Fight the Good Fight of the Faith: Warp Speed Ahead!

We have been proceeding through Joshua at a pretty good pace so far already, but in order to finish the book in eleven sermons (which is how many I had over the summer), we need to speed up even more. We are about to do that at proverbial "warp speed" because in this Friday post and in the next, I am going to cover twelve chapters worth of material, with the noted exception of Jos. 20, which will be the text for the next sermon.

Fortunately, the book of Joshua lends itself to that pace in second half of the book because most of the content of chs. 11-22 is summaries of the final conquests and the dividing up of the land between the tribes. So, this week I am going to cover some historical issues from these chapters, and next week we will look at some theological highlights from that section.

You might not notice historical issues at first when you look just at the book of Joshua itself, but when we get to Judges, some have said that these two books present contradictory views of the conquest of the Promised Land. Voltaire was one of the first to make this claim and use it as a reason not to trust the Bible, and many have attempted to say the same thing since. Voltaire claimed that Joshua describes a period of "unstoppable progress" in taking the land--that the Canaanites were all wiped out and the cities were left empty for settlement. Then, he claimed that the book of Judges makes it appear that the conquest was a gradual process with many setbacks and ultimately incomplete. That, he claimed, is a contradiction. So, from a historical perspective of Scripture, how are we to take this challenge?

First, read more carefully: When you think you have a problem with Scripture, ask for God's help and read more carefully. In Jos. 13:1-6, the LORD tells Joshua, "There remains yet very much land to possess," and Joshua tells the people to go to their allotments and proceed with the gradual, cleanup work of driving out the remaining Canaanites. So, the book of Joshua does not teach that Israel took the entire land with "unstoppable progress." You see, what the first twelve chapters of Joshua describe for us is not a total defeat of the enemy but the cropping of the leadership, the destroying of the strongholds, and the breaking of the back of the enemy. One can think if it kind of like the difference between D-Day and V-Day in WWII. On D-Day outcome of the war was essentially decided, but there was still lots of work to do before V-Day finally arrived. For Israel, once those strongholds were taken and great powers defeated, the land was won for them, but the tribes still had the task of driving out the remaining Canaanites in their areas. (That is what was supposed to happen in the book of Judges, but Israel failed because of their sin.) Voltaire's challenge comes from making unfounded assumptions based on a cursory reading of the books.

Second, the books of Joshua and Judges use language that helps us to see this difference, though it is somewhat hidden in the English language, so let me try to expose it. In Joshua, the verb predominantly used for the defeat of the Canaanites and the taking of the land is lakad, which means "to take, to gain control," which is indicative of what Israel does in the book of Joshua: they delivered the devastating blow against the Canaanites and gained effective control of all the land. In the book of Judges, however, the word dominantly used for what they are commanded to do is yarash, which means "to possess (for yourself), to dispossess (from others), or to drive out." (In fact, this is the verb God uses in Jos. 13:1 where He tells Joshua there is much land "to possess," i.e. what the tribes are now to do in the book of Judges.) And, that is what the tribes are commanded to do in Joshua 13-22 and what they were to do in Judges: to occupy completely the defeated territory and either kill or drive out the Canaanites that still remained in the land they controlled. What has been taken (lakad-ed) may still need to be dispossessed of remaining Canaanites (yarash-ed). The alleged contradiction between these books fades when we expose the careful distinction the authors make between what Israel did under Joshua and what they were supposed to in their own allotments in the book of Judges.

So, again, these books are historically accurate and consistent, and chs. 11-22 give us the details of the taking of the control of the Land and the distributing of the Land to the tribes for the final driving out of the remaining Canaanites, which is what was supposed to happen in  the book of Judges. This is another example of how God's Word is entirely trustworthy in all its assertions, whether theological or historical or scientific.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 6)

Over the past several blog posts, I have been in a series on thinking about science biblical and consistently as a Christian. The previous post summarized the first four posts, so you can head back there fore that summary. It also began us on the journey of moving forward, using the biblical view of science that we talked about from Scripture to learn how to live in a world like ours, which puts a great deal of weight on science. To use the analogy that I have been using in this series, we started to put "walls" and a "roof" on the "foundation" and "framework" of the intellectual houses we are building, and we are going to continue to do that in this post. 

At the end of the last post, we talked about mutual correction: the idea that proper interpretations of scientific data can help correct misinterpretations of Scripture and proper interpretations of Scripture can help correct misinterpretations of scientific data. And, I left that post with a question I was asked by a student, which is quite relevant: "How can I know where I should stand firm with my theology no matter what a scientist says and how can I know where I can perhaps let their theories alter my interpretation of Scripture?" That is a good place to pick back up the topic of moving forward to learn how to live in our day and age with this biblical view of science. 

So, how can we know where to stand firm with theology and where we can perhaps let a scientific theory affect our interpretation of Scripture? Well, we will get into this in more detail below when I will give what I think is a helpful method for handling apparent conflicts between science and Scripture, but there are few things that can be said here that should help with this question: 

1. First, you and I should never make that determination alone. Scripture is one of God's great gifts to the Church as a whole and we interpret it as a community. So, seek help from others by talking to a pastor, campus minister, Christian friends, reading books, etc. Do not try to make the determination by yourself. Sometimes you might end up disagreeing with some of the people with whom you discuss the issue, but the mere fact that you do it together will help keep you from gross error and keep you humble. 
2. Second, the creedal statements of Christianity are non-negotiable. The Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Creed of Chalcedon put parameters around the Christian faith. They leave a lot of room when it comes to many, many doctrines, but they define Christianity in its outermost limits. If we stray beyond the theology of those creeds, then we have strayed beyond Christianity. Any statement of a scientist that attempts to overthrow a statement of those creeds--like God being the maker of heaven and earth, from the Apostles Creed--is just wrong. Stand firm on them. (By the way, this does not mean we do not need to know how to defend these creedal statements to non-believers, for we should be able to give the reason for the hope they give Christians, but it does mean we cannot budge on them. If we do, we do not have Christianity anymore and therefore there is nothing to defend.)
3. Take into account the great confessions of Church history. These things are not infallible like the Bible itself, but they are great statements of theology that have stood the test of time. They have not been around as long as the creeds, but they still have a lot to teach us and we should not just haphazardly dismiss them. For example, I, as a PCA teaching elder, am bound by the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Catechisms. I can differ from them slightly, which I do in a few places, but even there I do not do that alone. My presbytery, which is the other teaching elders in my local geographic area, corrects me if I go too far in my differences from the confessions. In the next post, I will give some resources I recommend, and in it I will put links to the historic Reformed confessions that are still quite helpful here.
4. Finally, Do not jump to any conclusions one way or another right way, but pray a lot, study a lot, and talk a lot to other Christians.

Now, in what I have said here and in the previous post, let us not forget the mutual correction of science and Scripture. Scripture properly interpreted can also correct scientific theories where they misinterpret nature. Scripture does not give a lot of detail about most of the areas that scientists study, but where it does give details, they are details that are from God, have His authority, and provide interpretive parameters or corrections for scientific theories. One example of this might be scientific theories that attempt to claim that humans and animals have really no substantial difference other than cognitive abilities. Some scientists attempt to claim that animals are just as valuable as humans because the only difference between us is how smart we are. That, of course, comes from their interpretation of the evidence based on the assumption that naturalism and evolution are indisputable facts, which they are not. The Bible can help correct this error by pointing out that humans are made in God's image, while animals are not. God may have used a lot of the same building blocks to make humans as He did to make animals, but that does not mean He did not endow humans with a natural value and dignity that far surpasses animals. Furthermore, God gave dominion over animals to humans, thus further defining human value far above animal value. Now, that does not mean we can just abuse animals, but it does mean that animal life is not even close to being as equally valuable as human life.

Understanding how scientific data can help us correct a misinterpretation of Scripture and Scripture can help us correct misinterpretations of scientific data (mutual correction) is one way that we start putting "walls" and a "roof" on our intellectual and spiritual houses. The last thing we need to discuss is how to handle apparent conflicts when they arise because they will arise, and we need to know how to deal with them wisely. This will also help us put "walls" and a "roof" on our house. 

So, how do we handle them? Well, let me say upfront that there is probably more than one "right" way to handle these things. What I am about to give you is a method I have found helpful and others have found helpful too. It is not foolproof, for nothing is, but I think it can help you make your "houses" livable enough to help you live confidently and comfortably as a Christian in our day and age.

1. Remember what the biblical view of nature and Scripture is: Remember, as we learned in the previous posts, God is the author of both books, as we talked about yesterday, so this conflict that arises is only apparent; it is not real. Now, sometimes it may take a lot of work to figure out which book is being interpreted incorrectly and how to think about them properly, but while we work on that, we can rest in this truth. And, rest keeps us from anxiety, which helps us think more clearly about the issue. Christians have nothing to fear from scientific research because the scientist is researching God's domain--God's book. I meet many Christians who are afraid of science, but it is a tool God has given us to discover truth from His universe, so we have nothing to fear from it. 
2. Remember the world in which we live, and do not be surprised: As we discussed in part four, we should expect there to be cases where a scientific theory appears to conflict with our interpretations of Scripture. Many scientists are interpreting the data from the worldview of naturalism, which does conflict with Scripture's theistic worldview, and, as we have talked about a lot, we are simply fallible beings, so we make mistakes. Because of those things, we know apparent conflicts will arise. A biblical view of science tells us to expect this, so do not be shocked when they come. Shock only increases our anxiety of these issues, which, again, clouds our ability to think through them, but if we can look at it and say, "Huh, that's odd, but it doesn't really surprise me that they might think that," then we will remain calm enough to think through the issue biblically and rationally.
3. Remember not to jump to any conclusions too quickly: A biblical view of science and Scripture reminds us that either our interpretation of Scripture or the scientist's interpretation of nature is incorrect or both, and we need to be humble enough to jump to any conclusions before we have thought it through. 
4. Check the source and wait: Things that come up in popular media via news, blogs, books, etc. all have a source behind them that points to the scientific research, and very often claims in the popular media are either reported incorrectly, too early, or are overturned by further scientific research. For example, here as some things to think about:
1. When you read something in the news, did it come from a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal like Science, Nature, or The Astrophysical Journal or did it come from something someone present at a conference? There can be a big difference in the reliability of the data. At conferences, researches often share raw, infant ideas that can range from Nobel prize concepts to junk and dead ends. Sometimes unpublished, un-peer-reviewed claims are portrayed as scientific fact by the media when even the researchers would not say that. Whenever I presented a paper at a conference, I cringed when I saw journalists sitting on the front row because I new generally that they would not understand what is going on or report it as fact when it was not. Now, luckily for me, my research was not really important enough for them to report, but it does happen often. Check to see if the source is a journal or something less reliable like a conference. 
2. If you have the ability, check out the source yourself. Even if it comes from a journal article, I have seen several occasions where the author was not saying anything close to what the news article claimed. If you do not have access to the journal through a university or a friend, then see if you can find someone who does. There are great ministries on that can help you think through these things here. One I really like is called Reasons to Believe. Email and ask them. They may have a resource that can help you or they may plan to comment on it. I would not mind helping you either, though I would be a distant second to the brilliant men and women at RTB, but feel free to ask me. 
3. And, remember to wait. Stuff in the best journals is still debatable, and further research may change the claim. For example, does anyone remember the fossil Ida that was introduced back in 2009? It was claimed to be a "missing link" that would totally change the way scientists view human evolution and would solidify the theory of evolution. It was introduced with a huge media circus and got so much hype that even Google dedicated a logo to it. Well, after several months, other papers started coming out questioning how helpful the fossil really was, and eventually the scientists who introduced it had to admit that their claims were far overblown. Just waiting would have shown many stressed-out Christians that this "discovery" does not really change anything at all and does not solidify anything with Darwinian evolution. 
4. So, check the source and wait. And, waiting can be done very easily with Google's handy "Google alerts" tool. If you are concerned about an apparent conflict, create a Google alert that will send the most recent information your way without you having to go looking for it, and then see what comes up. 
5. Attempt to separate the data from the interpretation of the data: Again, a biblical view of science reminds us that science is a tool that produces data and then that data is interpreted within a worldview. The data itself will not conflict with Scripture if it is properly extracted and recorded, but the interpretation might easily conflict because it might come from a scientists whose worldview is naturalism. But, if we can separate the data from the interpretation, then we can take a clear look at it and see how it fits within Scripture. Sometimes a biblical interpretation will look almost identical to the original; other times there will be significant differences. Now, this may take a lot of time and discussion with colleagues, friends, or consulting books or ministries that help Christians with apologetics, but if we really believe God wrote the books of nature and Scripture, then we know the data will fit within a biblical model, we just have to do the work of separation and interpretation within a biblical worldview. If you want an example of this, check out my posts on Adam and Eve here, here (this one especially illustrates this point), here, and here.
6. Remember to consider your interpretation of Scripture as well: In these apparent conflicts our goal is not to prove ourselves right (at least it should not be). Our goal should be to discover God's truth in order to bring Him glory. While we have considered so far how to think about the scientific side of the apparent controversy, we cannot skip over the possibility that the error may be on the theological side. We need to examine our exegesis of the Scripture passages that address the issue, we need to consult others like a pastor or campus minister, we need to do some reading on the subject, and we need to be as certain as we can be that the error is not in our interpretation of Scripture. And, like with the scientific research, sometimes this takes time. Sometimes we have to consider a number of different views before we can try to determine which seems the most faithful to God's revelation in Scripture and in nature. But, if we are resting in a biblical view of science and Scripture, we can take the time without becoming anxious because know there is a resolution, even if we cannot find it right away. 
7. Strive to be humble: Honestly, this is contradiction in terms because one cannot "strive" to be humble, but what I mean is that in this whole process, we must remember that we are just as fallible, biased, and sinful as the most hardened, virulent "new atheist." The only difference between us and them is that we have God's grace, forgiveness, salvation, and Holy Spirit (not from anything in us but as a gift so no man can boast, Eph. 2:8-9). The only reason that you and I understand and believe the Scriptures is the Spirit's illumination (1 Co. 2:9-12), therefore we need to be humble when responding to critics, evaluating someone's work, or discussing apparent conflicts with others.
8. Do not go it alone: I have already said this several times, but this is not something we need to be trying to do alone. We need the wisdom of the Christian community. We need friends, family, campus ministers, pastors, etc. to help us think through these things. Some of the people we consult might not be helpful in the pursuit of truth but some probably will be, and even if we end up not agreeing with them, their viewpoint will help us refine our own. 
9. Pray: When Nehemiah stood before the King Artaxerxes to request permission to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls around the new Temple, he was in a tenuous spot. He could have been killed for his request. In 2:4 the king asks the question "What are you requesting?" and before Nehemiah responded, Scripture tells us that he prayed. In that moment--a second or two--he prayed for wisdom and God gave it to him. We need to pray for wisdom when trying to figure these things out. Sometimes they are very difficult. We need to pray that God will help us sort out the truth from interpretation, and we need to pray that He will help us come to a proper understanding of both His Word and His world, for His glory and our good. 
10. Remember that God is still God and Jesus is still coming back: Sometimes you will not be able to figure it out, even after having studied the scientific data and Scripture. Sometimes you will not be able to figure out which interpretation is in error. Even the best scholars and academics have to say, "I don't know" sometimes. Hopefully these times will be rare, but they will probably happen every now and then. In those times, a biblical view of science and Scripture reminds us that just because we cannot figure it out does not mean there is no solution, and we need to be humble enough to admit that. The issue might be a paradox, but a biblical view of science and Scripture reminds us that it is not a contradiction, so we can rest in that truth. Do you know the difference between a paradox and a contradiction?
1. A paradox is something that seems contradictory but actually is not. The reason it seems contradictory is because we cannot find the solution, but we know there is one. Every theology and scientific model has its share of paradoxes. For example, in theology, Scripture upholds the sovereignty of God over everything, including man's salvation, and Scripture also upholds human responsibility for their actions. Are those contradictory? No, because God teaches them both and cannot contradict Himself. There is a solution to how those two work together, but God has chosen not to share it with us. When Paul considers this paradox, he does not even try to pose a resolution but simply says, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" (cf. Ro. 9), and if it was too much for Paul writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, it is too much for you and I. Another example from the sciences would be wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics. This is the evidence from nature, that a subatomic particle exhibits both particle and wave properties. How can something be a point in space and also a wave at the same time? No one really knows, but we do know that it happens. It is a paradox because there is a solution, we do not have it yet.
2. A contradiction means there is no possible solution. It is like saying 1+1=2 and 1+1=5. There is no way to reconcile those statements, so they are contradictory.
3. A biblical view of science and Scripture tells us that God is the author of both books, so there is no contradiction, but sometimes paradoxes will arise because either God has chosen not to give us all the information we need to solve the problem or we just have not figured it out yet. We live in a fallen world full of sinful people who do not know everything and make mistakes, so sometimes the solution is beyond you and me, and that is okay because God is still God and Jesus is still coming back. I hate not being able to figure something out as much as the next guy, but sometimes (rarely but sometimes) we need to admit it is too much for us, trust God, and go get a milkshake.

Alright, that is my general "method" for handling apparent conflicts between what scientists say and what we read in Scripture. Hopefully you will find it helpful enough to help you put "walls" and a "roof" on your intellectual and spiritual "house." This also brings my discussion of a biblical view of science to a close. Certainly there is more that can be written on this topic, but I hope and pray this will give you a solid start as you consider the tool of science. Please feel free to ask me any questions you might have or check out my "science" tag for stuff I have written on various subjects. 

In the next post, I will list out a number of resources that you might find helpful for various sub-topics of science and Christianity. It will not be an exhaustive list by any means, but it will give you enough material to keep you reading for a while. 

By His Grace,

Taylor

Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 3)

In the past couple of posts I have been attempting to give Christians a framework for living as believers in a world that puts a great deal of weight on science, and what I have been trying to do is to help my Christian readers learn to think biblically about science and consistently as a Christian. I am using the analogy of building a house--I want to help you build an intellectual and spiritual house in which you can "live" as a Christian in our world. In the first two posts, we have started to do that by talking about God's revelation of Himself and His truth:

1. In the first post of this series, I defended the idea that all truth is God's truth, and in some fashion all truths point us to God, which is the concrete for our foundation in the metaphorical houses we are building. 
2. In the second post of this series, we looked at the Belgic Confession and saw that God reveals His truth and we discover it through the two "books" of nature and Scripture. From that I argued that 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.

At the end of the last post, however, I posed an objection that I think will likely come to mind when this foundation is laid: "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 at which we will start to look today: human fallibility. (By fallibility, I just mean that humans are prone to make mistake because we are not perfect.) The first two posts were about God's revelation, and in this post and the next we will look at the topic of human fallibility and how understanding that helps us to think biblically about science and consistently as Christians. (And, hopefully if you are familiar with Internet memes, you get the relevance of the Picard picture.) By the way, this will also help us understand the nature of the apparent conflicts that we seem to see between "science and Christianity."

First, we need to talk about tools for understanding God's revelation in the books of nature and Scripture. When it comes to understanding the books of nature and Scripture, there are tools or processes that we use to discover the truth in them. In many cases, the actual teaching of Scripture--what God is actually revealing through it--does not just jump off the pages for us to receive as truth, and in most cases, the actual truth about our physical reality--what God is actually revealing through it--does not just jump up out of nature to us to receive as truth. In both cases, study must be done to get at the truth God is revealing through each of these books. And, we use tools in this study:

• For Scripture, the main tools are exegesis and interpretation. Exegesis is the study of a text to bring out its meaning--what God is actually teaching us through it. This is what we all do on some level when we read Scripture. Sometimes it might be as simple as reading the context of a verse or passage and then asking the question of what a particular statement means in the overall context of a story or teaching of Scripture. Sometimes it might be a rigorous, detailed study of a just a sentence or two by looking at the original languages, consulting commentaries, etc. Either way, when we attempt to get at the truth of the actual teaching of Scripture, we are using the tool of exegesis to give us the data. But, our study does not stop there. Then, once we think we understand the teaching of a passage, we have to interpret that bit of data for our lives based on the passage as well as how it fits with the rest of Scripture, and when we do that, we form theologies of Scripture. Through that process we attempt to find the truth God is actually teaching in the Bible. 
• For nature, the main tools are science and interpretation. Science can be defined simply as the systematic study of the natural universe in which we live through observation and experimentation. Again, we all do this at some times in our lives. Even my two-year-old son does this almost naturally. He learns about cause and effect, gravity, the states of objects, hot and cold, and many other things by trying it out. He takes a toy, stands it up, and then pushes it over, and from that he learns to intuit cause and effect and even a little bit about gravity. But, his research does not stop there. He then takes the toy somewhere else and repeats the experiment. And, what does he find? The same thing happens in a different place! Amazing! Even a two-year-old does low-level science. And, of course, science can take the form of formal, rigorous observation and experimentation in a lab, on a dig, or with a telescope. But, again, our study does not stop there. Our use of the tool of science gives us data, and then we have to interpret that data for our lives based on the laws of physics, our presupposed beliefs (which we will talk about in a later post), and other scientific theories, and when we do that, we form other theories or scientific models for understanding the universe. Through that process we attempt to find the truth God is actually teaching us in nature. 

When thinking about discovering truth in this way, we can see that the process in both cases is pretty much the same: we collect data (through exegesis or science) and we interpret data. And, the end of each is an attempt to understand truth.

Now, in talking about those tools we start to get a bit of the next biblical truth that builds on the foundation we laid in the first two posts. The study of nature and the study of Scripture are processes done by humans to get at the truth. Science and exegesis are the tools of that process, which give us data that we interpret. So, from this we must remember that properly speaking, science and Scripture, science and faith, science and religion, or however we entitle the alleged conflict, those things do not actually interact, per se, people do. The science of nature and the exegesis of Scripture no more interact than a hammer and a circular saw do. They are tools, and tools do not interact or conflict. But, people interact all the time. People who use these tools can run into conflict. And, with that, we begin to move in the direction of understanding the apparent conflicts we hear about between "science and Christianity."

Alright, so we said in the previous post that God's revelation through the books of nature and Scripture will never conflict, and today we have add to that by saying that the science and exegesis are tools we use for interpretation of these books to form theories or theologies, so these tools do not really interact; people do. So, knowing that, what do you think would be the nature of the apparent conflicts that we hear about between science and Scripture? The problem is not God's revelation in either book; they are both infallible (see the previous post). The problem is not the tools, for they are essentially neutral. The problem is the people. We are fallible people using tools to study and interpret God's infallible revelation. In fact, we could update our chart from the previous post a little more here:

	Special Revelation	General Revelation
Infallible:	God’s Word in Scripture	God’s Word in nature
Fallible:	Exegesis -> Interpretation -> Theology	Science -> Interpretation -> Theory

God's revelation exists in the top row. But, we humans live in the bottom row. Remembering this helps us to think biblically about science and Scripture. Scientific theories are not infallible like God's revelation in nature is. And, theological systems are not infallible like God's revelation in Scripture is.

Really what we are talking about here is the effects of the fall on our study of both nature and Scripture. Before the fall, man was sinless; so when Adam and Eve made an observation and interpretation of nature, it was one unsullied by sin that conformed to the truth of reality--the way things actually are. When Adam and Eve considered and interpreted something God said to them (i.e. His Word for them), it was untarnished by sin and conformed to His actual teaching. But, now that we are sinful men and women trying our best to study both Scripture and nature, our minds, hearts, and even our actions are tainted by sin. Sin makes us fallible in many ways. So, when we come across apparent conflicts, there are really three options for where the problem/mistake lies:

1. Sometimes we make mistakes in our exegesis and interpretation of Scripture. We as Christians must be humble enough to admit this because it is simply a fact of life. There would not be debates over the length of days in Ge. 1, between Reformed and Arminians, about the end times, or about many other theological subjects if we were not sinful, fallible humans. 
2. Sometimes we make mistakes in our scientific research and interpretation of nature. We as Christians need to understand this and remember this when a scientific theory appears to conflict with the Bible. The men and women who propose those theories are fallible, sinful humans as well.
3. Sometimes (maybe even often) we make mistakes in our study of both books. Sometimes we have interpreted our Scriptures incorrectly and we have interpreted the data from science incorrectly, and therefore a conflict may arise from that. (In fact, I would argue that this is probably the case more often than not.)

Now, at this point, we need to caution ourselves and be humble enough to remember that just because an apparent conflict arises does not mean we should automatically jump to the conclusion that the scientist is the one in error. We also do not automatically jump to the conclusion that our theology is in error. We can see sad examples of both knee-jerk reactions in Christian history, and maybe a couple historical examples of this would be helpful here. Here are two opposite examples:

Take the example from Christian history of the geocentric model of our solar system--i.e. the earth being the center of our solar system--vs the heliocentric model of our solar system--i.e. the sun being the center of the solar system. For hundreds of years both Christians and non-Christian scientists believed that the earth was the center of our solar system. Ever since Ptolemy of the second century AD, it was held as incontrovertible by all "thinking" people that the earth was the center of the solar system and the sun moved around it. This view was held by scientists because of simple observations of the world around us (think about it, even today we still use phrases like "the sun moving across the sky"). It was also held by Christians because it was thought to be the plain implication of Scriptures that talk about the sun's movement, like Jos. 10 where it specifically says, "the sun stood still, and the moon stopped." Then, Copernicus came along in the sixteenth century and published his heliocentric model. Now, at the time, his model was not generally accepted by either scientists or Christians. And, the two great reformers--Luther and Calvin--had some strong words for Copernicus. Luther wrote in his Table Talk booklet in 1539:

There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth [Jos. 10:12].

Calvin was less direct towards Copernicus, but he did make an indirect statement that was strong in a sermon on 1 Co. where he warns against those who say "that the sun does not move and that it is the earth that moves." And, he calls them "stark raving mad" and demon possessed.

I do not know of anyone today who still tries to claim that the earth is the center of the solar system, but Luther and Calvin were convinced that the their interpretation of Jos. 10:12 and other Scriptures was infallible and therefore Copernicus was obviously wrong. Now, I am not saying they should have immediately overturned 1500 years of interpretation, for even the scientists of their day did not agree with Copernicus, yet this example does show they jumped to a conclusion too quickly. Brilliant men like Luther and Calvin immediately jumped to the conclusion that the scientist was wrong, not being humble enough at this point even to consider the other possibility. We need not to make the same mistake. Over time both scientists and Christians realized that Copernicus was right for the most part. But, it took a while. Even with Galileo, the controversy did not end. It really did not end in the sciences until Newton--about 200 years after Copernicus.

An alternate example might be Steady-State cosmology. In the early twentieth century because of conclusions from general relativity, cosmologists knew that the universe could not be static, so they postulated that the universe had no beginning but that matter was being continuously created as the universe expanded. As silly as that sounds to us today, this theory was very popular until the 1960's when observations of the universe showed it was simply untenable. In the early twentieth century, this theory gave atheist scientists intellectual reason to reject God's creation of the universe in any fashion because their model said the universe had no beginning (so it needed no Beginner), so we can understand why they latched onto it. Yet, a quick survey of Christian journals in the 1930's and 40's will find dozens of papers arguing that Christians must accept Steady-State cosmology and treat Ge. 1 like an allegory, which is just a story or poem that has no historical basis but is written simply to teach a moral truth. Well, with the rise of Big Bang cosmology, scientists had to admit they were wrong about Steady-State cosmology and that the universe did have a beginning (which was a hard thing for an atheist to admit), and suddenly all those Christians who said we had to agree with Steady-State cosmology had egg on their faces. Here, we have an opposite example: Christians who assumed theologians had to be wrong, and they regretted it.

The effects of the fall are a biblical reality that should remind Christians not to jump to any knee-jerk reaction about the latest scientific theories that appear to conflict with common interpretations of Scripture. We will talk more about how to handle them later, but for now, we need to remember that both theologians and scientists are fallible, and this gives us another key component to our biblical view of science and our metaphorical houses: When apparent conflicts arise, it is not because science and the Bible are in conflict but because we human beings are either interpreting Scripture wrongly, the scientific data wrongly, or both wrongly. This is the framework for our house that we are building. Sometimes what seems like a conflict with Scripture from the sciences is actually a truth from God's revelation in nature that helps us refine our interpretation of God's revelation in Scripture, as the example of Luther and Calvin shows us. Sometimes what seems like a conflict with Scripture from the sciences is actually just a popular theory that may be corrected later with better observations of nature. Sometimes it might be a combination of both.

Now, when I say science and Scripture do not conflict, people do; and when I say apparent contradictions are a result of fallible humans interpreting Scripture wrongly, the scientific data wrongly, or both wrongly, I am telling you the nature of the apparent conflicts. But, what gives rise to these conflicts? From where do they come? That is the source of the clashes, and it is a clash of worldviews. But, this post is long enough, so we will pick that up next week in part four.

By His Grace,
Taylor

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

Personal Devotions

I am in the process of putting together a page for my church's website that will give a short list of resources for daily devotions. It is not up yet because I still need to get a few technical things worked out, but I figured I would go ahead and share it here. I hope you find it useful.

At Grace Covenant, we want to find as many ways as we can to help you immerse yourself in the means of grace (the Bible, the sacraments, and prayer), and one of those ways is your personal time in the Word or, as some call it, your "quiet time." Now, while quiet times are supposed to be a pillar of healthy, freeing spiritual growth, they can become a source of great guilt and anxiety. If you are struggling with that, we recommend "Freedom from Quiet Time Guilt" as a place to start. Then, spending time in the Word and solid devotional resources are a great way to continue. There are, however, many resources online and in bookstores that offer such guidance, and it can be difficult to know which are truly Christ-centered, gospel-driven, useful resources and which are better left on the shelf. On this page you will find a small collection of solid, biblical, free resources for personal time with the Lord.
Bible Reading Plans: There are many Bible reading plans you could adopt for your quiet times, but whichever you do choose to use, remember the old adage that less is more. Most plans have you reading through the Bible in a year, which is a laudable goal, but it can lead to reading for quantity instead of quality, which is less helpful. If you find that being the case with you, try dividing each day's reading in half and taking two years to complete the plan. Here are a few possibilities:

• Straight Through: This plan is designed to take you from the beginning to the end in a year. It has the advantage of a simple structure, a fairly even reading load, and following the Bible's natural progression.
• Chronological: This plan takes you through the Bible in the order the events occurred chronologically. It has the advantage of reading passages in their historical context and putting parallel passages together so you can see events from different perspectives or with different emphases.
• M’Cheyne Bible Reading: This plan is designed to take you through the NT and Psalms twice a year and the OT once. It has the advantage of balancing your daily readings with OT and NT passages with an even distribution of both.
• 52-Week: This plan has you read through the Bible in a year, with each day of the week dedicated to a different genre: Epistles, the Law, History, Psalms, Poetry, Prophecy, and Gospels. It has the advantage of dividing the Bible up by its major genres and giving you a balanced, weekly diet of each.

Here are a few daily devotionals that are Christ-centered, gospel-driven, and available for free online:

• GCPC's Private & Family Worship Guide: This devotional is put together by Pastor Hutchinson and emailed out to the church email list monthly (you can also download the latest here). It takes a holistic approach to private and family devotions by combining daily Scripture reading with monthly Scripture memory, catechism questions, and psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. It is an excellent resource that will line up your devotions with many of the other individuals and families of Grace Covenant, and, as an added bonus, the Saturday Scripture reading previews the sermon text for the following Sunday.
• Charles Spurgeon's Morning and Evening: This classic daily devotional was published by Charles Spurgeon in the mid-nineteenth century and has been a blessing to countless Christians ever since. For each day, Spurgeon has written a morning and evening devotion (hence the title), and in just a few paragraphs, each devotion expounds a single Bible verse with practical application to the life of the reader. This resource creates a great bookend for your day, and it is available for free from many sources: CCEL has it in several formats and there is an Android app and an iPhone app.
• D. A. Carson's For the Love of God: This two-volume daily devotional is an exceptional contemporary resource. In Carson, God has developed the mind of a scholar and the heart of a pastor, both of which are evident in these daily devotionals. Each volume covers a whole year following the M'Cheyne Bible Reading Plan. On each day, Carson takes one of the passages from the reading plan and comments on it in a short devotion that combines brilliant exegesis with pastoral application to the life of the reader. It is available for free on The Gospel Coalition's website with the option to read online, through RSS, or via a daily email. It is also available for free as an iPhone App.
• Jerry Bridges' Holiness Day by Day: In a similar pattern to Spurgeon's devotions, this devotional starts each day with a verse of Scripture and then a short explanatory devotion, which is usually an excerpt taken from Bridge's wide breadth of writing. It is theologically solid, accessible to the reader, and gospel-centered, and you can access it for free by reading it online or subscribing to its daily email.
• The Valley of Vision: Though this resource does not follow a Bible reading plan or start you out with Scripture, it is one of the best devotional and prayer tools available and a great addition to any reading plan. The Valley of Vision is a collection of Puritan prayers and meditations that are rooted in confessionalism, steeped in Scripture, centered on Christ, and overflowing with godly affections, exquisitely balancing the mind and heart. Unfortunately, it is not available for free in full anywhere online but Banner of Truth has most of them on their website and even has a daily Valley of Vision designed for devotional use.

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