Through providence and the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, men collected God’s auditory words into the written word of the Bible. Contrary to common belief, pre-modern Christian orthodoxy consistently affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible as God’s Word.1 Sadly, modern Fundamentalist trajectories in theology have distorted this doctrine. Their attempts to wield inerrancy as a weapon against post-Cartesian forms of philosophical Foundationalism have only degenerated orthodox teaching.2
A Sacramental Medium, not an Epistemic Foundation
Today, many conservative Evangelical and Fundamentalist theologians seem to hold that the Bible must provide its own indubitable “clear and distinct ideas”3 to build a foundation for further knowledge. From this perspective, the biblical “foundation” could counteract modern claims of autonomous knowledge. The Bible, however, is not primarily a tool of philosophers, but a channel of God’s creative, redemptive, and sanctifying Word.
It is, indeed, important to affirm the absolute truthfulness of God’s auditory/written words. However, there are better and worse ways to employ the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. As noted, many modern conservative Christian theologians have conceptualized the doctrine of inerrancy in ways that largely reflect modernist and Foundationalist presuppositions.4 Rather, Christians must see the Word of God as a sacramental medium that facilitates both the creational and redemptive exchange between God and his creatures. God speaks and thereby activates the response of his creatures through his auditory words. As theologian Kevin Vanhoozer writes:
In the area of biblical scholarship, many modern Liberals and Fundamentalists see a zero-sum game between the realities of inspiration and historical embeddedness of the biblical texts. On the one hand, Liberals insist that if they can find a human or historically contextual aspect to the text, it must not have come by supernatural revelation. This is because metaphysical univocalism [the belief that words describing God and creatures mean the same thing] implies that there is a zero-sum game between temporal and divine causes. As a result, the assumption is that the human and contextual excludes the divine. On the other hand, Fundamentalists sometimes speak as if they exclude all historical and contextual factors in the composition of the text and read the writings a historically. Again, since the causal agency of the human and divine constitute a zero-sum game within a univocal framework, for divine revelation to take place the divine must replace the agency of the human and temporal.
Indeed, univocal metaphysics are major (though not the sole) source of modernity’s imagined strife between science and religion. In the pre-modern view of God, naturalistic causes and explanations and divine ones did not conflict since there was no zero-sum game between divine and creaturely agency. With univocal metaphysics, naturalistic explanations of phenomenon invariably crowd out divine ones. One can see attempts by early theistic scientists like Isaac Newton making what has often been termed “God of the gaps” arguments in order to find a place for God in a causal order that could increasingly be explained naturalistically. In a number of cases, when there was a causal gap in his theory Newton would attribute the phenomenon to God. Of course, when the naturalistic cause behind the phenomenon was discovered, then God and his causal role were simply pushed back. As things stand in contemporary science, most of the universe can be explained naturalistically. Hence, the chief arguments of the “New Atheist” movement rest on the basis of the onto-theology and univocal metaphysics that they have unconsciously absorbed from modernity. They believe that since science can explain most temporal causes without reference to an eternal cause, like Pierre-Simon Laplace, they have “no need” for the God hypothesis.
Nevertheless, from the perspective of the Bible and pre-modern theism, this is an absurd argument. To use a theater analogy, the claim that the New Atheists are making is that since there is no character in Hamlet named “William Shakespeare,” then William Shakespeare has no causal agency in the play and therefore does not exist. As should be clear, such a claim would completely misconstrue William Shakespeare’s ontological status and causal agency. Moreover, even if one could give a description of the action in the play without any need to make reference to William Shakespeare, such a paradigm of understanding still could not explain why there was a play in the first place or why it was intelligible.
In the light of the paradigmatic anomalies of irreducible complexity, gene entropy, and the lack of transitional species in the fossil record, macroevolution has more problems as a theory regarding the origins of life than many allow.1
Along similar lines, it often is argued by materialists and atheists that Scripture cannot be truthful on the grounds that it contains supernatural events which, it is alleged, are intrinsically at variance with science and human reason. We have already seen in a previous chapter that this is an absurd argument. Science deals with temporal, finite causes which are observable and quantifiable. Miracles and other supernatural events occur because the supernatural God, who cannot be seen or limited, can transcend the laws of nature as He so chooses. Allowing that miraculous events have occurred in the past does not call into question the rational causal order of the universe. Rather, the entire point of a miracle is that it is an exception to the rule of imminent causation, thereby validating this natural causal order and the ability of the sciences to investigate it.
On another level, though, we should note that the atheist argument for the incompatibility of the Bible and science is ultimately self-contradictory. First, there is a growing body of historical evidence that Christianity and the Bible made the Scientific Revolution possible.2 Only by believing in a God who created the world out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) according to a rational plan could science work conceptually.3 Although the Greeks did engage in some science, by the Pax Romana classical science essentially had stalled.4 And science was possible for the Greeks only because their philosophy often posited a rational or divine principle underlying and organizing the chaotic matter of the universe (prime mover, demiurge, logos, etc.). Still, since at its deepest level nature remained chaotic, one could argue that science and rationality could go only so far in explaining it. Only a doctrine of creation ex nihilo as taught by the Bible, where God’s rationality determines nature all the way down to its deepest level, could provide a stable and consistent basis for science.
[1] See Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996); David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its ScientificPretensions (New York: Basic Books, 2009); and Philip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010).
[2] Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science,Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 121–200.
[3] Stark, For the Glory of God, 176–77.
[4] David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its FashionableEnemies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 67.
Adapted from Jack D. Kilcrease, Holy Scripture, Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics, Gifford A. Grobien, ed. (Fort Wayne, IN: The Luther Academy, 2020), 115-116.
However, Becker and others ultimately assert that if science says that Scripture is wrong, Scripture must simply bow to the superior wisdom of science and modify its claims. In this vein Becker tells us that we can no longer believe that death is the result of sin (Romans 5), since the theory of biological evolution presupposes that death is simply another cog in the cosmic machine of life.
Such a perspective is problematic for several reasons. First, it presupposes that raw scientific data simply reveal the inner structures of reality to rational and autonomous human beings in an absolutely transparent manner. Nevertheless, although humans have access to the data of reality, their finitude means that such data are always incomplete. Moreover, such data are always interpreted within a scientific paradigm, or interpretive lens, that organizes the information. Since these lenses are always provisional and not infrequently wrong, humans cannot claim any scientific judgment is infallible.1
Hence, if a scientific theory or piece of historical or scientific datum seems to contradict Scripture, there is no particular reason to think Scripture is wrong. Many scientific theories have turned out to be wrong. These incorrect theories and discredited paradigms include many that contradicted Scripture. In these cases the error was in the minds of the interpreters and not in Scripture itself. If we follow Becker’s suggestion, we would operate under the assumption that the Word of God is fallible but human reason is not. In light of history, this position is untenable.
Indeed, if Christians of the past had followed Becker and his seeming faith in the near-infallibility of science, they would have been proven wrong in the long term on numerous occasions.2 One wonders how Becker would answer such a challenge. Should Thomas Aquinas have simply rejected creation exnihilo because Aristotle and the Arabic philosophers posited the eternity of the universe?3
Aquinas not amused when natural philosophers deny creation exnihilo.
What about scientific racism and eugenics? Should early twentieth-century Christians simply have rejected the scriptural teaching of a common origin of humanity and accepted what was then considered to be a highly scientific theory of polygenesis and racial gradations?4 To this latter point Becker would likely say that scientific racism and eugenics were simply junk science, whereas macroevolution and other newer scientific theories are not. Nonetheless, just as contemporary macroevolution is taught at all major universities and forms the basis of many governmental policies, so too were once scientific racism and eugenics. Also, in the light of the paradigmatic anomalies of irreducible complexity, gene entropy, and the lack of transitional species in the fossil record, macroevolution has more problems as a theory regarding the origins of life than Becker allows.5
[1] See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).
[2] See similar arguments in Angus J. L. Menuge, “The Cultural and Aesthetic Impact of Lutheranism,” in Where Christ Is Present: A Theology for All Seasons on the 500th Anniversaryof the Reformation, ed. John Warwick Montgomery and Gene Edward Veith (Corona, CA: 1517 Legacy, 2015), 220–29.
[3] J. B. M. Wissink, ed., The Eternity of the World in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas andHis Contemporaries (Leiden: Brill, 1990).
[4] See Edwin Black, War against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create aMaster Race (Washington, DC: Dialogue Press, 2012); Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler:Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
[5] See Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996); David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its ScientificPretensions (New York: Basic Books, 2009); and Philip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010).
Adapted from Jack D. Kilcrease, Holy Scripture, Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics, Gifford A. Grobien, ed. (Fort Wayne, IN: The Luther Academy, 2020), 114-115.
Theology and science are not hermetically sealed off from one another. Theologians should strive to find agreement between contemporary science and the teachings of Scripture. All truth is one (since it comes from God!), and one should expect that when humans investigate nature and other fields of inquiry with right reason, there should ultimately be no conflict with Scripture. We should also note that, contrary to Matthew Becker’s misrepresentations, Francis Pieper actually shared this sentiment. In the passage in Christian Dogmatics in which he rejects heliocentrism, Pieper also expresses hope that Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity would in fact vindicate geocentricism.1 It did not, of course, but Pieper was not the anti-intellectual, anti-scientific Fundamentalist Becker portrays.
Obviously, although human beings are finite and have damaged noetic capacities due to sin, we are still competent to gain some knowledge of the created world. Still, as the Reformed theologian Keith Mathison observes, our finitude and fallenness make us capable of making mistakes in our interpretations of both scientific data and the Bible.2 Consequently, just as when Scripture properly understood can expose the errors of science, scientific truth when pitted against a particular interpretation of Scripture may prompt the interpreter to rethink his reading of the text. Perhaps a particular traditional interpretation and not the genuine teaching of Scripture itself may be the barrier to seeing agreement between certain historical or scientific facts and the text. But if there is no way to reconcile certain scientific claims with the text understood on the basis of the literal sense and the analogy of faith, then Scripture must rule supreme. Damaged and finite human reason cannot place a priori limitations on what the Word of God can and cannot say.
In a later section on science and theology Becker protests against this perspective. He asserts that, generally speaking, our knowledge of scientific facts must almost always be correct. If it were not, then God would be attempting to fool us by giving us access to faulty data through our minds and senses.3 One could of course equally point out that if one accepted the premise, based on science, that Scripture was errant, God would also be guilty of deceiving His people by giving them a record of His revelation which mixed together error and truth without any means of separating them. At another point, Becker states that he would like to see mutuality, cooperation, and dialogue between theology and science.4 However, he ultimately asserts that if science says that Scripture is wrong, Scripture must simply bow to the superior wisdom of science and modify its claims. In this vein Becker tells us that we can no longer believe that death is the result of sin (Romans 5), since the theory of biological evolution presupposes that death is simply another cog in the cosmic machine of life.
Such a perspective is problematic for several reasons.
To be continued…..
Part 1 available here; Part 3 available here; Part 4 available here; and Part 5 available here
[1] Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951),1:473–74.
[2] Keith Mathison, A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture (Sanford, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2013).
[3] Matthew Becker, Fundamental Theology: A Protestant Perspective (New York: T & T Clark, 2014), 440.
[4] Becker, Fundamental Theology, 446–47.
Adapted from Jack D. Kilcrease, Holy Scripture, Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics, Gifford A. Grobien, ed. (Fort Wayne, IN: The Luther Academy, 2020), 113-114.
