In a dispute between science and the Scripture, which side would you choose? Most would at least say they'd side with Scripture. Although most evangelicals believe the Bible is the inspired Word of the living God (2 Tim 3:16), few, in my opinion, recognize the pressure and impact outside influences bear on their interpretation of Scripture. In the following sermon, David Curtis exposes what I believe is an issue most of us are unaware of, that science is a controlling factor in Biblical interpretation.
When we say "Sola Scriptura" (by Scripture alone) what exactly do we mean? Is the Bible only authoritative on matters of faith, salvation and holiness? In other words, does the Bible only regard spiritual matters while science is left to elucidate truth on the physical side of the equation?
Do you believe Scripture should be the foundational source of ALL truth? If so, what does that mean? I think that question is no more clearly highlighted than when we read the first 3 chapters of the Genesis. Do you believe the earth is billions of years old? If you were on a desert island with only a Bible and no influence from science, what would you conclude about the age of the earth? Is there anything in the Genesis account (chapters 1-3) that would lead you to believe the earth is 20,000,0000,000 years old? I can't see how.
Yet, there are many Christians today who think those who adhere to a relatively young earth, must be flat-earth Neanderthals who skipped science class. They say a day in Genesis is clearly not literal and therefore equates to millions if not billions of years. Some even believe Genesis 1-3 is allegorical. So let me ask you a question. Is science or Scripture controlling your view of the "day" in Genesis? I will argue that no one reading the Genesis account would come to an old earth theory...that is without scientific influence. So the reality is, for those who believe the earth is billions of years old, science, not Scripture is driving your conclusions.
Now, let's consider another issue that also speaks to this issue of Scriptural authority. Do you believe the earth rotates and revolves around the sun? Of course, right? Heliocentricity as it's called, is accepted as a scientific fact that very few challenge. But again, let's rerun the same test. If you had nothing but your Bible, would you arrive at the heliocentric position? At this point I'm not suggesting you are wrong, but for argument's sake, what drives the heliocentrici view, the Bible or science?
From our earliest recollections, we've been told that geocentricity, which is the view espoused by Scripture over sixty times, is merely a function of accomodative type language i.e. from our point of view. So when we read that the sun rises or sets, we automatically assume that, from our point of view, the sun is rising.
Notice again that this heliocentricity vs. geocentricity argument is the same as the young vs. old earth origin theories. Did you know that all theologians prior to the 1600's when Copernicus came up with his heliocentric theory, were geocentrists? That's because we don't know what we know today, right? Yes, but consider this fact. Did you know that heliocentricity is a theory not a fact. Matter of fact, it has NEVER been proven. When I first heard that about a year ago I almost choked on my granola. Of course it's proven, I thought. Not so.
Without a doubt David Curtis will push the limits of your paradigm. The bottom line is, if we truly believe Scripture is the ONLY source of truth, few are practically applying that fact. And no more are we put to the test than in the examination of the heliocentric vs. geocentric theories.
Enjoy the sermon, but before you do, let me offer a disclaimer of sorts. Some have suggested that Pastor David Curtis has no business discussing science from the pulpit. They condescendingly mock him for even considering such. Why? Because, in their view, science can and in fact does bring us truth. They have a very high view of science and in so doing, they unwittingly lower the Scriptures. You see, in their world, when we are chided for daring to place the scientific evidence below the authority of God's Word, they have a major problem. Because they too are non-scientists, they have handed over the entire realm of science to a group who, has for the most part, excluded spiritual influence.
Are we truly bound by what the scientists tell us truth is? If so, then why don't these people believe the theory of evolution since that theory has risen to the fact level? If they aren't allowed to tread in the caverns of scientific exploration, who are they to pick and choose which theories to accept and which ones to reject? They accept an old earth and heliocentricity but not evolution or geocentricity. On what grounds?
I'll tell you what grounds. Because the Bible is preeminent in ALL areas of life including science. Double gasp! Yes, I made the audacious claim that the Bible is not subject to anything. It is the beginning and ending of truth. How ignorant! How foolish! Anyone with a high school education knows the Bible isn't a science textbook. Again, let me challenge your paradigm. The Bible doesnt' merely contain truth, it is our source of truth and is in no way confined to the spiritual realm. The Bible is authoritative over ALL areas of life, not the least of which is science. So, without further ado, please enjoy the sermon. :)
Do you believe Scripture should be the foundational source of ALL truth? If so, what does that mean? I think that question is no more clearly highlighted than when we read the first 3 chapters of the Genesis. Do you believe the earth is billions of years old? If you were on a desert island with only a Bible and no influence from science, what would you conclude about the age of the earth? Is there anything in the Genesis account (chapters 1-3) that would lead you to believe the earth is 20,000,0000,000 years old? I can't see how.
Yet, there are many Christians today who think those who adhere to a relatively young earth, must be flat-earth Neanderthals who skipped science class. They say a day in Genesis is clearly not literal and therefore equates to millions if not billions of years. Some even believe Genesis 1-3 is allegorical. So let me ask you a question. Is science or Scripture controlling your view of the "day" in Genesis? I will argue that no one reading the Genesis account would come to an old earth theory...that is without scientific influence. So the reality is, for those who believe the earth is billions of years old, science, not Scripture is driving your conclusions.
Now, let's consider another issue that also speaks to this issue of Scriptural authority. Do you believe the earth rotates and revolves around the sun? Of course, right? Heliocentricity as it's called, is accepted as a scientific fact that very few challenge. But again, let's rerun the same test. If you had nothing but your Bible, would you arrive at the heliocentric position? At this point I'm not suggesting you are wrong, but for argument's sake, what drives the heliocentrici view, the Bible or science?
From our earliest recollections, we've been told that geocentricity, which is the view espoused by Scripture over sixty times, is merely a function of accomodative type language i.e. from our point of view. So when we read that the sun rises or sets, we automatically assume that, from our point of view, the sun is rising.
Notice again that this heliocentricity vs. geocentricity argument is the same as the young vs. old earth origin theories. Did you know that all theologians prior to the 1600's when Copernicus came up with his heliocentric theory, were geocentrists? That's because we don't know what we know today, right? Yes, but consider this fact. Did you know that heliocentricity is a theory not a fact. Matter of fact, it has NEVER been proven. When I first heard that about a year ago I almost choked on my granola. Of course it's proven, I thought. Not so.
Without a doubt David Curtis will push the limits of your paradigm. The bottom line is, if we truly believe Scripture is the ONLY source of truth, few are practically applying that fact. And no more are we put to the test than in the examination of the heliocentric vs. geocentric theories.
Enjoy the sermon, but before you do, let me offer a disclaimer of sorts. Some have suggested that Pastor David Curtis has no business discussing science from the pulpit. They condescendingly mock him for even considering such. Why? Because, in their view, science can and in fact does bring us truth. They have a very high view of science and in so doing, they unwittingly lower the Scriptures. You see, in their world, when we are chided for daring to place the scientific evidence below the authority of God's Word, they have a major problem. Because they too are non-scientists, they have handed over the entire realm of science to a group who, has for the most part, excluded spiritual influence.
Are we truly bound by what the scientists tell us truth is? If so, then why don't these people believe the theory of evolution since that theory has risen to the fact level? If they aren't allowed to tread in the caverns of scientific exploration, who are they to pick and choose which theories to accept and which ones to reject? They accept an old earth and heliocentricity but not evolution or geocentricity. On what grounds?
I'll tell you what grounds. Because the Bible is preeminent in ALL areas of life including science. Double gasp! Yes, I made the audacious claim that the Bible is not subject to anything. It is the beginning and ending of truth. How ignorant! How foolish! Anyone with a high school education knows the Bible isn't a science textbook. Again, let me challenge your paradigm. The Bible doesnt' merely contain truth, it is our source of truth and is in no way confined to the spiritual realm. The Bible is authoritative over ALL areas of life, not the least of which is science. So, without further ado, please enjoy the sermon. :)
