Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 5)

So, as many of you know by now, I am in the middle of a series on science and Scripture (actually nature and Scripture, and you can read about why I make that distinction in the first post), and my goal in this series has not been to tell you what to think regarding some of the sub-topics of science and Scripture (e.g. the age of the universe) but to help you to learn how to think about science biblically and consistently as a Christian. In the first four posts in this series, laid a biblical framework for doing just that, using the analogy of building an intellectual and spiritual "house." And, in sum, that framework is the following:

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.
3. In the third post of this series, we began to look at human fallibility, and I argued that 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. We can think of this as the framework for our house, upon which we can put a metaphorical roof and walls.

And, in the fourth post in this series, we talked about where the conflict really lies when we hear about apparent "contradictions" between science and faith, science and Christianity, or however one words the tension. There I argued that the conflict is not between science and Christianity but between two worldviews: naturalism and theism. In short, it is not that "science" says things that conflict with what Scripture actually teaches but that a scientist interpreting the data through a naturalistic worldview says those things, but a Christian can interpret the same data from science through a theistic and biblical worldview and derive an interpretation that is just as valid. So, the conflict is not between science and Scripture or the data they give us but between the worldviews of fallible humans interpreting that data. And, if we move the argument up out of the finer details of various interpretations of data into the realm of worldview, then we get at the heart of the problem, and the debate becomes which worldview can best explain the universe in which we live.

Today we are going to move forward using this biblical framework for thinking about science and Scripture, and we are going to start to talk about how to live in a world that is over-impressed by science. Now, when I say "over-impressed by science," please do not misunderstand me. I love science. My background is in physics, and I still read several of the top journals on a regular basis. Science is a great tool, but our culture has raised science from the level of a wonderful tool to the status of an all-encompassing worldview, which is not where it belongs (see this post for more details on that). That is why I say our contemporary culture is "over-impressed by science." So, we need to learn how to live in such a world, and, moving forward, learning how to live in our day and age, will help us to put the "walls" and a "roof" on the metaphorical houses that we are building. But, let me say right at the outset that our houses will not be perfect. There will be some leaks in our roofs and drafts in our walls because we are fallible humans, but if we learn to think within the biblical framework we have laid out, our houses can be sufficient to live confidently as Christians in our world.

First, we need to talk briefly about the ways that people attempt to relate science and Scripture, science and faith, or however one puts the tension. There is a continuum of possibilities with two polar extremes, and we need to think about where in this continuum we should build our "houses":

On one end of the spectrum is the constant clash idea. This is the view of many today who write books and news articles, and it’s the idea science and religion, particularly Christianity, will always be at odds. Usually this is held by atheists and they use it to say that Christianity simply needs to give up and listen to everything they claim "science says," which remember is not science but their naturalistic interpretation of the data. However, I have met some Christians that try to live here. Yet, I would argue that is not faithful to Scripture. As we talked about yesterday, God has told us that He has revealed Himself and His truth in nature, so the study of nature starting from the proper, biblical assumptions, will never truly conflict with Christianity. That was the foundation of our house that we learned about in the third post.

On the other end of the spectrum is the independence idea. This is the view that "science" and Christianity are totally independent of one another. They should never come into contact so they should never conflict, agree, or relate to each other at all. Some more moderate atheists take this position, but usually they are not the ones writing books because they do not care to write books about two things that, in their view, should not interact at all anyway. Yet, this is not sustainable either. The worldview of naturalism held by many scientists puts them in the position of having to make religious conclusions: like how the universe came into being, what is the meaning of our existence, why the universe is finely tuned for life, etc. Their answers to those questions are answers that are inherently religious, which sets them up right in front of Christians ready to clash. Now, I have also heard some Christians take this view. They usually phrase it differently, saying something like: "Science answers the "how" and "when" questions--e.g. how the universe came into being and when it happened--and Christianity answers the "who" and "why" questions--who created it and why He did it." Now, there is some truth to that, but it is not completely true and fails at several points:

• First, because someone has to approach the data from science with a worldview and interpret it within that worldview, they have assumptions about "who" and "why" that play into their interpretation of "how" and "when." If the naturalist assumes no one created it and there is no meaning to it, then that affects how they interpret the data. Christians know God created the universe and that He did it for His own glory, which affects how we interpret the data as well. So, the "how" and "when" questions can never really be independent of the answers we assume to the "who" and "why" questions.
• Second, while Scripture is not a scientific textbook designed to give us details about genetics, physics, biology, etc., that does not mean Scripture has nothing to say about our universe and how it came into being. Ge. 1-2; Jb. 9, 38-41; Ps. 104, 148; and many other Scriptures make some very specific claims about the creation of this universe. We do not have time to discuss the creation account itself and the various interpretations of those passages, but one cannot simply say, "Well, all those passages are just allegories or something like that and aren't making scientific claims." They are to some degree or another. So, Scripture does have some things to tell us about the universe and the how and when of its creation, and since Scripture is our highest authority that should come into play for a Christian interpreting the data from science.
• Third, while the data science gives us from nature is not a philosophical or theological textbook designed to give us details about God, nature is a book written by God that does declare His power and manifest some of His divine attributes. That is why Ro. 1:20 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. So they [i.e. all mankind] are without excuse." So, nature does have some things to tell us about the who and why of creation. These things are not as detailed as what Scripture tells us, but it is simply false to claim there is no information about God there at all.

So, an atheist who does not understand Scripture and who does not think through his naturalistic assumptions completely might be able to get away with saying that science and religion should simply be completely independent, but a Christian who wants to be faithful to God's Word cannot live there. So, we Christians have to build our house in the middle, which is integration territory--Scripture is our highest authority that puts parameters around how we interpret the data from scientific research, and the data from scientific research can help us refine our interpretations of Scripture. This is where we start to put walls a roof on our intellectual houses that we are building.

As we move forward in learning how to live in a world over-impressed with science, we need to talk about an idea that is inherent in the last sentence of the previous paragraph: mutual correction between our interpretations of science and our interpretations of Scripture. Now, please when I say that, do not jump to the conclusion that I am trying to say the claims of scientists can overturn/override Scripture. They cannot. I am committed to the inerrancy, inspiration, and authority of Scripture, as we talked about in the first post. Have you ever heard of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy? It is a document about the inerrancy of Scripture written in 1978 by more than 200 evangelical leaders a bunch of different denominations. It is very, very helpful in defining inerrancy. In the 12th article it says this:

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

I completely agree with that statement. But, note that it says scientific hypotheses cannot overturn the "teaching of Scripture," i.e. they cannot overturn God's infallible revelation, what Scripture actually teaches. And, of course they cannot. God is the author of both books, so the data from science properly interpreted will never even attempt to overturn the actual teaching of Scripture, and if it does, then that theory is just wrong. But, that little world "actual" is very important. R.C. Sproul, who was one of the great pastors and defenders of the Christian faith of the 20th century, wrote in his book Scripture Alone when talking about this article of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy:

It is important to note that the second denial… does not carry with it the implication that scientific hypotheses or scientific research are useless to the student of the Bible or that science never has anything to contribute to an understanding of biblical material. It merely denies that the actual teaching of Scripture can be overturned by teachings from external sources… To say that science cannot overturn the teaching of Scripture is not to say that science cannot aid the church in understanding Scripture, or even correct false inferences drawn from Scripture or actual misinterpretations of the Scripture.

Perhaps several examples might be helpful here. First, any claim of a scientist about his scientific research cannot overturn the actual teaching of Scripture.

• For example, Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss have each written a book claiming that God is no longer necessary for the beginning of the universe (my responses to both of them can be found here and here). They claim that the universe could create itself and attempt to show why that can happen. Now, there are a number of scientific inaccuracies in their claim (check out my responses for some of those), but from a Christian, biblical perspective, we do not even need to go that far to know they are just plain wrong. However we interpret the creation of account of Scripture, there is one thing that is beyond dispute when it comes to the actual teaching of Scripture: God did the creating. Christians can perhaps debate amongst themselves how God did it and how long it took Him, but no one debates the fact that He did it. That is the actual teaching of Scripture, Hawking and Krauss' theories really have nothing for us to help us understand Scripture.
• Another example might be Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett's claims that resurrection from the dead is impossible. They claim to have scientific reasons for believing that, but really it is their naturalistic assumptions that makes them believe that, yet they attempt offer some scientific theories trying to prove that resurrection from the dead is impossible. Now, they are just plain wrong about that. 1 Co. 15 is quite clear: If Jesus was not raised from the dead bodily, then our faith is in vain. The actual teaching of Scripture is that Jesus had a physical, bodily resurrection from the dead. There is no other legitimate way to interpret that. So, any scientific theories that claim otherwise, cannot help us understand Scripture better.

Yet, there are times when a scientific theory can help us understand Scripture better or correct a misinterpretation of Scripture, as Sproul states above. As we established in our biblical understanding of science and Scripture: we are fallible humans who sometimes make do mistakes in our interpretations of Scripture. The example I gave in part 3 of how Copernicus' (and later on Galileo and Newton's) heliocentric model of our solar system helped correct misinterpretations of Scripture is an easy illustration to point out again. For more than 1000 years, Christians thought they had the right interpretation of passages like Jos. 10 that seem to say that the earth does not move and the sun moves around the earth, and it was not just Christians but scientists did too. But, over the course of about 200 years, scientific research corrected both Christians and scientists' interpretations of nature and Scripture. So, now virtually everyone agrees that the earth moves around the sun.

At this point, when I was first giving this information as a seminar to college students, it was asked, "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 great question, and it is one that we will address in the next post, for this one is getting too long as it is.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 4)

In previous 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 have been 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 day and age. In the first two posts, we started to do that by talking about God's revelation of Himself and His truth. Then in the previous post we began to look at human fallibility. In each post, we have added a new "section" of our "house":

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.
3. In the third post of this series, we began to look at human fallibility, and I argued that 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. We can think of this as the framework for our house, upon which we can put a metaphorical roof and walls. 

I ended the previous post in this series by reminding you all that the "framework" that we just built tells us the nature of apparent conflicts. But, then, I asked a question the questions "What gives rise to these conflicts? From where do they come?" That is part of what human fallibility adds to our understanding and what we will discuss today, and from this we will see the source of the apparent conflicts or "clashes" between "science and Christianity." Here it is in a nutshell: the apparent contradictions are not a clash between science and Christianity; they are a clash between two worldviews that we fallible humans hold: naturalism and theism.

Now, let us talk briefly about worldview. Everyone has a worldview, which is a set of assumptions or presuppositions that help us to interpret the data we get from God's revelation, whether through Scripture or the natural, physical world. The assumptions of our worldview are beliefs that we may not even think about consciously, but they are beliefs that affect our interpretation of everything that we read in Scripture or observe in nature. For example:

• Naturalism is a worldview that holds a number of assumptions/presuppositions:
• There is no such thing as a god or higher power. This is assumed by someone who has a naturalistic worldview before they even look at the data from their scientific research. And, the assumption that there is no god is going to lead one down a particular path of interpretation of data because, from this worldview, all explanations, even those about the origins of the universe itself, cannot appeal to anything beyond the physical universe. 
• Along with that, the naturalist assumes that the physical world--matter and energy--are the only things that exist. There is no such thing as the "supernatural" or a spiritual realm in this worldview. They assume that if something cannot be tested by the scientific method, then it simply does not exist. This leads to the assumption there can never be a non-physical explanation for anything in our universe or in the history or our world, and they interpret all data with that assumption.
• Theism is a worldview that holds a number of differing and conflicting assumptions/presuppositions:
• God does exist. He is, in some fashion or another, the creator and sustainer of the universe in which we live. This assumption leads one down another path of interpretation of all data, especially those about the origins of the universe itself, and this path of interpretation can be quite different from the path someone with a naturalist worldview takes.
• Along with this, the theist assumes that there is a spiritual realm along with the physical. He assumes there are things that there are parts of reality that scientists cannot probe through the scientific method, and as a result, some scientific theories may be incomplete because without the spiritual component they cannot get the whole picture. For example, theories about consciousness, emotion, the origins of religion in humans, and the origins of the universe cannot be completely understood by the scientific method, and a theist knows that some information has to come from another source. The Christian theist goes further and says that the Bible is our source that helps us understand these things that science cannot test or probe.

Now, these two worldviews are absolutely in conflict, and when we take that into account, it is no wonder that they will at times produce conflicting interpretations of scientific data. When it comes to the origins of the universe, for example, the naturalist must grope for some type of way that the universe could create itself because he cannot accept the explanation of God being behind it. That puts him at odds with the verse first verse of Scripture and everything else from then on. But, it is his naturalism that is at odds with Scripture, not science. 

So, at the heart of these "science vs Christianity" debates is not really a conflict between science and the study of Scripture, because again, referring back to the previous post, science and the study of Scripture by exegesis are tools. They can no more conflict with one another than a hammer can conflict with a circular saw. Yet, when fallible humans start to use these tools and interpret the data they get from them within their worldview of theism or naturalism, then the apparent conflicts will arise. And, the source of the conflicts is competing worldviews.

See, the Christian can look at the Bible and scientific data and say, "The data from this scientific research and the data from my study of Scripture are not in conflict because God is revealing Himself through both. It's the interpretation of the data that is conflicting. However, if one interprets the data from Scripture this way and the data from the natural world through scientific research that way, we can see that they harmonize perfectly." Now, sometimes that is a really, really hard thing to figure out how to do, and there may be times when we never really figure it all out (we will talk more about this in an upcoming post). But, that is not because science and Scripture are in conflict. It is because one's interpretation of the data from science, Scripture, or both is in error. And, when atheists scientists are interpreting data through a naturalist worldview, you can bet that sometimes their interpretation of the data will conflict with Scripture, but that does not mean science itself does. This is a conflict of worldviews (and therefore interpretations of data), not a conflict between science and Christianity. 

When we boil conflicts down to a clash of worldviews, this helps disable the alleged "privilege" that "science" has over Christianity and Scripture. It "levels the playing field," we could say. It is not science saying these things that appear to conflict with Scripture but a naturalist scientist saying them. And, naturalists like Richard Dawkins, for example, do not have the monopoly on the interpretation of data from the sciences. They might say, "Science says the fossil record proves that evolution is a fact that Christians must accept," but science cannot say that at all. Science only gives the data. Their interpretation of the scientific data says that, but a Christian looking at the data through his theism and derive an equally valid interpretation that is both faithful to Scripture and the natural world. And, when Dawkins or someone like him says it is wrong, the only reason for that is because he believes only natural explanations are acceptable. But, why does he believe naturalism is the correct way to view the universe? He accepts it only by faith. He cannot prove that there is nothing beyond the physical universe of energy and matter. There is no way to prove that. He simply assumes it is true, and then claims that his interpretation of the scientific data from his naturalistic worldview is the only right one. But, he does not have the monopoly on interpretation of scientific data.

Now, Christians have worldview commitments as well, as noted above, and we need to be honest about those. But, the point of saying all this is to bring the debate up out of the realm of competing interpretations of evidence and put it where it belongs: competing worldviews. That is where the conflict really lies. And when we do that, we "level the playing field." Christians have a bias towards theism and atheists have a bias towards naturalism, and both of us can interpret the scientific data within the assumptions of our worldview, which for the Christian means taking what the Scriptures tell us into account as well. Once we bring that out, we can move the debate from competing interpretations of scientific data to which worldview can best explain the universe in which we live. Can naturalism? I would argue "no," and of course it is not just me. There are many books that have shown the many failures of the worldview of naturalism, including one that I discuss here by an atheist (i.e. an atheist critiquing the atheistic worldview of naturalism). (I would highly recommend you read this post and check out the book to which I am referring: Mind and the Cosmos by Thomas Nagel.)

A helpful example of what I have been talking about in this post would be the infographic that I critique in this post. There, I show how there is a hidden assumption in many of the things that some popular scientists claim "science says," and when we expose that assumption, we get to the heart of the matter: which worldview can best explain the reality in which we live. 

Alright, that is enough for today. In the next post I will begin to talk about how we move forward. Now that we have a biblical view of science and Scripture and now that we have seen where the source of the apparent conflicts really lies, how do we move forward and live as Christians in a world that puts a great deal of weight on the sciences? How do we (using the analogy of the intellectual and spiritual "house" in which we "live") put a roof and walls on the foundation and framework we have laid? Well, we will talk about that in the next post. 

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