Both science and theology are misunderstood and stigmatized. Theologians, no doubt, are painfully aware of how theology is misunderstood, and will attempt to set the record straight whenever possible.
For example, suppose I made the assertion that theology was just a bunch of crusty doctrines that stuffy men like to pour over in rooms lined with old, dusty books, and that most theology has no relevance to the lives of ordinary people.
“No, no, no!” Would be the likely response, along with exasperated hair-pulling. I would then receive a lecture along the lines of, “Theology is in fact a vibrant and living thing. It’s wonderful and mysterious, and it has everything to do with the lives of ordinary people.”
People often make the same mistake about science. Science is a soulless, intellectual process executed by men in white lab coats—eyes hidden and calculating behind spectacles. Science is a useful tool, but lacks nourishment for the soul. Science contains neither wonder nor mystery. Ordinary people don’t need to concern themselves with science.
No, no, no! But rather than try to spell it out here, I’ll leave it to the reader to examine their own possibly-stigmatized notions about science. As a side note, the title of this blog attempts to convey some of my own attitude about science and a search for truth in general.
February 13, 2007 at 12:46 pm
The word “theology” comes from two Greek words meaning “God” and “word.” Combined, the word “theology” means the “study of God.” Christian theology therefore is the study of what Christian believes the Bible teaches about God.
For the Christian, the basis of “knowledge about God” comes from “reading” the Bible. The Bible itself is a presupposition book (Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning – GOD”), it assumes that a God that is transcendent time and space exists. It describes a God that spoke and where there “was nothing,” the universe, with all the stars, planets, comets, etc. leapt into existence. It goes on to tell a story of God’s relationship with mankind, fashioning the first people from the very soil of their home. It also describes God’s faithfulness toward and interaction with mankind on the very assumption He exists.
Science refers to any system of acquiring knowledge “based on the scientific method,” as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. The sciences to which this is referred (natural and social), are empirical, asserting that knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.
The presupposition is therefore, since God is the author of all truth, having created the universe and everything therein, all truths, Biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else.
Truths presupposed in the Bible must be consistent (not contradictory) with those in nature, and vice versa, though the former may be the more difficult to work out using the scientific method. If the God of the Bible created everything there is, we would expect no less (many of us Christians that is).
” everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort “. (Einstein – 24 January 1936)
Thor Lundberg
Called by Grace Ministries
http://www.calledbygrace.org
February 16, 2007 at 3:02 pm
-quote
Truths presupposed in the Bible must be consistent (not contradictory) with those in nature, and vice versa, though the former may be the more difficult to work out using the scientific method. If the God of the Bible created everything there is, we would expect no less (many of us Christians that is).
-end quote
The sticky thing about “truth” though is the definition behind the word. For example, the ancient Hebrew manner of conveying “truths” consisted mostly in parabolic manner. Something could be communicated as a “truth” without also being called “FACT.”
It is much more difficult to reconcile the presupposed “truths” in the Bible with what we now know and understand of the universe in our day. Such as a flood that destroyed the “whole world.” Most orthodox Christians presuppose that the “whole world” mentioned there is just that. Yet the term “whole world” is used when talking about Caeser’s tax that was imposed on the people around the time of the birth of Christ; but obviously he did not have the authority to tax the “whole world.”
The difficulty when it comes to the Christian’s presuppositions of the Bible is that they are not presuppositions of first cause. They are learned presuppositions that come about after a spiritual transformation. It is never heard that one became a believer because they presupposed the truths of the Bible, but rather after becoming a believer they began to do so.
Perhaps some truths are too transcendent to be grasped by the mind of man.
February 16, 2007 at 8:28 pm
— quote
For example, the ancient Hebrew manner of conveying “truths” consisted mostly in parabolic manner. Something could be communicated as a “truth” without also being called “FACT.”
— end quote
Yes, ancient Hebrew was quite rich in various ways of delivering truth, from the poetic (variety of styles even within), to parables (as you suggest), to literal. Hence, with reading the ancient manuscripts, it takes some understanding to grasp what any particular text is trying to say (ie. Hermeneutics). The Bible is no exception because the ancient texts contained within (both Old and New Testaments) do use various literary styles to communicate.
Also, we should not confuse delivery method with substance.
Lastly, of course it is the case that what some call “truth” may not be a “fact” but more of a guideline, or recommendation, or what-have-you. However, for clarification, there is such thing as ABSOLUTE truth. It is absolute truth, which the Bible communicates. The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is all about truth – focusing squarely on Jesus who said of Himself “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
— quote
It is much more difficult to reconcile the presupposed “truths” in the Bible with what we now know and understand of the universe in our day. Such as a flood that destroyed the “whole world.” Most orthodox Christians presuppose that the “whole world” mentioned there is just that. Yet the term “whole world” is used when talking about Caesar’s tax that was imposed on the people around the time of the birth of Christ; but obviously he did not have the authority to tax the “whole world.”
— end quote
Context is important. Correct, the WHOLE world at the time of the Roman census was contextually the Roman World, which for the most part encompassed a very large geographic area. But you would be correct in saying the taxation did not encompass the regions of Indonesia, Far East, Australia, etc. as per fact. But for Noah, it was the case that WHOLE world means just that, and we get this from both plain reading and context elsewhere.
1. Noahic flood – we know this to be the WHOLE world as we understand it.
—————————————————————————-
Plain sense of understanding forces us ask if it was a local flood, given that Noah had sufficient warning, why didn’t he just walk over the mountains to escape the flood? Why did he spend so much time building a ship the size of a small aircraft carrier that could sufficiently hold representatives of all “kinds” of animals as stated in Genesis if not all animals would be killed? Why did he bring birds on board – wouldn’t they simply be able to fly away if it was local? etc.
(Physics question) The Noachian deluge lasted for more than a year (compare Genesis 7:11 and 8:14-15). It covered the tops of all the mountains all around the world to a depth of 15 cubits (Genesis 7:20) which may be estimated to be about 22.5 feet (if a cubit is 18 inches – footnotes in my Bible).
Now, physical laws tell us that water seeks its own level. Why did it stop and crest over the tops of mountains instead of flow away?
2. Context: God promised
“Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” (Genesis 9:11)
“For this is like the waters of Noah to Me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you” (Isaiah 54:9)
But surely there have been plenty of local floods since that time, right? So either the Bible is wrong and God has broken His promise, or the Bible is right, and the magnitude of the flood that happened with Noah has never been seen again since the time of Noah. (I favor the latter)
3. Teaching – Context support:
The flood was to judge the universality of sin of “all mankind” – “for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways” (Genesis 6:12). If the flood was local, some would have escaped God’s judgment on sin.
Literalness as taught by Jesus and the apostles to mean the WHOLE earth – Jesus taught that His return will bring judgment that will encompass the whole Earth like it did during the days of Noah (see Matthew 24, Luke 17). When He returns however, His presence will be seen and felt by the entire Earth (see Revelation).
(2 Peter 2:5) uses the Greek “kosmou” to signify the “the circle of the earth, the inhabitants of the earth” and goes on to describe the coming judgment with Jesus’ return to be universal like it was for Noah.
Lastly, but not exhaustively, (1 Peter 3:20) states that only a “few people” survived – “eight in all, were saved through water”.
To be true, 8 people made up the whole human race? I do not think this to be far fetched in light of some recent scientific discovery, such as this current theory:
—– (article snip)
“Human mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from one’s mother) and Y chromosome DNA (from one’s father) show coalescence at around 70,000 years ago. In other words, all living humans’ female line ancestry and male line ancestry trace back to a small number of people alive at that time. ….
The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred ca. 70,000 years ago, positing that the human population was reduced to a few thousand individuals (and possibly as few as 1,000 individuals) when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change.”
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck)
—– (end article snip)
They’re probably off by a few thousand years, and a few orders of population, but otherwise, right on. The flood as I read it in the Bible would be more than a mere rainstorm – it would be a global catastrophe full of volcanic eruptions, continental upheaval, immeasurable tectonic stresses, etc. I’d be sure the Toba supervolcano would not be the only volcano to have erupted at that time.
— quote
The difficulty when it comes to the Christian’s presuppositions of the Bible is that they are not presuppositions of first cause. They are learned presuppositions that come about after a spiritual transformation. It is never heard that one became a believer because they presupposed the truths of the Bible, but rather after becoming a believer they began to do so.
— end quote
I disagree. I hear it quite often, people presupposing that a God wrote the Bible, and then come to faith. The fingerprints of a Divine being are all over the Bible, so much so that some are led by what they encounter to such a conclusion, and then come to faith. For example, the prophets of old – their predictions about historical events and the appearance of the Messiah – defy statistical probability (ex. Daniel).
Lastly, just the opposite of what you said. The conversion experience, when one becomes a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, is one of ACTUAL presuppositions. The person presupposes what is true, that there is a God who is telling them that they are a sinner in need of a savior. It is on this basis the person responds.
“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17)
— quote
Perhaps some truths are too transcendent to be grasped by the mind of man.
— end quote
I do agree.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.
Thor Lundberg
Called By Grace Ministries
http://www.calledbygrace.org
February 18, 2007 at 5:55 pm
-quote
It is never heard that one became a believer because they presupposed the truths of the Bible, but rather after becoming a believer they began to do so.
— end quote
My conversion to Christianity, my own personal conversion, came about by READING THE BIBLE. My original supposition was that there was no Christ (early in life), then that there was no God at all (college years), then that there was a Creator God who was the god of all religions (in my 20’s) – certainly NOT the God of the Bible – and I believed that Heaven was for everyone – not exactly Biblical either. It was not until I READ THE BIBLE (several times as a matter of fact) that I began to believe what the Bible said, and (with at least one person praying for me) I became a follower of Christ. I know that is the story of several very well known Christians (Josh McDowell for one): that they were out to prove the Bible wrong, and ended up believing it.
May God bless your struggle and show you, clearer than ever, that Christ is real and that the more we understand of science, the more the Bible proves to be true.
February 18, 2007 at 11:19 pm
— quote
It is never heard that one became a believer because they presupposed the truths of the Bible, but rather after becoming a believer they began to do so.
— end quote
I think I see what you’re saying, although I’d say “seldom” instead of “never,” just to avoid unnecessary argument :)
The vast majority of believers are no doubt born into indoctrination, and (at the point of salvation anyway) didn’t arrive at their presuppositions via reason, they just accepted what was taught them.
Others are converted because of a mystical or emotional experience in adulthood, which experience becomes a sort of presupposition in and of itself, and isn’t based on reason at all. (Think Pascal)
Or, they grew up in a diluted Christian cultural tradition, and ‘got serious about’ or ‘found’ Christianity because it resonated with their cultural or political sensibilities, in which case their presuppositions are probably not fully reasoned.
There are, of course, a small minority of people whose presuppositions (they feel) were affected by reason, and they subsequently converted. Their mere existence of course proves nothing, since many more convert away from Christianity because they logically reject those same presuppositions, but there is nonetheless a certain “street cred” that the Josh McDowells of the world can claim.
February 19, 2007 at 1:18 am
– quote
The vast majority of believers are no doubt born into indoctrination, and (at the point of salvation anyway) didn’t arrive at their presuppositions via reason, they just accepted what was taught them.
– end quote
I seriously doubt.
The world Christian population from 2006-2007 is estimated at Africa leading, followed by Europe (including Russia), Latin America, Asia, followed by North America.
I wonder if this generalization (“The vast majority of believers are no doubt born into indoctrination”) applies to those people groups?
Sounds almost like something Richard Dawkins might say.. hrm…
“Consider carefully what you hear” (Mark 4:24). Bad company corrupts good character.
February 19, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Regarding whether worldwide Christians are mostly born into indoctrination, obviously the first generation of believers aren’t, but presumably subsequent generations are.
February 19, 2007 at 2:58 pm
– quote
Regarding whether worldwide Christians are mostly born into indoctrination, obviously the first generation of believers aren’t, but presumably subsequent generations are.
– end quote
The growth of Christian faith in the world has skyrocketed in the 20th century (since at least the end of the 1800s), so still, the indoctrination majority claim is strongly suspect.
Even so, what is wrong with what you call indoctrination (really – teaching a child the right way to go)?
Especially since it is true that while subsequent generations may be born into a faithful family, faith is by no means the guaranteed result, is it!?
Having faithful parents does not mean the child will be faithful. There are plenty of examples of that in all faiths.
Abandoning what parents teach does not, in itself, validate any truth to what is being sought through the abandonment, again, regardless of the faith.
Even in a Christian family, one MUST encounter the risen Lord Jesus Christ – for themselves. One must own their OWN faith in Jesus Christ. Responsible parents simply help that along but only so far – it is the child who alone must take that leap of faith.
February 19, 2007 at 3:47 pm
—quote
The growth of Christian faith in the world has skyrocketed in the 20th century (since at least the end of the 1800s), so still, the indoctrination majority claim is strongly suspect.
—end quote
So has the entire population of the world, which means people have been making lots of babies, Christians and non-Christians alike. Do your statistics speak to the proportion of Christians versus non-Christians, or simply the overall number of Christians?
February 19, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Indoctrination is perhaps okay if the child is indoctrinated with good info. But is Muslim or Hindu indoctrination okay, in your view? Probably not, I’d guess. My point being that at least some kinds of indoctrination are bad.
February 19, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I went through a period when I tried to deny the Christ and all that the scripture taught.
I did not go your route however, I never tried to think God into or out of existance. I more or less just wanted to be free to do my thing. Which was more or less debauchery.
When I got into a sexual affair with a person that is now my wife, Spiritual conviction was on me like (pick your cliche) white on rice.
I had to figure things out. I had been churched from birth, but I did not walk a moral life. I still feel I struggle with morality, but one thing becomes more evident to me with every struggle, there is a spirit inside of me, that will not let me go. My life has changed, but I will never espouse myself as an example.
I am a big sinner that has been turned around.
I have read the bulk of the blog and even a good chunk of the dialogue between the two gentlemen.
This seems so off base to me.
My perpective is that the God of the Bible will not and thus cannot be reasoned into existance. Numerous scriptures could be quoted on this, but I will refer to the ones that I feel most critical.
The just will live by faith.
1 Corinthians Chapters 1-2 more or less condemns the notion that worldly wisdom can obtain anything Godly or come to a Godly conclusion, moreover, the Lord says:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
The intelligentce of the intelligent I will frustrate”
With this in mind I will charge you to check your heart. If you are asking the Lord for ‘evidence’ then try to define the evidence you are looking for.
If you want a sign, then please remember that Jesus comdemned the Pharisees for the want of this very thing.
Moreover, Jesus says in Mark 10:15 that one has to receive the Kingdom of God like a child.
This may sound like an intellectual copout, but it has scriptural integrity. Scripture says that God chooses the weak things to shame the strong, a prevailing theme. Our Saviour champions Love thru Humility as his weapon, and His death has changed the face of the world more so than any other in History. This is evidence, however , not the type you are seeking I think.
I would submit to you that the only tangible evidence you will ever find is Peace. Peace that you will never find outside of Christ.
This is my evidence. It is my evidence when I lose Peace through Sin, and when it is gained through confession and repentance. Its hard to define, all I know is when I have it, and when I don’t.
The Prince of Peace (Jesus) promised that there would be trouble for the Christian and so, not necessarily peace between the Christian and family or friends. But there is internal peace in knowing Christ.
On the Scriptures:
I am definately not one to espouse inerrancy of the Scripture. I believe the Bible is the greatest book we have, but inerrancy implies that one can interpret perfectly. I feel the words are only as good as the interpreter. And so the scriptural inerrancy argument is moot to me. I struggle with some prevailing Doctrines, but I hold fast to those things the Spirit has taught me to be true.
The Holy Spirit is, however, innerrant and does accomplish the will of the Father and is the perfect interpreter. So the scripture when approached thru the Humility of the Spirit, has an inerrant opportunity to change the reader.
I cannot convince you, nor can any argument, that God is, or that Christ died for you.
The Bible says that we cannot know the thoughts of God, but by his Spirit, (1 Cor 2) I believe this wholeheartedly.
My two cents worth.
Would love to dialogue more.
your cousin in VA
February 20, 2007 at 12:35 am
— quote (gib)
My perpective is that the God of the Bible will not and thus cannot be reasoned into existance. Numerous scriptures could be quoted on this, but I will refer to the ones that I feel most critical.
— end quote (gib)
With all due respect, I disagree (in part).
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. ” (Romans 1:20)
If God has hidden Himself from rational inquiry, then mankind would not be without excuse.
God has revealed Himself – clearly.
The apostle Paul demonstrated this in Athens (see Acts 17:16-34) reasoning with the philosophers, showing that God has revealed Himself in nature.
Even so, you are correct. Without faith it is impossible to please God. It all comes down to who one says Jesus is “by faith.”
February 20, 2007 at 12:48 am
– quote (g)
Do your statistics speak to the proportion of Christians versus non-Christians, or simply the overall number of Christians?
– end quote (g)
I have a few different stats from mission boards that excel in demographic data collection. Suffice to say, showing that indoctrination is not a “major” factor in who has faith was all that is intended.
– quote (g)
Indoctrination is perhaps okay if the child is indoctrinated with good info. But is Muslim or Hindu indoctrination okay, in your view? Probably not, I’d guess. My point being that at least some kinds of indoctrination are bad.
– end quote (g)
Indoctrination of a child does not guarantee what that child will believe… so.. kinda 50/50. Of course I prefer one type of teaching over another however :)
Ultimately, what counts is recognizing the truth, and when you find it, cherishing it – holding onto it with both hands.
“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.” (Matthew 13:44-46)