Ok,
final post!
I want to talk a little about YEC--or the narrow aspect of YEC we've been talking about--and then respond to some of K's personal appeal and offer something of my hopes for this discussion (and for other related ones).
First, let me start by acknowledging something K has said somewhere in this small book that we've been writing together and that, frankly, I don't have the time or energy to go find. The interpretation, taken as an entire system, that we call YEC is no more ancient than OEC. Technically and strictly speaking, I'm actually under the impression that YEC
as such post-dates OEC, since YEC was largely developed in response to OEC (of all forms--not just day-age).
So while the entire system, complete with the handle, is new, certain aspects of the idea are not.
My intention in this thread is not to defend the system of thought taken as a whole. It is to defend certain aspects that
have historical precedent. For our purposes, that means two highly specific items: a) the meaning of
yom as an ordinary day, and b) the HGM (or, stated negatively, the importance of not spiritualizing or allegorizing a text). Both of those concepts are as old as the church itself, even if the formalized system of thought called YEC is not. Note carefully that we have not discussed other important issues, the chief of which being whether or not there was death before Adam's sin.
Anyway, the reason I have picked so often and so hard on the day-age view is that it strikes me as the only real alternative to what is commonly called YEC among those who wish to adhere to the HGM. As I have said before, one of the reasons I was so attracted to it several years ago and actively defended it (especially on the old board that probably nobody but K and I remembers) was precisely that: it's claim to being derived from a consistent employment of the HGM. My slow but steady rejection of the interpretation came as I saw more and more places where the HGM wasn't being followed after all, until finally, I simply came to see them as incompatible. But given all this, ideas like the GT, theistic evolution, the framework hypothesis, etc., have simply never been on my radar for serious consideration. That isn't to say I haven't studied them. I'm very familiar with BioLogos to take the obvious example. Yet, as I've read those defenses, I consistently find a rejection of the HGM at this or that point of convenience.
As such, I have come to the conclusion that so-called YEC is the only view that
takes all the biblical data into account using the HGM. This is the important point above all. For it has two implications I already discussed in the post above: a) only YEC is warranted by the text (rendering all other interpretations unwarranted by the text), and b) to the extent the HGM accurately reflects proper hermeneutics, therefore to depart from YEC is to depart from fidelity to biblical theology.
Yet even given my position on YEC, I am NOT claiming that non-YECs are not Christians, aren't saved, don't love Jesus or the Bible, or any other such nonsense. But neither am I denying the importance of the debate by that admission. I do believe that getting things wrong on Genesis 1ff will hamper our ability to understand the rest of Scripture and will hamper therefore hamper our spiritual lives. And that strikes me as terribly important! Is it decisive or a test of fellowship or even orthodoxy? Of course not. Is it an important part of developing a deeply Christian worldview? Yes, I think it is. If you get this wrong can you still have a truly thoroughgoing Christian worldview? Of course you can. Can you do so consistently? No, I frankly don't think so. Can you paper over difficulties and ignore problems and rig sophistic solutions? Absolutely. Bottom line: OECs of all types are perfectly capable of getting along, so to speak, in their Christian life. And I have no doubt a great many OECs get along much better than a great many of their YEC counterparts. But it
is a problem, nonetheless, and it's one I don't want to see the church face.
Of course, this raises other problems, the most serious of which--which K explicitly calls a weakness--is what appears to be (and sometimes is) a refusal to interact with modern science. What do we do when science contradicts the Bible? I mean, we do have documented history of people interpreting Scripture wrong and being corrected by science . . . how many of you are already thinking of Galileo?
But isn’t it obvious that the problem with that whole fiasco was
not that the church was adhering to the HGM. The interpretations that make the earth the center of the universe
depart from the HGM precisely because they fail to distinguish phenomenological language from depth grammar. In other words, while the Bible depicts the sun as orbiting around the earth, it does so (
per the HGM) precisely because that is how things appear to be. But it never actually says that is what
is the case. It never actually says that the earth actually
is at the center of the universe. That view was an illogical deduction and was ultimately informed by the science, the cosmology in particular, of the day. So in a cruel twist of irony (for day-agers), it seems to me that Galileo actually provides a historical example against the day-age view. For just as the church was drawing its interpretation not from the HGM but from so-called science (that was later discovered, by science, to be wrong), DA—I contend—draws its inspiration not from the HGM but from so-called science (and I have
faith that, if we allow nature to speak for itself with our reason guided by Scripture, science will discover that these current ideas are wrong, too). Don’t think that’s possible? Look at what science is discovering about evolution! Who would have ever claimed that DNA independently evolved multiple times? Any thinking person would rightly regard that as a defeater for the whole enterprise. But, of course, when your world view (not your science) is driven by an idea, then everything has to accommodate the idea, evidence be damned. The same could be said for the chicken-and-egg problems of DNA/RNA-Protein, of specified complexity and information theory, and so on. Science refutes evolution (sorry neo, I know you disagree). And, if we allow ourselves to look at the evidence, I expect that science will refute the problems uniquely associated with YEC.
So where does that leave us with science in particular and external sources in general in biblical interpretation?
With regard to science in particular, we simply must be vigilant that our scientific worldviews do not form the presuppositions by which we approach the text. I read stories like
this one and my heart just breaks. The fundamental assumption cannot be that the Bible is guilty until proven innocent (per liberal high-critics), but neither can it be that the Bible is innocent until proven guilty (per theistic evolutionists and, I suggest, other non-YEC interpreters). The assumption must be that the Bible is true,
and let all else be a lie. But doesn’t that confuse our interpretation of Scripture with Scripture? No, and it’s a silly charge, because EVERYTHING must be interpreted, including science. Obviously, we can and should always be open to the possibility that we have misinterpreted Scripture. But it does not follow that because we could be wrong that we are wrong. Let me put that in a syllogism:
- 1. I could interpret the Bible in the wrong way;
2. I interpret the Bible to teach YEC
3. Therefore, I could be wrong that the Bible teaches YEC
Fine! No problem. I fully affirm this conclusion. But that is no victory for non-YECists, because replace “YEC” with any doctrine and you have exactly the same thing. The question is not if I
could be wrong but
am wrong? So consider this argument
- 1. I could be wrong that the Bible teaches YEC
2. Science says YEC is wrong
3. Therefore, I am wrong that the Bible teaches YEC
This, I am afraid, is the implicit argument behind virtually all critiques of YEC, and this argument is fallacious. It is
formally invalid. We moved from what
could be in the premise to what
is in the conclusion. The only way to make that valid would be to include a premise along these lines:
- Our current understanding of science is correct in its understanding of the universe
Now, perhaps you grant that, but in doing so, you are permitting the Bible be judged by our current interpretation of science. And I reject that. Our current interpretation of science ought to be judged by our interpretation of Scripture! And notice the order there. We don’t prebuild our science into our interpretation so that a particular view of science is either justified or rejected. We have to follow the HGM and interpret the Scriptures on their own, in their own, and then take THAT to science.
So the real question is this:
Does our interpretation science judge our interpretation of Scripture, or does our interpretation of Scripture judge our interpretation of science?
I say the latter. Anything less is judging God Himself. I fully admit that is a theologically driven position. I fully admit that position will be unacceptable and unpalatable by those who want to judge things based on our interpretation of science. I simply say that they are wrong in their claim. Again, what science OUGHT to do, when it conflicts with our interpretation of Scripture, is cause us to revisit the Scripture and see if we are following the HGM or if we have erred somewhere. And I have asked that question with YEC. I don’t see a place where I have not followed the HGM. It is up to critics of YEC to not only show where we HAVE erred, but more importantly, what, given that error, we ought to believe
based on Scripture following the HGM.
It is at this point I want to so heavily commend K for his work in this area. I think he has done a truly remarkable thing—perhaps a singular accomplishment—in his work on this question. I know that is a high compliment. I don’t want to overstate the case as an endorsement of his views. I think it is still too underdeveloped to adopt, and I think there are other serious issues that need to be grapple with. But his work is honest and consistent with the HGM. Perhaps he or others feels the HGM is too constricting. Many so-called advocates of the HGM are perfectly willing to stop using it when it comes to OT prophecy. I’m sorry. We don’t let the end justify the means. We have to be consistent in our thinking or our thinking is pretty much worthless, being nothing more than partially justified personal preferences. Let me go on record and say that I HOPE his views turn out to be defensible across the board. I am intrigued. It’d be a nice thing if I didn’t have to wait for science to answer unresolved questions, if I could just write them off as answered in finding a justified interpretation of Scripture that doesn’t create them. I just have to be honest and say that I’m not there yet, and I am absolutely convinced that all other non-YEC views fail in a dramatic fashion that same test.
I hope, then, that gives us some clues about how to uses science in interpreting Scripture—that is, how science and the HGM meet. I also want very briefly to lay out some rules as I see them for use of extra biblical resources in general (including science). Some will, again, find these rules too constricting. I see them as the natural outworking of the HGM, and it is because of these rules I hold the views I do on a range of theological issues.
1. Scripture must be interpreted with the flow of progressive revelation. That is, later passages are not the basis for (re)interpretation of earlier passages (in practice, that means don’t use the NT to interpret the OT)—n.b., here, Scripture itself is conceived of as an “outside source.” The psalms, for instance, are outside sources when considering Genesis;
2. Contemporary and earlier outside sources
may be permitted to influence the exegesis of a text
so long as we have warrant for thinking that those sources effected—directly or indirectly—the meaning of the text. Such a warrant must, by nature, be demonstrated. Thus, while modern science cannot influence the exegesis of Genesis 1, a good case can be made that Egyptian cosmology can, since the Israelites were exposed to it for 400 years and since Moses was trained in that particular worldview;
3. Later explicit interpretation of a passage by Scripture is to be taken as the meaning of the original passage if and only if it can be shown that the later passage is following the HGM; otherwise, the interpretive principle of the later passage must be stated plainly and each passage interpreted in its own light (for more on that, see my paper on the Psalms);
4. Later writings from the same or contemporary authors (both biblical and non-biblical) may be taken into account in the exegesis of a text if sufficiently warranted. For instance (and this could illustrate the third rule as well), Moses’ comments in Exodus 20 on the seven days of creation can be taken as informative of Genesis 1 since it gives us insight into the original author. Likewise, studies on the use of a particular word or phrase within a related group of texts can shed light on how a word was used at that particular time. That means, though, that uses of a word separated by hundreds or thousands of years ought to be taken with extreme skepticism as being informative of understanding the earlier text;
5. Later interpretations, both explicit and implicit, of earlier texts can be informative of the meaning of an earlier text in one of three ways:
5a – if there is evidence that the later interpreter had direct knowledge of the original author’s mind, his or her interpretation should have serious weight (and so the true usefulness of tradition in light of the HGM; for example, see Clement’s comments on the purpose of the Gopel of John).
5b – if there is no evidence that the later interpreter had direct knowledge of the author’s mind, his interpretation may still have serious weight if he provides a precedent for our own interpretation, so long as that interpretation follows the standard rules of the HGM and all other means. The reason for this is that all humans possess the same nature and so the same rational capacities. If someone else came to a though independently, there must be a reason independent of one particular person’s mind for that interpretation. That sources should be explicitly identified and compared to the HGM;
5c – as a controlling factor, if an interpretation is totally new and completely unprecedented,
it is most likely to be regarded as incorrect and a product of eisogesis. “Most likely,” of course, does not mean “necessarily.” But if the new interpretation purports to be the result of the HGM and yet is completely unprecedented in its totality or its individual elements (especially the latter), the interpreter is especially bound to demonstrate his warrant
and explain why his interpretation was not discovered in previous generations. Again, the reasoning for this argument is that earlier interpreters possessed the same rational faculties we do, and since Scriptures were, from the time of their writings, able to be understood by their contemporaries forward, then we would expect a proper understanding of Scripture to have been noticed and upheld before.
So, I hope those guidelines further clarify my arguments for YEC and against OEC, specifically the DA flavor.
I want to close all of this by responding to K’s personal appeal. I want to say that I’ve no interest in anyone doubting their faith. I am distressed at the notion that someone would think that if OEC is shown false that therefore the veracity of their faith is in jeopardy, and that for two reasons: first, the presumption that YEC is necessarily wrong and modern science is necessarily right strikes me as absurd. The implication here is that we can only trust God if He agrees with our current scientific theories. Are we really going to put God on trial? I’m not asking for blind faith, but I
am asking people to hear what God is saying in His own words before we start trying to find evidence for His claim. And even if we have no evidence than His own words on specific claims, I claim that He has given us enough evidence in other areas that we can trust Him in this one!
Further, as Craig is quick to point out, it is not our faith that is in jeopardy. At worst, it is inerrancy or our understanding of inspiration. I can promise you this: I would far more quickly revise my understanding of inerrancy/inspiration than my interpretation of Genesis 1. Geisler thinks that is too high a price to pay, but I think he is wrong. Because if the price of “inerrancy” is that we read
into Scripture what it doesn’t actually say, what we have no warrant for holding, then inerrancy doesn’t exist anyway. I take it
on faith that the Bible won’t contradict science or even itself. I have no more patience for theologies that reinterpret passages to fit each other to make sure there is no contradiction than I do with the day-age theory. All the same principles apply. Here’s a major point:
we cannot be so afraid of contradictions that we refuse to let the Bible speak plainly!
Lastly, my faith isn’t based on Genesis 1 or on the inspiration of Scripture. It is based on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the Cross and on His empty tomb. I could reject every word of the OT in principle and still believe that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosever believes on Him will not perish but has everlasting life. And I promise you, I DO believe that. And this is important for both apologetic and evangelistic purposes. Nobody rejects Jesus because YEC. If they claim they do, it’s a smokescreen. An excuse. Promoting OEC doesn’t make people more likely to accept Jesus. Our job is to present them with the gospel. If they want to get off track and ask unrelated questions, we just politely tell them that is an interfamily debate (in whatever words we want to use). The only question for them is whether or not they trust Jesus. And let me be very clear and, plainly, very blunt: I am not interested in the theology of nonbelievers anyway. I’ve less interest in their interpretation of Scripture than I do in ACB’s gap theory, and that should say a lot! And we are doing them a disservice by discussing such matters as if they are important. Fine if you want to humor them and give them a chance to be around and try to understand orthodoxy enough to get comfortable with it. But let’s not buy into the lie that accepting the gospel is predicated on being comfortable with orthodox Christianity. It isn’t. We
learn to get comfortable with Christianity by
practicing it. And, in fact, if I or anyone on these boards is fully comfortable with your faith, then I would like to suggest to you that somewhere your faith is in something you invented. Because real Christianity is about conforming us into the image of Christ, and since none of us are yet fully conformed, all of us have to change. But all change is uncomfortable. So no discomfort means no change, and no change means whatever we are, we’ve content with not being like Christ!
That doesn’t mean that to be YEC and uncomfortable is to be a better Christian. It IS to say that I don’t care about my discomfort, and frankly, I don’t care about anybody else’s. I care about our union with Christ, about letting the words of Scripture speak of themselves in any and every area. To take an obvious example, many evangelical, conservative Christians recognize what the Bible says about homosexuality. We get condemned as being a bigot for it. Science, we are told, is against us. Does my discomfort matter? Ought we to promote a view of Scripture that allows for gay marriage for the sake of evangelism?
I say no. You say the comparison is unfair, that gay marriage is a sin and OEC is not. True. But it is fair insofar as we are looking at what makes us comfortable and uncomfortable. I know YEC makes us uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable. But that’s only because I don’t have the time to study science. Thank God there are people who do. Jason Lisle would respond with very specific claims that I am not schooled enough to make. But I am schooled enough to say that I think that the Bible warrants—and only warrants—a YEC understanding of Genesis 1.
The goal, then, isn’t to make anyone doubt their faith. It’s to get them to draw closer to their Savior . . . not a model of creation.
So I truly thank you, K, for being willing to engage with me on this. This ends my formal reply to your previous words. I’m sure we can continue discussing this. Again, I am highly, highly intrigued with the interpretation you have suggested. I hope you continue to develop it, and perhaps I can offer some thoughts on that as well. I hope my words throughout this have not been too sharp. I hope we can continue to express the truth as we understand it in love and continue to be humble and gracious enough to say and hear the perspective of others without demanding conformity. I think I can say I understand what I believe and what others believe better as a result of this. I’m under the impression you can say the same. And I think our fellowship is unbroken if not strengthened. So perhaps , if I may be so bold, I can even suggest that all of this is a good model of what Christian dialogue actually looks like!
) . . .
But I digress! 