Book Review
Rescuing Inerrancy: A Scientific Defense
Inerrancy
First by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God. …
Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.
ANE Worldview Similarities and Differences
Hugh Ross, on the other hand, points out that these have long been considered to be in the genre of historical narrative, with poetic or figurative language included. He makes the case that the differences between ANE and biblical creation accounts are greater than their similarities. They are radically different given that the Hebrews believed in One God who
created everything and transcends his creation
is morally perfect
began a purposeful progression of history
uniquely created humans in his image
Concordance
Moderate concordism recognizes that no one can claim to have a perfect, unbiased interpretation of what the Bible and nature teaches. It allows respectful dialogue, prevents over- under-interpretation of various passages with respect to science, and makes allowance for the revision of interpretations on both sides.
As an example, the Day Age View, is presented as one compatible view of concordance. This model has been extensively studied and promoted by the organization Hugh Ross founded, Reasons to Believe (RTB). He acknowledges that this is not the only view, and that like any model has strengths and weaknesses. But this model does allow a historical reading of scripture and concordance with natural science, especially when the critical frame of reference in Genesis 1 is realized. Their testable model approach allows debate and consideration by both religious and scientific audiences.
A Historical Adam and Eve
In this book, the author claims that the historical Adam and Eve are too important to Christian theology to simply discard based on the objections to concordism. It is really impossible to cast the claims of Moses, Jesus, and Paul as just reflections of their worldview, and still hold to any reasonable view of the Bible as being the inspired, authoritative Word of God.
He lists some of the arguments against the historical Adam and Eve, and for a literary version, that is not historically true. They claim genomics and population dynamics make it implausible under evolutionary models for mankind to have come from a single pair. Rather than an original pair, there were thousands of individuals and God just chose representatives, and so were not specially created by God. Some may believe that God miraculously gave them spiritual awareness, while others even deny that, holding to a strictly evolutionary process that God drove behind the scenes. But if we are not descended from one man and one woman, it is hard to reconcile this with Bible genealogies and other teachings.
Ross argues that it raises too many problems with existing Christian theology. What does it even mean that God created man "In his image"? Does this mean that God gave this likeness and spiritual nature to a non-human hominid that later evolved? How was it transmitted to the rest of the population? Are humans truly exceptional or unique in contrast to other hominids? What implications does this have for salvation, the atonement, original sin, and more?
In Conclusion
This is an important book for the modern church which has already lost believers, compromised doctrines, and appears irrelevant to many. It is thought provoking and a great "modest defense" of Biblical Inerrancy. Christianity does not need to discard long-held doctrines in the face of recent theological accommodations of modern scientific interpretations. Taking a modest concordist approach will lead to better integration between God's two books of revelation, while reducing the heat and conflict. Christians don't have to fear that they will suddenly find that science conclusively has shown their faith to be disproved, nor does the scientist need to deny his faith while pursuing his studies of nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment