201017867

Who and Why versus the How and the When: does this dichotomy enable us to reconcile the doctrines of God the Creator and God the Revealer? Abstract This paper discusses modern interpretations of the Genesis creation account and

their historical antecedents. It briefly charts the development of the understanding of the relationship between science (the study of general revelation) and theology (the study of special revelation), through the conduits of science, and philosophy, and doctrinal, and hermeneutical questions. It will consider historical views on the relationship between special and general revelation from Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Bacon, and Kepler, and modern views from the new atheists, Answers in Genesis, Alvin Plantinga, and the BioLogos Foundation.

This paper will suggest serious problems exist with both concordist and accommodationist approaches to the creation account of Genesis 1, and that the who and why versus what and when dichotomy applies unhelpful categories to our understanding of the passage. It will further suggest that the issue at hand is one of developing a Christ centred hermeneutic for both special and general revelation. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Chapter 19 Since the infinite wisdom of God is displayed in the admirable structure of heaven and earth, it is absolutely impossible to unfold the history of the creation of the world in terms equal to its dignity. For while the measure of our capacity is too contracted to comprehend things of such magnitude, our tongue is equally incapable of giving a full and substantial account of them. Calvin, Commentary on Genesis

201017867 Introduction As geological, astronomical, and biological thought developed, a plain reading of the Bible became difficult to reconcile with a scientific reading of the world. Several solutions have been tabled for this apparent disjunct.

These solutions can be divided into three philosophical categories. That science and theology occupy Non Overlapping Magisterum (NOMA), concordism and accommodationism.

Concordists believe that the scientific evidence will match the Biblical account. Accommodationists believe that the creation account used language to accommodate for the knowledge of its original readers, and thus science and theology answer different questions about the world. Young Earth Creationists (YEC), and certain Old Earth Creationist (OEC) theories adopt this position.1

Accommodationists believe that the language of the Bible accommodated the limited understanding of its original audience, and that a scientific reading of the book of creation was unavailable to them. Thus, modern science and biblical interpretation can accommodate each other. The Framework theory is a related literary approach that holds that Genesis must be understood as a

1 Old Earth concordist theories include the day age theory, where each day of creation represents a geological epoch, see H. Ross and G. L. Archer, The Day Age View, The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, ed. D.G Hagopian, (Mission Viejo, Cruxpress, 2001), 123-164, and gap theory, where the Genesis account describes a young humanity in an old earth (with a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2) see D. Wilkinson, Reading Genesis 1-3 in the Light of Modern Science, Reading Genesis After Darwin, ed S.C Barton and D.W Wilkinson, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009), 136

201017867 literary and theological framework for understanding Scripture and the world.2

Philosophers, scientists,3 and theologians have suggested the NOMA position is the best articulation of the relationship between science and theology. It is this position that has perhaps popularised the dichotomy between who and why and how and when. This dichotomy is valid only in that who and why are the theological questions driving us to interpret Scripture, but the separation is not so easy.4

Old Earth Creation (OEC) approaches to the world that do not dismiss the findings of modern science often represent a fusion of the NOMA and accommodationist positions.

Both concordists and accommodationists claim support from significant figures from church history, including Augustine, John Calvin, and Martin

L. Irons, and M. G. Kline, The Framework View, The Genesis Debate, 217-256 S.J. Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," Natural History 106 (March 1997): 16-22, accessed 7 June, 2011, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html, C. Hyers, The Narrative Form of Genesis One, Cosmogenic, Yes; Scientific, No, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 36.4 (1984) 208-15, 215 suggests science and theology operate at right angles along different planes of thought. A. Einstein, Science and Religion, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A 1934 Symposium, (Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc, New York, 1941), See also, A. Einstein, Religion and Science, The World as I See It, (Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, Open Road Integrated Media Digital Edition), Locations 514-580, Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding... The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. 4 C.E Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts Between Science and the Bible, (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 1986), 215-217 suggests that to make the interpretation of Genesis a matter of how not who or why pushes us away from the theme of the passage, suggesting that as Gods people the how is not important. This is not entirely representative of a Biblical doctrine of creation because it is important that God created by his word, in the beginning. Two elements of the Genesis account.
3 2

201017867 Luther.5 This piece examines the legitimacy of these claims by following the development of scientific thought and the evolution of a doctrine of creation through history.

While the positions outlined above offer certain strengths, they are all crippled by weaknesses. This piece concludes that the apparent dichotomy between scripture and science is a poor understanding of their relationship, produced by poor hermeneutical approach to both special and general revelation.6

The modern scientific method owes much of its heritage to Christian theologians supporting the idea that study of general revelation was a type of natural theology (NT) studying Gods second book. This essay will consider whether NT is the mechanism by which the how and when questions might be answered, suggesting that while scientific knowledge (general revelation) is useful for rational belief in a creator, it is the Bible (special revelation) that shapes our knowledge of God the creator and questions of how and when are secondary issues.

I will argue that understanding the purpose of any Biblical text as limited to the how and when questions of human origins or science is to major on a minor, and to commit a category error. Concluding that the predominant

5 For a brief history of the emergence of these movements see: M.L Peterson, C. S. Lewis on Evolution and Intelligent Design, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 62, Number 4, December 2010, 253-266 6 C.E Hummel, The Galileo Connection, 242, recognising the difference between science and the Bible helps maintain the integrity of both, not as NOMA, but so that our approach to one is not guided entirely by our presuppositions from the other.

201017867 message and focus of every passage of scripture is to reveal Gods plan of salvation and its expression in the work and person of Christ.

Science and Theology: A History Dominant scientific understandings of the origins of the world have rarely coalesced with a plain reading of Genesis. From the creation accounts origins against comparable Ancient Near Eastern views, through neo-Platonism and Aristotleianism, through Copernicus and Galileo, the advent of old earth geology, and the dawn of Darwinism, a literal interpretation of Genesis has been intellectually problematic.7

Genesis, Science, Cosmology and the Early Church It is a poor treatment of history to suggest the interpretation of the days of the Genesis account has always been straightforward. Origen read the days of creation allegorically, rejecting a literal creation week to avoid ridicule from those committed to Greek philosophy.8 Both Basil the Great and Ambrose interpreted the days as literal. Augustine believed one creation day was repeated six times to create a pattern. Debate on this interpretive issue was far from settled.9

N. Weeks, The Hermeneutical Problem of Genesis 1-11, Themelios 4.1 (Sept. 1978), 12-19, 13 In this sense the early church followed the thoughts of Philo, and not Josephus, who differed in interpretation of Genesis from a Jewish perspective in the first century. P. M. Van Bemmelen, Divine Accommodation and Biblical Creation: Calvin vs. McGrath, Andrews University Seminary Studies,VoI. 39, No. 1, (Spring 2001), 109-116, 109-111 9 R. Letham, In the Space of Six Days: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly, Westminster Theological Journal, 61 (1999), 149-174, 150-157, also J.P. Lewis, The Days of Creation: An Historical Survey of Interpretation, JETS, 32/4 (December 1989), 433-455 suggests there has never been a straightforward and agreed upon method of interpreting the days of the creation week despite arguments to the contrary.
8

201017867

Augustine believed the earth to be young,10 but to suggest he would maintain this position today misrepresents his position on Genesis. His interpretation was shaped by his Manichaean presuppositions,11 and was developed in order to avoid ridicule of the gospel from the intellectual elite.12 His scientific views were shaped by his time.13 For Augustine, the substance of creation was irrelevant. He was concerned with the metaphysical. Suggestions that he would necessarily support or deny evolutionary theory are also speculative.14 He has been called the great-grandfather of modern secular textual criticism because he stressed the importance of a literal reading of the text,15 but he simultaneously argued for allegorical interpretations.16
10

Augustine, Of the Falseness of History which allots many thousand years to the worlds past, The City of God, Book 12, Ch 10, They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. And, not to spend many words in exposing the baselessness of these documents, in which so many thousands of years are accounted for, nor in proving that their authorities are totally inadequate. Augustine, On Christian Teaching, Trans. J.F Shaw, Vol 2 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church, Ed. P. Schaff, (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1993, Kindle Edition), Book 1. Chapter 40, Augustine was not opposed to science or secular thought, he held that whatever was true should be appropriated to the kingdom, like gold from the Egyptians. In his commentary on Genesis he warned against Christians speaking outside of their spheres of knowledge in front of educated people, If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? 11 L. Lavallee, Augustine on the Creation Days, JETS, 32/4, (December 1989), 457-464, 458461 12 P. M. Van Bemmelen, Divine Accommodation and Biblical Creation, 110-111, suggests Augustine could not overcome his Manichaean background and the fear that those he knew from that philosophy would look on his claims with scorn. 13 For a discussion of how Augustines thought related to his contemporaries and the science of his day see C. Gousmett, Creation Order and Miracle According to Augustine, The Evangelical Quarterly 60.3 (July 1988): 217-240. 14 A.E McGrath, Augustines Origin of Species, Christianity Today, August 2009, retrieved 9 June 2011, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html makes the point that Augustine does not answer the questions we seek to ask him, but that his thoughts reflected the scientific consensus of his time, L. Lavallee, Augustine on the Creation Days, 462-463 suggests Augustine would eventually have settled on a literal reading of Genesis. H. Woods, Augustine And Evolution: A Study In The Saints De Genesi Ad Litteram And De Trinitate, (California, The Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1924), 144 suggests Augustine would have adopted evolutionary theory. 15 C. Ginzburg, The Letter Kills, 85-88, Augustine explains both his approach to interpretation of Scripture, and the interpretation of Genesis in Augustine, Commentary on Genesis, But if the meaning cannot be studied and judged by the context of Scripture, at least we should choose only that which our faith demands. For it is one thing to fail to recognize the primary meaning of the writer, and another to depart from the norms of religious belief. If both these difficulties

201017867

Augustine was the first to describe creation as a book of revelation,17 a view that motivated the pioneers of the scientific method.

In the thirteenth century Roger Bacon, a scientist and theologian, shaped an approach to scientific experimentation and theology later adopted and developed by his namesake Francis.18 Roger Bacon rejected arguments from authority and tradition, and established science as a foundational element of NT through the maxim the end of all true philosophy is to arrive at a knowledge of the Creator through knowledge of the created world. 19

The Reformation and Science, Luther, Calvin, and Copernicus While there were no significant scientific challenges to these allegorical interpretations of the days of creation, there were hermeneutical issues that led two significant figures of the Protestant Reformation, John Calvin and Martin Luther, to react against such treatment of the text. They were insistent on finding the plain meaning of scripture.20 For Luther this meant literal days,21 and a young earth.22 Calvin agreed, and suggested interpretation of
are avoided, the reader gets full profit from his reading. Failing that, even though the writers intention is uncertain, one will find it useful to extract an interpretation in harmony with our faith. 16 Augustine, On Christian Teaching, III.10.14, III.16.24, C. Ginzburg, The Letter Kills: On Some Implications Of 2 Corinthians 3:6, History and Theory 49 (February 2010), 71-89, 71-74 17 P. Harrison, The Bible and the Emergence of Modern Science, Science & Christian Belief (2006), 18, 115132, 118 suggests the following passage of the Confessions is written against Manichaeans to suggest the created order is good, Augustine Confessions, XIII xv, You have extended over us like a skin the firmament of your Book, your harmonious discourses, by the ministry of mortals... Let the angels, your supercelestial people, praise your name. They have no need to look upon this firmament, to know through reading your word. For they always see your face, and read there without the syllables of time your eternal will. They read, they choose, they love. They are always reading the changelessness of your counsel. 18 E.W Barnes, The Reformation and the Scientific Movement of To-day, The Modern Churchman, 22 no 5-7, (Aug-Oct 1932), 344-358, 346-348 19 E.W Barnes, The Reformation and the Scientific Movement of To-day, The Modern Churchman, 22 no 5-7, (Aug-Oct 1932), 344-358, 346 20 P. Harrison, The Bible and the Emergence of Modern Science, , 18, 115132, 123 21 M. Luther, Luther's Works, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1-5, Vol. 1, Ed. J. Peliken, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), 6, He [Moses] calls 'a spade a spade,' i.e., he employs the terms 'day' and 'evening' without Allegory, just as we customarily do we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively

201017867 Biblical texts could not be guided by fear of ridicule from critics.23 Augustine

had been concerned that Christians avoid criticism for overreaching into areas they knew nothing about,24 (though he also had issues with the scoffers).25 Reading our present scientific concerns into the conclusions of the reformers is anachronistic. It is similarly problematic to rely on their positions to determine our own approach to science.26 If the thinking of figures of the past is to have any benefit in present debate, then their words must be read against their background and the issues they addressed. Their methodology is more important than the substance of their words.

The Centre of the Universe: Science or Theology

M. Luther, Luthers Works, 3, We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago. R. Letham, In the Space of Six Days 163-164 says Luther was the first serious exegete to interpret the days in a strictly literal sense. 23 Calvin, Institutes, Book 3.21.4 http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/books/book3/bk3ch21.html, But if their petulance frightens us, it will be necessary to conceal all the principal articles of faith, because they and their fellows leave scarcely one of them unassailed with blasphemy. A rebellious spirit will display itself no less insolently when it hears that there are three persons in the divine essence, than when it hears that God when he created man foresaw every thing that was to happen to him. Nor will they abstain from their jeers when told that little more than five thousand years have elapsed since the creation of the world. 24 A. Plantinga, Evolution, Neutrality, and Antecedent Probability: a Reply to Van Til and McMullen, Christian Scholars Review, XXI, 1 (September 1991), 80-109 suggests we should, as Christians, speak the products of our thinking knowing that we might be met with ridicule, a position more consistent with Calvin than with Augustine, see Augustine, Commentary on Genesis, Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven 25 Augustine, Commentary on Genesis, Such critics are like wingless creatures that crawl upon the earth and, while soaring no higher than the leap of a frog, mock the birds in their nests above. 26 Avoiding the first of these anachronisms is vital, because we need to understand the context and limited knowledge of the original audience so as not to make the text say things they couldnt possibly have understood, Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, II.13.19, was insistent that interpreters understand a text in the light of the concerns of the original authors, modern interpreters make the same point, see G. Wenham, Genesis 1-15. (WBC 1; Colombia: Word, 1991), iii, it is also useful to understand that the scientific views of the day should not shape our understanding of the world around us, especially if such understandings, eg in the area of cosmology, were based on the views of other ANE religions, R.J Clifford, The Hebrew Scriptures and the Theology of Creation, Theological Studies, 46 no 3 (S 1985), 507-523, 511512, this was a lesson the Catholic Church later learned when trying to defend an Aristotelian rather than Biblical view against Galileo, see note 30.
22

201017867 The so-called conflict between science and theology began when Nicolaus Copernicus first proposed a heliocentric model of the universe. The universe was turned upside down,27 and the church struggled to articulate a response as first Copernicus, then Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei, challenged deeply held convictions. Responding to these findings flummoxed theologians from the protestant reformation (in its early infancy) and the Roman Catholic Establishment.

Copernicus theories sparked an outcry from those who held an anthropocentric view of creation via a geocentric view. Such a view was neither limited to Christians, nor entirely theologically motivated. It was the dominant view of the day.28 Luther rejected Copernicus model immediately and vehemently.29 Calvin was aware of Copernicus work,30 and he also rejected it.31 Calvin was not theologically concerned, so much as opposed to
M. Luther suggested that Copernicus was, in the quest for novel thought, seeking to turn the world upside down, see an excerpt from Table Talk quoted in J.D Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/Kim Proposal, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1982), 63-66, There was mention of a certain 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. [Luther remarked] 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. 28 K. Nurnberger, Martin Luthers Experiential Theology As A Model For Faith-Science Relationships, Zygon, vol. 45, no. 1 (March 2010), 127-148, 134-135 29 R. White, Calvin and Copernicus: The problem reconsidered, Calvin Theological Journal, November 1980, 233-243, 233 30 R. White, Calvin and Copernicus, 233-236, For many years it was assumed that Calvin was also hostile to anything but a geocentric view of the world, this seems to have been based on a misattributed quote, and academic Chinese whispers, see also A. E. McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1999, Third Edition), 273-274 31 Calvin, Luther, and other figures of the reformation were, like everybody else, suspicious of the new view of the world proposed by Luther, more because of its novelty than because of its theological implications. It was a challenge to Aristotelian cosmology as much as a challenge to any Biblical understanding of the universe. Calvins Genesis commentary seems to indicate he was open to the findings of astronomy being in conflict with the Biblical account, this commentary came 15 years after Copernicus work, and Calvin still maintained a geocentric view, see J.D Woodbridge, Biblical Authority, 65-66, cites Calvin saying we are indeed not ignorant that the circuit of the heavens is finite and the earth, like a little ball, is located in the middle. In J.Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms, 93:1, retrieved 8 June, http://christianbookshelf.org/calvin/commentary_on_psalms_volume_4/psalm_93_1-2.htm
27

201017867 this new idea.32 His anthropology depended on mans relationship to God, not his physical position in the universe.33 His rejection of Copernicus

10

revolutionary understanding was both theological and scientific, but he was not closed to Astronomy, as indicated in his commentary on Genesis where he suggests Moses agenda is not scientific, 34 and his language accommodates its readers.35 He also believed God acted in a manner to accommodate his readers by creating in six actual days.36 Modern interpreters of Calvin are wont to limit his view on accommodation to words rather than actions, but this was not the case.37 It is clear Calvin held a YEC view. What is not clear is that this would still be the case today. This literal reading led Calvin and Luther to demonstrably incorrect views of the physical world. And this hermeneutic must be understood as the result of a repudiation of allegorical
The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? 32 Some have suggested that rather than disinterest Calvin was unaware of the work of Copernicus, this would seem inconsistent with Calvins consistent praise of astronomers (as a necessary corrective to astrologers). It is also likely that Calvin was familiar with, and at least initially critical of Copernicus work not through theological convictions but from his commitment to the scientific method of his day, see R. White, Calvin and Copernicus: The problem reconsidered, Calvin Theological Journal, November 1980, 233-243, 243 33 For a view to the contrary see B.B Warfield, Calvins Doctrine of the Creation, Princeton Theologial Review, Vol. xiii. (1915), 190-255, retrieved 7 June 2011, http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_calvincreation.html 34 R. White, Calvin and Copernicus, 242, there is nothing in Calvins hermeneutics which would have prevented him assimilating Copernicus ideas such a model of interaction between faith and science is foisted onto Calvin by modern concerns. 35 P. Harrison, The Bible and the Emergence of Modern Science, Science & Christian Belief (2006), 124, also R. Letham, In the Space of Six Days, 166, H. Sasse, Inspiration and inerrancy--some preliminary thoughts, Concordia Journal 36 no 2 Spr 2010, 107-119, 116, it is not appropriate to ask questions of the text that it could not have possibly considered answering. Jerome and Chrysothym were early advocates of this doctrine of Condescension. J. Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms, Psalm 136:7, The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy and, in proposing instruction meant to be common to the simplest and most uneducated, he made use of Moses and the other prophets of popular language, that none might shelter himself under the pretext of obscurity. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit would rather speak childishly than unintelligibly to the humble and unlearned. 36 P. M. Van Bemmelen, Divine Accommodation and Biblical Creation, 112 37 A. E. McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1999, Third Edition), 275, R. Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism, Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts, and the End of Slavery, (Oxfordshire, Princeton University Press, 2003), 175 suggests that Calvins view of accommodation asserted the legitimacy of natural theology. For the opposing position see P. M. Van Bemmelen, Divine Accommodation and Biblical Creation, 112-113

201017867 readings.38 The YEC view that the Reformers literal stance represents a methodology for understanding the relationship between Scripture and science is a reductionistically literal interpretation of history.39 Imposing modern scientific questions on Genesis,40 or reformation thought is

11

anachronistic. 41 Some go so far to anachronistically suggest that Luther wrote against theistic evolution.42 These men were not infallible interpreters of either the Bible or science. Luthers response to Copernicus established a precedent for religious suspicion of scientific discovery (emulated by the Catholic

Calvin and Luther simply shared the conceptions about the world that were feasible and widely held in their time. E.W Barnes, The Reformation and the Scientific Movement of Today, The Modern Churchman, 22 no 5-7, (Aug-Oct 1932), 344-358, 353, and they were theologically concerned about the implications of allegorical readings pioneered in the Early Church, P. M. Van Bemmelen, Divine Accommodation and Biblical Creation, 113-115, and P. Harrison, The Bible and the Emergence of Modern Science, Science & Christian Belief (2006), 18, 115132, 122 39 For an example of such an anachronistic and reductionistic approach see R.V McCabe, A Defense of Literal Days in the Creation Week,, DBSJ 5 (Fall 2000), 97123, 99-100 40 E.J Young, The Days of Genesis: Second Article, Westminster Theological Journal, Vol 25. 1962-63, 143-171, 168, C. E. Hummel, Interpreting Genesis One, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 38.3 (1986) 175-85, 185, C.E Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts Between Science and the Bible, (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 1986), 177 41 H.P Nebelsick, God, Creation, Salvation, and Modern Science, 97, both were theologically motivated, rather than predominantly interested in questions of the physical realm. 42 K. Ham, The necessity for believing in six literal days, Creation 18(1):3841 December 1995, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/sixdays.asp

38

201017867 Churchs treatment of Galileo),43 but more generally the principles of the Reformation opened the door for the modern scientific method.44

12

Calvin respected science,45 believing scientific discovery was a revelation of God,46 which could not contradict the revelation of Scripture.47 Creation was a mirror in which we see God.48 His priority was theological and he believed this was Moses priority in the Genesis account.49

Science as study of Gods Second Book: The beginnings of Natural Theology

N. Weeks, The Hermeneutical Problem of Genesis 1-11, 16, suggests the Catholic Church was in an interesting position trying to defend Aristotelian cosmology rather than Biblical cosmology because of the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, questions of cosmology sit at the periphery of the subject of this essay, but it is interesting to note that the Biblical cosmology probably accommodates cosmologies of Israels ANE neighbours at the time of the composition of Genesis, lending support to the idea that Genesis is written as a polemic against the views of the Enuma Elish and other creation accounts and cosmologies, which makes scientific accuracy a lesser concern than theological accuracy, see R.J Clifford, The Hebrew Scriptures and the Theology of Creation, Theological Studies, 46 no 3 (S 1985), 507523, Perhaps as a result of this embarrassment, the Catholic Church now embraces scientific discovery without question see Pope Benedict XVI, Scientific Insight into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 2008, retrieved 7 June 2011, http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16pontacsci.htm, In this context, questions concerning the relationship between sciences reading of the world and the reading offered by Christian Revelation naturally arise. My predecessors Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II noted that there is no opposition between faiths understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences. Philosophy in its early stages had proposed images to explain the origin of the cosmos on the basis of one or more elements of the material world. This genesis was not seen as a creation, but rather a mutation or transformation; it involved a somewhat horizontal interpretation of the origin of the world. 44 In a real sense we can argue that even pre-reformation Christian thought was a major motivator for the development of the scientific method as we know it. See R. Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, (New York, Random House, 2005, Kindle Edition), Kindle Location 321-391 45 P. Helm, John Calvin's Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 438, Questia, Web, 29 May 2011 cites Calvins Genesis commentary, Comm. Gen. 1: 16, his A Warning Against Judiciary Astrology and Other Prevalent Curiosities, which involves estimating their office, property, and power and subjugating the entire science to God's end and God's use. 46 J. Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God 47 R. White, Calvin and Copernicus, 242 48 R. Letham, In the Space of Six Days, 165 49 P. Helm, John Calvin's Ideas, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 23-24
43

201017867

13

It was this view, and the belief that science is a form of NT, that changed the way scientists approached Gods second book, providing the impetus and intellectual climate for the development of the scientific method.50

In the enlightenment, both Francis Bacon and Johannes Kepler adopted the view that science was the means by which one could essentially exegete general revelation.51 Bacon was concerned to establish a proper relationship between special and general revelation.52 He viewed scientists as priests,53 believing science presented an opportunity to reverse the effects of the fall.54
R. Stark, For the Glory of God, 174-176, A. E. McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 274 suggests in this sense Calvin is one of the fathers of modern science. Others agree, including, P. Harrison, The Bible and the Emergence of Modern Science, Science & Christian Belief (2006), 18, 115132, 131, H.P Nebelsick, God, Creation, Salvation, and Modern Science, Horizons in Biblical Theology, Volume 9, Number 2, (1987), 79-103, 95-97, also E.W Barnes, The Reformation and the Scientific Movement of To-day, 344-358, 351-352, though P. Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science, Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2, (2009) 155-162, 157-158 urges caution against overstating this relationship. 51 H.M Morris, Men of Science, Men of God: Great Scientists of the Past Who Believed the Bible, (Green Forest, Master Books, 1988), 11-14 cites F. Bacon as saying There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; the first, the volume of the scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power" and J. Keppler, "I was merely thinking God's thoughts after him. Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature." P. Harrison, Laws of Nature, Moral Order, and the Intelligibility of the Cosmos, The Astronomy Revolution 400 Years of Exploring the Cosmos, Edited by Donald G. York, Owen Gingerich, Shuang-Nan Zhang, (London: Taylor & Francis, Forthcoming October 10th 2011), retrieved 29 May 2011, http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/projects/orderProject/documents/Publications/HarrisonL awsofNature.pdf 52 P. Harrison, The Bible and the Emergence of Modern Science, 127, For Bacon, nature retains some theological significance in that it provides indirect evidence of the wisdom of the creator. But what we do not find there are representations of theological truths that parallel those found in Scripture. Neither is it the case that the study of nature is driven by biblical hermeneutics. These are now independent disciplines that are not to be confused, also 53 S. Manzo, Francis Bacon: Freedom, Authority And Science, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 14(2) 2006: 245 273, 265, The scientist is conceived of as a servant of God, charity being the only legitimate and distinctive aim of his research. 54 P. Harrison, Laws of Nature, Moral Order, and the Intelligibility of the Cosmos, The Astronomy Revolution 400 Years of Exploring the Cosmos, Edited by Donald G. York, Owen Gingerich, Shuang-Nan Zhang, (London: Taylor & Francis, Forthcoming October 10th 2011), retrieved 29 May 2011, http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/projects/orderProject/documents/Publications/HarrisonL awsofNature.pdf , For man by the fall fell at the same time from his state of innocency and from his dominion over creation. Both of these losses however can even in this life be in some part repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by arts and sciences (Bacon, Novum Organum II, 52), S.A McKnight, Religion And Francis Bacons Scientific Utopianism, Zygon Journal of Religion & Science, Jun2007, Vol. 42 Issue 2, 463-486, 483
50

201017867

14

He believed the noetic effect of sin was a hindrance to the scientific process.55 He advocated two streams of theology: natural and divine, suggesting NT was an antidote to atheism.56

The emergence of Darwinian Evolution and Empirical Naturalism as the Scientific Challenge to Christianity The Copernican revolution was the first in a string of scientific conflicts with Christian belief. Astronomical challenges were followed by geological evidence of an old earth.57 It was naturalism, born from the Deism of Isaac Newtons mathematically ordered universe,58 and Darwins biological account for the origins of humanity that provided a greater threat to the Christian faith.59

The reception of these scientific explanations of the world was no as hostile as the YEC movement suggests.60 While Darwinism and naturalism combined with a potent explanatory power that challenged the Biblical account of

S. Manzo, Francis Bacon, 254-255 S. Manzo, Francis Bacon, 246 57 D. Wilkinson, Reading Genesis 1-3 in the Light of Modern Science, 130. While Creation Scientists suggest these old-earth beliefs were the beginning of the end, religious figures of the day were much more prepared to assimilate the discoveries of science into their systems of belief. 58 A.C Dulles, The Deist Minimum, First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, Issue 149, (Jan 2005), 25-30, For a summary of Newtons approach to science and the supernatural see P. Harrison, Newtonian Science, Miracles, and the Laws of Nature, Journal of the History of Ideas, 56, (1995), 531-553, 545, 552-553, While Newton believed in miracles and an omnipotent creator he struggled to reconcile the miraculous with the scientific method, he instead chose a middle ground where Gods actions in the world could not possible be unnatural so miracles should be understood as acts of God, that occur so rarely as to have no real bearing on the scientific method. 59 D. Wilkinson, Reading Genesis 1-3 in the Light of Modern Science, 127-135, C.E Hummel, The Galileo Connection, 223-236, A combination of Darwinian evolution and the deistic watchmaker provides a rationale for a god-of-the-gaps dismissal of the Christian God, see R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design, (New York, W.W Norton, 1996), 5 60 C.H. Spurgeon, Election, The New Park Street Pulpit, September 2, 1855 http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0041.htm, retrieved 30 May 2011, D. Wilkinson, Reading Genesis 1-3 in the Light of Modern Science, 127-135
56 55

201017867 deliberate and personal design,61 Darwinism did not naturally produce

15

naturalism. 20th Century philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that Darwinism itself makes naturalism logically self-defeating.62 Plantingas argument, though logically cogent, does not prevent apologists for scientific naturalism and atheism, like David Hume, Thomas Huxley, and more recently Richard Dawkins, shaping the agenda and public perception of modern science.63

Darwinism provided an intellectual foundation for those already philosophically committed to atheism, and empirical naturalism became the dominant philosophy for understanding the material world.64 The religious motivation of, and contribution to, the scientific method is now grossly understated and underappreciated.

Christian Responses to the challenges of Naturalism The YEC movement, typified by Answers in Genesis (AIG), doesnt just reject the naturalistic undertones of modern science; it rejects almost all scientific conclusions drawn since the days of Copernicus by misrepresenting science and history. The YEC argument that the literal meaning of Genesis is the plain meaning fails historically. It fallaciously insists that a literal interpretation of the days in Genesis is a yardstick for orthodoxy,65 and the
D. Wilkinson, Reading Genesis 1-3 in the Light of Modern Science, 127-135 A. Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) retrieved from Questia, Web, 29 May 2011, 229, Evolutionary, or Scientific Naturalism is self-defeating because it gives us an ulterior motive for every decision and thus for holding to such a philosophy. 63 R. Stark, For the Glory of God, 174-178, Stark, a secular historian, has serious reservations about the way Darwinian science has been used as a blunt weapon against religious belief. 64 M.L Peterson, C. S. Lewis on Evolution and Intelligent Design, 260-262 65 See, for example, R.V McCabe, A Defense of Literal Days in the Creation Week, 123, I would suggest that it is an essential part of the faith. To relegate literal creationism to a peripheral doctrinal level minimally suggests an inconsistent view of Scriptures perspicuity on this subject and pervasively promotes deterioration in other facets of orthodox doctrine. G. F. Hasel, The "Days" Of Creation In Genesis 1: Literal "Days" Or Figurative "Periods / Epochs" Of Time?, Origins 21(1), (1994), 5-38 retrieved 7 June 2011,
62 61

201017867

16

almost universal belief of the church in the first eighteen centuries.66 But there has never been a uniform view on such interpretation,67 and the absence of discussion of the issue in doctrinal statements from the 16th century indicates this was not a confessional issue.68

The 17th century Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) says creation occurred in the space of six days,69 but to suggest the Westminster Divines were interested in the debate between faith and science, and particularly interested in establishing the age of the earth, is to misrepresent history;70 they were theology driven.71

Though they argue Jesus himself held to a young earth (on the basis of Mark 10:6, 13:9-20, and Luke 11:50-51).72 A literal reading of the text in opposition to scientific thought only gained the ascendency in the early 20th century. The position is a late development, possibly courtesy of the Adventist movement.73

Christian Responses to the challenges of Science: NOMA

http://www.ldolphin.org/haseldays.html , T. Mortenson, Jesus, Evangelical Scholars, and the Age of the Earth, TMSJ 18/1 (Spring 2007) 69-99, 99 goes so far as to make the issue a central test of faith Anyone who calls Him Lord cannot possibly have a different view than He has and say that the age of the earth does not matter? 66 T. Mortenson, Jesus, Evangelical Scholars, and the Age of the Earth, 70 67 J.P. Lewis, The Days of Creation: An Historical Survey of Interpretation, JETS, 32/4 (December 1989), 433-455, R. Letham, In the Space of Six Days, 149-174 68 R. Letham, In the Space of Six Days, 169-170 69 Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter IV.1, retrieved 8 June 2011, http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ 70 R. Letham, In the Space of Six Days, 173-174, The single most astonishing and noteworthy feature of English Puritan theology before 1647, and the Westminster divines in particular, is the virtually complete absence of interest in creation. 71 R. Letham, In the Space of Six Days, 174, E.W Barnes, The Reformation and the Scientific Movement of To-day, 352-3 makes a similar suggestion about the scientific apathy of the Anglican and reformed movements. 72 T. Mortenson, Jesus, Evangelical Scholars, and the Age of the Earth, 73 73 K. Giberson, Adventist Origins of Young Earth Creationism, BioLogos Foundation, 1-6, retrieved 5 June 2011, http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Giberson-scholarly-essay-1.pdf

201017867

17

The NOMA view is also unsatisfactory because it is clear that the Bible makes claims contrary to the naturalistic magisterum of science that occurred in the physical realm, particularly claims of the miraculous, and ultimately the claim of the resurrection.74 The NOMA view is a useful category but it is better to understand science and scriptural interpretation as separate streams that occasionally intersect. Which means we must adopt a Christian approach to science, not from naturalistic assumptions, but from a theistic perspective.75

Polkinghorne (2009) advocates a progressive creation with Gods providential care of the world taking the form of microevolution and a hands-on relationship that will eventually climax with the overhaul of the new creation. Science operates alongside this progressive creation as a progressive revelation.76 He suggests such an understanding is a consistent reading of the books of special and general revelation.77 Critics of this position argue that the creation process concluded at the end of the creation week,78 or that suggestion Gods redemptive act continues through the continuing process of creation distract from Gods once-for-all redemptive act at the cross.79

D. Carson, In the Beginning..., 80 A. Plantinga, When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible, Christian Scholars Review, XXI: 1, September 1991, 8-33, 29, We need Theistic Science. Perhaps the discipline in question, as ordinarily practiced, involves a methodological naturalism; if so, then what we need, finally, is not answers to our questions from that perspective, valuable in some ways as it may be. What we really need are answers to our questions from the perspective of all that we know-what we about God, and what we know by faith, by way of revelation, as well as know in other ways 76 This is not a new argument, see E.W Barnes, The Reformation and the Scientific Movement of To-day, 356-358 77 J. Polkinghorne, Scripture and an Evolving Creation, 171-173, the progressive creation model finds some support in L. Jantti, Proleptic Creation, Studia Theologica, 60 (2006), 186206, and P. Elbert, Genesis 1 and the Spirit, 65 78 K.P Wise, What Science Teaches Us about the Age of Creation, 6, Augustine would be one such critic, holding that the creation process finished with God resting, despite John 5:17, C. Gousmett, Creation Order and Miracle According to Augustine, 225 79 R.J Berry, Eden and Ecology: Evolution and Eschatology, 22
75 74

201017867

18

Disagreements between science and revelation are not indications of NOMA, but of poor explanations of either stream of revelation, the dichotomy between creator and revealer is unsustainable.80 The Bible speaks of our interdependence with creation (Romans 8) so a NOMA view is unsustainable because our state before God has altered the state of the planet. Creation feels the effects of sin.81

With whom we cannot concord Concordist views, like YEC, suffer from a series of fatal problems. They impose anachronistic concerns on the text, fail to properly pay heed to genre and purpose, and seek to bring together disparate streams of inquiry by fusing the scientific method with theology. Basing any interpretations of the Bible account on scientific truths is dangerous because such truths are a movable concept and are subject to constant testing and revision through the nature of the scientific method.82

Schatz (2008) argued against concordist views from a Jewish perspective. He found most inconclusive, though circumstantially compelling, the three defenses he outlined for common objections are:

It is possible to accommodate for an audience and still contain scientific truth.

Because scientific consensus changes, concordists can hold their positions tentatively.

R.J Berry, Eden and Ecology: Evolution and Eschatology, Science and Christian Belief, 19, (2007), 15-35, 15 81 R.J Berry, Eden and Ecology: Evolution and Eschatology, 29-32 82 This is also a potential problem with accommodationist views, as outlined below

80

201017867 Such readings of the Torah can produce the same theological conclusions, strengthened by science.

19

Schatz suggests that the only coherent rebuttal for concordism is that the sequence of Biblical creation does not match contemporary science.83

Many Concordist approaches fail at one of these four stages. We will argue they fail before this point because theologically coherent Biblical interpretation is inductively (or presupposionally) anchored in Christ (see below).84 YEC adherents insist their view must be adopted for the Biblical testimony to be true, and that theology begins with creation rather than Christ.85 This leaves adherents in a difficult position, faced with mounting scientific evidence that the earth appears to be billions of years old, some resolve this by drawing a parallel between the creation of Adam as an adult, suggesting a young earth created to look old.86
83 D. Shatz, Is There Science in the Bible? An Assessment of Biblical Concordism, Tradition, 41.2, 2008, 198-244, 220-22, 230-232, which raises questions about the implications if science were to concord with Biblical events, some suggest the militant atheist agenda of the mainstream media suppresses such findings. See P. Elbert, Genesis 1 and the Spirit: A Narrative-Rhetorical Ancient Near Eastern Reading In Light Of Modern Science, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15.1 (2006), 23-72, 63-64, J. Polkinghorne, Scripture and an Evolving Creation, Science and Christian Belief, 21, (2009), 163-173, 164-165, suggests that while concordist readings are anachronistic there are some sophisticated parallels between the order of creation and scientific understandings of the world. 84 D. Shatz, Is There Science in the Bible? 207-212, This is the problem with Shatz Jewish treatment of the issue, with no such interpretive anchor Shatz feels the only real objection to concordist views is science. He suggests the alternatives for discerning truth are via a literal reading or a literary reading are equally problematic and self-defeating. The former because science contradicts the account, the latter because such a reading requires a scientific approach to the text, employing philology and linguistics (which are also subject to change). 85 J. McArthur, Creation: Believe it or Not, TMSJ 13/1 (Spring 2002) 5-32, 30-31, The starting point for Christianity is not Matthew 1:1 but Genesis 1:1 In other words, if you reject the creation account in Genesis, you have no basis for believing the Bible at all Once rationalism sets in and you start adapting the Word of God to fit scientific theories based on naturalistic beliefs, the process has no end. If you have qualms about the historicity of the creation account, you are on the road to utter Sadduceeismskepticism and outright unbelief about all the supernatural elements of Scripture. 86 This is the position adopted by Kurt Wise, who is an interesting touch-point for any debate on the relationship between science and theology. Wise was a promising geologist who became convinced of a Young Earth position theologically, which led him to reject his previously held scientific view of the age of the earth, K.P Wise, What Science Teaches Us about the Age of Creation, Southern Baptist Theological Journal, 11:1, (Spring 2007), 4-15, Wises

201017867

20

Methink they doth accommodate too much Accommodationist positions, typified by the BioLogos Foundation, are prepared to cede too much ground to science, to the point that science interprets scripture. While recognising the limitations of science, they take theologically problematic steps like mythologising Adam and Eve, 87and reinterpreting the fall,88 as they explore this interpretive dynamic. Accepting an old earth, and some form of Darwinian Evolution, does not necessitate a reading that conflicts with Pauls treatment of Adam and Eve in the New Testament sin (Acts 17:26, Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:21-49),89 and also has significant ramifications to our anthropology and doctrine of sin.90
argument rests on a number of begged questions and unjustifiable presuppositions about the nature of science and an appropriate approach to the text. The consternation felt by Wises conversion from both the accommodationalist and new atheist sides of the debate is expressed in F.J Beckwith, Intelligent Design, Thomas Aquinas, and the Ubiquity of Final Causes, 7-9 87 P. Enns, Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Bible: Moving Toward a Synthesis, The BioLogos Foundation, retrieved 7 June 2011, www.BioLogos.org/projects/scholar-essays, 1-11, D. Alexander, How Does a BioLogos Model Need to Address the Theological Issues Associated with an Adam Who Was Not the Sole Genetic Progenitor of Humankind?, The Biologos Foundation, 1-9, retrieved 7 June 2011, from www.BioLogos.org/projects/scholar-essays, D.C Harlow, After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 62, Number 3, September 2010, 179-195, also S.B Stratton, Genesis after the Origin: Theological Responses to Evolution, Word & World, Vol 29.1, (Winter 2009), 7-18, such arguments often take the form science says it so it must be true where a more correct argument in favour of scientific postulation is the Bible doesnt say it so it is possibly true. 88 J. Polkinghorne, Scripture and an Evolving Creation, 166, suggests the fall marks a change in anthropology where humanity gained understanding of sin and death. A potential problem for this view is it sees the fall as a progression in evolution where we become, as it were, more human rather than our humanity suffering as a result of sin, see R.J Berry, Eden and Ecology: Evolution and Eschatology, 27 89 Some suggest that Paul, like the author of Genesis was condescending to his audience such arguments too often amount resort to special pleading of what particular Biblical authors must have intended on the basis of begged questions and external scientific hypotheses of human origins. See D.C Harlow, After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science, 186-189, and P. Enns, Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Bible, 4-7, Enns also suggests that any attempt to recreate a first pair is an attempt to salvage Christian theology without scientific support and that any such reading falls into the concordist trap, for a counter view see C. J. Collins, Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why it Matters, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, 62.3 (2010), 90 C. J. Collins, Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why it Matters, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, 62.3 (2010), 147, also C.J Collins, Did Adam and Eve Exist, Who They Were? And Why Should You Care, (Wheaton, Crossway, 2011, Kindle Edition), J.

201017867

21

While the purpose of Genesis is obviously related to (but not limited to)91 extant creation stories from the ANE,92 dealing with the existence of this relationship does not preclude the existence of a first man and first woman.93 C.J Collins (2010) makes a compelling case that the ANE practice was to mythologise history rather than historicise myth,94 that science and Genesis present separate and non-contradictory streams of revelation,95 that Genesis addresses ANE knowledge and concerns, and puts already known facts from the period into a worldview.96

Scientific knowledge is not infallible. Its fallibility is implicit in the scientific method.97 The noetic effect of sin, the market driven nature of modern science,
McArthur, Creation: Believe it or Not, 11-13, though McArthur pushes the envelope too far by insisting that belief in Adam and Eve is essentially essential to Christian belief. 91 P. Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 2005), 40, While Genesis is related to other only concerned with playing the same role as similar documents in the ANE. an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where did we come from? A. Plantinga, When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible, Christian Scholars Review, XXI: 1, (September 1991), 8-33, 10-13, suggests the emphasis of ANE comparison is on covenant. 92 Eg. E.J Young, The Days of Genesis, in a comparative study with Ancient Near Eastern texts (145-147) suggests that the seventh day as rest rather than climax is unique to the ANE patterns of creation accounts framed in a seven day week, he later concludes (171): The purpose of the first section of Genesis (1:1-2:3) is to exalt the eternal God as the alone Creator of heaven and earth, who in infinite wisdom and by the Word of his power brought the earth into existence and adorned and prepared it for man's habitancy. The section also prepares for the second portion of Genesis, the Generations, which deals with man's habitancy of God's world. 93 For an argument that such texts preclude the existence of a literal Adam and Eve see D.C Harlow, After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science, 181-186 94 C. J. Collins, Adam and Eve as Historical People, 150-152 95 C. J. Collins, Adam and Eve as Historical People, 159-161 Collins posits several scenarios for the emergence of Adam and Eve within the boundaries of being faithful to Biblical revelation and scientific consensus, while withholding judgment on the basis that the nature of scientific understanding of humanity is subject to change. He provides three criterion for valid scenarios for the creation of Adam and Eve, that the origins of humanity goes beyond a natural process, that Adam and Eve are at the headwaters of the human race, and that the Fall is historical, moral and universal. He develops this framework further, dismissing a concordist relationship between the Bible and scientific thought in C.J Collins, Did Adam and Eve Exist, Who They Were? And Why Should You Care, (Wheaton, Crossway, 2011, Kindle Edition) 96 C.J Collins, Did Adam and Eve Exist, Kindle Locations 1908-1996, Collins adopts a historical hybrid of concordism and accommodationism, insofar as the Biblical account concords with the science of the time, but and accommodates to the audience. He suggests this understanding allows us to accommodate for the discoveries of modern science.
97

201017867 and the scientific communitys commitment to naturalism, should lead

22

Christians to some caution regarding science. The BioLogos approach elevates the scientific method, essentially an exegetical tool for natural revelation, into a hermeneutic for both special and general revelation.

There are three possibilities if the testimony of the Bible seems in conflict with the testimony of science, either our exegesis of scripture, our science, or our understanding of the relationship between the two is flawed.98

How smart is Intelligent Design? One response to Darwinisms naturalistic explanation of mankinds origins is the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. The fundamental thesis of ID is that Darwinian evolution based on natural selection is incompatible with the Biblical God. While this foundational presupposition is correct, the movement has been criticised, notably by Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne,99 because argument from design, or patterns, creates a God-of-the-gaps when natural explanations arise for such patterns. 100 The movement tends to paint a deistic watchmaker God who wound up the world and walked away.101 Critics suggest a better argument considers God the author of both patterns

G. C Aalders, Aalders on Genesis 1 and 2: A Translation, trans. A. Wolters, Calvin Theological Journal, 26 no 1 Ap 1991, 155-164, 163 99 M.L Peterson, C. S. Lewis on Evolution and Intelligent Design, 255 100 M.L Peterson, C. S. Lewis on Evolution and Intelligent Design, 257, R.D Holder, Science And Religion In The Theology Of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 118. The argument that particular elements of the world are irreducibly complex and thus infers a designer only really holds to as yet unexplained phenomena, a point well made by L.E Bothwell, Genesis meets the Big Bang and Evolution, Absent Design, Crosscurrents, Spring 2007, 10-17, 13, 15 101 R.J Berry, Eden and Ecology: Evolution and Eschatology, Science and Christian Belief, 19, (2007), 15-35, 24, Berry suggests Paleys watchmaker theory encourages a focus on pattern rather than process. T. Mortenson, Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth, TMSJ 15/1 (Spring 2004) 71-92, 84-85, Mortenson, a YEC, suggests Intelligent Design arguments like Paleys often neglect to factor in the fall.

98

201017867

23

and ongoing process.102 The movement also lacks credibility scientifically and philosophically.103

Carson (2007) acknowledges these shortcomings but sees ID as the philosophical antithesis to naturalism.104 Beckwith (2010), while sharing God-of-the-gaps concerns, suggests criticism from Christians within the scientific community rest on too narrow a definition of the theory. 105 ID proponents must ensure they present a consistent message that God is behind nature in what we can explain naturally and what we cannot.106 Plantinga (1991) suggests Christians engaging in the scientific process must explicitly reject understanding their work as the product of methodological naturalism, lest that become provisional atheism.107

Its only natural: Natural Theology as a hermeneutic for general revelation? A better hermeneutic for understanding both books of revelation and how they relate is clearly required. The titular dichotomy was dismissed because rather than considering science and theology as NOMA we must understand the intricate relationship between the two that is more complex than a neat dichotomy allows.
R.J Berry, Eden and Ecology: Evolution and Eschatology, 24-25, This dialectical process and pattern approach is advocated by Polkinhorne as a more theologically appropriate solution for avoiding God-of-the-Gaps. 103 S.B Stratton, Genesis after the Origin: Theological Responses to Evolution, Word & World, Vol 29.1, Winter 2009, 7-18, 11-13, makes a compelling case against the watchmaker God proposed by Intelligent Design advocates suggesting the model is a form of creationism by stealth that limits Gods ability to act creatively. 104 D. Carson, The SBJT Forum: In the Beginning... Southern Baptist Theological Journal, Vol. 6, Spring 2007, 78-90 105 F.J Beckwith, Intelligent Design, Thomas Aquinas, and the Ubiquity of Final Causes, The Biologos Foundation, 1-10, retrieved 7 June 2011, from www.BioLogos.org/projects/scholaressays, esp 6-7 106 R.D Holder, Science And Religion In The Theology Of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 118. The argument that particular elements of the world are irreducibly complex and thus infers a designer only really holds to as yet unexplained phenomena. 107 A. Plantinga, Evolution, Neutrality, and Antecedent Probability: a Reply to Van Til and McMullen, Christian Scholars Review, XXI, 1 (September 1991), 80-109

102

201017867

24

NT should not be confused with a theology of nature,108 which is a doctrinal approach to creation on a Biblical basis.109 NT is the study of God through the material world.110 Further, it is the presupposition that God can be observed in nature and thus belief in God is evidentially defensible.111 Thomas Aquinas championed pre-enlightenment knowledge of God through observations of order in creation.112

NT shares the limitations of natural revelation, in that it does not deal with the saving work of Jesus.113 Some suggest this is reason enough to avoid NT altogether.114 Calvin saw NTs function as limited to apologetics,115 because while natures testimony to a creator convicts humanity of sin (Romans 1),

Though these are all related. See for a discussion of the relationship from the perspectives of Augustine, Calvin, and Luther, S. Toulmin, Nature and Natures God, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 13, No. 1, (Spring, 1985), 37-52 109 R.J Berry, Eden and Ecology, 19, this is a reason to reject theistic evolution, Reflecting on this scientific and theological history highlights the distinctions between natural law, natural theology and what may be called a theology of nature. They are very different. Colin Gunton has defined natural law and natural theology as rational constructs, while a theology of nature is the gift of biblical revelation, for it teaches us that the unity of things is upheld neither by the formal causality of the Greeks nor by the supposed omnipotence of human reason, but by the incarnate Lord whose work on earth was achieved in the power of the Spirit and in weakness 110 A.E. McGrath, Natural Theology: Finding God in Nature, Revelation, Science and Religion: An Introduction, (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 1999), 128, 133 111 A.E McGrath, Natural Theology, 112 M.L Peterson, C. S. Lewis on Evolution and Intelligent Design, 255, Aquinas, Summa Theologia, 1:32:1, P. Helm, John Calvin's Ideas, 210 suggests that natural theology was not the basis of Aquinas belief, but the result, and that we read our own definition of natural theology into the thoughts and writings of pre-enlightenment thinkers at our peril. He suggests natural theology takes a different shape pre- and post-enlightenment where it is not necessary for the faith as modern evidentialists suggest, but is a result of faith seeking understanding. 113 This understanding is the opening statement of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1.1 114 A. Moore, Should Christians do Natural Theology, Scottish Journal of Theology, 63 (2), (2010), 127145, 143-145, Moores thesis is that natural theology is an attempt to intellectually justify the intellectually unjustifiable to avoid ridicule, that natural theology begets deism, and that the Christians focus should almost exclusively be on special revelation. 115 P. Helm, John Calvin's Ideas, 218, "One possible conclusion is that Calvin thought that natural theology was possible but not necessary for ab initio knowledge of God, but that it was sometimes usable as an apologetic tactic in the way that, he might argue, Paul used it at the Areopagus."

108

201017867

25

special revelation is required for salvation.116 He believed the noetic effect of sin severely impaired our ability to observe the world, thus the conclusions of such thinking are likely self-seeking and flawed,117 the Holy Spirit is required to redress this and turn revelation from nature into true knowledge of God from scripture.118 Arguments on the basis of the authority of the reformers are somewhat ironic given rejection of authority spurred the Reformation, and are dangerously anachronistic.119 The need to establish an evidentiary case for God from creation was almost non-existent in Calvins day, so its absence in his writing is hardly surprising.120

In the 20th century, Emil Brunner viewed NT as occupying a pivotal place in a doctrine of creation.121 He held that the noetic effect of sin greatly affected our ability to think theologically, but not scientifically,122 and that through natural revelation we could learn about Gods nature through our own imago dei, and thus recognition of our sinfulness would establish our guilt before God, and

P. Helm, John Calvin's Ideas, 215-218, The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1.1 Opens with this exact sentiment, Although the light 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, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased. 117 P. Helm, John Calvin's Ideas, 238-239, A. Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), Questia, Web, retrieved 29 May 2011, 205, 207, suggests Calvin recognised the fall damaged both our sensus divinitatis and our ability to observe the world. 118 P. Helm, John Calvins Ideas, 238-239, A. Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 281-282 119 A. Moore, Should Christians do Natural Theology, Scottish Journal of Theology, 63 (2), (2010), 127145, 137 120 P. Helm, John Calvin's Ideas, 219-222, Helm suggests a Calvin made some off topic remarks about the possibility of inferring God from creation, and the case for God was not rejected as a matter of course in his day, and that Calvin saw natural theology was possible but not necessary. 121 A.E McGrath, Natural Theology, 129 122 S.K Moroney, The Noetic Effects of Sin: A Historical and Contemporary Exploration of How Sin Effects Our Thinking, (Lanham, Lexington Books, 2000) 31-33

116

201017867 lead us to special revelation.123 In 1934, Karl Barth and the neo-orthodox movement responded angrily to Brunner, dismissing NT,124 and any relationship between science and revelation.125 For Barth, and later Bonhoeffer, to be concerned with matters of NT or science was to be distracted from the revelation of God.126 While Barth rightly identifies the pivotal place of special revelation in understanding the world, he also prematurely hammered a nail into the NT coffin.127

26

The alternative pole of German theological thought, Bultmanns demythologising approach, is essentially committed to naturalism proper.128 Pannenberg (1993) offered a useful corrective to Barths view within a neo-orthodox framework, suggesting that right understandings of God and creation cannot be separated.129 Barths opposition to NT seems to be driven
123 124

A.E McGrath, Natural Theology, 128-130 A.E McGrath, Natural Theology, 129-130, Barth and Brunners friendship essentially ended over this issue. 125 K. Barth, Letter to Christine, cited in R.C Johnson, Legacy of Karl Barth, Karl Barth and the future of theology; a memorial colloquium, Ed. D.L Dickerman, (New Haven: Yale Divinity School Association, 1969), 4, one can as little compare the biblical creation story and a scientific theory like that of evolution as one can compare, shall we say, an organ and a vacuum-cleaner. The theory of evolution deals with what has become, as it appears to human observation and research and as it invites human interpretation Thus one's attitude to the creation story and the theory of evolution can take the form of an either/or only if one shuts oneself off completely from faith in God's revelation or from the mind (or opportunity) for scientific understanding. 126 R.D Holder, Science And Religion In The Theology Of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Zygon, vol. 44, no. 1 (March 2009), 115-132, 129-131 127 R.J Berry, Eden and Ecology, 18, Suggests that while Darwins discoveries made natural theology as a proof for God difficult, Barth made it impossible. 128 R. L. Harris, The Bible and Cosmology, Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, 5.1 (March 1962), 11-17, 11-13, in dismissing odd three-tiered views of the Bibles cosmology Harris wants to avoid seeking refuge in some neo-orthodox mysticism or Bultmannian demythologisation, these were the two emerging views in the mid 20th century. Suggestions that this three-tiered cosmology was in any way Biblical have been dismissed by Jewish interpreters and historians, see Rabbi L. Jacobs, Jewish Cosmology, Ancient cosmologies. Ed. Carmen Blacker & Michael Loewe. (London, George Allen & Unwin, 1975), 66-86, he suggests that modern Jewish exegetes have no problems with evolution (80) and that the physical universe is to be investigated by science, for more support of the view that the idea of a cosmology with a physical heaven as the dwelling place of God is not supported by the Biblical text see D.K Innes, Heaven and Sky in the Old Testament, The Evangelical Quarterly, 43.3, (July-Sept, 1971), 144-148 129 W. Pannenberg, Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith (WJKP, 1993), 16, If the God of the Bible is the creator of the universe, then it is not possible to understand fully or even appropriately the processes of nature without any reference to that God. If, on the contrary, nature can

201017867 by opposition to our dichotomous problem, which is a well-founded

27

objection. But by rejecting the dichotomy outright he essentially reinforces the NOMA view it proposes. A more integrated approach is required.

Other contemporary thinkers dismissed the Barthian view. C.S Lewis, one of the 20th centurys leading apologists, opposed naturalism but not evolution,130 with the Augustinian catchcry All Truth is Gods Truth.131 He articulated cosmological, teleological and moral arguments for God, along with his own argument from desire. 132 His approach has been embraced and developed by other apologists, especially in William Lane Craigs five arguments for God,133 and by Alvin Plantinga.134 Apologetic use of natural theology has a Biblical precedent, Paul used natural theology apologetically at the Areopagus.135

Berry (2007) proposes four elements of natural theology. 1. The view that God is transcendent and immanent (Psalm 104:27-30, Col 1:17, Heb 1:3) 2. The belief that scientific and religious accounts of the world are incapable of conflicting, and failures to reconcile the two come as a result of bad science or bad exegesis.
be appropriately understood without reference to the God of the Bible, then that God cannot be the creator of the universe, and consequently he cannot be truly God. 130 M.L Peterson, C. S. Lewis on Evolution and Intelligent Design, 260 131 M.L Peterson, C. S. Lewis on Evolution and Intelligent Design, 262 132 M.L Peterson, C. S. Lewis on Evolution and Intelligent Design, 254 133 W.L Craig, Five Arguments for God, Christ on Campus Initiative, The Gospel Coalition, digital edition, retrieved 6 June 2011 from http://tgcdocuments.s3.amazonaws.com/cci/Craig.pdf 134 A. E. McGrath, Science and Religion: A New Introduction (2nd ed.; West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing, 2010), 110-8, Plantinga suggests that while such arguments are based on flawed theological presuppositions, they play an important role in confirming and defending Christian belief. 135 B.W Winter, On Introducing New Gods to Athens: An Alternative Reading of Acts 17:1820, Tyndale Bulletin 47.1 (May, 1996) 71-90, 89

201017867 3. Scientific knowledge is a provisional best explanation of the world and our theological best explanation should not inhibit scientific investigation. 4. We should display a sense of awe and wonder at Gods work, but remember that our role is to participate in bringing it to order.136

28

We would, with the reformers, add a further point, that natural theology is useful for apologetics and evangelism, but special revelation is required for such to be of value.

Science and theology must go hand-in-hand as an approach to understanding creation and revelation, 137 but the relationship is complex and Scripture as special revelation must maintain the ascendancy.

A Christ-Centred Hermeneutic for Special Revelation We should not impose preconceived ideas about science and historicity upon the Biblical text.138 Genesis, in its account of Gods creative act, provides the basis for our doctrine of creation, a doctrine that underpins Gods relationship with the world and culminates with the work of Jesus (Colossians 1:16-17).139

R.J Berry, Eden and Ecology: Evolution and Eschatology, 22-23 A. Plantinga, When Faith and Reason Clash, 29, advocates such a solution where science and theology are integrated in an interdisciplinary sense. 138 On the anachronistic tendency to impose western categories of historical truth upon the Biblical text see J.H Sailhamer, Johann August Ernesti: The Role Of History In Biblical Interpretation, JETS 44/2 (June 2001) 193-206, Sailhamer suggests our interpretation must first be based on the words of the text (including considerations of form, purpose and genre that we learn from history), not on the external assumptions we bring. 139 For a discussion of the development of the doctrine of creation alongside the development of scientific thought see H. D. McDonald, The Idea of Creation in Historical Perspective, Vox Evangelica 5 (1967): 27- 48.
137

136

201017867 Following Calvin we suggest that appropriate Christian hermeneutics must begin with Christ.140

29

Greidanus (1999) outlines Calvins hermeneutical method, suggesting the Reformer employed ten exegetical tools including clarity and brevity, author intention, historical context, original grammatical meaning, literary context, meaning beyond the literal, figures of speech, the scope of Christ, the relationship between Old and New Testament, and understanding the passages position in the context of the Bible.141 For Calvin, an Old Testament passage finds its end in Christ,142 and the work of Christ must be interpreted on the basis of the Old Testament history.143 He balances the historical understanding of the text with this Christological understanding.144

It is an interpretive mistake not to consider genre, historical context, and rhetorical purpose when assessing any text. Insisting on a plain meaning without demonstrating that such a reading is preferable is both poor hermeneutics and the imposition of an anachronistic and secular method of interpretation upon a sacred text.145 Proper exegesis of the text should keep
140

Contra J. McArthur, Creation: Believe it or Not, 31, The starting point for Christianity is not Matthew 1:1 but Genesis 1:1. J. Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis, tr. John King ( Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847); reprinted by Baker Book House ( Grand Rapids, 1979). "As soon as ever we depart from Christ, there is nothing, be it ever so gross or insignificant in itself, respecting which we are not necessarily deceived." cited in Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) 217, Questia, Web, 29 May 2011 141 S. Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1999), 128-132, building on H-J, Kraus, Calvins exegetical principles. Interpretation 31, no. 1 (January 1, 1977): 8-18. 142 A. E. McGrath, Reformation Thought, 275 suggests this is one point at which Calvin shifts debate over the relationship between faith and science away from strict literalism. 143 S. Edmonson, Christ And History: Hermeneutical Convergence In Calvin And Its Challenge To Biblical Theology, Modern Theology 21:1, January, 2005, 3-35, 25 144 S. Edmonson, Christ And History: Hermeneutical Convergence, 1-4, This means not that the text must be understood as historical, but as it would historically have been understood. 145 C. Hyers, The Narrative Form of Genesis One, 214, M. Noll, Evangelicals, Creation, and Scripture: An Overview, BioLogos Foundation, (2009), 1-13, retrieved 8 June 2011,

201017867

30

scholars from imposing theological systems on texts that cannot bear that particular weight.146 Interpreting the creation account is thus a question of establishing an appropriate hermeneutical framework.147

Creating our titular dichotomy might provide a neat solution but it imposes an alien authority upon the scriptures, general revelation should not guide our interpretation of the Bible.148 Scripture is about Jesus. On this point the Reformers guide our approach.149 Sadly, Weeks (1968) whose arguments bring us to this point, insists on a literal reading of the Biblical text,150 rather than a Christological reading of the Biblical text, which is consistent with Scriptures internal testimony. We must begin and end the task of understanding Genesis with Jesus. 151

If theres one lesson we learn from the approach the New Atheists and YEC movement takes to the text it is that Genesis must be interpreted in context,152

www.BioLogos.org/projects/scholar-essays suggests such a methodology emerges from an American political background and a commitment to pre-millennial eschatology. There are many similarities in hermeneutical method between YEC and Pre-millennial readings of Genesis and Revelation respectively. 146 P. House, Creation in Old Testament Theology, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Fall, 2001, 4-17, 5 147 N. Weeks, The Hermeneutical Problem of Genesis 1-11, 13 148 N. Weeks, The Hermeneutical Problem of Genesis 1-11, 13-14 149 On a Christ centred approach to reading the Scriptures see V.S Poythress, Divine Meaning of Scripture, Westminster Theological Journal, 48, (1986), 241-279 150 N. Weeks, The Hermeneutical Problem of Genesis 1-11, 19 151 E. Brunner, Dogmatics: Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption v.2. Trans. O. Wyon, (London: Lutterworth Press, 1995), 6, Unfortunately the Christian Doctrine of Creation and the Creator is continually being obscured by the face that theologians are so reluctant to begin their work with the New Testament; when they want to deal with the Creation they tend to being with the Old Testament, although they never do this when they are speaking of the Redeemer. The emphasis on the story of Creation at the beginning of the Bible has constantly led theologians to forsake the rule which they would otherwise follow, namely, that the basis of all Christian articles of faith is the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. 152 C. E. Hummel, Interpreting Genesis One, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 38.3 (1986) 175-85, 175

201017867

31

including authorial intention, position within the book of Genesis,153 historical context,154 and its literary form.155 But our interpretation cant simply be limited to grammatico-historical exegesis, which only serves to emphasise the human element, it must also consider the theological significance of an inspired text,156 and we suggest, most importantly, its Christological sense. Within the Bibles salvation narrative the creation account charts a move from chaos to cosmos,157 culminating as other ANE cosmogonies do in the creation of a people.158

It is a mistake to reduce the creation narratives into categories of pure science or pure theology, instead they should be understood as proclaiming Gods decisive covenantal relationship with creation and his people.159

This view is the product of a doctrine of scripture that sees God as author of both Old and New Testaments, writing both with a unified purpose,160 and a doctrine of creation that culminates in every knee bowing to Jesus
R.S Hess, Genesis 1-2 in its Literary Context, Tyndale Bulletin 41.1 (1990) 143-153 proposes a unified reading of Genesis 1-11 where the two creation accounts operate together in parallel with pairs of genealogical accounts. 154 T. Longman, How to Read Genesis (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2005). 155 C. Hyers, The Narrative Form of Genesis One, Cosmogenic, Yes; Scientific, No, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 36.4 (1984) 208-15 156 V.S Poythress, Divine Meaning of Scripture, Westminster Theological Journal, 48, (1986), 241-279, 277-9 157 C. Hyers, The Narrative Form of Genesis One, Cosmogenic, Yes; Scientific, No, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 36.4 (1984) 208-15 158 R.J Clifford, The Hebrew Scriptures and the Theology of Creation, 520-522 159 W. Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation Commentary, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 16-17, The text, then, is a proclamation of covenanting as the shape of reality.... This theological affirmation permits every scientific view that is genuinely scientific and not a theological claim in disguise. H.P Nebelsick, God, Creation, Salvation, and Modern Science, 82-84, S. Edmonson, Christ And History: Hermeneutical Convergence In Calvin, 46, Calvin believed that any Old Testament passage must be understood relative to Gods covenant relationship with humanity and must point us to Gods plan of salvation in Christ. Also E.H Merrill, Covenant And The Kingdom: Genesis 1-3 As Foundation For Biblical Theology, Criswell Theological Review 1.2 (1987) 295-308 160 S. Edmonson, Christ And History: Hermeneutical Convergence In Calvin, 15
153

201017867 (Philippians 2:6-11). The opening chapters of Genesis underpins (with

32

Romans 8) a Christian theology of nature.161 And instates the mandate to rest one day in seven.162

The YEC tends to look at anything but a literal reading as bringing an external corruption to the text. Suggesting the text should be read at face value. This is a hermeneutic that must be justified beyond because it says so.163 They repudiate any old earth position in a divisive manner.164 While Answers In Genesis is off the reservation, Biologos has sold the family farm to feuding neighbours. Though it is possible to hold to either position and affirm a strong doctrine of creation.165

Both sides can and do affirm the following truths albeit with different emphases and hermeneutical convictions.166 God the creator is the same God who sustains the earth (Psalm 93), rules it with care (Job 42), and relates to his creation, and specifically mankind (Gen 1:26-27, Isaiah 45) individually (Psalm 139:13-14), at his pleasure (Jeremiah 27:5), through his covenant which was established before time (Psalm 90), his status as sole (monotheistic)
161

P. Harrison, Subduing the Earth: Genesis 1, Early Modern Science, and the Exploitation of Nature, The Journal of Religion, 86-109, Including the way we view environmental concerns. 162 E.J Young, The Days of Genesis: Second Article, Westminster Theological Journal, Vol 25. 1962-63, 143-171, 143-145 163 J. McArthur, Creation: Believe it or Not, 11, 12, 20, Evangelicals who accept an old-earth interpretation of Genesis have embraced a hermeneutic that is hostile to a high view of Scripture. They are bringing to the opening chapters of Scripture a method of biblical interpretation that has built- in anti-evangelical presuppositions. 164 T. Mortenson, Orthodoxy and Genesis: What the fathers really taught A review of Genesis, Creation and Early Man, TJ (now Journal of Creation), 16(3), (December 2002), 4853, retrieved 7 June 2011, http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i3/orthodoxy.asp 165 R.C Bishop, Recovering the Doctrine of Creation: A Theological Worldview of Science, The Biologos Foundation, (2010) 1-10, retrieved 7 June 2011, from www.BioLogos.org/projects/scholar-essays 166 While both sides of the debate are increasingly engaging in discouraging ad hominem attacks on the other it is the young earth creationist camp that is most disparaging of the position held by the other.

201017867

33

creator makes him worthy of trust (Isaiah 48) and worship (Psalm 146:5-6).167 The world owes its existence to God and was created and prepared by his word and through his son (Hebrews 1:2-3, 11:3).168 A doctrine of God the Creator is foundational for understanding Gods providential relationship with his creation (Revelation 4:11),169 and the motivation for his revelation (both special and general). It is thus inappropriate to speak of a dichotomy between who and why and what and when in order to understand this relationship. The answers to these questions are intrinsically linked and must ultimately lead us to the work of Jesus, about whom all scriptures testify (John 1:43-45, 5:39-47; 8:39-47, 56-58, 20:31, Acts 3:18, Acts 17:2-3, 2 Tim 3:1415,1 Pet 1:10-12, Rom 1:1-3, 16:25-27, Luke 24:25-27 & 44-46).

Conclusion Science and religion are not in conflict. Reading the Bible as science is a poor hermeneutic. 170 The dichotomy between God as creator and God as revealer is inappropriate because God is revealed, albeit in different ways, through creation, the Son, Scripture, and the Spirit. Science, as a form of natural theology, can answer questions of who, and when, and how. But it cannot begin to answer the why, for that question we special revelation.

There is no neat dichotomy between God the Creator and God the revealer, but an overlap. It is not a matter of NOMA, but HMAO (How the Magisterum Overlap). How are these questions answered Scripture and in
C. E. Hummel, Interpreting Genesis One, 183, P. House, Creation in Old Testament Theology, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Fall, 2001, 4-17 168 P. House, Creation in Old Testament Theology, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Fall, 2001, 4-17 169 C. E. Hummel, Interpreting Genesis One, 184 170 Those of a more neo-orthodox bent suggest that such a literal hermeneutic fails to allow God to work through the text and our emotions, see R.H Elliot, A Word About Controversy: Science and Religion, Review and Expositor, 103, Spring 2006, 301-304
167

201017867

34

Jesus? And how much bearing should general revelation have on the way we approach the Bible. While the scientific method is the best and most valid tool for exegeting natural revelation it is a mistake to turn this tool into a hermeneutical framework.

From a Christian perspective we also run into trouble if we allow scientific ideas to set the agenda in understanding special revelation either the Bible or the earthly life of Jesus.171 Scientific consensus is a movable feast, so building theologies or doctrines on scientific conclusions is like building ones house upon the sand, the rains come down, and the floods come up, or the tides of scientific thought turn and the house crumbles and washes away.172

Doctrines built on scientific consensus from any point in history would, and do, look ridiculous with the benefit of hindsight.173 Such consensus is subject to change as science continues to search for the best and most accurate explanation of the world around us.174 While recognising the strengths of the scientific method as it observes the physical world, we must also be
A. McGrath, Scientific Theology: Vol 2: Reality, (Sheffield, T&T Clark, 2002) 201. Rather than committing itself to any particular world-view, Christian theology should use or appropriate as many world-views and forms of language as are appropriate to explicate the truth of Gods Word without allowing itself to enter into a relation of independence on them 172 C. E. Hummel, Interpreting Genesis One, 185, harmonizing the message with "modern science" guarantees a failure when current scientific theory is revised or discarded. During the last two centuries, that pattern has been evident in the continual efforts of harmonizers to keep abreast of rapidly changing scientific views. The credibility of the Bible is not enhanced by thrusting it into the scramble of catch-up in a game it was never intended to play. What is the point of trying to correlate the ultimate truths of Scripture with the ever-changing theories of science. 173 E.J Young, The Days of Genesis, 168, If the church fathers had insisted that Genesis one conform to the science of their day, how tragic the result would have been. Young suggests that Genesis is not interested in the age of the earth, but that the earth was created by Gods command and will. 174 M.L VandenBerg, What General Revelation Does (and Does Not) Tell Us, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 62, Number 1, March 2010, 16-24, 22, warns against both uncritical rejection of science and uncritical acceptance of its conclusions, Theologians should remember this primary purpose of theology as they exegete texts that seem to conflict with the findings of science. They should neither be too eager to reinterpret the Bible in order to make sense of the latest scientific data, nor too eager to disregard the findings of science in order to make sense of certain biblical texts. Rather, they should read with excitement the latest results of scientific inquiry.
171

201017867 suspicious of the agendas, presuppositions, and philosophical bias of elements of the scientific community. Scientific objectivity is a myth.175

35

While there is no necessary conflict between science and the Bible it is wrongheaded to cede ground to science that it should not occupy. Christian thinkers would be wise to adopt the view of our scientific forefathers seeing the scientific process as a method for marveling in the wondrous complexity of Gods creation (Psalm 8:1-9, 19:1), and such complexity as an avenue for apologetics and evangelism, but we must especially avoid the tendency to allow science to guide our interpretation of Scripture.176 Doctrines and interpretation of Biblical revelation must be built on the foundation of the work and person of our Lord Jesus Christ. 177

A. Plantinga, When Faith and Reason Clash, 28-30, K. Nurnberger, Martin Luthers Experiential Theology As A Model For Faith-Science Relationships, Zygon, vol. 45, no. 1 (March 2010), 127-148, 147, there is no value free science 176 T. Larson, War Is Over, If You Want It: Beyond the Conflict between Faith and Science, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 60, Number 3, September 2008, 147-155, 153, attempts to articulate such an integration between science and faith suggesting that science plays some role in helping us to define the essentials of the faith, but that we also need to be careful not to uncritically accept scientific conclusions. A. Plantinga, When Faith and Reason Clash, 10-13, urges caution argues that both our understanding of Scripture and our understanding of science are subject to our fallibility. 177 G. C Aalders, Aalders on Genesis 1 and 2, 164

175

201017867
Bibliography G. C Aalders, Aalders on Genesis 1 and 2: A Translation, trans. A. Wolters, Calvin Theological Journal, 26 no 1 Ap 1991, 155-164

36

D. Alexander, How Does a BioLogos Model Need to Address the Theological Issues Associated with an Adam Who Was Not the Sole Genetic Progenitor of Humankind?, The Biologos Foundation, 1-9, retrieved 7 June 2011, from www.BioLogos.org/projects/scholar-essays E.W Barnes, The Reformation and the Scientific Movement of To-day, The Modern Churchman, 22 no 5-7, (Aug-Oct 1932), 344-358 F.J Beckwith, Intelligent Design, Thomas Aquinas, and the Ubiquity of Final Causes, The Biologos Foundation, (2010) 1-10, retrieved 7 June 2011, from www.BioLogos.org/projects/scholar-essays R.C Bishop, Recovering the Doctrine of Creation: A Theological Worldview of Science, The Biologos Foundation, (2010) 1-10, retrieved 7 June 2011, from www.BioLogos.org/projects/scholar-essays Pope Benedict XVI, Scientific Insight into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 2008, retrieved 7 June 2011, http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16pontacsci.htm R.J Berry, Eden and Ecology: Evolution and Eschatology, Science and Christian Belief, 19, (2007), 15-35 L.E Bothwell, Genesis meets the Big Bang and Evolution, Absent Design, Crosscurrents, Spring 2007, 10-17 W. Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation Commentary, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982) E. Brunner, Dogmatics: Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption v.2. (Trans. Olive Wyon.; London: Lutterworth Press, 1995) J.Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms, 93:1, retrieved 8 June, http://christianbookshelf.org/calvin/commentary_on_psalms_volume_4/psalm_93 _1-2.htm D. Carson, The SBJT Forum: In the Beginning... Southern Baptist Theological Journal, Vol. 6, Spring 2007, 78-90 R.J Clifford, The Hebrew Scriptures and the Theology of Creation, Theological Studies, 46 no 3 (S 1985), 507-523 C. J. Collins, Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why it Matters, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, 62.3 (2010), 147-165 C.J Collins, Did Adam and Eve Exist, Who They Were? And Why Should You Care, (Wheaton, Crossway, 2011) W.L Craig, Five Arguments for God, Christ on Campus Initiative, The Gospel Coalition, digital edition, retrieved 6 June 2011 from http://tgcdocuments.s3.amazonaws.com/cci/Craig.pdf

201017867
R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design, (New York, W.W Norton, 1996)

37

A.C Dulles, The Deist Minimum, First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, Issue 149, (Jan 2005), 25-30 S. Edmonson, Christ And History: Hermeneutical Convergence In Calvin And Its Challenge To Biblical Theology, Modern Theology 21:1, January, 2005, 3-35 A. Einstein, The World as I See It, (Philosophical Library, New York, 1949) A. Einstein, Science and Religion, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A 1934 Symposium, (Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc, New York, 1941), digital reprint, http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm, retrieved on 6 June 2011 P. Elbert, Genesis 1 and the Spirit: A Narrative-Rhetorical Ancient Near Eastern Reading In Light Of Modern Science, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15.1 (2006), 23-72 R.H Elliot, A Word About Controversy: Science and Religion, Review and Expositor, 103, Spring 2006, 301-304 P. Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 2005) P. Enns, Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Bible: Moving Toward a Synthesis, The BioLogos Foundation, retrieved 7 June 2011, www.BioLogos.org/projects/scholaressays, 1-11 K. Giberson, Adventist Origins of Young Earth Creationism, BioLogos Foundation, 1-6, retrieved 5 June 2011, http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Gibersonscholarly-essay-1.pdf C. Ginzburg, The Letter Kills: On Some Implications Of 2 Corinthians 3:6, History and Theory 49 (February 2010), 71-89 S.J. Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," Natural History 106 (March 1997): 16-22, accessed 7 June, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html C. Gousmett, Creation Order and Miracle According to Augustine, The Evangelical Quarterly 60.3 (July 1988): 217-240. S. Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1999) K. Ham, The necessity for believing in six literal days, Creation 18(1), (December 1995), 3841 http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/sixdays.asp P. Harrison, The Bible and the Emergence of Modern Science, Science & Christian Belief (2006), 18, 115132 P. Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science, Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2, (2009), 155-162 P. Harrison, Newtonian Science, Miracles, and the Laws of Nature, Journal of the History of Ideas, 56, (1995), 531-553

201017867

38

G. F. Hasel, The "Days" Of Creation In Genesis 1: Literal "Days" Or Figurative "Periods / Epochs" Of Time?,Origins 21(1), (1994), 5-38 retrieved 7 June 2011, http://www.ldolphin.org/haseldays.html D.C Harlow, After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 62, Number 3, September 2010, 179195 R. L. Harris, The Bible and Cosmology, Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, 5.1 (March 1962), 11-17 P. Harrison, Laws of Nature, Moral Order, and the Intelligibility of the Cosmos, The Astronomy Revolution 400 Years of Exploring the Cosmos, Edited by Donald G. York, Owen Gingerich, Shuang-Nan Zhang, (London: Taylor & Francis, Forthcoming October 10th 2011), retrieved 29 May 2011, http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/projects/orderProject/documents/Publications/H arrisonLawsofNature.pdf P. Harrison, Subduing the Earth: Genesis 1, Early Modern Science, and the Exploitation of Nature, The Journal of Religion, 86-109 R.D Holder, Science And Religion In The Theology Of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Zygon, vol. 44, no. 1 (March 2009), 115-132 P. Helm, John Calvin's Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), Digital Edition from Questia, Web, 29 May 2011 P. Helm, Eternal Creation, Tyndale Bulletin 45.2 (1994), 321-338. R.S Hess, Genesis 1-2 in its Literary Context, Tyndale Bulletin 41.1 (1990) 143-153. P. House, Creation in Old Testament Theology, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Fall, 2001, 4-17 C.E Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts Between Science and the Bible, (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 1986) C. E. Hummel, Interpreting Genesis One, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 38.3 (1986) 175-85 C. Hyers, The Narrative Form of Genesis One, Cosmogenic, Yes; Scientific, No, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 36.4 (1984) 208-15 D.K Innes, Heaven and Sky in the Old Testament, The Evangelical Quarterly, 43.3, (July-Sept, 1971), 144-148 L. Irons, and M. G. Kline, The Framework View, The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, ed. D.G Hagopian, (Mission Viejo, Cruxpress, 2001) Rabbi L. Jacobs, Jewish Cosmology, Ancient cosmologies, Ed. C. Blacker & M. Loewe. (London, George Allen & Unwin, 1975), 66-86 L. Jantti, Proleptic Creation, Studia Theologica, 60 (2006), 186-206 R.C Johnson, Legacy of Karl Barth, Karl Barth and the future of theology; a memorial colloquium, Ed. D.L Dickerman, (New Haven: Yale Divinity School Association, 1969)

201017867

39

H-J, Kraus, Calvins exegetical principles. Interpretation 31, no. 1 (January 1, 1977): 8-18. T. Larson, War Is Over, If You Want It: Beyond the Conflict between Faith and Science, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 60, Number 3, (September 2008), 147-155 L. Lavallee, Augustine on the Creation Days, JETS, 32/4, (December 1989), 457-464 R. Letham, In the Space of Six Days: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly, Westminster Theological Journal, 61 (1999), 149-174 J.P. Lewis, The Days of Creation: An Historical Survey of Interpretation, JETS, 32/4 (December 1989), 433-455 T. Longman, How to Read Genesis (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2005). S. Manzo, Francis Bacon: Freedom, Authority And Science, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 14(2) (2006), 245 273 R.V McCabe, A Defense of Literal Days in the Creation Week,, DBSJ 5 (Fall 2000), 97123 J. McArthur, Creation: Believe it or Not, TMSJ 13/1 (Spring 2002) 5-32 H. D. McDonald, The Idea of Creation in Historical Perspective, Vox Evangelica 5 (1967): 27- 48. A.E McGrath, Augustines Origin of Species, Christianity Today, August 2009, retrieved 9 June 2011, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html A. E. McGrath, Scientific Theology: Vol 2: Reality, (Sheffield, T&T Clark, 2002) A. E. McGrath, Science and Religion: An Introduction, (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 1999) A. E. McGrath, Science and Religion: A New Introduction (2nd ed.; West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing, 2010) A. E. McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1999, Third Edition) S.A McKnight, Religion And Francis Bacons Scientific Utopianism, Zygon Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 42 Issue 2, (Jun 2007), 463-486 E.H Merrill, Covenant And The Kingdom: Genesis 1-3 As Foundation For Biblical Theology, Criswell Theological Review 1.2 (1987) 295-308 A. Moore, Should Christians do Natural Theology, Scottish Journal of Theology, 63 (2), (2010), 127145 S.K Moroney, The Noetic Effects of Sin: A Historical and Contemporary Exploration of How Sin Effects Our Thinking, (Lanham, Lexington Books, 2000) H.M Morris, Men of Science, Men of God: Great Scientists of the Past Who Believed the Bible, (Green Forest, Master Books, 1988)

201017867

40

T. Mortenson, Orthodoxy and Genesis: What the fathers really taught A review of Genesis, Creation and Early Man, TJ (now Journal of Creation), 16(3), (December 2002), 4853, retrieved 7 June 2011, http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i3/orthodoxy.asp T. Mortenson, Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth, TMSJ 15/1 (Spring 2004) 71-92 T. Mortenson, Jesus, Evangelical Scholars, and the Age of the Earth, TMSJ 18/1 (Spring 2007) 69-99 H.P Nebelsick, God, Creation, Salvation, and Modern Science, Horizons in Biblical Theology, Volume 9, Number 2, (1987), 79-103 M. Noll, Evangelicals, Creation, and Scripture: An Overview, BioLogos Foundation, (2009), 1-13, retrieved 8 June 2011, www.BioLogos.org/projects/scholar-essays K. Nurnberger, Martin Luthers Experiential Theology As A Model For Faith-Science Relationships, Zygon, vol. 45, no. 1 (March 2010), 127-148 W. Pannenberg, Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith, (WJKP, 1993) M.L Peterson, C. S. Lewis on Evolution and Intelligent Design, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 62, Number 4, December 2010, 253-266 A. Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), Questia, Web, retrieved 29 May 2011. A. Plantinga, When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible, Christian Scholars Review, XXI: 1, (September 1991), 8-33 A. Plantinga, Evolution, Neutrality, and Antecedent Probability: a Reply to Van Til and McMullen, Christian Scholars Review, XXI, 1 (September 1991), 80-109 J. Polkinghorne, Scripture and an Evolving Creation, Science and Christian Belief, 21, (2009), 163-173 V.S Poythress, Divine Meaning of Scripture, Westminster Theological Journal, 48, (1986), 241-279 H. Ross and G. L. Archer, The Day Age View, The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, ed. D.G Hagopian, (Mission Viejo, Cruxpress, 2001) J.H Sailhamer, Johann August Ernesti: The Role Of History In Biblical Interpretation, JETS 44/2 (June 2001) 193-206 H. Sasse, Inspiration and inerrancy--some preliminary thoughts, Concordia Journal 36 no 2 (Spr 2010), 107-119 D. Shatz, Is There Science in the Bible? An Assessment of Biblical Concordism, Tradition, 41.2, (2008), 198-244 R. Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism, Led to Reformations, Science, Witchhunts, and the End of Slavery, (Oxfordshire, Princeton University Press, 2003)

201017867

41

R. Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, (New York, Random House, 2005, Kindle Edition) S.B Stratton, Genesis after the Origin: Theological Responses to Evolution, Word & World, Vol 29.1, (Winter 2009), 7-18 S. Toulmin, Nature and Natures God, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 13, No. 1, (Spring, 1985), 37-52 M.L VandenBerg, What General Revelation Does (and Does Not) Tell Us, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 62, Number 1, (March 2010), 16-24 P. M. Van Bemmelen, Divine Accommodation and Biblical Creation: Calvin vs. McGrath, Andrews University Seminary Studies,VoI. 39, No. 1, (Spring 2001), 109-116 B.B Warfield, Calvins Doctrine of the Creation, Princeton Theologial Review, Vol. xiii. (1915), 190-255, retrieved 7 June 2011, http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_calvincreation. html G. Wenham, Genesis 1-15. (WBC 1; Colombia: Word, 1991) N. Weeks, The Hermeneutical Problem of Genesis 1-11, Themelios 4.1 (Sept. 1978), 12-19 K.P Wise, What Science Teaches Us about the Age of Creation, Southern Baptist Theological Journal, 11:1, (Spring 2007), 4-15 R. White, Calvin and Copernicus: The problem reconsidered, Calvin Theological Journal, (November 1980), 233-243 D. Wilkinson, Reading Genesis 1-3 in the Light of Modern Science, Reading Genesis After Darwin, ed S.C Barton and D.W Wilkinson, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009) B.W Winter, On Introducing New Gods to Athens: An Alternative Reading of Acts 17:18-20, Tyndale Bulletin 47.1 (May, 1996) 71-90. J.D Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/Kim Proposal, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1982) H. Woods, Augustine And Evolution: A Study In The Saints De Genesi Ad Litteram And De Trinitate, (California, The Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1924) E.J Young, The Days of Genesis: Second Article, Westminster Theological Journal, Vol 25. (1962-63), 143-171 Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis. vol. 1, Ancient Christian Writers., vol. 41. Trans. J. H Taylor, (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), retrieved 8 June 2011, http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Genesis1.pdf Augustine, The City of God, Trans M. Dods, A Select Library of the Nicene and PostNicene Fathers of the Church, Ed. P. Schaff, (Kindle Edition) Augustine, On Christian Teaching, Trans. J.F Shaw, Vol 2 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church, Ed. P. Schaff, (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1993, Kindle Edition)

201017867

42

J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/books/book3/bk3ch21.html J. Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis, tr. John King ( Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847); reprinted by Baker Book House ( Grand Rapids, 1979) J.Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms, 93:1, retrieved 8 June, http://christianbookshelf.org/calvin/commentary_on_psalms_volume_4/psalm_93 _1-2.htm Westminster Confession of Faith, retrieved 8 June 2011,
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

M. Luther in J. Peliken, editor, Luther's Works, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1-5, Vol. 1 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), pp. 3, 6. C.H. Spurgeon, Election, The New Park Street Pulpit, September 2, 1855 http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0041.htm, retrieved 30 May 2011