I am working my way through a new blog series in anticipation of my forthcoming book, Surviving Religion 101: Letters to a Christian Student on Keeping the Faith in College (Crossway, 2021). This new series will include 7 videos that tackle key intellectual questions about the Christian faith.
This week’s video deals with one of those things we all wonder as Christians: “Why does it seem like the smartest people are the ones who reject Christianity?”
This question will be particularly acute for college students because their professors are often the ones who don’t believe. There they are, trained in some of the finest research universities in the world. Brilliant. Smart. Filled with knowledge.
And there you are. A nineteen-year-old first-year student with no advanced degrees, no letters after your name, no credentials. They’re using words you’ve never even heard of before. What are the chances that you’re right and these professors—nearly all of them—are wrong? The chances of that seem pretty low.
Left unchecked, that question will begin to gnaw away at you, like a sliver in your mind, creating doubts about what you believe. So it’s important to have an answer. It’s critical to understand why the intellectual landscape is what it is.
So, in the video below, I give you some things to remember:
Ron says
“Smart” is defined differently than how the Lord defines it. Peer pressure is oppressive, and money and status talks.
Kevin Wells says
Most white scholars, most notably (and outspokenly) such an intellectual luminary as David Hume, once believed that it was a feature of the world that non-white races were intellectually and morally inferior by nature. And this was not bc of the evidence they had, but aggressively and adamantly in spite of it.
Even religious luminaries can fail spectacularly in culling (and even treasuring and nurturing) beliefs which are opposite even to their own religio-ethical (much less intellectual) framework. The murderous antisemitism which reformers such as Luther and Calvin allowed to take root in their minds in later life is a terrifyingly apt example.
All of us have built castles of rationalizations around what we prefer to be true. Intellectuals are better at this than anyone, simply bc they are trained in systematic analysis and synthesis of complex ideas. See research around “Identity Protective Cognition” for one aspect of why more evidence does not tend to lead more reliably to truth for the intellectually inclined.
Ernie says
Dr Kruger, your question hits the proverbial nail squarely on the head. I think the biblical inerrantism so vehemently defended by fundamentalists plays a great part. It stemmed from an existential (and totally unfounded) fear in the face of the scientific revolution. It has led them to insist in a literal word by word reading of Genesis, hence into finding “proofs” for Noah’s flood, for a co-existence of dinosaurs with humans, and to such enormities as Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter. Making Christianity that ridiculous has no doubt been a very important factor in turning away many a great mind from our beautiful faith.
Science and faith don’t need to be in opposition as both are God’s gifts to humanity. Unfortunately, and especially in this country, whoever tries to show their harmony, like p.ex. BioLogos, is on the spot branded a liberal, a sellout and whatnot, by the (self-appointed) purity police. Consequently people tend to identify Christianity with Fundamentalism and are turned off from it.
Mike says
Ernie,
How do you read Genesis if not “word by word”?
dean says
It’s true what you say, particularly when you are young or even at a mature age if you haven’t come across academia with all its technicalities, adulation, group think, bias etc. Who says idolatry is dead in this secular kingdom? A fair few ‘educators’ use intimidation tactics or fail to represent the other side/s of the story in a fair way if it fits their cause as they too look for disciples.
Even in visual arts Christianity is targeted. I wanted to opt out of a life drawing class and the teacher went off big time. I also put a Hans Rookmaker quote in an essay and was told I would be marked down if I used it again as it was not a ‘recognised text’.
Not only that, the gospel is an offence that challenges intellectualism, wealth, power and influence. Jesus was right. There is a wide gate that the majority opt for, smart or otherwise.
It’s a lifetime education learning and observing why people reject God and favour secular interpretation of God’s Word.
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly and despised things of the world, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are,…1 Cor 1 27,28
Ernie says
Mike, I gather from your question you are assuming the “word by word” is the only way to read it, correct? Well, if this is in fact your assumption, it’s belied by the simple historical fact that there have been many and many ways of reading it throughout the 2000 years of the existence of Christian faith (I’m talking within the Christian church alone, not including readings by outsiders). So there’s that.
Now, that said, the issue here is to find the best way of reading in order to be sure we keep the whole counsel of God. It so happened that many Fathers of the Church, which is to say guys who were much CLOSER (compared to you and I) to the historical event(s) giving rise to our faith, read it as an allegory, as part of a narrative containing God’s revelation to humanity, and not as a dictated document, of which every single word has to be true. They clearly understood that if the faithful adopted the latter, they would run into insurmountable obstacles, would invite ridicule upon themselves, consequently harming the proclamation of the faith. Which in our world today would amount to what I described on my comment.
On the other hand, if you read it as part of a narrative, then you avoid for yourself some pretty hard mental contortions similar to what the inerrantists have to go thru.
Nat Schluter says
It’s true that many who tend to prosper in university settings are aligned with the dominant worldviews of the associated culture. The confirmation bias can lead to the like-minded being accepted/promoted etc. – in any human society. In some universities, the neo-Marxist poachers are now the game-keepers and gatekeepers!
Minotaur says
In the Aslan analogy, C.S. was juxtaposing two “truths”.
Truth A: There are no singing lions in the natural world until one observes a lion that sings.
And
Truth B: All lions in Narnia sing until one observes a lion that does not sing.
dean says
From what I have gleaned long ages & deep time have their own problems in & of themselves. And they are hardly observable science. They require their own mental gymnastics, lack logic & require faith while passing it of as science that is contradicted by other valid science.
The Holy Bible (Gen 1-11) hardly reads as allegory, the problem is it contradicts atheistic dogma. And if assuming as you do that death came before the fall then I suppose the NT (those very close to Jesus-was He wrong too) is allegory also? And what about Jonah? Is that acceptable to science. What or who is your ultimate authority I wonder.
When the earth, the universe & life have the appearance of design and observations that appear youngish but science says no you have to wonder. So, is it true that those who support a young earth are truly harming the faith, Or vice versa?
In a way you have demonstrated what a young Christian will come up against in what I guess is Liberal Theology? Avoiding ridicule-Is that even a Biblical argument.
Ingvar Odegaard says
I used to put ‘smart’ high on the list. I’ve dropped that flat. Why?
Society NEEDS Godly souls. God will certainly see to it that the needed ‘smarts’ will be among the Godly souls. Consider the divinely supplied skills employed in fashioning the earthly Jewish temple.
Society does not need smart and wicked souls! They are anathema to a well ordered society.
An earth filled with wickedness brought the judgement of the flood from God.
A college freshman benefits from perspective.
A highly credentialed, well-spoken fool conducting a collegiate class is still…a fool. The scripture says to ‘stick around’ when there is a flow of information from such a person but to take your leave when that flow stops.
Nemo says
Ernie wrote,
“ It so happened that many Fathers of the Church, which is to say guys who were much CLOSER (compared to you and I) to the historical event(s) giving rise to our faith, read it as an allegory,”
Like many Church Fathers of a Platonic bent, Augustine made quite a few allegorical interpretations of the Genesis account. However, he always emphasizes the literal foundation of these allegories, i.e. the historicity of the OT narratives. Allegory is built upon human experience, and without the latter, the former is meaningless. AFAIK, there is no evidence that the Fathers interpreted Genesis account solely as an allegory and rejected its historicity.
Augustine also writes that there can be many valid interpretations of the same passage of the Scripture, as long as they don’t contradict the rule of faith and logic; Another Church Father, Origen, teaches that the Scripture has many levels of meanings, literal, allegorical, moral and spiritual. These manifold interpretations are not mutually exclusive, but work together to help readers appreciate the riches and the depth of the Word.
Having said the above, I admit that if someone were to ask me about the Flood, I would be stumped: If the Flood was a historical event, when did it happen and where is the physical evidence? If it wasn’t, how could Jesus genealogy be traced to Noah, and He also seemed to believe it was historical? I take comfort in the fact that both the Word and the Work of God are immensely profound, and we are only scratching the surface of both science and Faith. Having intellectual struggles is not a bad thing, it keeps us humble and compels us to keep knocking and studying. As Dr. Kruger put it, just because we don’t know the answer (yet) doesn’t mean there is no answer.
Ernie says
Dean, I take it you are replying to me, even as you don’t address me. But anyway. So I see you either misunderstand my comments or fail to raise any specific objections to them, preferring instead to state generalities.
On your first paragraph you mention your gleanings about contradictions of long ages & deep time. Are those gleanings fruit of your own research? If not, then you would not have any other way of gleaning them unless you were offered them by Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Ken Ham and the like. Which means if you believed their gleanings, then you would have to explain why you liked those peculiar gleanings and not those of Augustine, Calvin, Luther or other authorities of the Church? As you see this gets you exactly nowhere.
Your second paragraph shows you have totally missed my point. My point was precisely the fact that all those different readings have existed inside the Church. You completely bypass that and base your own comment on a literal reading as well, call any different readings as results of “atheistic dogma”. Whom are you accusing of atheism here pray tell? Those authorities I just mentioned? That’s why your following questions don’t make sense, because they take the literal reading for granted. As for your wondering about what or who is my authority, please don’t wonder any longer because my response is straightforward: the whole counsel of God.
As to your third paragraph, you still assume science to have to be in contradiction to faith, on this please refer to my previous comments above. On the youngish appearance, how do you know how old or young rocks are supposed to appear? Unless you are a geologist, you must have picked up the “youngish” thing from Gish & Co so neither this line of argument gets you anywhere. As to the issue of who is harming the faith, the YECs or those who embrace the traditional reading as a narrative, please do some research and you will find the answer in relevant data everywhere if you are only willing to see them.
As to your last paragraph, you introduce “Liberal Theology” out of the blue, not sure why. Is it to scare the hell out of anybody who sees this exchange? Anyway, in case you didn’t know, to invite ridicule upon our faith surely harms it and harms the proclamation of the Gospel, therefore avoiding ridicule is a legitimate objective if you want to advance God’s kingdom.
dean says
Ernie, Yes, I did reply specifically to your post which was pretty general (Usually a reply box follows the initial post). That was a bit impersonal from me (sorry about that). I could have introduced articles that show bias in the scientific community as I did with my personal experience in visual art. If that gets me nowhere then so would mentioning Bio logos without detail etc. From what I have gleaned Calvin argued for a young earth. But that is just a tiny drop in a vast ocean. What about the early church fathers? Wouldn’t that make a more sensible argument in terms of being closer. Not to mention ancient Hebrew scholars etc.
Long ages and deep time are atheistic dogma. Regarding rock/crystal, how some data was chosen over other valid data is laughable and not really scientific at all. Its funny (to me) how you can argue that science and faith can live in harmony as this is also a YEC argument. If you think you can marry death before the fall with the Bible (His counsel) then that is getting things back to front. I mentioned Liberal Theology (just as you mentioned fundamental) because that is what it looks like, plain and simple.
Nowhere in Scripture do I hear words to the effect. Well because there are alternate views about Gods Word we should just water it down and look for new hidden meaning in the text or just look for a simple narrative to get us through. The ‘science’ is always changing, it is very limited and also governed in a political sense, much like gender these days.
Regards
BruceS says
Dean to go back to your original comment there is obviously a sense in which we read ‘word by word’, BUT we read A TEXT. Texts like ‘The Lord is my shepherd’ and ‘A man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho…’ Do you think that reading these texts as we usually do is watering them down?
Raging I.T. Tombs says
Sometimes I feel rotten that I am not as well spoken and as knowledgable as you guys. I wish I was an ultra genius at times and could present answers and suggestions and insights that would blow everyone away. “Man, look at that dude! What a genius! Can you believe how brilliant he is?”
Crazy. That’s not what they said about Him. He had knowledge and He was articulate. He had the answers to the deepest questions and the most confounding mysteries. It is easy for me to hate someone like that. “Show off! Think you’re better than everyone, don’t ya?”
Somewhere in the distance I hear,
“Come they told me
Pa rum pum pum pum (ba bum)
A new born King to see (ba bum)
Pa rum pum pum pum (ba bum)
Our finest gifts we bring
Pa rum pum pum pum (ba bum)
Rum pum pum pum
Rum pum pum pum (ba bum)”
Someone, who at the time had little to offer anyone,
included me. He was glad I was there. Me and Him.
There was something about me that He loved.
I was special to Him and He knew me.
“Little (little) baby
Pa rum pum pum pum (ba bum)
I am a poor boy too
Pa rum pum pum pum (ba bum)
I have no gift to bring
Pa rum pum pum pum (ba bum)
(Ooohh)
That’s fit to give our King
Pa rum pum pum pum
Rum pum pum pum
Rum pum pum pum”
He did not care about gifts.
I was there and He loved and knew me
and I’ll never forget what that was like.
As a little innocent boy,
He knew my heart and He was pleased
He saw in me something lovable
something good and worthy
I need to be reminded why I follow Him
and that His love breaks through all barriers
Nemo says
Don’t forget the following stanza:
“I played my drum for him
Pa rum pum pum pum
I played my best for him
Pa rum pum pum pum,
Then he smiled at me
Pa rum pum pum pum
Me and my drum”
He doesn’t “care about gifts”, because all that we have are His to begin with. However, He cares about “fruits”. What does it mean “to play my best for him”? “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. (Romans 12:1 ESV)”
The servants of the Lord study the Scripture to the best of their ability, so that they might know Him and live in uniformity with His will. For them, study is worship. By contrast, if we study only to show off our knowledge and receive praise from men, it is the opposite of worship, it is actually self-worship, i.e., idolatry.
dean says
BruceS,
By watering down I am referring to ministers that would rather have a nice sermon or avoid part of a text to make God’s Word more appealing.
Angus says
I was delighted to see at the head of this article a picture of my old college (Christ Church, Oxford) to epitomise an educational institution where one might find ‘the smartest people’. If you go, in real life, through the archway under the prominent tower (Tom Tower), and cross the road outside, you will be standing outside St Aldates Church, a large evangelical church, which for some Sunday services that I attended, was packed so full of students that they were sitting on the windowsills as there were no seats left. (The windows were glazed, thankfully, so there was no chance of a repeat of Acts 20.) So I can assure all readers here that very many of ‘the smartest people’ are faithful, Bible-believing Christians.
BruceS says
Dean, I’m asking more what you mean by ‘word by word’
Ingvar says
When was that, may I ask?
dean says
BruceS,
I didn’t write word by word, that was Ernie and then Mike questioned his use of that.
Ernie says
Well, I see responses to my comments by Mike, dean and Nemo all presume a literal reading is a superior, if not the only, way of reading Genesis and the Bible. This is certainly a matter of opinion and personal preference, even if not borne out from Church history.
But my first comment was addressing the original question posed by Dr. Kruger’s post, namely “why the smartest go away”. And I stated my informed opinion that precisely that literal and inerrant reading is one of the most important causes of that “going away”. In fact surveys after surveys of young people losing faith when going to college show that evolution or, better, its denial by literalists/inerrantists, is what drives them away from the faith (even if some stay as Angus says, which is encouraging but not enough to buck the trend).
I would also add that the increasing politicization of the faith (a uniquely American phenomenon) obviously doesn’t help, but this would be an altogether separate issue.
Unfortunately most of the comments here so far have ignored that original question, preferring instead to go down bottomless rabbit holes.
dean says
Ernie,
The rabbit holes belong to modernism which in turn leads into post modernism and so on. Why should students bow down to Liberal Theology, evolution or whatever when it has its own problems and dilemmas? Just because a professor is smart and impressive? What about other smart people who disagree with other smart people? What happens then. Smart people reject evolution on the basis of science.
What about alleged vestigial organs that are hardly that with all their complexity and function. And what about the secularization/politicization of atheism with its supposedly neutral position? Does Scripture instruct us to trust Gods Word or mystify it with allegory to fit another faith that is foreign to the Truth? Did death come before the fall or was the Apostle Paul wrong?
dean says
My last sentence was wrong, this is the corrected version,
Ernie,
The rabbit holes belong to modernism which in turn leads into post modernism and so on. Why should students bow down to Liberal Theology, evolution or whatever when it has its own problems and dilemmas? Just because a professor is smart and impressive? What about other smart people who disagree with other smart people? What happens then. Smart people reject evolution on the basis of science.
What about alleged vestigial organs that are hardly that with all their complexity and function. And what about the secularization/politicization of atheism with its supposedly neutral position? Does Scripture instruct us to trust Gods Word or mystify it with allegory to fit another faith that is foreign to the Truth? Did death come before the fall or after according to Gen & the Apostle Paul?
Nemo says
Ernie wrote,
In fact surveys after surveys of young people losing faith when going to college show that evolution or, better, its denial by literalists/inerrantists, is what drives them away from the faith
As I see it, there are two separate issues here: One is whether a literal interpretation of Genesis is valid, and the other is why young people are turning away from the faith. First, even if young people are driven away by the “literalists” denial of evolution, it doesn’t follow that the latter’s view is invalid. The fact that the majority of smart people in ancient Rome in the first three centuries rejected Christianity doesn’t mean the Faith is invalid. Second, depending on how the surveys are conducted, the results can be interpreted in different ways, just like texts. It’s not evident to me that evolution is the main, let alone the only, reason young people are rejecting the Faith.
If your point is that we should be careful not to misrepresent the Faith and bring reproach upon it by spouting our own ignorance, I would agree. When the early Church Fathers explained and defended Christianity to naysayers and doubters, they didn’t just assert that their own position is correct, but instead, they reasoned with their opponents. To reason is to take into account of those experiences and opinions shared by both sides, and build arguments from that common ground. In this way, they endeavoured to show that the Christian faith is consistent with the reason and dignity of man. (In many cases, they did it out of necessity, because their lives depended on it, literally.)
If the Church Fathers could reason with their persecutors, surely Christians today can have civil and candid discussions about our disagreements. “Come now, let us reason together”.
Just out of curiosity, are there any passages in the Scriptures that you think should be interpreted literally, if so, how are they different from the Genesis account, if not, why is Christianity beautiful in your view?
Nemo says
Dean wrote,
“Did death come before the fall or after according to Gen & the Apostle Paul?”
I realize that this is a rhetorical question, but in the spirit of candid discussion, I’ll venture a response: It can be (and has been) argued that Paul is speaking of the spiritual death of man, which did not come before the Fall, “for the wages of sin is death”, and so evolution doesn’t contradict Genesis and Paul in that regard.
For those interested in how evolution can be reconciled with the doctrine of the Fall, there is an article at BioLogos that addresses this very question. I can’t say that I agree with all its arguments and interpretations, but at the very least, it shows that people have thought long and hard about it.
https://biologos.org/common-questions/did-death-occur-before-the-fall/
Ernie says
Dean, as to rabbit holes please note that Modernism and Postmodernism in no way have a monopoly on them. As to the smart people disagreeing with each other, this is no different than smart doctors, engineers, auto mechanics or other experts disagreeing with each other. In such cases you and me, as non-experts, have zero grounds to reject one side as being in bad faith. If you so choose to do, you inevitably expose yourself to ridicule, if not harm.
As to your second paragraph, please note (again) that the object of this post by Dr. Kruger was not to explore arguments pro or contra evolution, so your contra arguments are moot. And also, in case you didn’t know, pros and contras here don’t match “atheists” and “Christians” as you seem to believe, they both exist inside the faith and that’s where the rubber really meets the road, see BioLogos as indicated by Nemo for more info.
Nemo, I see and appreciate what you are saying, but my argument per se is not based on a majority/minority issue, my point is that literalism, inerrantism, as well as looking for creation “proofs” are all very recent developments in Church history and betray a complete surrender to the methods of Modernism that they purport to combat.
Modernism and Enlightenment introduced the absolute primacy of reason, reduced all knowledge to scientific knowledge, which obviously needs tangible proofs. And what did the Fundamentalists do? They blatantly gave in to the temptation to adopt the same, playing the game completely on the opponents’ field using the opponents’ rules. Consequently they stood no chance to win and have been on the losing side ever since. But the real harm here is public’s identification “Fundamentalism equals Christianity”, which cannot but have bad consequences for the faith.
As for your last question, it’s a long subject, let me just say a reading as a narrative allows you to consider Genesis in its historical context, because God reached for people where they were at the specific time He chose to reveal Himself, and did not purport to give them a scientific treatise which would not have made sense anyway. So obviously there are literal passages in the Scriptures, depending on what kind of literature a certain book is, not all of them are poems like Genesis 1-2. Christianity is beautiful because is the full revelation of God and contains His goals for the best of each believer and of humanity as a whole.
dean says
I am not really keen for this challenge to go on and on. But I would like to give another side to the story. The tricky thing is both these arguments apply to smart people. But it does show I think that one will be heavily promoted and pushed in secular culture while the other is forbidden it seems even though the rebuttals are valid science. In my view evolution gets the rabbit hole award by a country mile.
I think you would certainly have to think long and hard about getting evolution to fit into Gen Ch 1-3. But that is not the issue. Lots of people think long and hard about committing a crime and so on. The Apostle Paul tells us there are cleverly invented stories that turn out to be hollow. The issue is, is it true and what or who is your authority for doing so.
Is Scripture really authoritative or does science (not even science more like forensic science with flaws and contradictions know best.) Does the Bible teach just a spiritual death alone in the garden or does it speak of a physical death also.
Here are 5 points to consider from Lita Costner.
1. The Genesis creation account says that God created in six ordinary-length days, resting on the seventh. Every other time in Scripture when the word ‘day’ occurs with an ordinal number plus ‘evening and morning’, it’s a literal day.
2. If we believe the Flood is global, that explains the billions of fossils in sedimentary rock—then there’s no geological evidence for billions of years. We know that catastrophic geological events can change the landscape quickly on a local scale, we simply posit that in Noah’s Flood, the same thing happened on a global scale (see the relevant parts of our Geology and Noah’s Flood Q&A pages … ).
3. If that wasn’t enough, God inscribed with His own finger that He created the heavens and earth in six days and rested on the seventh Exodus 20, 32:16).
4. Jesus said that God made humans male and female “from the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:6). If we’ve only been around for the last few million years out of several billion, we weren’t “from the beginning of creation”. But if Jesus is thinking of Day 6, about 4,000 years before He said this, then it makes sense to say “from the beginning of creation”.
5. Paul clearly sees death, both human (Romans 5) and in the rest of creation (Romans 8) as a result of Adam’s sin. But every non-historical understanding of Genesis has death before the Fall.
Rom 5: 2 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
https://creation.com/no-death-before-the-fall
Ernie says
I’m posting this again because it seems to have been stuck in moderation since yesterday.
Dean, as to rabbit holes please note that Modernism and Postmodernism in no way have a monopoly on them. As to the smart people disagreeing with each other, this is no different than smart doctors, engineers, auto mechanics or other experts disagreeing with each other on a certain issue. In such cases you and me, as non-experts, have zero grounds to reject one side as being in bad faith. If you so choose to do, you inevitably expose yourself to ridicule, if not harm.
As to your second paragraph, please note (again) that the object of this post by Dr. Kruger was not to explore arguments pro or contra evolution, so your contra arguments are moot. And also, in case you didn’t know, pros and contras here don’t match “atheists” and “Christians” as you seem to believe, they both exist inside the faith and that’s where the rubber really meets the road, see BioLogos for more info as recommended by Nemo.
Nemo, I see and appreciate what you are saying, but my argument per se is not based on a majority/minority issue, my point is that literalism, inerrantism, as well as looking for creation “proofs” are all very recent developments in Church history and betray a complete surrender to the methods of Modernism that they purport to combat. Modernism and Enlightenment introduced the absolute primacy of reason, reduced all knowledge to scientific knowledge only, which obviously needs tangible proofs. And what did the Fundamentalists do? They blatantly gave in to the temptation to adopt the same, playing the game completely on the opponents’ field using the opponents’ rules. Consequently they stood no chance to win and have been on the losing side ever since.
But the real harm here is public’s identification “Fundamentalism equals Christianity”, which cannot but have bad consequences for the faith.
As for your last question, it’s a long subject, let me just say a reading as a narrative allows you to consider Genesis in its historical context, because God reached for people where they were at the specific time He chose to reveal Himself, and not purporting to give them a scientific treatise which would not have made sense anyway. So obviously there are literal passages in the Scriptures, depending on what kind of literature a certain book is, not all of them are poems like Genesis 1-2. Christianity is beautiful because is the full revelation of God and contains His goals for the best of each believer and of humanity as a whole.
Angus says
I would like to support Dean in the view that the apostle Paul was referring to spiritual death coming as a result of the Fall. It appears to me that Adam and Eve were created as mortals, and were going to (physically) die at some time anyway. This is based on what we are told in Gen.3:22 “… Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever -” (ESV). Note the last three words of the quotation; in order for Adam and Eve to be immortal they had to eat from the tree of life, and it was exactly to prevent this happening that they were thrown out of the Garden. Therefore they must have been mortal to begin with. This reasoning is also the basis for my scepticism about the idea that people have immortal souls that survive physical death, though I admit that I have not investigated the origin of the belief in the existence of the ‘immortal soul’.
Nemo says
Dean,
You wrote, “Is Scripture really authoritative.”
The Scripture is authoritative. Your or my interpretation of the Scripture is not. When two sides disagree on how a particular passage of the Scripture should be interpreted, then the burden of proof is on both sides. Claiming the authority of Scripture for oneself is begging the question, and certainly not edifying. One needs to show why his/her interpretation is more worthy of acceptance than the alternative. Is it consistent with the rule of Faith and logic? Is it borne out by the facts? In Deut. 18:15-22, God instructs the Israelites on how to discern between true and false prophets. The same test can be done to root out invalid interpretations of Scripture.
(If anyone is interested, I think I addressed Dean’s points 1 and 3 in a blogpost I wrote years ago explaining why the “day” in Genesis 1-2 is not (necessarily) the 24-hour day. Any constructive feedback is welcome.)
Speaking as someone who happens to work in the same field as the founder of BioLogos Dr. Francis Collins (current director of NIH), I’m invested in the relation between science and faith. Needless to say, I don’t have the answer and am still learning. I do believe the Scripture and Nature are not in conflict, both having God as their Author. However, our limited understanding of the Scripture can contradict our limited understanding of Nature. The subject is too vast and deep for any individual, so we need help from other people and other communities to detect our own biases and blindspots. To paraphrase Einstein, faith without science is lame, science without faith is blind.
Nemo says
Ernie,
I’m curious why you treat Genesis 1-2 as poetry. What I’m trying to get at is the criteria you use to distinguish between poetry and history in the Scriptures. Could you be a little more specific?
dean says
Ernie,
If I am not mistaken it was you who brought up moot evolution (not me). I brought up Visual art.
You also brought up rabbit holes as if they belonged to the historical accounts recorded in Gen 1-2 or Gen 1-11. I was just pointing out that Liberal Theology has many rabbit holes in case you were like a brother who was unaware.
Modernism (with its alleged primacy of reason & don’t forget assumption & a priori positions) has its failings. It’s not as if the alleged big bang 1 & 2 is fact but rather propped up by assumption, it’s not like evolution (which one) has ever been observed. There is scientific evidence that supports an earth and its creatures being young and fossils that challenge the fossil record along with insects encased in amber that fit with the account of Noah. One is openly taught the other is not.
Once I get to hear the other side and having reasonable intelligence I can very satisfactorily scoff at the idea of molecules to man (as being science) whether I am an expert in the field or not. Just like I can fix my car instead of taking it to a mechanic who has trained for years. Experts are after all mortal, limited & operate from bias.
Yes, I can also expect ridicule and opposition to come my way (The Bible tells me so). Just like those who opposed Darwin (with science) back in the day or those who opposed modernism in the 50’s,60’s &70,s etc.
I realise that Biologos is attempting to fit atheistic dogma into a historical sacred text in the name of science. I also realise that it doesn’t fit on many grounds. CMI points this out very well on a journalistic level as well as for the lay person. There are many battles within Christianity regarding, origins, sexuality, salvation, sanctification, worship, leadership, the Lord Supper, music etc, etc.
If your worried about good standing in the community (academic or otherwise) I would say take it to the Lord in prayer & commit your cares to Him. His Word & Spirit for the church of all ages is a solid rock in the storms of life.
dean says
Angus,
“It’s not that simple. Adam’s death in the Garden was like that of a rose cut from its bush. The rose is dead once it is cut from the bush, but it does not wither immediately. Nevertheless, the fact that it will wither is certain from the moment it is cut from the bush. In the same way, Adam cut himself off from his source of life, God, through his sin. The breach in relationship with the life giver (i.e. ‘spiritual death’) was immediate, and the physical effects of that breach (i.e. decay and physical death) were inevitable from the moment of the breach, though the physical effects took time to manifest. To say that Adam’s death was only spiritual is contradicted by 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, which compares and contrasts the death that Adam brought into the world with the death from which Christ was resurrected. (Note how readily such a stance leads to the heresy that Christ was merely raised from ‘spiritual’ death.)” Shaun Doyle.
dean says
nemo,
I am happy to discuss things but am not trained in formal debate etc. Regarding Authority, Do you question the global flood on the basis of Theology or modern assumption based science.
If (????) the Flood was a historical event
Did Jesus seem (?????) to believe in the flood or not????
Why would you need science to back you up regarding Noah but not the resurrection of Jesus
“Having said the above, I admit that if someone were to ask me about the Flood, I would be stumped: If the Flood was a historical event, when did it happen and where is the physical evidence? If it wasn’t, how could Jesus genealogy be traced to Noah, and He also seemed to believe it was historical? I take comfort in the fact that both the Word and the Work of God are immensely profound, and we are only scratching the surface of both science and Faith.” Nemo.
Nemo says
Angus,
Did you perhaps misattribute my view (actually the view I was explaining) to Dean?
I tend to think that Adam and Eve were created neutral, so to speak, neither immortal, nor mortal in the same sense we are: they were not bound to die. They had a choice between life and death. If they had eaten of the Tree of Life, they would have lived forever, but when they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were condemned to death. If they had eaten of the Tree of Life in that condemned state, perhaps their death would have been perpetuated, like the second death. So God drove man out of the Garden … until the fullness of time, when He sent Christ to deliver man from death.
dean says
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.
Nemo says
Dean,
You wrote, “Why would you need science to back you up regarding Noah but not the resurrection of Jesus”
Science cannot prove or disprove historical events, partly because they cannot be reproduced in a controlled environment. However, we can ascertain whether something happened by examining the evidence. For example, I would say there is evidence of Jesus’ resurrection, i.e., historical events that would be best explained by it, such as the radical change in the behaviour of his disciples. In the same vein, if there was a global flood, as opposed to many local floods, one would expect to find evidence that would be best explained by the former and not the latter. I’m not at all familiar with the evidence, that’s why I said I would be stumped if questioned.
Dean says
So if the Bible says there was a great flood (not just any flood) and Jesus and The writer to the Hebrews affirm it & Scrpiture is authoratative, why would you use words like “If (????) the Flood was a historical event…and Jesus did seem (?????) to believe in the flood and a family lineage that includes Noah…
Would you need science to back that up or is Scripture sufficient?
Ernie says
“I’m curious why you treat Genesis 1-2 as poetry. What I’m trying to get at is the criteria you use to distinguish between poetry and history in the Scriptures. Could you be a little more specific?”
Nemo, not being a scholar myself I would rely on: 1) historical wisdom of the Church; 2) Christian scholars on ancient history and texts, p.ex. NT Wright, John Walton, etc; 3) reason. Even those who think they can read the text themselves (see comments on this thread p.ex.) are in fact fooling themselves, because they all follow somebody’s else opinion. To debate if Genesis 1-11 is true in the meaning “has happened exactly as written” is an exercise in futility IF you have zero knowledge about the historical context, ancient texts etc etc (it is TRUE for sure, but NOT AT ALL in that meaning). And I think, as I have said before, that such exercise in futility is the greatest cause of smart people “going away” from the faith.
Nemo says
Dean,
Again, the Scripture is authoritative, but (y)our interpretation of the Scripture is not. I’ll try to elaborate on my point one more time, just in case it is also unclear to people reading this exchange.
You wrote, “Do you question the global flood on the basis of Theology or modern assumption based science.”
That question is revealing: By”Theology”, you’re really referring to your own theology, not necessarily what the Scripture is teaching; when you say “the Scripture is sufficient”, what you are really saying is your own interpretation of the Scripture is sufficient, This is why, again and again in the discussion, you quote the Scripture, assume your interpretation alone is valid, declare it “authoritative”, and expect others to bow to it.
I suspect we are all guilty of the same subjectivism/self-authority, but it is easier to detect “the speck that is in your brother’s eye”.
It is important to remember the difference between the Scripture, which is authoritative, and our interpretation, which is not authoritative. We need to check our interpretation of Scripture against God’s Word and His Work. For God does not contradict Himself. He does not say one thing, and does the opposite. So the Scripture does not contradict Nature, whereas our interpretations can be (and often are) contradicted by both. In other words, it is not a matter of backing up Scripture with science, but correcting our own limited and flawed understanding.
When people have contrary interpretations of the Scripture, we need to determine which one is valid. As I said in my previous comment, the burden of proof is on both sides. The same applies when people have contrary interpretations of Nature. Should the Flood be interpreted as history or allegory? (Did Jesus reference it as history or as allegory?) When two sides disagree, it is not enough to give one’s own interpretation, and expect others to agree. We need to show why our interpretation is more worthy of acceptance than the other. This is also why I pressed Ernie on the criteria he uses to distinguish between poetry and history. We should be able to explain not only what we believe, but also why we believe it.
dean says
Nemo,
I am puzzled by this “We need to check our interpretation of Scripture against God’s Word and His Work.” This is your interpretation, which does not reflect the teaching of Scripture. Or can you show me in inspired Scripture where Christians are instructed to operate in this manner where we ‘need’ to confirm it by limited scientific investigation and the mind of man with all its bias and problems of the heart?
Did Noah not really build an ark under Gods instruction, was he & his family not really saved in that ark made of gopher wood covered in pitch and tar? Until the science has settled things.
Can you show me in Scripture where we are told to live by or like this?
Nemo says
Dean,
I’m not sure I understand your question. IF you’re saying you won’t do anything unless the Scripture specifically tells you so, why are you using the Internet and commenting on blogs?
Scientists have biases, yes, just like everybody else. If you’re saying that, because scientists are biased, scientific investigation is not worth pursuing and its fruits not trustworthy. Then I don’t see how you can trust any human understanding, even your own interpretation of Scripture.
If you’r asking why I believe “we need to check our interpretation of Scripture against God’s Word and His Work.” In a previous comment, I quoted Deut. 18:15-22, where God told the Israelites to check prophecies against historical facts (i.e. His Work), so they can tell whether a prophet is sent by Him or not. To put it differently, it is precisely because “the mind of man with all its bias and problems of the heart”, as you put it, that we need to check our interpretations against God’s Word and Work.
Nemo says
Ernie,
You wrote, “not being a scholar myself I would rely on: 1) historical wisdom of the Church; 2) Christian scholars on ancient history and texts, p.ex. NT Wright, John Walton, etc; 3) reason.”
We’ve touched upon 1) i.e. the Church Fathers, already. So let me ask you about 2).
More than one Biblical scholars have said that scholars disagree on almost everything. If I remember correctly, Dr. Kruger said something to that effect in one of his talks. So I’m curious why you chose to rely on those scholars in particular. I’ve read a little of Walton’s interpretation of Genesis, But it is not clear to me which criteria, or hermeneutical principles, he used to undermine a more literal interpretation and support his own. Can we apply these criteria consistently to the rest of the Scripture, and other ancient literary texts? I have the same question for those who say that some parts of the Gospels are historical, but others are literary embellishments. If you, or anyone else, could shed light on the subject, I would very much appreciate it.
Knowledge of the historical context in which the text is written certainly helps. But it doesn’t resolve the issue of interpretation. The controversy surrounding the Constitution of the United States is a case in point.
dean says
Nemo
5 Straight forward questions…
Did Noah not really build an ark (in holy fear) under Gods instruction, was he & his family not really saved in that ark made of gopher wood covered in pitch and tar with all the animals that God brought to Him and then closed them in because… allegory/poem?
If it was just a local flood, why was it necessary to bring all the animals along and keep them alive?
Does the Bible really say we cannot truly know truth by revelation unless the science settles it first? Or is this a foreign idea that is being introduced to the detriment of the authority of Scripture?
In regard to true and false prophets (Deut 18:15-22) Neither you or I are prophesying about an event to take place to be tested but about whether or not the flood is allegory, local or historic and huge.
I can point to catastrophic rapid erosion, widespread global discoveries of amber and fossils (some with DNA i.e. young not old), massive coal deposits, seashells on the top of mountains supported with scientific investigation and yet God comes to us with a few chapters in Genesis confirmed by Jesus (family lineage in tow) and others in the NT. I was given none of this information at high school or in the public/secular domain.
On that basis I reject alleged ‘long ages’, science (pre modernism) & Scripture (all ages). In as much as I appreciate both fields, which is the one that God tells me to trust above all else and provides the reason for the catastrophic flood in an inspired way for all age & learning groups regarding salvation?
dean says
This paragraph could have been worded better…
On that basis I reject alleged ‘long ages’, science (pre modernism) & Scripture (all ages). In as much as I appreciate both fields, which is the one that God tells me to trust above all else and provides the reason for the catastrophic flood in an inspired way for all age & learning groups regarding salvation?
(edit)
There are quite a few reasoned arguments to reject long ages. The older science model (pre modernism) & Scripture (all ages) reveals a more accurate ‘picture’. In as much as I appreciate both fields, which is the one that God tells me to trust above all else and provides the reason for the catastrophic flood in an inspired way for all age & learning groups regarding salvation?
Nemo says
Dean,
You wrote, “Does the Bible really say we cannot truly know truth by revelation unless the science settles it first? Or is this a foreign idea that is being introduced to the detriment of the authority of Scripture?.”
The way you keep asking the same rhetorical questions suggests to me that further discussion would be unprofitable. So I’ll try to explain one last time, and leave it at that:
Since God is the Author of Scripture and nature, the study of nature is not detrimental to the authority of the Scripture, any more than the study of Scripture is detrimental to its own authority. For the creation reveals the power of God (Romans 1:20)
The Scripture is not threatened by science, neither is science threatened by Scripture, but the conceit of man can be. If we’re so blind that we cannot tell the difference between the Scripture and our own interpretation, and, like the Pharisees, refuse to be corrected, even when confronted by the works of the Lord Himself, we do it to the detriment of ourselves and those whom we lead into the ditch. The same can be said about the practitioners of science: If we’re so conceited that we cannot tell the difference between our limited understanding of nature and nature itself, then we are in danger of hindering the advance of science, and blinding ourselves and others from the Truth.
As I understand it, true prophets are those who speak the word of God, whereas false prophets speak “from their own hearts”. So when prophesies are tested, false prophets are exposed, because their prophesies are inconsistent with the Work of God, but the true prophets are approved, because their authority is from Him, and He doesn’t contradict Himself.
I was not discussing whether the Flood was historical — I already said I don’t have the answer, though it’s not difficult to judge from my blogpost where I stand on the issue, but how to test whether our interpretation of the Scripture is valid, using the Flood as an example for illustration.
dean says
They were straight forward questions Nemo.
I get that science can compliment Scripture just as art, music and maths can. I also get how historical/assumption based science can contradict Scripture and both cannot be correct.
But I don’t buy into your “as Dr. Kruger put it, just because we don’t know the answer (yet) doesn’t mean there is no answer.” That can be true of many things but I don’t think that would be true of the great flood where Noah experienced great fear so God put a rainbow in the sky to reassure him that God would not do that again.
Scripture says we can know and we don’t need to be a Phd plus scientist to travel to the ends of the earth to find out or confirm it. God has given us His Word for us to live by and hold fast to. Scripture is the blueprint. Some things are profoundly true & simple and God via His Word calls us to accept them with a believing heart (such is the life of faith).
Hebrews 11:7 NIV
By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.
Luke 17:26 NIV
“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.