Rethinking Creation #3
Posted in Bible, Origins, Quotes, Science on Jun 27th, 2007 1 Comment »
A while back I “quoted” J. P. Moreland very casually that he went back-and-forth on the age of the earth. I came up with the proper quote:
It is unproductive to try to believe something beyond your grounds for believing it and dishonest to act as if you believe something more strongly than you do. Overbelief is not a virtue. For example, I am far from certain on many Christian beliefs I hold. I lean toward the view that the days of Genesis are vast periods of time and not literal twenty-four-hour periods. But about two days of the week I flip-flop and accept the literal view. Based on my study, I cannot convince myself either way, and I’m about sixty-forty in favor of the old-earth position. Other beliefs of mine have grown in certainty over the years—that God really exists, for example. We should be honest with ourselves about the strength of our various beliefs and work on strengthening them by considering the issues relevant to their acceptance.
– J. P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind, p. 107
This bears a distant resemblance to something I found by D. A. Carson (author’s emphasis):
Francis Schaeffer wrote a little book that I have often found useful in helping some Christians move beyond entrenched positions. That book was called Genesis in Space and Time. He asked, in effect, a simple question: What is the least that Genesis 1-11 must be saying for the rest of the Bible to cohere, for the rest of the Bible to make sense and be true? That is not the same as asking what is the most that one can reasonably infer from these chapters. Rather it is one particular application of the old analogia fidei argument: the appeal to “the analogy of the faith” as established by the rest of the Scriptures is one crucial way to let Scripture interpret Scripture.
Taken together, the wisdom of these sages heightens my interest in boundaries over answers. Here are some candidates off the top of my head:
1. Any explanation of the age of the universe must affirm the authority of Scripture.
2. Any explanation of the age of the universe must account for the fact that physical evidence exists that suggests an old universe.
3. Any explanation of the age of the universe must reconcile the testimony of Scripture with the physical evidence; neither fideistic nor naturalistic solutions will suffice.
That’s a start, but what I’m increasingly struck by is this: If both J. P. Moreland and D. A. Carson are slow to make ambitious, definitive claims about answers to the age of the universe, then who am I to do so?
I don’t even go by my initials!
I usually offer food for thought, but this time it’s just food. And a confession: I’m a 
