3/26/2015

NewPage1

ChangingViewsofScienceand
Scripture:BernardRammandtheASA
JOSEPHL.SPRADLEY
PhysicsDepartment
WheatonCollege
Wheaton,IL60187
From:PSCF44(March1992):29.LubenowResponds
TherelationshipbetweentheologianBernardRammandtheASAformorethanfortyyears
has helped to shape much of evangelical thinking about Biblical interpretation related to
science.Hiscontroversial1954book,TheChristianViewofScienceandScripture,marked
the return of evangelical theology to a positive and scholarly assessment of science in
relation to the Bible after a half century of neglect and conflict. An examination of his
theologicalwritingsonscienceandhisinvolvementwiththeASArevealaseriesofchanging
viewsonscienceandscripturethathasinfluencedevangelicalsateachstage.

BaptisttheologianBernardRamm(19161992)hadalongandfruitfulrelationshipwiththeAmerican
ScientificAffiliationformorethanfortyyears.Perhapsmorethananyotherevangelicaltheologianinthe
UnitedStates,hehasmaintainedaninterestinscienceandhasinfluencedevangelicalscientistsbyhis
Christian thinking about science and scripture. He submitted papers to three of the first four ASA
nationalconventions(194649),whichwerepublishedinthefirstissuesoftheJournaloftheAmerican
ScientificAffiliation(JASA) (194850) and he published seven more articles in JASA over subsequent
years (196375). He served as a consulting editor to JASA for nearly 20 years (197189). These
contributionsrevealaninterestingprogressionofthoughtonscienceandscripture,especiallyinrelation
tocreationandevolution.Theyareallthemoreremarkableinviewofthefactthattheyconstituteonlya
smallfractionofhiscompletetheologicalwritingsaslistedbyMacDonald(1990),includingmorethan
20booksand200articles,notes,andbookreviews.
WhenRammpublishedhiscontroversialbook,The Christian View of Science and Scripture(1954),it
wasmetwithavarietyofstrongreactions,bothpositiveandnegative.ReviewsbyBuswell,Culverand
MixterinJASA(D1955)weregenerallypositive,and25yearslaterseveralexpressionsofdeeplyfelt
appreciationwerepublishedbyASAmembersintheBernardRammFestschriftissueofJASA(D1979)
alongwithaninterviewwithRammbyHearn(1979:179185).Bothpositiveandnegativeresponsesin
the press were reviewed in that issue by Ann Hunt (189190). A critical review by Joseph Bayly in
Eternity(August1955)pointedouttheobjectionofsomereviewers(SundaySchoolTimesandChristian
Century) to the use of the definite article in Ramm's title, which was actually chosen by the publisher
(Hearn,1979:179).
Ironically,Ramm's1954bookdidnotpresentasingleChristianview.Oneofitsmosthelpfulfeatures
was his description and careful documentation of several possible interpretations of biblical passages
relatingtoscience,followedbyhisownpreferredview.Infact,itispossibletotraceaprogressionof
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF392Spradley.html

1/10

3/26/2015

NewPage1

changingviewsofscienceandscriptureinthewritingsofRammovertheyearsashehasinteractedwith
scientists and theologians and struggled with the problems of biblical interpretation. A review of his
sciencerelatedpublicationsrevealsthesedevelopingideas,whichreflectsomeofthesametrendsinthe
thinkingofmanyASAmemberswhohaveinteractedwithhim.
BernardRammwasbornin1916inButte,Montana.HebecameaChristiantwomonthsbeforeentering
theUniversityofWashington,wherehehadplannedtostudychemistry.Hisearlyinterestincombining
Christian faith and science continued when he shifted to philosophy as a preparation for the ministry.
AftergraduatinghecompletedaB.D.degreefromEasternBaptistSeminary.Thiswasfollowedbyan
M.A.in1947andaPh.D.in1950fromtheUniversityofSouthernCaliforniawhileteachingattheBible
InstituteofLosAngeles.(Hesuggestedthename"Biola"whenitchangedintoacollege).
After briefly heading the philosophy department at Bethel College and Seminary (St. Paul, Minn.), he
becamedirectorofgraduatestudiesinreligionatBaylorUniversityin1954.LaterhetaughtatCalifornia
BaptistSeminary(Covina),EasternBaptistSeminary(Philadelphia),andtheAmericanBaptistSeminary
of the West (Berkeley). He studied under Karl Barth in Basel during a sabbatical (195758), taught at
HaigazianCollegeinBeirutduringasecondsabbatical(196667),andtaughtatSingaporeBibleCollege
duringathirdsabbatical(1984).
LikemanyChristiansinscientificprofessions,IhavebeengreatlyhelpedbyRamm'swritingsandother
ministries.AsagraduatestudentIeagerlyreadhis1954book,andfoundittobeagoodguidewhenI
beganmyteachingcareeratWheatonCollege.DuringayearofpersonalassociationwithRamminthe
MiddleEast,Iwasabletoaudithisphilosophyofsciencecourseandobservehislifelongpatternofearly
morningresearchandwriting.Itwasevidentthathewasalwaystestinganddevelopinghisideas.This
developmentisreflectedinhischangingviewsofscienceandscripture,andprovidesagoodcasestudy
intheprogressofevangelicalthinkingaboutscienceoverthelastfourdecades.Iwillreviewthreestages
inRamm'sthinkingthataresuggestedbyhiswritingsaboutscienceandtheBible.

CriticalViewofScienceandScripture(194650)
Ramm came into contact with the ASA through F. Alton Everest, the first president of ASA, while
pursuinghisgraduatestudiesattheUniversityofSouthernCalifornia.Hepresentedacondensedversion
of his M.A. thesis (1947) to the second national convention of the ASA at Taylor University in 1947.
Thiscondensationwaspublishedinthe1948"Yearbook"oftheASAinmimeographedformasthefirst
precursorofJASA,underthetitleof"TheSpiritualInterpretationofSciencebyJeansandEddington."
Here he carefully distinguishes naturalism as "the view that the universe is selfcontained... " from
idealismastheviewthat"theuniversecannotbeexplainedwithoutrecoursetosuchaconceptasGod,
mind, or spirit." He summarizes Jeans' idea that "the stuff of the universe is far secondary to (its)
mathematicaldesign,"andEddington'snotionthat"alltheenergy,movement,anddesignintheuniverse
must be ultimately derived from a Person." Their argument that "objective idealism is the only
metaphysical position that can account for the nature of modern physical science, and the indisputable
factsofconsciousness"(1948:14)leadsRammtothefollowingconclusion:
Nobodyismorecertainthanweare,thatthereisstillaconsiderablegapbetweenthepositionofJeansand
EddingtonandChristiantheism.Butontheotherhandweshouldwelcomewithaspiritofgratitudethework
ofeveryscientistthatendeavorstobreakthesteeltrapofnaturalism...Americansciencemustsubjectitselfto
the same vigorous selfanalysis with a description of its assumptions and limitations that it expects of the
theologian(1948:6).

ThiscriticalevaluationofscienceisappliedtothetheoryofevolutioninRamm'ssecondcontributionto
theASA,presented(inabsentia)atthethirdASAnationalconventionatCalvinCollegein1948.Itwas
publishedinvolume1ofJASA(June1949:15)underthetitle"TheScientificoLogicalStructureofthe
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF392Spradley.html

2/10

3/26/2015

NewPage1

TheoryofEvolution."

Afterdiscussingthenatureofscientificknowledge,hearrivesatthefollowingapplications:
Boldpronouncementsthenastothefinalityofevolutionastheultimatetheoryofbiologyarenotinkeeping
with the nature of scientific knowledge...As a hypothesis it can only survive when it can be shown that no
logicalinconsistencyisinvolved...andnomaterialinconsistencydevelops....Itcannotcategoricallystateat
thesametimethefollowing:(a)Lifecomesonlyfromlife(b)Lifearosespontaneouslyagesago.Norcanit
statecategorically:(a)offspringtendtokeepwithinthenormalspreadofvariations,and(b)mutationsarise
thatjumpoutsidethenormalspreadofvariation.Again,evolutionmustberevisedoralteredifitcanbeshown
thatitrunsintodifficultywithmaterialimplication.Ifnomechanismforevolutioncanbedemonstratedthen
thetheorystandsingravedanger(June1949:13).

Although Ramm takes a critical stance toward evolution here, he suggests that Genesis 1 is a broad
enoughsketchof"thesuccessivecreativeactsofGod"thatitleaves"considerableroomfortheempirical
determinationofvariousanddiversefacts."Hecontinues:
Secondly, there is no advance upward apart from the creative activity of God. There may be horizontal
radiation of life but no vertical. This is precisely the point where this view differs from theistic evolution.
Evolution,theisticandnaturalistic,believesintheradiationoflifefromlowertohigherforms,fromthesimple
to the complex. According to our view radiation can only be horizontal...there is only unraveling of gene
potentialitiesnoupwardevolution.Andthisseemstobeinkeepingwiththefactthatwedohaveingeology
nodemonstrableverticalradiationbutplentyofhorizontalradiation(p.15).

He concludes that such an interpretive concept "would replace the evolutionary one because it can
accountforallthatevolutiontriestoaccountfor...andforthethingsthatevolutioncannot,"sinceGenesis
1 "is a divine revelation." Thus, in these early articles, Ramm not only criticizes science, but views
scriptureasasupplementtoscientificexplanation.
Ramm applied his critical skills to psychology in his third contribution to the ASA, presented to the
fourth national ASA convention at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1949, where he served as the
host representative for 75 registrants. This article was published in volume 2 of JASA(M1950:2831)
underthetitle"BehaviorismandPhilosophicalPsychology."Herehecriticizesbehaviorismforitsdenial
ofthesoul,whichhebelieves"cutsthenerveofreligion"(p.28)andleadstothedemiseofethicsand
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF392Spradley.html

3/10

3/26/2015

NewPage1

immortality.Amongthe"sinsofbehaviorism"isits"adoptionofnaturalismandevolution"anditisthus
"enmeshedinmetaphysicalpresuppositions"(p.30).Inconclusionhecallsforavolumeonphilosophical
psychologydemonstrating"thebipartitenatureofman"(p.31).
In 1948 Ramm presented the midyear lectures of Western Baptist Theological Seminary (Portland),
whichwerepublishedashisfirstbookwiththetitleProblemsinChristianApologetics(1949).Thelast
chaptercontainedLectureIVon"TheLimitationsoftheScientificMethod"(pp.7392).Hereheliststen
criticisms of tendencies in science that lead to scientism, which are still relevant and can be briefly
summarized.(1)Scienceexemptsitselffromscrutinywhilecomplainingofthelimitationsofphilosophy
and religion. (2) Science confuses its method with metaphysics when it espouses positions such as
naturalism.(3)Sciencerulesoutthepersonaldimensioninitsobjectivemethodology,asinbehaviorism.
(4)Scienceassumesthattheworldofabstractionistherealworld,leadingtoreductionism.(5)Science
eliminates much of human experience in restricting its field of investigation. (6) Science uses mental
constructsthatcannotbedirectlyobserved.(7)Sciencecannotsolvephilosophicalproblems.(8)Science
has no adequate doctrine of beginnings (creation) or endings (eschatology). (9) Science is based on
assumptionsandpresuppositions.(10)Sciencedependsonmoralrulesthataresuprascientific.

Hisfinalconclusionisthat"revelationandsciencemustultimately
tellthesamestory,"sothat"whenthefinalinterpretationoftheBibleismade,
andthelastlawofscienceisformulated,thattheanswerswillbethesame."
In spite of these criticisms and conflicts, Ramm concludes with the recognition that science is a
legitimate sphere of human activity. He warns against the "wholesale castigation of science found in
some evangelical literature...not in keeping with the best of the conservative tradition." His final
conclusion is that "revelation and science must ultimately tell the same story," so that "when the final
interpretationoftheBibleismade,andthelastlawofscienceisformulated,thattheanswerswillbethe
same" (1949:9192). These positive attitudes toward science, perhaps partly a result of his ASA
associations,wereapreviewofthenextstageinRamm'sthinkingabouttherelationbetweenscienceand
scripture.

ConcordistViewofScienceandScripture(195057)
Publication of Ramm's The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954) was one of the most
important events in the postwar emergence of evangelicals from nearly a halfcentury of conflict with
science. In a rather critical review, Bayly conceded that "In general the book does represent the view,
delineated but not originated by Dr. Ramm, which is accepted by a sizable segment of the American
ScientificAffiliation."Henotesageneralreactiontothebookthat"seemstobeasighofreliefthatthe
quartercenturyofidentificationwithWilliamJenningsBryan,HarryRimmer,GeorgeMcCreadyPrice,
et al, is now ended. Christians have come of age in science" (1955:4). Bayly criticizes Ramm for
attempting to distinguish between "cultural" and "transcultural" elements in the Bible by identifying
referencestonatureasculturalandtheologicalstatementsastranscultural.
Fromthefirstpagesofthebook,itisevidentthatRammhasshiftedfromacriticalviewofsciencetoan
emphasisontheneedforaharmonybetweenChristianityandscience.OneevidenceofASAinfluence
onhisthinkingishislistingoftheASAsponsoredbookModernScienceandChristianFaith,editedby
Everest(1950),among"booksofoutstandingmerit"inhisclassifiedbibliography(1954:355).Ramm's
scholarship is especially impressive in his careful outlining and documentation throughout. Even more
surprising is the fact that this book is one of four major works he wrote in about the same number of
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF392Spradley.html

4/10

3/26/2015

NewPage1

years(1950,1953a,b,1954)whilecarryingafullteachingschedule.

Fromthefirstpagesofthebook,itisevidentthatRammhasshifted
fromacriticalviewofsciencetoanemphasisontheneedfora
harmonybetweenChristianityandscience.
In his preface Ramm refers to the "noble tradition in Bible and science, "especially in the nineteenth
century,"ofthegreatandlearnedevangelicalChristianswhohavebeenpatient,genuine,andkindand
whohavetakencaretolearnthefactsofscienceandScripture"(1954:9).Healsoacknowledgeshisdebt
toWilburSmithofFullerTheologicalSeminaryformakingavailablehis"largecollectionofbookson
Bible and science" (p. 10) . Smith's 8 evaluation of Ramm's book is quoted from Moody Monthly by
EverestinJASA:
Themostimportantdiscussionoftheproblemsinvolvedinthevastanddifficultsubjectofmodernscience
andtheancientScripturesthathasappearedinthiscountryinfiftyyears.ItistheonlybookthatIknowof,by
anevangelicalscholaroftoday,thatcanbefavorablycomparedwiththemasterly,learnedworksinthisfield
whichwereproducedinthelatterpartofthenineteenthcentury(D1979:187).

AfterdiscussingtheimportanceofharmonizingChristianityandscienceandananalysisoftheirconflict,
RammdevelopsprinciplesforinterpretingtheBibleinrelationtonature.Henotes"thatthelanguageof
theBiblewithreferencetonaturalthingsispopular,prescientificandnonpostulational"(1954:76).As
creator, "God is world ground to Nature" (p. 105) and "the Spirit of God...is The Divine Entelechy of
Nature" (p. 112). Ramm's concept of progressive creation as divine activity in nature, including
occasionaldenovocreativeacts,isanattempttobridgethegapbetween"simplefiatcreationismwhich
isindigestibletomodernscience,andevolutionismwhichisindigestibletomuchofFundamentalism"(p.
117).Whenhebeginstoapplytheseprinciples,heisabletocleartheairofmanyfoolish"anticipations
ofscienceinscripture,"andtosuggestalternativeinterpretationstomanydifficultbiblicalpassages.One
of the refreshing things about the book is the revelation that many scholars have struggled with these
passagesandChristianshavearrivedatmanydifferentconclusions.

Atthisstageinhisthinking,Ramm'spreferred
interpretationoftheGenesisaccountofcreationisa"moderateconcordism."
At this stage in his thinking, Ramm's preferred interpretation of the Genesis account of creation is a
"moderate concordism." He rejects the literal sixday interpretation as inconsistent with scientific
evidence. He also rejects the strict concordism of the ageday theory, even though he indicates "much
sympathy for it, and held it for many years" (1954:220). He prefers the pictorialday theory, in which
creationisrevealedinsixdaysandtheorderofrevelationisnotstrictlychronological,butpartlytopical
orlogical.Insucha"moderateconcordism...manwasthelastcreationofGodsothatthelastcreativeact
of God coincides with the geological record of the recency of man" (p. 223). Moderate concordism
means"thatgeologyandGenesistellinbroadoutlinethesamestory...Bothagreethatthehigheranimals
andmanwerethelasttoappear.ThetimeelementisnotstatedintheGenesisrecordandmustbylearned
fromthegeologicalrecord"(p.226).Hereachesthefollowingconclusionaboutcreation:
AlmightyGodisCreator,WorldGround,andOmnipotentSustainer.Inhismindtheentireplanofcreationwas
formedwithmanastheclimax.Overthemillionsofyearsofgeologichistorytheearthispreparedforman's
dwelling, or as it has been put by others, the cosmos was pregnant with man...From time to time the great
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF392Spradley.html

5/10

3/26/2015

NewPage1

creativeacts,denovo,tookplace.Thecomplexityofanimalformsincreased.Finally...hewhomallcreation
anticipatedismade,MAN,inwhomaloneisthebreathofGod(1954:227228).

"The Bible does not teach final scientific theory, but teaches final theological truth from the culture
perspectiveofthetimeandplaceinwhichthewritersoftheBiblewrote."
In developing his idea of progressive creation, he notes "that the geological record does not reveal a
continuity,anevolution,butthatitrevealsgreatgaps."Hethansuggeststhat"Thegeologistcanrecord
gapsandappearancesandannouncethathehasnonaturaltheoryastotheirorigin.Thetheologiancan
informthegeologistofprogressivecreation"(p.228).Hedistinguisheshisviewfrom"theisticevolution
which calls for creation from within with no acts de
novo."Butherecognizesthattheisticevolutionisavalid
Christianoptionifitviewsevolution"asasecondarylaw
of biology, and not the metaphysics of creation, but
viewed as part of the divine creation, an element in
providence"(p.292).
Inhisfinalepilogue,Rammconcludesthat"Itisnottrue
that all evangelicals believe that evolution is contrary to
the Faith... .we have given evidence to show that men
whose orthodoxy is unimpeachable have accepted some
formoftheisticevolutionoratleastweretoleranttoward
evolution theistically conceived." He also affirms that
"The Bible does not teach final scientific theory, but
teachesfinaltheologicaltruthfromthecultureperspective
of the time and place in which the writers of the Bible
wrote"(pp.347348).Itisthispositionthatheemphasizes
in most of his later writings. In a recent evaluation of
Ramm'swork,Pattersonconcludes:
Although Ramm's 1954 book was very influential among
evangelicals, it made too many concessions to science. By
combining elements of sudden fiat creation and graduation
evolution, his form of "progressive creationism" turned
Genesis 1 into a treatise in science to be evaluated, judged,
andtestedbyscience.Buthis"specialcreation,"calledinto
providethemissinglinksleftbynaturalevolution,ismerelya
formofthe"Godofthegaps"hypothesis(1990:6667).

Patterson also points to the last stage in the development of Ramm's changing views of science and
scripture:"Ramm'scontinuedstudiesonthereligioususeoflanguageinthepastthreedecadesledhimto
seemoreclearlythatGenesis1isacosmologicalstatementservingatheologicalpurpose."In1983"he
setforthanewparadigmofhowbesttorelatescience...and...thebiblicaltext"(p.67).

ContextualViewofScienceandScripture(19581983)
Inthe195758academicyear,RammdevotedhissabbaticalleavetostudyinBaselunderKarlBarth.He
felt "that of all contemporary theologians the one who was doing the best job of relating historic
Reformed theology to the Enlightenment was Karl Barth" (1983:10). When he wrote The Evangelical
Heritage,hestillhadreservationsaboutBarth(1973:118120).Butby1983inAfterFundamentalism,he
publicly declared Barth's theological method to be the best paradigm for evangelical theology in the
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF392Spradley.html

6/10

3/26/2015

NewPage1

twentieth century, while not necessarily accepting all of Barth's conclusions (After Fundamentalism,
Appendix1).Thisapproachemphasizedthat"IfthewritersofHolyScripturearetrulychildrenoftheir
cultures, then they express themselves in the terms, concepts, and vocabulary of their culture." At the
sametimeitasserts"thatembeddedintheculturallyconditionedScriptureisthewitnesstotheWordof
God or the divine revelation" (1983:47). With this contextual view of scripture, Ramm felt that many
apparentconflictswithsciencecouldbeavoidedwithoutforcingthebiblicaltextintoamodernmold.

Withthiscontextualviewofscripture,Rammfeltthatmanyapparentconflicts
withsciencecouldbeavoidedwithoutforcingthebiblicaltextintoamodernmold.
In1963Rammcontributedanarticleon"TheologicalReactionstotheTheoryofEvolution"toanissue
of JASA (1963) on evolution, which was also adapted for publication in Eternity (1965). Here he
emphasized that "the Genesis creation account is a great confession of faith," and that "The Christian
doctrine of creation is not embarrassed by the empirical contributions of science" (1963:71). While
notingthatevolutionhasbeenusedtosupportmaterialismandatheism,thetheoryinitsessenceisnota
threattoaproperunderstandingofcreation.Thetheologicalideaofcreationisarelationalratherthanan
empirical concept. Creation is continuous in the sense that God has a continuing relationship to his
creation,whichiscompletelydependentonHimforitscontinuingexistence.
TheseideasledRammbeyondhisearlieremphasisongapsinthegeologicalrecord(1954:228)tothe
conclusionthat"GodisnottheGodofgapsinscientificknowledge.Godisnottheyetunexplainedin
scientific theory. God is not an empirical premise for any scientific theory" (1963:74). From this
contextualview,scientifictheories"neitherconfirmnorrefutethebiblicaldoctrineofcreation.Norare
the six days of creation surveys of the history of geology or biology" (p. 76). This theological
understandingofcreation"viewsthetheoryofevolutionwithindifference...Thatmanisintheimageof
GodissettledbytheWordofGodandnotbyhumanphysiology,orcomparativeanatomy"(p.77).

SciencemaysoboxitselfinthattheonlywayoutisbyanappealtoGod...
In his 196667 sabbatical year, Ramm taught at Haigazian College in Beirut, Lebanon, where I was
servingatthetime.Inadditiontoauditinghisphilosophyofsciencecourseandinteractingoncampus,
mywifeandIhadmanyenjoyableexperienceswithhimandhiswifeAlta.AmongnotesIreceivedfrom
himatthattime,heagainrepudiates"theGodofthegaps",buthedoesreservejudgmentattwopoints.
First, science may so box itself in that the only way out is by an appeal to God, such as in trying to
accountfortherichnessoftheactivityofthemind,oriftheperiodrequiredforevolutionisdrastically
limitedbytheageoftheearth.Second,inredemption,GodistheGodofthegapsinthatthetotalmotion
ofrevelationandredemptionoriginateswithGodandsomovesuponman.
In1969RammcontributedtheleadarticletoaJASAsymposiumissueon"TheRelationshipBetweenthe
Bible and Science" (D 1969). Here his contextual approach is evident in a section entitled the
"Importance of Context" where he discusses problems related to biblical inerrancy. He notes that "the
specialnatureofadocumentmeansthaterrormustbediscussedwithinthecontextofthespecialtyofthe
document" (p. 100). He makes "a distinction between the structural and cultural forms that revelation
comesthrough,andtherevelationitself.Therevelationdoesnotdignifythestructureintothecategoryof
the revelational." He concludes that "when we make a distinction between the modality in which a
revelation comes and the teaching of the revelation itself, there is no contradiction between modern
scientificpicturesormodelsandBiblicalrevelation"(p.101).
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF392Spradley.html

7/10

3/26/2015

NewPage1

The contextual view is applied to the Genesis account of creation in Ramm's summary of Barth's
approachtotheissueofGenesisandscienceinAfterFundamentalism(1983:152154)."Hisfirststepis
to let the Genesis record stand as it is, a product of the prescientific world with its prescientific
cosmologies."BarthisnotconcernedaboutthedifferentcosmologicalperspectivesinGenesis1and2or
othercosmologiesthroughoutscripture.Hissecondpointis"thatthismultiplicityshouldnotdistressus.
Christian theologians have used all kinds of cosmologies... There is no common cosmology behind
sacredScripture."Thispointrecognizestheshiftingparadigmsthroughoutthehistoryofscience,sothat
theworldviewofthebiblicalwritersneednolongerbeanembarrassment.
Histhirdpointis"thatthesetexts(Genesis13)aretheWordofGod.TheWordofGodis'in,with,and
under`thecosmology.ThecosmologyisnottheWordofGod,butthemessagewithinthecosmologyis
the Word of God. Revelation does not intend to teach science, and therefore the Word of God is
independentofthecosmology."Thefourthstepistorememberthat"Ifscientistsdotheirworkintheory
constructionwithinthe limits of the data themselves,scientists will neversay anythingcontrarytothe
Word of God," and "If theologians restrict themselves to the Word of God and pure theological
statements...thentheologianswillneversayanythingcontrarytoscience."Ifscienceandtheologyare
governed in their methodology by the nature and context of the subject matter they investigate "the
conflictbetweenscienceandtheology"wouldberemoved.

Conclusion
Most of Ramm's later contributions to JASA were applications of theology and ethics to new
developmentsinscienceandtechnology.Inanarticleentitled"EvangelicalTheologyandTechnological
Shock"(June1971)firstpresentedtothe25thannualconventionoftheASAatBethelCollege(St.Paul)
in1970,hereviewedscientificdevelopmentsinareaslikegenetics,medicineandbehavioralcontrol,and
suggestedtheologicalresponsestopossibleconflicts.Asecondarticleentitled"AChristianDefinitionof
Death"(June1973)reviewsthreeattemptsto"bringtheologicalinsightstodecisionmakingdilemmasin
technologically advanced medicine" (p. 57). A third article on "An Ethical Evaluation of Biogenetic
Engineering"(D1974)evaluatesfoursystemsofmedicalethics.
BernardRammhasbeenahelpfulguidetotheASAandotherChristiansconcernedabouttherelation
betweenscienceandscripture.Forfourdecadeshehasbeenontheleadingedgeoftherenaissancein
evangelical approaches to biblical interpretation and their application to a Christian understanding of
science.Hisdevelopingviewsofscienceandscriptureovertheyearshavematchedthegrowingneedsof
evangelicalsinvolvedinscience.
HisearlycriticalviewsofscienceinconflictwithscripturehelpedChristianstoemergefromisolation
and begin to interact intelligently with scientific issues. The concordist approach developed in The
ChristianViewofScienceandScripturesetanexampleofoutstandingChristianscholarship.Itprovided
a biblical interpretation compatible with science that was an encouragement to a whole generation of
evangelical scientists, even though it perhaps conceded too much to science. The contextual view of
scripture that emerged in his later writings provides a new paradigm for relating science and modern
biblicalinterpretation.Itavoidsunnecessaryconflictsandallowsthelightofscripturetoshinefromits
originalcontextandilluminateourunderstandingofscience.
1992
REFERENCES

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF392Spradley.html

8/10

3/26/2015

NewPage1

Bayly, Joseph, T. 1955. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture: A Critical View of Bernard
Ramm'sBook."Eternity,6,45,4448,Aug.
Buswell, James, 0. 1955. "Review of Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture on
Anthropology."JASA,7(4),46,Dec.
Culver, Robert D. 1955. "An Evaluation of The Christian View of Science and Scripture by Bernard
RammfromtheStandpointofChristianTheology."JASA,7(4),710,Dec.
Everest,F.Alton,ed.1950.ModernScienceandChristianFaith.Seconded.Wheaton,IL:VanKampen.
_____,1979."PersonalReminiscences."JASA,31(4),187,Dec.
Hunt,AnnH.1979."ResponseofthePress."JASA,31(4),189190,Dec.
Hearn,WalterR.1979."AnInterviewwithBernardRammandAltaRamm."JASA,31(4),179186,Dec.
MacDonald, Murdina. 1990. "A Bibliography of the Writings of Bernard L. Ramm." Perspectives in
ReligiousStudies,17(4),87101,Winter.
Mixter,RussellL.1955."ReviewofRamm'sTheChristianViewofScienceandScriptureonBiology."
JASA,7(4),1112,Dec.
Patterson, Bob E. 1990. "Modern Science and Contemporary Biblical Interpretation: Ramm's
Contribution."PerspectivesinReligiousStudies.17(4),5567,Winter.
Ramm,Bernard.1948."TheSpiritualInterpretationofSciencebyJeansandEddington."ASAYearbook,
17.
_____June 1949. "The ScientificoLogical Structure of the Theory of Evolution." JASA, 1(3), 1115,
June.
_____,1949.ProblemsinChristianApologetics.Portland,OR:WesternBaptistTheologicalSeminary.
_____,M1950."BehaviorismandPhilosophicalPsychology."JASA,2(1),2831,March.
_____,1950.ProtestantBiblicalInterpretation.Boston:Wilde.
_____,1953a.ProtestantChristianEvidences.Chicago:Moody.
_____,1953b.TypesofApologeticSystems.Wheaton,IL:VanKampen.
_____,1954.TheChristianViewofScienceandScripture.GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans.
_____,1963."TheologicalReactionstotheTheoryofEvolution."JASA,13(3),7177,Sept.
_____,1965."Sciencevs.Theology:TheBattleIsn'tOverYet."Eternity,16,1620,Oct.
_____,1969."TheRelationshipofScience,FactualStatementsandtheDoctrineofBiblicalInerrancy."
JASA,21(4),48124,Dec.
_____,1971."EvangelicalTheologyandTechnologicalShock."JASA,23(2),5256,June.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF392Spradley.html

9/10

3/26/2015

NewPage1

_____,1973.TheEvangelicalHeritage.Waco,TX:Word.
_____,June1973."AChristianDefinitionofDeath."JASA,25(2),5660,June.
_____,1974."AnEthicalEvaluationofBiogeneticEngineering."JASA,26(4),137143,Dec.
_____,1983.After Fundamentalism: The Future of Evangelical Theology. San Francisco, CA: Harper
andRow.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF392Spradley.html

10/10