Historical Christadelphian Approaches - 4
← Index of
Early Genesis, A review of historical Christadelphian approaches
- by Bro Ken Chalmers, January, 2016
4. God’s Word and God’s Works
As a general approach to Genesis, our writers have acknowledged that God’s testimony is represented by both His Word and His Works. The Scriptures support the concept of His Works being part of the testimony that the Creator has left on record:
“The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays His handiwork. Day after day it speaks out; night after night it reveals His greatness. There is no actual speech or word, nor is its voice literally heard. Yet its voice echoes throughout the earth; its words carry to the distant horizon.”[1]
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.”[2]
It is therefore a Scriptural principle that Creation or nature should speak to us of the handiwork of its Creator. If it does, then its message should be consistent with God’s written Word. Our early brethren commented on this consistency as follows:
“Between the revelation of nature and those of scripture, there is no opposition; but though this is the case, neither reveal the other’s facts. Hence, to search in nature for that of scripture is like to searching in scripture for that of nature which no thinking man does, yet it is done in the former case, and true theology is in consequence snuffed out. The inconsistency spoken of between nature and scripture, arises not from antagonism, but from the misinterpretations of both. It is man’s interpretation of the one set against man’s interpretation of the other. It is not nature versus scripture, but false science against true theology, or false theology against scientific fact. Some scientific men, we believe, view the Scriptures through the distorted medium of ‘confessions of faith’ and doubt them, and theologians view science and call it false, because it does not take to their turnpike road.”[3]
“It is both amusing and painful to behold the contortions of the so-called ‘clergy’ over the discoveries of geological and paleontological research in the crust repositories of old mother earth. They seem to have a pious dread of science contradicting the Bible; and, finally, believing that it has, they are busy heaping their maledictions upon science, or else twisting the Bible-teaching into a supposed harmony with science, in either event very much hampering the geologist in his search after Nature’s truth’s. Their pious dread, however, comes from their needless gross ignorance of the Bible. Old mother earth will reveal no secrets that will hurt the Bible, for the same God is the author of both, and He is no liar...”[4]
“The harmony between the Bible (rightly interpreted) and Nature is perfect. It is only where there is misrepresentation of either of these works of God that discord is introduced. Unhappily for the present the proximate interpreter of both is sin’s flesh, so it is not to be wondered at that much discord prevails.”[5]
“It is an axiom that the Word of God will stand true in every situation. If, therefore, a scientific theory seems to contradict or conflict with its teaching, either the Scripture has been misunderstood or misinterpreted, or else the scientific theory in question will eventually have to be abandoned or revised.”[6]
“We are fully aware of many objections that have been raised by sceptics in the name of science. We respect these difficulties and we can sympathise with the unbelievers’ point of view. It is obvious, however, that there is grave danger of misinterpretation, whether we study the ancient writings of Hebrew prophets or the book of Nature, and we entertain a rude conviction that there is in one respect at least, a humiliating resemblance between the ignorant disciple of Christ and the learned scientist. Each is inclined to place over much confidence in his interpretation where his studies have been imperfect, and each is disposed to treat with contempt matters which he has not studied at all. We may leave it an open question whether there are any instances of irreconcilable discord between Nature and the Bible as we now possess it. There can be no question, however, that in many cases the apparent contradiction is through faulty interpretation on one side or other, or both.”[7]
“Since both records” (creation in Gen 1 and the record of life on earth as revealed by fossils), “are God given then the Genesis record and the fossil record must be in agreement; and yet they are constantly being interpreted in contradictory ways.”[8]
While the question of God’s Word and God’s Work is raised in this section, our writers have described the two areas in synonymous terms such as ‘science and Scripture’ or ‘the Bible’. The following reference is a good example:
“It is important to realise that science and the Bible do not often come into contact. There is no reason why they should. They are concerned with different things. Science is concerned with the question of how things happen. But the Bible tells us why things happen......There are some Christians who take the attitude, ‘If science contradicts the Bible, so much the worse for science. Who cares?’ And there are some scientists whose reaction is the exact opposite.... Both these shut-minded attitudes are sadly mistaken. They do no service to Christ, to Science, or to Truth. Neither Bible-believers nor scientists have anything to lose from thoughtfully considering the other side’s point of view. They have much to gain from doing so.”[9]
This is a view that is consistent with the first editor’s, as described here:
“Revelation does not touch on geology; but it leaves room for the fullest development of the successive strata of the earth’s crust, even though it could be proven that millions of years had been occupied in the formation. ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth’. No date is given. The simple fact of creation is affirmed, in opposition to any idea of development or material atheism; but myriads of ages may have intervened between that ‘beginning’ and the creation of man..... Revelation does not enter into the mysteries of molecular physics, or the development of the life-germ, or the way in which it operates on material organisms. All these it relegates to science, whose function it is to investigate them.”[10]
A more recent example in our writings are along similar lines to those which are set out before:
“The Bible is NOT a scientific textbook and the picture it supplies about the creation of the universe, of the earth, and of all the life forms upon it, occupies a scant chapter plus bits and pieces elsewhere, filling slightly less than two or three pages of text in most translations....Nature and the Bible may both be considered to be the handiwork of God....Biblical literalists who believe that the universe was created in the year 4004 BCE appear to want to toss out all the observations of modern science. Such thinking discounts the fact that the LORD is also the author of nature and studying how it works is as legitimate an enterprise as analysing the Scriptures.”[11]
- ↑ Psalm 19:1-4, NET
- ↑ Romans 1:20, NET
- ↑ Jardine, W D, The Ambassador of the Coming Age, v1, p93, 94 (1864)
- ↑ Welch, L B, The Christadelphian, v28, p344 (1891)
- ↑ Walker, C C, The Word of God, p28 (1926)
- ↑ Whittaker, E, The Genesis Record of Creation, in The Testimony, v39, p147 (1969)
- ↑ Collyer, I, Vox Dei, page 145, The Christadelphian Magazine and Publishing Company (1963
- ↑ Fowler, A, A Drama of Creation, p9, Printland Publishers (1996)
- ↑ Hayward, A, God’s Truth, p201, 202, Marshall, Morgan and Scott (1973)
- ↑ Roberts, R, The Christadelphian, v13, p157, 158 (1876)
- ↑ Bilello, J C, Bible & Science, p7,8 (2005)
