Saturday, January 06, 2007
Inerrancy, Science and Scripture
Over the years I have been taught that God's revelation can be viewed as two types, General and Special revelation.
General Revelation is God revealing Himself through His works, which can be seen in the creation around us by any person at any time in history.
Special Revelation would include God speaking to mankind through "special" efforts on His part. This, in my view, (which is a little different from most reformed references I have seen) includes,theophanies, prophesies, scripture and most profoundly, Jesus Christ himself as he walked the earth.
For Reformed people, Special Revelation has been a synonym for "scripture". Scripture is a written record of the items above (theophanies, Jesus time on earth, etc.)
When there is disagreement between what is said in the general revelation (science, archaeolgical finds, etc.) and what is said in scripture, how do we reconcile the two? Many of these disagreements are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. What do we do?
John Calvin said something to the effect that "the scripture [special revelation] are the spectacles through we can see and rightly understand the world [general revelation].
Although there are a few exceptions, the church, up until the mid 1800's, read the first chapters of genesis as being the literary genre of historical record. It was read as a true record of true history.
Science, a systematic study of the general revelation, has, since the mid 1800's or so, said that the earth was millions or years old.
Since that time the church has been under tremendous pressure, to change its method of interpreting scripture to conform with science's interpretation of the general revelation.
The scriptures speak of walking by faith not by sight. They also speak of the gospel as being foolishness to the wise. This appears to be consistant with Calvin's assertion that you should try to understand the "sight" information of general revelation through the faith glasses of scripture.
In other words, why should the church change its methods of scripture interpretation, to match the truth claims of science, history, archaeology etc. Should it not be that christians scrutinize the truth claims of science, history, etc.
The philosophical underpinings of the truth claims of science and history are being successfully assulted by secular postmodernist philosphers. The Enlightenment view of science is passing away from our culture. This deserves a lot more attention than I am able to give it here, but what is happening is that postmodern philosophy is saying that, contrary to the Enlightenment view, Science does not have the tools necesary to find truth.
Why do christians need to change the traditional view of scripture that has, until recent history, been the foundation of faith and practice, merely to accomodate the temporarily fashionable Enlightenment view of the natural sciences?
I won't argue that the "inerrency" terminology has risen in a reactionary way. The view of scripture that is being described by the recent term "inerrency" is an old view. Had not the "Enlightenment" happened it would still be the predominant view with little challenge.
So in a sense, "inerrency" is reactionary, but in another sense merely a new term used to define and defend an old and traditional view.
To shorten this up, I feel that if science and scripture disagree, look for the error in science, not for the error in scripture.
Recently posted here:http://www.christilling.de/blog/2006/11/ets-adopt-chicago-statement-on.html#comments
General Revelation is God revealing Himself through His works, which can be seen in the creation around us by any person at any time in history.
Special Revelation would include God speaking to mankind through "special" efforts on His part. This, in my view, (which is a little different from most reformed references I have seen) includes,theophanies, prophesies, scripture and most profoundly, Jesus Christ himself as he walked the earth.
For Reformed people, Special Revelation has been a synonym for "scripture". Scripture is a written record of the items above (theophanies, Jesus time on earth, etc.)
When there is disagreement between what is said in the general revelation (science, archaeolgical finds, etc.) and what is said in scripture, how do we reconcile the two? Many of these disagreements are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. What do we do?
John Calvin said something to the effect that "the scripture [special revelation] are the spectacles through we can see and rightly understand the world [general revelation].
Although there are a few exceptions, the church, up until the mid 1800's, read the first chapters of genesis as being the literary genre of historical record. It was read as a true record of true history.
Science, a systematic study of the general revelation, has, since the mid 1800's or so, said that the earth was millions or years old.
Since that time the church has been under tremendous pressure, to change its method of interpreting scripture to conform with science's interpretation of the general revelation.
The scriptures speak of walking by faith not by sight. They also speak of the gospel as being foolishness to the wise. This appears to be consistant with Calvin's assertion that you should try to understand the "sight" information of general revelation through the faith glasses of scripture.
In other words, why should the church change its methods of scripture interpretation, to match the truth claims of science, history, archaeology etc. Should it not be that christians scrutinize the truth claims of science, history, etc.
The philosophical underpinings of the truth claims of science and history are being successfully assulted by secular postmodernist philosphers. The Enlightenment view of science is passing away from our culture. This deserves a lot more attention than I am able to give it here, but what is happening is that postmodern philosophy is saying that, contrary to the Enlightenment view, Science does not have the tools necesary to find truth.
Why do christians need to change the traditional view of scripture that has, until recent history, been the foundation of faith and practice, merely to accomodate the temporarily fashionable Enlightenment view of the natural sciences?
I won't argue that the "inerrency" terminology has risen in a reactionary way. The view of scripture that is being described by the recent term "inerrency" is an old view. Had not the "Enlightenment" happened it would still be the predominant view with little challenge.
So in a sense, "inerrency" is reactionary, but in another sense merely a new term used to define and defend an old and traditional view.
To shorten this up, I feel that if science and scripture disagree, look for the error in science, not for the error in scripture.
Recently posted here:http://www.christilling.de/blog/2006/11/ets-adopt-chicago-statement-on.html#comments
# posted by Dan @ 12:21 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I agree with the premise that God is always right and human science can definitely be wrong. However, it was on this basis that the Church denied Galileo's theory that the Earth rotated around the Sun. As it turned out, Galileo ("science") was right.
So I might amend the suggestion that "if science and scripture disagree, look for the error in science, not for the error in scripture.". I would say that we should look for error in science ... or in our interpretation of Scripture.
So I might amend the suggestion that "if science and scripture disagree, look for the error in science, not for the error in scripture.". I would say that we should look for error in science ... or in our interpretation of Scripture.
Stan,
Thanks for the reply.
It is true that disagreements between science and scripture offer should prompt one to review the interpretation of scripture on the issue in question.
My big concern is that too many people seem to think that the interpretation must be changed to agree with science.
Because all motion is relative, whether the sun circles the earth or the earth circles the sun is strictly a matter of point of view. As it stands, however, the math is much easier if one takes the sun as the origin of the x,y,z axis.
Without this simplified mathematical model, even a genius like Newton could not have developed his model for the effects of gravitation. This model is useful and good. The mathematical model for the motion of the solar system with the sun as the origin x,y,z; 0,0,0; is very useful.
I don't expect to find truth through science, I expect to find usefulness.
A big issue that I am exploring is the whole question of the espitemology of science. I feel that science gets too much credit as an epistemological tool. We are too quick to abandon traditional principals of hermenutical and exegesis simply to find agreement with science.
If there is a disagreement between science and scripture, and you review the interpretation and the basis of interpretation, and find no fault; it is important to never allow the scientific community to pressure you into resolve the isue through changing the principals.
My general feeling is that it is easier to misinterpret the general revelation than it is to misinterpret the special revelation.
But, thats just me ...
Over my seminary career I intend to explore this a greater length.
Post a Comment
Thanks for the reply.
It is true that disagreements between science and scripture offer should prompt one to review the interpretation of scripture on the issue in question.
My big concern is that too many people seem to think that the interpretation must be changed to agree with science.
Because all motion is relative, whether the sun circles the earth or the earth circles the sun is strictly a matter of point of view. As it stands, however, the math is much easier if one takes the sun as the origin of the x,y,z axis.
Without this simplified mathematical model, even a genius like Newton could not have developed his model for the effects of gravitation. This model is useful and good. The mathematical model for the motion of the solar system with the sun as the origin x,y,z; 0,0,0; is very useful.
I don't expect to find truth through science, I expect to find usefulness.
A big issue that I am exploring is the whole question of the espitemology of science. I feel that science gets too much credit as an epistemological tool. We are too quick to abandon traditional principals of hermenutical and exegesis simply to find agreement with science.
If there is a disagreement between science and scripture, and you review the interpretation and the basis of interpretation, and find no fault; it is important to never allow the scientific community to pressure you into resolve the isue through changing the principals.
My general feeling is that it is easier to misinterpret the general revelation than it is to misinterpret the special revelation.
But, thats just me ...
Over my seminary career I intend to explore this a greater length.
<< Home
