Tag: Church History

R. Albert Mohler & C. John Collins Debate: Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

I came across a recent debate that R. Albert Mohler and C. John Collins had at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on the topic: “Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?” Here is a link to the video of the debate.

The 2 hour long debate is worth watching, particularly the contributions of C. John “Jack” Collins, OT professor at Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis, MO). Skip the first 10 minutes of the video, which is just preliminary info about the debate programs at TEDS).  Collins’ presentation starts at 47:43 on the video.

Listening to the whole thing, I thought that Mohler’s presentation argued more from a theological standpoint — staying in the tradition of Christian thought down through the ages, and alarmed at the potential slippery slope that allowing for an old earth presents. He marshals Scriptural arguments but not in a cogent and forceful manner. Most of the observations Jack Collins gives are agreed to in principal by Mohler but then they are just not enough to push him out of a literal 24 hour day/young earth view.

Collins is no friend of evolutionary creationism (or Biologos). He comes off every bit the conservative churchman he is, as a subscriber to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Yet Collins takes pains to read the text in a way the Text wants to be read. He doesn’t twist the meaning of “day” but sees the days as an analogy and thus not meant to be taken literally. He argues compellingly that the Scripture does not aim to speak definitively on the age of the universe or the age of the earth.  I found his presentation winsome and very carefully laid out. The debate bogged down at the end with Mohler taking most of the time and some important points being skipped for lack of time.

Collins’ emphasis on precision of language and his overall thoughts about the science and faith debate refreshing. Here is a faithful scholar who is thinking deeply on this matter and offering some helpful thoughts. This debate spurred me to pick up my copy of his Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. The book is excellent and I hope to search out other materials Dr. Collins has written on this overall topic.

Book Briefs: “Reformation Readings of Paul” edited by Michael Allen and Jonathan A. Linebaugh

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Reformation Readings of Paul edited by Michael Allen and Jonathan LinebaughToday is Reformation Day. 498 years ago today, October 31, Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenburg. And the rest is history!

Luther’s theology was born out of a careful interaction with the text of Scripture. Indeed the reading of Scripture played a prominent role in Luther’s conversion and that of many other reformers. Luther’s revelation from his reading of Romans 1:16 is commonly known. Another reformer in England, shares a similar account of his own conversion from reading a passage also written by the Apostle Paul.

Thomas Bilney, who in 1519 obtained an edition of Desiderius Erasmus’s translation of the Bible in order to savor the eloquence of the Latin only to

chance upon this sentence of St. Paul… in 1 Tim 1:15 “It is a true saying and worthy of all men to be embraced, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief and principal.” This one sentence, through God’s instruction… working inwardly in my heart, did so gladden it–which before was wounded by the awareness of my sins almost to the point of desperation–that immediately I felt a marvelous inner peace, so much so that my bruised bones leapt for joy.”

[quote from John Fox’s Actes and Monuments, in Reformation Readings of Paul, p. 15]

This refreshing reminder of the power of Scripture is included in the introduction to a new book exploring the Reformer’s interpretive readings of Paul. Pauline scholarship today is largely skeptical of Luther’s interpretation of Paul. Protestantism in general does not follow all of Luther’s doctrines. We do credit him with the recovery of the gospel of grace, however. Luther’s exact definition of justification, however, is under criticism today by Pauline scholars. Yet more often than not, it is the legacy of Luther rather than Luther’s own interpretations that is disputed. The same can be said of other Reformers as well.

Did Luther really reimagine Paul and make Galatians speak to 16th century problems? Did Calvin read his Reformation era realities back into the Pauline texts he unpacked? Some Pauline scholars would make us think so.

In Reformation Readings of Paul: Explorations in History and Exegesis (IVP, 2015), editors Michael Allen and Jonathan A. Linebaugh take the time to bring the Reformers to life as readers of Paul. The book brings a fresh look at the exegetical readings of Luther and other Reformers, showcases the historical and theological background of their era, and then seeks to bring these insights into conversation with current Pauline studies. This approach “invite(s) the reformers back into the discussion about Paul’s texts and the theology they articulated as a reading of those texts” and is especially helpful given the relative “absence of detailed engagement with the exegesis and theology of the reformers” in contemporary circles (p. 13).

This book may not present a view that all Protestants will agree with, but it will bring us back to engagement with the Reformers. We will learn how Luther read Galatians, and how Romans shaped Philipp Melanchthon’s theology. Martin Bucer and Ephesians, the Corinthian Epistles and John Calvin and finally the Letters of Paul and Thomas Cranmer more generally. In addition to the editors, the following authors contribute to the book: David C. Fink, John M. G. Barclay, Robert Kolb, Mark Seifrid, Brian Lugioyo, Wesley Hill, Dane C. Ortlund, Ashley Null and Gerald Bray.

This volume promises to be an intriguing read and may be worth checking out this Reformation Day. I want to share the takeaway from the introduction:

For the reformers, Scripture is the “living and active” Word… and is therefore less an object for us to interpret than it is the sound of the speaking God who interprets us. Understood this way, Scripture is God speaking, reading is listening, and helpful commentary is simply that which helps us hear. That, in the end, is the criterion the reformers would asked to be judged by: having heard them read Paul, are our ears more open to the gospel he proclaimed–the gospel the reformers, like Paul, were “unashamed” of because they, like Paul, confessed it to be “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom 1:16 KJV)? (p. 19)

Purchase a copy of this book at Amazon.com, Christianbook.com, or direct from IVP.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher. I was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

Book Briefs: “Spurgeon’s Sorrows: Realistic Hope for those who Suffer from Depression” by Zack Eswine

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Spurgeon's Sorrows by Zack EswineChristianity is a religion of the heart, and Evangelicalism especially emphasizes personal conversion and spiritual transformation. Our churches are very good at diagnosing spiritual maladies and confronting the problem of personal sin. But we often stumble in our efforts to help those afflicted by mental anguish, physical suffering and especially depression.

Depression directly contradicts the emotions that Scripture commends, and even commands. We are to “rejoice always” and to “count it all joy.” So a common temptation is to chalk up depression to the category of self-inflicted pain and ultimately reduce it to a sin problem. The conservative tendency to distrust psychologists and especially psychiatrists only adds to the problem.

Author Zack Eswine comments on this tendency:

Religion offers both a challenge and a help to those who suffer mental disorders. This challenge surfaces when preachers assume that depression is always and only a sin. They pour gasoline on the fire and wonder why it rages rather than calms those they try to help. At the same time, studies today confirm that those with mental health challenges simply do much better if they are part of a religious community. (Kindle location, 495)

This contemporary problem is not so contemporary after all. Charles Spurgeon the great Baptist preacher of the nineteenth century, was all too intimately acquainted with this problem. Eswine explores this little known side of the great preacher in his new book Spurgeon’s Sorrows: Realistic Hope for those who Suffer from Depression (Christian Focus, 2014). Spurgeon himself suffered from persistent bouts of depression. He sought medical treatment and at times took sabbaticals to restore his health. He was also never shy about admitting this problem, and his candor led him to be a magnet for those seeking help themselves.

Eswine’s book traces Spurgeon’s history and his approach to discussing this problem and counseling those with the problem. Spurgeon’s own personal thoughts and experience shed’s light on that of many in today’s church.

Eswine writes with care and resists a simplistic approach to the problem. He doesn’t shy away from spiritual considerations either. Spurgeon himself was like that. At times he spoke with great compassion of those afflicted by sorrows and despair, and at other times he challenged them toward greater faith. We are both physical and spiritual beings and no counsel is a one-size-fits-all solution.

Even the darkest pits that depression can lead to were roads travelled by the preacher. He found solace in Elijah and Job and others who like him, had despaired of life and wished to die. Eswine quotes Spurgeon and crafts his book with care, trying to help the wounded and encourage them to find hope in a body of believers.

The book is a bit disjointed and segmented. But that seems intentional, and is written with an eye to what those suffering from depression can withstand. Short chapters, brief thoughts, simple conclusions and applications. Encouraging thought and offering help without a judgemental attitude. One oddity in the book is the author’s repeated use of Spurgeon’s first name. This may be intended to be less off-putting for the depressed reader. It might make “Charles” seem more approachable. I found it jarring and odd, but that may just be me!

There is much that caregivers can learn as well in these pages, and the author’s use of Spurgeon’s insights along with some contemporary authors, provides help in how to deal with those struggling with this problem in our churches today. I recommend the book and hope its message is a blessing and help to many.

Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Amazon, Westminster Bookstore, ChristianBook.com, or direct from Christian Focus.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

Further Reading on Old Earth Creationism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

Redeeming Science by Vern PoythressMy recent post in response to Justin Taylor’s article explaining Biblical reasons for viewing the six days of creation as not 24-hour periods has received a lot of attention. My Facebook profile doesn’t normally light up so much! And I engaged in some endless blog debates at Sharper Iron, and another site.

I’ve read a lot more on old earth creationism lately, and see the need to continue my studies in this area personally. Justin Taylor recommended a few sources for additional reading, and I wanted to share those here with a couple additions of my own, for the benefit of my readers.

For a simple explanation from a Christian geologist of the evidence for an old earth, this post (and his series, linked at the bottom) are helpful.

My primary reason for holding to an old-earth position is detailed in this article – God speaks through creation and He doesn’t deceive. For additional explanation of how the Bible allows for an old earth, see this post.

For two free e-books from a Reformed persuasion, which model a helpful and careful consideration of this debate, see:

Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach by Vern Poythres – ebook (free – PDF) / paperback (Westminster Bookstore)

A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture by Keith Mathison – ebook (free) / not available in paperback

Justin Taylor also recommends the Presbyterian Church in America’s “Report of the Creation Study Committee”.

A brief booklet by Vern Poythress is also available free in pdf: Christian Interpretations of Genesis 1.

Rejecting Geocentrism: What’s the Real Motivation?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

I feel that the question of the age of the earth has become much more caustic in recent years. This debate has been increasingly polarized with each camp thinking the absolute worst of the other. But how important is such a debate anyway? I would contend that the earth’s age is not all that important as Christians who firmly reject natural evolution are to be found on both sides of that question.

Recently this debate was again brought to our attention through a pair of high profile blog posts. Justin Taylor (Senior VP and Publisher at Crossway), whose blog is hosted by The Gospel Coalition, shared the following post: “Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods.” This post was not well accepted by young earth creationists such as Ken Ham. Ham came out with a strongly worded response: “Rejecting Six Literal Days — What’s the Real Motivation?” Now, never mind that just a couple days prior, Taylor had shared “5 Scientific Problems with Current Theories of Biological and Chemical Evoluion.” Poor guy, he is getting flak from both sides of the creation science debate!

As I read Ham’s title and then his blog post, I first bristled at his willingness to read Taylor’s motives. Is not grappling with the text important, whether or not modern science pulls us one way or another? Here is a sampling of Ham’s reasoning:

I have found over and over again that because of the outside influence from the secular world in regard to an old earth/universe… many… will try to reinterpret the days of creation, or somehow allow for long ages somewhere in Genesis 1… to justify meshing Genesis with what is claimed to be “science.” Of course, when the word science is used in relation to the age of the earth/universe, we are dealing with historical science (beliefs based on fallible assumptions) not observational science (the kind of science that builds technology).

I am prepared to go out on a limb, on the basis of my experience in the biblical creation apologetics ministry and of all I’ve read over the past 40+ years, to say this. When Christian leaders today are rejecting a dogmatic stand on six literal, 24-hour days of creation and a young earth, if you search their writings or question them, you will find that ultimately their thinking is being controlled by the belief in an old earth/universe (billions of years)…. You simply do not get the idea of millions or billions of years from Scripture—it comes from outside of Scripture….

And thus I am saying the age of the earth/universe comes down to an authority issue.

On second thought, Ham might be right. At the root of attempts to re-examine Genesis stands the scientific discovery that the earth is unimaginably old. But ultimatley, we must ask, is it wrong to examine afresh our interpretation of Scripture in light of science? I would argue no, and I believe Ham himself is guilty of the same thing.

I’m talking about geocentrism – the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe. This was the Christian interpretation of the world prior to Copernicus’ revolution. Even the early Reformers did not countenance a rejection of this view. I just shared a review of a Christian scholar from the 1960s who still held to a preference for geocentrism even then. And some conservative Christian professors today still argue for such a view.

Science is clear, and the observations shows that the earth is not the center of the universe, and looking at Scripture in a fresh light, the church came to agree that phenomenological language does not constitute an assertion that the earth actually has 4 corners, and is fixed on pillars, with the sun going on a journey around the immobile earth each day.

Ham tries to quibble over the science behind an old earth by claiming that such science is not observational – but this is to turn science on its head. Much of the science that gives us techonology is not strictly observational, but based on observations which reinforce interpretations based on an examination of the evidence. And there are scientific tests done with carbon-14 and a host of other elements, that all agree. Blind tests with controls. Ham and many dispute the validity of such tests but have yet to come up with alternative tests that consistently (with similar controls) demonstrate a young age for the earth. These tests done by modern science converge with astronomical observations and learnings from astrophysics. At the very least many creation scientists would claim that the earth has an appearance of age. Doesn’t Answers in Genesis spend a lot of time grappling over the question of distant starlight?

Rejecting a young earth is not necessarily a matter of authority. The Scripture has authority, we all agree. The question is what does the text actually say. To go back to Taylor’s post, this really is an interpretational issue. There are clues in the text that today’s widespread Christian interpretation about the age of the earth may be in error. This would be similar to the widespread views of Christians in the 1600s being wrong about the position of the earth. Is it wrong to look anew at our interpretations and the Ancient Near Eastern evidence of Genesis 1-3 being of a particular genre. Could not some of the arguments Taylor offers be an honest grappling with the text in light of the influence of science and history.

Bending on our interpretation, reexamining the evidence — these actions do not prove one is abandoning biblical authority and embracing natural evolutionary science. Taylor himself gives us 5 reasons to doubt the current state of evolutionary theory. Instead these actions are incumbent on faithful Christian leaders. We need to make sure our interpretation is firmly grounded in the text. A lot is at stake in getting this right. Let’s make sure we die on the proper hill.

Some have examined the evidence afresh and have come away with a stronger position for a young earth. Don’t look at those who disagree with you and criticize them for examining the evidence too. We all are trying to grapple with science and our interpretation of Scripture. Where we disagree, lets do so charitably and with recognition that this isn’t an authority issue. Both sides uphold the authority of the text. We are all trying to make sure our interpretation is sound.