Proper Use of Science

[adam149]

This is an excert from a book I am writing on apologetics, presuppositionalism, particularly in relation to creation/evolution. I have posted this section for edification and discussion. This is what I see as the fundemental difference between YECs and compromisers--their use of reason and Scriptural Authority. I am interested in your thoughts.​

------​

Magisterial vs. Ministerial Use of Reason​

What role does science play in understanding the Scriptures? There are really only two choices in answer to the question: either science is superior to Scripture (Magisterial) or science is inferior to (interpreted through) Scripture (Ministerial).

Most "secular" scientists argue that science is always superior to Scripture (these scientists nearly always approach science as an objective search for truth and reality of "brute" factuality, thus where "reality" differs from Scripture, Scripture is to be rejected every time).

An example of this would be the creationist-hating Ian Palmer, who has written in his error filled books51

In my view, the Bible is not true. However, it is the Truth.52

This statement is curiously contradictory. Plimer writes that the ‘Bible is not true’ meaning that it can be false in some areas, such as science, as he believes, yet also believes it to be the ‘Truth.’ By this, it is meant that it is true in its discussion of faith. But if it can be wrong in some areas, which areas are correct, and who makes the distinctions about this?

Unfortunately, many Christians have fallen prey to the idea that where modern science contradticts Scripture, science is placed in a superior position and they search for a way to adjust the Scriptures to match modern science. This is problematic since, as creationists point out, to marry theology to today’s science, one is more than likely to be widowed tomorrow. Scientific investigation does not have a great track record. In fact, only just recently, over 200 scientists have written an open letter to the scientific community proclaiming the Big Bang theory defunct.53

Dr. Hugh Ross is one of these compromises of Scripture with secular scientific theory. He has written:

...incidentally, I do believe (and I said so, though Nahigian must have missed it) that true theology must—and always will—conform to true science.54

Incidently, Ross wrote this in the journal of the blatantly humanist National Center for Science Education which describes itself as

the only organization entirely devoted to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools.55

The atheist Nahigian responded, giving us some interesting insights into where Dr. Ross’s true authority lies:

Ross’s belief that true theology must conform to true science cheers me greatly; somehow I had heard it the other way round. As we know, a shepherd-sheep relationship between religion and science was tried once with poor results.56 Now Dr. Ross seems more in league with British evangelicals of the 1830s who wrote that if "sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."57

It is with this in mind that we can discuss the proper position science plays in theology.

Some theologians (Ross included) argue that nature is like a 67th book of the Bible. Take Ross’s view on things for example:

God’s revelation is not limited exclusively to the Bible’s words. The facts of nature may be likened to a sixty-seventh book of the Bible....Some readers might feel that I am implying that God’s revelation through nature is somehow on an equal footing with His revelation through the words of the Bible. Let me simply state that truth, by definition, is information that is perfectly free of contradiction and error. Just as it is absurd to speak of some entity as more perfect than another, so also one revelation of God’s truth cannot be held as inferior or superior to another.58

In this statement, Ross is essentially and for all practical purposes canonizing nature, raising it to the level of the 66-book Bible.

But this ignores the theological conception of the Fall. The fall effected everything, including nature and man’s mind. Thus, nature no longer is perfect and nor is man, but God’s inspired word has not fallen. Therefore we should follow it and interpret all things through its light.

Louis Berkhof says as much here:

Since the entrance of sin into the world, man can gather true knowledge about God from His general revelation only if he studies it in the light of Scripture, in which the elements of God’s original self-revelation, which were obscured and perverted by the blight of sin, are republished, corrected, and interpreted. ... Some are inclined to speak of God’s general revelation as a second source; but this is hardly correct in the view of the fact that nature can come into consideration here only as interpreted in the light of Scripture.59

We should always be dubious about marrying today’s science to our theology, lest tomorrow we find ourselves widowed, or even divorced, since "tomorrow it may ‘understand’ something much less friendly to theism."60

So what part does science play? The famous reformer Martin Luther properly differentiated between the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason.61

Using reason magisterially means that reason stands in judgement over Scripture as a magistrate or judge would. Starting with the opinions of fallible and autonomous man, this usage of reason is predestined to fail utterly. This is the distinction between true Christianity and "liberal" Christianity, a magisterial use of reason is a primary characteristic of liberal and heretical (e.g. Pelagianism) Christianity.

Gresham Machen writes:

[T]he liberal attempt at reconciling Christianity with modern science has really relinquished everything distinctive of Christianity.... In trying to remove from Christianity everything that could possibly be objected to in the name of science, in trying to bribe off the enemy by those concessions which the enemy most desires, the apologist has really abandoned what he started out to defend. ... Mere concessiveness, therefore, will never succeed in avoiding the intellectual conflict.62

On the other hand, the ministerial use of reason is in application when Scripture is placed in authority over reason and all things are interpreted through the special revelation of God to man, when reason submits to Scripture. Christians are not supposed to check their brains at the church door as many today believe, but are to use their mind and use logic (Isa. 1:18; 1 Pet. 3:15; Matt. 22:37; Rom. 12:2).63

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states:

Article XII

WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY that biblical infalliblity and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teachings of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Furthermore, Ross’s view, and the views of other Old-earthers who consider nature to be a "67th book" of revelation need to consider that they are creating a false dualism by arguing that theology is the interpreter of Special Revelation (the Bible) and science the interpreter of General Revelation (nature).64 Rather, we should understand that the general revelation of nature is interpreted through the Special and unFallen Revelation of Scripture. Just as the body cannot move or exist without the mind, just so cannot general revelation exist without Special Revelation to understand it. To argue otherwise is to argue as the heretical Gnostic Christians that there is a dualistic distinction between spirit and matter.

References:
52. I.R. Plimer, Telling Lies for God, Random House, Australia, 1994, pg. 289

53. E. Lerner, "Bucking the big bang", New Scientist 182(2448):20, 2004 <www.cosmologystatement.org>. Also see C. Wieland, "Secular Scientists Blast the Big Bang," June 14th, 2004 <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp>

54. H. Ross, "reply to Kenneth Nahigian", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 17(3):34, (May/June 1997)

55. E.C. Scott (Executive director, NCSE), Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 15(2):9, 1995

56. Debatable. See Ref. 1, pg. 63.

57. K. Nahigian, "Ken Nahigian responds", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 17(3):35 (May/June 1997)

58. H. Ross, Creation and Time, Navpress, Colorado Springs, CO, 1994, pg. 56-57

59. L. Berkhof, Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Eardmans Publishing Co., pg. 60, 96

60. S.M. Hutchens, "Review of Creation and Time by Hugh Ross", Touchstone, 8:40, Winter 1995

61. W.L. Craig, Apologetics: An Introduction, Chicago, IL, Moody Press, 1984, chap. one

62. J.C. Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, New York, The Macmillian Company, 1923, pg. 7-8, 6

63. See J.P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Heart, Colorado Springs, CO, Navpress, 1997. Note that Moreland is 60-40 in favor of Old-Earth Creationism due to an overemphasis on extra-biblical revelation.

64. H. Ross, F. Rana, K. Samples, M. Harman, and K. Bontrager, "Life and Death in Eden, The Biblical and Scientific Evidence for Animal Death Before the Fall," audio cassette set, Reasons to Believe, 2001

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Thank you for the article. I believe it's well written. I have written to radio shows that get Hugh Ross and his RTB people on their shows all the time but I always get the run around. They say they never take a stand on young or old earth but yet they never have someone from AIG or ICR on. If your curious the shows I'm talking about are Bible Answer Man and Stand To Reason. I have talked to AIG over the phone and the host and president Hank Hanegraaff is sympathetic to AIG but it's interesting the polotics that go on with the people involved with the Bible Answer Man show that seem to keep members of AIG off the show.

 

[Micaiah]

You appear to have done a significant amount of researth. A couple of comments about your writing style.

At times it doesn't flow easily. Don't be afraid to use simple language to convey your ideas. If I had a choice, I'd go for the simple sentence every time.

Unfortunately, many Christians have fallen prey to the idea that where modern science contradticts Scripture, science is placed in a superior position and they search for a way to adjust the Scriptures to match modern science.

This sentence is quite long. Many readers lose interest if they cannot grasp concepts quickly. I'd make that into two sentences. How about:

Sadly, many Christians place science on a higher level than the Scriptures. They change the meaning of the Scriptures if it contradicts science.

I'd avoid being too vitriolic and personal in your attacks on the opposition. Present your facts, and let the reader form their own opinions.

I hope these comments are received in the right spirit. I applaud you for your work in promoting the truth.

 

[adam149]

Thank you for your comments. They have been recieved and considered carefully.

I should ask whether you agree with the overall thesis of the piece. While writing suggestions are welcome, my primary purpose in posting it was to start a discussion on the proper usage of reason in relation to YEC/OEC and the differences therein (e.g. most YECs place their authority directly on the Bible, with a subserviant human reason, where OECs tend to place it the other way around).

For example, many TEers believe that the Bible is a collection of error-filled human documents that went through a huge editing and deletion/altercation stage through the years, as opposed to its being accurate from the first word and divinely inspired.

You appear to have done a significant amount of researth. A couple of comments about your writing style.

At times it doesn't flow easily. Don't be afraid to use simple language to convey your ideas. If I had a choice, I'd go for the simple sentence every time.

This sentence is quite long. Many readers lose interest if they cannot grasp concepts quickly. I'd make that into two sentences. How about:

Sadly, many Christians place science on a higher level than the Scriptures. They change the meaning of the Scriptures if it contradicts science.

I'd avoid being too vitriolic and personal in your attacks on the opposition. Present your facts, and let the reader form their own opinions.

I hope these comments are received in the right spirit. I applaud you for your work in promoting the truth.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Take the useful metaphor of the two books: God's book of Works and His book of Works.

Your criticism:

But this ignores the theological conception of the Fall. The fall effected everything, including nature and man’s mind. Thus, nature no longer is perfect and nor is man, but God’s inspired word has not fallen. Therefore we should follow it and interpret all things through its light.

is that the book of Works is necessarily compromised by sin.
why isn't the interpretation of the book of Words likewise compromised by sin? especially given so many people claiming to be Biblical Christians yet teaching very different things.

it appears to be that the criticism you place on science is likewise appropriate to Biblical interpretation. Both books must be read and interpreted by people.

....

 

[adam149]

Take the useful metaphor of the two books: God's book of Works and His book of Works.

Your criticism:

But this ignores the theological conception of the Fall. The fall effected everything, including nature and man’s mind. Thus, nature no longer is perfect and nor is man, but God’s inspired word has not fallen. Therefore we should follow it and interpret all things through its light.

is that the book of Works is necessarily compromised by sin.
why isn't the interpretation of the book of Words likewise compromised by sin? especially given so many people claiming to be Biblical Christians yet teaching very different things.

it appears to be that the criticism you place on science is likewise appropriate to Biblical interpretation. Both books must be read and interpreted by people.

....[/QUOTE]
Naturally, all reasoning, including man's interpretation of the Bible fell and is compromised, but this is no excuse for nilhilism. By using hermeneutics to determine the author's intent, we uncover what God intended since he is the ultimate author.

Before the fall, man was inclined to obey God, but had the possibility of doing the opposite. When he fell, man was inclined to disobey God and no possibility of doing the opposite. When man is regenerated in Christ, he is returned to the state of wanting and desiring to obey God, but still has the possibility of doing otherwise, even though he knows he shouldn't.

Man's natural inclination is to say that he is god, determining meaning for himself and rejecting God's authority. Even many Christians fall into this trap, hence their rejection of the authority of Scripture in some (or many) areas. That is the key issue I'm dealing with in this chapter of the book, that making Scripture as the ultimate authority in every area results in getting that much closer to the way God wants us to be.

 

[Beowulf]

Before the fall, man was inclined to obey God, but had the possibility of doing the opposite. When he fell, man was inclined to disobey God and no possibility of doing the opposite. When man is regenerated in Christ, he is returned to the state of wanting and desiring to obey God, but still has the possibility of doing otherwise, even though he knows he shouldn't.

What a great way to put it.
I WILL remember this paragraph.
Thanks!

Man's natural inclination is to say that he is god, determining meaning for himself and rejecting God's authority.

That's exactly why Satan was cast from heaven, he wanted to be God.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is an excert from a book I am writing on apologetics, presuppositionalism, particularly in relation to creation/evolution. I have posted this section for edification and discussion. This is what I see as the fundemental difference between YECs and compromisers--their use of reason and Scriptural Authority. I am interested in your thoughts.

Magisterial vs. Ministerial Use of Reason
What role does science play in understanding the Scriptures? There are really only two choices in answer to the question: either science is superior to Scripture (Magisterial) or science is inferior to (interpreted through) Scripture (Ministerial).

I allways like the Francis Bacon concept of Theology and Natural Science being sister sciences. I really never liked that one takes preferance over the other. While Luther's work in the area of justification by faith, the authority of Scripture and the priesthood of all believers is excellenct, he got a little confused on matters of science. When he heard about Copernicus' heliocentric model he called him a fool because he contradicted the verse in Joshua where the sun was said to have stopped. The real problem is one of balance, deductive reasoning is from principles like the authority of Scripture and God's eternal nature and divine attributes. Now natural science is inductive where you take a small subset of a set and draw conclusions about the whole set. Don't get me wrong, the Scriptures are not negotiable for me with respect to redemptive history or its import into natural science. I just think balance is the key here, I'm not trying to be critical here just offering my thoughts on the subject.

Most "secular" scientists argue that science is always superior to Scripture (these scientists nearly always approach science as an objective search for truth and reality of "brute" factuality, thus where "reality" differs from Scripture, Scripture is to be rejected every time).

Thats naturalistic methodology where only naturalistic explanations, like natural selection, are viable explanations. I would suggest you take a look at Paul Nelsons work, he has made brilliant insights into the ongoing debate over ID and creationism vs. naturalistic methodology.

You can find his essay, Jettison the Argument or the Rule on ARN or just plug it into a google search engine. NWcreation.net has a video (I apologize but I don't remember the title) that he and other famous ID and creation scientists got together and discussed irreducible design.

In this statement, Ross is essentially and for all practical purposes canonizing nature, raising it to the level of the 66-book Bible.

Like many creationists I find the description of anything in natural science, particularly naturalistic methodology, described as a book of the Bible offensive to the point of being repulsive.

But this ignores the theological conception of the Fall. The fall effected everything, including nature and man’s mind. Thus, nature no longer is perfect and nor is man, but God’s inspired word has not fallen. Therefore we should follow it and interpret all things through its light.

Louis Berkhof says as much here:

We should always be dubious about marrying today’s science to our theology, lest tomorrow we find ourselves widowed, or even divorced, since "tomorrow it may ‘understand’ something much less friendly to theism."

I couldn't have said it better myself, in fact, I wish I had said that. Make no mistake it would be reckless to try to compromise with a form of reasoning that has become increasingly hostile to our faith.

Gresham Machen writes:

On the other hand, the ministerial use of reason is in application when Scripture is placed in authority over reason and all things are interpreted through the special revelation of God to man, when reason submits to Scripture. Christians are not supposed to check their brains at the church door as many today believe, but are to use their mind and use logic (Isa. 1:18; 1 Pet. 3:15; Matt. 22:37; Rom. 12:2).63

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states:

Furthermore, Ross’s view, and the views of other Old-earthers who consider nature to be a "67th book" of revelation need to consider that they are creating a false dualism by arguing that theology is the interpreter of Special Revelation (the Bible) and science the interpreter of General Revelation (nature).64 Rather, we should understand that the general revelation of nature is interpreted through the Special and unFallen Revelation of Scripture. Just as the body cannot move or exist without the mind, just so cannot general revelation exist without Special Revelation to understand it. To argue otherwise is to argue as the heretical Gnostic Christians that there is a dualistic distinction between spirit and matter.

I really have no problem with the bulk of the rest of it. However, if I might make a suggestion. Henry Morris has written an interesting treatment of creationism from a purely scriptural point of view. I could post a few exerpts if you think you might be interested.

Grace and peace,
Mark