Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Chris Larson—Looking at the age of the universe, the question comes up as far as young earth versus old earth, so one question is: Is that a first-order issue, is that an intramural discussion? Let’s just go down the panel and each briefly state how you approach that question, as far as age of the universe. R.C., is it an intramural discussion?
R.C. Sproul—Not for some people. For some people it’s an all or nothing issue. When people ask me how old the earth is, I tell them “I don’t know” because I don’t. I’ll tell you why I don’t. In the first place, the Bible doesn’t give us a date of creation. Now, it gives us hints and inclinations that would indicate in many cases a young earth, and at the same time, we have all of this expanding universe and astronomical dating and triangulation and all of that stuff coming from outside the church that makes me wonder.
And I’ll tell you why. I believe firmly that all of truth is God’s truth. And I believe that God has not only given revelation in sacred Scripture, but also that the sacred Scripture itself tells us that God reveals himself in nature, which we call natural revelation. I once asked a seminary class of mine that was a conservative group, I asked, “How many of you believe that God’s revelation in Scripture is infallible?” They all raised their hand. I then asked, “How many people think God’s revelation in nature is infallible?” And nobody raised their hand. It’s the same God who’s giving the revelation, but what they were saying was that not every scientific theory is compatible with the word of God, and that’s true.
But historically, the church’s understanding of special revelation has been that the Bible has been corrected by students of natural revelation—with the Copernican revolution. Both Calvin and Luther rejected Copernicus as a heretic in the 16th century. I don’t know anybody in orthodox Christianity today who is pleading for geocentricity. Do you? In that case, the church has said, “Look, we misinterpreted the teaching of the Bible with respect to the solar system, and thank you, scientists for correcting our misunderstanding.” I think we can learn from non-believing scientists who are studying natural revelation. They may get a better sense of the truth from their study of natural revelation than I get from ignoring natural revelation.
So what I’m saying is that I have a high view of natural revelation. However, if something can be shown to be definitively taught in the Bible without question, and somebody gives me a theory that they think is based on natural revelation that contradicts the word of God, I’m going to stand with the word of God a hundred times out of a hundred. But, again, I have to repeat, I could have been a mistaken interpreter of the word of God, but again, I don’t have to face that problem because I believe both spheres are God’s spheres of revelation and that truth has to be compatible. If a theory of natural science is in conflict with a theological theory and contradicts it, here’s what I know for sure: Somebody is wrong. And I don’t leap to the conclusion that it has to be the scientist; it may be theologian. But nor do I leap to the conclusion that it must be the theologian; it can well be the scientist. That is because we have fallible human beings interpreting infallible natural revelation, and we have fallible human beings interpreting infallible special revelation. Now all of that is a long way of saying, “I don’t know how old the earth is.”
IMO, very well stated.
As someone far smarter than me once said to me:
What makes you so sure?
First off, I agree with this.I really believe though that when we get all of the bible there will be no contradiction between what the bible says and what nature tells us from science.I have true faith in the word of God,I don't doubt the word of God,I do not believe real true nature studies will ever contradict God's word,and if it does?I think we need to question our interpretation and be willing to change our mind.
The sad thing though is a lot of times it is our biblical interpretation that is wrong and so we reject good nature science that actually confirms God's word true because our interpretation is wrong and we are unwilling to question it and look at other interpretations to see if we might be wrong.No! Not I,we say and just plow forward with our messed up interpretation for the teams sake when we all should be willing to Let God be true and every man a liar,no instead we must be right regardless of what the bible says.
Unfortunately it seems that a lot of people are not willing to question if it is their interpretation that is wrong and instead just stick to their own interpretation unwilling to change or question it.Having said this not all of the science of nature is true and we must be careful about what we accept as the truth and I think examining evidence closely and making sure is the only thing we can do in our human strength to know what is truth and what is not.
This is why it is wise to wait on issues in science until enough evidence comes forward before we accept it as truth,it is OK to wait to see if more evidence comes forward or not before we accept something as truth.If it is true though it will not contradict the word of God.
I know Satan is a deciever and I know he can deceive us if we let him but he is also a liar and the truth is not in him,so his lies will not have evidence to back them up so we need to look closely for evidence and if we do the true science will not contradict the word of God.There is no need to reject science by assuming its all wrong before we even examine the evidence like many do.The truth will always prevail over lies but a lot of times we miss out on the truth when it would be so useful to us.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
Put simply, some people try to pound a square peg in a round hole; but, if they stepped back and looked at that peg from a different angle, they'd see that it is actually a cylinder, and when it approaches the problem differently, it fills that hole perfectly.
Thanks for sharing Paul.
Great article! Sums up pretty accurately how I see it......
I don't know.
I think we need to know it's okay to say, 'I dont know'.
Chris Larson—Looking at the age of the universe, the question comes up as far as young earth versus old earth, so one question is: Is that a first-order issue, is that an intramural discussion? Let’s just go down the panel and each briefly state how you approach that question, as far as age of the universe. R.C., is it an intramural discussion?
R.C. Sproul—Not for some people. For some people it’s an all or nothing issue. When people ask me how old the earth is, I tell them “I don’t know” because I don’t. I’ll tell you why I don’t. In the first place, the Bible doesn’t give us a date of creation. Now, it gives us hints and inclinations that would indicate in many cases a young earth, and at the same time, we have all of this expanding universe and astronomical dating and triangulation and all of that stuff coming from outside the church that makes me wonder.
And I’ll tell you why. I believe firmly that all of truth is God’s truth. And I believe that God has not only given revelation in sacred Scripture, but also that the sacred Scripture itself tells us that God reveals himself in nature, which we call natural revelation. I once asked a seminary class of mine that was a conservative group, I asked, “How many of you believe that God’s revelation in Scripture is infallible?” They all raised their hand. I then asked, “How many people think God’s revelation in nature is infallible?” And nobody raised their hand. It’s the same God who’s giving the revelation, but what they were saying was that not every scientific theory is compatible with the word of God, and that’s true.
But historically, the church’s understanding of special revelation has been that the Bible has been corrected by students of natural revelation—with the Copernican revolution. Both Calvin and Luther rejected Copernicus as a heretic in the 16th century. I don’t know anybody in orthodox Christianity today who is pleading for geocentricity. Do you? In that case, the church has said, “Look, we misinterpreted the teaching of the Bible with respect to the solar system, and thank you, scientists for correcting our misunderstanding.” I think we can learn from non-believing scientists who are studying natural revelation. They may get a better sense of the truth from their study of natural revelation than I get from ignoring natural revelation.
So what I’m saying is that I have a high view of natural revelation. However, if something can be shown to be definitively taught in the Bible without question, and somebody gives me a theory that they think is based on natural revelation that contradicts the word of God, I’m going to stand with the word of God a hundred times out of a hundred. But, again, I have to repeat, I could have been a mistaken interpreter of the word of God, but again, I don’t have to face that problem because I believe both spheres are God’s spheres of revelation and that truth has to be compatible. If a theory of natural science is in conflict with a theological theory and contradicts it, here’s what I know for sure: Somebody is wrong. And I don’t leap to the conclusion that it has to be the scientist; it may be theologian. But nor do I leap to the conclusion that it must be the theologian; it can well be the scientist. That is because we have fallible human beings interpreting infallible natural revelation, and we have fallible human beings interpreting infallible special revelation. Now all of that is a long way of saying, “I don’t know how old the earth is.”
IMO, very well stated.
As someone far smarter than me once said to me:
What makes you so sure?
