Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 2)

In my last post, I began a series on science and Scripture to teach a biblical view of science that will hopefully be helpful to Christians and non who read this blog. My goal in this series (and in the RUF seminar that gave birth to it) is not to tell you what to think on sub-topics of science and Christianity like the age of the earth, big bang cosmology, etc. My goal is to teach you how to think biblically and consistently about science and Scripture. In the first post, I used the analogy of building a house in which a Christian can "live" in a culture that puts a great deal of weight on science. I hope to help you build that metaphorical house. It is not going to be a perfect house--the walls may have few drafts and the roof a few leaks--but it will be, I pray, sufficient for you to live as a Christian in science or engineering vocations or just in our culture in general.

In the previous post, I started to talk about God's revelation because we need to start there to think biblically about science, and I argued that all truth is God's truth. This is the concrete for the foundation of our metaphorical house. And, I ended that post with the question: How does God reveal--communicate--His truth or how do we discover His truth? And, answering this question will help us to think biblically about science and the "conflict" we hear about between science and Christianity. So, we will pick back up there today.

Here, we get some help from a Reformed document that is not from the PCA tradition, of which I and RUF (the original setting of these talks) are a part, but one that is still used in the Dutch Reformed tradition: the Belgic Confession. Article 2 of this confession answers the question of the means by which we know God and His truth:

First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.… Second, he makes himself known to us more openly [i.e. that is in much more detail] by his holy and divine Word [i.e. the Bible], as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.

So, as you might have guessed, this is where the title of this series originated. Here, the Belgic Confession tells us that there are two primary ways that God reveals His truth to us, and those two ways can both be thought of as beautiful books: nature and Scripture. Now, Scripture is a literal book, and insofar as our study of it is faithful to its actual teaching--what God is actually revealing through it--we learn God's truth from it. Yet, I really love how this confession tells us that nature--and by that I mean the universe in which we live that's made up of energy and matter--is like a book (in a figurative sense) whose author is also God and in which He has written His truth. And, like with Scripture, insofar as our study of it--our scientific research--is faithful to nature's actual reality, we learn God's truth from it. These two categories of nature and Scripture as books through which God reveals His truth are very helpful for thinking biblically about science.

Now, in theological terms, what we are talking about here is God's general revelation through nature and His special revelation through Scripture (for more information on these topics than what I give below, see Berkhof's Systematic Theology on this subject).

Those are theological names for these books that the Belgic Confession describes:

• General revelation is the book of nature, and it is God's revelation--His communication--of His general truth about Himself and this universe to all mankind. This is, again, where Ro. 1:20 comes in, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." That verse is why the Belgic Confession says "that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God." And, of course, this teaching is all over Scripture. Ps. 19:1-4, for example, says:

1 The heavens declare the glory of God,
   and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours out speech,
   and night to night reveals knowledge [i.e. His truth].
3 There is no speech, nor are there words,
   whose voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out through all the earth,
   and their words to the end of the world.

God speaks generally His truth to all mankind through the book of nature.

• Special revelation is the book of Scripture--the Bible--and it is God's revelation--His communication--of His special and detailed truth about Himself and His plan of redemption for mankind. This is, again, why the Belgic Confession says that in the book of Scripture God "makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own."

The WCF, which is the statement of faith for my and RUF's denomination (the PCA), balances both these books in its very first statement:

Although the light of nature [or we might say, "book of nature"], and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord… to reveal Himself… in the Holy Scripture.

So, God gives us truth through the two beautiful books of special and general revelation--Scripture and nature, respectively. General revelation reveals Him and His truth broadly, and special revelation gives us the detailed truth necessary for becoming a Christian and living the Christian life.

Now, so far, I have said a lot about God's revelation of truth without specifically referencing the sciences, and you might be thinking, "What does this have to do with science and faith?" Well, now we have enough data to make a biblical, foundational assertion, which is absolutely crucial for thinking biblically about science and Scripture: If God is the author of the book of Scripture--special revelation--and if God is the author of the book of nature--general revelation--then when it comes to the truth revealed in each and their relationship to each other, there is no inherent contradiction ever. Let me say that again because this is incredibly important for thinking biblically about science: Since God is the author of both books--nature and Scripture--there is never an inherent contradiction between the truths that come from Scripture and the truths that come from nature because God is the source of both. There cannot be inherent contradictions because God wrote both books, and God cannot contradict Himself. That is a fundamental truth about God that is laid out in Scripture in places like He. 6:18 that says, "It is impossible for God to lie" and Nu. 23:19 that says, "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind." You and I are fallible, sinful beings, so we can lie and contradict ourselves. We do so on a regular basis. But, as Moses says in Nu. 23:19, God is not like us: He does not lie; He cannot contradict Himself.

So, if He reveals Himself and His truth in two different books, those two different books will be inherently, perfectly harmonized--without any contradiction. Have you heard the term "presupposition"? A presupposition is a belief that we assume before we begin any course of action. Well, this is a biblical presupposition that lies beneath everything we will say from here on out when it comes to science and Scripture. It is a presupposition that I would argue Christians must hold before we can approach science biblically.

Now, building off what I just said, when I was giving this talk to college students at RUF's Summer Conference, I asked a couple of questions for them to answer in the affirmative by raising their hands. The first question I asked was "How many of you believe that God's revelation in Scripture is infallible--the revelation itself makes no mistakes in how it presents God's truth?" And, most of them raised their hand (and as I said in the previous post, this is presupposition I hold but do not have the time to prove to you now). So, think about how you would answer that question.... Then, I asked them another question: "How many of you believe that God's revelation in nature is infallible?" And, this time, only a few raised their hands. So, again, think about how you would answer that question.... I then asked if anyone would tell me why they did not raise their hand for the second question. And, the answer I got was concern about granting infallibility to "things science says," and that is a legitimate concern, but that is not actually the question I asked. I did not ask if scientific theories about nature are infallible but if God's revelation is infallible. What I am talking about God's revelation of truth, not man's interpretation of that revelation. Since God is the one who is doing the revealing in both nature and Scripture, in both places, the revelation itself is infallible because God Himself is infallible. God cannot reveal Himself in a mistaken, fallacious way. So, if we were going to write this down in a chart form, it would look like this:

	Special Revelation	General Revelation
Infallible:	God’s Word in Scripture	God’s Word in nature

Now, a good question was asked at this point by some of the students: "What about how nature is fallen now because of Adam and Eve's first sin (cf. Ge. 3:13-19)? Doesn't that make the revelation in nature fallible?" That is a very good question to ask because it shows that one is starting to think biblically about nature and Scripture, but I would argue that is not consistent with Scripture's witness or a biblical view of God’s oversight over His revelation for a couple of reasons:

1. First, in Ro. 1:20 Paul says "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." Paul draws a line from the creation of the world (before the fall) to now and tells us that God's revelation of Himself is the same from then until now: infallible, so much so that man is without excuse before Him. 
2. Second, God's special revelation was written down in the Bible inerrantly and infallibly by fallible men because the Holy Spirit protected them from error. This illustrates how God can still reveal Himself infallibly through a fallible agent. Thus, I would conclude that God's revelation of Himself in nature is infallible.

This is part of the foundational presupposition (mentioned above) we must have to approach the relationship between science and Scripture biblically, and we could update that foundational presupposition with what we've just said: God has revealed Himself infallibly in the books Scripture and nature, and since God is the author of both books there is no inherent contradiction between the two. When it comes to the house we are building, this is the foundation upon which we will build everything else. 

If you do not have this foundational truth driving your thinking about science and Scripture, when you come across what appears to be a contradiction between the two, you may never resolve the conflict but simply let one win over the other without pursuing the truth in either. And, in my experience, there are two extremes that can result from that: either people abandon Christianity because they continually let the opinions of popular scientists take priority over Scripture, or people proverbially circle the wagons around their interpretation of Scripture and do damage to God's glory by misusing both Scripture and data from the scientific research to try to prove their interpretation is the only one possible. But, I think there is a more humble way to approach both, and this biblical truth lays the foundation; yet, we still have a lot to say about thinking about science biblically.

At this point, some of you out there might be thinking, "Okay, you're saying there's no contradiction between the two, but I see contradictions in a number of areas." If you are thinking that, that is a good observation that points us in direction of the next biblical truth that we need to take into account: human fallibility. But, this post is long enough right now, so that will be the subject of the next post in this series. 

By His Grace,

Taylor

Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 1)

Last week I got the opportunity to speak on science and Christianity at Reformed University Fellowship's (RUF) Summer Conference (SuCo) in Panama City. At their SuCo, RUF offers a number seminars in the mornings that students can attend, and I led a two-day session that I did twice over the course of four days. I knew this was an issue that is on the minds of many Christians today (obviously), but with so many other great options for students to attend, I did not expect the attendance or response the seminar received. I am not complaining (quite the contrary), but after doing the seminar twice and talking with students informally throughout the week, I realized church leaders have not done enough education on this subject (and, of course, my vocation makes me one of those "leaders," so the indictment is on me just as much as it is on anyone else). Certainly good books have been written on this subject, and I have written some about it myself on this blog. Yet, of all that I have read by others and written myself, I still feel like more can be done in providing a concise guide for thinking biblically about science. So, I am going to take my talk (with some additions based on questions and feed back) and write a series here. Over the next few weeks we will talk about thinking biblically and consistently as a Christian about science.

Now, I know the students attending the seminar came for a number of reasons. For some of them, this may not just be an academic question brought on by some opinion piece they read or a challenge by their classmate but a deeply bothersome subject that makes them wonder if they are just fooling themselves with this Christianity stuff. For others, it might be that they wonder if they can live as a Christian in the science or engineering professions towards which they are headed. Some of you may also have similar questions that come from a deep, heartfelt need. Let me say, as someone who struggled with this while he was in science academia, I think I can understand to some degree where you are. Now, others probably came because they were hoping to find answers to questions like the age of the universe or is evolution heretical or how do they convince their roommate that creationism is true. Some of you out there may also have started reading this looking for answers to those questions. And, if that is the case, I might disappoint you with this series because we are not going to talk in detail about that those subjects.

The seminar I gave to RUF and this series is about the big-picture relationship between science and Christianity, and my goal for them and you is not to tell you what to think on particular subjects when it comes to the finer details like the age of the universe or Darwinian evolution. I have stances on those and many other subtopics of science and Christianity. But, for this series, my goal is to help you to think biblically about science and consistently as a Christian. I am going to use an analogy throughout these posts of building a house. What I want to do for you is to help you build a metaphorical house that gives you a place "to live" as a Christian in a culture that puts a great deal of weight on science. And, hopefully from that house, you will be able to read, study, and struggle with the apparent conflicts and land on a position that is faithful both to God's revelation of Himself in Scripture and God's revelation of Himself in nature. Now, let me say up front, this metaphorical house that I will endeavor to help you build is not going to be perfect. It will have some leaks in the roof and holes in the walls because we are imperfect beings who are not going to get everything right when it comes to our study of Scripture and our study of the physical world. But, it will, I pray, be enough for you to live confidently as a Christian in our world.

Before we get too far and into the topic at hand, because of the scope of the seminar and this blog series, there are some things I am going to have to assume as true and just cannot take the time to prove to you. I would argue these are orthodox, Christian presuppositions, though not all Christians agree with all of these, and so I need to be honest and upfront about them so you know why and how I am proceeding in the direction in which I am going:

1. The God of the Bible exists, and He is the Creator of all things that are outside of Himself (e.g. this universe, angels, heaven, etc.). For some reading on this assumption I am making, check out this talk by Christian philosopher Kenneth Samples or the book The Reason for the Hope Within, ch. 2-3. There are, of course, a number of other great resources on this subject, but these will be enough to get you started. 
2. The inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture: Basically, by those I mean that Scripture is God's Word and is free from all falsehood or mistake and is entirely trustworthy in everything it says. For more reading on this, I would recommend Kenneth Samples' blog series on inerrancy (part 1 and part 2) as well as the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. 
3. The authority of Scripture: Basically by this I mean that Scripture is God's inspired, inerrant Word, and therefore is the highest authority for the Christian faith and the life of the believer. We don't have time to prove this, but for further reading, check out this paper by J. P. Moreland (by the way, the title of the paper is provocative, to say the least, but it is orthodox and very helpful). 
4. God has spoken by His word and revealed (communicated) Himself in a way that we humans can perceive, contemplate, and interpret to get at the truth He wants us to know. This is the very first truth of the Bible--that God spoke the universe into existence--and He has been speaking ever since through His Word. 
5. There is truth and humans can study it. By truth I just mean all that which conforms to reality. I know postmodernism has brought the very idea of objective truth and reality into question, but we cannot deal with that here. Here we must assume that truth is real, accessible by man, and that there is a reality which truth can properly describe. For more information on the subject of postmoderism and truth, see Postmodern Times by Gene Veith or Is There a Meaning in This Text? by Kevin Vanhoozer

Those are the things we have to assume to move forward. If you do not agree with them all, I think this series can still be helpful, and hopefully the links above will give you more to consider on those subjects.

Now, in my seminar, I began with a question for the students: "What is wrong with the title of this seminar?" For RUF, I entitled the seminar "Two Beautiful Books: Science and Scripture," but from an epistemological or philosophical perspective, there is an error in that title (hence the "correction" in the title of this series). Here, of course, we do not have the luxury of dialogue, so I will just tell you what I told them because it helps introduce this topic: The title makes it sound like science is a source of knowledge--like it is a "book" that provides us with information--but it is not. This is a fundamental mistake made by many, many people today--both Christian and non. Nature--and by that I just mean the physical universe in which we live that is made up of energy and matter--is the source of knowledge. Science (which we will define in more detail later) is a tool or method by which we study nature--the physical world of energy and matter. On the other side, Scripture is a source of knowledge (i.e. revelation from God Himself) and the tool or method by which we study Scripture is exegesis--and that is basically studying the text to find its meaning. If the title were phrased properly, it would say, "Two Beautiful Books: Nature and Scripture" (again, hence the "correction" in the title of this series). Those two "books" and their relationship will be the main subject of this series, and they will help us to think biblically about science.

If we are going to talk about a biblical view of science, we need to start with God's revelation of Himself. Now, "revelation" is simply God's communication of Himself--His attributes, His knowledge, and His truth--to mankind. (Remember, one of the assumptions of this seminar is that God has spoken to mankind.) So, when it comes to science, its truthfulness, and the Christian's use of it, we need to start with God's revelation. We need to understand that revelation biblically.

The first thing we need to establish when thinking about God's revelation, or thinking biblically about science, is the source of all truth. What is the source of truth? What is the source of all that which conforms to reality--"the way things are"? From a biblical perspective, the answer has to be "God." If God is the creator of all things, then whether the truth comes from Scripture or from some other source in nature, all truth is God's truth--He is its ultimate source. This is why Jesus can say in Jn. 17:17 while praying for the Church--for all Christians throughout space and time--"Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." This is why the David can say in Ps. 119:160, "The sum of your word is truth." God is not just true but is the source of truth itself.

There are some Christians who take issue with this statement because they think it either contradicts the doctrine of sola Scriptura or because it is "not a Reformed understanding of truth." I think those concerns are understandable, but ultimately I want to argue that they are unwarranted.

1. First, it has been argued that sola Scriptura means all "real truth" is only found in the Bible, and anything else from any other source is, at best, secondary and unreliable. But, sola Scriptura does not mean that all reliable truth is found only in the Bible. It does not mean genuine truth cannot come from somewhere other than Scripture. Sola Scriptura means the Bible is our highest authority in all it addresses and is our sole source for normative, infallible truth for all things concerning the Christian faith and its practice--things like worship, salvation, how to live in general as a follower of Christ. This is why the WLC says in the third question, "The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience," i.e. Christian doctrine and Christian life. This doesn't mean, however, that truth does not come from other sources like the sciences--e.g. the orbitals of electrons in atoms or how to treat diseases like cancer. There is genuine truth there, but it does not come from the Bible and it is not necessary for faith and obedience. The Bible does address some things about this world like the origins of our universe, but sola Scriptura does not mean that it is the only source of genuine truth about this world. Again, J. P. Moreland's article (mentioned and linked above) on this subject is quite helpful. 
2. Second, "all truth is God's truth" is a thoroughly reformed doctrine held by the great theologians of the our tradition and the Westminster Confession itself. 
• John Calvin wrote in the second book of his Institutes: "Therefore, in reading secular authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator. If we remember that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we would avoid offering insult to him, not to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears. In despising the gifts, we insult the Giver." (Emphasis mine) So, to say that the statement "all truth is God's truth" is not a reformed statement is tantamount to saying that John Calvin is not reformed, which would be quite an ironic thing to say.
• Herman Bavinck (a Dutch Reformed theologian and major force in the Dutch Reformed Church) wrote in his Reformed Dogmatics, "God is the truth in its absolute fullness. He, therefore, is the primary, the original truth, the source of all truth, the truth in all truth." (Emphasis mine)
• The WCF itself says in the first chapter, "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself)…" (Emphasis mine)

So, saying "all truth is God's truth" is consistent, biblical theology for if something is true, it is because it has been revealed by God, because it has been decreed by God, or because it is an accurate understanding of the nature of something God created. Whatever way, the truth is God's truth. He is the ultimate author of everything, even what we think of as reality itself, and He cannot lie or deceive (as we learn in places like He. 6:18), so therefore if we find truth in this universe, it is from God. All truth is God's truth is the first piece of information that we need to build our house, and this statement is like the concrete that we will use to lay the foundation for a biblical view of science.

Now, a corollary to this statement is that all truth, in some fashion or another, reveals something about God. If He is the ultimate source of all truth, then when we learn a truth, we can trace it back and learn something about its source. Now, this is obviously the case when it comes to Scripture, for there we learn detailed truths directly about God. Yet, this is also the case with truths learned from nature; we just do not get the detail about God from nature that we get from Scripture. But, we do get something, for as Paul says in Ro. 1:20, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." Paul tells us that we learn about God from nature. This is the source of all religions in the world--they perceive from the world around them that there is some kind of God behind it. Now, because they do not look to Scripture as the sole source for details about that God and His plan of redemption (i.e. sola Scriptura), other religions are false religions, but they still perceive what Paul says here in Ro. 1:20--"God's power and divine nature… in the things that have been made." So, to say "all truth is God's truth" is also to say that when we encounter truth, we get a glimpse of God's divine nature and power. It may be a specific and detailed glimpse like the doctrine of the trinity that Scripture shows us, or it may be a general glimpse from nature like God's omnipotence, which is just an attribute of God's ultimate power over everything in existence.

But, that leads us into the question of "How does God reveal--communicate--His truth or how do we discover His truth?" And, we will cover that in the next post, for this one is already too long. Until then, remember that the concrete for the foundation of our metaphorical house is this: all truth is God's truth.

By His Grace,
Taylor

John Calvin's 504th Birthday

Note: First, to my regular readers, let me apologize for not writing much lately. I know I have only written once in the past couple of months, and that is because I have been very busy with several big changes for my family. I have been called to an associate pastor position at Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church in Blacksburg, VA, which is a huge blessing and answer to prayer. That, however, has meant I have been very busy. The biggest factor has been studying for my licensure and ordination exams for the PCA. To make a long story short, I have been studying a lot since May, and I took the first round of exams a few weeks ago. To give you an idea of how demanding they were, it took me about fifty hours to do four exams (so about a week because of breaks, interruptions, etc.). Anyway, I just want you all to know I am not ignoring you and have not decided to stop writing. I have just been very busy. Unfortunately, I will continue to be busy until the end of this month when I take the second round of exams. I will write when I can, though.

Now, to the point of this post--Calvin's birthday. The actual birthday was three days ago--July 10--but I had forgotten about it until I read a great Joe Carter blog post: 9 Things You Should Know about John Calvin. I do not think Calvin would mind, though. In fact, he would probably be just fine with me forgetting about him. He would much rather us praise God than write things that praise him. That being said, I cannot let the day go by without sharing some of my favorite quotes from Calvin. Just know that in these quotes we should not praise the genius of the man but the Maker that endowed him with that genius, i.e. not praise the gift to the Church (Calvin) but the Giver of the gift (God).

"However many blessings we expect from God, His infinite liberality will always exceed all our wishes and our thoughts." ~ Commentary on Ephesians 3

"For prayer was not ordained that we should be haughtily puffed up before God, or greatly esteem anything of ours, but that, having confessed our guilt, we should deplore our distresses before Him, as children unburden their troubles on their parents." The Institutes of Christian Religion

"We ought to bear in mind, that our happiness consists in this, that his hand is stretched forth to govern us, that we live under his shadow, and that his providence keeps watch and ward over our welfare. Although, therefore, we have abundance of all temporal good things, yet let us be assured that we cannot be truly happy unless God vouchsafe to reckon us among the number of his flock. Besides, we then only attribute to God the office of a Shepherd with due and rightful honor, when we are persuaded that his providence alone is sufficient to supply all our necessities. As those who enjoy the greatest abundance of outward good things are empty and famished if God is not their shepherd; so it is beyond all doubt that those whom he has taken under his charge shall not want a full abundance of all good things." Commentary on Psalm 23

"Man’s mind is like a store of idolatry and superstition; so much so that if a man believes his own mind it is certain that he will forsake God and forge some idol in his own brain." The Institutes of Christian Religion

"In one word, those who are bound by the yoke of the law are like servants who have certain tasks daily assigned them by their masters. Such servants think that nought has been done; and they dare not come into the presence of their masters until the exact amount of labour has been performed. But sons who are treated in a more candid and liberal manner by their parents, hesitate not to offer them works that are only begun or half finished, or even with something faulty in them, trusting that their obedience and readiness of mind will be accepted, although the performance be less exact than was wished." Of Christian Liberty

"Joy and thanksgiving expressed in prayer and praise according to the Word of God are the heart of the Church’s worship." Worship

"For God’s will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever He wills, by the very fact that He wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so willed one is seeking something greater and higher than God’s will, which cannot be found." Institutes of Christian Religion

By the way, if you want a good biography of Calvin, I would suggest either this one by Piper or this one by McGrath. Also, you can read his Institutes and all his commentaries online for free thanks to CCEL.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Imago Dei and Human Dignity

"The concept of an 'image and likeness' plays a critical role in historic Christianity's view of humankind. The Bible reveals that all human beings are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27, NIV) and, though marred by sin, all people—believer and nonbeliever, male and female alike—reflect the image of God. This foundational biblical teaching launches the Christian view that each individual possesses inherent dignity, moral worth, and genuine value. The imago Dei (Latin: the image of God) lays the foundation for the sanctity of human life. It is this image that makes human life unrepeatable and worthy of respect." ~ Kenneth R. Samples, "Ethical Alternatives on Life and Death"

In my previous post I wrote about the Gosnell murder trial but took a little bit of a different approach. I did not discuss the Gosnell case in great detail, nor did I talk much about how the major media organizations have avoided covering the case. There are many good articles already written from this perspective (check out The Aquila Report for a good number). Instead, I asked the question, "Why or how can someone think aborting a child or murdering the newly-born child can be acceptable?" I talked briefly about how we cannot really know what would cause someone like Gosnesll (or any other abortionist) to murder a child, but we can look at the context and motivations in which those gruesome actions are taken. Then, finally, I argued that the context for abortions and infanticide is the philosophical move away from inherent value in humans (i.e. because we are made in the image of God) to functionalism. After a brief discussion of functionalism, I made the assertion that we could make abortion illegal, but no progress will be made in relieving the demand for abortions until culture starts seeing humans as made in the image of God and inherently deserving of "unalienable rights" which have been "endowed by their Creator." Now, do not get me wrong. I do hope and pray that one day abortion will be illegal (though, to be honest, I am not very optimistic), but a fundamental change in how humans are viewed is needed to lessen the demand for abortion. We need to see the inherent dignity and value in humans simply because they are made in the image of God. Any other definitions will exclude a class, race, or development stage from the category of "persons" and open the door for any number of atrocities (indeed, this has happened many times in human history). I did not, however, talk about the doctrine of the image of God (the imago Dei, in Latin) itself, and that is the subject of today's post.

Before we get into what it means for humans to be made in the image of God, it is worth making a couple of general statements about this doctrine. First, it is worthy of note that the terms "image" and "likeness" used in Ge. 1:26, et al do not indicate separate ideas or distinct ways in which man was created. They are used synonymously, not additively, and when used together or separately, they suggest that God was the archetype and man the ectype. There are several reasons for holding they are synonymous: 1) there is no waw (the Hebrew conjunction translated "and") between the terms indicating they are not two different things; 2) Ge. 1:27, 5:1, 9:6; 1 Co. 11:7; Col. 3:10; and Js. 3:9 all employ only one of the two terms to discuss man bearing God's image, which suggests that either sufficiently expresses the quality; and 3) Ge. 5:3 uses both terms but reverses the order and prepositions, again showing synonymous usage. Second, it is also worth of note that Ge. 1:26 suggests that humans do not simply "bear" or "have" the image of God but are the image of God. It is not something that was added to an otherwise complete humanity or something which applies to only part of man. It constitutes his very being. This also means it is something which may have been marred or damaged in Adam's fall but has not been lost or removed in total (cf. Ge. 9:6; Js. 3:9).

So, what does it mean to be the image of God? What constitutes God's image in man? This is something which has been debated throughout the history of the Church because Scripture contains an implicit rather than an explicit explanation of the image of God. For the purposes of this post, I am simply going to detail what I believe to be the biblical account of man as the image of God. (If you want a history of the doctrine, I would suggest Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, pp. 530-62.)

Before I get into the details about the image of God, I would like to make a quick comment about God giving of dominion over the earth to man. It has been argued that dominion over the earth is part of what it means to be made in the image of God, but Ge. 1:26-28 suggests that man stood before God as a complete image before God bestowed dominion on him. It is more accurate to say, like Bavinck, that "the image of God manifests itself in man's dominion over all of the created world (cf. Ps. 8; 1 Cor. 11:7)." (Reformed, p. 533) The exercise of dominion is what God's images do, not a part of what they inherently are. Just because a human does not have the ability to exercise dominion (e.g. an infant, an unborn child, or a person with a severe mental handicap) does not mean they are not the image of God. With that said, let us move on to several aspects of the image of God in man.

First, the Reformed confessions and catechisms focus particularly on the "original righteousness" aspect of the image of God in man (cf. WSC #10, #18; WLC #17,#25; WCF 4.2; BC 14; HC #6). "Original righteousness" is defined by the historic Reformed confessions as knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, to which the fall brought great damage. Man is no longer holy or righteous (Ro. 3:10) because he is dead in sin (Eph. 2:1), and his knowledge of God and creation has been seriously distorted but not completely demolished (i.e. creation makes God plain to man and man still has the sensus divitatus (Institutes, 1.3.1; cf. also Warranted, pp. 170-86) but man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, cf. Ro. 1:18-32). However, in Christ the image of God is being restored, and in particular Christ's work in this aspect of the image draws the focus of Paul (Eph. 4:21-24; Col. 3:10). Now, when thinking about how man's sin as affected this part of the image of God in man, it is helpful to make a distinction between the image of God as direction and the image of God as structure. Man as God's image was created for God and to be moving towards Him always, but man by his rebellion is now running away from God in sin, so the image of God as direction has been lost. But, man still retains the image of God as structure, though it is also marred by sin, and he still deserves the dignity due God's images (cf. Ge. 9:6; Js. 3:9). It is the image of God as structure that we will discuss next.

With the second aspect that I would like to bring out we get into the image of God as structure. As Louis Berkhof states in his classic Systematic Theology, "But the image of God is not to be restricted to the original knowledge, righteousness, and holiness which was lost by sin, but also includes elements which belong to the natural constitution of man." (p. 204) This second aspect is man's soul. When God created man He "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." (Ge. 2:7) The Hebrew word that the ESV translates "creature" is the word nephesh, which is literally "soul." The breath of life was breathed into man and he became a living soul. This soul is the essence of man's life, and it reflects God's spirituality, invisibility, and immortality (for though our present bodies die, our souls live on forever). With respect to the soul's relation to the body, Bavinck has these helpful words, "But man is 'soul,' because from the very beginning the spiritual component in him (unlike that of angels) is adapted to and organized for a body...." (Reformed, p. 556) The soul can exist apart from the body, for the souls of all humans who have died are either in heaven or hell, but man, who became a "living soul" when the spiritual was breathed into the physical body, is incomplete without both. The soul was designed for a body and the body for a soul. To kill a human, then, is an attack upon his very soul, and since a human cannot be without this part of the image, he always deserves the dignity due God's images while he is alive.

Mentioning the soul's relationship to the body brings us to the third aspect of the image of God in man (also under the category of the image as structure), and it is the body. When the breath of life was breathed into Adam's body, his being became a "living soul" created in God's image. Man, not merely the soul of man, was created in God's image. Man's essence is the soul, but that soul was psychically organized for a body. Therefore the body is not a prison and not without inherent value, but it is a beautiful creation of God; created to exist in harmony with the soul as man reflects God's image. To put it another way, it is not the material substance of the body that is the image of God for God has no body, but the body is the image of God in that it is organized for the soul—is an organ of the soul. As Berkhof puts it, the body was created "as the fit instrument for the self-expression of the soul." (Systematic, p. 205) Furthermore, the body may be marred by sin and susceptible to death because of sin but even it, like the soul, is destined for immortality. In the final resurrection all bodies (those of believers and non-) will be raised from the dead (Dn. 12:2; Ac. 24:15) and spend eternity in either the Lake of Fire (Re. 20:15) or the New Heavens and New Earth (2 Pt. 3:13). Therefore, the Bible presents murder as the destruction of the body (Mt. 10:28) and as the destruction of the image of God in man (Ge. 9:6). To cause the death of a human, at any stage of development, is to murder a being made in the image of God—a being that deserves the dignity due God's images. (There are obviously ethical implications here, like withdrawing care from a terminally ill human, which I do not have the time or space to discuss. For further reading on such ethical issues, I would suggest Bioethics and the Christian Life by David VanDrunen.)

With the fourth aspect of the image of God as structure in man we get to what we could call "human faculties." Even though the image of God in man is much more than the faculties possessed by man (as shown above), it does include the basic faculties of the heart, the mind, and the will or, as Berkhof puts it, the natural affections, the intellectual power, and moral freedom. While the soul is the essence of man's life, the Scriptures present the heart as the organ of man's life, not only in the physical sense but also in the metaphorical sense, i.e. as the ultimate source of man's emotions, desire, willing, thinking, and knowing. Indeed, as Solomon put it, from the heart flows "the springs of life." (Pro. 4:23) But, the heart of man, from which all these things flow, is organized by the mind. Bavinck explains, "The heart is the seat of all emotions, passions, urges, inclinations, attachments, desires, and decisions of the will, which have to be led by the mind...." (Reformed, p. 557) In these things, man images God by reflecting His faculties of affections, intellect, and will, and there may even be a trinitarian reflection in these faculties. Augustine saw these three as an analogy mirroring the Trinity. In his work On the Trinity, he compares God the Father being the fountainhead of the Godhead to the heart being the fountainhead of the mind and will, and he likewise argues that the mind and will are analogous to God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (respectively). While that might be reading a little too much into this aspect of the image of God, it is clear from Scripture that man images God in his unique abilities of heart, mind, and will, and, again, deserves to be treated with the dignity and respect due God's images.

The fifth and final aspect of the image of God in man (again, the image as structure) is what some have called the "covenant theology account of the image of God" or the "representative aspect." In the twentieth century a lot of research was done on the covenants of the cultures of the Ancient Near East (ANE), of which the Israelite culture was one. When those covenants were compared to the biblical covenants that God made with His people there were many striking similarities (much of this research was done and applied to biblical covenants by Meredith Kline). It should not surprise us that God would pattern His covenants after covenants that His people would know for He generally relates to us in ways we can understand. And, the covenants of Scripture (particularly the book of Deuteronomy) are patterned after a common type of covenant made between kings known as a "suzerain-vassal treaty." A suzerain was a powerful king and a vassal was a lesser king. In these treaties, the suzerain pledged to protect and establish the vassal, and the vassal pledged submission and allegiance to the suzerain. (We do not have the time or space to talk about these treaties in detail, so for more reading I recommend this essay by Kline as a good place to start and perhaps follow it up with his book Treaty of the Great King.) In such a relationship, the suzerain had an ambassador whom he would send to the far countries of his vassals to represent him, and this ambassador was called "the Image." The Image would have the authority of the suzerain among his vassals. When the Image came, it was as if the suzerain himself had come. This was the context in which Moses wrote that humans are the images of God. This historical context shows us that being the image of God means that man is God' representative here on earth and should be treated with due dignity. And, there is another important piece of information that the studies of ANE covenants have revealed. When the Egyptian Pharaohs were the suzerains (and remember, Moses was raised as the grandson of a Pharaoh, cf. Ex. 2:10), they would intentionally choose an Image who was deformed or had some other major physical flaw that would normally put them at the bottom of society. They did this to see if their vassals would treat their Image (who in himself would have been valued as less than nothing by society) with the same dignity and respect as they would treat the suzerain himself, which would be a test of their loyalty. Now, the implications for us are clear. Humans are God's images—His representatives. God puts before us the weak and vulnerable, the afflicted and handicap, and the inconvenient and burdensome as His images in the forms of unborn children, infants, the mentally handicap, and the degenerating elderly. How will we treat them? Even if a human being does not have the full or higher use of his heart, mind, and will, it does not mean he does not bear God's image. He is still God's representative. Perhaps he was put before us as a test from our Suzerain as the Pharaohs tested their vassals. Will we treat them with the same dignity and respect as is due the Suzerain of whom they are the Image?

So, those are the aspects of the image of God in humanity: original righteousness (knowledge, righteousness, and holiness); the soul; the body; the human faculties of heart, mind, and will; and representation of God on earth. And, I believe the last one is of particular importance. The other aspects may be more or less visible; they may vary in degrees. All humans, however, represent the Great Suzerain King. Society may be tempted to look at its inconvenient and burdensome members and try to say they are "sub-human" or "non-persons," but God, our great Suzerain, has put them before as His images. Will we treat them with all the dignity and respect they are due?

There is one more loose end to tie up, and that is how sin has affected the image of God in man. As stated above, it is helpful to distinguish between the image of God as direction and the image of God as structure. Since man is fallen and dead in sin, the image of God as direction is basically lost. His original righteousness is all but gone (see above where I discuss this aspect), and he is in rebellion against God. Man, however, still retains the image of God as structure. He still has his soul, body, faculties, and representation. Now, these too have been wholly defiled because of sin (Ge. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Ro. 3:10-12; 8:7; 1 Co. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3; Tt. 1:15), but the image of God is still there and God still commands that it be given the respect and dignity it is due (cf. Ge. 9:6; Js. 3:9).

As stated in my previous post on the Gosnell case, only returning to the biblical view of man as created in the image of God will place us in a context where abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are unacceptable. All other definitions of "human" or "person" will always exclude some class, race, or developmental stage of humanity and open the door for any number of atrocities (history has shown us this and at present such atrocities are performed every day in abortion clinics across the world). As is almost always the case: right thinking and right doctrine begets right action, and wrong thinking and wrong doctrine begets wrong action. When defending the sanctity of life, let us defend it not just because it is life but because it is life that bears God's image and deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

By His Grace,
Taylor

John Calvin and Missions

"If it is true that all branches of the Christian family might have done more for missions, it is also true that this branch [Calvinism] has been 'in harness' as long as any expression of Protestantism."

I just finished up a paper for a class on Calvin and missions, which I thought I would share since he and the Reformed tradition have often been accused of not being involved in missions and not caring about missions. Though my paper does not address the Reformed tradition as a whole, it does refute this charge with respect to John Calvin himself, who is generally at the center of this accusation. Below is the introduction to the paper:

John Calvin and his doctrine, the so-called Calvinism that has lived on until today, have continued to be highly controversial in the Church. They were in Calvin’s time and they still are today. One of the constant debates that goes on in the Church today is the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism (a debate that serves to divide Christians in a way that neither John Calvin nor Jacobus Arminius would approve). Within this debate one of the consistent charges leveled against Calvin (and Calvinism) is that he and his doctrine are completely counter-evangelism and counter-missions. The Roman Catholic historian, Joseph Schmidlin, held that all the Reformers, including Calvin, “were not conscious of the missionary idea and displayed no missionary activity.”  Others have echoed this charge. A. Mitchell Hunter, in his book on Calvin’s theology, claimed, “Certainly [Calvin] displayed no trace of missionary enthusiasm.”  Professor of missions William Hogg wrote that Calvinism “worked effectively to throttle missionary endeavor.”  Others have claimed that the Reformers “did not even talk about missions outreach.”  It is said of Calvin that his “horrible doctrine” of divine election makes the missionary activity “nonsense.”  This charge, however, is completely unfounded. 

Those who take a honest look at Calvin’s doctrine and history are forced to conclude that John Calvin was truly a director of missions during the Reformation and the Reformed tradition has produced some of the most active and passionate missionaries this world has seen since the apostolic period. N. Carr Sargant, a Methodist (Arminian) missionary to India, did take a good look at Calvin and wrote, “To praise Arminianism and to reproach Calvinism is the conventional judgment. In respect of missions, however, rigid Calvinism and the warm Arminianism of Wesley were in substance the same.”  He even went so far as to admit that while the Calvinists “had gone to the heathen,” his own tradition only sent preachers to places where Christians were abundant.  In this paper we will look at Calvin’s teaching as well as the Reformation period and show that, while some may have misused Calvin’s teachings as an excuse for evangelistic indifference, Calvin was a director of missions and a man committed to the spread of the gospel throughout the world.

If you would like to read the rest of the paper, you can access it here.

By His Grace,
Taylor