Science in Christian Perspective
REACTION AND REBUTTAL
"THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE"
(See Journal ASA, 21, 97-124 (1969)
Reaction
Bruce Erkilla, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, California
Rebuttals
David L. Dye, Kirtland MB, New Mexico
Paul H. Seely, Portland, Oregon
Bruce Erkilla
It is not my purpose to argue, debate or try to change the convictions of Mr.
J. D. Albert, but I would like to point out a completely opposite
point of view.
To me the Bible is the foundation to all physical and spiritual
knowledge including
"science". The Bible does much more than to answer the question why.
It answers such questions as what is man, where did man come from, and when did
man arrive here on earth. It also provides the answer to why was man born and
where is man going. The Bible is the true foundation if we know how
to use it.
Scientists do not like to include the study of the spiritual world
with the study
of the physical world. They like to keep the two separate because it
is more comfortable
that way. True knowledge and True science must include both the spiritual and
the physical worlds to have total understanding.
As a physicist I probe nature to understand more about physical laws
which regulate
the motion and structure of all matter, Until I understand these laws I know I
will not be able to begin to understand this world I live in. At the same time
I do not hope to have a complete understanding of this physical world and the
laws which regulate it without having understanding of the spiritual world and
its laws. I am limited in my understanding of the physical world
until I receive
knowledge about the spiritual world too. The human mind will never
really understand
what life is or what such things as gravity is until our creator and lawgiver
gives us the necessary understanding of the spirit.
To me the Bible does not just contain truth about spiritual matters.
It is obvious
to me that the Bible contains truth about many physical processes and
historical
events. The geologist who is ignorant of the Bible cannot possibly understand
what he observes in the rocks of the earth. The Bible is the only source which
I am aware of that reveals the truth about the great floods in the
past. Without
that knowledge scientists misinterpret scientific evidence.
Here is a simple example. I as a physicist seek to better understand the nature
of nuclear forces and the structure of nuclear matter. Most people
would ask bow
can this study be related to the Bible? From the Bible I learn that a
great designer,
creator mind is behind all the patterns and designs I observe in this physical
world. I learn that this great mind was
responsible for putting laws into action which regulate this physical
world, and
then He created the physical world in harmony with those laws. I learn from the
Bible that there is order to all of these inventions, so I am not at
all surprised
when I find order in every thing in the physical world around me. I now expect
to find order and perfect design in everything I study from now on. In fact I
look for it. When I seek to better understand the nature of nuclear forces and
the structure of nuclear matter I am not surprised to find a design
and a perfect
pattern. The closer man looks at this physical world the more great design he
finds in it. This fact points directly at a great designer mind
behind the world.
It just could not have happened that way. At the same time I do not
become frustrated
when all my questions are not answered by men's knowledge because I know that
we still lack the required spiritual knowledge to perfectly
understand even this
physical world. The Scientist who does not know God and the Bible
misses a great
deal even in his understanding of this physical world.
Is a study of human nature science? The Bible has much to say about
human nature.
In fact without the Bible man would not know much truth about the
nature of man.
Who knows more about man than the One who made man? The Bible
provides the foundation
to understanding the nature of man in my opinion.
The Bible contains truth and information about government, geology,
meteorology,
astronomy, biology, sociology, history, psychology, agriculture,
economics, health,
business, and education to name a few. Important principles in each
of these areas
are contained in the Bible or I do not understand the Bible. I am certain that
men would have to change many of their ideas of knowledge and understanding if
they would take the Bible as their foundation and build understanding
from there.
I am enclosing an article that may give you an idea of what might
happen if "scientists"
would first take the Bible and build knowledge and understanding of
evidence from
there. When I study the Bible and articles such as this one I begin to wonder
just how much misunderstanding and mis-education I have and the great
"scientists"
of this world have. The possibilities are interesting to say the least.
(The enclosed article is "Dinosaurs Before Adam?" by
Robert E. Gentet, Contributing Editor of The Plain Truth,
Herbert W. Armstrong, Editor. It espouses the "Gap Theory"
between Genesis
1:1 and 1:2.)
David L. Dye, Kirtland MB, New Mexico
My own views on the relation between the Bible and science have been published
elsewhere in a larger exposition.1 I was pleasantly surprised to note that most
of the contributors to the Symposium expressed or implied quite similar views,
and that there is apparently emerging among evangelical scientists a
recognition
of the need for reinterpretation of data to
arrive at a consistent position on the issues that have unnecessarily divided
Christians and scientists. This fact was commented on also by David Moberg in
the same issue.
The correspondence between many of the statements in the Symposium essays and
statements in reference 1 were so striking that I have made a partial
correlation.
In the following, first the Symposium is
quoted, in italics; then reference 1 is quoted, with a page number.
(1) Jerry Albert: "The Bible tends to answer questions beginning
with "why"
... Science tends to answer questions . . "how"... The
Bible is concerned
with ultimate purpose; science is concerned with mechanisms."
Science tells
us how things happen, not why. (p. 52) (See also below (IA) on the
philosophical
neutrality of science.)
(2) Marie Berg: "I refuse to look upon the scrip
tures as a scientific textbook.. ." Remember that God's
purposes in revelation are not to give man a complete scientific
treatise on cosmology,
zoology, or history. (p. 123) (See also the quote from p. 134 in (17)
below.)
(3) Dick Bube: ". . . The Christian must not react in fear to the fossil
record. The reliability of the Bible and the vitality of a life with
Jesus Christ
do not depend ... on the proof or disproof of even the general theory
of evolution."
. . . The facts of science, which are so readily interpretable on the basis of
evolution, are as philosophically neutral as any other scientific
data. Evolution,
even applied to homo sapiens, is not a philosophical principle, but a means of
biological description . . . . Evolution is not ammunition for one view against
another, nor the exclusive property of the irreligious. The
consistent Christian
needs some such hypothesis to assist him in accounting for the vast amount of
physical data he has which is not explicitly discussed in the Biblical record.
. . In addition the Christian has the spiritual data to show him he
is a created
spiritual being with moral responsibility to God. . . (p. 150)
(4) Wilbur Bullock: "We must honestly admit that our knowledge
of spiritual
. . . and scientific truth is really infinitesimally small. . . The
apparent conflicts
become exciting and challenging areas of study."
Tentativeness is another important principle of interpretation, since
we may yet
have acquired neither the broad view of scripture nor the complete
detailed scientific
understanding needed to harmonize the data (p. 123) Advice to the reader: Keep
reading!
We orthodox Christians have everything to gain by
aggressively pursuing truths from all sources
(p. 176-7)
(5) Stephen Calboon: ". . . If it looks as though evidence at
hand warrants
a conclusion contradictory to scripture, he can he sure that further evidence
is needed..." They (revealed data) neither support nor preclude any of the
current scientific (i.e., descriptive) hypotheses on the origin of
the universe. Gamow, Hoyle, Alfven, or Opik, or none of them, may be correct in his
scientific
views . .; the correct interpretation of observed data will be found eventually
to be consistent with the simple statements of Genesis. (p. 135)
(6) Gary Collins; two examples among many
agreements: A. ". . . two basic assumptions (in science)
first that the world contains facts and events which can be observed. Second .
. . observables are
related to logical and consistent ways.. ." Science, that
is, the scientific method, describes the physical universe by means of (a) data
observation, (b) generalizations into explanations that account for data, and
(c) further experimental verifications of the consistency of the descriptions.
The practice of science depends on the three corresponding
presuppositions: (a)
that there is such a thing as observable reality, (b) that this reality is such
that its description is logical or self-consistent, and (c) that this reality
is casual. (p. 178)
B, "Emotional involvement with our pet ideas, and selective perception as
we look to the data, probably contribute much to the heated conflict
that surrounds
issues such as evolution." The world view's task, to provide a framework
of meaning on which we may hang the data we constantly receive,
involves all facets
of our personalities. . . It is natural and easy to have emotional involvement.
. . So people, including scientists and Christians, approach their respective
data with philosophical pre-conceptions. . . The world view may even influence
the way data is taken, as we sub
consciously try to bolster our positions . Such an argument is
circular. . . (p.
71-2)
(7) Roger Coffey: one example among several res
onant ideas: "Exegesis is further limited as a scientific tool
because ancient
writings can be interpreted only in terms of the languages and concepts . . .
available to their authors, . ." The Christian view recognizes
prescientific
language and ancient cultural contexts as such, and symbolism of
literary language.
For example we do not hold dogmatically that heaven is a physical place, up in
the sky somewhere... Perhaps the ancient writers did, but the revelation of God
to modem man is not assisted by this concept, and the language of
scripture hearing
on this point is interpretable of a reality too wonderful to be
contained in the
notions of mere fourdimensional space-time. The Christian interpretation . . .
accepts (by faith) the reality being symbolized. . . (p. 127)
(8) Harold Hartzler: "The main purpose of the Bible is to show that God is
a loving heavenly Father and that Jesus Christ came . . . to seek and save the
lost. Science ... is interested in formulating as complete a
description as possible
of the universe." To understand the Bible as history, we must
seek the Bible's
own statements . . . concerning the purposes for which it was written . . . God
reveals himself through Jesus Christ . . . the data given throughout
all the Bible
subserve that personal revelation. (p. 108) As scientists we believe that more
data will serve to narrow the possible range of interpretations of
existing data,
and thus ultimately lead to correct descriptions of physical reality.
(p. 25)
(9) George Homer: ". . . a literalist interpretation of (Gen. 1-3) forces
one to focus on man's physical origin rather than on man's relationship to God,
the origin of man's spiritual nature . . . in God's image
It is the implanting of God's image in man which
is the point of these chapters." This was a new departure, an
act of creation;
not the creation of a new physical body, but of a personality . . .
(p. 148) The
"image of God" is certainly nonphysical, for "God is a
spirit . It is this spiritual side of man that character
izes him, in the Christian view, and the bodily form is quite incidental. (p.
149)
(10) Russell Heddendorf: ". . . The particular concern is with a general
theory of society. The Biblical description of society is based on the fact of
man's
alienation from God and resultant sinfulness ." An
area of application . . . to which the Christian view is especially relevant,
is social action. The Biblical . view . . . implies approaches to all
social problems.
These problems normally have common roots in ego
centric human nature. . . It is our total world are. (p. 141) view that is to
be applied to these cultural problems. (16) John A. McIntyre; one example among
the
(p. 176)
(11) Irving Knobloch; two examples:
A. "No scientist ... in his daily work as a scientist ever deals
with matters
of morals, with the soul, or with the after life. . . They are
conducting themselves
properly by keeping these areas separated." Our assumption
regarding an external
physical reality is
equivalent to the assertion that . science deals ex
clusively in the realm of the physically observable...
science may be articulate if tentative, in its description of (the) observable
. . but it must be mute on other questions. (p. 49) If science is to
be the objective
discipline most scientists consider it to be, it must be limited to
descriptions
of an objective observable reality. Questions concerning a scientific basis for
ethics, the moral un-neutrality of science, or support for any world view, are
valid only when understood as philosophical rather than scientific questions.
(p. 35)
B. "We must stay flexible in all non-essentials. Inflexibility in the past
has led to ludicrous consequences." The church's reaction to Roger Bacon,
Galileo Galilei, and Charles Darwin exemplify both the inadequacy and
the disastrous
consequences of a traditionalist world view that fails to allow for scientific
data. (p. 14) A more flexible view of science within conservative evangelical
churches will prepare believers not only for their encounters with alien views,
but for a richer experience within their own views. (p. 15)
(12) T. H. Leith; among many new and beautifully
deep insights, one example: "The ultimate test for any scientific theory
is how well it fits what we know from
experience in the physical world.. ." The process of
scientific verification involves acquisition of data that relate in a
predictable
or implicit way to some generalization (theory). . . Either it fits or it does
not; or, more likely it partly fits the predictions. . . When data
begins to fit
into consistent descriptive explanations, we are tempted to conclude
that we are
on the verge of proof of a theory. . . (p. 26)
(13) Gordon Lewthwaite; one example among several: ". . . inspiration did not necessarily breach or exclude
some occasional
elements of the prescientific
thought forms of ancient culture.. ." God has worked
in and through various men throughout history in more or less overt ways, and
both with and without their knowledge of his working, to record the words and
concepts He wanted to use to reveal Himself to us. . ... God guided in the choice
of words, normally using the vocabulary and mentality of a local prescientific
cultural context to express or exemplify concepts with universal meanings which
could later be seen to have validity for other cultures, (p. 121-2)
(14) George Mavrodes: ". . . The Bible contains the true answers to some
scientific questions and not to others" (No implication that answers are
untrue, merely that they aren't there!) Science, of course, cannot
say why these
events occurred. . . The Bible gives only a sketchy description of
how they occurred,
but does state that God caused these events to happen. The laws of
chemistry and
statistics are God's laws, so the processes are at once natural and
supernatural.
Science speculates that it could have happened as we have briefly outlined, and
the Biblical data are remarkably consistent with what physical facts there
are. (p. 141)
(15) [not found in the original manuscript]
(16) John A. McIntyre: one example among the many in which fellow nuclear physicists agree: "...
cannot the scientist recommend to the theologian the use of some of
the techniques
and attitudes . . . fruitful in the study of the natural world? . . .
If our interpretations
of scripture are to develop in a healthy way as new scientific
evidence accumulates,
we must capture theologically the free thinking as well as the
conservative features
of the scientific enterprise. ."
Observed data in physical reality (is to be) interpreted jointly with
the objective
statements of scripture. In addition to objective scientific data (there are)
subjective data (which) are observable, though they may originate in or result
from an interaction between the Spirit of God and the physical person . . . (p.
75) (There is) a need of all people to (1) be tentative in forming conclusions,
(2) distinguish raw from processed (interpreted) data, and (3)
recognize presuppositions
and the influence of one's world view on his data interpretations. (p. 74) ...
With a healthy world view that honestly, yet critically, accepts all data, the
Christian possesses criteria by which to relate his faith. . . (p. 14)
(17) Russell Mixter; one of several examples:
The Bible is to be commended for what it does not say
as well as for what it does reveal . We need not
read any preconceived cosmological model into these revealed
statements (Gen 1:1-2);
none is there intrinsically. . . God's purpose in revealing this
datum is to let
us know that He is the Creator of the universe. Apparently He didn't
want to force
the prescientific Hebrews to wade through some technical pargon on
the astrophysical
processes involved, since they might have stopped reading before they
got to the
really important parts of His revelation of Himself. (p. 134)
(18) Jim Neidhardt; two of many examples of
agreement: A. "It is not the Bible's purpose to reveal
the details of physico-chemical mechanisms." (See the quote from page 134,
ref 1, in (17) above.)
B. "Biblical descriptions of nature ore phenomenological. . . Such language
. . . frees the reader to respond to the primary purpose of scripture
... Biblical
revelation and scientific explanation are thus seen to be different yet equally
valid perspectives of the same God given reality; the two . . . are
complementary.
The implication of our five presuppositions is that general and
special revelation
are mutually consistent. In short, "all truth is God's
truth." The facts
of nature and the statements of scripture must together constitute a harmonious
total structure of truth. That is, raw data to be interpreted jointly. . . (p.
69) ) (See also the quote from p. 141 in (14) above, about the laws of nature
being God's laws.)
(19) John W. Montgomery: ". . extra-Biblical data can never determine the
meaning of the scriptural text (though of course such data can and
must pose questions
for the Bible interpreter...)" In this case (Sennecharib's seige
of Jerusalem)
the two records can be correlated-the Assyrians' silence is significant, and an
additional data source (Herodotus) is available. In other cases,
present evidence
from extra-Biblical sources is too meager to make a good correlation. In a very
few cases, there is outright conflict between sources, but it is
significant that
new archaelogical discovery has always tended to confirm the accuracy
of the Bible.
(p. 107) (See also quotes in (5) above.)
(20) James A. Oakland: "Psychology is an extremely broad and heterogeneous
field. . . With which 'psychology' are we to discuss the relationship (with the
Bible)? Similarly, the multiplicity . . . of Biblical in
terpretations raises the same problem. . . Given
this mutual state of affairs, the best response is a generous portion
of humility,
not dogmatism, on both sides." ... Tentativeness of all
scientific conclusions,
which is a truly scientific attitude is analogous to humility. (p.
72) (See also
quotes from p. 74 in (16) and from pp 14-15 in (11B) above.)
(21) C. E. Walker: ". . . science is impartial regarding values and goals.
. . Values pertain to men, not to science. . . The bulk of the
revelational truth
found in the Bible deals with values, goals and sin
observables.. ." Science, as we have seen, is amoral;
i.e., neutral on the ethical quality of personal actions. (p. 100)
The scientific
method can provide us with the means of rational consistency, if not the goals
and meanings of our existence. . . This is the proper function of science. (p.
52) ". . . Man's needs are more basic than the types of problems science
can solve. We need ethical guidance for life which the increasingly
accurate scientific
descriptions do not contain. Indeed we need more than standards . . .
at a deeper
level we need the goals in life that can provide the desire and ability to live
according to those standards To borrow a mathematical phrase, science
is philosophically
indeterminate. One's goals and purposes in life, which are
intertwined with one's
world view, are therefore also not uniquely determinable by scientific means.
(p. 12) When a finite human personality comes into the vital relationship with
the infinite spiritual Person of God, that human soul is no longer
left to drift
whimsically among cross-currents of its own egocentricity. Love for
the Heavenly
Father becomes a driving force and purpose . . . . Not only ethical standards
are thus provided, but also the desire to meet the standards rather
than to rebel
against them in self-will. The ego is still present, but egocentricity, that is
sin, is no longer the dominant trait of a person related to God. (p. 96)
(22)Robert L. Wilson: ". . . The scriptures ... are written in
the language
and a culture far removed from the scientific era. . . For this reason . . . it
is a gross injustice to the scriptures and also to science to make use of them
in a manner ... which was never intended," (See quotes regarding purposes
of revelation and prescientific language and culture in (2), (7),
(8), (13), (17),
and (18) above.) (The philosophical neutrality of science) potentially allows
science to
proceed unfettered by personal philosophic bias. Parallel to this feature . .
. the human mind is free to pursue religious truth with the
conviction that scientific
description can complement them . . . . Our quest for personal meaning proceeds
unfettered by the limitations of science, rather using science as a
means of consistency.
. . (p. 52)
Of course, we all owe a lot to Bernard Ramm's 1954 book2, on which most of us
teethed way back then, or at least chewed over. Some of the agreement
noted here
between Symposium writers must stem from this. His clearly reasoned
lead-in article
on Biblical inerrancy sets the stage nicely for the rest of the Symposium. He
sees the need for tentativity in interpretation of the raw data of scripture,
recognizing the purposes and prescientific cultural contexts of the revelation
of God to man; just as several others did in the Symposium. And, he shows the
logical inadequacy of insisting on (idolizing?) inerrancy for its own sake, a
point well worth emphasizing. I would particularly second Rarnm's assertion on
page 100 of the Journal, that Christians do not stick to their faith because of
inerrancy of the scriptures but "because of their experience with Christ
and of the Spiritual content of Holy Scripture which has no effectively spoken
to their own hearts." This experience also gives us the
confidence that bits
of Biblical data we cannot now reconcile with currently known physical data are
actually consistent, if they could be interpreted in the eternal context.
Another factor in this developing agreement between us evangelical scientists
is the recent publication and wide acceptance of Dick Bube's book3, which also
clearly and succinctly states a position underlying many of the
Symposium statements.
The encouraging thing about the Journal ASA Symposium was that among nearly all
the contributors there was a general consensus. This fact, that so many of the
evangelical Christian (Bible-believing) scholarly community represented in ASA
agree on these basic issues, bodes well for the communication of the gospel to
our professional colleagues. I trust that we can continue the interchanges and
developments of views with increased love for one another.
REFERENCES
1David L. Dye, Faith and the Physical World: A Compre
hensive View, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966,
paperback.
2Bernard Bamm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture,
William B. Eerrlmaas Publishing Company, 1954.
R. Fl. Bube, Editor, The Encounter Between Christianity and Science, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968.
Paul H. Seely, Portland, Oregon
In "The Relation Between the Bible and Science" I noticed
that H. Harold
Hartzler and J, Warwick Montgomery both subscribe to the same basic
logic: Possibly
errant descriptions of nature must be subjected to and corrected by
inerrant descriptions
of nature. This is sound logic. Is it feasible? Is it Biblical?
Hartzler and Montgomery believe that descriptions of nature from
Science (a) originate
with men who do not know the absolute truth, and (b) are given in
conceptual forms
which may be mistaken-possibly errant descriptions. They seem to lose
sight here
that men are working in science under common grace;
but, essentially these propositions are sound. They believe, on the other hand,
that descriptions of nature from the Bible (a) originate with God who knows the
absolute truth, and (b) are given in veracious propositional
form-inerrant descriptions.
We can only agree with part (a) and will show why below.
If all the propositions of Flartzler and Montgomery were true, one could easily
subscribe to their logical formula: Examine what the Bible says on a subject,
accept it as true; and then place all human scientific propositions
on a secondary
level to be interpreted and corrected by the Biblical statements.
But, unfortunately
their idea that all Biblical descriptions of nature are
veracious is unbiblical and on occasion must appear false even to
themselves.
The Correspondence Theory of Truth is Not the Predominant Biblical
Theory of Truth
The Bible nowhere teaches that its descriptions of nature are in
exact correspondence
with God's omniscience. This idea is a purely human assumption (and therefore
"possibly errant"). The Bible nowhere teaches that God will
only speak
in exact correspondence with what lIe knows to be true-correspondence theory of
truth.
This idea that God can only speak in absolute correspondence with His
omniscience
arises from approaching God scholastically, abstractly, and
academically instead
of as Father. It arises from reading into Biblical statements about truth (and
lies) an unbiblical philsophical definition of Truth. It arises from treating
figurative statements on the authority of Scripture as literal
scientific statements.
Truth in Scripture is preeminently personal-moral-existential and only
secondarily
a matter of correspondence theory. God is a Father, not a Philosopher. Pilate
with his unbiblical view of Truth (John 18:38) could not understand
Christ's personal-moral-existential
view of Truth (John 18:37). Biblical "Truth" is not
essentially a proposition
that one knows, but the will of a Father that one does (John 3:21; I John 1:6).
In the Bible a knowledge of the Truth is grounded in the existential world, it
is not an abstract proposition (John 7:17).
Not that the Bible is unaware of the correspondence theory of Truth,
but accomplishing God's will is a prior consideration. Deception is of God if it accomplishes His
will. Rahab's lie, the sine qua non of her saving God's spies is done
in obedience
to the Truth and she is justified (Hebrews 11:31). The deceptive ambush at Ai is
God's plan (Joshua 8:1-23). The deception that Samuel practiced on the elders
of Bethlehem (he had not come "peaceably" as he said) is of God directly
and overtly that David might be anointed King (I Samuel 16:1-5). In the Bible,
correspondence to God's will (personal-moral-existential truth) is
more important
than correspondence to "reality" (abstract truth) -and the
former Truth
may negate the latter.
"Inerrant Biblical Propositions" Are an Abstraction
Even if the Bible gave inerrant descriptions of nature, these
descriptions would
not be inerrant for men. Even a perspicacious Bible that is self-interpreting
leaves us with less than apodietie certainty. Peter could not always understand
Paul (II Peter 3:16); and Paul "saw in a mirror darkly" (I Cor, 13:12).
Even when Jeremiah received the Word of God directly (Jeremiah 32:6, 7), he did
not have absolute certainty about that Word til he saw it come to pass with his
own ("possibly errant") eyes (Jeremiah 32:8).
Even if the Word of God contained only inerrant propositions, those
propositions
would have no meaning for men until they were interpreted. When a Christian says,
"The Bible says. . .", he means, "I interpret the
Bible to be saying . Every Biblical proposition
comes to men only after having passed through a
"historical-grammatical-critical"
hermeneutic; and this "historical-grammatical-critical"
grid is rooted
and grounded on every side in the "possibly errant" observations of
fallible men. Every would-be inerrant Bib
lical proposition having passed through this "possibly errant" grid
partakes (as it enters men's minds) of "possible errancy."
So, the would-be inerrant Biblical propositions by which Hartzler and
Montgomery
would interpret and correct the "possibly errant"
propositions of Science
are themselves "possible errant"-for all practical purposes. They are
only inerrant in an abstract, unreachable world. They cannot be used
by men without
becoming "possibly errant," Even when we rise by faith to "know
in whom (note the personal relationship) we have believed," we
do not become
infallible. Faith is not sight!
Biblical Propositions Are Conditioned by the Minds of the Immediate Recipients
of the Revelation.
Not only are the Biblical propositions conditioned and made to
partake of "possible
erraney" by the act of interpreting the Scriptures; the Biblical
propositions
are sometimes conditioned and made to partake of errancy by the minds
of the immediate
recipients of the revelation-at the time of the giving of the revelation.
The idea that all Biblical propositions are unconditioned (so far as
truth-correspondence
theoryis concerned) by the minds of the recipients of revelation is
an autonomuous
Fundamentalist idea invented to defend Scripture, but foisted upon
Scripture.
The Bible plainly shows us that truth (correspondence theory) is sometimes lost
because of the minds of the recipients of revelation. Thus the Word of God was
conditioned by the hardness of people's hearts-so that divorce, which so far as
absolute truth (correspondence theory) is concerned is immoral, is allowed by God (Matthew 19:7, 8). And if a Biblical proposition can allow for immorality,
how much more can it allow for deviation from a mere correspondence
with "reality"
on an amoral, scientific point?
From Deuteronomy 24:1-4 we can properly derive
the truth that God allows divorce, but that truth is not
in absolute accord with God's mind. Hence, we learn from Matthew 19:7, 8 that
not all Biblical propositions (or more properly, legitimately derived
truths from
Biblical propositions) are in absolute accord with God's mind.
The Mustard Seed: A Concrete Example
The parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31, 32) makes it concretely clear
that the Hartzler-Montgomery formula is false.
According to Matthew 13:31, 32, the mustard seed is the "smallest of all
seeds," This is a description of nature given to us by God who knows the
absolute truth-it is supposedly inerrant. According to the Hartzler-Montgomery
formula this "veracious Biblical proposition" cannot be overturned by
any findings or propositions of Science. Indeed, according to
Montgomery "extraBiblical
data can never determine the meaning of the Scriptural text."
However, even though the Bible is supposedly inerrant whenever t touches upon
science (to quote the popular dictum of Fundamentalism), 99.44% of
the interpreters
of Matthew 13:31, 32 believe that the findings of science are valid-the mustard
seed is not the smallest of all seeds. These exegetes categorically deny that
this proposition of Jesus Christ is veracious-at
least, it is not veracious as a description of nature. Furthermore, they do not
believe that the mustard plant becomes a "tree", nor that
birds "dwell"
in it. And they note that normally the mustard plant does not become
very large.
As a description of nature by which scientific descriptions may be interpreted
and corrected, these Biblical propositions are complete losers. Taken literally
(as Hartzler and Montgomery must take these propositions since they
cannot appeal
to science), these propositions are scientifically incorrect at every
point.
However, most Biblical expositors are not stopped for one minute by
all of these
scientific "lies". If as touching upon biological science,
these Biblical
propositions are dead wrong, they are still the bearers of valuable spiritual
truth.
And if one considers that the purpose of the propositions was to
teach spiritual
and not scientific truth (even indirectly), the propositions are
easily exempted
from the charge of being lies. Having set out to communicate spiritual truths,
Jesus Christ is not a liar because he employs propositions which are
scientifically
errant. Nor is there any real difficulty in the passage. For Jesus is
simply employing
popular thought (scientifically errant), popular proverbs
(scientifically errant),
and a variety of literary devices (scientifically errant) to convey spiritual
truth.
We doubt that anyone will use the Hartzler-Montgomery formula on the
mustard seed
parable. No one will subject (and correct) the "possible
errant" description
of Science ("other seeds are smaller") to the
"veracious Biblical
proposition" ("the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds").
No one will even back into the hopefully respectable corner of
"Let the matter
wait. Someday scientists will find that the mustard seed is the
smallest seed."
No one will use the Hartzler-Montgomery formula because they know
beyond a shadow
of a doubt (having seen with their "possibly errant" eyes) that the
mustard seed very simply is not "the smallest of all seeds." Rather,
they will both contradict the Biblical description of the mustard
seed and interpret
the parable in the light of their extra-Biblical knowledge. In order
to save the
unbiblical theory of Biblical inerrancy, some will perhaps even deny
that Matthew
13:31, 32 ever touches on matters of science at all.
In any case, the Hartzler-Montgomery formula is dead. It is not Biblical. It is
based on an unbiblical definition of truth, or at best a half-truth definition
of truth. It is an abstraction that cannot touch the world of men. It
is in conflict
with the Bible's teaching that some Biblical propositions do not reflect God's
absolute mind on a matter. And it falls to the ground, stunned in the forehead
by a mustard seed.