Let me ask you two questions:
Is God’s revelation in Scripture - special revelation - inerrant?
Is God’s revelation in nature - general revelation - inerrant?
I think most of us would, or should, enthusiastically, and quickly say ‘yes’ to the first question. But I think many of us would hesitate after the second question because I don’t think many of us have ever thought about it.
But it is an important question to answer. Let me break it down a bit. We believe that all truth is God’s truth. Which means that if something is true, it is because it has been revealed by God, because it is an accurate understanding of the nature of something created by God, or because it is an accurate description of something decreed by God. In other words, a God-centered view of truth demands that we affirm that all truth is God’s truth. That which is true is true because God said it, created it, or decreed it. (cf Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol 1)
Now we can answer both questions above with absolute certainty -- God’s revelation is inerrant regardless of what that revelation is - Scripture or nature. The implication being that there can never be an actual conflict between science and Scripture. (Though there are many perceived conflicts) Since both general and special revelation find their source and content in God, they will be unified in their witness. They will say the same things and show us coalescing truths. This means that, properly interpreted and understood, faith and science, the Bible and science, cannot disagree.
But we know that there are many conflicts between faith and science. Though there are no actual conflicts between Scripture and nature, there are a lot of perceived conflicts when we compare interpretations of Scripture and nature. These conflicts lead us to what has been called the two books dilemma which is diagrammed below.
Let me explain what this diagram shows us with some help from Craig Rusbult and Deborah Haarsma as well as my scattered notes from the Faith and Science course I used to teach. (Which may mean I’m quoting or paraphrasing someone that won’t get the proper credit. If this is the case, I apologize.)
On the top level is God, the ultimate source of everything
On the next level down are God-produced realities designed to reveal himself -- the Scripture God inspired, and the nature God created
On the lowest level are human-produced thoughts regarding the revelation of God -- our theology (based on the interpretation of Scripture) and our science (based on the interpretation of nature)
We cannot compare Scripture with science, because they are on different levels, but we can compare theology (a fallible human interpretation) with science (another fallible human interpretation) while trying to search for truth.
Admittedly, the descriptions of theology and science are oversimplified, but they are useful for thinking about each of them and how they interact. In theology, the main goal is to understand spiritual realities. In science, the main goal is to understand physical realities. But the main goals aren't the only goals, and our theories about spiritual and physical realities are interactive. These mutual influences are indicated by the two horizontal arrows between the boxes on the lower level -- theology affects science and our views of physical reality, while science affects theology and our views of spiritual reality.
Here is where the dilemma hits hard for most Christians. Keith Mathison asks, “Few Christians would disagree with the idea that a right interpretation of Scripture (special revelation) can correct a misinterpretation of general revelation, but is the converse true as well? Can a right interpretation of general revelation correct a misinterpretation of special revelation? (A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture, CH 3)
Before we answer these questions let me remind all of us about something very important which Charles Hodge pointed out 150 years ago. “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.” (Systematic Theology, 1:59).
The default for most so-called conservative Christians, I think, is to suggest that modern science conflicts with Scripture and is therefore wrong and must be rejected and opposed. The assumption for those Christians is that their view of the Bible, of Genesis 1 and other passages, is correct, and modern science has nothing to help us in understanding that chapter because it is fundamentally in error in every way.
If that is the thinking we embrace, what Hodge has to say will be painful for us to hear. But he is certainly correct in his admission. The Westminster Confession of Faith acknowledges that “All synods and councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred” (XXXI:4). The same could be said, should be said, about individual Christians. We are fallible as well. We may err. We may misinterpret Scripture. We may have worldview problems. We may apply faulty logic and have cognitive biases that affect our look at both of God’s books of revelation - the world and the Bible. As a result, we may be the ones in error in our interpretation of Scripture and, dare I say it, science may be right.
Having said that, I want to make sure we are understanding the two books' dilemma properly. If all truth has its source in God and if all truth is unified, then one thing we know to be a fact is that if there is a contradiction between an interpretation of Scripture and an interpretation of what God has created, then one or both of those interpretations is incorrect. They cannot both be correct. As R.C. Sproul said, “someone is wrong.” BUT, Sproul continues, “I don’t leap to the conclusion that it has to be the scientist. It may be the theologian. But neither do I leap to the conclusion that it has to be the theologian. It could well be the scientist. We have fallible human beings interpreting infallible natural revelation, and fallible human beings interpreting infallible special revelation.”
This is a very important point that Sproul is making. It means that we cannot jump to conclusions on either side of the dilemma.
The scientist typically jumps to the conclusion that if there is discrepancy of interpretation between science and theology, it is the theologian who is in error. Yet, as the scientist should readily admit, science is, by definition, a self-correcting enterprise, which means that science is, by definition, fallible. It is fully possible that the scientist may be in error.
The theologian typically jumps to the conclusion that if there is discrepancy of interpretation between science and theology, it is the scientist who is in error. Yet again we must admit that the theologian too is fallible and fully capable of making mistakes in their interpretation of Scripture which put them at odds with science.
So, what then is the way forward? Keith Mathison offers some helpful suggestions.
We must be willing to put in the work on both sides. We need to seek understanding. We must say “I understand” before we say, “I disagree.”
We need to balance conviction with humility in our search for the truth. This involves the realization that our interpretation of either science or Scripture may be wrong and then we must make the commitment to make it right.
We can be confident that science will not overthrow Christianity. It can’t. All truth is God’s truth. Therefore, what God reveals in Scripture and in nature are in no real conflict. We must then do the work necessary to speak the truth of God as clearly as possible.
Our goal is to discover the truth in order that we might not bear false testimony regarding God, his word, or his created works. This means we need to do thorough examinations of both scientific theory and the biblical exegesis upon which our belief is based. We must make sure we are dealing with the actual teaching of Scripture as opposed to a mistaken interpretation of Scripture. And we must examine the evidence for the scientific theory in question to discover whether we are dealing with something that is true about God’s creation or something that is merely speculation.
Soli Deo Gloria
Comments