The Ministerial Vs. Magisterial Uses Of Reason (And Evolution)

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

@J.E.S

This is true of exegesis. Unfortunately, theistic evolution does not uphold this standard, and thus falls into the category of eisegesis.

I want to understand what you are saying. Can you please cite an example of someone being guilty of such theistic-evolution eisegesis, reading evolution into the text, per se? I don’t doubt that someone somewhere is guilty of reading evolutionary processes into the Biblical text but I’ve not personally noticed it among prominent theistic-evolutionist/evolution-creationists. (Does anybody claim “This particular scripture is clearly describing the evolutionary process of X” or “This verse refers to the evolution of the modern horse” or whatever? If they are doing that, I would be likely to agree with you that that sounds like eisegesis.)

I am an evolutionary creationist who finds nothing in the Bible which denies the Theory of Evolution. But I have never cited any particular scripture as specifically referring to evolutionary processes—and I wouldn’t expect that of an ancient text with no scientific textbook agenda. So I certainly don’t consider my own position guilty of eisegesis. On the other hand, I most certainly do recall my former stance as a hardcore “creation science” Young Earth Creationist from the 1960’s and 1970’s as one that was rife with eisegesis (largely because I was so influenced by John Whitcomb Jr.) I was such a hardcore Young Earth Creationist that I defended it as the token evangelical at debates on university campuses, and I adamantly promoted “creation science” a la Morris-Whitcomb when invited to speak at churches where I could address any sermon topic I wished.

[[I don’t want to get into a long tangent on eisegesis traditions in the Young Earth Creationist world but I first faced them when I eagerly devoured THE GENESIS FLOOD (1962, Henry Morris & John Whitcomb Jr.) shortly after the first edition appeared. I addressed a more recent example of YEC eisogesis just a few weeks ago when I was asked to speak at a church on the topic “Are there dinosaurs in the Bible?” People there had been heavily influenced by Ken Ham into wondering if Job 40 really did refer to dinosaurs living among humans. I used the topic as a way to illustrate some basic hermeneutical principles so that the audience could weigh “the BEHEMOTH is a sauropod” claim. Ham’s forcing a sauropod dinosaur into the text is one of the more comical examples of eisegesis I’ve seen.]]

Last week I posted the following in response to your proposed dichotomy of “magisterial versus ministerial” and I remain sincerely interested in your reply:

@AllenWitmerMiller

Reason is employed whenever humans interpret anything. Theologians use human reason and evidence to interpret what God has revealed in his scriptures. Scientists use human reason and evidence to interpret what God has revealed in his creation. Your statements seem to imply that human reason and evidence only apply to science and not to the study of the scriptures. Scholarly articles in both peer-reviewed scientific journals and peer-reviewed theological journals rely upon human reason and the evidence from their respective fields. So I must reject the false dichotomy.

Your statements also might be interpreted to imply that God’s revelations in his creation are inherently inferior to what God has revealed in his scriptures. I prefer to consider all that God has chosen to reveal to us. So when I draw upon both my knowledge of science and my knowledge of the Bible when reaching my conclusions about origins, I am submitting to the authority of God in all of his revelations. Again, I strongly reject the false dichotomies which are often promoted by my YEC colleagues and former associates.

God has revealed truth to us in many ways. In addition to the creation and the scriptures, God has given Christ-followers the witness of his Holy Spirit. And some people have benefitted from direct revelations of truth from God. For example, those at Belshazzar’s feast were informed by words written on a wall by a hand which suddenly appeared: “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.” Daniel was called in by the king and he translated and explained the meaning of the words. I could give many other examples. So why would I want to restrict myself to just one of God’s means of revealing truths to us? Some prefer to focus solely on what the scriptures tell us. I prefer to consider all that God has revealed.

When I consider what God has revealed in his creation and in his scriptures, I consider all of those revelations important and truthful because they come from the same author, the Creator himself. So I am mindful of God’s scriptures when I study God’s creation and I’m mindful of the creation when I study the scriptures. Because they come from the same author, I expect to find harmony and even mutual reinforcement. And I do. (Each helps me to understand the other.)

Recognition of God’s truths in all of the contexts where they happen to be revealed is not “eisegesis”—and so I assume that that is not what you are talking about. So I look forward to your clarification so that I can accurately understand your position.

(Obviously, I don’t expect to find a lot of geological truths in the Bible and I don’t expect to find a lot of soteriological truths revealed as I study the natural world. Meanwhile, God endowed humans with human reason so that we can grapple with the truths to be found in both God’s scriptures and God’s creation.)