Did a low view of Scripture lead to multiculturalism or did multiculturalism lead to a low view of Scripture?  It seems to me that Schaeffer in this section views the low view of Scripture as the root of all evil.  Is this really so?  Too his credit Schaeffer does warn of the coming catastrophe upon our children.  

I am reviewing No Final Conflict by Francis Schaeffer to assess its impact on Christianity amid current discussions about Jewish supremacy. Does this book lead Christians towards a blend of Judaism and Christianity, or does it deepen their understanding of Christianity itself? 

I question the use of the term Judeo-Christian, equating it with Zionism, a sect many Christians find alluring but I find harmful (Proverbs 14:12). Unlike these zealots, I seek God based on truth revealed by Him as stated in Romans 10:1-2 and Proverbs 24:5-6.  We've been warned about the way to life abundant; there is only one way. (John 10:10; Matthew 7:26-27).

Finally, I want to know how God formed a people into a nation.  I look at the elements of nationhood. I am skeptical of America's shift since the 1960s towards being a melting pot. America abandoned foundational principles for globalism and multiculturalism, which harm nation, family, and individual. Drawing parallels with the Exodus story, I stress the importance of remembering our history to avoid passing on a harmful legacy to our children. After all, our children ask for bread and deserve bread, not the snake we have created and are about to pass on to them (Matthew 7:9-10).

With these thoughts in mind, I invite you to study along.  To go to the beginning of this series click here.  To join me in this study on Gab click here.

The Watershed of the Evangelical World    

There are two reasons in our day for holding a strong, uncompromising view of Scripture. First, and foremost, this is the only way to be faithful to what the Bible teaches about itself and what Christ teaches about Scripture. This should be reason enough in itself. But today there is a second reason why we should hold a strong uncompromising view of Scripture. There may be hard days ahead of us—for ourselves and for our spiritual and our physical children.^[1] And without a strong view of Scripture as a foundation, we will not be ready for the hard days to come.

Christianity is no longer providing the consensus for our society. And Christianity is no longer providing the consensus upon which our law is based. We are in a time when humanism is coming to its natural conclusions in morals, in values, and in law. All that society has today are relative values based upon statistical averages.

Soft days for evangelical Christians are past, and only a strong view of Scripture is sufficient to withstand the pressure of an all-pervasive culture built upon relativistic thinking. We must remember that it was a strong view of the absolutes which the infinite-personal God had given in the Old Testament, the revelation in Christ, and the then growing New Testament which enabled the early Church to withstand the pressure of the Roman Empire.

☐ Agree   ☒ Disagree   ☐ Uncertain    Comment:

As important as a high view of Scripture may be, the softness of the people, the lack of commitment of the people to a set of values was undermined by a flood of values that poured in from other cultures and peoples. I guess one could argue, did a soft view of Scripture lead to open borders or did open borders lead to a soft view of Scripture.

But evangelicalism today, although growing in numbers as far as the name is concerned, throughout the world and the United States, is not unitedly standing for a strong view of Scripture.

The existential methodology has infiltrated that which is called evangelicalism. The existential methodology dominates philosophy, art, music, and general culture such as the novel, poetry and the cinema. It is also the current dominant form of liberal theology. What is this? This position is that in the area of reason, the Bible has many mistakes in it. In the area of history and where the Bible touches the cosmos—that is, those places where the Bible touches that which is of interest to science—the Bible has many mistakes. But nevertheless, we can hope for some sort of upper-story religious experience in spite of the fact that the Bible contains mistakes. That is the present dominant form of liberal theology.

But unhappily this form of theology is now functioning in many places under the name of evangelicalism. It began a few years ago like this in certain evangelical circles: Where the Bible touches history and the cosmos, there are mistakes. But, nevertheless, it was stressed, we can still continue to hold on to the meaning system, the value system, and the religious things which the Bible teaches. Here are two quotations from men widely separated geographically across the world to show what I mean by the acceptance of the fact that in the area where the reason operates, the Bible contains mistakes. These are men in evangelical circles.

But there are some today who regard the Bible’s plenary and verbal inspiration as insuring its inerrancy not only in its declared intention to recount and interpret God’s mighty redemptive acts, but also in any and in all of its incidental statements or aspects of statements that have to do with such nonrevelational matters as geology, meteorology, cosmology, botany, astronomy, geography, etc.

In other words the Bible is divided into two halves. To someone like myself this is all very familiar—in the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre, of Albert Camus, of Martin Heidegger, of Karl Jaspers, and in the case of thousands of modern people who have accepted the existential methodology. This quotation is saying the same thing they would say, but specifically relating this existential methodology to the Bible.

Another quote. This is a translation from another language and a country far off from the United States.

More problematic in my estimation is the fundamentalist extension of the principle of noncontradictory Scripture to include the historic, geographic, statistical and other biblical statements, which do not touch in every case on the questions of salvation and which belong to the human element of Scripture.

Both of these statements do the same thing. They make a dichotomy. They make a division. They say that there are mistakes in the Bible, but nevertheless we are to keep hold of the religious things. This is the way the existential methodology has come into evangelical circles.

Now look with me at what the Lausanne Covenant says about Scripture.

We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written Word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

I ought to say that the little phrase, “without error in all that it affirms” was not a part of my own contribution to the Lausanne Congress. I didn’t know that phrase was going to be included in the Covenant until I saw it in its final printed form. But let me speak about why historically it is a proper statement, if the words are dealt with fairly. We are not saying the Bible is without error in the things it does not affirm. And one of the clearest examples, of course, is where the Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” The Bible does not teach there is no God. The Bible does not affirm that. Furthermore, we are not saying the Bible is without error in all the projections which people have made on the basis of the Bible. So that statement, as it appeared in the Lausanne Covenant, is a perfectly proper statement in itself. However, as soon as I saw it in its printed form I knew it was going to be abused. In August 1975, Dr. Billy Graham wrote me as follows: “I was thinking of writing a brief booklet on ‘in all that it affirms’ which I took to mean the entire Bible. Unfortunately, this statement is being made a loophole by many.”^[2]

Unhappily, this statement, “in all that it affirms,” has indeed been made a loophole by many. How has it been made a loophole? It has been made a loophole through the existential methodology which would say that the Bible affirms the value system and certain religious things set forth in the Bible. But on the basis of the existential methodology these men say in the back of their minds, even as they sign the Covenant, “But the Bible does not affirm without error that which it teaches in the area of history and the cosmos.^[3]

Because of the widely accepted existential methodology in certain parts of the evangelical community, the old words infallibility, inerrancy and without error are meaningless today unless some phrase is added such as: the Bible is without error not only when it speaks of values, the meaning system and religious things, but it is also without error when it speaks of history and the cosmos.^[4] If some such phrase is not added, these words today are meaningless. Infallibility is used today by men who do not apply it to the whole of Scripture, but only to the meaning system, to the value system and certain religious things, leaving out any place where the Bible speaks of history and the things which would interest science.

Those weakening the Bible in the area of history and where it touches the cosmos do so by saying these things in the Bible are culturally oriented. That is, in places where the Bible speaks of history and the cosmos, it only shows forth views held by the culture in the day in which that portion of the Bible was written. For example, when Genesis and Paul affirm, as they clearly do, that Eve came from Adam, this is said to be only borrowed from the general cultural views of the day in which these books were written. Thus not ‘just the first eleven chapters of Genesis, but the New Testament is seen to be relative instead of absolute.

But let us realize that one cannot begin such a process without going still further. These things have gone further among some who still call themselves evangelicals. They have been still trying to hold on to the value system, the meaning system and the religious things given in the Bible, but for them the Bible is only culturally oriented where it speaks of history and the cosmos. Now in the last few years an extension has come to this. Now certain moral absolutes in the area of personal relationships given in the Bible are also said to be culturally oriented. I will give you two examples. There could be others.

First, easy divorce and remarriage. What the Bible clearly teaches about the limitations placed upon divorce and remarriage is now put by some evangelicals in the area of cultural orientation. They say these were ‘just the ideas of that moment when the New Testament was written. What the Bible teaches on these matters is to them only one more culturally oriented thing, and that is all. There are members, elders and ministers in churches known as evangelical who no longer feel bound by what the Scripture affirms concerning this matter. They say that what the Bible teaches in this area is culturally oriented and is not to be taken as an absolute.

The same is true in the area of the clear biblical teaching regarding order in the home and the church. The commands in regard to this order are now also considered culturally oriented by some speakers and writers under the name of evangelical.

In other words, in the last few years the situation has moved from hanging on to the value system, the meaning system and the religious things while saying that what the Bible affirms in regard to history and the cosmos is culturally oriented to the further step of still trying to hold on to the value system, the meaning system and religious things, but now lumping these moral commands along with the things of history and the cosmos as culturally oriented. There is no end to this. The Bible is made to say only that which echoes the surrounding culture at our moment of history. The Bible is bent to the culture instead of the Bible judging our society and culture.

The Bible is bent to the culture instead of the Bible judging our society and culture.

Once men and women begin to go down the path of the existential methodology under the name of evangelicalism, the Bible is no longer the Word of God without error—each part may be eaten away step by step. When men and women come to this place, what then has the Bible become? It has become what the liberal theologians said it was back in the days of the twenties and the thirties. We are back in the days of a scholar like J. Gresham Machen, who pointed out that the foundation upon which Christianity rests was being destroyed. What is that foundation? It is that the infinite-personal God who exists has not been silent, but has spoken propositional truth in all that the Bible teaches—including what it teaches concerning history, concerning the cosmos and in moral absolutes as well as what it teaches concerning religious subjects.

What is the use of evangelicalism seeming to get larger and larger if significant numbers of those under the name of evangelical no longer hold to that which makes evangelicalism evangelical? If this continues, we are not faithful to what the Bible claims for itself and we are not faithful to what Jesus Christ claims for the Scriptures. But also—let us not ever forget—if this continues, we and our children will not be ready for difficult days ahead.

Furthermore, if we acquiesce we will no longer be the redeeming salt for our culture—a culture which is committed to the concept that both morals and laws are only a matter of cultural orientation, of statistical averages. That is the hallmark—the mark of our age. And if we are marked with the same mark, how can we be the redeeming salt to this broken, fragmented generation in which we live?

I would like to state again the last line which dealt with the Scripture in my Lausanne speech. We must say most lovingly but clearly: evangelicalism is not consistently evangelical unless there is a line drawn between those who take a full view of Scripture and those who do not.

We who bear the name evangelical need to be unitedly those who have the same view of Scripture as William Cowper had when he wrote the hymn, “The Spirit Breathes Upon the Word.” In contrast to any concept of the Bible being borrowed through cultural orientation, the second verse of that hymn reads:

A glory gilds the sacred page,
Majestic, like the sun:
It gives a light to every age;
It gives, but borrows none.

Questions & Notes

I colorized the last paragraph because I had trouble catching Schaeffer’s point. I then submitted it to ChatGPT in this manner:

Explain [it] as a teacher to an eighth grader:

This was its reply:

Alright, class, let’s break down this quote into simpler terms!

So, imagine you’re part of a group called “evangelicals.” These are people who believe in some specific things about the Bible and their faith. Now, the person who said this thinks that all evangelicals should agree on how they see the Bible. They want everyone in this group to think of the Bible the same way.

Now, they’re talking about a hymn called “The Spirit Breathes Upon the Word,” written by someone named William Cowper. In this hymn, there’s a part that talks about how special and important the Bible is. It says the Bible is like a shining light, just like the sun, and it’s been like this for a long, long time.

Then, there’s a line that says something really interesting: “It gives, but borrows none.” This means the Bible gives knowledge and guidance to people, but it doesn’t need to take anything from anyone else. It’s like it’s always been full of wisdom all by itself, and it doesn’t need to rely on other sources to be wise.

So, when the person says “We who bear the name evangelical need to be unitedly those who have the same view of Scripture as William Cowper had,” they’re saying that they want all evangelicals to think about the Bible just like William Cowper did when he wrote that hymn. They believe the Bible is special and full of wisdom all on its own, without needing to borrow from anyone else’s ideas or culture.

1. What is the second reason for holding a strong, uncompromising view of Scripture? ↑

2. What concern does the author express regarding the phrase “without error in all that it affirms” in the Lausanne Covenant? ↑

3. What has the existential methodology led some individuals to believe about the Bible’s affirmation of history and the cosmos? ↑

4. Why are terms like infallibility, inerrancy, and without error considered meaningless by some in the evangelical community today? ↑

Click on the "No Final Conflict" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here. To join me in this study on Gab click here. 

Once God hit the 'create' button, bam! Objective reality kicked in!  You find yourself navigating through a labyrinth of knowledge, one path leading you through the Bible and the other through scientific study.  Now, you might think these paths would clash like two rams butting heads, but do they?  Maybe instead, they both point to one single truth.  Schaeffer contends for the later.  

This reminds me of doubting Thomas' encounter with Jesus after the resurrection. He did not believe the witnesses claim that He had. Jesus approach to this skepticism is most interesting.

John 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

I am reviewing No Final Conflict by Francis Schaeffer to assess its impact on Christianity amid current discussions about Jewish supremacy. Does this book lead Christians towards a blend of Judaism and Christianity, or does it deepen their understanding of Christianity itself? 

I question the use of the term Judeo-Christian, equating it with Zionism, a sect many Christians find alluring but I find harmful (Proverbs 14:12). Unlike these zealots, I seek God based on truth revealed by Him as stated in Romans 10:1-2 and Proverbs 24:5-6.  We've been warned about the way to life abundant; there is only one way. (John 10:10; Matthew 7:26-27).

Finally, I want to know how God formed a people into a nation.  I look at the elements of nationhood. I am skeptical of America's shift since the 1960s towards being a melting pot. America abandoned foundational principles for globalism and multiculturalism, which harm nation, family, and individual. Drawing parallels with the Exodus story, I stress the importance of remembering our history to avoid passing on a harmful legacy to our children. After all, our children ask for bread and deserve bread, not the snake we have created and are about to pass on to them (Matthew 7:9-10).

With these thoughts in mind, I invite you to study along.  To go to the beginning of this series click here.  To join me in this study on Gab click here.

No Final Conflict

There may be a difference between the methodology by which we gain knowledge from what God tells us in the Bible and the methodology by which we gain it from scientific study, but this does not lead to a dichotomy as to the facts.^[1] In practice, it may not always be possible to correlate the two studies because of the special situation involved; yet if both studies can be adequately pursued, there will be no final conflict.

For example, the tower of Babel: Whether we come at it from biblical knowledge given by God or by scientific study, either way when we are done with our study, the tower of Babel was either there or it was not there. The same thing is true of Adam.^[2] Whether we begin with the conceptual apparatus of archaeology and anthropology or whether we begin with the knowledge given us in the Bible, if it were within the realm of science’s knowledge to do so, in both cases we would end with knowledge about Adam’s bones. Science by its natural limitations cannot know all we know from God in the Bible; but in those cases where science can know, both sources of knowledge arrive at the same point, even if the knowledge is expressed in different terms.^[3] And it is important to keep in mind that there is a great difference between saying the same thing in two different symbol systems and actually saying two different exclusive and even incompatible things, but hiding the difference with the two symbol systems.^[4] What the Bible teaches where it touches history and the cosmos, and what science teaches where it touches the same areas do not stand in a discontinuity.^[5] There indeed must be a place for the study of general revelation (the universe and its form, and man with his “mannishness”)—that is, a place for true science. But on the other side, it must be understood that there is no automatic need to accommodate the Bible to the statements of science. There is a tendency for some who are Christians and scientists to always place special revelation (the teaching of the Bible) under the control of general revelation and science, and never or rarely to place general revelation and what science teaches under the control of the Bible’s teaching.^[6] That is, though they think of that which the Bible teaches as true and that which science teaches as true, in reality they tend to end with the truth of science as more true than the truth of the Bible.

Facts and Brute Facts

Words have become so devalued today that we often have to use cumbersome terms to make what we mean understood. The word fact does not necessarily mean anything anymore. Fact can just mean upper-story religious truth, and therefore we have to use an awkward term like brute fact. In this particular case, we are fortunate because the liberal theologians themselves have at times used the term brute fact for what they do not mean by facts.

By brute facts we do not mean some Cartesian concept of “eternal facts.” There are no facts back of God, any more than there are morals or values back of God. There are no autonomous facts which exist regardless of God. But once God created, that which he created had objective reality. And as God created history with space-time significance, that which happens in history also has objective reality.

The historicity of the Fall is a perfect example. The historic Fall is not an interpretation: it is a brute fact. There is no room for hermeneutics here, if by hermeneutics we mean explaining away the brute factness of the Fall. That there was a Fall is not an upper-story statement—that is, it is not in this sense a “theological” or “religious” statement. Rather, it is a historic, space-time, brute-fact, propositional statement. There was time, space-time history, before the Fall, and then man turned from his proper integration point by choice, and in so doing there was moral discontinuity; man became abnormal.

In speaking of facts and brute facts, we are speaking of facts in the space-time sense, that which is open to the normal means of verification and falsification.

This does not mean they are then to be taken as sterile facts. These biblical facts are facts in past history, but they have, and should have, meaning in our present existential, moment-by-moment lives.

Furthermore, in speaking of the Bible’s statements as propositional truth, we are not saying that all communication is on the level of mathematical formula. There can be other levels (for example, figures of speech or the special force of poetry); but there is a continuity—a unity, not a discontinuity—between these “other levels” and a flow of propositions given in normal syntax and using words in their normal definition, and this is a continuity which reason can deal with.

Take an example outside of the Bible: Shakespeare’s communication with his figures of speech is a much richer human communication than is mere mathematical formula. The “other levels” (for example, his figures of speech) add enrichment. Yet, if, as in far-out modern prose and poetry, there are only, or almost only, figures of speech, with no adequate running continuity that can be stated in propositional form using normal syntax and words with normal meanings, no one knows what is being said. As a matter of fact, some modern writers and artists deliberately work this way so that this will be the case. Their work becomes only a quarry for subjective experiences and interpretations inside of the head of the reader or viewer.

The early chapters of Genesis quickly come to this place if they are read other than as in propositional form using normal syntax and words in their normal meaning. As an example, Paramhansa Yogananda did this in his book Autobiography of Yogi and most easily turned these chapters into a powerful Hindu tract.

There is a danger of evangelicalism becoming less than evangelical, of its not really holding to the Bible as being without error in all that it affirms. The Bible does affirm certain things in regard to history and the cosmos, just as definitely as it affirms certain religious truths. When there is a separation made between these affirmations, we are then left with the victory of the existential methodology under the name of evangelicalism. Holding to a strong view of Scripture or not holding to it is the watershed of the evangelical world.

Questions & Notes

1. What is emphasized about the difference between gaining knowledge from the Bible and scientific study? ↑

2. Provide an example from the text where both biblical knowledge and scientific study converge on a factual understanding. ↑

3. Why might it not always be possible to correlate the findings from the Bible and scientific study? ↑

4. Explain the significance of understanding the difference between two symbol systems, as mentioned in the text. ↑

5. What is the author’s perspective on the relationship between the teachings of the Bible and scientific revelations? ↑

6. Describe the tendency the author identifies among some Christians who are also scientists regarding the hierarchy of truth between the Bible’s teachings and scientific findings. ↑

Click on the "No Final Conflict" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here. To join me in this study on Gab click here. 

Look at the following picture. What do you see? Schaeffer suggests that this picture is what it must be like to have knowledge of various subjects yet have no upper-story story. With no overarching story the beads just lay there. They will never be pulled together into something even more wonderful. But look at these beads. Stare at them. As you stare, don't you feel the temptation to see patterns and purpose? Where did that desire to see patterns and purpose come from? Why do we not look at these beads like other animals do? And why are scientist, biologists, chemist, and others so determined to suppress that upper story story as they stare at their assortment of beads all day?

I am reviewing No Final Conflict by Francis Schaeffer to assess its impact on Christianity amid current discussions about Jewish supremacy. Does this book lead Christians towards a blend of Judaism and Christianity, or does it deepen their understanding of Christianity itself? 

I question the use of the term Judeo-Christian, equating it with Zionism, a sect many Christians find alluring but I find harmful (Proverbs 14:12). Unlike these zealots, I seek God based on truth revealed by Him as stated in Romans 10:1-2 and Proverbs 24:5-6.  We've been warned about the way to life abundant; there is only one way. (John 10:10; Matthew 7:26-27).

Finally, I want to know how God formed a people into a nation.  I look at the elements of nationhood. I am skeptical of America's shift since the 1960s towards being a melting pot. America abandoned foundational principles for globalism and multiculturalism, which harm nation, family, and individual. Drawing parallels with the Exodus story, I stress the importance of remembering our history to avoid passing on a harmful legacy to our children. After all, our children ask for bread and deserve bread, not the snake we have created and are about to pass on to them (Matthew 7:9-10).

With these thoughts in mind, I invite you to study along.  To go to the beginning of this series click here.  To join me in this study on Gab click here.

Two Limits

Having delineated these seven freedoms, I will now mention two limits that seem to me to be absolute. The first is that the use of the word bara insists that at the original creation, at the creation of conscious life, and at the creation of man there was specific discontinuity with what preceded.^[1]

One other limitation is that Adam was historic and was the first man, and that Eve was made from Adam. It could not be: male-female-male-female-male-female, and then suddenly Zip!—male-female of man. It would be worthwhile here to read again all the New Testament references to the early chapters of Genesis found on pages 12–14. Among these it is most important to recognize that 1 Corinthians 11:8 affirms that Eve came from Adam: “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.” First Corinthians 11:12 and 1 Timothy 2:13 also relate to Eve’s coming from Adam.

Consequently, what is involved here (as in this whole discussion) is not ‘just the first chapters of Genesis, but the authoritativeness of the New Testament as well, and especially the writings of Paul. If Paul is wrong in this factual statement about Eve’s coming from Adam, there is no reason to have certainty in the authority of any New Testament factual statement, including the factual statement that Christ rose physically from the dead. If we say this factual statement about Eve was culturally oriented, then every factual statement of the New Testament can be said to be culturally oriented; and any or all of the factual statements of the New Testament can be dealt with arbitrarily and subjectively. The Bible gives a specific limitation: Adam was created by God, and then Eve was made from Adam by God.

In passing it should be noted that it is not inconsequential that Eve came from Adam; rather, this gives the basis for the absolute unity of the whole human race.^[2]

Having set forth these two limitations, I must now say I have never heard anyone holding any form of theistic evolution who follows these two limitations. I think the reason for this is that holding these limitations in any system of theistic evolution would separate the one who holds such an evolutionary theory from the usual evolutionists as completely as holding a totally nonevolutionary theory would. To put that another way, someone affirming these limitations would be as completely separated from those who hold the evolutionary position in its normal form as would someone who did not hold any form of evolution. And this is the reason, I think, it has not been put forward, at least never to the best of my knowledge.

In conclusion, I would make two points. First, even if I were still an agnostic, as once I was, I would not accept the concept of evolution from the molecule to man in an unbroken line. My rejection of this does not turn upon my being a Christian, but comes rather because I think this concept is weak and certainly has not been proven (in any sense of the word proven). It is a theory with many unproofs. It has not been demonstrated either theoretically or empirically that time and chance can explain either the universe with its high complexity or man as man. Statistically, Murray Eden of MIT has insisted that it is impossible that the universe and its complexity were produced by pure chance out of chaos in any amount of time that has so far been suggested (see “Heresy in the Halls of Ivy—Mathematicians Question Darwin,” in Scientific Research, November 1967, pp. 59–66). And equally, no one has demonstrated that man as man could have been brought forth from non-man merely on the basis of time and chance. When this has been tried, it ends by reducing man to non-man and man’s aspirations to illusions.

Both Darwinism as it was first presented as the survival of the fittest and neo-Darwinism have been shown to have not only philosophical, but methodological and statistical problems.^[3] And trying to make final explanations on the basis of reductionism has now largely been set aside.

The concept of an unbroken line from the molecule to man on the basis of time and chance is, it seems to me, very clearly a faith position held by modern rationalistic man. He holds it tenaciously because it is the only thing which he has to give unity to the particulars of knowledge which he has in his hand; and it is all he has to give an illusion of meaning for man in a meaningless universe.

If modern rationalistic man were to give up his theory of evolution in an unbroken line from the molecule to man on the basis of time and chance (and with it the unnecessary but usually held corollary of sociological evolution), he would be left with his bits of knowledge like loose beads scattered on the floor. To put it another way, the evolutionary theory of an unbroken line from the molecule to man on the basis of time and chance is the only frame of reference that modern rationalistic man has; therefore, he holds it in faith.

Second, I do not hold to a concept of theistic evolution, but it must be said that there is a certain possible range of freedom for discussion in the area of cosmogony while bowing to what God has affirmed.

Questions & Notes

1. The first limitation emphasizes the idea that creation, particularly the creation of conscious life and humanity, involved a distinct __________ with what came before. ↑

2. Another limitation highlights the biblical account of Adam being the first man and Eve being created from Adam, affirming the __________ of the human race. ↑

3. The rejection of evolution isn’t solely based on religious beliefs, it is underscored that the concept of evolution faces challenges both __________ and methodologically. ↑

Click on the "No Final Conflict" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here. To join me in this study on Gab click here. 

The keyword to keep in mind in this section as Schaeffer will be sure to remind you is "possibilities."  Since none of us lived in the ancient past, and since we are so poor at passing down information to the next generation, we can only ponder and contemplate days of yore.  I've started learning about being a family historian.  I'm highly doubting I will know anything of my family 200 years ago let alone a millennium or two ago.  

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

I am reviewing No Final Conflict by Francis Schaeffer to assess its impact on Christianity amid current discussions about Jewish supremacy. Does this book lead Christians towards a blend of Judaism and Christianity, or does it deepen their understanding of Christianity itself? 

I question the use of the term Judeo-Christian, equating it with Zionism, a sect many Christians find alluring but I find harmful (Proverbs 14:12). Unlike these zealots, I seek God based on truth revealed by Him as stated in Romans 10:1-2 and Proverbs 24:5-6.  We've been warned about the way to life abundant; there is only one way. (John 10:10; Matthew 7:26-27).

Finally, I want to know how God formed a people into a nation.  I look at the elements of nationhood. I am skeptical of America's shift since the 1960s towards being a melting pot. America abandoned foundational principles for globalism and multiculturalism, which harm nation, family, and individual. Drawing parallels with the Exodus story, I stress the importance of remembering our history to avoid passing on a harmful legacy to our children. After all, our children ask for bread and deserve bread, not the snake we have created and are about to pass on to them (Matthew 7:9-10).

With these thoughts in mind, I invite you to study along.  To go to the beginning of this series click here.  To join me in this study on Gab click here.

The Freedom and Limitation in Cosmogony as Set by the Bible

We come now to the possible freedoms which the Bible gives us as we consider the cosmos. I will name seven. I am not saying that any of these points will ultimately prove to be the case. I simply want to point out what freedoms the Scripture gives us as we consider what the general revelation is saying about cosmogony.

In Genesis in Space and Time, Chapters 7 and 8, I consider the question of the genealogies in Genesis. The fact that the genealogies are not chronologies gives us a definite freedom in regard to dating; but this is different from the possible freedoms I speak of in the present chapter. In the present chapter I am speaking of freedoms which may be possible, and nothing beyond that.

1. There is a possibility that God created a “grown-up” universe. For example, Adam, the first night he existed, might have seen the light of the furthest stars without waiting for long light years to pass before they could be seen.

To this possibility, we must quickly add one note. This does not mean that God is capricious. And surely it does not imply, and I would totally reject, the concept Bishop Samuel Wilberforce [1805 – 1873] suggested at Oxford in Darwin’s time: that God created the fossils in the earth in order to fool fools. This is totally out of character with the God of the Bible.

However, just because it was stated so horribly in the days of Darwin is no reason not to suggest that God may have in some sense and in some areas created a grown-up universe. One could ask, for example, whether the trees when they were created had rings.

It should be noted that if God created a grown-up universe, this would throw off those who extend the cause-and-effect universe as it is now backwards to the beginning, as though the beginning must be uniform with that which is the case now.

2. There is a possibility that there is a break between Genesis 1:1 and 2, or 1:2 and 3, and that from that point on the Bible is speaking of a reforming of a partially disordered creation rather than the original creation. This has often been related to Satan’s fall. If this were so, it would give more time, although it seems to me that since the genealogies were not meant to be chronologies there is no problem of needing time.

The weakness of this idea as it is sometimes presented as a dogma is that there are no supporting verses for it in the rest of the Bible. It seems to me that the verses often cited really do not refer to it. Therefore, this must be seen as being only a hypothesis. Nevertheless, it does remain a theoretical possibility, and that is all I am setting forth in this list.

2a. I label this point 2a because, though it is not necessarily related to the way possibility 2 is usually presented, yet there is a relationship between it and possibility 2. This idea relates to the writing of C. S. Lewis, especially in his books Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra. Lewis sets forth the concept that Satan ruled the earth before the creation of man. Then Satan revolted against God and this caused the earth to be abnormal, to become, as Lewis expressed it, “the silent planet.”

Notice what this presents as a possibility. Satan ruled the earth, and, by his revolt, he caused the death of the animals. In other words, the abnormality of the world and specifically the death of the animals came before the fall of Adam. This would, of course, bear on such a subject as dinosaur bones. (I must say in passing that I am not at all convinced it has been proven that the dinosaurs became extinct prior to the advent of man. As one thinks of, for example, the fossilized footsteps of man in-situ along with the dinosaur tracks in Paluxy, Texas, one can ask whether scientists would not have used this as evidence that man lived at the same time as the dinosaurs, were it not for the fact that it contradicts their own theory.)

While there are no verses to support this view of Lewis’, one does find in Isaiah 14:16, 17 something that may bear upon it: “They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man who made the earth to tremble, who did shake kingdoms, who made the world as a wilderness?” If one takes Isaiah 14 as referring to the fall of Satan as well as to Nebuchadnezzar, then the phrases “who made the earth to tremble” and “who made the world as a wilderness” could possibly refer to Lewis’ suggestion. I do not think that tying this into Lewis’ position is at all strong, but remember we are only talking about possibilities.

If Lewis’ position is the case, then man was put in a prepared garden in a spoiled universe and the statement “have dominion” (Gen. 1:28) takes on added depth. The phrase “and ye shall die” also appears in a different light because it would mean that death already existed. Adam’s failure then would have caused an added curse in the areas specifically stated in the Bible itself. The book of Revelation in 16:18 does say, “And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth.” This could indicate that there were tremendous actions on the earth prior to the advent of man, which someone might conceivably stretch to apply to Lewis’ position.

3. There is a possibility of a “long day” in Genesis 1. The only way to determine what the word day means in Genesis is to study the way the word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew. If one takes the position that the word day refers to a “long day,” that is very different from saying that one can make Genesis mean anything one wants it to mean or that Genesis 1 is saying nothing. It is simply a question of what the Hebrew word day means.

In studying such questions, it is a rule that one looks for another use of the word by the same author and one as close as possible to the passage being considered. It is therefore significant that in Genesis 2:4 the word day covers the entire span of the creation of the heavens and the earth. And in Genesis 5:2 the word day is also used as a period of time rather than as a twenty-four-hour span. That text says, “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” From the first two chapters of Genesis, it seems quite clear that Adam and Eve were not created in the same twenty-four-hour period. It is unfortunate that the New International Version does not use the word day in these passages. The word used in the Hebrew is the same word used for “day” in Genesis 1.

Of course we can also think of 2 Peter 3:8—“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” This verse perhaps bears on the possibility of a long day, but we cannot in any way base a dogmatic statement on it. A much more important verse is Psalm 90:4—“For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” The reason this passage is important is that this psalm is attributed to Moses, and therefore it would have special bearing upon the Genesis passages. Isaiah 2:11 and 17 should also be added here: “The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.” (Isaiah 2:17 repeats, “and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.”) It is apparent that day is not a span of twenty-four hours, but a period of time.

To these biblical considerations has to be added the problem which arises from the scientific side, the problem of radiological dating. Scientists accept the uniformity of the emission of radiological material; but they accept this, I think, by faith, in that they have taken what we know about regularity of emission for a very, very short time and have extended it back for billions of years. This is a tremendous projection, especially when one can theoretically imagine things that could change the rate through the years.

Remember we are only speaking of possibilities regarding the length of day. But if one did accept the concept of a long day, this would not imply that he would automatically subscribe to the modern scientific concept of an extremely old earth.

If anyone wonders what my own position is, I really am not sure whether the days in Genesis 1 should be taken as twenty-four hours or as periods. It seems to me that from a study of the Bible itself, one could hold either position.

4. There is a possibility that the flood affected the geological data. One does not have to go as far as to say that all the geological strata were caused by the flood in order to say that if the flood is what the Bible seems to indicate it was, it would very possibly have caused extensive geological disruption. In this case, therefore, certain things about the strata would be the result of the flood, and this would have to be taken into consideration.

5. The fifth possibility turns upon the use of the word kinds in Genesis 1. For example, Genesis 1:11 says, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind.…” One must notice that this is the simple Hebrew word for kind, and it is not necessarily to be equated with the modern scientific word species. It is conceivable, therefore, that there could have been changes beyond little horses becoming big horses. Specifically, it is conceivable that changes could have occurred in the range of the species themselves without conflicting with this word kind.

6. The sixth possibility concerns the question of the death of animals before the Fall. I am not now linking this with C. S. Lewis’ exposition. Rather, from the Bible’s own presentation one can raise the possibility of the natural death of animals before the Fall. In other words, one can suggest that there is a distinction to be made between animals dying in what I would call the chase, killed by others, and animals merely dying. This, of course, would bear upon the fact that there then would be fossils from before the time of the Fall.

If we watch a dog die in a warm chimney corner, there is no struggle. It is like a leaf falling from a tree. The depth psychologists are right, I think, in stressing that animals show no fear of nonbeing, no fear of death. One could think of there being natural cycles for the animals, up to all that does not include man, with death not by the chase and not in agony or fear.

No one is troubled by the thought of a tree dying naturally. Possibility 6 would mean that plants were eaten before the Fall, but that conscious life was not, and there was no cruelty. Nature would not be “red in tooth and claw” prior to the Fall of man.

Isaiah 65:25 bears interestingly upon this. Speaking of the return of Christ, it describes the earth after His coming like this: “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock, and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.” Looking over this entire section in Isaiah, one finds no reason to say that there will be no death in that time of Christ’s reign upon the earth. But the Bible does say that there will be no cruelty, no death because of the chase.

We should note that 1 Corinthians 15:21 does not bear on this discussion. It reads, “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” It seems to me that this clearly is talking about the death of man and the future resurrection of men from the dead. There is no note in the Bible that animals will be raised from the dead.

Remember, all we are speaking of is that which are bare possibilities.

7. Only the word bara must mean an absolute new beginning.

There are three places in Genesis 1 where bara is used in contrast to two other formulations. The first of these other formulations is the word made (asah). The second formulation is let (yehi) such and such come forth—for example, in Genesis 1:3, “And God said, Let there be light.” The word bara is used in only three places: (1) for the original creation out of nothing, (2) for the creation of conscious life—that is, in contrast to plants, and (3) for the creation of man. As a matter of fact, in Genesis 1:27 the word is repeated three times as though for emphasis: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” It seems possible to consider that there is a distinction between the places where bara is used and the places where the more general words make and let are used.

I list this matter of bara as a freedom because in the other places where bara is not used, there is a theoretical possibility of a sequence rather than an absolute new beginning.

To conclude this section, I urge you again to remember that I am not saying that any of these positions are my own or that they wiII prove to be the case. I am simply stating theoretical possibilities as we consider the correlation between what the Bible sets forth about cosmogony and what we can study from general revelation.

Questions & Notes

Schaeffer showed remarkable foresight in staunchly defending the Bible's integrity. He foresaw that if those skeptical voices prevailed in undermining the authority of the Word of God, it would have profound consequences for the succeeding generation. Regrettably, we find ourselves witnessing the fruition of those concerns today. The doubts and challenges to the Bible's credibility have indeed gained traction, impacting how the next generation approaches matters of faith. It's akin to recognizing the foundational support of a bridge being weakened — a realization that prompts us to reflect on the potential consequences for the path ahead.

I am reviewing No Final Conflict by Francis Schaeffer to assess its impact on Christianity amid current discussions about Jewish supremacy. Does this book lead Christians towards a blend of Judaism and Christianity, or does it deepen their understanding of Christianity itself? 

I question the use of the term Judeo-Christian, equating it with Zionism, a sect many Christians find alluring but I find harmful (Proverbs 14:12). Unlike these zealots, I seek God based on truth revealed by Him as stated in Romans 10:1-2 and Proverbs 24:5-6.  We've been warned about the way to life abundant; there is only one way. (John 10:10; Matthew 7:26-27).

Finally, I want to know how God formed a people into a nation.  I look at the elements of nationhood. I am skeptical of America's shift since the 1960s towards being a melting pot. America abandoned foundational principles for globalism and multiculturalism, which harm nation, family, and individual. Drawing parallels with the Exodus story, I stress the importance of remembering our history to avoid passing on a harmful legacy to our children. After all, our children ask for bread and deserve bread, not the snake we have created and are about to pass on to them (Matthew 7:9-10).

With these thoughts in mind, I invite you to study along.  To go to the beginning of this series click here.  To join me in this study on Gab click here.

The Unity of the Book of Genesis

If we try to separate the religious passages in the book of Genesis from those which touch on history and the cosmos, the religious passages are relegated to an upper-story situation. They have been removed from any connection to space-time verification, and that means no historical or scientific study can refute them. But it also follows that no studies can verify them. In short, there is no reason to accept the upper-story religious things either. The upper-story religious things only become a quarry out of which to have our own personal subjective, existential, religious experience. There is no reason, then, to think of the religious things as being other than in one’s own head.^[1]

It should be noted in studying the book of Genesis that there is no literary distinction between the sections dealing with history and the sections dealing with the cosmos, on the one hand, and religious subjects, on the other hand. Further, as we shall see later, the New Testament takes the Old Testament as history at the most crucial point of affirming that Adam and Eve are historic characters.

What I quoted in Chapter 1 from T. H. Huxley applies at specifically this place. J. S. Bezzant, an old-fashioned liberal at Cambridge University, in Objections to Christian Belief also puts his finger on the problem of those who separate the portions in Genesis and in the Bible as a whole that speak of history and the cosmos from those that speak of religious matters. In general, Bezzant speaks against historic Christianity itself, but here he suddenly swings around and speaks to neo-orthodoxy. And he says this: “When I am told that it is precisely its immunity from proof which secures the Christian proclamation from the charge of being mythological, I reply that immunity from proof can ‘secure’ nothing whatever except immunity from proof, and call nonsense by its name.” The neo-orthodox position is that the Bible contains mistakes in the areas of history and science, but we are to believe it anyway in the religious areas, that somehow a “religious word” breaks forth from it. The result is that religious things become “truth” inside of one’s head—just as the drug experience or the Eastern religious experience is “truth” inside of one’s head.

Further, it means that the next generation of Christians will have the ground completely swept from under them. It is my observation that those who are taught a weakened view of the book of Genesis by their professors almost always carry it further into the whole Bible and are left really shaken as far as any real basis for their Christianity is concerned. And there is a reason for being shaken, for there is no reason to keep what the Bible says religiously if we have put it in an upper story and thrown away that of which the Bible speaks when it touches history and the cosmos.

God could have given us the religious truths which He sets forth in the Bible in a theological outline the way some theologians have set forth theological outlines. But instead of this, he gave us religious truths in a book of history and a book that touches on the cosmos as well. What sense does it make for God to give us true religious truths and at the same time place them in a book that is wrong when it touches history and the cosmos?

What sense does it make for God to give us true religious truths and at the same time place them in a book that is wrong when it touches history and the cosmos?

As we consider the way the Bible itself sets forth these matters, our thesis is that the Bible, including the first eleven chapters of Genesis, sets forth propositional truth, both where it touches history and the cosmos and where it touches religious matters.

Because almost everyone accepts that the second half of Genesis—namely, from Abraham on—is historic, it is important to consider the indications that the whole book of Genesis is a unit.

The Internal Argument

The argument for the unity of the book of Genesis falls into two parts, the internal and the external. The former, the internal, itself falls into two parts. The first of these is the literary unity in the entire book of Genesis exhibited by the toledoths, or what is translated in the King James Version as “these are the generations of.” P. J. Wiseman in 1936 pointed out (and he may be correct in this) that this phrase falls at the end of the section preceding it rather than at the beginning of the section which follows. The important thing is that this phrase continues uniformly throughout the whole book of Genesis, thus indicating unity.

In Genesis 2:4 we read, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth.…” If we take Wiseman’s position, we would consider this the summing up of what occurs from Genesis 1:1 through 2:3. In 5:1 we read, “This is the book of the generations of Adam.” In Gen 6:9, “These are the generations of Noah.…” In Gen 10:1, “Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.…” In Gen 11:10, “These are the generations of Shem.…” In Gen 11:27, “Now these are the generations of Terah.…” In Gen 25:12, “Now these are the generations of Ishmael.…” In Gen 25:19, “And these are the generations of Isaac.…” In Gen 36:1, “Now these are the generations of Esau.…” In Gen 36:9, “And these are the generations of Esau.…” In Gen 37:2, “These are the generations of Jacob.…” In Genesis 1–11 this phrase is repeated six times, and after Genesis eleven, it is repeated five times—almost an equal division.

The second internal indication of unity in the book of Genesis is a rather unique literary form that is used throughout: namely, the unimportant subjects are always dealt with first, then the important subjects carry on. The unimportant subjects are given tersely, and then the central matter flows on at length. This literary form is uniform throughout the whole book of Genesis. We can consider, as an example, those places where an unimportant son is dealt with quickly and then an important son is dealt with in detail. And the subsequent movement of biblical history flows on from the important son.

Considering these two factors together, we have a strong internal indication of the unity of the entire book of Genesis. And since the second half is accepted as history, there is no reason to approach the first half on any other basis.

The External Argument

The second reason for taking the entire book of Genesis as historic is the external argument. The case may be put simply and concisely: Absolutely every place where the New Testament refers to the first half of Genesis, the New Testament assumes (and many times affirms) that Genesis is history and that it is to be read in normal fashion, with the common use of the words and syntax.^[2]

To the best of my knowledge, the following passages are exhaustive, in the sense that they are all those in the New Testament which refer to the first half of Genesis.

We read in Matthew 19:4, 5—“(Jesus) answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he who made them at the beginning, made them male and female; and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh?” Here Jesus clearly gives a normal reading to the text and treats it as an historic statement. It is interesting that he ties together Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 by quoting from Genesis 1 in Matthew 19:4 and from Genesis 2 in Matthew 19:5.

In Luke 3:38 the genealogy of Christ includes, “who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God.” This genealogy begins in Luke 3:23 with those characters who are unquestionably historic: “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli …” and so on, and so on, and so on. After reciting a list of Old Testament characters, including David and Abraham, this genealogy concludes with the mention of Enos, Seth and Adam who, like the other characters, are clearly taken to be historic.

In Romans 5:12 we read, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned.” In this verse is the affirmation that Adam was a real man. Romans 5:14 teaches, “Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses.… So here the historicity of Adam is affirmed to be equal to the historicity of Moses. And 5:15 says, “But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many are dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” Here the historicity of Adam is affirmed to be equal to the historicity of Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 6:16 Paul asks, “What? Know ye not that he who is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh.” Paul, referring back to Genesis 2:24, links the historic reality of a man being joined to a prostitute to the historic reality to which the Old Testament refers—namely, the relationship of Adam and Eve.

1 Corinthians 11:8 says, “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.” This statement is crucial because it affirms as a historic statement the fact that Adam came first and Eve came from Adam.

1 Corinthians 11:9 continues, “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” Paul again refers to the historic fact that after Adam was created, God created Eve for Adam.

1 Corinthians 11:12 adds, “For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.” This strikes me as an intriguing statement, for the historicity of the birth of every one of us is affirmed to be parallel to the historicity of Eve coming from Adam, as told in the book of Genesis.

1 Corinthians 15:21 states, “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” Paul affirms a parallel between the historicity of Christ, specifically at the time of Christ’s resurrection, and the historicity of Adam’s rebellion.

1 Corinthians 15:22 continues, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

1 Corinthians 15:45 tells us, “And so it is written, The first man, Adam, was made a living soul.” Here the didactic statement that Adam was the first man is affirmed.

2 Corinthians 11:3 says, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” The historicity of Eve’s temptation by the serpent is paralleled to our temptations in space-time history.

Ephesians 5:31 states, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” This parallels what Jesus says in Matthew.

We read in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression.” These are further affirmations of the historic fact that Eve was taken from Adam and the historic fact that Eve was the one who first sinned.

The Bible also affirms the historicity of Cain and Abel. First John 3:12 says, “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.” And Jude 11 says, “Woe unto them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah.” Here it is affirmed that Cain is equally historic as these other men.

It is important for us, having looked at the New Testament references to the first half of Genesis, to notice that Genesis itself emphasizes strongly that Adam was a historic character. We read in Genesis 4:1, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.” This verse is meaningless unless both Adam and Eve, as well as the birth of the child, are taken to be historic.

Genesis 4:25, 26 has similar content: “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son, and called his name Seth. For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.” Again it is impossible to take this in any way except emphasizing a historic space-time event.

Genesis 5:5 is striking in this regard: “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.” The phrase “and he died” is meaningless except in the context of space-time history. And of course the phrase “and he died” declares Adam to be as historic as those other men whose deaths are named one after another in this chapter.

It is clear that the Israelites took these early passages of Genesis to be historic. Jeremiah 27:5 reads, “I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me.” In Jeremiah 27:6 this statement about creation is made parallel to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar.

Psalm 136 describes in detail the creation as it is portrayed in Genesis, and then parallels this description to the historic events in Egypt and the events on the east bank of the Jordan as the Jews marched toward Palestine.

In the light of both the internal and external evidence, it seems absolute that both the Old and New Testaments assume that we will read the book of Genesis as a total unity.

And both the Old and New Testaments affirm that the first half of Genesis is space-time history.^[3]

“The Bible Is Not a Scientific Textbook”

There is no reason, therefore, to consider science free from the propositions set forth in the Scripture. We often hear the statement, “The Bible is not a scientific textbook.” Should we say this or not? It depends on what we mean.

Years ago, before I heard anyone else use this phrase, I used it, but I meant by it that we must remember what the central purpose of the Bible is. The central purpose of the Bible is to give us what fallen man needs to know between the Fall and the second coming of Christ.^[4] This is the theme of the book and is dealt with with great intensity and great uniformity throughout the Bible. It seems to me that everything else is secondary to this and is to be seen in reference to this central theme.

For example, the Bible is not a book of angelology. So there is a lot we do not know about angels. This does not mean that we do not know a good deal about angels from the Bible, but we do not have a comprehensive statement about them. The Bible teaches about angels in reference to the central theme.

I would say the same thing about scientific matters. The Bible is not a scientific textbook—in the sense that science is not its central theme, and we do not have a comprehensive statement about the cosmos. But the Bible tells us much about the cosmos in reference to the central theme. In Genesis 1 we have the statement of the creation of the cosmos, and thus as we come to Genesis 2 and the central focus is placed upon man, we can understand man’s setting.

“The Bible is not a scientific textbook” is true in the sense in which we have just spoken. But many people today use the statement in a different way—that is, to say that the Bible does not affirm anything about that in which science has an interest. When the statement is used to mean this, it must be totally rejected. The Bible does give affirmations about that in which science has an interest.

God has given four revelations to man. The first two are general revelation, the second two special revelation. The general revelations are, first, the universe and its form, and second, man and his “mannishness.” It should be noted that Paul stresses both of these in Romans 1. The two special revelations are the verbalized communication from God to man in the Bible, and second the revelation of God in Christ. Rightly understood, these four revelations will always compose one revelation.^[5]

When we face apparent problems between present scientific theories and the teaching of the Bible, the first rule is not to panic, as though scientific theory is always right. The history of science, including science in our own day, has often seen great dogmatism about theories which later have been discarded. Thus there is no inherent reason why a current scientific theory should immediately be accepted. And there is no inherent reason why a Christian should be put in a panic because the current scientific theory is opposite to what is taught in the Bible.

When we come to a problem, we should take time as educated people to reconsider both the special and general revelations; that is, we should take time to think through the question. There is a tendency among many today to consider that the scientific truth will always be more true. This we must reject. We must take ample time, and sometimes this will mean a long time, to consider whether the apparent clash between science and revelation means that the theory set forth by science is wrong or whether we must reconsider what we thought the Bible says.

The Bible does not give us exhaustive truth about the things of the cosmos, and therefore science has a real function. Also, science, as a study of general revelation, has shown us things that have caused us to understand the Bible better. The outstanding illustration of this is in the various archaeological discoveries in the Near East.

Questions & Notes

1. What happens when the religious passages in the book of Genesis are separated from those which touch on history and the cosmos? ↑

2. Absolutely every place where the New Testament refers to the first half of Genesis, the New Testament assumes (and many times affirms) that Genesis is _________ and that it is to be read in normal fashion, with the common use of the words and syntax. ↑

3. Both the _________ and _________ _________ affirm that the first half of Genesis is space-time history. ↑

4. What is the central purpose of the Bible? ↑

5. What are the four revelations God has given to man? ↑

Click on the "No Final Conflict" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here. To join me in this study on Gab click here. 

In this upcoming study, Schaeffer describes the infiltration of neo-orthodoxy existential theology into evangelicalism. That infiltration spread its influence as a disease. It implies a contagion, a gradual and insidious encroachment that can compromise the doctrinal integrity of evangelical beliefs. He names the contagion and embarks on a quest to find a remedy, a metaphorical "pill" that can alleviate the feverish impact of this disease within evangelical circles.

I am reviewing No Final Conflict by Francis Schaeffer to assess its impact on Christianity amid current discussions about Jewish supremacy. Does this book lead Christians towards a blend of Judaism and Christianity, or does it deepen their understanding of Christianity itself? 

I question the use of the term Judeo-Christian, equating it with Zionism, a sect many Christians find alluring but I find harmful (Proverbs 14:12). Unlike these zealots, I seek God based on truth revealed by Him as stated in Romans 10:1-2 and Proverbs 24:5-6.  We've been warned about the way to life abundant; there is only one way. (John 10:10; Matthew 7:26-27).

Finally, I want to know how God formed a people into a nation.  I look at the elements of nationhood. I am skeptical of America's shift since the 1960s towards being a melting pot. America abandoned foundational principles for globalism and multiculturalism, which harm nation, family, and individual. Drawing parallels with the Exodus story, I stress the importance of remembering our history to avoid passing on a harmful legacy to our children. After all, our children ask for bread and deserve bread, not the snake we have created and are about to pass on to them (Matthew 7:9-10).

With these thoughts in mind, I invite you to study along.  To go to the beginning of this series click here.  To join me in this study on Gab click here.

Introduction

It is my conviction that the crucial area of discussion for evangelicalism in the next years will be the Scripture. At stake is whether evangelicalism will remain evangelical.

The issue is whether the Bible is God’s verbalized communication to men giving propositional truth where it touches the cosmos and history, or whether it is only in some sense “revelational” where it touches matters of religion. The early chapters of Genesis relate to this discussion, but ultimately the question is not (and cannot be) confined to them: the whole Bible is involved.

The attack is coming from two sides: (1) from certain theologians who say that the only material in the Bible that is revelational is that which does not touch upon areas open to empirical research (e.g., history or the cosmos); (2) from scientists who are Christians, but who say that the Bible teaches us little or nothing where it touches on that in which science has an interest. In both cases we are left with the Bible as an authority only in religious matters.

Philosophically and theologically these two are really the same, but because they use different conceptual frameworks and different language systems (that is, theological or scientific ones), both must be understood. However, both are the same in that both involve the victory of the existential methodology. That is, both attempt to hold on to the value system and the meaning system of the Bible while, at the same time, separating the value and meaning systems, as upper stories,” from that which is open to verification and reason and from any need of correlation with the theories of modern science.

I am convinced the result of this discussion will determine the value of the heritage we leave to our children and grandchildren.

To deal with these crucial questions, I bring four things together:

1. The section dealing with the Bible from the speech I gave at the International Congress on World Evangelization, Lausanne, Switzerland, in July 1974.

2. A lecture entitled, “The Freedom and Limitation in Cosmogony as Set by the Bible.” (This lecture is a unity, but to make convenient chapter lengths I have divided it into two portions—Chapters 2 and 3.) I have worked on this material for many years and gave it for the first time at the L’Abri Ashburnham Conference in England in September 1974. It deals with the possibilities open to us where the Bible touches science in the first chapters of Genesis—that is, the possibilities that exist if we hold to the historic Christian view that both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety are the written Word of God without error in all that they affirm about history and science as well as about religious matters.

This lecture does not set forth final conclusions. Instead, it deals with the circle within which we have freedom to work as we hold what evangelicalism has historically held about the Bible. In passing, I would also say I am convinced that what evangelicalism has held about the Bible is what the Bible teaches about itself and what the Church through the ages has understood and taught about the Bible.

In the original volume, No Final Conflict, there was a chapter restating the studies in Genesis in Space and Time regarding the genealogies in the book of Genesis. This is omitted here as it is contained in Chapters 7 and 8 of Genesis in Space and Time.

Genesis in Space and Time and No Final Conflict should be read, and studied, as a unity.

3. Two long and important footnotes in the original volume, Genesis in Space and Time. I fear these were largely lost because they were used as footnotes rather than included in the text.

4. A portion of a talk I gave in Washington, D.C., on February 25, 1976 to the joint Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals and the National Religious Broadcasters.

Bringing these four studies together in one volume, where they may be considered as a unit, has, I am convinced, considerable importance for present, and ongoing, crucial discussion.

1: The Issue at Stake

We must say that if evangelicals are to be evangelicals, we must not compromise our view of Scripture. There is no use in evangelicalism seeming to get larger and larger, if at the same time appreciable parts of evangelicalism are getting soft at that which is the central core—namely, the Scriptures.

We must say with sadness that in some places, seminaries, institutions and individuals who are known as evangelical no longer hold to a full view of Scripture. The issue is clear: is the Bible truth and without error wherever it speaks, including where it touches history and the cosmos, or is it only in some sense revelational where it touches religious subjects? That is the issue.

The issue is clear: is the Bible truth and without error wherever it speaks, including where it touches history and the cosmos, or is it only in some sense revelational where it touches religious subjects? That is the issue.

The heart of neo-orthodox existential theology is that the Bible gives us a quarry out of which to have religious experience, but that the Bible contains mistakes where it touches that which is verifiable—namely, history and science. But unhappily we must say that in some circles this concept now has come into some of that which is called evangelicalism. In short, in these circles the neo-orthodox existential theology is being taught under the name of evangelicalism.

The issue is whether the Bible gives propositional truth (that is, truth that may be stated in propositions) where it touches history and the cosmos, and this all the way back to pre-Abrahamic history, all the way back to the first eleven chapters of Genesis, or whether instead of that it is only meaningful where it touches that which is considered religious. T. H. Huxley, the biologist, the friend of Darwin, the grandfather of Aldous and Julian Huxley, wrote in 1890 that he visualized the day not far hence in which faith would be separated from all fact, and especially all pre-Abrahamic history, and that faith would then go on triumphant forever.^[1] This is an amazing quote for 1890, before the birth of existential philosophy or existential theology. He indeed foresaw something clearly. I am sure that he and his friends considered this some kind of a joke, because they would have understood well that if faith is separated from fact and specifically pre-Abrahamic, space-time history, it’s only another form of what we today call a trip.

But unhappily, it is not only the avowedly neo-orthodox existential theologians who now hold that which T. H. Huxley foresaw, but some who call themselves evangelicals as well. This may come from the theological side in saying that not all the Bible is revelational, or it may come from the scientific side in saying that the Bible teaches little or nothing when it speaks of the cosmos.

Martin Luther said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the Devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

In our day that point is the question of Scripture. Holding to a strong view of Scripture or not holding to it is the watershed of the evangelical world.^[2]

We must say most lovingly but clearly: evangelicalism is not consistently evangelical unless there is a line drawn between those who take a full view of Scripture and those who do not.

Questions & Notes

1. What did T. H. Huxley see coming in 1890? ↑

2. What did Schaeffer consider to be the breaking point of the evangelical world? ↑

Click on the "No Final Conflict" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here. To join me in this study on Gab click here.