RSS

The BioLogos Foundation- 3

21 Nov

Today we continue a look at the ideologies of this organization. All quotes will be taken from the following link:

http://biologos.org/questions/scientific-and-scriptural-truth

#1. Can science and scripture be reconciled?

In Christian belief, God reveals himself in both the written book of the Bible and the created “book” of the natural world

This is the normal train of thought of those who seek to justify their use of science over faith and God’s word. They want to legitimize their disobedience by saying God had a second revelation in nature. That idea traces man’s eisegetical work– reading into nature what God did not put there. There is no biblical instruction telling man to use nature to discover human development and origins. We have that taken care of Genesis 1 thus there is no book of revelation in nature concerning those areas.

The truth in nature is revealing to us God’s creativity, his sophistication, his foresight and so on but at no time is there any revelation talking about life development or our origins.

#2. Two revelations

Psalm 19 begins with the well-loved words “The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” Scientists often turn to this Psalm to express their praise to the Creator when they make discoveries in the lab – the biochemistry of a cell also declares the glory of God! In the second half of the Psalm, David turns his thoughts from the God’s world to God’s word, writing “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul.” David praises God for both revelations

Alternative believers will mis-apply scripture to justify their departure from the truth.   Declaring the ‘glory of God’ is not revelation as the Bible is.  This declaration  points to how great God is NOT how he created life. This passage of scripture has nothing to do with origins or life development and it is not leading us to  the ‘book of nature’.

Since both are revelations from God, they both carry God’s full authority and cannot be ignored

It is really difficult to justify the book of nature as revelation on life development and origins when God already has told us how and why he created in Genesis 1. The so-called book of nature is at odds with God’s real revelation but then the people at BioLogos and other scientists ignore biblical instruction on the difference between true and false teaching and blindly accept the latter because it aids their supposed scientific work. The source of friction between what nature tells us about God and what the Bible tells us is not human interpretation but this failure to apply biblical instruction to the scientific area of life.

The problem for the scientist is that origins and life development are not true science nor is it doing science.People who follow and implement evolutionary ideas are the ones being deceived yet they fail to realize or acknowledge  that fact. They feel they are ‘doing science’ when in reality they are just wasting everybody’s time and money.

#3. Science: Interpreting God’s revelation in Nature

However, science is self-correcting. All scientific publications are peer-reviewed, where experts check for errors in methods, over-stated claims, and other problems. Published measurements are tested by other groups of scientists to see if they get the same results. Published theories are vigorously debated and compared to alternate explanations. Sometimes even selfish motivations can help the self-correcting process, since scientists can advance their careers by publishing errors and proposing new theories. Inaccuracies in theories are corrected when new discoveries and experiments reveal a problem. When theories are new and based on preliminary data, biases such as those described above can have a large influence on results. But after theories are tested and refined by many scientists all over the world, they give a reliable interpretation of physical reality.

This is the ideal but not the reality. Science is rarely self-correcting, peer review is easy to manipulate or be corrupted and so on. The person writing this is very naive or idealistic. The last line provides the rub to it all. It is saying that an elite fallible group of people get to determine what reality is even though the conclusions they come to cannot be verified nor even correct. Most of the time there is a lot of rubber stamping of friends’ theories, the trashing of enemies ideas, and the failure to be honest as scientists will accept any theory as possible as long as it does not include God.

Science is not as perfect as that quote lets on. In fact that quote is nothing but misleading information about the field as it also ignores the personal bias, the personal beliefs, the closed minds etc., of the scientists involved. There is no objectivity in science but that quote won’t tell you that.

#4. Interpreting God’s revelation in Scripture

 Scripture also draws us into the story, so that we are not mere readers, but citizens of God’s kingdom and part of God’s redemptive history

They are forgetting a few steps here. The only way to be drawn into God’s kingdom is for the unbeliever to realize they are lost in their sins and need a savior. They have to repent of their sins and give up false teaching.

Other teachings, like baptism of adults vs. infants, are ambiguous and their interpretation has been debated for centuries. Some teachings, like ownership of slaves, were viewed one way for centuries, then were reinterpreted as the gospel moved into new cultures. Church tradition can be a valuable guide to good interpretation, but at times should be challenged.

The Bible has taught the same message from God since the beginning.All this tells us is that interpretation is wrong and that we must be biblical and obedient and follow the HS to the truth. All this sentence does is provide an open door for alternative believers to import their false ideas into the church and allow them to hang on to them instead of repenting from them. Interpretation is not an excuse to believe and accept  the lies of secular science and scientists.

Once we better understand God’s revelation to the first audience, we can consider what God might have to teach us today in the 21st century. Without this strategy, we risk imposing our own modern culture and personal preferences on the text

This is just untrue and provides a weak shield for the alternative believer to hide behind and avoid the truth. God’s revelation to the first audience is the same as it is for us. God does not change, his message does not change nor does his revelation change. All the followers of this line of thinking are doing is making it easier for them to dismiss the truth and continue in their sin.

The careful background work becomes important for scholars and teachers who want to explore the subtle meanings and implications of the text (such as how it fits with science).

This is pure arrogance as the Bible does NOT have to fit with science but science has to change and fit the Bible. This statement is making science an authority over God’s word and that is pure heresy. Science has no authority over the Bible nor is it an interpretive tool telling us how to understand God’s word better. science can provide more detailed information on how God’s creation works but it cannot say God is wrong and that he lied throughout its pages.

#5. An Historical Example

In Galileo’s time there was a heated disagreement over the solar system, specifically whether the Sun or the Earth was at the center. This led to a debate over the meaning of Bible verses like Psalm 93:1 which state “The earth is fixed and cannot be moved.” If this verse is read scientifically, it would mean that the Earth was stationary and did not orbit the Sun

BUT God did not instruct us to read the Bible ‘scientifically’ which means this reading of scripture is wrong and the people reading it scientifically are misunderstanding God’s word.

Reading the Bible scientifically is not following Jesus’ teaching to follow the HS to the truth. Galileo did find a truth but it was NOT a scientific truth. Science did not trump the Bible as many would claim. Anyone could look up into the night sky and see that the earth moved. The problem comes in when secularists use this historical episode to claim that a few misguided people speak for all Christians and also say that the Christian is ignorant of science or knowledge. But we aren’t as we have the HS telling us the truth and we know that science is a mere tool to help us understand and learn. We also know that science is not some infallible authority which does not sin and is greater than God.

#6. Interaction between science and biblical interpretation

What do we do when the results of science disagree with common biblical interpretations? One response is to say that the Bible is right and science is wrong; the Bible, after all, is more important to the Christian. This response, however, forgets that the Bible is always interpreted, and elevates a particular biblical interpretation to the authority of the Bible itself. It also discounts God’s revelation to us in the natural world, rather than listening to what science has learned about it.

The problem here is the secularist’s assumption that science is privy to all the facts, has all the data and is not ignoring anything that would alter its journey to its conclusions. When science disagrees with the Bible, then it is science that is wrong. God did not leave any instruction, biblical, historical, or any other type of message, that said to take science over my word or have science double-check what I told you. God and his word are not inferior to science. What the people at BioLogos miss is that science is a field of research studying topics that have key information and evidence missing, along with the fact that science’s participants do not believe the truth, are deceived and very limited in what they can think.

Science may present with some pertinent information in understanding different parts of the Bible but at no time can it declare what biblical event took place and which did not. It just doesn’t have that reach nor does it have all the information necessary and if it did, sometimes they dismiss that vital information leading them to draw false conclusions. Science is not God nor has the information God has. The last two lines of that quote show sour grapes on the part of the alternative believers.

They have those feelings because their ideas are rejected by the church. Those ideas are rejected because they are wrong, untrue and not biblical not because one interpretation is promoted to equal status of the Bible or that some fake revelation is discounted. The fake revelation is fake and discounted because the information is read into nature not derived from it. Also because that information comes from unbelieving sources and not from God.

  When we hear a scientific result that seems to conflict with the Bible, we should look at it more closely. How strong is the evidence? Is there a consensus among scientists? Has the theory been tested extensively? What alternate theories are available? At the same time we take a closer look at Biblical interpretation. What did the passage mean to the original audience? What interpretations have been held throughout church history? What are the theological implications? Rather than rejecting one side or the other, we can study both more carefully, remembering that God is speaking to us in both scripture and nature

In other words, read and understand the Bible our way and not God’s. None of those questions are biblical or the correct way to read the Bible. They are another attempt to get false teaching into the church.

Occasionally, multiple interpretations of scripture seem equally appropriate when considered with the tools of biblical scholarship. In those cases, science can break the tie. By showing us what God reveals in nature, science can show that some interpretations are inappropriate.

Again, this is wrong. science is NOT the tie breaker nor the arbitrator of biblical teaching. It possesses no biblical authority and no biblical teaching tells us to take science over God’s word. Nature has nothing to do with origins or life development and is not given that position to inform us of that fact. God already told us that he spoke and it was. Nature has no say in this issue. we can study nature to see how God made everything work, to see that DNA is designed to allow all life forms to live in the same environment, to see how different life forms live but at no time does nature say that God is wrong and that the Bible is incorrect.

The book of nature is not a revelation of origins or life development. Anyone who says it is, is just trying to avoid believing God and his word. Scientists are not theologians or pastors and they are trained in how to do science not read God’s word correctly. They are not experts on biblical matters but seek natural solutions for supernatural acts and that is wrong.

Advertisements
 
Comments Off on The BioLogos Foundation- 3

Posted by on November 21, 2014 in academics, archaeology, astronomy, Bible, church, creation, faith, Genetics, history, leadership, science

 

Comments are closed.

 
%d bloggers like this: