I've been on the side-lines for a while, but upon reading the recent
exchanges between Jim and Glenn, I thought I'd comment.
First, on the definition of apologetics. This quarter the adult Sunday
school class of our church is studying presuppositional apologetics. The
definition of apologetics given by Cornelius Van Til in his book _Christian
Apologetics_ is a little different and broader in scope than Glenn's
dictionary definition. Here it is:
The vindication of the Christian philosophy of life
against the various forms of non-Christian philosophies
of life.
I don't think that this necessarily negates Glenn's definition, it does
recast the issues a bit into a much broader framework that focuses on
worldview and fundamental issues relative to the existence of God and the
authority of his word. While Jim's characterization of some of Glenn's
points as cavilling about details is perhaps too sharp, I would argue that
our acceptance of Christianity and the Biblical revelation of who God is
and what He has done does not depend on our ability to resolve all the
difficulties. I think that there is a fundamental difference between
approaching problems in the Bible from a point of view of belief and
unbelief. Belief can continue to recognize God's Word and authority on the
basis of the broad reliability of scripture, a recognition of human
finiteness and fallibility, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit even when
all of the difficulties cannot be solved. This is not to say that we
should work to solve them in a way that demonstrates intellectual
integrity, but rather that the ultimate ground for our belief in the
authority of God's word is not dependent on these resolutions. The problem
with liberal theologians is that the problems and difficulties in the Bible
lead to a critical view that denies the authority of scripture. This, I
believe, is the result of a fundamental posture of unbelief that puts human
reasoning above divine authority.
I *have* read Pinnock and Bloesch and while I resonate with much of what
they say, in the end I find their perspective to be fundamentally in error.
I am sympathetic with their emphasis on the purpose of scripture as a
hermeneutical principle so that many of the problems go away because
scripture is not addressing the questions that we are asking (what Jim
seems to mean by the scripture principle, I think). However, I believe
that Pinnock and Bloesch and many of who are sometimes called
"neo-evangelicals" (the Rogers and McKim school critical of the inerrancy
of Old Princeton and modern day Westminster Seminary and others) have given
away the store. They have so stressed the human aspects of Biblical
revelation that the Bible as first and foremost *God's* word has
disappeared. No doubt all of these theologians affirm the Bible as God's
word, but I believe that they have crossed the line whereby human opinion
becomes the measure of God's word rather than God's word being the measure
of human opinion. (An aside to Jim: I think that the views defended by
Westminster Seminary faculty past and present and those of B.B. Warfield
mediate between the views of Pinnock and Bloesch and the more extreme
fundamentalist views put forth in Lindsel's _Battle for the Bible_.)
Given my views on evolution and the opening chapters of Genesis some on
this reflector might be surprised to hear me say these things. However, I
do not believe that one must compromise the doctrine of scriptural
authority and inerrancy to get to my position and neither did B.B.
Warfield. The question is a matter of hermeneutics and not the doctrine of
scripture. Many people compromise the doctrine of scripture *in principle*
to get to this view. However, in my opinion, recognizing that the
historical literality, chronology, and precision often takes deference to
the theological purpose of text is a hermeneutical decision rather than one
that alters one's view of the Bible.
I don't remember if I have ever posted this before. My apologies if I
have. Here is a section of a statement I wrote for Calvin relating my
Christian faith to my academic discipline. I hope it contributes in a
helpful way to this discussion.
Terry G.
________________
The Role of the Bible in the Scientist's Work
The Bible is authoritative in the life and work of the scientist as
it is in all of life. The authority of the Bible depends not on the
testimony of any man, or church, but wholly upon God,
(Westminster Confession of Faith, I, 4). The Bible reveals all things
necessary for God's own glory, our salvation, faith and life (WCF, I, 6 and
Belgic Confession, Article 2). Because it is the Word of God, and God can
neither err nor lie, the Bible is infallible and inerrant in all that it
teaches. Christian doctrine and the key elements of the Christian
worldview are derived from the Bible. Scripture is our fundamental
starting point as we think about God, humanity, the material world, sin,
and how all these things interrelate. This view of reality derived from
Scripture is the interpretative framework in which Christian scientists and
other Christian scholars do their work.
The "all things necessary" (WCF) or "as much as we need in this
life" (Belgic Confession) clearly is somewhat limited in scope. To say
this is not to limit the authority of Scripture in any way, but simply to
recognize that the purpose of God's special revelation to us in the Bible
is not to provide a textbook for biology, geology, history, or any
technical discipline. All knowledge is not revealed to us in Scripture;
our calling to subdue the earth includes the mandate to discover truth
about God's world that is not revealed to us in Scripture; however, we do
not need such knowledge for our salvation, faith and life. Without
necessarily denying that the Bible may speak in other areas of life, it
must be emphasized that the essential nature of Scripture is to reveal in a
historically progressive manner God's work of redemption. Because God's
redemptive work recorded for us in the Scripture takes place in space and
time, it will intersect with the world as studied by scientists,
historians, and other scholars. Where the Bible speaks in these areas,
either in general principle or in a specific text, the Christian scholar
must receive its teaching as coming from God himself and allow it to govern
his or her thinking. This is not to follow some blind Biblical literalism,
because proper rules of interpretation must be followed, rules that
recognize differences in literary form, redemptive-historical context, and
revelatory purpose.
Because of sin it is impossible for fallen humanity to rightly
perceive the world except by the work of God's Spirit in our lives. Even
reason is affected by the Fall. Hence, God's special revelation in
redemptive history and in the Bible gives us glasses through which we can
now see the world aright. This implies that we must submit our fallen
reasoning to the Scripture and doing so enables us to interpret the world
aright. This does not guarantee error-free scholarship nor does it imply
that our reasoning or the reasoning of unbelievers is automatically
erroneous. Rather it means that we must constantly examine our thinking to
see that it accords with Scripture. In our modern context where there is
great animosity toward the Christian faith among scientists and other
scholars, Christian scientists must be on their guard to prevent
non-Christian modes of thinking about the world from entering their own
thinking.
Even with the above outlined principles it is still possible to
have a conflict between science and the Christian faith. At the outset the
Christian scholar must maintain that such a conflict is due to the human
interpretation of the revelatory Word and works of God. There can be no
ultimate conflict between Creation and Scripture. God is the author of
both. Conflict comes as a result of our interpretation of Creation (the
human endeavor called science) or in our interpretation of Scripture (the
human endeavor called hermeneutics, exegesis and theology) or both. We
ought to strive to eliminate such conflicts whenever they appear, however,
we should recognize that in our limitations and fallibility we may
not succeed. (See "Creationism, Evangelism, and Apologetics" in
Christianity and the Age of the Earth by Davis A. Young.) In dealing with
such conflicts the authority of the Biblical text must be preserved,
however, I think that it is perfectly acceptable to allow the findings of
science that are in conflict with a received interpretation of a particular
passage of scripture to occasion the revisiting of the text to look for
another possible interpretation that eliminates the conflict. This is
simply to say that our interpretation of Scripture may be in error. Such a
re-examination of the text must be done with great caution since the
temptation is always present to twist scripture to make it conform to the
latest scientific theory.
______________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Phone: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
mailto:grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt/