1
The Two Books Debate
What if Scripture and Science Seem to Say Different Things?
Jason Van Vliet
Joe had a lingering, niggling problem. Let me explain.
Joe grew up in a solid, Reformed home. And whether it was at home, or in church, or at school, the message concerning the beginning of this world was always the same. God miraculously created all things in six days. In fact, to this day Joe can still remember the big chart that Miss Jansen, his kindergarten teacher, put up on the wall with beautiful pictures of what God created on each day. A bright patch of light on the first day. Sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. An elephant, a horse, and of course Adam and Eve, on the sixth day. He never forgot Miss Jansenâs large, colorful creation chart.
So far, so good. Now, after high school, Joe studied engineering and eventually got a job in a robotics firm. He also loved to read up on the latest scientific developments: astronomy, geology, chemistry, biology . . . he loved them all. He was also impressed by all the new discoveries: from the stunning hi-res photography sent by the Mars Rover to the exploration of microbial life at the bottom of the Mariana Trenchâsome ten kilometers below the surface of the ocean. It was all very fascinating stuff!
But for Joe it also caused a problem. The same scientists who were making all these great discoveries also said that the universe is about thirteen billion years old, and that life forms developed, by a process of evolution, over millions of years. Whatâs more, these scientists held that death was commonplace in the world long before human beings ever walked the face of the earth. And all of these discoveries did not seem to fit with what the Bible says. It was all so very different compared to what Miss Jansen taught him with that big, colorful chart in kindergarten.
One day Joe finally shared his problem with a Christian brother at church, Bob. Like Joe, Bob was into scientific things. Much to his relief, Joe learned that Bob had also experienced the same tension. However, Bob said to Joe, âYou just have to work through it using the two books doctrine.â âWhatâs that?â asked Joe. âWell, basically, itâs like this,â Bob explained. âWhat God wants us to know about salvation he teaches us in the Bible, and what God wants us to know about creation he teaches us through science. The Bible is one book, creation is another book. They donât contradict each other. Theyâre just teaching us about different topics. Itâs even in one of our confessions, right at the beginning of the Belgic Confession somewhere.â Joe thought that Bob made an interesting point about the two books. But was Bob correct? Thatâs anotherâand a very importantâquestion.
* * * *
Itâs not uncommon for people to refer to the two books of God. The first one is the book of âGodâs word in Scripture,â and the second one is the book of âGodâs works in creation.â These two books are also sometimes called special revelation and general revelation, respectively. Moreover, it is often said that the first book, Holy Scripture, teaches us about salvation, while the second book, creation, teaches us about science. So, at first glance, it would seem that as long as we go to the Bible for answers about salvation and to creation for answers about science, all should be well. For instance, this is precisely what Roland Frye has argued:
In theory that might sound reasonable. Yet, as Joe discovered, in practice itâs just not that easy. For example, the first book, the Bible, does speak about how God created the heavens and the earth. It may not contain every detail that our curious minds would like to know about how he did it. Yet certainly God does speak about it in his Word. He even says how long it took him to do it. Genesis 1 speaks of six days. However, after carefully and thoroughly studying creation, a rather substantial number of scientists have come to different conclusions. They have concluded that the development of life forms on earth took millions of years and involved some sort of evolutionary process.
So it looks like weâve reached an impasse. Godâs Word in Scripture seems to say one thing, and Godâs work in creation seems to say another. The two books appear to contradict each other. And yet we firmly believe that God does not speak out of two sides of his mouth: âGod is not man, that he should lieâ (Num 23:19). In fact, he is the truth (Isa 65:16; John 14:6). So, from the very start we can establish that God does not deceive us!
Yet what do we do with Joeâs lingering problem? The answer to that question has everything to do with hermeneutics, which is the study of how we correctly interpret the Word of God. To be more specific, should the book of creation cause us to interpret the book of Scripture differently? In other words, should general revelation guide us as we interpret special revelation? Or is it the other way around? Should special revelation teach us how to use general revelation?
In answer to these questions, here is the main point that Iâll aim to put forward in this article: If we elevate the role of general revelation beyond what God intended it to accomplish, then we may very well begin to feel tension between what Scripture says and what science says. However, precisely because general revelation is Godâs revelation we must keep it within its God-ordained boundaries. And if we do that properly, then we are well on our way to reducing the tension.
Letâs explore this matter in three steps. First, weâll analyze a proposal written by David Diehl about how to understand the relationship between the two books. Second, weâll go to the Belgic Confession and see what it actually says about these two books. Third, weâll apply this concretely to hermeneutics. And along the way, weâll always endeavor to give the final authority to Holy Scripture, the Word of God.
David Diehlâs proposal
David Diehl is concerned that North American Christians do not have a very solid understanding of general revelation, the book of creation. Although interestingly, in a footnote he remarks that Calvinists with Dutch heritage are an exception. However, before any Calvinists, even those of Dutch extraction, start resting on their laurels, Diehl has a challenge for them. He wants their doctrine of general revelation to be even more robust than it presently is. First, though, he sums up the status quo. According to Diehl people who take the Bible seriously can all agree on the following:
1. General revelation is an ongoing revelation of God through his works of creation and providence.
2. General revelation gives a knowledge of Godâs general character and will.
3. This knowledge of God from general revelation has been darkened and distorted by sin.
4. In spite of sin, general revelation itself is clear, and therefore God is not unjust when he punishes people who reject or suppress his revelation.
5. Scripture and the grace of the Holy Spirit are needed to enable us to understand the message of general revelation properly.
So far, so good. Indeed, most, ...