This continues a series of posts on the idea of the old universe. I want to thank Jared for his good comments and critique on my previous post for it is providing a springboard for this series of articles.
The previous article stated some of my views of why I view the universe to be old, on the order of billions of year old, even though I am a Christian who holds to the inerrancy of the Bible. This is in contrast to many other Christians, and what was the majority view in the history of the Christian church for 2000 years that viewed the universe and earth were created in the span of six twenty-four hour days. I know that many in the Christian community view that those who hold to an old universe/old earth position start with the speculations of the dominant view of science and twists the Bible to fit with those speculations.
Before I continue, first I will say that I have the greatest respect for Christians who believe that the universe and earth were created in the span of six twenty-four hour days. I have some reservations in discussing this. First, I believe that overall those who believe in the young universe, along with the understanding that the Triune God is actively involved in history drawing his specially called people to himself through the death and resurrection of Jesus, the second person of the Trinity (this activity of God through Jesus is commonly referred to as the gospel) -- have a more accurate view of the important features of the universe (even though in my opinion they get the young universe part of it wrong), than those who correctly see the age of the universe but do not believe that God is at work through Jesus. Secondly, if those who hold to a young universe were persuaded to abandon that view and this were to weaken their faith in the gospel -- I would rather they not be persuaded to an old universe/old earth view at all. The gospel is the core of everything, everything else pales to it. Thirdly, I think there are more important discussions inside and outside the Christian community than the age of the universe. The gospel itself, the work of God in history through Jesus Christ, and its ramifications, are far more important than debating the age of the universe.
So why engage in this discussion at all? Here are a few thoughts:
1. God, first and foremost, has disclosed who he is and who we are through the Bible. In theological terms, this is referred to as special revelation. Special revelation gives the most detailed and comprehensive understanding of God, his activity, who we are, and how God, humanity, and all of the universe interact with God. God also discloses information about himself and his creation through the world and universe around us. Theologically this is referred to as general revelation. It's called general revelation because this is information open to all people, regardless of whether they have been exposed or not to the special revelation contained in the Bible. Both forms of revelation, when properly understood and interpreted, give an accurate picture of reality, of truth, of the way the universe is, who God is, and the relation of everything to God. Both forms of revelation, when properly understood, do not contradict each other. Rather,they complement each other in understanding the truth.
2. Special revelation, the Bible, is to be given the priority over everything else, including general revelation. However, special revelation is not given in a vacuum. Foundational is the work of the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, in convicting and convincing people of the truth contained in the special revelation. General revelation provides insights into understanding special revelation.
Consider the following passage written by King David thousands of years ago:
King David knew that the heavens were immense. He knew whenever anyone looked at the heavens above they saw it declared the glory of God. The sun, the moon, the planets, the stars, especially in the dark skies of that time, would take their breath away.
The English Standard Version (ESV) quoted above hides some interesting features of the passage. The King James Version (KJV) says:
In particular, notice the word firmament used in the KJV instead of sky in the ESV.
The word for sky or firmament comes from the Hebrew vault of heaven. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:
One way of reading the descriptions of the sky and the heavens in the Old Testament is that the sky consists of a sold arched vault. For us Christians this doesn't even enter our minds as a possibility in large part because we've grown up in a global culture where advances in science, and in particular, astronomy, aeronautics and space endeavors, have demonstrated that the sky is not a solid vault. Our collective understanding of what the Bible is saying about the sky changes accordingly. Whether or not King David, or Moses for that matter, had the opinion that the sky consisted of a solid vault is immaterial to us. In turn this gives an even greater appreciation of how that heavens declare the glory of God. The sheer size of the heavens is almost infinitely greater than the early Hebrews and possibly David and Moses and the impact of Psalm 19 is greater as a result. What we correctly observe in general revelation corrects some of our misunderstandings about special revelation. There are numerous areas where general revelation provides feedback to special revelation.
It is not a one way street where general revelation clarifies special revelation. For example, special revelation in the Bible unequivocally states that God created the heavens and the earth and all of creation is moving according to God's eternal plan towards a climax. Any interpretations of general revelation which say that the universe and all the is contained in it are brought about by impersonal, undirected events, is rejected by special revelation. There is a feedback cycle between special and general revelation, with the clear principles of special revelation taking the priority over the interpretation process. Nevertheless, general revelation does provide feedback. When general revelation is interpreted correctly, the feedback corrects our misunderstandings of special revelation that we may have when reading our Bibles.
3. Suppose for a moment, that the universe and the earth is truly old, on the order of billions of years old. Then those who correctly surmise that the universe is old through general revelation can have an unneeded intellectual impediment for embracing the Christian Faith and the gospel when they are informed that the correct Biblical view is that the earth and universe is no more than thousands of years old.
This is not an argument that the universe is billions of years old. Neither am I denying the power of the Holy Spirit to draw people to himself even with intellectual impediments. What I am arguing for is being careful not to introduce impediments to the gospel. I recognize I could be wrong that the universe is old and so that a young universe viewpoint would not a true impediment to the gospel. But are we absolutely sure that the old universe is wrong? Is there room for error, and if there is, can we be so certain in the young universe that is becomes part of the package of the gospel we present to others outside the Christian faith?
4. That the universe has a beginning in the Big Bang theories can be used to point to God. There are non-Christians who are convinced that the universe and earth are old and who are curious about Christianity. While many Christians may disagree with the Big Bang Theory (the theory that the universe came into existence in an instant some 13 to 14 billion years ago and started expanding from a small region), the theory itself does point to the universe having a beginning. Since the universe has a beginning, it is reasonable to conclude there was a "Big Bang Beginner". While that does not necessarily imply the Christian God, it certainly opens the door for the possibility. Some Christian philosophers, such as William Lane Craig, follow the example of the Apostle Paul on Mars Hill in the book of Acts in the New Testament. This is where Paul noted the objects of worship of the people of Athens. Paul saw an alter to "the unknown god" and and took that inscription to introduce to them the God of the universe. This is taking a concept from our culture and pointing to God. Dr. Craig has refined a version of the cosmological argument and presents this to university campuses around the world.
5. There are Christians who see that the universe is old and struggle with their faith thinking that holding to a young universe is required in the Christian faith. These believers need to know that belief in a young universe is not required for faith in Christ and walking in the Christian life. Just as I do not want to wound those who believe in a young universe/young earth, who would have their faith hindered in adopting an old universe viewpoint -- I do not want to see those believers who are intellectually convinced that the universe is old be forced into holding a young creation view that makes them feel that Christianity is intellectually compromised.
5. Finally, there are examples of well known and respected theologically conservative Christian theologians who hold to the possibility of an old universe and earth. Examples of other Christians who hold to at least the possibility of an old universe include:
So, am I starting with some popular speculations of science and then warping the Bible around those views? Perhaps it depends on who you are asking. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis would say I am. Astrophysicists Max Tegmark of MIT and Sean Carroll of Cal Tech would say I'm not, that instead I start with a faith position from the Bible and bend science around that.
I would say I fit more in the thinking of Charles Hodge, Francis Schaeffer, Tim Keller and others on the list I mentioned who allow for an old universe. These people do not start with science and then bend the Bible to their view. Rather these people are taking the Bible as their foundation and recognizing that the facts from general revelation will not contradict what the Bible genuinely teaches. These people will carefully weigh the various theories being proffered in the scientific community, and those, in their opinion, that have strong evidence, they will use to correct possible misinterpretations they have about the Bible. Again, most every Christian engages in this activity, often without realizing it, including Ken Ham. For instance Mr. Ham does not believe the the sun revolves around the earth whenever he reads about a sunrise or sunset in the Bible. What he has done is find compelling from the scientific community that feeds back to interpreting the Bible. Specifically, Mr. Ham finds that evidence for a spherical type of earth, rotating and orbiting the sun to be very compelling, which in turn he uses to guide his interpretation of the Bible. Various theories and evidence from the scientific community is not equally compelling to all Christians. Many Christians do not find the spectrum redshift of stars and galaxies, along with the cosmic background radiation and other evidences for the Big Bang billions of years ago, to be very compelling. For those who don't find it compelling, don't budge from a young earth perspective. But for those who do find it compelling, it is worthwhile to explore the ramifications. For both camps, we need to exercise patience with each other.
There are theological questions about an old universe. This will be covered in upcoming posts.
The previous article stated some of my views of why I view the universe to be old, on the order of billions of year old, even though I am a Christian who holds to the inerrancy of the Bible. This is in contrast to many other Christians, and what was the majority view in the history of the Christian church for 2000 years that viewed the universe and earth were created in the span of six twenty-four hour days. I know that many in the Christian community view that those who hold to an old universe/old earth position start with the speculations of the dominant view of science and twists the Bible to fit with those speculations.
Before I continue, first I will say that I have the greatest respect for Christians who believe that the universe and earth were created in the span of six twenty-four hour days. I have some reservations in discussing this. First, I believe that overall those who believe in the young universe, along with the understanding that the Triune God is actively involved in history drawing his specially called people to himself through the death and resurrection of Jesus, the second person of the Trinity (this activity of God through Jesus is commonly referred to as the gospel) -- have a more accurate view of the important features of the universe (even though in my opinion they get the young universe part of it wrong), than those who correctly see the age of the universe but do not believe that God is at work through Jesus. Secondly, if those who hold to a young universe were persuaded to abandon that view and this were to weaken their faith in the gospel -- I would rather they not be persuaded to an old universe/old earth view at all. The gospel is the core of everything, everything else pales to it. Thirdly, I think there are more important discussions inside and outside the Christian community than the age of the universe. The gospel itself, the work of God in history through Jesus Christ, and its ramifications, are far more important than debating the age of the universe.
So why engage in this discussion at all? Here are a few thoughts:
1. God, first and foremost, has disclosed who he is and who we are through the Bible. In theological terms, this is referred to as special revelation. Special revelation gives the most detailed and comprehensive understanding of God, his activity, who we are, and how God, humanity, and all of the universe interact with God. God also discloses information about himself and his creation through the world and universe around us. Theologically this is referred to as general revelation. It's called general revelation because this is information open to all people, regardless of whether they have been exposed or not to the special revelation contained in the Bible. Both forms of revelation, when properly understood and interpreted, give an accurate picture of reality, of truth, of the way the universe is, who God is, and the relation of everything to God. Both forms of revelation, when properly understood, do not contradict each other. Rather,they complement each other in understanding the truth.
2. Special revelation, the Bible, is to be given the priority over everything else, including general revelation. However, special revelation is not given in a vacuum. Foundational is the work of the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, in convicting and convincing people of the truth contained in the special revelation. General revelation provides insights into understanding special revelation.
Consider the following passage written by King David thousands of years ago:
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
(Psalm 19:1, ESV)
King David knew that the heavens were immense. He knew whenever anyone looked at the heavens above they saw it declared the glory of God. The sun, the moon, the planets, the stars, especially in the dark skies of that time, would take their breath away.
The English Standard Version (ESV) quoted above hides some interesting features of the passage. The King James Version (KJV) says:
The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
(Psalm 91:1, KJV)
In particular, notice the word firmament used in the KJV instead of sky in the ESV.
The word for sky or firmament comes from the Hebrew vault of heaven. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:
The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse. (The Jewish Encyclopedia)
One way of reading the descriptions of the sky and the heavens in the Old Testament is that the sky consists of a sold arched vault. For us Christians this doesn't even enter our minds as a possibility in large part because we've grown up in a global culture where advances in science, and in particular, astronomy, aeronautics and space endeavors, have demonstrated that the sky is not a solid vault. Our collective understanding of what the Bible is saying about the sky changes accordingly. Whether or not King David, or Moses for that matter, had the opinion that the sky consisted of a solid vault is immaterial to us. In turn this gives an even greater appreciation of how that heavens declare the glory of God. The sheer size of the heavens is almost infinitely greater than the early Hebrews and possibly David and Moses and the impact of Psalm 19 is greater as a result. What we correctly observe in general revelation corrects some of our misunderstandings about special revelation. There are numerous areas where general revelation provides feedback to special revelation.
It is not a one way street where general revelation clarifies special revelation. For example, special revelation in the Bible unequivocally states that God created the heavens and the earth and all of creation is moving according to God's eternal plan towards a climax. Any interpretations of general revelation which say that the universe and all the is contained in it are brought about by impersonal, undirected events, is rejected by special revelation. There is a feedback cycle between special and general revelation, with the clear principles of special revelation taking the priority over the interpretation process. Nevertheless, general revelation does provide feedback. When general revelation is interpreted correctly, the feedback corrects our misunderstandings of special revelation that we may have when reading our Bibles.
3. Suppose for a moment, that the universe and the earth is truly old, on the order of billions of years old. Then those who correctly surmise that the universe is old through general revelation can have an unneeded intellectual impediment for embracing the Christian Faith and the gospel when they are informed that the correct Biblical view is that the earth and universe is no more than thousands of years old.
This is not an argument that the universe is billions of years old. Neither am I denying the power of the Holy Spirit to draw people to himself even with intellectual impediments. What I am arguing for is being careful not to introduce impediments to the gospel. I recognize I could be wrong that the universe is old and so that a young universe viewpoint would not a true impediment to the gospel. But are we absolutely sure that the old universe is wrong? Is there room for error, and if there is, can we be so certain in the young universe that is becomes part of the package of the gospel we present to others outside the Christian faith?
4. That the universe has a beginning in the Big Bang theories can be used to point to God. There are non-Christians who are convinced that the universe and earth are old and who are curious about Christianity. While many Christians may disagree with the Big Bang Theory (the theory that the universe came into existence in an instant some 13 to 14 billion years ago and started expanding from a small region), the theory itself does point to the universe having a beginning. Since the universe has a beginning, it is reasonable to conclude there was a "Big Bang Beginner". While that does not necessarily imply the Christian God, it certainly opens the door for the possibility. Some Christian philosophers, such as William Lane Craig, follow the example of the Apostle Paul on Mars Hill in the book of Acts in the New Testament. This is where Paul noted the objects of worship of the people of Athens. Paul saw an alter to "the unknown god" and and took that inscription to introduce to them the God of the universe. This is taking a concept from our culture and pointing to God. Dr. Craig has refined a version of the cosmological argument and presents this to university campuses around the world.
5. There are Christians who see that the universe is old and struggle with their faith thinking that holding to a young universe is required in the Christian faith. These believers need to know that belief in a young universe is not required for faith in Christ and walking in the Christian life. Just as I do not want to wound those who believe in a young universe/young earth, who would have their faith hindered in adopting an old universe viewpoint -- I do not want to see those believers who are intellectually convinced that the universe is old be forced into holding a young creation view that makes them feel that Christianity is intellectually compromised.
5. Finally, there are examples of well known and respected theologically conservative Christian theologians who hold to the possibility of an old universe and earth. Examples of other Christians who hold to at least the possibility of an old universe include:
- Charles Hodge (see The Protestant Rule Of Faith, Part 2 under the section labeled Objections, number 4).
- B.B. Warfield (B.B. Warfield, Wikipedia),
- C.S. Lewis (C. S. Lewis, Wikipedia),
- Alvin Plantinga (Alvin Plantinga, Wikipedia),
- William Lane Craig (William Lane Craig's website),
- Nancy Pearcey (Pearcey's review of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box),
- Hank Hanegraaff (See the Christian Research Institute's statement on the topic.)
- Tim Keller (Tim Keller at www.monergism.com),
- Francis Schaeffer (Wesite dedicated to the works of Schaeffer )
So, am I starting with some popular speculations of science and then warping the Bible around those views? Perhaps it depends on who you are asking. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis would say I am. Astrophysicists Max Tegmark of MIT and Sean Carroll of Cal Tech would say I'm not, that instead I start with a faith position from the Bible and bend science around that.
I would say I fit more in the thinking of Charles Hodge, Francis Schaeffer, Tim Keller and others on the list I mentioned who allow for an old universe. These people do not start with science and then bend the Bible to their view. Rather these people are taking the Bible as their foundation and recognizing that the facts from general revelation will not contradict what the Bible genuinely teaches. These people will carefully weigh the various theories being proffered in the scientific community, and those, in their opinion, that have strong evidence, they will use to correct possible misinterpretations they have about the Bible. Again, most every Christian engages in this activity, often without realizing it, including Ken Ham. For instance Mr. Ham does not believe the the sun revolves around the earth whenever he reads about a sunrise or sunset in the Bible. What he has done is find compelling from the scientific community that feeds back to interpreting the Bible. Specifically, Mr. Ham finds that evidence for a spherical type of earth, rotating and orbiting the sun to be very compelling, which in turn he uses to guide his interpretation of the Bible. Various theories and evidence from the scientific community is not equally compelling to all Christians. Many Christians do not find the spectrum redshift of stars and galaxies, along with the cosmic background radiation and other evidences for the Big Bang billions of years ago, to be very compelling. For those who don't find it compelling, don't budge from a young earth perspective. But for those who do find it compelling, it is worthwhile to explore the ramifications. For both camps, we need to exercise patience with each other.
There are theological questions about an old universe. This will be covered in upcoming posts.
2 comments:
We want to be careful in considering what general revelation "facts" we allow to shape our special revelation knowledge. For instance, later in this post you use the example of the fact that the earth revolves around the sun is an instance of general revelation informing our understanding of special revelation. It is important to keep in mind that for this example there is nothing within the special revelation to thwart the supposed general revelation fact. That is, there is nothing in the literary and/or theological structure of the Bible which could reasonably cause one to outright deny or doubt the "scientific fact" that earth orbits the sun. However, general revelation is true only to the extent that it does not contradict, confuse, obscure, etc. the content of special revelation.
Closely related here, it should also be kept in mind that the creation account (and the whole primeval history account leading us generationally to Abram) is God's model. There's a reason Genesis is written the way it is and it is not primarily to inform us of scientific peculiarities. Rather its purpose is to provide us with a lens through which to analyze those peculiarities and judge whether or not theories and suppositions (not just scientific ones, mind you) are in accord with how and who God has revealed himself to be. So, to misunderstand Genesis is, in some significant sense, to misunderstand a lot of what the Bible has to offer in all areas of knowledge.
Also, you're still using "outside" points to shape/bolster (rather than "inform") your understanding of the creation account. You say special revelation is to be given priority but here you aren't letting it. A few special revelation things to consider:
1. God didn't have to create using six days of work and one day of rest. He also didn't need to create in the order revealed to us in Genesis.
2. God called the light "day" thus setting forth the preeminent definition of the word. In Scripture the word "day" has the fundamental meaning of "light time". Using it to describe the entire cycle (of evening and morning) is an extended meaning (and a further extension is using it to describe longer periods of time). But all of these are established on that initial fundamental meaning we find in Genesis 1.
3. The language of Genesis 1 is primarily of visual appearance and not of scientific analysis. This enables it to establish patterns and symbols that will be utilized later on in increasingly complex and diverse ways.
If the "day" of Genesis 1 is anything other than a normal day then where does the model for the normal day come from? Obviously the original audience would have understood them as normal days but we, oh great and educated us, we know better. And now that the concept of a normal day has been firmly established (over the course of billions of years) we are free to change the meaning of it in the book of beginnings to fit our scientific learnedness. In my eyes this is a very clear instance of general revelation overstepping its authority in interpreting special revelation.
Jared,
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. I'll deal with the Genesis day in an upcoming post.
I agree with you there is nothing in special revelation that mandates an earth centered universe. However, both Luther and Calvin thought the universe was earth centered. For Calvin, we can see this in his commentary on Psalm 93:1:
"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? Accordingly the particle אף, aph, denoting emphasis, is introduced — Yea, he hath established it." (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom11.ii.i.html)
Calvin was a contemporary of Copernicus, but it appears that Calvin was not familiar with Copernicus' work (even though Bertrand Russell attributed a scathing quote to Calvin -- which is a dubious source). But notice the interpretation of Calvin, that the earth is not in motion. It would take over one hundred years, with the mathematics of Kepler, the observations of Galileo, and finally the mathematics of Newton, before the general world accepted a heliocentric solar system.
Luther seems to have referred to Copernicus as a fool. But Luther, who had accepted the Ptolemaic earth centered universe, did not have many details of Copernicus' system and it is easy to see why he rejected it, because it sounded foolish given the scientific context of his environment -- and even in the biblical environment because Luther commented that when God made the sun stand still with Joshua, the text did not say stop the motion of the earth.
My point in all this is that what we see as the natural way of reading scripture was they way it always has been, and it was not back in the 1500's. We've come to understand some of the details of Psalm 93 differently than Calvin did, as well as the details of understanding Joshua differently than Luther. It took time for these changes to happen and there was some struggles with it, which our Christian culture today has largely forgotten.
Were the changes significant? Not really. I think both Calvin and Luther, given fuller information, would have accepted the Copernican view and would have corrected their comments accordingly. In Psalm 93 God is the sovereign in control that keeps the earth in its course, whether stationary or in orbit, and Luther would change the comment that God made the sun to appear to stand still. This is an example of how general revelation helped in our understanding of special revelation.
I agree with you that the creation account is not to primarily inform us about the scientific peculiarities. The language is not technical, but gives us a narration that all can follow throughout the ages.
Now, about days, I will cover that in a separate post.
Post a Comment