Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
The Typical Modernistic View of Scripture
R. Laird Harris
Dean of Faculty
Covenant Theological Seminary
St.
Louis, Missouri
63141
From: JASA 21 (September 1969): 92-93.
For some weeks I have intended to write you my reaction to the
article, "The
Three-Storied Universe," by Paul Fl. Seely (Journal ASA 21, 18 (1969)). I
suppose this article does not speak for the Society, but it seems to
be presented
without any caveat. I am so sorry to see such an article presented this way in
the magazine. I fear that it actually does express the leading view in the ASA
at present.
This, of course, makes me very unhappy inasmuch as the original purpose of the
ASA was to show the concord between science and Scripture, with
Scripture recognized
as infallible. As you know, the basis of the ASA has been changed a couple of
times, but even so, it was my understanding that there was still a claim that
science and Scripture agreed. This article makes a flat statement
that "the
Bible gives redemptive truth through the scientific thoughts of the
times without
ever intending that those scientific thoughts should he believed as
inerrant."
There are several things wrong with the article. First, of course, I seriously
object to Seely's interpretation of the Bible. The idea that the Bible teaches
that
there is a three-story universe is prominent in Bultmann's theology, and I have
heard him present it myself with the claim that consequently the Bible must be
demythologized. Alhright has strongly objected to Bultmann in that he does not
adequately utilize our knowledge of the views and ideas of antiquity.
It is interesting
to have Seely argue that Matthew suggests that the world is flat when
the circumference
of the earth had been measured by Eratosthenes 250 years B.C. and the
astronomer
Ptolemy gives the standard argument for the sphericity of the earth about 150
A.D.
His whole argument on the three-story universe depends on exegesis with which
many Bible scholars would not agree. To argue for such an idea from
the "etymological
meaning of the Hebrew word for firmament" is strange indeed in view of our
modern ideas that etymology is quite deceptive in the interpretation of words.
That the bottom story must be the subterranean realm of the dead has been much
debated and he surely cannot prove his idea from Numbers 16:30-33. In Missouri
in the great earthquake of the last century many objects were engulfed by the
earthquake and lots of people were buried alive, just as Korah was.
However, it is not my purpose to answer his exegesis in detail. I would simply
point out that his view is the typical modernistic view of Scripture that has
been held for many years, usually with the additional point that the Bible is
a hook of religion and not of history. The history is objected to by critics as
much as the science.
I hardly feel that the inerrancy of Scripture is an a priori doctrine read into
the teachings of the Bible. It is a doctrine that comes to us from an exegesis
of the statements of Christ. The question is, was Christ correct when He spoke
of heaven, of hell, of Adam and Eve, of Noah and the flood, of Jonah
and the whale,
or was He not? In those areas where the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture is
given up, the authority and truthfulness of Christ is soon given up
as well, and
this is quite logical for even the critics admit that Christ taught inerrancy.
Theology then is faced with a Christ who was a child of His time, and these are
the conclusions of Bultmann and other critics. Such a religion is
extensive today,
and many scholars defend it. It has not been the historical faith of
the Christian
church and is far from the original position of the ASA. It leaves us
with a Christ
who cannot be trusted. I think we should realize what Seely's position really
is. For myself I must heartily protest against it.
(Editor's Comments: The implication in Dr. Harris' letter that the
article, "The
Three-Storied Universe," by Paul H. Seely, should never have appeared in
the journal, i.e., that it should have been withheld by editorial censorship,
or that at most it should have been published only with apology, is based upon
a faulty conception of the function and publication policy of the journal. It
is not the function of the journal to propagate a crusade for any particular interpretation of many questions in
which science
and Christian faith are
mutually involved. Any article, judged to be consistent with the
Constitutionally-stated
purposes and doctrine of the ASA and to exhibit sound scholarship in respect to
factual basis and exercise of interpretation, is acceptable for publication in
the journal. If an author is guilty of gross scientific or exegetical error, we
are confident that readers will quickly set the record straight,
thereby increasing
general understanding of the truth. Given Dr. Harris' strong
convictions, exactly
what is needed is an "answer" to Mr. Seely's "exegesis
in detail.")