Genesis tells us that there is a celestial ocean overhead, with or without a firmament. Modern readers think “those ancients sure were creative!”
Texts in Job describe warehouses full of snow and hail, somewhere up in the sky. Modern readers marvel at the beautiful poetic imagery this makes!
The Book of Numbers describes Balaam’s donkey talking to Balaam. Modern readers think, “Wow, the kids will love this!”
The Book of Jonah presents the giant salt-water fish goddess, Tiamat, taking Jonah for a 3 day trip in her underworld realm reserved for the Dead. Modern readers think, “they must have been thinking about giant whales…”, as though this would tell us how anyone would survive three days underwater and survive.
Now that we have the physics and geology to understand how planets are really formed… why would a modern audience be chastised for glossing over the 6 days of creation - - when we already habitually do the same throughout the Old Testament?
Scripture is also silent on the Trinity, and on many other things considered central to theology. It does not include the historical creeds, or even a table of contents to let us know what is and is not inspired.
The doctrine of inerrancy is an effort bring Christians from several backgrounds to common language and understanding on key issues in understanding Scripture. It might need to be adjusted, but the doctrine itself is well conceived. It states from the basic understanding that Scripture is given by God, and trustworthy, and God’s way of communicating to us. Because God does not make errors, there are no errors in Scripture, but there may be errors in our understanding of Scripture.
One of the key topics addressed is the interaction of scientific findings with interpretation of Scripture.
So the key part I want you to look at @J.E.S, is here:
Biblical Statements and Natural Science
What the Bible says about the facts of nature is as true and trustworthy as anything else it says. However, it speaks of natural phenomena as they are spoken of in ordinary language, not in the explanatory technical terms of modern science; it accounts for natural events in terms of the action of God, not in terms of causal links within the created order; and it oflen describes natural processes figuratively and poetically, not analytically and prosaically as modern science seeks to do. This being so, differences of opinion as to the correct scientific account to give of natural facts and events which Scripture celebrates can hardly be avoided.
It should be remembered, however, that Scripture was given to reveal God, not to address scientific issues in scientific terms, and that, as it does not use the language of modern science, so it does not require scientific knowledge about the internal processes of God’s creation for the understanding of its essential message about God and ourselves. Scripture interprets scientific knowledge by relating it to the revealed purpose and work of God, thus establishing an ultimate context for the study and reform of scientific ideas. It is not for scientific theories to dictate what Scripture may and may not say, although extra-biblical information will sometimes helpfully expose a misinterpretation of Scripture
In fact, interrogating biblical statements concerning nature in the light of scientific knowledge about their subject matter may help toward attaining a more precise exegesis of them. For though exegesis must be controlled by the text itself, not shaped by extraneous considerations, the exegetical process is constantly stimulated by questioning the text as to whether it means this or that. The Chicago Statement On Biblical Hermeneutics | Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
What do you think of it? Do you agree? What principles do you see laid out here? What do you think might be relevant to your question of Ministerial vs. Magisterial use of reason? Or to the issue of how to avoid eisegesis, but still remain in dialogue with science?
That is somewhat correct, but not entirely. Look at what the statement says, to add to that. Keep in mind these principles were hard won through the Copernican Revolution, and did not rely on the modern notion of authorial intent (which is not, it seems, a traditional hermeneutic even if it is valid).
After we discuss this a bit, we can transition to looking at the historical context of Kepler, and how these principles became important then.
swamidass
(S. Joshua Swamidass)
Split this topic
25
As to the third question, a great deal of this (recent comments) still strikes me as rather (if not quite) magisterial…
This is true of exegesis. Unfortunately, theistic evolution does not uphold this standard, and thus falls into the category of eisegesis.
This sounds ministerial enough; however…
This is a rather slippery statement which is open to interpretation . Due to the careful wording, it is hard to tell if this is advocating a magisterial use of reason, but it could certainly be used to justify such a thing.
swamidass
(S. Joshua Swamidass)
Split this topic
28
@J.E.S, by your standard, modern medicine is also the magesterial use of reason, because it cannot be read out of Scripture.
I’d also like to know how you reconcile heliocentrism with the claim in Joshua that the “Sun stood still in the sky.” This clearly is saying that the Sun is normally moving (and this is even what they thought at the time), but in this case stopped. It seems then that saying that the sun is actually stationary (heliocentrism), but the earth is rotating is direct contradiction with the way Christians had read Joshua for over 1500 years.
One what basis do you work through this problem? Joshua is much more “historical” than Genesis by anyone’s standards. This is not poetic language. It is also very clear. The “Sun stood still” not “the earth stopped rotating” or “the Sun appeared to be stationary in the sky.”
It is this specific instance that gave rise the language in the Chicago Statement you are disputing. How do you get around these problems if you do not affirm the Chicago Statements? I should also emphasize that these Statements are echoing Kepler, a Lutheran, as he explained how he would make sense of Joshua. So I’d also like to know why you would distance yourself from Lutheran hermentics exemplified in Kepler.
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:
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.)
I thank Dr. Swamidass for reviving this thread. I am still very curious to hear @J.E.S address the questions we raised. And others.
I’d also love to see a thread discussing the various perspectives which the evangelical participants on this forum might have concerning the Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy. I was involved (in a very lowly way) with the drafting committee of the third of the conference series (the Chicago Statement on Biblical Application.) I find that many people refer to the Chicago Statement as if it was just one conference and one statement, but there was actually a series over a period of years. Specifically:
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978)
Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1982)
Chicago Statement on Biblical Application [December, 1986, called Summit III, when I was involved.]
Yes, all three statements really depended heavily on the meaning of inerrancy, and even in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Application draft committee, inerrancy topics kept coming up.
One of my favorite memories of the drafting committee of that third conference was when Norm Geisler asked John Sailhamer and I to join them for dinner that first evening. [I had brought on board John Sailhamer when Dr. Geisler asked me who I thought would make a good “scribe” for the committee’s drafting sessions.] I wish I could still remember the names of the main seven or eight (?) scholars present for that meal—because the conversations concerning inerrancy were so interesting and sometimes “intense”—but I think I was sitting next to J.I.Packer and Earl Radmacher and across from “Stormin’ Norman”, as people liked to call Dr. Geisler in those days. (See footnote below.) I think Roger P. Nicole and R. C. Sproul were also present but I’m fuzzy on that because I may be conflating other events from that era. Maybe Robert Preus was present. Either Kenneth Kantzer (Trinity) or Harold Hoehner (Dallas) had gotten me involved but I can’t recall if they were present that night—but all of these men were influential in the wording of the Chicago Statement on inerrancy. [If any reader happens to find an official list of Summitt III drafting committee members, I’d love to see the names so I could freshen my memories. In a quick Google search, I was unsuccessful.]
Norm Geisler sat at the head of the table. I remember having thoughts of King Arthur and the knights of the round table—but it wasn’t literally a round table. Even so, I felt there was a bit of “jockeying” among some of the participants, as often tends to happen when very influential and prominent people are involved in a common endeavor. I don’t say that in criticism. It is simply human personalities and dynamics at work. Yet, I think it is important to keep such aspects in mind when reading and appreciation something as influential as the Chicago Statements.
And the main reason I’m tediously recounting those experiences in this post is because, in retrospect, I think the committee should have drawn on a wider array of evangelical views on inerrancy. Regrettably, that thought never dawned on me at the time. Yet, with the advantage of years of reflection, I now recall the topics of that dinner conversation and realize that important voices were not present there and in the hours of drafting committee discussions which followed. I never asked the late John Sailhamer if and how his memories of that conference shaped his later writings on Genesis—but I have thought about that since his death.
[FOOTNOTE: Norm “Stormin’ Normin” Geisler is a Gulf War reference to General Norman Schwarzkopf. Anyone who is familiar with Geisler’s ministry will recognize why that became a nickname. I always got the impression that he liked that moniker even though he never really showed any reaction to it one way or the other. However, I could be wrong on that and his expressionless-ness was just a tolerance of it. I don’t know.]
Again, thank you for tolerating the recollections of an old guy. Droning on about the distant past is something one tends to do as one gets older.
By the way, by way of explanation of my previous post, does anybody remember the Woody Allen film, Zelig? If you have seen that 1983 mockumentary, you may begin to understand why I think of myself as a Leonard Zelig type of insignificant “fly on the wall” academic who somehow managed to find himself in interesting places at interesting times. (I suppose this a private joke that I tell myself and few others would appreciate the meaning.)
Since this thread has been resurrected and @AllenWitmerMiller has summoned me, I will address a few of the points that I left last time.
This is false (and I really hope @swamidass knew that before he posted it). Modern medicine is not a magisterial use of reason as it does not drastically influence Biblical exegesis. If someone tried to use the principles of modern medicine to disprove the Biblical account of the resurrection of Christ, that would be a magisterial use of reason (even if someone did that, however, that would not make all of modern medicine a magisterial use of reason). At any rate, I don’t understand how someone could bring himself to consider Evolution on the same scientific level as medicine.
Most (if not all) brands of Theistic Evolution are a magisterial use of reason, as they seek to judge Scripture with certain criteria of reason and evidence (which, in their case, would be Evolutionary “science”).
What an extrapolation! From Joshua’s perspective (not to mention ours), that is what it looked like. Even today we speak of “sunrise” and “sunset,” even though most of the people who use those terms know full well that the sun does not revolve around the earth, but that our side of the Earth turns to face the sun every few hours.
…And people accuse me of reading the Bible like a scientific textbook…
Really? Who says? I didn’t know we were setting up a hierarchy of truth and accuracy between Biblical accounts…
I am sure you have heard of theistic evolutionists interpreting Genesis as an allegory, right (that is pretty common). This definitely borders on (if it isn’t actually) eisegesis/irresponsible reinterpretation.
As far as eisegesis, the burden of proof lies on Theistic Evolutionists to show that evolutionary philosophy and the Scriptures are compatible, completely non-contradictory, and also complementary. This leaves Theistic Evolutionists caught between the rock of eisegesis (and/or irresponsibly drastic interpretation) and the hard place of “throwing out” significant portions of Scripture (or contradicting important doctrines in scripture). This is also known as “heresy.”
At any rate, I would still say that Theistic Evolution (well, most brands of it) is a textbook example of the magisterial use of reason. Extraneous considerations are employed which undermine the clarity of what the scriptures actually say, which may lead to eisegesis (allegorizing the text, dismissing the literal authorial intent etc.) or judging the Scripture “guilty” and throwing it out as irrelevant, calling it an anachronism in this “scientific” age.
It looks like we ended up waiting several months for my reply. Better late than never I guess!
(In the emphasized text) I would say that you just described the magisterial use of reason perfectly. Of course, I use reason when considering the Scriptures as well: the ministerial use of reason. When one reads Genesis using his reason in submission to the Word, considering the authorial intent, and leaving behind extraneous concerns, the correct interpretation is just around the corner. Many scientists have extensively studied God’s Creation and have advanced degrees representing their seniority in the study of the Creation…And still come out with incorrect interpretations of it.
When I draw my conclusion on origins, I prefer to place my trust in the clear Word of God rather than uncritically accepting the word of all-too-fallible human beings, especially when these all-too-fallible human beings say that something reportedly discovered in nature mandates a reinterpretation of scripture.
I hope that I have managed to make my case and portray my position clearly and graciously in this behemoth of a post, and I hope you both will consider my points (even if they are long overdue ) and note that, although I am firm, I have no intention of coming across as arrogant or disrespectful.
Mind if I play through? I think the magisterial use of reason sounds like the better choice, and the ministerial use of reason seems unlike reason and also antithetical to science. As you were.
I would like to point out that the terms we are discussing here are rather inextricably linked to theology (especially exegesis/eisegesis), and the “ministerial use of reason” has little or nothing to do with science…Unless it pertains to going with the words of Scripture over against those of “science.”
At any rate, I would love to hear from @AllenWitmerMiller and @swamidass at some point (although I would be happy to give them several months, as they gave me ).
I’ll comment here, even though I’m agnostic. I was a committed Christian during my teenage years, and my comments relate to that period in my life.
You are quite right. They are not at the same scientific level. Evolution is real science. And parts of medicine are science. But the bulk of what we think of as medicine is more engineering than science.
Okay, I guess that’s an aside.
As a teenager, my pastor persuaded me to read the Bible. I was at around 13 years of age. I got as far as Genesis 1 before I ran into problems. According to Genesis 1, there was light – presumably the light from the sky – before there was a sun. Yet I already knew that the illumination of the sky was due to the scattering of sunlight.
If I continued to accept what I knew from science, was that a magisterial use of reason?
The way that I resolved the problem, at that time, was to realize that the Bible was written for people at an earlier time in an earlier era. If 20th century physics were in the Bible, that would not have been understandable to the people of that time. So I recognized that we had to understand the Bible in terms of the culture and people for whom it was written. And the Genesis 1 account would have seemed correct to them, even if it was obviously wrong from the viewpoint of 20th century science.
I interpreted part of Genesis as allegorical. And this was before I had ever heard of evolution. When I got to Genesis 2 (the Adam & Eve story), I took that as allegorical. It did not read like a historical report. It read more like a fable. It was of the wrong genre to be treated as an eye witness account. And no, I did not know the meaning of “genre” back at age 13, but I could sure tell that this was not an actual descriptive account.
Similarly, I saw the Tower of Babel story as of the wrong genre to be considered an actual descriptive account.
I first heard of evolution a year or two later. I found it interesting. It explained a lot. But I was not ready to fully accept it at that time. However, as far as I could see, it did not in any way contradict my understanding of Genesis.
Obviously, I disagree with @J.E.S about this. Different people have different ways of reading the Bible. And perhaps @J.E.S should be a bit more understanding of how some folk can read it in ways that are different from how he sees it.
You raised a lot @J.E.S. When do you have time to get into it? It will be more fun when you have time to engage and if we can do this in small pieces. When works for you?
It is quite interesting how many creationists regard abiogenesis as a weak point of evolutionary theory. Yet for centuries, the theory of spontaneous generation - where life regularly comes from non-life - was taken for granted by scientists, philosophers, and even theologians such as Augustine.
This strikes me as a cop-out and a distortion of the real issue.
@nwrickert, I agree that different people have different ways of reading the Bible. However, not all “different ways of reading the Bible” are correct. I often understand the concerns of those who interpret scripture differently, but that does not mean that I won’t question their conclusions or disagree with them. Even though I disagree with a lot of people here, I hope that I can do so in an understanding and gracious manner (so I assure you that I did not mean to come across as abrasive ). This gracious disagreement is also a very important part of what Peaceful Science is all about!
@swamidass, @AllenWitmerMiller, feel free to tackle whatever parts of the behemoth post you want, and I will get back to you when I can. I (probably) won’t leave it for several months again, but it often takes me a while to post as I like to carefully consider the things I write.
Like Geocentricism, perhaps? I find it amusing that just as the veracity of the idea of spontaneous generation (to some extent) would end up being really useful to another scientific theory, we found that it really doesn’t work (but I digress).
. Due to the careful wording, it is hard to tell if this is advocating a magisterial use of reason, but it could certainly be used to justify such a thing.
Better late than never I guess!