Journal: Journal of Christian Apologetics
Volume: JCA 01:1 (Summer 1997)
Article: The Bible & Science: Two Epistemic Necessities
Author: James Stambaugh

---

JCA 1:1 (Summer 1997) p. 125

The Bible & Science: Two Epistemic Necessities

James Stambaugh*

Introduction

The quest for a consensus on understanding how God’s Word should relate to God’s world has proven difficult. Some might argue, and rightly so, that this quest is as elusive as the quest for the Holy Grail. The main reason for this difficulty is that there are many divergent views on how one should integrate data from the two revelations of God namely, nature and Scripture.1 These views are represented by those trained in the sciences and by those trained in theology. As a result of these antithetical views, there is often heat which is generated instead of light. It is interesting that this quest, as evangelicals pursue it, has been studied more as a sociological phenomena than a legitimate topic for discussion.2 This article will not attempt a harmonization of God’s two revelations, but instead will offer some suggestions that must be considered as one tries to integrate the Bible and science.

A great deal of time, effort, and polemic has been spent on how an evangelical interpreter should understand the relationship of God’s two revelations. At one extreme are those who would see the Bible in one sphere of influence and science in another sphere.3 Thus, we have “religious truth” and “scientific truth” which usually are never considered together. At the other extreme are those who would argue that science must be totally subjected to biblical interpretation; and where the two disagree, the Bible is to dictate scientific interpretation.4 In this view, biblical exegesis is never to be modified by input from scientific data. The style of argumentation usually employed between these extremes is typically filled with

* James Stambaugh is an Instructor and Librarian at Michigan Theological Seminary in Plymouth, Michigan.

JCA 1:1 (Summer 1997) p. 126

straw men and ad hominem, as one side is accused of “scientific illiteracy” while in the other direction the charge of “biblical compromisers” is hurled. It is agreed by those in both extremes that nature communicates truth and that there is a difference between general and special revelation.5 It is mutually agreed that both general and special revelations communicate truth; but in the face of an apparent contradiction between the two, some will place one in a position in a dictatorial position over the other resulting in miscommunication and confusion. Just how authoritative are the two revelations in their respect...

visitor : : uid: ()