Other theologians interpret the Scriptures about creation
in a more figurative or allegorical manner. In their view, the "days" of creation
in Genesis 1 refer to long ages of time. Likewise, some geologists may interpret the
fossil-bearing layers of rocks as having been laid down over long periods of
time, suggesting an "Old Earth" dated in billions of years. Evolutionary biologists view the fossil
record as traces left behind as life evolved through natural selection acting
upon gene mutations.
When there is apparent conflict between special
revelation and natural revelation, adherents to the Judeo-Christian faith claim
that the authority of special revelation trumps natural revelation. Meanwhile, many in science claim that the
power of human reason through the scientific method can or will reveal the
total extent of reality with an superior authority over any revelations from
God. Which side is correct in this age-old
confrontation between two views of how humans can know truth and reality?
In a recent article by Jacob Brunton, entitled “Revelation and Responsibility,” appearing on the website For the New Christian Intellectual, the author asserts that both special revelation and natural revelation are equally authoritative because both are God's revelation, equally backed by His authority. In defense of this claim, Brunton opposes the belief of those who claim that “all other sources of truth must be submitted to Scripture; that general revelation, at the end of the day, must be submitted to special revelation; that philosophy and science and history must all ultimately “bow the knee” to the Bible.”
Does Jacob Brunton sound heretical? Maybe so. But let me invite you to read his article for yourself. There, Brunton explains that the difference between special revelation and natural revelation is not that one source carries more truth or authority than the other source. Instead, because the nature of the special and natural revelation of God are different, and both require interpretation, the means of understanding each will be different. Both inspired Scripture and the created order are authoritative, but the interpretation of Scripture by theologians and the interpretation of the natural world by scientists and philosophers requires reason—and reason enlightened by faith.
Yes, both theological interpretation of God’s revelation and philosophical-scientific understanding of the natural order are enhanced by the submission of intellectual reasoning to the Spirit of God as teacher and guide (John 16: 13). From the special revelation, we read in Romans 1: 20-22 that the evidence of God as omniscient Creator can be clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made… so that they are without excuse… But, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools… When scientist and philosopher deny God and the authority of His Word, the futility of their thinking blinds their vision of creation, leading to distorted “faiths” such as deep ecology, pantheism, and animism.
But, lest theologians deny that misdirected faith and reason can cause equally grievous distortions of the special revelation of Scripture, let them be reminded of the history of biblical heresies that have caused disruptions of local churches and whole denominations; or, to the development of religious cults. The biblical revelation is inspired by God and carries authority, but, like the humble, honest, and inspired scientist, so must the theologian be dedicated to the humble, honest, and inspired labor of correct exegesis of Scripture. Both scientists and theologians are stewards of the manifold grace and revelation of God. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), the German astronomer who discovered three laws of planetary motion humbly acknowledged to God his stewardship of both God-given faith and reason:
I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit.
How do we deal with the apparent contradictions between Scripture and science? Where apparent contradictions occur, such as with regard to interpreting the age of the Earth, humble inquiry and reverence must guide both theologian and philosopher-scientist toward all of God’s revelation. It follows that the resolution of apparent contradictions or conflicts between special and natural revelation becomes the intellectual responsibility of both the theologian and the philosopher-scientist. As Brunton states, “rather than submitting one form of God’s revelation to another, we must instead labor to submit our understanding of each to both.” For a more detailed study of how “submitting of each to both” can be carried out, I refer you to an article by Leonard Brand (below) which contains a helpful integrative model, and which is included here for your consideration.
How About You?
May I encourage you to read Jacon Brunton’s article, “Revelation and Responsibility.” I welcome your insights using the “Comments” link below.
Further Reading:
Brand, Leonard. 2004. A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science. http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_31B/31Bcc_043-080.pdf
In a recent article by Jacob Brunton, entitled “Revelation and Responsibility,” appearing on the website For the New Christian Intellectual, the author asserts that both special revelation and natural revelation are equally authoritative because both are God's revelation, equally backed by His authority. In defense of this claim, Brunton opposes the belief of those who claim that “all other sources of truth must be submitted to Scripture; that general revelation, at the end of the day, must be submitted to special revelation; that philosophy and science and history must all ultimately “bow the knee” to the Bible.”
Does Jacob Brunton sound heretical? Maybe so. But let me invite you to read his article for yourself. There, Brunton explains that the difference between special revelation and natural revelation is not that one source carries more truth or authority than the other source. Instead, because the nature of the special and natural revelation of God are different, and both require interpretation, the means of understanding each will be different. Both inspired Scripture and the created order are authoritative, but the interpretation of Scripture by theologians and the interpretation of the natural world by scientists and philosophers requires reason—and reason enlightened by faith.
Yes, both theological interpretation of God’s revelation and philosophical-scientific understanding of the natural order are enhanced by the submission of intellectual reasoning to the Spirit of God as teacher and guide (John 16: 13). From the special revelation, we read in Romans 1: 20-22 that the evidence of God as omniscient Creator can be clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made… so that they are without excuse… But, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools… When scientist and philosopher deny God and the authority of His Word, the futility of their thinking blinds their vision of creation, leading to distorted “faiths” such as deep ecology, pantheism, and animism.
But, lest theologians deny that misdirected faith and reason can cause equally grievous distortions of the special revelation of Scripture, let them be reminded of the history of biblical heresies that have caused disruptions of local churches and whole denominations; or, to the development of religious cults. The biblical revelation is inspired by God and carries authority, but, like the humble, honest, and inspired scientist, so must the theologian be dedicated to the humble, honest, and inspired labor of correct exegesis of Scripture. Both scientists and theologians are stewards of the manifold grace and revelation of God. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), the German astronomer who discovered three laws of planetary motion humbly acknowledged to God his stewardship of both God-given faith and reason:
I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit.
How do we deal with the apparent contradictions between Scripture and science? Where apparent contradictions occur, such as with regard to interpreting the age of the Earth, humble inquiry and reverence must guide both theologian and philosopher-scientist toward all of God’s revelation. It follows that the resolution of apparent contradictions or conflicts between special and natural revelation becomes the intellectual responsibility of both the theologian and the philosopher-scientist. As Brunton states, “rather than submitting one form of God’s revelation to another, we must instead labor to submit our understanding of each to both.” For a more detailed study of how “submitting of each to both” can be carried out, I refer you to an article by Leonard Brand (below) which contains a helpful integrative model, and which is included here for your consideration.
May I encourage you to read Jacon Brunton’s article, “Revelation and Responsibility.” I welcome your insights using the “Comments” link below.
Further Reading:
Brand, Leonard. 2004. A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science. http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_31B/31Bcc_043-080.pdf
Pearcey, N.R. and C.B. Thaxton. 1994. The
Soul of Science: Christian Faith and
Natural Philosophy. Crossway Books, Wheaton,
IL.
Acknowledgement and Dedication:
I have dedicated this article to my colleague and friend, Dr. Allen Monroe, from whom I have learned much about integration of faith and learning; and, from whom I anticipate learning more if he were to offer his critique of what I have written here.
I have dedicated this article to my colleague and friend, Dr. Allen Monroe, from whom I have learned much about integration of faith and learning; and, from whom I anticipate learning more if he were to offer his critique of what I have written here.
