Francis Schaeffer on Science and Scripture

In the past week, the conservative-Reformed blogosphere has been a frenzy of activity with the web release of an article in the Banner outlining the need to redraw Christian beliefs in light of the purported “established fact” of evolution. This has understandably sparked much discussion, both from conservatives within the CRCNA who feel that the denominational magazine is presenting an unbalanced approach to this issue, and from conservatives who are not in the CRCNA but feel a connection to it nonetheless.

Some of this later group is touting an unfortunate “I told you so” attitude which does little to support confessional members of the CRCNA. Others, like myself, are saddened by this, but are also waiting and watching. What will happen next? Will any concrete steps be taken to address this? Or will conservatives just resign themselves to disappointment as the progressive agenda mutes their confessional voice?

In using this article as an opportunity to think again about matters of science and the Bible, I came across the following quotes by Francis Schaeffer from his book No Final Conflict (in vol. 2 of The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer). I thought they were a fine summary of some of the issues Christians must consider when seeking to properly interpret both general and special revelation.

The Bible is not a scientific textbook – in the sense that science is not its central theme, and we do not have a comprehensive statement about the cosmos. But the Bible tells us much about the cosmos in reference to the central theme. In Genesis 1 we have the statement of the creation of the cosmos, and thus as we come to Genesis 2 and the central focus is placed upon man, we can understand man’s setting.

“The Bible is not a scientific textbook” is true in the sense in which we have just spoken. But many people today use the statement in a different way – that is, to say that the Bible does not affirm anything about that in which science has an interest. When the statement is used to mean this, it must be totally rejected. The Bible does give affirmations about that in which science has an interest.

No Final Conflict in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 2, pg. 129.

When we face apparent problems between present scientific theories and the teaching of the Bible, the first rule is not to panic, as though scientific theory is always right. The history of science, including science in our own day, has often seen great dogmatism about theories which later have been discarded. Thus there is no inherent reason why a current scientific theory should immediately be accepted. And there is no inherent reason why a Christian should be put in a panic because the current scientific theory is opposite to what is taught in the Bible.

When we come to a problem, we should take time as educated people to reconsider both the special and general revelations; that is, we should take time to think through the question. There is a tendency among many today to consider that the scientific truth will always be more true. This we must reject. We must take ample time, and sometimes this will mean a long time, to consider whether the apparent clash between science and revelation means that the theory set for by science is wrong or whether we must reconsider what we thought the Bible says.

No Final Conflict in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 2, pg. 130

There indeed must be a place for the study of general revelation (the universe and its form, and man with his “mannishness”) – that is, a place for true science. But on the other side, it must be understood that there is no automatic need to accommodate the Bible to the statements of science. There is a tendency for some who are Christians and scientists to always place special revelation (the teaching of the Bible) under the control of general revelation and science, and never or rarely to place general revelation and what science teaches under the control of the Bible’s teaching. That is, though they think of that which the Bible teaches as true and that which science teaches as true, in reality they tend to end with the truth of science as more truth than the truth of the Bible.

No Final Conflict in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 2, pg. 140

______________________________
Rev. Andrew Compton

Christ Reformed Church (URCNA)

Anaheim, CA

The Synod of Orange (529 AD)

In the early church, some people rejected Augustine’s view of the will, sin, grace, and predestination.  Teachers like John Cassianus (d. ca. 430) and Faustus of Riez (d. ca. 490) argued for for freedom of the will, the ability to reject God’s grace, and they disagreed with Augustine’s emphasis on predestination.  This is usually referred to as Semi-Pelagianism; it was huge controversy in the 5th and 6th century Christian church.  It also resurfaced in the later middle ages and was one factor that led to the Protestant Reformation.  Luther and Calvin stood with Augustine and opposed the Semi-Pelagianism of the Roman Catholic Church.

But back to the early church.  In 529 a synod (held in Orange, France) was called to deal with this controversy.  Bengt Hagglund explains the Synod of Orange:

“The Synod of Orange, whose 25 canons were drawn for the most part from a collection of quotations from Augustine prepared by Prosper [of Aquitaine], sanctioned Augustine’s teaching of original sin.  The synod agreed that as a result of original sin the entire man is changed for the worse, both in body and soul, and that the free will is not undamaged.  Both sin and death have come to the entire human race through one man.”

“Furthermore, the anticipatory activity of grace was strongly emphasized: the very prayers in which we pray for grace are themselves stimulated by grace.  By ourselves we are unable to take the first step to receive grace.  God does not wait until man wills to be cleansed from sin; He rather works through the Spirit to implant this desire within us.  Neither is the longing for wholeness, or the beginning of faith, or the feeling of faith something that is part of man by nature.  When a man consents to the preaching of the Gospel, this must be attributed to the enlightenment and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  Man is not good in himself; God must work all good within him.  Even the regenerate must pray to God for help in order to persevere in doing good.”

“…Canon 22 of the Synod of Orange summarizes the content of the entire confession: ‘Of himself, no man is anything but lies and sins.  If one does possess something of faith and righteousness, it comes from that fountain after which we ought to thirst in this desert, so that, sprinkled as it were, by some of its drops, we might not succumb on the way.’”

There’s more to it, of course, but suffice it to say the Synod of Orange was a very important assembly in the early church.  You can read more about it in chapter 12 of Bengt Hagglund’s History of Theology.

rev shane lems

Only The Word

Here are some great words from Gary Gilley in his book, This Little Church Stayed Home – a follow up to his earlier book, This Little Church Went To Market.

“This is how God proposes his church be built up – through the careful, accurate and clear preaching and teaching of his Word.  Nothing else will accomplish the task.  We can tell inspiring stories, sing beautiful or peppy music, fill our calendars full of social events, professionalize our program and provide small groups for every conceivable interest, but if the Scripture is not diligently, systematically, and correctly taught, Christ’s people will not be equipped and the body will not be built up, period.”

“There are no exceptions to this mandate.  The church must proclaim the ‘word of truth’ – it must be the utmost priority.  Congregations which focus on techniques, programs and entertainment at the expense of the centrality of the Word, may build large followings but they will not build the church of God.  Programs, drama and entertainment may amuse, soothe, inspire and stir the emotions, but they will not build Christians.  Only the Word can do that.

Garry Gilley, This Little Church Stayed Home, p.58.

rev shane lems

Book Giveaway Winner!

Congratulations to Harold Smith, this week’s book giveaway winner.  He gets a complimentary copy of The Heroic Boldness of Martin Luther by Steven J. Lawson.

Thanks again to all who entered!

_________________________
Shane Lems and Andrew Compton

Evolution and the Image of God

For many good reasons, solid Christian theologians have sharply criticized and rejected Darwinian macro-evolution as an unchristian and unbiblical teaching.  Darwinism doesn’t square with the biblical record nor does it mesh with biblical doctrine.  I bring up this topic because a friend pointed me to a recent article on evolution by a retired Christian Reformed Church pastor.  His argument was thus: since evolution is true (the scientists say so!), we have to reformulate all our key doctrines to fit the evolutionary paradigm – from sin to salvation to eschatology.  You can find the article online by searching “Tomorrow’s Theology” and “evolution.”

Suffice it to say the article is extremely problematic and even outside the bounds of Christian and Reformed orthodoxy.  To say that Paul was wrong about Adam being the “first man” is not in line with historical Christian doctrine!  To say that Christ’s human nature evolved from fish and monkeys certainly isn’t a Christian teaching!  If we would reformulate all our doctrines to harmonize with evolution, we would be left with something other than Christianity.

In light of this article, I found it helpful to go back and see what some older Reformed teachers have written about evolution.  Here’s good section on this topic in volume 2 of Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics (p. 519-520).  In this section, Bavinck wrote about the theory of evolution and the image of God in man (Gen. 9:6 & James 3:9).  Especially pay attention to the last paragraph.

“Darwinism above all fails to provide an explanation of humanness in terms of its psychic dimension.  Darwin began with the attempt to derive all the mental phenomena to be found in humans (consciousness, language, religion, morality, etc.) from phenomena occurring in animals, and many others have followed him in this regard.  But up until now these attempts have not been successful either.  Like the essence of energy and matter, the origin of movement, the origination of life, and teleology, so also human consciousness, language, freedom of the will, religion, and morality still belong to the enigmas of the world that await resolution.  Ideas, which are entirely mental, relate to the brain in a very different way from the way bile relates to the liver and urine to the kidneys.  In the words of Max Muller, language is and remains the Rubicon between us and the animal world.”

“The psychological explanation of religion is untenable.  And the derivation of morality from human social instincts fails to do justice to the authority of the moral law, to the categorical character of the moral imperative, to the ‘imperatives’ of the good, to conscience, responsibility, the sense of sin, repentance, remorse, and punishment.  Indeed, although Darwinism as such is not wholly identical with materialism, it nevertheless tends in that direction, finds there its most significant support, and thus also paves the way for the subversion of religion and morality and the destruction of our humanness.  There is no advantage for people to say that it is better to be a highly developed animal than a fallen human.  The theory of the animal ancestry of humans violates the image of God in man and degrades the human into an image of the orangutan and chimpanzee.  From the standpoint of evolution humanity as the image of God cannot be maintained.  The theory of evolution forces us to return to creation as Scripture presents it to us.”

True, Christians might be called idiots and dolts for firmly rejecting Darwinism.  But it won’t be the first time we’ve been called names for holding tightly to biblical truth and rejecting what is false.  And it won’t be the last!  Our duty is to stand firm and hold to the traditions taught by the apostles (2 Thess. 2:14) – even when it is unpopular and counter-cultural.

rev shane lems

Divine Simplicity (Simplicitas Dei)

Here are two Christian theologians’ discussions of divine simplicity (simplicitas Dei).  The first, comes from Anselm of Canterbury (around 1080) in Proslogion:

“What are you, Lord, what are You; what shall my heart understand You to be?  You are, assuredly, life, You are wisdom, You are truth, You are goodness, You are blessedness, You are eternity, and You are every true good.  These are many things, and my limited understanding cannot see them all in one single glance so as to delight in all at once.  How then, Lord, are You all these things?  Are they parts of You, or rather, is each one of these wholly what You are?  For whatever is made up of parts is not absolutely one, but in a sense many and other than itself, and it can be broken up either actually or by the mind – all of which things are foreign to You….”

“Therefore there are no parts in You, Lord, neither are You many, but You are so much one and the same with Yourself that in nothing You are dissimilar with Yourself.  Indeed You are unity itself not divisible by any mind.  Life and wisdom and the other [attributes] then, are not parts of You, but all are one and each one of them is wholly what You are and what all the others are.  Since, then, neither You nor Your eternity which You are have parts, no part of You or of Your eternity is anywhere or at any time, but You exist as a whole everywhere and Your eternity exists as a whole always.”

Second, around 800 years later, Herman Bavinck said it this way (c. 1900):

“On the whole, [Christian] teaching has been that God is ‘simple,’ that is, sublimely free from all composition, and that therefore one cannot make any real [i.e. ontological] distinction between his being and his attributes.  Each attribute is identical with God’s being: he is what he possesses.  In speaking of creatures we make all sorts of distinctions between what they are and what they have.  A person, for example, is still human even though he or she has lost the [original] image of God and has become a sinner.  But in God all his attributes are identical with his being.  God is light through and through; he is all mind, all wisdom, all logos, all spirit, and so forth.  …Whatever God is, he is that completely and simultaneously.  …This doctrine of God’s simplicity was the means by which Christian theology was kept from the danger of splitting God’s attributes from his essence and of making them more or less independent from, and opposed to, his essence” (Reformed Dogmatics II, 118).

rev. shane lems

Book Giveaway – The Heroic Boldness of Martin Luther

Here is installation #2 of our Reformation Trust published book giveaways: The Heroic Boldness of Martin Luther by Steven J. Lawson.  It is published in the series, A Long Line of Godly Men Profiles, which contains short biographies on important men from church history like Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, and John Knox.

To enter to win, simply leave your name in the comment box below.  Make sure your E-mail address is up to date so we can contact you for your shipping address.  The winner will be selected by a random integer generator.

The contest will end at noon (PST) on Friday (5/10/13).

Have fun!

Note: for this giveaway, entries are limited only to residents of the US and Canada.

______________________________
Shane Lems & Andrew Compton