Response to IEAC Creation Statement/3

by brother Mike Pearson
←back to index

3: The BASF Foundation Clause, and the Relationship between Theology and Science

FROM THE IEAC CREATION STATEMENT:

The BASF Foundation Clause states that the Scriptures are ‘the only source of knowledge concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth’. While some branches of science yield information that allows us to appreciate the eternal power and wisdom of God, the teaching of the Scriptures takes precedence over human explanations relating to the origin of life in the current creation. ‘The law and the testimony’ remain our ultimate source of truth (Isaiah 8:20).

---

Observations:

Firstly, let’s look at the whole Foundation Clause for context:

THE FOUNDATION — That the book currently known as the Bible, consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, is the only source of knowledge concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth, and that the same were wholly given by inspiration of God in the writers, and are consequently without error in all parts of them, except such as may be due to errors of transcription or translation.

The 1959 edition of the Christadelphian contains an open letter from Bro John Carter: “The Bible consists of more than the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets and the apostles. Many psalms, the writings of Solomon and, for anything we know, some of the histories, were not the work of prophets. Luke, James and Jude were not apostles. Either, then, the definition is defective or by it we should exclude from the Canon the writings of these men.”

Bro Carter’s point in his letter was to note that the Statement of Faith was an “honest and worthy effort to define our faith”, and that debates of this nature should be “dealt with from the Word of God and not by appeal to the Statement of Faith.”

The IEAC document risks expositing man-made documents like the BASF and CCA as if they were scripture while ignoring historical acknowledgements like Bro Carter’s. Either way, there is a matter of ambiguity here which needs clarification. Is the foundation clause saying:

A.The Bible “is the only source of knowledge about (1) God, and (2) His purpose”, or is it saying

B.The Bible “is the only source of knowledge about ‘God-and-His-purpose’”?

This may seem like it’s splitting hairs, but this is the issue when man-made documents are used as legalistic tools in theological debates. There can be no doubt that the Bible is only source of knowledge about God’s purpose. But... the Bible is not our only source of learning about God, and the Foundation Clause does not preclude us learning about God from his creation. Even Paul testifies to this when he says that God’s attributes, power, and divine nature have been clearly seen and understood from his creation (Rom 1:20). Therefore, because man has been learning about God from his creation, the answer to the question above is B. The Bible is about God and his purpose, but we can also learn about God from his creation.

Those who try to confine God’s identity and works purely to the Bible risk limiting and constraining God in the same way the Jews did at the time of Jesus. At the end of Acts 7 (v44-50) Stephen berates the Jews for trying to confine God to their tabernacles of worship, when in fact God is a far greater being.

It must be remembered that how ever we read the scriptures, we are still applying a human interpretation to God’s words. So, whilst there is no doubt that the Scriptures must predominate, even the “teaching of the scriptures” is still subject to human interpretation and historical context.

When we try and read twenty-first century problems into the Bible, we are not honouring its authority, and we are inserting our demands into its text. The Bible was never written to be a science text book, and we are unwise to try and make it so. In 1884, a Bro D Clement recognised this and was quoted as saying, “The Bible does not speak in the literal and strictly scientific language of the nineteenth century, but in the language of the day in which it was written.”

The fact that these issues concerning the nature of Adam and pre-Adamic creations have been debated in our community for over 120 years indicates that our interpretations are not always as clear as we would like to suggest.

This excerpt says it particularly well:

“When we interpret the Bible as commenting on scientific subjects, we must have proof that our interpretation of the Bible is correct and reliable. The only way to test if our interpretation of the Bible’s comments on scientific subjects is correct, is to compare our interpretation of the Bible with actual scientific results.

We cannot get around this by saying that our interpretation of the Bible can only be tested with Scripture, misapplying Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 2:10-13 about ‘spiritual things’. In this passage Paul is speaking of things about God and the gospel, which God had revealed to Paul by the Spirit.

When we speak of scientific matters, we are not speaking of ‘spiritual things’ but earthly things. When we interpret Scripture as commenting on scientific matters, our interpretation does not qualify as ‘spiritual things’ either; it is simply our fallible interpretation of what God’s Word is saying about God’s Work, and our interpretation of God’s Word must be compared with what we are told by God’s Work.

Consequently, we must remember that our interpretation of what the Bible says about science, is not a higher authority than either Scripture or science; we must test our interpretation with the scientific evidence found in God’s own handiwork (the creation itself), in order to determine whether or not we are correct.

This is not a matter of testing the Bible with science, or making science a higher authority than the Bible, it is a matter of testing our fallible human interpretation against God’s infallible record of His handiwork, the creation.”

It doesn’t really matter whether we are talking about “the origin of life in this current creation” or any other creations, the fact remains God is the creator. This view does NOT contradict our statement of faith, nor should it negatively impact our understanding of the scriptures.

To summarise and conclude this point:

References such as Rom 1:20, Psalms 8 & 19 and so on, show how the faithful have seen God revealed in nature. In looking to understand God’s purpose with his creation, and to understand spiritual matters, the only authorities higher than the Bible are God and his son. There is no doubt about this. With God at the pinnacle, the Bible and creation are on equal footings as both are the works of God. This is why our studies of these two works should be in harmony. Our efforts should not be to set one against the other, but rather to use both to deepen our understanding of our Creator, his majesty and his purpose.

Section 4: The Uncertain Detail of God’s Creative Process →

← back to index