timeimmortal

The problem with a book like Denis O. Lamoureux’s Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution is that it is proposing something which is at once radical and entirely normal. It proposes that evolution and science can be fully reconciled with Religion, and especially with the Bible. Not only that, it further proposes that science and religion actually work together, in a kind of harmony or companionship, to bring God’s revelation to humanity, though each in different ways. This is not a proposal which many Christians and non-Christians are willing to accept, in part because they are caught up in a false dichotomy that unnecessarily assumes that science — and in particular the theory of evolution — and religion are mortal enemies which must, by definition, contradict each other.

Dr. Lamoureux’s view is not simply a syncretic one, nor is he attempting to simply establish a synthesis between disparate concepts. His conjecture, rather, is that in looking at Scripture and then at science, we are looking at different forms of revelation of the same one God — science and religion, then, are not simply bridged by the idea of Evolutionary Creationism, but treated as a kind of unit whole, each effecting the revelation of the Lord by a different means.

Because this concept is above the grasp and reasoning of so many who are caught up in the unnecessary conflict that infests the origins “debate,” Evolutionary Creation can’t simply start by jumping in head-first into an explanation of its core philosophies and the justifications for them. Instead, Dr. Lamoureux must begin at the very beginning of reasoning itself, by discussing and establishing categories.

In a nutshell, categories are the foundations upon which we base how we look at the world, and how we think about the world. Evolutionary Creation uses the example of how our eyes are programmed to perceive the spectrum of colours in visible light to illustrate this point, noting that our brains are wired to perceive the issues which we face in a similar, ranging manner that is rarely ever “black and white.” Yet at the same time, Dr. Lamoureux notes that many view the origins “debate” in a very “black and white” way. Even referring to it as a “debate” suggests a conflict model that pits a secular and godless science against a Christian, Biblical view of creation. This very limited category set thus forces people to make a choice between science and religion, “faith” and “reason,”
God or the various things which humanity has discovered about the nature of the world and the processes which formed it.

This dichotomy, incidentally, is seen on both sides of the debate, and it’s almost impossible to ferret out who fired the first shots in the war. Atheists who promote the dichotomy present atheism as the bastion of reason and wisdom, and portray Christians as mental dullards and uninformed fundamentalists. Christians who promote the dichotomy denounce evolutionary theory as misguided or, worse, Satanic, and discard the substantial body of evidence in support of an old Earth as “circumstantial” whilst simultaneously clinging to threadbare evidence which purportedly justifies their own positions.

Even worse, both sides turn on like-minded folk who dare to step outside the conflict model. Atheists or skeptics who step outside the model and propose that empiricism and research are not a sufficient basis upon which to base a rejection of the existence of God, or who themselves admit to even weak agnosticism, are derided as being senile or simply in error. Christians who afford even a handful of scientific discoveries are denounced as liberals, heretics, cafeteria Christians, or proto-secularists.

At the same time, however, these two warring sides actually agree on at least one thing: whatever the exact nature of the origins of the world, human Morality and ethics are intimately connected with the view of origins one is informed by. This gives the origins “debate” special relevance, because our beliefs about who we are and where we come from directly influence and inform our believes about how we should relate to one another, and how we should order the societies in which we live. Christianity and secular humanism alike concede this point…and for as wrong as both sides may be about the topic of origins, both sides are at least correct in noting this important connection.

The key contributors to the false dichotomy (Greek: dicha - “in two”, temno - “to cut”) are, in Dr. Lamoureux’s opinion, two related factor. The first is what is that both sides tend to adopt “popular” understandings of terms like “evolution,” “creation,” and “theory.” This logical error is compounded by the second contributing factor: conflation. When a Christian hears the word “evolution,” she immediately associates the term with atheism, with a worldview that postulates a godless, chance-driven reality. When a secularist hears the word “creation,” he immediately associates the term with the (false) notion that the world was formed in six 24-hour days. And whether both sides realize it or not, this immediately prohibits any progress in the dialogue between them; both sides are trapped in their thinking.

So the question must be asked: is their thinking accurate?

Dr. Lamoureux begins his analysis by looking at the popular categories and conflations involved in how both sides view “evolution.” He begins by unpacking the term a bit, and by moving past the conflation: he proposes that the idea of evolution must be re-categorized thusly:

• Teleological: has a plan and a purpose (reflects an intelligent designer)

       ↑
Evolution
       ↓

• Dysteleological: has no plan or purpose (reflects random chance, not design)

The Greek term telos indicates the presence of an end or a goal; dysteleology is a term coined first in German which was intended to refer to the absence of said same. The two terms refer as much to the actual nature of the evolutionary process as they do to the views each of us has concerning it: we either view evolution as a process which was set in motion — and which may be reflective of some influence of — a designer or creator, or we view it as a the result of purposeless, random chance.

It should be noted that the teleological category actually can be broken down into a few different sub-categories, which roughly correspond to the range of religious opinions evident in the world today (theism, deism, paganism, etc.). This is an important point to keep in mind in light of what follows its articulation in the book.

The most powerful argument that Dr. Lamoureux makes in this section is based on a survey done about a decade ago that, taken to its logical conclusion, deals a death blow to the idea many Christians have that scientific researchers are predominantly atheistic and trying to impose a godless worldview upon millions of hapless schoolchildren.

In 1997, Karry Witham and Edward Larson issued a report called “Scientists Are Still Keeping the Faith,” in Nature (a prominent scientific journal). To a large sample group of scientists and other researchers, the following question was posed:

I believe in a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind, i.e. a God to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer. By ‘answer’ I mean more than the subjective, psychological effect of prayer.

40% of those polled expressed belief in God as defined above, 45% expressed that they did not believe in God so defined, and 15% expressed no definite belief.

Let us come back to the teleological sub-categories mentioned above, because something important must be noted about the respondents who answered in the negative to the given question. Deists, pantheists, and other pagans — despite not being atheists — would have been caught up in the negative-responding group, despite the fact that all accept teleology to one degree or another. Deists are, as I understand it, given to believing that God is not intimately involved in the day-to-day function and structure of creation…but still generally accept that He had something to do with it, and that He may have had an eye toward its design. Pagans believe in various divine forces, or pantheons of gods, who exert varying degrees of control over the course and shape of creation. Pantheists believe that creation is itself divine, and thus reflective of a will and a design.

And of course, 15% of the respondends expressed an agnostic view. Here again, categorization is important: agnosticism and dysteleology are not synonymous. As such, an interesting conclusion emerges from the results of this admittedly limited survey: a majority of scientists are probably teleologists, or at least are not dysteleologists.

Which is more than a bit of a shot in the arm to the notion that scientsts are part of some atheistic cabal or conspiracy seeking to undermine the good faith of the world’s youth.

This brings us to the end of the first part of my review of Chapter 1. It should be noted that the above all comes out within the first 7 pages of the book, which, overall, starts slowly and yet covers much ground as it goes. Thus far, Dr. Lamoureux’s presentation is written in an engaging and accessible manner, but readers will nevertheless likely be surprised at the steady stream of information coming at them as they progress up to, and past, even this early point in the book.

Stay tuned for Part 2, which looks at — and debunks — popular notions concerning creation.

“Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” — St. Augustine of Hippo

There’s an interesting study one can do in the Book of Genesis, if one has a few minutes to spare and the inclination to copy, paste, and then read a few passages of text.

First, open a text editor window (Notepad on Windows, Text Edit on Mac OS X, whatever…). Now, find your preferred online version of Genesis, and copy the following verses into the text editor window:

Genesis 6:5-8, 7:1-5, 7:7-8, 7:10, 7:12,7:16b-17, 7:22-23, 8:2b-3a, 8:6, 8:8-12, 8:13b, and 8:20-22

Once that’s done, open a new text editor window (keep the first one open too), and copy the following verses into the second window:

Genesis 6:9-22, 7:6, 7:9, 7:11, 7:13-16a, 7:18-21, 7:24-8:2a, 8:3b-5, 8:7, 8:13a, 8:14-19, 9:1-19

Once that’s done, read the contents of the first text editor window through in their entirety. Then read the contents of the second window through, also from start to finish.

Now…what do you see?

Well, if you followed the instructions properly, you’ll see that the first window contains something like this:

Genesis 6

[5] The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

[6] And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
[7] So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
[8] But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

Genesis 7

[1] Then the LORD said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.

[2] Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate;
[3] and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth.
[4] For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.”
[5] And Noah did all that the LORD had commanded him.

[7] And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him went into the ark, to escape the waters of the flood.
[8] Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground,

[10] And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth.

[12] And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

[16b] and the LORD shut him in.
[17] The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.

[22] everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.
[23] He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.

Genesis 8

[2b] the rain from the heavens was restrained,
[3] and the waters receded from the Earth continually.

[6] At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made,

[8] Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground;
[9] but the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put forth his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him.
[10] He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
[11] and the dove came back to him in the evening, and lo, in her mouth a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth.
[12] Then he waited another seven days, and sent forth the dove; and she did not return to him any more.

[13b] and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry.

[20] Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

[21] And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
[22] While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”

This is a complete flood account, one of two that are actually present in the Book of Genesis. Note that it is a complete account, giving an essentially unbroken narrative of the events of the flood, from the first moment the Lord noticed the sinfulness of humanity and elected to blot it out, to the final blessing and promise, to Noah and his family, from the Lord.

Note, also, the prominent use of only one name by which God is referred to: the LORD. This is an important stylistic device to consider, and we’ll look at why that is shortly. First, though, let’s look at a few other stylistic devices in the text. We note that the Lord expresses regret for having made humanity (6:6), and that His heart aches (6:6 as well) at their wickedness. We note, also, that he smells an offering (8:21) and that within His heart, He speaks (8:21 as well). These are very anthropomorphic statements, and present the Lord as a very personal, present God intimately involved and interested in the life and doings of His creations.

Note also that there are distinctions made between clean and unclean animals (7:2,8), and that there is a significant, repeated ordering of the animals in this account — from man, to animal, to crawling things, to birds (6:7, 7:23).

Finally, note that the numbers 7 and 40 percolate through the text (7:2,3,4,10,12,17; 8:6,10,12).

Biblical scholarship attributes this flood account, which presents a personal and present image of Go, to an author that is called the Jahvist (Yahwist). Principally, the author is called by this term because he only ever refers to God by means of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, which is translated into English as “the LORD” in these passages. However, it should also be noted that this author focuses on the ritual significance of animals in the order of creation, so much so that he even distinguishes between clean and unclean animals (although it should be noted that until the time of Moses, who came well after Noah, it had not been strictly defined which animals were considered unclean).

So that’s one account. In contrast, here is what the Reader should have ended up with in the second text window:
Read the rest of this entry »

My only question is: who the hell suggested we needed to apologize to Darwin in the first place?

The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican’s culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species“.

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.

Earlier this week a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain.

Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and [Pope John Paul II] reiterated that in 1996. But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views.

The apology to Galileo, I can see some justification for. I’m becoming less convinced, as time rolls on, that it was really necessary — a simple admission that “those who came before us were in error” would have sufficed, I think — but I can understand the intent behind it. The reaction of the Church to Galileo was not just cold, but actively hostile.

Darwin’s theories did receive a colder reception…but I suspect that was as much because the Church wanted time to evaluate his theories in order to see if there was anything in them which was not compatible with the extant theology concerning creation as it was because the theories themselves were new and somewhat controversial. Never in my experience of Catholicism have I discerned anything other than general acceptance of the theory of evolution — most Catholics that I have known have no problem reconciling their faith with the discoveries of the scientific community.

The Church herself has no fixed opinion or doctrines concerning evolutionary theory, however. It is left to each Catholic to decide, for him/herself, what to believe and accept about human origins.

Also, and on another topic, I like how Archbishop Ravasi thinks. More like him, please:

“Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session,” he said, adding that Darwin’s theories were “never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned”.

Amen!

Charles Tysoe writes in with some comments and questions concerning Dr. Denis O. Lamoureux’s new book, Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution, which I had previously urged the good Reader to purchase.

Full disclosure: you’ll be supporting Time Immortal by doing so, as I contributed a few of the illustrations to the book.

It’s an important work, for one simple reason: it demonstrates that faith and reason, science and Religion, can go hand in hand without any kind of conflict.

Depends on how you define the terms; Religion is a very broad field, Biblical Christianity a very narrow one.

DOL privileges scientific method as a hermeneutical sieve for what the Bible says about creation. There is no warrant for this epistemologically.

I would like to know just what is the “method-incident’ principle, where did it originate, who uses it? I looked up the indexes of the major works on hermeneutics cited and couldn’t see it anywhere. On Google I found six hits, next to nothing by Google’s standards; I found an allusion to its use by (some?) Roman Catholic writers on a Catholic blog.

What’s up?

DOL sent me a working draft (much shorter) years ago, I emailed him after listening to tapes of the pilot course he taught at Regent.

I don’t agree with his “science of the day” conclusions, they are very poorly supported.

Anyway, thanks for your time.

I’d really like to know about the method-incident principle. If you give me some references I’ll hunt them down.

I really think DOL has “reconciled” evolution, Christianity and Biblical “inerrancy with a sort of Mad Hatter (Lewis Carroll) method; “a word means precisely what I want it to mean”.

I’ve read most of Dr. Lamoureux’s papers online, including his most recent in PSCF. In another paper, I believe in Christian Scholars’ Review on Darwin’s religious beliefs I think he was very selective in trying to demonstrate that Darwin remained a Christian theist.

DOL seems most anxious on a personal level for evolution to be true. More so that other writers like F. Collins.

regards,

Chuck Tysoe

Who’s anxious? Evolution — the scientific theory, as demonstrated by the evidence — is true! Would that more Christians — even and especially Catholics — could accept this simple fact and get on about the business of understanding that there is nothing fundamentally conflicting or contradictory about accepting that human beings evolved from earlier primates and that all life was created by God (and the attendant belief that human beings occupy a special place in the order of creation because they have been made in the image and likeness of God).

Christians need to step beyond viewing “creation” and “evolution” as being concepts which one must debate between. To believe that God exists and that He created all life in the world is not the antithesis of accepting the extant evidence for evolution; truth cannot contradict truth, and as Christians in search of the truth we must strive to achieve a synthesis in regard to this issue. More simply put, we have to get over ourselves and drop the “debate model” approach to discussions of science and religion; we must understand that Biblically sound Christianity is compatible with the belief that a providential, present, creator God effected the creation of all life, including mankind, “through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process.”

Now, good Reader, what Chuck is referring to when he speaks of the “method-incident” principle is actually the “message-incident” principle. I’m honestly not sure whether it is a principle of Dr. Lamoureux’s own devising, or whether it has roots in other academic sources; the principle itself draws heavily, I think, on Aristotle.

In its broad strokes, the principle is thus: the Bible — all of it taken together, or any portion thereof — must be interpreted with attention given to two separate aspects that may be present in the text: the “message” or divine teaching that the text is attempting to convey to the reader, and the “incident” or phenomenological perspective of the writer. And although Google only reveals a handful of references to this principle in a formal sense, it should be noted that Christian hermeneutics actually make fairly heavy use of it in several respects already.

For example, when we interpret Ephesians 5, it is common to separate the “incident”al aspects of the text — some of which can seem sexist at first — from the theological “message” that Paul is attempting to convey, by illustrating the relationship of Christ to the Church through the imagery of the relationship between husband and wife. The purpose of the passage is not to convey a somewhat sexist message; it is to present a model of the way we relate to Christ, and Christ to the community of His faithful. But to understand as much, we need to separate, categorically, the teaching from the imagery used to present it.

I will go into more detail on this in the coming weeks, as I have obtained permission from Dr. Lamoureux to do a chapter-by-chapter review of his book. The principle under discussion is outlined in the book’s fourth chapter, and so I would instruct Chuck — any any other interested readers — to stay tuned as I work my way through the text.

In the meantime, I would like to address a few other points:

1. Chuck notes the distinction between the broader category of “religion” and the narrower category of “Biblical Christianity.” While this categorical distinction is correct, I find that I nevertheless bristle at the term “Biblical Christianity,” because I am used to seeing it used almost exclusively in a sola scriptura sense — and I reject, categorically, the validity of that particular doctrine of Martin Luther’s.

   The facts are thus: the Bible does indeed contain the inerrant, infallible message of God to His people. But the Bible is not the sole vector by which we can discover truths; indeed, the Bible tells us as much. In the Book of Job, chapter 12, it is said:

   [7] “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you;
   the birds of the air, and they will tell you;
   [8] or the plants of the earth, and they will teach you;
   and the fish of the sea will declare to you.
   [9] Who among all these does not know
   that the hand of the LORD has done this?
   [10] In his hand is the life of every living thing
   and the breath of all mankind.

   Is this not true? All things are of God’s making, but can we not look to these things to learn more about that wondrous creation? Will not the very Earth grant us to find answers, if we but seek them out?

   Science is — or should be — a search for truths about the physical world in which we live, and the physical realm with it occupies. That’s a limited category — and then a subset — of truth, but it is still truth in its own right. Logically, one truth cannot contradict another. So if it is true (and it is) that God is the creator of all things, and if it is true (and it is) that humanity evolved from a succession of “lower” life forms, then these truths must be compatible. It must be the case that God effected the creation of humanity in His own image through an ordained, sustained process of evolution. The Lord is creator. The study of the world reveals this to us, in that it reveals the manner by which the Lord effected creation.

   If we adopt the sola scriptura approach and bury our heads in the sand, refusing to acknowledge that there are other sources of truth that exist in addition to Scripture (if, that is, we bald-facedly ignore that “the heavens declare the glory of God,” among other things), then of course we will miss this point. But our missing out does not mean that evolution is incorrect; it means that we are incorrect. Christians would do well to keep in mind that just because we claim the Bible to be on our side in a debate does not mean that it actually is on our side, nor does it mean we are agents of truth.

   So I question what Chuck means by “Biblical Christianity.” If he means sola scriptura, he’s off base. If he means a Christianity whose teachings and tenets are in conformity with the teachings of Scripture, then I whole-heartedly agree with his categorization.

2. Chuck also notes that Dr. Lamoureux “privileges scientific method as a hermeneutical sieve for what the Bible says about creation,” and asserts that there “is no warrant for this epistemologically.”

   The first statement is essentially true, the second essentially false.

   In his book The City of God (or get it for Kindle!), Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine) remarked on a matter about which would-be Christian evangelists should take great care:

   Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men…. Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

   What Augustine is driving at here is that there are other modes of learning apart from the theological, and that even those who have not received the Bible can be very wise about many aspects of God’s “very good” creation, including at a scientific level. They may understand many things which are true about the natural world, its operation, and its origins. Augustine warns that it would be folly of the worst order for a Christian evangelist to such people to be seen “talking nonsense on these topics” about which the non-Christians may be wise, and instructs that “we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.”

   What does this mean?

   Well, at a basic level, it means that as Christians, we have to be wise not only about the teachings of Scripture, but also about what is being learned — by Christians and non-Christians alike — about the natural world through processes of inquiry. We have to be able to expand our own understanding accordingly, so that we can present the message of faith to those who have not heard it in a wise manner, so that Christ and His message of salvation are not, by proxy, “taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.” We must not be “[r]eckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture,” who “understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” For if we do, we bring no glory to Christ, but are in fact as a stumbling block for those to whom we are trying to bring his message.

   And we know what Christ says about those who cause others to stumble in their journey toward Christ (c.f. Mark 9:42).

   In other words, we have to admit, in our honesty, that what is true cannot contradict what is true. If there appears to be a conflict between the revelation of Scripture and the revelation of science, and if the revelation of science in question is amply justified by evidence and reasoning, then we can only assume that our own preconceived interpretation of Scripture must be incorrect in some manner. In that sense, we should indeed use science — including the scientific method — as a kind of “hermeneutical sieve” for what the Bible says. The alternative is to become “a disgraceful and dangerous thing…talking nonsense on [those] topics” about which others may well be very learned.

   And there is excellent epistemological warrant for this approach. Revising a hypothesis in the face of new evidence is a cornerstone of the scientific method (one kind of epistemic system), and the Bible likewise instructs us to apply wisdom in the interpretation of Scripture.

   For example, consider 2 Thes. 2:

   [13]But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
   [14] To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
   [15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
   [16] Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,
   [17] comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.

   We can see here that St. Paul actually places great importance on the Church holding fast to the traditions which the apostles taught to them. The traditions themselves go unspecified here, but the point is nevertheless that tradition forms an integral, necessary part of the practice of the Christian faith, and is itself a mode of teaching which the Church should strive to consider and convey.

   Right here, we see the rejection of all tradition as a mode of Christian practice to be unbiblical. Moreover, we also begin to see the seeds of something else emerging — Scripture is not the only teaching authority which Paul himself recognizes or suggests the use of (which further argues against sola scriptura). Turning, briefly, to Ephesians 3, we can also observe that Paul taught thusly:

   [7] Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace which was given me by the working of his power.
   [8] To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
   [9] and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;
   [10] that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.
   [11] This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
   [12] in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him.

   Here we see that Paul further expands the notion of where teaching authority, which would include interpretive authority over Scripture, is found: the Church itself is, in Paul’s desire, the means by which the wisdom of God should be made known to the world. This is confirmed in the first letter to Timothy, chapter 3:

   [14] I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that,
   [15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

   The Church — not Scripture — is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” That is a Biblical teaching. So let’s tie this all back. We have the Church as the pillar and bulwark of truth, the means by which the wisdom of God (expressed in the Word of God) is to be made known to all nations and peoples. That means that the Church must be possessed of authority to interpret Scripture (the Word of God), and that it should do so while holding fast (and thus considering) the traditions which have been taught to it (which, presumably, could include academic and scientific traditions, as exemplified by the Church’s operation of e.g. the Vatican Observatory in this day and age).

   This does not mean that Christians lack the right of private judgement, of course — each person must work out his or her own salvation with fear and trembling, as Paul noted. But it does begin to suggest that each Christian should establish a relationship to the Church as that of a student to a teacher. Right of private judgement, again, exists, as does the right of each person to interpret out of Scripture for him or herself. But that interpretation must ultimately be in harmony with the teaching and interpretation of that which is the pillar and bulwark of God’s truth, as expressed through God’s Word: the Church. And pace Augustine, it is thus on the Church where the responsibility of preventing its people from speaking the language of folly to the learned, about the workings of the natural world, is placed. And those of us who would seek to speak on such matters should take pains to ensure that what we say is informed by the traditions of the Church on the matter, including the excellent academic traditions thereof.

   Even if that means altering or outright correcting our interpretations of particular Biblical teachings because of scientific discoveries.

Anyhow, good Reader, do stay tuned: the book reviews will commence in the next few days.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!