CLAIM: The facts of nature are like a 67th book of the Bible (Part 2 of 3)

RE: CLARITY
The claim here is the Bible is easy to understand (for believers) and therefore a simple reading is sufficient. While it maybe true that the “basic” meaning of the gospel message is easy to say (that God came to live among us as a man, died as a substitution for our sins, was buried, and rose three days later as the prophets foretold and now is seated a the right hand of God) there are complexities in Biblical interpretation that are hard. While our English translations make the Bible easy to read, we must ask, "are all its messages and content easy to understand and comprehend?"

For starts, let us consider what the Bible has to say about itself. In 2 Peter 3:15, the apostle who first understood enough to declare confidently that Jesus is the Messiah had this to say about Paul’s contributions to the Bible “… [Paul’s] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” [1]

Secondly, in a previous blog entry, I provided an example of how an “simple” reading of the Bible will fall short of the deep truths of Jesus’ teaching on our relationship to material things (see Part 1 of this series of entries). Such misunderstandings come about because separated the original writing o Word of God by language, culture, and 2000 years.

Most all evangelical Christians in America look at scriptures with a 21st century, western mindset and not with the first century Jewish mindset of the New Testament environment. Consider this simple example. Often Luke used the Jewish idioms such as going “up to Jerusalem” or “down from Jerusalem”. My Bible study teacher made a simple comment that the place Jesus went to was a lower elevation. While in this case the place in question was lower in elevation that is not what the terms going “up to Jerusalem” or “down from Jerusalem” mean. Luke is writing from a first-century Jewish mindset that says that Jerusalem is the “center of the universe” (Eze. 5:5, Jer. 62:7). One always goes “up to” or “down from” Jerusalem from a proximity or distance standpoint- not elevation. Even if one could teleport themselves from Mount Everest to Jerusalem, one would still be going “up to Jerusalem” despite the higher elevation of Everest. In fact, this mind still exists in the Jews today. So, even Spirit-filled believers today who know biblical Greek and Hebrew can misunderstand the Bible because they lack the right cultural mindset that prevents them from correctly understanding the simplest words of Jesus such as “he went up to Jerusalem”. And keep in mind that even Jews living in Jesus day, language, and culture still had varying interpretations of the Law of Moses as clearly seen in the gospel accounts and Rabbinic writings.

Thirdly, as we read the Bible we clearly see the triune nature of God, but that does not make it easy to understand. The Bible has passages that clearly make a case for predestination and others that make the case for free-will. That does not make it easy to understand. As we read the gospel message we easily see that God loved us enough to give His only Son to die as a sacrifice for our sin, on our behalf. But that does not make it easy to comprehend. Think about it, the Almighty God came to live among us as a man, experience the toils of life as we do, die as a substitution for our sins, be buried, and rise three days later as the prophets foretold and now is seated a the right hand of God- all for you! For me! I fail to fully comprehend the magnitude and gravity of this truth and have doubts about anyone who claims to.

To say that the Bible is easy to comprehend and understand is an over simplification or naïve at best. If the Bible is that easy to read and comprehend, then why do we have all these institutions to equip people called to ministry? Is not the “easy to understand” Word of God good enough? If it is that easy to understand, why do we have the need for structured, organized Bible studies? Why do we resort to commentaries on the Bible? Why is there an entire discipline devoted to the “science” and “process” of rightly divining the Word of God- hermeneutics? If its contents are that easily understood, why does Christendom have differing views on:

• Triune nature of God
• Pre-destination vs. free will
• Whether or not there be a rapture
• Whether or not Christ will return to establish a literal Kingdom on earth
• How local Churches should be run and structured (committees, elder run, deacon run)
• How much believers are obligated to the follow the Law of Moses

And the list does go on...

RE: STABILITY
YEC claims often contrast the scientific enterprise with that of theology pointing out how science is dynamic and the conclusions change with time as more data is attain. I have touched on these in previous blog entries, so I will be brief here.

When we Christians make such comparisons it is NOT an apples to apples comparison. Yes, science sometimes changes with the new data. This is in contrast to theology where the database has not grown with any significance in over 1900 years. Despite the near-zero rate at which new information must be incorporated into existing theories (theologies), theologians continue to disagree on some very basic issues: “Can one loose their salvation?”, “Will there be a rapture of the Church?”, and “Is baptism required for salvation?” to name a few. I would say that this charge by YEC is unfair. And while “God’s word has remained relatively unchanged”, theologies have not: case in point are Council of Nicaea, Reformation, and Liberalism to name a few.

RE: Contamination By Evolutionism.
The authors of CAT state, “Profound shifts have occurred due to the popularity of Darwinism. Evolution has become the foundation of many of the theories pronounced as ‘facts’ by modem science.” (CAT-33). There are many things they could have meant by this section quoted in its entirety. I have no idea how to address this other than they fail to cite a single case or give any examples of whatever it is they are talking about…

RE: Human Perversion
The authors of Cat begin with the argument, “Just as sinful mankind has endlessly attempted to pervert the Church’s interpretation of Scripture, man has also attempted to pervert its interpretation of the message of nature” (CAT-33). Now, let us be fare. Did the Church not accuse a fellow Christian, Galileo, of this same thing and then turn out to be very wrong on the matter. What’s worse is that they never admitted its mistake for over 300 years? [2] Yes, “God intended nature to reveal His existence and power”. The worldview of some scientists have blinded them use God’s general revelation to demonstrate that He does not even exist. The likes of Richard Dawkins come immediately to mind. The authors of CAT admonish “all Christians… to continually examine whether their worldview is truly Bible centered.” But that outcome too can be corrupted too as we have shown above. The Bible is Truth that we are incapable of seeing it in pure clarity as we have to look at it through the lenses of, translations, cultural gaps, and not too mention theology. These are distorted and that is why we have differing Christian views of eternal security, baptism, the triune nature of God etc. This appeal by the authors of CAT has a ring of truth, but is cast in a highly simplified and naive argument that does not examine Christians first before accusing the world.

RE: Nature Has Degenerated
In this section, CAT states (This charge is directed squarely on Dr. Ross and so I am far from qualified to address it well. But I can address this argument as an OEC):

“Nature, and thus God’s revelation in nature, has degenerated from its original perfection. The Bible tells us specifically about two occasions in which earth has been terribly affected; the fall of mankind and the global flood of Noah. It is apparent that Dr. Ross’s understanding of how sin affected the world is not in line with God’s Word. He acknowledges almost no physical effects in nature caused by the Fall. Nor does he have a clear biblical understanding of the effects of the Flood. He and many other Progressive Creationists believe Noah’s Flood had no significant effect on earth’s geology. They believe the Flood was local, limited to the plains of Mesopotamia.”
(CAT-34)

This is where there is a wide gap between YEC and OEC. YEC see Eden as a pristine, perfect world that made ugly with the Fall of Adam and Eve. While the YEC position states this clearly and emphatically- the Bible never does. The Bible describes it as “good” and at best “very good” (Gen 1:31). Some might say that is just semantics. No, the Bible does distinctly describe a perfect creation, but one needs to go to the other end of the Bible to find it- the New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem (Rev. 21-22). This is an entirely new creation, not a mere restoration of the old (Rev. 21:1). [3]

How did the Fall impact creation? Most OEC would submit that the fall has affected nature in the sense that humanity is no longer the “very good” caretaker. Obvious examples are pollution, unnecessary killing of animals, and the destruction of habitat, to name a few.

Through much of this body of work, the authors take pains to note how scientists and OEC are making statements and declaring them as “facts”, while at the same time doing so themselves. This section is probably the most blaring example. There is no evidence provided for the claim, no arguments made, nothing cited or referenced- only emotional appeals which are self labeled as “fact” (This seems to be a mainstay of the YEC case).

Yes, Dr. Ross does make the case that the Noah Flood event was local in geographical scope, but Ross takes great pains to show that a flood of the Mesopotamian plains would still be universal, i.e. it would still impact ALL of humanity as humanity had not yet spread out across the earth. [4]

FOOTNOTES
[1] I would take exception to the quotes from RC Sproul and Hosh McDowell cited in CAT (page 32). By saying that the Bible is "simple to understand", it seems Sproul and McDowell claim the they understand the Bible better Peter- the chief Apostle of the First Church at Jerusalem.
[2] It also strikes me as odd that CAT makes the distinction between the Church and sinful mankind. Is the Church not a part of “sinful mankind”? Is the Church (even the believing constituents) not made up of sinners- yes, justified and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but still with their sin nature very much intact?
[3] A more extensive treatment of this can be found in "Peril in Paradise: Theology, Science, and the Age of the Earth by Dr. Mark S. Whorton
[4] http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html (Accessed 7.25.2007) makes some good arguments from Scriptures why the Noahic flood event was local in geographical scope.