The fifth and final challenge from the April 1 post was…
The Bible claims that the world was created in six days within the last 10,000 or so years. Modern science has proven that the universe is closer to 14 billion years old and that there is a natural explanation for everything in it.
In my view, there are two legitimate angles to approach this from. They cannot both be correct, but they are unified in that they both refute the case for evolution.
The first view, as represented by AiG, claims that the science behind the conventional view on the age of the universe is flawed.
The second view, as represented by Reasons to Believe, claims that, yes, the universe is 14 billion years old, but this is not inconsistent with the Biblical record. This view also points out that although the universe may be billions of years old, life appeared relatively recently and there is no evidence that evolution has ever created a new species.
I. The moon’s recession and the sun’s brightness both point to a young date for the earth.
A. The moon is receding from the earth at a constant rate (Barnes, “Young Age for the Moon and Earth”).
1. If the moon were closer than 11,500 mi to the earth, then it would be broken apart (Barnes).
2. If the moon had been receding for only millions of years, it would be much farther from the earth than it is now (Barnes). The friction caused by the moon breaking off from the earth or being captured by earth orbit would have incinerated all life on the planet.
3. The tidal forces of the moon’s proximity to the earth even just one billion years ago would have been sufficient to alter the earth’s shape to something different than it is today.
B. The sun also presents a problem for long ages, called the “early faint Sun paradox” (Faulkner, “The young faint Sun paradox”).
1. In the process of thermonuclear fusion in the sun, it grows brighter with age (Faulkner).
2. If life appeared on the earth 3.8 billion years ago, which is the going figure, then the sun should have brightened about 25% in this time.
3. The earth, then, should have increased in temperature greatly in that time—but biologists say that, for life to develop, mean earth temperature should have remained relatively constant: this is the “paradox.”
4. A 25% increase in solar output would raise Earth temperature 18*C (Faulkner).
i. The current average is 15*C.
ii. Then, 3.8 billion years ago, the mean temp. would have been -3*.
5. Obviously, these conditions are not possible for the evolution of life to have occurred.
6. There is no conflict between these facts if the Sun is still relatively young—it has not had enough time to increase greatly in brightness.
II. The most prevalent method of “proving” the age of the earth is radiometric dating.
A. What is radiometric dating?
1. Method of dating an object by assuming the amount of a radioactive element present to begin with, measuring the amount remaining at present, and calculating its age by the rate of decay of that radioactive element (Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, p.104).
2. This method assumes knowledge that cannot be known for sure:
i. how much of the radioactive element was present to begin with.
ii. that the rate and conditions of decay have been constant all that time.
iii. that the sample has not been altered by quantities of that element leeching in or out of the sample.
B. There are two main problems with modern dating methods.
1. For example, radiocarbon dating is a popular method of dating organic remains.
i. This method requires the presence of C-14 in an object.
ii. Because C-14 decays completely in less than 1 million years, any sample containing C-14 must be younger than 250,000 years (Wieland, “RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!”).
iii. In fact, nearly every biological specimen found contains measurable C-14 levels—none of these can be as old as they are supposed to be.
2. Other radiometric dating methods have been proven to give very old and disparate dates for rocks of known age (Sarfati, 105). Such methods are not reliable for unknown ages, either.
III. The world’s population is not enough for having supported mankind for 1 million years.
A. The current growth rate of the world’s population is 1.7% net annually (Batten, “Where are all the people?”).
1. This rate is slower than it has been historically, because of industrialization, birth control, and abortion.
2. The rate needed to reach our present 6 billion people after only 4,500 years is 0.5% (Batten).
B. If people had been around for just 1 million years, we would have too many people.
1. Assuming an average growth rate of 0.01% (that’s much less than any estimates—it doubles once every 7,000 years!), we would have 1043 people today (Batten).
i. If each square meter on this earth were converted into another world of the same size as ours presently, we would still have only enough room to fit 1028 people on all those earths (Batten).
ii. There is obviously no way that mankind could have existed for even one million years on the earth.
2. Some say that disease, famine, and war kept human population low for most that million years, but for that to be the case, it means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for over 900,000 years. This is highly improbable and a statistical impossibility.
IV. A recent discovery of unfossilized Tyrannosaurus Rex bones indicates that these remains are not 70 million years old (Joyce, “Soft Tissues Recovered from Ancient Dinosaur”).
A. The bones are well-preserved.
1. Blood vessels and still-pliable tissues have been found in these bones (Joyce; Wieland, “Still soft and stretchy”).
2. The discoverer of these bones, surprised evolutionist Dr. Mary Schweitzer of Montana State University, said “microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way” (Wieland).
B. They could not have survived 70 million years underground in such condition.
1. Nobody had looked for soft dinosaur tissue before, because their ideas of millions of years precluded that possibility.
2. It would take miraculous preservation conditions for these bones to be preserved this way for so many millions of years—conditions approaching modern cryogenics.
3. It is much more likely that these bones are not millions of years old, and instead have been preserved well because they are only thousands of years old.
——————-
My sources:
Barnes, Dr. Thomas G. “Young Age for the Moon and Earth.”
Batten, Don. “Where are all the people?”
Faulkner, Danny. “The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system.”
Joyce, Christopher. “Soft Tissues Recovered from Ancient Dinosaur.”
Sarfati, Jonathan, Ph.D. Refuting Evolution.
Wieland, Dr. Carl. “Still soft and stretchy.”
Wieland, Dr. Carl. “The earth: how old does it look?”
——————-
Now that I’ve shown what side I’m on (for those of you who haven’t read this post or this post or this post), let me clarify a little. I think this should remain an in-house debate. As you’ve said, Eric, to deal with this “refutation” of Scripture, we need only demonstrate one of two things. Either that’s not what the Bible says and the question is setting up a straw man, or that is what the Bible says and modern scientists have interpreted the evidence wrongly. But, in reality, when dealing with a person who would pose such a question, we needn’t get into either of those–if we’ve already dealt with this skeptic’s questions on the existence of God or the necessity of an Intelligent Designer, then this question is inherently flawed from the outset. One of the first points we should have gone over is the plausibility and the provability (beyond reasonable doubt) of the existence of a personal and holy Creator. If that point is conceded by the skeptic, then the claim that “there is a natural explanation for everything in it [the universe]” has already been proven false, and science is missing something. Once we have the skeptic on the same supernatural “page” as we are on those issues, if the claims of evolution and modern science are still stumbling blocks, we can then, and only then, begin to demolish those objections by presenting these two views.
Jeffrey,
Just curious, but don’t your complaints against an older earth rely on some of the same bad science that they often use?
For example, with the problem of the moon receding – How do we know how constant it has been receding? How long could we have really have been accurately measuring it? It seems that this argument makes an assumption which cannot be backed up. A similar argument could be made for the sun’s brightness.
As for the dating of carbon life-forms and rocks – I would agree that the data is inconclusive. But this doesn’t prove either side right or wrong.
Similarly, the population statistics only tie to the age of people on the earth, not necessarily the age of the earth itself.
Personally, I do not know that science can prove anything for either side. We cannot ever know exactly what conditions took place over a period of time that far in the past. One set of presupposed conditions could lead to an older earth and another set of presupposed conditions could lead to a young earth dating.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t have a leaning towards one or the other though. I don’t think the Biblical texts can be definitively interpreted, but I do not think there is any major doctrinal issue which relies on one position or the other. I think instead of fighting the battle with naturalists over the age of the earth, we should instead attack their base position which allows for the earth to be created without a Creator at all.
Well, these aren’t exactly my best theological or scientific arguments against evolution and long ages. But this outline was all I had prepared, and I didn’t have the time to write up anything new. What I posted was really a speech I gave to a class I knew was mostly evolutionized, so I was humoring the evolutionary worldview and attempting to carry it out to its logical conclusion. Therefore, for the uniformitarians, I had the early faint sun and the moon’s recession. While based on a principle (uniformitarianism) that you and I know to be false, it took the current status of these heavenly bodies and applied the uniformitarian’s own thinking to it–with self-destructive results. I didn’t attempt to correct his view, I simply drew logical conclusions from his view that threw his assumptions into question.
My point was not that the radiometric data was inconclusive–it was that the amount of radiocarbon now present in fossils show that they themselves cannot be as old as necessary for an old-earth model. There’s simply too much C-14 left for them to be that old.
Again, with the population model, I was primarily working from the evolutionist’s own viewpoint, in which mankind has been on the earth since he arose around 50,000,000 years ago. This model, by that simple statistical example, is unworkable, given present population. But your point raises a question of mine: see below.
I agree that science won’t prove anything in this area, but I still believe the YEC model makes the most sense of the body of evidence and should be adopted as the most accurate of scientific worldviews. And as you know from previous threads, I believe there are doctrinal and exegetical implications of one’s interpretation of Genesis 1.
I wholeheartedly agree that this battle is irrelevant to the skeptic asking us this question–the battle for Intelligent Design must be won before we can lead him to the Bible’s historical account of the world. This point cannot be conceded. Our faith–our very lives depend upon it.
—————————
My question: for the old-earther, when did mankind actually appear on the earth? God took 4 billion years developing the earth and getting it ready for mankind, whom He placed on earth fully-formed and developed, as recorded in Genesis, correct? (I suppose that you agree with me that there are no pre-hominids or primitive men–Neanderthal and such fossils are all of Homo sapiens, but made to fit into an evolutionary framework.) When and where did God decide to place Adam and Eve on earth?
As a point of preclusion, it seems much simpler to explain to me that Jesus was really talking about the existence of man from the beginning of creation when He said, “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6), and “they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark” (Luke 17:27).
Also, please note that, while some of the points I made in my original comment were “playing along” with evolutionary presuppositions in order to demolish them, the radiometric dating point and the final point about unfossilized T.Rex are strong, objective evidence for a young earth (or, at the very least, young fossils!).
As for one objection raised in your second paragraph, we’ve been accurately (within a few percent, and increasing in accuracy with time) measuring the distance to the moon since Aristarchus of Samos (310-230 B.C.) first calculated this distance.
My fear in using these kinds of scientific arguments is that they may eventually fall apart on us. For years I heard the argument of the amount of dust collected on the moon pointed to a young moon and then discovered this was based on incorrect data. Instead the dust pattern on the moon actually suggests an older moon. Here is a quote from Answers in Genesis:
I realize we have to be able to defend from a scientific point of view that a young earth is at least logically possible, but I know that it will never convince many who do not take the Bible literally (and even some who do) and it often feels like a waste of resources when I see how much effort is put into it.
As a side note – I find the strongest arguments for an older earth/universe to deal with astronomical data – such as the fact that a star which is several million (or billion) light years away takes that much time to reach the earth. Since I go back and forth on this particular issue, can you point me to any good young earth arguments dealing with that?
I understand your fear, but I fear even more greatly the impression we may give of Christianity if we fail to meet the evolutionists “on their playing field” and show that we can conduct objective, scientific inquiry, as well. They continue to revise their data, and we can do the same with impunity. But we can demonstrate that the evolution model has required many more revisions than the creationist model.
Dr. Russell Humphreys has come up with a cosmological explanation for many phenomena that evolutionists are scrambling to explain (they even invented the Van-Oort Cloud to explain the young comets we see). His cosmology also eliminates the need for billions of years of light travel-time. You can find his book here.
Another article I ran across, which I haven’t had the chance to peruse lately, can be found here. It presents an alternative explanation that is still in the same vein as Humphreys’s theory.
Some basic logic is also useful in considering this issue. I haven’t yet heard any arguments I find legitimate, beyond “they’re so far away–the light has to have so long to travel.” I have read Greg Kokul’s explanation of why the universe “has to be” billions of years old, and frankly wasn’t impressed.
My bad, I posted the same link twice. The first link should point to Starlight and Time.
The Koukl article I believe Jeffrey is referring to can be found here:
Star Light and the Age of the Universe
Some of his other stuff on evolution is found here.
I couldn’t get to the article by the link you posted, Hugh…try this one.
Wow, Mr. Stables posts are looking like mine in length (so here is a short one). All of the data above, while VERY useful, has limitations. It seems that the unbeliever can look over your presentation and decide that you have proved that your point is probably true, but his presuppositions that he holds most dear in his belief system have remained unchallenged.
While I encourage using data such as that used above, I think that we need to acknowlege its limitations in apologetics. A good question for the scientist might be, “why do you trust the scientific findings at face value and not the biblical accounts?” Getting at his empirical presuppositions might be more effective in proving your point.
If you were surprised at my long-windedness, you haven’t been reading these blogs for long. 😉
That’s exactly my point in the final paragraph of my first comment–if we haven’t shown how evolution cannot explain, for instance, consciousness; or why an ID has to exist…we’re never going to get anywhere with our skeptics.
Argh … these articles lead me back to my whole frustration in dealing with these issues.
Just to get an alternative point of view I searched and found people who refute Humphrey’s position. Now I have experts both on different sides of the issue. While I have a basic understanding of the theory of relativity and other areas of physics I am definitely not an expert. Though I am pretty sure I could catch up on the science issues involved, I am not sure I am really qualified to determine which one is right or wrong. And that is just on this issue of stars light-years away, not to mention the multiple areas of science required for dating of rocks or fossils, moon receding, sun brightness, red shifts, etc.
For the majority of Christians I just think we end up picking which experts we want to support – and we often pick those experts based on whichever position we already believe in. For right now if a naturalist pushed me on this issue, I think I would just have to admit that I do not know exactly how old the earth is BUT that I do know that God created it and that we did not evolve from apes. Of course the area of evolution does require some scientific background and reliance on experts as well … but my convictions on this issue are firmer because I think the exegetical issues in the Scriptures are clearer than for the age of the earth.
Matt has summed up my view pretty well. I really don’t have the expertise or the time to master the science behind the two views on the age of the universe (although I admire those who do). But the case against evolution is much easier to grasp; so, I focus there. Regardless of how old the universe is, without evolution, the naturalist worldview is untenable.
Since I am not convinced that, as many Young Earthers are, that the Scriptural account demands creation in six solar days, I’m content with either side winning the scientific battle. The only Scripture issue that gives me pause is that the Old Earth position requires that there is animal death before the fall of man. Upon some review, I don’t think the Biblical account demands that there was no animal death before the fall—only that there was no human death. Obviously, this one is up for debate.
Mr. Stables, I saw the comment in your last paragraph about their base positions, but I got side tracked by the “cannot be definitively interpreted” comment. I think I agree, but I had to think about it. My apologies…you did make that point. But it begs the question, if you believe that, then why the long post using only scientific evidence?
Mr. Hodges, I don’t believe you need to be a specialist in scientific data to be an effective apologist. You are right on. One simply cannot keep up on all the scientific info. unless he is a scientist by profession. The good news is that I don’t think that is what the Bible calls us to do. We don’t need to learn an endless regression of arguments against the scientific community to obey the scriptures and give a defense for the hope within us.
Eric, I agree about the theological argument that death cannot exist before sin (the Fall occurred after Creation). This is a huge argument that is often overlooked. Just out of curiosity, why do you find young earth scripturally inconclusive? (not that i think this is a bad position)
Going back to the objection Eric cited to set the table: “Modern science has proven that the universe is closer to 14 billion years old and that there is a natural explanation for everything in it.”
No self-respecting scientist claims to prove anything.Natural explanation for everything? Everything is a tall order.
Obviously Eric is putting words in the evolutionists’ mouths to some extent. But from the standpoint of simply trying to penetrate the crusty shell most evolutionists have, it’s probably more effective – and more approachable – to zero in on the incredible arrogance of the radical Darwinist position.
It’s pretty easy to expose that it is, at best, a sort of “pseudo-science” that is accepted on more of a leap of faith than a reasoned stand on established evidence.
Jason, what I mean is that I’m not convinced that God, through Moses, meant for the Genesis account to address the timing and mechanism that God used to do the work of creation (i.e., that the text demands that the creation process took place in 144 hours).
So Jason, what is your case for saying that there could be no animal death before the fall?
Eric, I agree with you that on the level of meaning that pertains to the human author, Moses probably did not intend to address the mechanism that God used to create the world (other than his use of the Hebrew word yom “day.” I think it is a stretch to make this word mean anything other than a literal day which is defined as the sun rising and setting in the account [probably 24 hours]-but I can live with there being a lower level of exegetical certainty on this issue and wouldn’t press those who don’t hold my view to accept another view. I would want to hear the details of the “non-literal” day view….some of them are simply not good positions). But, if we believe that the Bible has both a human and a divine author, then could it be possible that God had Moses record the Creation account knowing that it could one day be used to defend against Darwinism? I would say yes. Therefore, allowing for both human intent and divine authorship, I would say that the primary meaning of the Genesis account is to address the fact (as Mr. Hughes eloquently stated with more wisdom than any empiricist) that God created the world and man as well, but secondarily, and also a part of the meaning is the application that Darwinism is false.
Finally, to answer your question, I think that the scriptures give us a wealth of evidence that sin was not in the world until sin. If you will permit the use of “proof” texts without me giving too much of the context:
Romans 5:14 “Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses”
Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death”
Romans 8:20 “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it (referring to Adam)”
Romans 8:22 “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now”
Christ, as the second Adam redeemed us and the result of this redemption is that the realm of man’s dominion (Adam’s dominion) would be set free from a sinful ruler, and given over to the proper Adam, Jesus Christ. His redemption of the sons of Adam had a soteriological and a cosmological effect.
Genesis 2:17 “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die”
I believe that the first death should have been the death of man, but instead it was the death of a substitute. The animal(s) were killed in order to cover Adam and Eve’s shame (nakedness). The first death pointed to Christ!
To say that death is a part of the natural created order and therefore “good” has serious theological implications. Namely, the minimizing of the seriousness of sin. Sin is an issue of life and death, namely ours, or Christ’s. The burden of exegetical proof is on the one who holds such a position.
Jason, I’m not sure how any of the passages would conflict with the position where “death” has only human death in view.
Saying that animal death before the fall has theological problems because there could not be sin before the fall sort of begs the original question, doesn’t it? God seems to have designed some animals to kill and eat other animals (the spiders web, sharks teeth, etc.).
Could not God have chosen to create the world in such a way that some animals eat other animals?
We clearly had plant death before the fall. What about insect death? Or amoebas?
I disagree with the interpretation that does not see the passages in Romans connecting the futility of creation (including animals, plants, and apparently even insects and amoebas) to that of Adam’s fall. I can offer pretty exhaustive proof on this…but I don’t think it would be wise to post this due to its length. It would take a whole article in a journal because the evidence is exhaustive. If you want it though, I will be glad to email something.
Can you prove that we clearly had plant death before the fall? Can you support from scripture that animals were not sustained by means other than predatory behavior? Can you support from scripture the idea that death is not connected to sin? A tooth and a spider’s web does not build your case.
Why would there be so many passages that speak to the fact that Christ has conquered death if it were not a bad thing? Can you support from scripture that death is a part of God’s good creation (the natural order that God intended). Why would God only allow us to eat other animals (prey if you will) after the flood (Gen. 9)? Or why is Christ’s reign described in Isaiah 11:6-9 in this way, “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.”?
Give me scriptural evidence to show that I should adopt your position if you don’t believe my interpretation of these passages. I believe that understanding the connection of sin and death is important in understanding the scope of redemption.
On a more evidential level, could there have been swarms of locusts that would destroy the fruit in the garden? Could Adam have been mauled by a predatory animal? 🙂 I know this is all speculation, but I think my point is clear.
A quick two points, as I don’t yet have time to respopnd to the questions that have come my way:Jason, you say that in Romans 8:20 “him who subjected it” is Adam. I believe, based on context, that “him” is referring to God. It was He Who subjected creation to the Curse (He cursed because of sin, Adam didn’t curse), and it was He alone who did so “in hope” (8:20)–Adam certainly didn’t sin “in hope” for future redemption. Also, since it is the creation that “was subjected to futility, not willingly” (8:20), and Adam was part of creation, then it cannot be Adam who subjected an entity containing himself to futility, since creation was subjected “not willingly.” Just a friendly warning to keep our exegesis sound and within context. :)It must now be brought up that the Bible makes a distinction between plant and insect (and lower animal) life and nephesh life, or life which has a spirit and/or will. It is quite feasible that non-nephesh organisms did perish before the Fall, without any curse upon them. After all, if all animals were vegetarian, then the plants had to be consumed.
Upon reading a few more verses, I will re-phrase my argument in fear of sounding a little to strong in my previous post. I believe that it could have been possible for death to exist in the lower creation before the Fall, but it’s corruption would have had to have been restrained by God’s grace, and it could not have been connected to sin.
But I also believe that the witness of scripture seems to support, implicitly if not explicitly, that death’s connection to sin makes this unlikely.
I reviewed my previous post and saw that I may still be begging the question, so I thought I would state my position more clearly.
Hope this is helpful.
Mr. Stables, you are right about point #1, I didn’t review the context of my “proof” text (which is part of the reason I dislike using them). Thank you for the correction.
You lost me on point number two. If I am not mistaken, Nephesh is applied to animals and insects (Gen. 1:20-21)as well as to humans (all over the place where it is translated as soul in English).
See my last post for my position, but I don’t agree with your point #2, and therefore wouldn’t use it to support my position.
Jason,
I think you may be reading too much into the Isa 11 passage. There is a similar passage in Isa 65:25 but the context also includes such things as men living for 100 years (implying they die after that) and having children. Obviously these cannot literally to the end times since men will not die and will not marry. Instead I think God is using images of peace and prosperity that would paint a picture of just how great the afterlife will be.
One could infer from the Isaiah passages that it is describing the way animals acted prior to the fall and that they did not eat each other. However this is not necessarily the only interpretation. The images could be pointing to the dominion man was supposed to have over the animals and the fact that any and all animals were under his control – the wolves and lions would could be just as domesticated as the lambs.
The Gen 9:3 text seems to definitely point to the fact that man was supposed to be a vegetarian (note: we do not know if sinful man had already begun to eat animals before the flood though). This does not guarantee that animals were also to be that way.
I am undecided on whether or not the “death” passages you listed must point to death overall or could only point to human death. I will have to think about that issue some more … The only reason the Isaiah issue caught my eye is that I read the parallel passage recently and was thinking about that particular issue.
Jason, I think you make a pretty good circumstantial case. This is why I say that this aspect of the Old Earth position gives me pause. However, I don’t think the texts you site demand that animal death was introduced at the fall. Because of this, I cannot say that the Earth cannot be old. Because of this combined with the fact that God seems to have designed many types of animals to kill other animals (circumstantial evidence pointing the other way), I will not go to the wall for a young Earth. I don’t want to get caught in the same spot that faithful, but misguided, Christians got into defending the flat Earth from the Scriptures.
Heh, that is funny about the flat Earth positon. Yeah, I think that it is wisdom to not take a position too dogmatically when it cannot be proven well from scripture. Though I believe there is sufficient evidence based on the language of scripture, I will grant that I would not “go to the wall” for this belief. I do think that there is far more biblical data supporting this view than a flat Earth hypothesis. I also think that the main reason we take pause is due to a need that we feel to let science harmonize with biblical data, and this concerns me as a general rule.
Though I have already stated my position, I cannot agree more Eric. We should only go to the wall for issues that are backed by a great amount of exegetical certainty and your point has caused me to rethink the usefulness of this argument in the Old Earth/Young Earth debate.
Again, I will ultimately appeal to the language of scripture. yom means day. and this wasn’t debated until Darwinism became a popular belief system. But I am aware of the issues involved in this debate and believe that there are bible-believing and God fearing men on both sides of the debate.
Hugh, your point concerning the Isaiah passage is well taken. Though, I believe that the prophet used these topics for a theological reason and that this is not random allegory. But I think you already made this same point and acknowledged this fact in your post.
If anyone is interested, my denomination (the PCA) went through this debate and had to settle on which positions were acceptable orthodox positions concerning the Young Earth/Old Earth debate. I don’t think that their findings are on the web, but I have their position papers. They are excellent and I will email them to anyone who wants them.
How’d you know it was me posting the point on the Isaiah passage under Matt’s name?
But I’ll take credit for a good point any day. 😉
Eric, please, please don’t use the church-defends-flat-earth idea! Evolutionists trot out this tired old saw whenever they want to marginalize the Christian view of origins. The fact is that the church NEVER held to a flat earth position. That is not to say that no Christian ever held the flat earth view – some will invariably agree with the ‘science’ of the day, where this idea originated. I only wish to say: don’t give them any more ammunition.
Heh, my apologies Matt and Hugh, I post on this thing far too late.
Jeffrey, I’m not saying that the flat Earth was ever an official Church position. I’m just showing that some Christians got burned by arguing that the flat Earth (or geocentricity) was biblical (and that denying it was denying the authority of Scripture) because they stretched the Scriptures beyond what they intended to say.
I don’t bring it up to say that there is an exact parallel with the age of the Earth. Nor do I intend to demean the young Earth position by comparing it (sorry if it came across that way at all). I think the young Earthers lay out a stronger case than can ever be made for the Earth being flat (or the center of the universe). I’m just point out that we shouldn’t stake out positions that go beyond what the Scriptures demand.
Eric caught Jason’s disease…that was Dad posting (Jeff), not me (Jeffrey). Confusing, eh?
Anyway, Eric, I do have a question. Could you post your references for the history of the flat-earth idea? I’ve always heard this point pulled out, but never read anything about its history.
The reason I ask is, it seems to me that our idea of how it went down is probably backwards: it is likely that the scientists at the time said the earth was flat, so a some Christians, feeling the need to harmonize the Bible with the science of the day, searched out all kinds of (figurative) proof texts for the idea. To me, it sounds a lot like what we’re doing today. As I’ve posted in the past, no one even considered an alternate interpretation of the Genesis account until modern science came along and told us that’s how it had to be. This sort of re-interpretation is risky, to say the least.
Finally, think about the issue culturally. Perhaps a hundred thousand people that believed the scientists and held that the earth was flat. Just because a thousand of those were Christians (who used the Bible and not just science), why can we now say that Christians (as a whole, or only Christians) once defended a flat earth? What about the other 99,000 people, who were clearly wrong, but just didn’t go back and reinterpret the Scriptures to say what they believed? Why did just the Christians take the flak for this? I think it’s the naturalist’s god, almighty Science, that should be distrusted for this kind of history. Not Christianity or the Bible. And certainly not our principles of exegesis.
Alternatively, the culture of the day of flat-earth thinking was primarily Christian (I’m assuming Renaissance Europe or somewhere around there), or at least in the charge of the organized church. Religion had no such bad name as it does today, even in scientific or political realms. The fact that a scientist would theorize a flat earth during the day and go home at night to find “proof” in his Bible was not surprising at all. The “Christian” faith was deeply entwined in everyone’s daily thinking–there was no attempt to separate Scripture from reality, as there is today. So the shock and indignation we feel at some trying to use the Bible to back up a flat earth was really not so shocking, at all. The entire society, as a general rule, was working from Scripture as a basis. The Bible was common in the scientific realm. And just because these scientists had a bad theory and used their Bibles to support it to some extent, we say that Christians supported a flat earth? I think not…
After reading the previous few posts, I want to reiterate that I believe the “proof” texts that I have previously posted have been historically and even currently used among evangelicals to show that there probably was no death before the Fall. Just so I don’t sound like some kind of heremeneutical nut who makes a mistake common to those who “push the bible beyond what it actually says.”
Whether or not this sways this argument has a “huge” impact on the Old Earth/Young Earth discussion- I believe I originally overstated that it does.
I still disagree with those who would see these texts as not to be used as proof for the connection between sin and death (and I think the Nephesh argument above shows us that the Bible does not make this fine distinction that we are hermeneutically presupposing concerning the separation between man and other animals (those who have a will and those who don’t). Again, I agree with Jeffrey Stables that the main reason we come up with such interpretive rules is so that we can harmonize the Bible with the science of our day.
Eric, to try and get back to the issue at hand, I wouldn’t spend much time debating an evolutionist with scientific data (he will often win- at least in his mind). I would debate more ultimate issues like authority. If you address the ultimate authority of his argument, his paradigm will shift.
Jason, I guess we just fundamentally disagree on this. There are countless cases where unbelievers have had the legs kicked out from under their worldview by the toppling of their confidence in evolutionary theory (myself included). Knocking down this philosophical stronghold is often the first step from atheism to theism. Once this step is taken, the door is wide open to revelation and authority.
But just to repeat, I believe that no one takes steps toward belief in God without God drawing him. The only question is whether or not it is legitimate for God to use this means (giving evidence from the created order to refute the materialist philosophy). I think it is.
Eric, I think that you and I have a disagreement about the nature of authority rather than the role of evidence. We both believe that evidential or proximate arguments are important in the apologetic endeavor. We disagree on how important they are. I did not mean to imply in my previous post that a paradigm shift means conversion- regeneration is necessary for that, yes. I find it interesting that after accusing me of fideism, you are arguing for only God drawing men to salvation. I believe in natural revelation…it is biblical. But we must acknowledge, as the Bible does, that natural revelation does not convert a man’s heart, only the Bible does. Evidences are appropriate in apologetics. But these arguments are not ultimate, meaning they do not address authority. At best, they prove a probability. A non-believer could read Mr. Stables long post on scientific data and conclude that because of his evidence, he is probably right, but who knows for sure?
To try and clarify, let me give the illustration of a triangle. The triangle represents epistemology (or how we know anything). There are only three ways that we come to know anything, and these are represented by the three points of my triangle. The first is the top point which represents ultimate authority. This is the authority that is most basic and the one by which all other facts are interpreted- that is why it should be placed at the top. The second way we come to know things is by experience. This should be placed at one of the bottom points. An example would be, I came to know Christ because I experienced the fact that he saved me from sin. A third way we come to know things is by proximate evidences. This should be placed at one of the bottom points of the triangle as well.
The reason that evidences and experience should be placed at the bottom of the triangle is because their type of knowledge is dependent upon our ultimate authority. As in the example I gave a while back, an unbelieving person may experience the sight of God walking down the street in Washington, D.C. and say that he is hallucinating because it does not fit into his ultimate view of the world. Yet, if he sees George W. Bush walking down the street in Washington, D.C., he will not question the validity of his experience. Therefore, he has interpreted his experience/evidence based on his ultimate authority.
This is precisely what the scientist will do with the evidence he is presented with in a scientific debate. If it doesn’t fit into his unbelieving worldview, he will reinterpret it to fit without being converted. According to Michael Behe, if this is done on a broader level among many scientists, it is known as a paradigm shift. We are seeing this right now, many scientists are being converted from Darwinism to something else, but not necessarily to Christianity. The reason for this is that their ultimate authority has remained untouched though Darwinism is proven to be a weak hypothesis.
The limitation of using scientific evidence in apologetics must be acknowledged up front. While it might be part of God’s prevenient grace, it must be used in conjunction with the Word of God to be ultimately effective. That is why I am discouraged that on an apologetics blog, the Word of God is seldom used as a part of our arguments. We instead appeal to philosophy and reason. This should be balanced out. After all, didn’t Paul himself use evidence for the resurrection in the Word of God? (1 Cor. 15:1-8) Why do we believe that if the unbeliever rejects this evidence, he will find our evidences more favorable? We must accept that the unbeliever is actually suppressing a God he already knows and is choosing to fight against the truth in his heart. (Rom. 1:18-22). He is not neutral, nor is he unaware. He is rebelling. Evidences must be used to point him to this fact, but if we do not take him to the fact that HE is the sole authority in his life and this must change, we are actually equipping him in his unbelief, by conceding that his reason is sound and his excuses for rejecting God are legitimate.
Sorry for the long post.
Let me see if I can state this more concisely. We must avoid putting general revelation on par with specific revelation. Specific revelation must help us interpret general revelation.
This is the core of the issue in the Young Earth/Old Earth debate.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see it. I don’t see how appealing to an authority that your opponent rejects buys you anything. It looks to the materialist like it would to us if a Muslim quotes the Koran or a Mormon quotes the Mormon scriptures. We rightly demand a reason that we should hold them as authoritative. I see no reason why we should not be held to the same standard. The Bible could be a fairy tale. We must have reasons to believe otherwise. Providing those reasons to others is perfectly legitimate. Defeating the Darwinist on scientific grounds is a step showing that his source of authority is false.
I see your point, but to me, it sounds as though you are putting the Bible on equal par with the Koran and the book of Mormon- and they are not. One of them is true and the others are false- that is what we believe right? The reality of the world around us is that the Bible is not a fairy tale and all theories of religion are not equal. We are not in a situation where all religions are on equal par and whichever one we can verify through science and experience will be the one that we should believe. One way to salvation, one truth, one life.
Again, let me reiterate, I BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE TO USE SCIENCETIFIC DATA TO SHOW THAT THE UNBELIEVER’S SOURCE OF AUTHORITY IS FALSE. What I am arguing for, is that we place this in its proper perspective.
Essentially, I keep saying- THE REASON YOU ARE USING SCIENTIFIC DATA IS WRONG, and you keep coming back with the argument of “but it’s okay to use scientific data.”
The reason I am probably annoying you with this same argument is that I believe that your approach is unbiblical, not your arguments. Your approach could lead to serious consequences in the apologetic endeavor.
In your previous post, you basically accused me of being circular in my argument. Let me ask you this, “If we need science to verify the Bible, then isn’t science the greater authority?” If we will not accept biblical teaching for fear of allowing room for modern science, then are we being obedient to our claim that scripture is authoritative? At some point, an authority has to be self-attesting. The Bible is just that.
I’m not annoyed, but we do seem to be missing each other on this somehow. I’m sorry if I’ve overstated your objection to the role of evidence. At the same time, I do not deny the importance of people’s presuppositions and disposition to deny God (ala Romans 1:18), which is why I made a point of mentioning that I do not believe that either evidence or appeal to authority alone would be effective in turning people from their unbelief.
I’m not saying that science is above scripture in any way. There are some necessary things that we must bring to Scriptures to make sense of them. For example, we must bring an understanding of language (at least Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic) and the basic laws of logic and reason. Otherwise we could not make any sense out of the ink on the page. Does this mean that we put these things above the authority of Scripture?
Regarding this…
I’m not saying that we need “science” to verify the Bible. But when you say that the Bible just is true because it is the Bible, then yes, I think your reasoning is circular. It is no different than the Muslim saying that the Koran is true because it is the Koran.
This makes me wonder… How do you approach canonicity? There are plenty of writings that claim the authority of Scripture. At some point, men had to assess each writing to determine if it was worthy of attributing to God. They couldn’t just say “It’s authoritative because it’s in the Bible.” Does this mean that the rules applied to determine canonicity are “above” the authority of Scripture?
Jason – I think you’re caught in the teeth of Francis Schaeffer’s upper/lower story dichotomy. Let me tell you what I mean and you tell me if I’m missing something.
For background: Gene Edward Veith summarized Schaeffer’s upper/lower story this way: “People today compartmentalize their lives into a meaningless objective “lower story” (the realm of science and fact) and a mystical, nonrational “upper story” of subjectivity and emotion (which becomes the realm of religion, aesthetics, and morality…”
Put simply, it describes a worldview as a house. It is a house in which “spiritual” things are confined to the upstairs and the “natural” things live downstairs. The problem isn’t in whether you assign things up or downstairs — it’s in the fact that you’ve separated them in the first place. Truth is truth, whether it’s spiritual, physical, or whatever.
Back to the issue at hand: you drew some distinctions between general and special revelation. Don’t get me wrong, there are big differences. But the way you are applying those distinctions seems to me like you are saying there are two different kinds of truth, much like an upper/lower story dichotomy.
If science is honestly and sincerely exercised as the pursuit of truth, there is nothing to fear: I content that special and general revelation align with a single Truth.
I think Eric is going at the mendacity and disingenuousness and capriciousness of the evolutionists. It’s as if to say, “Fine; let’s use science as your basis: let’s see where it gets you.” It’s called “taking the roof off” and it exposes the weaknesses on the other side.
First of all, let me say that I firmly believe that there is more that you and I are in agreement upon than our differences. Also, I have overstated my own position and therefore, probably caused you to think that I believe more than I really do concerning this issue. My purpose here is not to win a debate, but rather mutual edification whatever the outcome. Iron sharpens iron and if I need sharpening, I trust that God is using you for such an end. At times, my attitude (as far as I can communicate over the net) has not reflected this truth, nor have I been a good model of my own methodology. I sincerely apologize for what at times must look like contentious behavior. That being said let me try to review what we agree on.
1.)Evidences (such as science, language, laws of logic), insofar as they are not in conflict with scripture, are completely acceptable for use in apologetics.
2.)The unbelieving person’s presuppositions are also important to address in apologetics.
Let me know if you see anything wrong with the above statements. The following is most clearly the area that I need help in understanding: I know you, and therefore that gives me the luxury of taking some things for granted. I know you believe in Total Depravity. So let me formulate my position in this way.
1. If man, in his post-Fall state apart from grace, is completely fallen rationally, emotionally, and volitionally, then he cannot be neutral. Apart from Christ he is an enemy of God. Therefore, neutrality is impossible (Matt. 6:24; Rom. 3:10).
2. Men don’t hold to beliefs in isolation, they interpret their world according to their entire system of beliefs, i.e. their worldview. A worldview could be defined as “a network of assumptions or presuppositions in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted” There are no such things as “brute facts.”
3. Because neutrality is impossible, then unbelieving man has a worldview that reflects his hatred of God. This clarifies our disagreement with the unbeliever. We don’t simply disagree on the mechanism for evolution; our disagreement is over the very nature of knowledge itself, over nature of history, how a person knows what they know etc. Not just what we know, but how we know it.
4. Therefore, we cannot simply attack facts in isolation, we must address the worldview (or presuppositions) of the unbeliever. We want the unbeliever to not just be concerned with conclusions, but what led to conclusions. Want to redirect the conversation from facts to worldview and then deal with facts. As Cornelius Van Til stated, “When a man became a sinner he made himself instead of God the ultimate or final reference point. And it is precisely this presupposition, as it controls without exception all forms of non-Christian philosophy that must be brought into question. If this presupposition is left unquestioned in any field, all the facts and arguments presented to the unbeliever will be made over by him according to his own pattern”:(DOTF, 77).
5. Because the unbeliever is not neutral,if the unbeliever’s standard for truth remains unchallenged, then he will decide against the Bible. Again I will quote the oft misunderstood Van Til, “If therefore we say to [the unbeliever] that Revelation does not expect him to accept anything that is not credible according to his rules of evidence, this is, in effect, to ask him to reject the gospel” (IST, 41-42).
6. This deals with the heart of epistemology, “Can knowledge be found apart from God?”
7. Neutrality is immoral. Matt 22:37: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” 1 Peter 3:15, “But in your hearts, set apart Christ as Lord.”
I know this is a lot. I numbered the points so that if you find any weakness in any one point we can address that one in particular. Refer to the top paragraph to see what I think the proper place of language and the laws of logic are in the apologetic endeavor. Circular reasoning is entirely acceptable when dealing with ultimate issues (the buck has to stop somewhere), I could say more on this but I hate long posts. The Bible is the ultimate authority and it is not like the Quran because it is true. Your question presupposed that the man in between the two books (the Bible and the Koran) is neutral and needs some evidence to help him go either way but the Bible says that he already knows that the Bible is true and the Quran is wrong; he is suppressing this truth. Therefore, I am reasoning different from the Muslim who says that the Quran is true because he it says so simply by right of the fact that he is lying and I am not when I say that concerning the Bible.
I approach the issue of canonicity like the church. There was no formal meeting as you implied where men decided which books were canonical- rubbish. Rubbish that for some reason is commonly accepted by most in our culture. The early church accepted these books on this basis alone- they were self-attesting to their divine character, and this was confirmed by the Holy Spirit.
Hugh, I think you misunderstood me or I did not make this clear. I do not believe in a dichotomy between a “spiritual” upper and lower “physical” reality. Truth is not truth for reasons stated above. General revelation, while true, cannot lead men to salvation. They must have special revelation for this end. The revelation of Christ is more important than whether or not a tree of a specific species grows to be 6ft. tall as a general rule, or 8ft. tall. One truth can point to a general knowledge of the fact that there is a god, the other truth can point you to eternal life. I don’t think that you can prove from scripture that general revelation and specific revelation align with a single Truth, especially in light of Rom. 1.
I agree with your assessment, “I think Eric is going at the mendacity and disingenuousness and capriciousness of the evolutionists. It’s as if to say, “Fine; let’s use science as your basis: let’s see where it gets you.” It’s called “taking the roof off” and it exposes the weaknesses on the other side.”
This is precisely what I feel the problem with that method is, despite its popularity. Does God want us to do this? Did Jesus ever use this method? Did anyone in the scripture use this method for that matter? The weakness of the other side can be exposed without accepting his rebellious and sinful belief that he is neutral before the Judge of the Universe.
Could you expand on what you intended by “truth is not truth?” It doesn’t sound like something you meant the way it comes across.
Agreed: general revelation cannot save. Does that mean it’s not aligned with Truth? No — it just means that it’s an incomplete revelation. The image of God is revealed incompletely in each of us (and perverted thanks to the Fall), yet we still affirm one Truth.
I’m pretty sure I know what you’re saying — from other things you’ve written I don’t think I’m risking anything to conclude that you hold to a policy of only one Truth.
Still, could you clarify what you indended with the “single Truth” point? The way that comes across, it sounds like a sort of relativism… I don’t think that’s what you meant.
I think you would agree that general revelation cannot save, but it can convict. Taking the roof off, I ask this hypothetical: How could it convict with regards to “God’s Truth” if it aligned with some “Alternative Truth?” Obviously it cannot.
Jason – In your last sentence, did you mean “The weakness of the other side cannot be exposed…?”
For the sake of discussion I’ll stipulate that no, probably nowhere in the Scriptures is “taking the roof off” modeled as a tactic. But neither were tracts or pamphlets. Do you think Christians are confined to practices specifically modeled in the Bible?
So long as the essence of the tactic does not run counter to something God forbids, I see no problem with it. There are finer points to be made about whether you are doing it out of love, or out of a desire to tear somebody down… but that’s true of just about anything.
Another one (sorry, I broke up one obscenely long post into four manageable ones), this time on “science:”
What I’m trying to drive at is that science is a perfectly legitimate vehicle for a follower of Christ to use in addressing the fallen world — so long as “science” is true to its real meaning, not some postmodern deconstruction of the concept.
(Note how the English word “science” really refers to “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena” — and properly includes the scientific method in its complete understanding — but in usage, people seem to go no further than the Latin etymological root, scientia, which means “knowledge.”)
By “science,” I mean the pursuit of truth through careful, controlled experiments designed to disprove a hypothesis and objective exegesis of the outcomes. Note again a point I make all the time on this issue: science never proves anything. Science is inherently deductive. It’s like that Sherlock Holmes quote: “…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” Science aims to establish evidence of what is NOT true so we can at least narrow the field of what COULD be true.
One of these days, good science is going to disprove evolution. Should followers of Christ reject science then?
Totally skipping ahead here, I have to address this…
What I said was…
What part of my statement implies a “formal meeting.” Are denying that there was a point in time when men (human beings) came to apply the rules of canonicity to the potential candidates? If not, then how have I put forth rubbish?
BTW, I would hold that the generally accepted rules of canonicity are more extensive that you have put forth, and require more historical context and analysis of content. For instance, the work must be by an Apostle or a close associate. The content must be in general agreement with the rest of the body of Scripture and provide some edifying value to the Church.
To simply say that the writing claims to be authoritative and the Holy Spirit confirms it sound more like the Mormon standard to me when they say “Just read the Book of Mormon, and the burning in your bosom will tell you that it is true.”
OK, now to the presuppositional stuff. As a follow-up to my last point on science: properly understood, science is our ally in shifting a lost soul’s worldview.
How?
The work of evangelism is often compared to agriculture in the Scriptures. We tend to focus on the harvesting part — but any farmer will tell you that success depends on getting the soil in good shape to accept the seed. It starts out hard, compacted, lifeless, dry, and inhospitable, and it has to be broken up, aerated, irrigated, and amended. So to win souls for Christ, we have to do some soil prep.
One thing you have to do in preparing the soil is a soil test: you find out what kind of fertilizer to use, what is its pH, what kind of amendments need to be incorporated. Shouldn’t we do something similar with reaching a lost soul? Shouldn’t we “take his temperature” and see what his presuppositions are and address those before we start in with the Gospel?
If you don’t know what you’re up against, how will you decide what kind of tactics to employ — what “amendments” to make, if you will? Will you use your personal favorites, or the ones that will actually address the problem?
This is where science is your ally. If you know someone is receptive to science, give him science that forces him to rethink his conclusions. Remember, good science demands a good exegesis and synthesis of results from experimentation. If his own “lower story” science (dearth of supported hypotheses to explain the way things are) can’t support his “upper story” conclusion (evolution), it collapses and he will be more receptive to a new upper story.
So I guess I’m saying presuppositionalism is fine so far as it goes — but why not go after the presuppositions instead of “waiting for God to show up” or something? It may just be that God is showing up in you.
In our evangelism, it’s just as much our job to “improve the soil” so it’s not rocky, beaten-down, or weed-infested. So if we can till their compacted worldview, weed out their faulty thinking, and fertilize their hardened hearts with disillusionment over the failure of their presuppositions, that’s progress.
I’m way behind in even reading all of the posts now, but I will attempt to address the post with the two agreements and seven points in chunks (multiple posts).
First, yes, we agree on the first two points.
Next, skipping down to the bottom where you say this…
Yes, Jesus used this sort of technique in Luke 18:18-30. He granted the rich young ruler a counterfactual (that he had kept the law) and let him play it out to see where it led. Jesus swiftly showed the man that his position was not tenable. Did Jesus deny total depravity by allowing the man’s statement to stand long enough to show that he was incorrect?
OK, one more and then I’ve GOT to go to work. Somebody tell my boss I’m on my way… 😉
(For those not in the know, that’s Eric.)
Another reason science is our ally is that the scientific method requires you have to take what you’re investigating, construct a hypothesis to the contrary (called a Null Hypothesis), and disprove it. At the end of the exercise, you have a contrary hypothesis you’ve either A) failed to disprove (yes, that’s a triple-negative!), or B) disproved and can therefore rule out as an objection to the matter you’re investigating.
So here’s an example of a scientific inquiry:
Question: Does God exist?
Null Hypothesis: God does not exist.
You cannot support the hypothesis — it turns out that science cannot assert an absolute negative. What does this mean for the question? It means you failed to disprove the existence of God.
(I admit that is an egregiously brief discussion and the inquiry deserves much, much more detail — but not here.)
So when a scientific inquiry addresses the origins of life, the universe, and everything, the scientist must be able to synthesize his findings with the results other scientific inquiries. Only to the extent that this synthesis is done well can the scientist exegete some sort of conclusion about the “way things are.”
This means a meaningful scientific inquiry into the subject must not presuppose (note that word) that there is no God. Also, it must not exclude the non-provability of the non-existence of God from its synthesis of results.
Bottom line: science is no threat to God. It’s our job to make scientists (and everyone who listens to them) aware of that.
Correction: the third paragraph should read:
B) … disproved and can therefore reject as a challenge to the matter you’re investigating.
Jason, looking back over the seven points and the nature of this argument, I think our issue is over the nature of depravity. I believe that I hold to the conventional view of depravity, which says that apart from God’s grace, no man will choose God (John 6:44 and Romans 1). Your view strikes me as utter depravity—that man, apart from regeneration incapable of reason at all (i.e., that he can know no truth whatever). I think this is disputed by Romans 1:20. Men will be without excuse on the day of judgment because they do have the capacity to reason from general revelation.
Because of this, I agree with what Hugh says about the legitimacy of starting by tilling the soil—exposing the inconsistency of their worldview. In relation to this, I think of Paul saying I Corinthians 9:
Paul condescends to fallen men to reach them with the gospel. Is he compromising the authority of Scripture when he made himself “as under the Law”?
Man can reason apart from regeneration. Fallen man put a man on the moon. I believe that he can be shown the fallacy of evolution. Turning from his crumbling worldview to Christ requires the saving power of the gospel, but we don’t often go from the opening of the discussion to closing the deal in one sitting. Paul went day after day to the synagogues and city gates. Don’t you think he built a case over time, starting where the folks were leading them to Christ?
Can I join the party? Wow, I had to take a sabbatical to read all this stuff! Since I am a late arrival, I will piggy-back on the latest topic. Augustine, the mental giant, along with Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, etc., all held that mankind was dead in sins unable to apprehend spiritual truths that would effectivly lead to salvation. They believed, to varying levels, that mankind did not have the ability to understand spiritual truth given the condition of humanity being spiritually dead due to the sin of Adam and Eve.
However, these men did not go so far as to say that mankind could not apprehend truth in general. Augustine coined the term “earthy-will” in relation to this subject when he related that mankind had an earthly will that could attain a level of function (via God’s common grace that is given to humanity) apart from special grace that is given to become spiritually alive. Now, to weigh in on “reason apart from regeneration.”
It is possible for mankind to reason apart from regeneration, but that reason only can exercised within his or her “earthly will” and can never lead to a spiritual rebirth. It cannot apprehend any spiritual benefit for the soul apart from God’s special grace.
I simply can’t repsond to all these posts. I will try to start, but we need a break or a new discussion where each is allowed a chance to answer the challenges that are put forth. I will post shortly with a reply to some of these issues.
Backing up a bit, Hugh, let me try to respond to you first. First of all, I appreciate the interaction, but I am afraid I am still not making myself clear to you. (This may be the source of a lot of our “clarification” discussion as I am realizing that I need to write in a more precise fashion due to the nature of a blog. I wish I lived in Atlanta where we could all go grab a drink and discuss this stuff…we might get somewhere. But nonetheless, I enjoy the blog discussions and I am learning from them).
At no point did I intend to say that I believe that “taking the roof off” of a persons argument is wrong or unbiblical methodology (Eric, this relates to your response to my challenge to give me biblical proof of someone using the methodology that I was referring to). What I believe is unbiblical, is allowing someone to assume neutrality, thereby granting them their sin and then arguing from that perspective. Nowhere in scripture is this done. Presuppositionalism deals with the method of showing a person the logical conclusion of his unbelief and we base this method on Proverbs 26:4-5, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” I fear quoting this verse my raise a whole lot of exegetical questions, but it is a key verse for apologetics.
“Truth is not truth.” Granted, this is bad terminology that relied to heavily on the previous discussion. I think I completely misread your post. You and I seem to be in agreement on the nature of general revelation and special revelation, but to clarify further- the issue is not the revelation but the interpreter of that revelation (unbelieving man). While General Revelation does align with Special Revelation, it is interpreted incorrectly by fallen man. (See my post on the vision in Washington D.C. above to see an example).
“I don’t think that you can prove from scripture that general revelation and special revelation align with a single Truth, especially in light of Rom. 1.” For some reason I thought that you were saying in your previous post that by “align” you meant that GR and SR were on equal par. Apparently even a sinful believer can misinterpret truth. I apologize- you were obviously not saying that. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
“The weakness of the other side can be exposed without accepting his rebellious and sinful belief that he is neutral before the Judge of the Universe.” That is what I meant to say. We can take the roof off of his argument without permitting him to continue to believe that he is neutral and simply needs the right arguments to bring him closer to God.
Again, I am not arguing against using science in apologetics. I am saying that there is no such thing as a “neutral observation,” a fact modern science rejects. There is no such thing as a brute fact. We must acknowledge that all facts are interpreted (in the case of arguing apologetically, they are interpreted by sinful man and therefore they are interpreted incorrectly).
I think that you and I agree about most of your agricultural metaphor (some of it based on scripture). You even sound like a presuppostionalist!
On your point about science and Null hypotheses, I think you are proving to me the point I am trying to make, that science has limitations. Scientific inquiry can only with a Christian worldview to support it. But this is my crucial argument and that is why I will highlight it, You cannot begin to reason properly without God as your starting point. Eric, I am not saying you cannot begin to reason at all and that all things are irrational, rather, I am saying your starting point will dictate your conclusion and to be consistent with reality- you must start with God.
In conclusion to this obscenely long post let me say that I believe that Christianity started scientific inquiry off on the right foot. Many of our great scientists operated within a Christian worldview (Isaac Newton for one). Though its modern form has much to offer through common grace, in its presuppositions, it is rebelling against God by claiming neutrality (and I understand this is a generalization and not true of all scientists).
Eric, wow! Thanks for not kicking me off your blog by now. Part of the problem is that I need to learn to express my views better through writing and this is helping me do that so I apologize for my limitations and thank you for your patience.
Back to the “rubbish” comment: though I agree that you didn’t explicitly say that there was a formal meeting to decide canonicity, I thought that was implied given the context of our discussion and the fact that you seemed to be saying that it is analogous to our use of extra biblical truth to verify the Bible. If not, I apologize. I am aware of the guidelines that went into canonicity, but if you think about it, those guidelines you listed presuppose the divine character and therefore have the self-attestation of scripture in view. Most of the NT books were accepted as scripture during the lifetime of the apostles because the apostles told them that they were speaking the very words of God. By “associates” I’m sure you mean Jude, James, and the writer of Hebrews. The logic behind these books being included in the canon is that they were written by men who had been with Christ (granting that this is probably true of the writer of Hebrews- but this book is an exception to our “rules”- why?). Apostolic succession and doctrinal purity are in view here. From the mouth of Christ, to the Apostles, to the church. I’m not sure about your last comment about the edification of the church- never heard that one. Josh McDowell?
I don’t really have a problem saying something that sounds similar to the Mormons when I say, “Just read the Bible and the Holy Spirit will convict you.” This seems an appropriate tactic since the Word of God is given for man’s salvation. The difference is that the Mormon is lying when he says this of the book of Mormon and I am not when I speak of the Bible. What do you see wrong with this? Are you saying simply that I should broaden my argument, or that I am wrong?
I didn’t mean that you should find a place in scripture where Jesus uses evidences in apologetics. Does Jesus ever grant someone neutrality before his judgment? That is what I was trying to ask. Sorry, I wasn’t clear. Just for fun: it seems that Jesus uses presuppositionalism when he asks the rich young ruler, “Why do you call me good” (Lk. 18:19)?
I actually hold the conventional view of Total Depravity. Man cannot interpret the world around him correctly because he is Fallen emotionally, rationally, and volitionally. Two verses before Rom. 1:20, v. 18, it says that man is suppressing the truth. What does this mean? I don’t believe it means that man is incapable of reasoning at all because we would not be able to blog if that were true. But it does mean something. What do you think it means?
I will have to humbly disagree with your interpretation of 1 Cor. 9: 19-23, even though I agree that we should show the non-believer that his worldview is inadequate. When Paul says that he became a Jew to the Jews, he meant that he is a new creation and therefore no longer Jew or Greek. Yet he has Timothy circumcised because of the Jews (Acts 16:3); and he made a Nazirite vow to express thanks to God for deliverance (Acts 18:18). But all of these things are permissible by scripture. But Paul never let a non-believer get away with believing that he was neutral before God! Rather, he said they are without excuse.
A point which no one here is even entering into debate over. Do you guys believe that man can be neutral emotionally, volitionally, and rationally before God?
Mr. Miller, I agree and that is not what I meant to say (see previous two posts). Where did you read “earthly-will?” (What book). I have read Augustine and would like to know where that term came from- I like to know who I am borrowing from when I preach. Also, where did you find this position in Pelagius, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr? Did this come from the Ante-Nicene collection that is published in several volumes? (If you can’t remember- don’t worry…I can find half the stuff I’ve read before either).
Jason, I think I’m finally “getting it.” Your thing is that you want to avoid all appearance of conceding or affirming anything about an unbeliever’s foundational positions, even if it’s just a partial agreement, on the grounds that you’ve compromised on God’s truth. Is that right?
The problem I have with that is that seeking out common ground is absolutely essential to establishing rapport with people, at least in my experience. It’s gracious, you might say. I don’t have a clue why anybody should want to give me the time of day if all I’m going to do is stand on square one and demand they do the same.
How dare you accuse me of being a presuppositionalist! Pistols at dawn, buddy! 😉 …Seriously – presup. has great strength in its deep roots in God’s sovereignty. I just find that it bears no small resemblance, strangely, to the postmodernist penchant for focusing on the receiver’s disposition instead of the content of the message.
How to tie this off… Thomas Jefferson said, “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.” I think we may just differ on what qualifies as a “matter of principle.” More thoughts?
Wow! Hugh, you gave me hope that I am communicating something intelligible. It seems you are starting to understand me. Though I don’t want to reject all that the unbeliever says, only those things that are unbiblical (like their presupposition of neutrality). But there are some things that they could be right about (through God’s common grace and the fact that unbelievers often “borrow” from the Christian worldview to explain the world around them).
You lost me concerning the similarities that you believe presuppositionalism has with Post Modernism. The very point of presuppositionalism is that our foundation should be the Bible (which is content). The receiver’s disposition is important to consider in apologetics, but it is not the only thing we are to be concerned with in our apologetic endeavor. I am not trying to shoot you down; I just feel the need to clarify. I would be interested in hearing you further explain this point.
I agree that in the grand scale of things, this is an in-house debate among Christians and not the most essential thing to debate. But, on the issue of man being a neutral being- this hits more closely to rejecting a central doctrine of the faith. Neutrality is impossible, immoral, and I fear that if we model acceptance of this fact, we come dangerously close to offending the one whom we are trying to ask people to believe in. Therefore, I feel that it deserves some attention.
Wow, why do I always sound so serious?
Back to this for a second…
Sure. Part of the recognition process was that certain letters had enough spiritual value that they were being circulated and read publicly among the early churches. If a letter did not have the spiritual value to edify the church, would you add it to the canon?
Geisler puts it this way…
On this…
What about Luke and Acts?
If the Scriptures had dropped, glowing, out of the sky, that would be one thing. There might be no need to make a case for their divine authority. But things are not that neat and tidy.
I don’t see anything in my technique that grants to anyone that there is such a thing as moral neutrality.
Well, I guess that we are going to have to disagree. No big deal. Greater issues face the church.
To refer to your post above (and not to be argumentative- switching from one argument to another) this is an example of the issue that begs the quetsion we have been debating.
It is very important that we do not confuse in our thinking the issue of the nature of the canon and the recognition of certain writings as canonical. I think that you are discussing the recognition of certain writings as canonical, while I am talking about the nature of the canon (or at least originally I was).
“The legitimate authority of canonical books of their being personally acknowledged as authoritative by any individual or group. The nature (or grounds) of canonicity is thus logically distinct from the history (or recognition) of the canon” (Bahnsen).
It is the divine inspiration of a book that renders it authoritative, not human acceptance or recognition of the book. Accordingly, the Christian church has no authority to control, create, or define the Word of God. Instead it is the other way around. The books that make up the canon, which God has preserved in his providence, have authority inherent in them, the church did nothing other than recognize and confess this. Those books that God gave as inspired for his canon always received immediate recognition by the church (or at least some part of the church due to the slow nature of carrying writings to people). Evidence shows that the canon we now hold was historically recognized by the church by the second century, but there is adequate Biblical and theological reasons to believe that their canonicity was generally accepted in the earliest days by the church (evidence for the historical recognition of the Hebrew Bible goes back to the first century- i.e., the words of Jesus and others).
An apostle was someone who in Jewish jurisprudence could appear in the name of another as an authoritative witness to speak on behalf of the one they represented. This is what Jesus is referring to in Matt. 10:40, “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me.” Through his apostles, Jesus promised to build his church (Matt. 16:18). This is why there are no apostles today, because they are not personally appointed by Christ.
Concerning Geisler (who has a good book entitled “Inerrancy”, he is the editor), I am not sure where he gets his evidence from. His view of what defines the “freshness and originality” of the scriptures sounds very subjective. He quotes Berkof out of context to support his view. He is simply wrong about the Church not interpreting the Song of Songs spiritually (actually that is all they did for a couple hundred years), and then acts as though there was a debate over its canonicity (not really).
“Essentially, the messages of these books were not seen as spiritual, so the books themselves were accepted.”
This simply is not true. The debate over the Song of Songs was not over canonicity, simply applicability for the church. The canonicity of Wisdom Literature was not debated until after the Enlightement primarily. And to what books is he referring that lacked edificational or practical characteristics, and therefore were not included in the canon?
Not only this, the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas were often seen as edifiying in the first and second centuries. They were even read in worship at some churches. Why were they not included?
Simple. They failed on the other measures.
In any case, it was not my intention to quibble over the the rules of canonicity. If it’s as you say, then fine, scratch that one sentence from my previous comment. It doesn’t change my point at all.
Didn’t you pursue this?
Not really. You claimed that the Bible does not need to be defended (indeed ought not be defended) because it just is true (my paraphrase). This caused me to question how you approach the issue of canonicity, since you have to start somewhere (how do we even know what is Scripture?). You said this…
That seemed a bit too idealized to me; so I responded, as a post script to another comment with this…
At this point you took me to task on the bit about edifying the church. All I’m saying is that if you remove the last eight words of the last sentence, my point still stands.
Again, we are just missing the point that each is trying to make. I am not trying to take you to task on the edification of the church as a requirement for canonicity. I am taking you to task on a greater issue than that which is man affirming the canonicity of scripture through autonomous reasoning. I feel that this is moving into the realm of being counter-productive. I respect your position and feel that you are far more winsome than I am. I could learn this from you.
I have never said that the Bible should not be defended and ought not be defended. This is a claim that is inconsistent with 1 Peter 3:15.
I feel at this point that my posting is counter productive in light of the fact that I am the only presuppositionalist here and feel that my position is not very easily explained on a blog (also, I need to be a better communicator).
I also want to apologize for my last post. That was quibbling.
I don’t want to appear to be a one-note johnny who beats his pet-peeve into the ground. Presuppositionalism is biblical, but it is not the gospel itself. I can post in the future without such fruitless debate. I take responsibility for the fact that I in effect derailed several of your good discussions, and again, I apologize- to all, but especially Eric.
I’ll also cut the passive-aggressive thing out where I argue/apologize. Yes, I am aware of it.
The term “earthly will” I believe came from book seven of Confessions related to Augustine’s struggle with lust (translation by Henry Chadwick). I believe it also is reflected in the translation of: De Civitate Dei by Rist. The concept is also touched upon in Ad Demetriadem by Bonner, in relation to his conflict with Pelagius. Sorry, I could not be more exact. It really depends on the translation you have regarding the exact phraseology.
Also, Pelagius would not ascribe to this belief. He would believe that reason is fully capable and unaffected by sin. You may have confused Pelagias with Polycarp. I do not have a good cite for Polycarp. This name just flowed from my recollection and I could be very wrong. As far as Justin Martyr, the concept itself is expressed in his First Apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius and his treatment of Christians and the Second Apology aimed at to the Roman Senate in gaining support for, again, the merits of a society build on “Christian” values. In regard to Irenaeus, well, I am not sure. Against Heresies?
I do not have the Ante-Nicene collection, but it would be a nice gift… for a fellow blogger…?
Thanks. I read confessions, and I couldn’t remember it but you are right, it is a translation issue. You were right about me saying Pelagius and meaning Polycarp. I have the Ante-Nicene collection on Libronix and my search turned up nil, but I am now looking for different terminology. Thanks for the leads. Good memory.
[Apologies in advance for the length. I suspect that there are only a few of us still reading down this far anyway.]
Well, Jason, it does seem that our discussion has started to resemble an old, married couple bickering. 🙂 But in the end, I think we both benefit from engaging over the issues. I guess that as iron sharpens iron, some sparks might fly. Neither of us has persuaded to other to his side, but, hopefully, we’ve given each other some things to think about.
It probably did make it a little tougher on you since you were outnumbered. But with the position that you have staked out on “biblical apologetics”, I think that you had better get used to that. Truth is never determined by popular vote, but when you take on a position that claims that the apologetics by the likes of C.S. Lewis and R.C Sproul is unbiblical and dishonoring to God, I predict an uphill battle for you.
There are two last things from our discussion that I’ve been thinking about, and I would like to end with…
Special Revelation vs. General Revelation
You say that special revelation is superior to general revelation, that special revelation trumps general revelation. I don’t accept this because the two are in perfect harmony. God has given both. The issue is that our interpretation of special revelation sometimes conflicts with our interpretation of general revelation.
I hold that just as we are susceptible to misunderstand general revelation, we are susceptible to misunderstand special revelation as well. The illumination of the Scriptures does not provide a guarantee that every believer will understand every aspect of the Bible. There are some things that we know apart from the Scriptures that we are more sure of than we are of some things that we know from the Scriptures.
Before you bring me up on heresy charges, let me provide an example…
You have a level of certainty that, as believers, we should baptize our infant children. (I surmise this from the fact that you are PCA. You can substitute any of the disputed eschatological positions here instead.)
You also have a level certainty that two plus two equals four.
Just because you know about one fact from the Scriptures and the other fact apart from them does not mean that we can necessarily be more certain about the fact from the Scriptures. Therefore, I hold that it is completely legitimate to take a second look at the way we are interpreting a particular passage if we are presented with contrary evidence from the natural world. This doesn’t mean that science overrules Scripture in any way. If the scientific claim disputes something that is clear in Scripture, then we look for the error in our science.
It’s kind of like when we find an arithmetic error I the Scriptures. We don’t invalidate our understanding of mathematics (since special revelation always trumps general). We look for another explanation, like a scribal error or another way to understand the passage.
Authentication of the Truth of Scripture
I guess that I do not fully understand your position on the appropriateness of defending the source and authority of the Scriptures because on one hand you say that we do not need to show that the Bible is different than the Koran because the Bible just is true because it’s from God and the Koran is not (which I contend is circular). Then, later you say that it is appropriate to defend the authority of Scripture.
In any case, I would like to lay out my view, which I suspect you will disagree with. Let’s take the resurrection of Jesus. When I am speaking to an unbeliever, I contend that Jesus was the Son of God because He was raised from the dead as He claimed He would be. I think we’re still together. I’m guessing that we part ways next.
I will point the person to the historical nature of the resurrection instead of the Scriptural claim that it happened. This is no different than what Paul did when in 1 Corinthians 15:6 when he claimed that Jesus appeared to the 500. His pointing out that many of those folks were still alive seems to invite them to check it out. He could have appealed to authority and said “you won’t believe the witnesses anyway; so, don’t bother.”
When Thomas doubted Jesus standing before him, Jesus, of all people, could have appealed to authority. Instead, He extended His hands as tangible evidence.
I see Christianity as unique among the world’s religions because it is fundamentally historical and verifiable. It is also falsifiable (it could be proven false if it were). I’m with Paul when he says in 1 Corinthians 15:14 that if Christ was not raised, then our faith is in vain.
In short, yes, we know that it happened because the Scriptures tell us that it did. But we also know that the Scriptures are true because it really happened.
Eric, thanks for your kind words and let me reiterate that if there are any sparks, I take full responsibility (I apologize in advance for another long post, this will be my last one in this debate and I agree, we are probably the only ones reading them at this point). All of this reminds me of a time we were together and I purchased a plunger, and then slapped it down on the cashier’s counter in such a way that it stuck to the counter. The cashier looked slightly upset by my playful gesture. You turned to me and said, “You really have a way with people Driggers.” Unfortunately, it appears not much has changed. Sin dies hard.
I really think that the biggest problem we faced in this debate is my inability to communicate well. I feel that 90% of the things you think I believe- I don’t, but have made such poor comments trying to express what I do believe that I have hopelessly condemned myself. At the same time, I have an undergrad degree in Bible from C.I.U. and part of that curriculum was the Evidentialist method of apologetics. I support this method and believe that it has great value. After M. Div studies at seminary, and learning presuppositionalism, I firmly believe both methods are appropriate and compatible. Men like Phillip Johnson, Josh McDowell, C.S. Lewis, and R.C. Sproul have greatly helped in the efforts of the gospel and I am dwarfed before their efforts. I do not disagree with their arguments. I do not, nor do presuppositionalists, reject the validity of traditional proofs for the existence of God like Geisler claims in his Encyclopedia of Apologetics (p. 607). Maybe some presuppositionalists did in the past, I don’t know, but they should not have and I wouldn’t indorse their claims.
I do reject the claim that we should support the belief that man is neutral, I felt this was presupposed at times- I am willing to admit my error if such was not the case, and if it ever was, I still should have asked questions to be sure. Really, the key of presuppositionalism is the Transcendental argument, and I never brought it up. I should have gotten your thoughts on that.
Briefly, in your section where you basically walked me through the Evidentialist method of how to authenticate scripture- I agree with your argument. I can explain that circular argument critique- without arguing – but only if you are interested in me further clarifying. While I believe that the Bible is true because it says it is, and that we should believe it because the Bible tells us to believe it, I would never use only these arguments with an unbeliever. I would broaden the argument to include evidences as well. As a matter of fact, in my actual methodology of apologetics, I sound more like an evidentialist at times. Of course, as Hugh pointed out, it would be inappropriate to just say to someone “Believe the Bible because it says so!” and leave it at that. (Which by the way, appeared to be an effective straw man representation of presuppositionalism that Phillip Johnson made use of in his lectures).
In short, yes, we know that it happened because the Scriptures tell us that it did. But we also know that the Scriptures are true because it really happened.
Great quote. Mind if I steal it?
In your first section, I agree with you about our interpretation of scripture being susceptible to misunderstandings, and that we should check the scriptures against the natural world, and the only time this is dangerous is when we favor an interpretation that is in conflict with things that are clear from scripture. I don’t believe that Genesis is “certainly” in conflict with an Old Earth theory. I call this “exegetical certainty” and would claim that the Old Earth theory has a lower level of exegetical certainty than the Young Earth position- but both have an incredibly low level of exegetical certainty when compared with the rest of scripture. I also agree about the perspicuity of scripture. At the same time, we don’t need “2+2=4” to be verified by scripture to believe it is true.
The nature of our debate is probably closer to the issue of General Revelation and Special Revelation. I believe that they both point to the same unified truth, but with different levels of “exegetical certainty,” if you will. Rom. 1 makes it clear that evidence from the natural world cannot point us to a saving knowledge of God (as I am sure you agree). The fact that it can be a first step in pointing us in that direction- I don’t believe is in dispute. I think, but please correct me if I am wrong, that you would say that science fits in the realm of General Revelation. Therefore, my point is simply this. When we argue for the gospel, our arguments can look like this:
If, Argument A (Presuppositions)
And, Argument B
Then, Argument C (Evidences)
Argument C presupposes Argument A, therefore argument C is not inappropriate. But if the person we are arguing with concedes our point in Argument C, it still does not necessarily help them to accept Argument A, but it could! The irony is that men like Phillip Johnson (apparently without being self aware of the fact) presuppose Argument A (theism) to argue for Creationism. He is right; he does not and should not express Argument A simply as “Believe the Bible because it says so!” But he does presuppose it! He should, and does, use Arguments A, B, and C. So does the presuppostionalist.
As I hope you see, my point is not that Argument C is in appropriate (unless it includes as a part of Argument A that man is morally, rationally, and volitionally neutral).