The “Facts of Nature” Versus Scripture Part 3 of 3
RE: "Hugh Ross Comments"
The authors of CAT make further comments/charges against Dr. Hugh Ross that requires some address. And while Dr. Ross himself is best qualified to address these, that won’t stop us from weighing in with our two-cents too. CAT suggests that it is Dr. Ross’ acceptance of the peer-reviewed and tested conclusion of astronomy (what CAT calls a “belief”) of a billions-of-years-old universe is the central truth that guides most of Dr. Ross’s studies and beliefs. I don’t think I or the authors of CAT are qualified to say that this is the central of Dr. Ross’ beliefs, but I think was can agree that it is central to his message and ministry. What’s wrong with that? Every ministry has a “schtik”, a focus group, and/or “angle”. This is especially true of an apologetics ministry. Some use philosophy as the main source of their arguments, others archeology. RTB uses cosmology. Why would anyone expect anything else since Dr. Ross’ doctorate is in Astronomy? Any apologetics ministry must be based on the Bible, but since it is generally reaching out to those who doe not believe there is even a God, much less the Bible is His Word, such ministries do not have the luxury of starting their message and arguments from the Bible. That would definitely fall on deaf ears.
The authors of CAT proceed to cite Dr. Ross from an RTB audio tape, “Creation Days” as some sort of self incriminating evidence to make their case.
CAT cites Ross as saying: “Why do I take the view that these days of Genesis are long periods of time? Let me again share a little bit about my naive experiences as a young man. You know, I felt that the best arguments for a seventeen or eighteen-billion-year-old universe would come from astronomy. I was trained in astronomy and realize that you’ve got overwhelming evidences in those sciences for that kind of creation date. In fact, that was part of my message, that the evidence in astronomy is so powerful that God created, and created at a definite point in the past, that I use that as a tool for demonstrating that biblical creation was right on target. Part and parcel of that is the billions of years.” [1]
Many, including the authors of CAT, take exception Dr. Ross using peer-reviewed, scientifically tested conclusions to help in his interpretation of the Bible. What is wrong with that? Many theologians use archaeological discoveries to help settle interpretation crossroads. Prophecy writers use historical evidence to refine their interpretations. I use my knowledge of first century Jewish mindset and customs to help interpret Scriptures (after all, what was Jesus during the incarnation? Who was he speaking to? First century Jews). And RTB, uses the facts of nature to help resolve interpretation crossroads in the creation accounts of scriptures. For example, which literal definition of "yom" ("days") is the correct interpretation of its use in Genesis 1 and 2? What is 6 24-hour periods? Was it 6 periods of day-light? Or was it 6 periods of some unspecified amount of time? [2]
CAT cites Ross as saying: “And I was naive to think, ‘Well, of course the Bible addresses this issue, but the scientific data is so much more specific, and is really beyond any real question that that’s the way to go.’” [1]
Again, many, including the authors of CAT, take exception to this statement. But the fact is, the scientific evidence is more “specific”. The Bible says only so much about nature. The Bible alone is not sufficient to understand all of creation. It does not mention cells, DNA, galaxies, etc. But then again that was not the point of the Bible. Indeed, the enterprise of science is more “specific” in its data because its pursuit is specific to the examination of the record of nature while the Bible is specific about the Glory of God. But there is some overlap in the these two studies. And if God is the author of the Bible, where the two overlap, there must be harmony. I would suggest it is this notion must be central to any science apologetics ministry be it OEC or YEC.
CAT cites Ross as saying: “And so I would try to talk to audiences of Christians and giving the most powerful evidence, namely, the scientific evidence. But what I’ve discovered is that when you’re dealing with... [Christians], they’re already, you know, so wrapped up in this single- revelational theology’, that this scientific evidence that you’re sharing with them is like water off the back of a duck—it doesn’t penetrate. So I’ve taken a different approach. In going into churches, or addressing audiences of Christians, I begin with the biblical evidence. It’s not as definitive, it’s not as strong, but it’s definitive enough, and it’s strong enough... Because they consider themselves to be fundamentalists, they’re almost obligated to listen to my appeal from Scripture. I’m not talking to you as a scientist. I’m talking to you as a student of the Bible. This is what my study of the Bible has demonstrated. I’ve found that I can get a whole lot further with that approach than with a straight scientific message.” [1]
Is this approach that much different than Paul’s. Did Paul not imply that he did something similar when he wrote,
”To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I
became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to
win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not
having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law),
so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the
weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might
save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its
blessings.” (1 Cor. 9:20-23)
[1] As CAT cites Hugh Ross “Creation Days”, audio tape RTB, 1990) on pages 27-28.
No comments:
Post a Comment