err, nevertheless some of its interpreters and expositors can sometimes err in various ways.
(Galileo Galilei, “Letter to Benedetto Castelli [1613, December 21];” trans. Maurice A. Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989], p. 49.) See also: inters.org.
John Walton:
Sometimes new advances in science do make us go back to the biblical text to see if we have been working on some wrong assumptions. Otherwise we would still believe that the sun revolved around the earth. This does not mean that the Bible is submitting to science, only that we are always ready to recognize that our interpretations, however long they have been around, are fallible and subject to reconsideration. Whether such reconsideration is warranted by scientific advances, findings of more literature from the ancient Near East, or by growing knowledge of the language of the biblical text, we dare not reach the static point where our interpretations are granted the authority that belongs only to the Bible itself.
(John Walton, “Four Responses To Chapter Two: John Walton;” In: J. Daryl Charles, ed., Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation, [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2013], p. 72.) Preview.
Note: E.g. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994], p. 295.
A. A. Hodge:
1st. God’s works and God’s word are equally revelations from him. They are consequently both alike true, and both alike sacred, and to be treated with reverence. It is absolutely impossible that when they are both adequately interpreted they can come into conflict. Jealousy on either part, is treason to the Author and Lord of both.
…4th. Science is only the human interpretation of God’s works, it is always imperfect and makes many mistakes. Biblical interpreters are also liable to mistakes and should never assert the absolute identity of their interpretations of the Bible with the mind of God.
5th. All sciences in their crude condition have been thought to be in conflict with Scripture. But as they have approached perfection, they have been all found to be perfectly consistent with it. Sometimes it is the science which is amended into harmony with the views of the theologian. Sometimes it is the views of the theologian which are amended into harmony with perfected and demonstrated science, e.g., the instance of the universal and now grateful acceptance by the church of the once abhorred Copernican system.
…7th. There are hence two opposite tendencies which equally damage the cause of religion, and manifest the weakness of the faith of its professed friends. The first is the weak acceptance of every hostile conclusion of scientific speculators as certainly true; the constant confession of the inferiority of the light of revelation to the light of nature, and of the certainty of the conclusions of Biblical exegesis and Christian theology to that of the results of modern science; the constant attempt to accommodate the interpretation of the Bible, like a nose of wax, to every new phase assumed by the current interpretations of nature. The second and opposite extreme is that of jealously suspecting all the findings of science as probable offenses against the dignity of revelation, and of impatiently attacking even those passing phases of imperfect science which for the time appear to be inconsistent with our own opinions. Standing upon the rock of divine truth, Christians need not fear, and can well afford to await the result. PERFECT FAITH, as well as perfect love, CASTETH OUT ALL FEAR. All things are ours, whether the natural or the supernatural, whether science or revelation.—See Isaac Taylor’s “Restoration of Belief,” pp. 9, 10.
(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1878], pp. 246, 247, 247-248.)
A. H. Strong:
Science and Scripture throw light upon each other. The same divine Spirit who gave both revelations is still present, enabling the believer to interpret the one by the other and thus progressively to come to the knowledge of the truth.
(Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium and Commonplace Book Designed for the Use of Theological Students: Three Volumes in One, [Philadelphia: The Griffith & Rowland Press, 1912], Vol. I, p. 27.)
Cf. A. H. Strong:
The Spirit of Christ enables us to compare nature with Scripture, and Scripture with nature, and to correct mistakes in interpreting the one by light gained from the other. …Since the Scriptures have the same author as nature, the same principles are illustrated in the one as in the other.
(Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium and Commonplace Book Designed for the Use of Theological Students: Three Volumes in One, [Philadelphia: The Griffith & Rowland Press, 1912], Vol. I, p. 28.)
Charles Hodge:
It is admitted that theologians are not infallible, in the interpretation of Scripture. It may, therefore, happen in the future, as it has in the past, that interpretations of the Bible, long confidently received, must be modified or abandoned, to bring revelation into harmony with what God teaches in his works. This change of view as to the true meaning of the Bible may be a painful trial to the Church, but it does not in the least impair the authority of the Scriptures. They remain infallible; we are merely convicted of having mistaken their meaning.
(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. I, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1883], p. 59.)
Deborah B. Haarsma, Loren D. Haarsma:
Rather than placing theology over science or science over theology, remember that God is sovereign over both. The Holy Spirit can guide us to new wisdom and understanding of both. If God uses Scripture to teach something about the natural world, then Christians must listen. If God uses Our experiences, including things learned from science, to improve our understanding of Scripture, then Christians must listen. Science should not cause us to throw out part of the Bible or to interpret it in a way that conflicts with the rest of the Bible. On the other hand, if a passage can be interpreted in several ways that are consistent with the rest of the Bible, then God might use science to help us reach a better understanding of that passage. God created the world, and God inspired Scripture. Our goal should be to listen to what God is telling us from both sources.
(Deborah B. Haarsma, Loren D. Haarsma, Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution, [Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2007], p. 25.)
Christian Reformed Church, Acts of Synod 1972:
This view of the task of the church offers real possibilities for arriving at a Christian perspective on the relationship between biblical authority and scientific findings. For by proclaiming Jesus Christ as the key to God’s creation revelation and the heart of God’s inscripturated revelation the church can point the way to a clear recognition that there are no real contradictions between these two ways in which God reveals himself to us. In both creation and Scripture God addresses us with full authority. The conflicts that sometimes arise are due to discrepancies in our responses to these two modes of revelation. As Reformed Christians we must take both revelations seriously. Taking Scripture seriously leads to recognizing science as a legitimate expression of the cultural mandate. Therefore we must seek to profit from and make thankful use of the findings of science as seen in the light of Scripture. Motivated by these convictions we often discover that the results of scientific investigation become the occasion for reviewing and sometimes, upon further biblical reflection, even revising certain standing interpretations of the Bible. When in faithful obedience to God’s full-orbed revelation we are led to a re-evaluation of certain biblical data, we should not resist such insights as lead us to a clearer understanding of both Scripture and creation in their revelational unity.
(Christian Reformed Church, Acts of Synod 1972: June 13 to 23, 1972, [Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1972], Supplement — Reports: Report 44: The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority (Arts. 51, 52), p. 540.)Herman Bavinck:
No one has any objection, no one can have any objection, to the facts advanced by geology. These facts are just as much words of God as the content of Holy Scripture and must therefore be believingly accepted by everyone. But these facts must be rigorously distinguished from the exegesis of these facts that geologists present. The phenomena that the earth exhibits are one thing; the combinations, hypotheses, and conclusions that the students of earth science connect with these phenomena are quite another.
(Herman Bavinck, In the Beginning: Foundations of Creation Theology, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999], p. 126.)
Note: The same is true of the Scriptures. The facts of Scripture “must be rigorously distinguished from the exegesis of these facts” which theologians present. This sentiment is undoubtedly one with which Bavinck would wholeheartedly agree.
Cf. Herman Bavinck:
Augustine already urged believers not too quickly to consider a theory to be in conflict with Scripture, to enter the discussion on these difficult subjects only after serious study, and not to make themselves ridiculous by their ignorance in the eyes of unbelieving science. This warning has not always been faithfully taken to heart by theologians. Geology, it must be said, may render excellent service to us in the interpretation of the creation story. Just as the Copernican worldview has pressed theology to give another and better interpretation of the sun’s “standing still” in Joshua 10; as Assyriology and Egyptology form precious sources of information for the interpretation of Scripture; and as history frequently finally enables us to understand a prophecy in its true significance, so also geological and paleontological investigations help us in this century to gain a better understanding of the creation story.
(Herman Bavinck, In the Beginning: Foundations of Creation Theology, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999], p. 120.)
Robert Letham:
Special revelation in the light of general revelation. While the revelation of God in creation and providence is incapable of leading us to salvation, given the presence of sin, it is still necessary in order to understand special revelation. The two elements interact, so much so that neither is complete without the other. As we need Scripture rightly to appreciate general revelation, so creation informs our grasp of special revelation; without it we could not understand the Bible at all. The history of the world and the church, geography, politics, economics, personal interactions, and psychology are necessary ingredients so as to appreciate what God says in Scripture. The biblical books were composed at definite times and places. To grasp what the Spirit says in these books, we need to understand the languages in which they were written, the situations that occasioned their production, the place each occupies in the ongoing history of redemption, the particular cultural and environmental factors that surround them, political and military events, and so on.
(Robert Letham, Systematic Theology, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2019], 1.2.4, p. 58.) Preview.
4. Science Interpreting Scripture: A Case Study (Galileo Galilei and Heliocentrism). Return to Outline.
Martin Luther:
There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth [Josh. 10:12].”
(Martin Luther, Luther’s Works: American Edition: Volume 54: Table Talk, gen. ed. Helmut T. Lehmann, [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967], “Luther Rejects the Copernican Cosmology,” June 4, 1539, No. 4638, pp. 358-359.)
Cf. John Calvin:
The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion—no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle אף, aph, denoting emphasis, is introduced—YEA, he hath established it.
(John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms: Vol. IV, trans. James Anderson, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans], Psalm XCIII.1, pp. 6-7.)
Cf. John Owen:
What alteration is made herein by the late hypothesis, fixing the sun as in the centre of the world, built on fallible phenomena, and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions, against evident testimonies of Scripture and reasons as probable as any that are produced in its confirmation, is here of no consideration: for it is certain that all the world in former ages was otherwise minded…
(John Owen, Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Part 5, §. 2; In: The Works of John Owen: Vol. XI, [Philadelphia: The Leighton Publications, 1869], p. 310.)
Peter Enns:
One need only think of Copernicus (1473-1543), the Polish astronomer who determined that the earth revolved around the sun, a heretical view at the time. The Catholic Church resisted this evidence for many years (Galileo was imprisoned for it in 1633). Eventually, however, the previously held “biblical” geocentric view was abandoned by the church. This is just one of many examples that could be given where evidence outside the Bible, in this case scientific, affected how we view the Bible. Or to put it better, the scientific evidence showed us that the worldview of the biblical authors affected what they thought and wrote, and so the worldviews of the biblical authors must be taken into consideration in matters of biblical interpretation.
(Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], p. 14.)Tremper Longman III:
God reveals himself in Scripture and through nature. Both are “books” that involve interpretation. Hermeneutics provides interpretive principles that are applied to Scripture in order to exegete (bring the meaning out of ) the biblical text. The philosophy of science yields the scientific method that provides the methodological principle to explore nature in order to support theories from nature.
God is the ultimate author of both Scripture and nature. When both are correctly interpreted, they will not conflict. Since God is the ultimate author of both Scripture and nature, both are true, though our interpretations of either may not be. To be open to a different interpretation than the one we hold is not to betray Scripture but to honor it. The same, of course, is true of our interpretation of nature.
Scripture does not trump nature, at least not in the way some people think.[fn. 18: It is correct to say that Scripture gives a fuller revelation than nature, but the point that the two will not conflict when properly interpreted still stands.] Some people are so certain of their interpretation of Scripture that when they hear a scientific theory that doesn’t fit with their interpretation, even a theory like evolution that is overwhelmingly supported by not only the fossil record but also genetics and numerous other fields of research, they don’t even blink an eye as they reject it as “anti-Bible.”
We should learn a lesson from the “Galileo episode.” I am referring, of course, to the seventeenth-century reaction to Galileo’s arguments in support of a heliocentric solar system earlier presented by Copernicus. Legends have grown up around this story, including the misunderstanding that Galileo was tortured. Indeed, as Kerry Magruder has pointed out, Galileo had powerful supporters within the church (like evolutionary creationism has in the evangelical Protestant church today) and opponents among university physicists.[fn. 19: Magruder, “Galilei, Galileo,” 298–300.] Even so, Galileo’s teaching was resisted by the church because some thought the results of his research threatened the Bible’s teaching that the earth was the center of the cosmos and that the sun, moon, and stars revolved around the earth in a celestial sphere. After all, his church critics charged, the Bible says the sun rises and sets, and the Psalms proclaim that God “set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved” (Ps. 104:5).
Today we “know better.” The Bible is speaking phenomenologically (that is, from the perspective of how we perceive matters on the surface), not scientifically, about the rising and setting of the sun and metaphorically about the earth not being moved. We even use that language today. We are comfortable with the idea that the Bible is not teaching cosmology but rather assuming an ancient cosmology.
The Galileo episode should be an object lesson to the church as it responds to scientific theories that at first glance seem to conflict with the Bible. Christians should not automatically reject scientific conclusions that seem to contradict traditional interpretations of Scripture. As Calvin wisely pointed out in the sixteenth century: “If the Lord has willed that we be helped in physics, dialectic, mathematics, and other like disciplines [we might imagine that today he would add biology], by the work and ministry of the ungodly, let us use this assistance. For if we neglect God’s gift freely offered in these arts, we ought to suffer just punishments for our sloths.”[fn. 20: Calvin, Institutes 2.2.15, 1:275, quoted in Zachman, “Free Scientific Inquiry,” 73.] I have found Pope John Paul II’s statement in the same vein about the relationship between science and faith wise and illuminating: “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”[fn. 21: John Paul II to Reverend George V. Coyne, SJ, Vatican, June 1, 1988, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19880601_padre-coyne.html.]
Truth be told, science can help us read the Bible better. In the case of cosmic and human origins, I suggest that science helps us see more clearly what is obvious. The Bible teaches us that God created everything but is not interested in telling us how he created the cosmos or humanity.
(Tremper Longman III, Confronting Old Testament Controversies: Pressing Questions about Evolution, Sexuality, History, and Violence, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2019], pp. 22-24.) Preview.
Galileo Galilei:
With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth—whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands, and eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of things past and ignorance of those to come. These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities of the common people, who are rude and unlearned. For the sake of those who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses of such passages, together with the special reasons for which they were set down in these words. This doctrine is so widespread and so definite with all theologians that it would be superfluous to adduce evidence for it.
(Galileo Galilei, “Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany: Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science, [1615];” In: Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, trans. Stillman Drake, [Garden City: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957], pp. 181-182.) See also. inters.org.
Charles Hodge:
The proposition that the Bible must be interpreted by science is all but self-evident. Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible, and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science. As this principle is undeniably true, it is admitted and acted on by those who, through inattention to the meaning of terms, in words deny it. When the Bible speaks of the foundations or of the pillars of the earth, or of the solid heavens, or of the motion of the sun, do not you and every other sane man interpret this language by the facts of science? For five thousand years the Church understood the Bible to teach that the earth stood still in space, and that the sun and stars revolved around it. Science has demonstrated that this is not true. Shall we go on to interpret the Bible so as to make it teach the falsehood that the sun moves round the earth, or shall we interpret it by science and make the two harmonize? Of course, this rule works both ways. If the Bible cannot contradict science, neither can science contradict the Bible. …There is a two-fold evil on this subject against which it would be well for Christians to guard. There are some good men who are much too ready to adopt the opinions and theories of scientific men, and to adopt forced and unnatural interpretations of the Bible, to bring it to accord with those opinions. There are others who not only refuse to admit the opinions of men, but science itself, to have any voice in the interpretation of Scripture. Both of these errors should be avoided. Let Christians calmly wait until facts are indubitably established, so established that they command universal consent among competent men, and then they will find that the Bible accords with those facts. In the meantime, men must be allowed to ascertain and authenticate scientific facts in their own way, just as Galileo determined the true theory of the heavens. All opposition to this course must be not only ineffectual, but injurious to religion.
(Charles Hodge, “The Bible in Science;” In: New York Observer, Mar. 26, 1863, pp. 98-99; Quoted In: Charles Hodge: What is Darwinism? And Other Writings on Science and Religion, eds. Mark A. Noll, David N. Livingstone, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994], pp. 54-55. Cf. Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, [Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans, 1995], pp. 183-184.)
Cf. Mark A. Noll:
Hodge says much the same thing about the relationship between biblical theology and natural science in “The Unity of Mankind,” Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 31 (June 1859), and in his Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1872-73), 1:59, 170-71, 573-74.
(Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, [Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans, 1995], fn. 12, p. 184.)
Note: Cf. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. I, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1883], pp. 59, 170-171, 573-574.
Mark A. Noll:
The testimony of Augustine, Bacon, Galileo, and Warfield can be summarized by focusing on a concrete example: if the consensus of modern scientists, who devote their lives to looking at the data of the physical world, is that humans have existed on the planet for a very long time, it is foolish for biblical interpreters to say that “the Bible teaches” the recent creation of human beings. This does not mean that at some future time, the procedures of science may shift in such a way as to alter the contemporary consensus. It means that, for people today to say they are being loyal to the Bible and to demand belief in a recent creation of humanity as a sign of obedience to Scripture is in fact being unfaithful to the Bible, which, in Psalm 19 and elsewhere, calls upon followers of God to listen to the speech that God has caused the natural world to speak. It is the same for the age of the earth and for all other questions involving the constitution of the human race. Charles Hodge’s words from the middle of the nineteenth century are still pertinent: “Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science.”
(Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, [Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans, 1995], pp. 207-208.)
5. All Truth is God’s Truth. Return to Outline.
Aristotle:
To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.
(Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b; trans. The Works of Aristotle: Volume VIII: Metaphysica, trans. W. D. Ross, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1908], p. 1011b.)
James Montgomery Boice:
That is, truth is singular. It is not in fragments that would require us to speak of “truths” in the sense of unrelated facts or items. Truth holds together. Therefore, there is no phase of truth that is not related to every other phase of truth. All things that are true are part of the truth and stand in a proper and inescapable relationship to God, who is himself the truth.
(James Montgomery Boice, Come to the Waters: Daily Bible Devotions for Spiritual Refreshment, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011], p. 252. Preview. Cf. James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John Triumph Through Tragedy: Volume 5: John 18-21, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999], on John 18:37, p. 1443.)
Cf. Herman Bavinck:
He is the truth in its absolute fullness. He, therefore, is the primary, the original truth, the source of all truth, the truth in all truth. He is the ground of the truth—of the true being—of all things, of their knowability and conceivability, the ideal and archetype of all truth, of all ethical being, of all the rules and laws, in light of which the nature and manifestation of all things should be judged and on which they should be modeled. God is the source and origin of the knowledge of truth in all areas of life…
(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 2: God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], §. 203, pp. 209-210.)
C. S. Lewis:
If every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of Lights then all true and edifying writings, whether in scripture or not, must be in some sense inspired.
(C. S. Lewis, Letter, To Professor Clyde S. Kilby [7 May, 1959; Magdalen College, Oxford]; In: Letters of C. S. Lewis: Revised and Enlarged Edition, eds. W. H. Lewis, Walter Hooper, [London: Fount, 1991], p. 480.)
John Calvin:
All truth is from God; and consequently, if wicked men have said anything that is true and just, we ought not to reject it; for it has come from God. Besides, all things are of God; and, therefore, why should it not be lawful to dedicate to his glory everything that can properly be employed for such a purpose?
(John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans. William Pringle, [Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1856], on Titus 1:12, pp. 300-301.)
Cf. John Calvin:
Therefore, in reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we would avoid offering insult to him, not to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears.
(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume First, trans. Henry Beveridge, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845], 2.2.15, pp. 317-318.)
Note: The Apostle Paul quoted from several pagan authors: Epimenides of Crete (Titus 1:12), Aratus of Cilicia (Acts 17:28) and Menander, Thais (1 Cor. 15:33). None of whom were divinely inspired, yet all of whom wrote true things.
Cf. Thomas Aquinas:
Since grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says: Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. x. 5). Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of Aratus: As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring (Acts xvii. 28).
(The “Summa theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas: Part I: First Number (QQ. I.-XXVI.), trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, [London: R. & T. Washbourne, Ltd., 1911], Q. 1, Art. 8, Reply Obj. 2, pp. 13-14.)
Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides):
…one should accept the truth from whatever source it proceeds.
(Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides), The Eight Chapters, Forward; trans. The Eight Chapters of Maimonides on Ethics (Shemonah Perakim), Columbia University Oriental Studies, Vol. VII, trans. Joseph I. Gorfinkle, [New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1966; originally published by Columbia University Press, 1912], pp. 35-36. Cf. A Maimonides Reader, Library of Jewish Studies, ed. Isadore Twersky, [West Orange: Behrman House, Inc., 1972], p. 363.)Augustine, Bishop of Hippo:
Nay, but let every good and true Christian understand that wherever truth may be found, it belongs to his Master;
(Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine, 2.18.28; trans. NPNF1, 2:545.)
Full. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo:
For we ought not to refuse to learn letters because they say that Mercury discovered them; nor because they have dedicated temples to Justice and Virtue, and prefer to worship in the form of stones things that ought to have their place in the heart, ought we on that account to forsake justice and virtue. Nay, but let every good and true Christian understand that wherever truth may be found, it belongs to his Master; and while he recognizes and acknowledges the truth, even in their religious literature, let him reject the figments of superstition…
(Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine, 2.18.28; trans. NPNF1, 2:545.) See also: ccel.org.
Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo:
Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said aught that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it. For, as the Egyptians had not only the idols and heavy burdens which the people of Israel hated and fled from, but also vessels and ornaments of gold and silver, and garments, which the same people when going out of Egypt appropriated to themselves, designing them for a better use, not doing this on their own authority, but by the command of God, the Egyptians themselves, in their ignorance, providing them with things which they themselves were not making a good use of; in the same way all branches of heathen learning have not only false and superstitious fancies and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil, which every one of us, when going out under the leadership of Christ from the fellowship of the heathen, ought to abhor and avoid; but they contain also liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create themselves, but dug out of the mines of God’s providence which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully prostituting to the worship of devils. These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also,—that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life,—we must take and turn to a Christian use.
(Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine, 2.40.60; trans. NPNF1, 2:554.) See also: ccel.org.
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria
No comments:
Post a Comment