Our panelists have joined us.
Newly joining us is Dr. Del Tackett.
Thank you for being here with us.
And introducing to you also Dr. Michael Horton,
and you’ll be hearing from both of these
gentlemen later in the conference.
And Dr. Meyer, thank you for the tour de force
earlier, as we looked at just the scientific
inquiry and making a biblical case for that
and a framework for that.
In our first question, it’s going to come
straight to you.
In 1987, the Supreme Court overruled the case
for teaching creationism alongside with evolution
and was passed as unconstitutional.
Does teaching a variety of scientific theories
hinder students?
Maybe you can comment on just where we’ve
been from a legal framework and moving forward.
Stephen Meyer: Right.
There have been a number of different court
cases and things.
Without getting into the details of all different
legal strategies and proposals that have been
made, from a pedagogical standpoint, from
the standpoint of teaching science, I think
it’s extremely constructive to teach the
arguments and the controversies that have
been part of science and which continue to
be part of science.
Science as an enterprise advances as scientists
argue about how to interpret the evidence.
And what we often do in teaching biology or
physics or any of the sciences is we’ll
teach students the outcome of controversies,
or we’ll teach them the consensus view about
a controversial topic, and we won’t teach
them how we got to that point of view or why
there might still be controversy, and we pay
for those things over.
Last night I was in Washington, D.C., and
I spoke at a Socrates in the City event.
They had a lot of D.C. media people and policy
wonks and politicians, and I started the talk
by reciting a series of quotations that were
conveying the consensus view that there is
no controversy over Darwinian evolution.
I ended the talk having explained why I am
skeptical about Darwinian evolution with a
series of quotes from mainstream evolutionary
biologists who are now calling for a new theory
of evolution because Darwin’s mechanism
of natural selection and random mutation has
very limited creative power, and we have no
explanation for the origin of new biological
form.
So you have this huge disparity between the
consensus view, which is propagated by not
only New York Times reporters, people like
Richard Dawkins, spokesman for the new atheism,
but also all the spokesmen and women for the
major science teaching organizations.
The consensus view is that there is no controversy.
Darwinism is settled science.
That was two days ago in The Boston Globe,
a major article because one of the Presidential
candidates had said that he was skeptical
about Darwinism, and then they had the whole
establishment land on him.
So I think one of the things that’s very
constructive is we call it teaching the controversy.
You don’t have to teach a particular point
of view.
When you teach something, you don’t have
to tell students what to think, but you need
to tell them the competing views and allow
them to weigh the arguments as they are made
by their chief proponents.
That’s just good science education.
You need to know what people think and why.
So that’s the approach that we favor.
Now the question is how broadly applicable
can that be given the current constitutional
climate.
What’s known as young earth creationism
has been definitively ruled unconstitutional
by the Supreme Court.
The status of intelligent design is still
uncertain.
It was ruled…
It was ruled to be unscientific by a federal
court judge in Pennsylvania but his jurisdiction
was limited and so the status, the constitutional
status of intelligent design has not been
settled.
But at the very least, and this is what we
advocate for now, students should be allowed
to know both the strengths and weaknesses
of Darwinian theory, and they should know
the scientific criticisms of the theory as
they are appearing in the peer reviewed mainstream
scientific literature.
Anything less is just not good scientific
literacy.
Students need to know that there are scientists
who criticize the theory and they need to
know why.
That’s part of learning about the theory.
So that’s our approach.
Chris Larson: Dr. Sproul, after Dr. Meyer’s
talk, back here in the room you mentioned,
“Boy, that’s great apologetics.”
And there is a question here asking an apologetical
method question.
Can you explain the difference between presuppositional
and classical apologetics and maybe elaborate
on what you meant by even Dr. Meyer’s talk
and how you thought that that was a well presented
apologetical argument within a framework of
the different schools of thought of approaching
apologetics?
R.C.
Sproul: There are different schools of thought
with respect to apologetics.
I can think of at least three right off the
bat.
There is presuppositionalism, and there are
different schools of that.
There’s axiomatic presuppositionalism that
follows Gordon Clark, and then there’s the
other presuppositional school that follows
Cornelius Van Til.
And then there’s the second approach to
apologetics, which is called evidentialism.
And then the third view that I espouse, which
is called classical view of apologetics.
There are lots of differences, Chris, and
it would be unfair to try to define them absolutely
in the short term.
But the fundamental differences in presuppositional
apologetics argues this way, that the only
way you can come to a sound conclusion of
the existence of God is that you must begin
with the assertion of God’s existence.
You must presuppose the existence of God in
order to have a sound argument for the existence
of God.
Evidentialism sees that as circular, which
of course they don’t have that critique
of presuppositionalism as being circular in
its reasoning process is not something that
one must prove or display because for example
in Van Til’s defense of presuppositional
apologetics, he not only admits – in fact,
he wouldn’t like the word admit – but
he agrees that it is circular, but he says
in defense of that that the nature of all
argument is circular, that the starting points
and the conclusions are all bound up one with
another.
And what he means by that, I see two problems
with that.
One is if you admit that your method of proving
the existence of God is circular and commits
petitio principii fallacy in logic that you’ve
already surrendered the rationality of your
position and you’ve given the unbeliever
an excuse to reject your position because
you have made a logical violation in the process.
Well, Van Til acknowledges circular reasoning,
but he defends it by saying, as I’ve mentioned,
that it’s a particular type of circular
reasoning.
And in this case he commits a second informal
fallacy, the one of equivocation, because
the meaning of the term circular changes in
the argument.
He could have just as easily said that all
arguments are by nature linear, that if I
start with a rational starting point and I’m
come to a rational conclusion, that’s that
circularity.
That’s linearity.
It’s the same thing if I begin with an empirical
premise and come to an empirical conclusion.
I’ve just remained consistent in my methodology.
And there’s no sin in that.
The problem with… against that, evidentialism
says that we present concrete empirical evidence
for the existence of God, arguing from nature
and so on and also from history and the like,
and that that will give you a probability
quotient of conclusion that would satisfy
even somebody like David Hume, in terms of
the astronomical probability quotient that
you achieve.
But that even those arguments, based on empirical
investigation and so on and inferences drawn
from them will not get you to formal certainty,
that that can only be arrived at through a
logical proof that is irrefutable.
But classical apologetics say that the case
for the existence of God can be proven demonstratively,
rationally, and formally, and compellingly.
So it’s a little stronger than evidentialists
who are more empirically oriented.
But what I said afterwards was that that’s
the way apologetics ought to be done.
You don’t just say to the scientific community,
well you’re working on the wrong presuppositions,
or you have the wrong worldview.
That’s true, but you have to begin to show
them that their… that the conclusions that
they’ve drawn from their own evidence are
formally invalid, which is what I heard this
morning, and I thought it was magnificent.
Chris Larson: One follow up question is, how
do we explain why classical apologetics is
not equated with rationalism?
R.C.
Sproul: That’s to me again.
How do I answer the charge?
Well, you know if I espouse to be human, that
doesn’t mean I’ve embraced humanism.
If I argue that I exist, that doesn’t mean
that I am a advocate of existentialism.
And just because a woman is feminine does
not make her a feminist.
Alright.
We want to be rational.
To be rational is to think in a sound way.
And to be rational does not mean you embrace
rationalism.
And at the same time, you have to understand
that historically in the field of philosophical
inquiry, there have been three distinct types
of rationalism.
Cartesian rationalism, where rationalism is
distinguished from empiricism, where the highest
proof is found in the a priori categories
of the mind rather than a posteriori demonstrations
empirically in that debate between the 17th
and 18th centuries.
The second form of rationalism is the form
you found in the Enlightenment, where the
rationalism was distinguished not from empiricism
but from revelation, where reason was elevated
above the trustworthiness of supernatural
revelation.
Then the third kind of rationalism is Hegelian
rationalism in the 19th century, where reason
is elevated to the capital R, where it is
the highest reality, where reason itself becomes
God.
So when you call me a rationalist, I want
to know what kind of rationalist you’re
calling me, and I would deny all three of
those, and would say I’m just trying to
be rational.
I hope that answers it.
The alternative to that is everything outside
of the category of the rational is what?
Irrational and we don’t want that.
Chris Larson: Dr. Tackett, you’ve done a
lot of work with the Truth Project and equipping
Christians to think with a robust worldview,
and a question comes in regarding our next
generation and our students, and do you have
any suggestions for Christians who attend
a secular college or university in regards
to ways of avoiding indoctrination.
Dr. Meyer mentioned even this very syndrome
that happens particularly within the first
year of some students going to college.
Del Tackett: Well, I do work with university
students.
That’s my heart.
That’s my love.
And I usually say this.
It’s a subjective statement.
There’s no objective test that leads me
to it.
It’s just the observation I’ve had over
years and years of working with university
students.
My personal opinion is that the college campus
today is the most hostile ground in America
towards a biblical worldview.
And that hostility comes not just from the
classroom, but the hostility comes from the
campus itself and the party life and all of
the other things that accompany it.
At the same time recognizing that we’re
dealing with 18, 19-year-old people, and if
we think in terms of Christian or Christian
kids who have been raised, and let’s assume
they’ve been raised in an intact family.
They’ve been raised in a church.
They’ve gone to a youth group.
They’ve set under preaching, under a lot
of authority.
And so now you take an 18 or 19 year old,
and you remove all the authority in their
life at a time where their hormones are raging,
and you now place them in the most hostile
environment with all of the temptations that
maybe they have not even come in contact with,
and you have a very volatile situation.
And so my personal plea has been not only
to the college students but to the parents
as well, and to the church, is that we must
get serious about equipping our young people
for the battle because I do not believe we’re
doing a good job of that.
And so from a military perspective, it’s
like we’re sending our children into the
fiercest part of the battle, and we have not…
they don’t have a flak vest.
They don’t have combat boots.
They don’t have a helmet.
They’re not armed.
And…
And the consequences are severe.
I spend a lot of one on one time with college
students, and I can tell you stories after
stories after stories.
I go through a lot of Kleenex in my office
and partly for me and mostly for a student,
where a young girl will be crying her eyes
out saying I can’t believe that this happened
to me.
And so that’s…
I see…
I see the consequential end of that battle,
and so I don’t think we’re doing a good
job of equipping them for that.
Now I don’t mean to imply that therefore
every university and every professor and every
campus has reached the depth of depravity.
But there… let me tell you, there are places
where you would think it’s reached the depth
of depravity.
And so we have got to be more diligent in
helping our kids – I may even speak about
this tonight – go from being able to answer
our Christian questions on a test to the point
where they believe it, and not only believe
it, but they have the ability to defend it.
But they also have to be able to defend it
in the environment in which they find themselves.
And they do not find themselves in an environment
where they can simply point out a verse as
the evidence for the reason for Christian
faith.
And that’s why Dr. Meyer, and we’ve worked
together to try to produce those kinds of
things that will help arm a student with a
lot of the natural evidence, so for example,
the veracity of the Scriptures, which is a
huge issue on college campuses.
The Scriptures are assailed over and over
and over again.
But there is…
Stephen Meyer: Especially in Biblical Studies
and theology classes.
Del Tackett: Yes, absolutely.
Stephen Meyer: A great place to lose your
faith is in the Biblical Studies or theology
classes.
Del Tackett: Absolutely.
In fact, let me… let me run a little rabbit
trail here for just a second.
Because if you think that sending your kids
to a Christian school is going be the answer,
just because a university has a Christian
brochure does not mean that they’re not
going to walk into an Old Testament class
or a philosophy class and not get hit square
between the eyes.
In fact, I will tell parents that if you send
your student to a Christian university – now
there are some, again, there are some really
good ones, but I’m talking just in general
terms – you send your child to a Christian
university, it is possible that they may be
at a greater risk than the students that go
to what we’ll call a secular university,
because the Christian kids that go to a secular
university have their antennas up.
And a lot of kids who go to a Christian college,
“Christian” college, have their antennas
down.
And so I can tell you stories of kids who
have walked into their Christian campus and
gone to their first Bible class and been told
emphatically that the Scripture is not the
Word of God, that it was created by men and
all of the other things we hear – in a Christian
university.
So they have to be prepared for that.
They have to know how to do it, and they have
to know how to argue, but also know how to
do it in a winsome way.
They have to do it in an attractively, winsome
way, and they also need to learn how to get
a good grade in the midst of that.
So there’s a lot of things that have to
be… have to be done.
Stephen Meyer: Can I just add one thing?
Well, the other thing they have to do is some
homework outside of the classroom because
they’re not going to be provided with the
evidence and the information, the modes of
analysis, the ways of thinking that are going
to help them survive that challenge by the
professors, who are the source of that challenge.
I’m talking about the in classroom part
of that.
And Del and I have had the… really the privilege
of working together on this.
I’m following in his wake with the successful
Truth Project that he’s done primarily for
adults, but it’s also a good resource for
our kids facing the challenge in college.
But he and some good people at Coldwater Media
approached me several years ago about doing
a film lecture series based on a course that
I used to do called “Reasons for Faith.”
Some of the material I shared from that course
today.
And we had a terrific collaboration in developing
a… well, Del’s been calling it a prequel
to the Truth Project because the Truth Project
is looking at a Christian worldview and asking,
how do you apply that to different spheres
of life, but the prequel to that is asking
why you should ever acquire a Christian worldview
in the first place.
And if you have one, how would you defend
it, because that’s the challenge students
face.
And so we’ve developed so far two-part…
a two-part lecture series called “True U,”
True University, “U” short for university.
Chris Larson: A quick advertisement.
They’re both available in the bookstore.
Stephen Meyer: Terrific.
And a number of parents have asked us already
in just the time of the conference about resources
that can help equip their kids for that challenge.
I just wanted to let people know that those
resources are in the bookstore, and also there
will be more coming.
They’re in production.
R.C.
Sproul: I wanted to say that when I was in
seminary, I had a theology professor that
routinely criticized the integrity of the
Scriptures, but in an extremely bitter, hostile,
and cynical way.
And I was alone with him in his office one
day, and I said to the professor, I said,
“You know, it’s clear that you don’t
believe this is the Word of God.
You don’t believe in the deity of Christ.
You’ve said that.
But what you communicate to me is that you
delight in your skepticism.
I would think that as a theological professor
that if you came to the conclusion that the
Bible was not trustworthy and that Jesus was
not the Son of God that you would come to
that conclusion with tears.”
There is this arrogance out there, which leads
me to my next question.
Why?
Why is there so much hostility in this group
that you’re talking about towards the Scripture?
I have a guess, and it may sound nuts.
But I’ve seen in their own lifetime a moral
revolution in America centered around sexual
practice.
And you talk about the hormones raging.
Every young person in America knows that the
God of the Bible prohibits premarital sex.
And every professor in college knows that
the God of the Bible prohibits extramarital
sex.
Stop me if I’m lying here.
Right?
So here’s this strong appetite that you’re
talking about.
People want to declare their freedom from
that God of Mount Sinai who forbade adultery.
And the only way to have liberty or libertinism
is to do away with the Source, to get away
from that authority.
It’s a declaration of independence from
a holy and righteous God, whose Word stands
in judgment over our behavior.
Now I’m sure there are other elements involved
in that, but I think that’s an extremely
powerful force.
Don’t you?
Del Tackett: Absolutely.
And this is the other thing I wanted to mention
because it goes along with that.
It just…
It seems to me that every time I’ve had
this discussion, which is repeated over and
over again.
A student comes in.
We sit down together one on one, whether it’s,
you know, at the coffee shop or in my office,
or wherever it is, and I begin to hear the
story, a Christian kid now crying their eyes
out.
And it can begin either in the classroom or
it can begin at the party.
The doubt in the classroom will lead to an
indiscretion at the party.
An indiscretion at the party will lead to
a doubt in the classroom, and partly I think
because of what you’re saying, R.C., is
that once this begins, either guilt or desire…
further desire drives you to want to get rid
of the guilt.
We don’t like guilt.
And the only way to get rid of the guilt is
you get rid of Him to get rid of an absolute
standard.
And so they feed on each other.
This indiscretion feeds on my lack of a desire
to go back to God, and the doubt over here
will feed this.
And it’s like this death spiral.
And it’s almost like it’s every time I
have the conversation, I can see that.
But you’re exactly right because at some
point a sinful nature is going to do anything
it can to remove that kind of a vision and
a standard that I don’t want to follow.
Chris Larson: I want to go to Dr. Sproul,
Jr., and then Dr. Horton, I’m going to come
to you as well, following up and go another
level deep on this.
The state of education of children has so
deteriorated in terms of a biblical worldview
– that’s what you were saying Dr. Tackett
– so where do we go from here both in the
family and in the church?
And Dr. Sproul, I’ll ask you just from a
convinced home educator approaching education
with your convictions, what have you sought
to do in developing your philosophy of education,
and then Dr. Horton, we’re going to come
to you for, how does the church flesh this
out from a covenantal perspective, and how
do we repair the ruins here?
R.C.
Sproul, Jr.: I’m not sure how easy it would
be to answer the question without reiterating
my talk from this morning.
The same passions and convictions are going
to animate both of those things, principally
this, that there’s power in the Word.
And as I’m listening to this conversation
over here, I’m sort of taking your experience
and translating it into my own experience
at the abortion mills, because one of the
things that I’ve recognized over time is
that evangelicals and Roman Catholics in the
pro-life movement have spent the better part
of the last 25 years amassing evidence for
the humanity of the fetus.
And we have the intellectual fire power on
our side.
We’ve got the Human Genome Project.
We’ve got scholars across the country that
are able to explain what’s going on.
Some of you may have seen online that beautiful
development of the fetus in the womb, a little
You Tube thing a few months ago.
We have now the technology to demonstrate
this with Windows on the Womb with sonogram
technology.
And because we think in these terms, we think
that when you go to the mill, that there’s
a girl who thinks she’s carrying a blob
inside of her that’s a problem, and she’s
going to go in there and get that blob taken
care there.
And we’re there to tell her, no, it’s
a baby.
Friends, just like everyone knows you’re
not supposed to be sleeping around, they all
know it’s a baby.
All our scientific studies, all of our wisdom,
all of our technology doesn’t change what
the issue is.
They know it’s a baby, and they will kill
they baby.
They will tell you, “I know it’s a baby.”
They will also tell you, “But God will forgive
me.”
One of the greatest evils that contributes
to this same downslide is inside the church
this notion that we teach our kids that God
loves you just the way you are, that you have
nothing to fear with respect to God’s wrath,
that God is all sweetness and life.
There’s no judgment.
There’s no nothing.
And so we walk into the must profound evils
covered in a false god that has nothing to
do with the Bible.
So what do we do?
We give our children the Bible.
You know, I could…
I could sit here and spend the rest of our
time talking bad about this program in the
government schools and this sex ed thing they’re
doing here, and that evolutionist thing they’re
doing there.
And those are all bad things, but those are
all symptoms.
We have an entire structure where 90% of Christian
parents send their children that begins with
the premise, God shall not be mentioned here.
And then we wonder why we lose these children.
It’s been a wonderful book by my friend
Ken Ham called Already Gone that explores
the phenomenon of professing Christian people
leaving their faith in college.
And what they discovered is they were gone
before they got there, and it honestly began
with issues of origins where they were taught
to doubt the veracity of the Bible even in
their youth.
And then they went to college, and that chink
was already there, and boy, howdy, I can’t
beat that wisdom that’s happening at the
party, just like it’s happening in the classroom.
So what do we do?
Well, in our family we try to make sure we
understand the Bible is God’s Word.
Going to our pride that I tried to address
this morning too and also add this, when we
say that, that the Bible is the foundation
of our family that is a different thing from
Daddy is the foundation of our family.
We teach our children to anchor their faith
on our faith.
Our children see our hypocrisy, and they’re
cut loose.
We need to anchor our faith and our children’s
faith in the Word of God, which mean when
our behavior butts up against the Word of
God, we’d say, “I’m sorry.
We repent.”
This is what Christians do.
Christians repent when we’re disobedient
to the Word of God.
And Daddy disobeys.
You disobey.
We all disobey.
So at the end of the day, friends, the answer
to every problem – it doesn’t matter what
year you come here to the Ligonier conference,
it doesn’t matter what theme we’re going
to address – the answer to the question
is to believe the gospel, to believe God’s
Word, and to proclaim God’s Word, because
that’s what changes things.
That’s what changes us.
That’s what protects our children.
That’s what not just protects them but makes
them then able to go out, not just with their
defensive weapons of the helmet and the boots
and the flak jacket, but to go out with that
roaring lion, which is God’s Word and let
it loose and watch what it does.
And now I’m starting to preach.
[applause]
Chris Larson: Dr. Horton, what can the local
church do to be able to come alongside of
families and equip them and to repair the
ruins of education?
Michael Horton: Well, I do…
I do believe that the home, the church, and
the school are three-legged stools.
You know, there are people who do so much
repair work in the home that they can overcome
some damage that has been done in the school,
or in some cases kids who are in a school
where they’re taught the Christian faith
as well as other subjects, and that modifies
what they get in the home.
But really, I think the ideal is to be…
to be trained in the same worldview at home,
at church and school.
And part of the problem I think is that our
churches are – I’m speaking very generally
and very broadly – our churches are dumbing
down Christians at an alarming rate to such
an extent that they are unarmed when they
get to the university.
And I wonder when people talk about over half
of the evangelicals abandoning the faith in
their sophomore year in college – I hear
staggering, I don’t know if that’s accurate,
but staggering reports – I think were they
ever in church.
They were in children’s church, the nursery,
then children’s church, then the youth group.
You can go all the way to golden oldies without
actually being in the church.
[laughter] And we’ve so niche marketed and
target marketed people, they’re not associated
with the church, and it’s not the first
thing they do when they go off to college.
I have friends who went to very hostile secular
universities and got in a good church, and
they were fine.
And then I have plenty of friends – I myself
went to a Christian university – I have
plenty of friends who blow off Christianity
like no secularist you can possible imagine.
They do a really good job, because they say
we know it from the inside.
They’re cynical, deeply cynical.
And those are the hard people to win back.
I’ll bet the Bible belt will be the most
difficult mission field in 40 years, the burned
over district, so much Bible this, Bible that,
all culture, culture, culture, culture.
What is…
What is it that we believe and why?
What is the gospel?
What do the Scriptures teach?
What is creation, going through these doctrines?
If kids can come out, and all the statistics
tell us, they can come out of evangelical
Bible believing churches without knowing the
gospel, and these are gospel churches, Bible
believing churches, and they don’t know
the Bible.
How can you even get then to the place where
they’re prepared to defend the truths of
Scripture in a secular environment?
So I think, Dorothy Sayers, The Lost Art of
Learning is a lot better than what we have
learned from John Dewey and the child-centered
approach to education.
They go through these different stages, and
we’ve got to be ready to catechize them
in the early stages where they’re just memorizing
Scripture.
They’re memorizing the truth.
And that’s what those, do you remember when
we were talking about catechism earlier?
That’s what that was for.
And then when they become adolescents, don’t
talk down to them like they’re still in
third grade.
Encourage them to question it.
Why do you believe what you believe?
And a lot of apologetics can be done there,
and some churches are doing that with resources
like the Truth Project and other resources.
Do it.
Churches have a responsibility not to pass
this off to others.
Churches have a responsibility to catechize,
to teach, and to give people apologetic armor,
give them good arguments to know not only
what they believe but why they believe it,
and then to find a good church once they get
to a university wherever it is.
Chris Larson: Does the expression, “doctrine
divides,” come out of anti-intellectualism.?
Who wants to jump at that?
R.C.
Sproul, Jr.: Yes.
Chris Larson: Next?
Could you elaborate?
R.C.
Sproul, Jr.: No.
Chris Larson: I didn’t say, would you?
Could you?
Where does that idea come from – doctrine
divides?
R.C.
Sproul: Well, there’s over 2,000 protestant
churches in America, denominations that all
claim to be believing the Bible and believing
true doctrine.
And when we find in our fellowship that we
have agreements and then all of a sudden run
up against disagreements, it can cause serious
division.
I remember hosting a group of 25 charismatic
guests from France back at the Ligonier Valley
Study Center back in the 70s, and they were
all excited to bear witness to their testimony
of being united in the Spirit.
And they sang the song, “We are one in the
Spirit.”
And there were Roman Catholics there, and
there were Lutherans there, and you know,
sort of, I don’t know if there were any
Baptists there.
I don’t know if they have any Baptists in
France, but they had, you know, people from
the Huguenot tradition.
There were all these different groups, and
they were all excited about their unity.
And I just raised the question.
I said, “Well, you’re one in the Spirit.
Well, how do you guys deal with the question
of justification?
Do you think that justification is by faith
alone?”
“Yes, I do.”
“Well, do you?”
I said to Catholic.
“No, I don’t.”
In five minutes they were at each other’s
throats.
And the idea was that if you want to keep
the peace, you’ve got to never talk about
doctrine.
One of the most prominent Bible study organizations
in America today, that is doing a wonderful
job of showing the content of Scripture to
people that are a part of this, have a rule
not to deal with theology.
And I say, how in the world can you study
the Bible without dealing with theology?
When people say I don’t need any theology,
all I need to know is Jesus, as soon as I
say, “Who is Jesus?”
I’m asking a theological question.
And if they say, “Well, I think Jesus is
a great man, but didn’t perform miracles,”
that’s his theology.
And this guy says, “Well, I think He’s
a great man, who would be a liar if He wasn’t
doing what He said He was doing.”
And that divides because truth divides.
Now, it doesn’t mean that it’s necessary
to create hostilities, that we are called
not to be contentious people, that we are
called to be tolerant and long suffering.
But this method… this… this mantra of
doctrine divides becomes a thinly veiled license,
I think, to tolerate the intolerable.
There are theological differences that ought
to divide us.
There’s a reason why the church divided
itself from Arian…
Arius in the 4th century.
There’s a reason why there was a Council
of Nicaea.
There’s a reason why the church divided
itself from the Monophysites and the Nestorians
in the 5th century.
Because the biggest threat to Israel and her
health in the Old Testament was not the Philistine
armies or the Assyrians, it was the false
prophet within their gates, the one who would
distort and twist and undermine the truth
of the Word of God.
You know, Piper is right.
It’s not just enough to know what we believe,
and it’s not just enough to defend what
we believe, but there comes a place where
the Christian has to be willing to contend
for the truth, not to be contentious in our
spirit, of course.
But there are times where these truths are
so sacred that we have to contend for them.
Jesus Himself said, “I came not to bring
peace but a sword, to set brother against
sister,” and mother and father and all of
that, because the truth matters.
I think one of the reasons why liberals get
along so well in the theologian reason is
they don’t believe anything.
They only thing they divide themselves from
is anyone who… who gives a whiff of orthodoxy.
But at long as you don’t believe anything,
there’s nothing to lose.
You can be…
You can not believe in the incarnation, and
I can not believe in the virgin birth, and
we can get along fine as long as we both don’t
believe anything.
But as soon as something is precious to us
in our faith, division enters the room.
That’s unavoidable.
Chris Larson: So putting a real subject on
the table, looking back on the scientific
lecture that Dr. Meyer provided us, looking
at the age of the universe, the question comes
up as far as young earth versus old earth,
so one question is, is that a… is that a
first order issue?
Is that an intramural discussion?
And then if we could just go down the panel
here and just briefly state how you approach
that question as far as age of the universe.
R.C., is it an intramural discussion?
R.C.
Sproul: Not for some people.
For some people, it’s an all or nothing
issue.
When people ask me how old the earth is, I
tell them I don’t know because I don’t.
And I’ll tell you why I don’t.
In the first place is the Bible does not give
us a date of creation.
Now, it gives us hints and inclinations that
would indicate in many cases a young earth.
And at the same time, you’ve got all this
expanding universe and all this astronomical
dating and triangulation and all that stuff
coming from outside the church that makes
me wonder.
And I’ll tell you why.
I believe firmly that all of truth is God’s
truth, and I believe that God has not only
given revelation in sacred Scripture, but
also in the sacred Scripture itself tells
us that God reveals Himself in nature, which
we call natural revelation.
And I once asked a seminary class of mine
that was a conservative group, I said, “How
many of you believe that God’s revelation
in Scripture is infallible?”
And they all raised their hand.
I said, “Well, how many of you believe that
God’s revelation in nature is infallible?”
And nobody raised their hand.
It’s the same God who is giving the revelation,
but what they were getting at was, they were
saying not every scientific theory is compatible
with the Word of God.
And that’s true.
But historically the church’s understanding
of special revelation or the Bible has been
corrected by students of natural revelation
with the Copernican revolution.
Both Calvin and Luther rejected Copernicus
as a heretic in the 16th century.
I don’t know anybody in orthodox Christianity
today who is pleading for geocentricity.
Do you?
Do you know anybody?
Then in that case the church had to… [comment
?] yeah, but the church has said, “Look
we misinterpreted the teaching of the Bible
with respect to the solar system, and thank
you scientists for correcting our misunderstanding.”
And so I think that we can learn from non-believing
scientists who are studying natural revelation.
They may get a better sense of the truth from
their study of natural revelation than I get
from ignoring natural revelation.
So I have a high view of natural revelation
is what I’m saying.
However, if something can be shown to be definitively
taught in the Bible without question, and
somebody gives me a theory from natural…
that they think is based on natural revelation
that contradicts the Word of God, I’m going
to stand with the Word of God a hundred times
out of a hundred because we know that there
can’t… but again I have to repeat, I could
have been a mistaken interpreter of the Word
of God.
But again, I don’t have to face that problem
because I believe that both spheres are God’s
spheres of revelation, and that truth has
to be compatible.
So if they seem to be in conflict, and if
they are in conflict, if a theory of science,
natural science is in conflict with a theological
theory and contradicts it, here’s what I
know for sure.
Somebody is wrong.
And I don’t leap to the conclusion that
it has to be the scientist.
It may be the theologian.
But nor do I leap to the conclusion that it
has to be the theologian.
It can well be the scientists because we’ve
got fallible human beings interpreting infallible
natural revelation, and fallible human beings
interpreting infallible special revelation.
Now having said that, I don’t… it’s
a long way to say I don’t know how old the
earth is, but I’d like to hear what Stephen
says about that.
[applause]
Stephen Meyer: For those who have been following
the development of the intelligent design
research community, people may be aware that
we have for the most part studiously avoided
not so much addressing the question but making
it any kind of focus of our work.
And part of the reason for that is that the
issue has… first of all not all members
of the intelligent design research community
are theists or even Christians, or Christians
or even theists.
But many of us are.
I’m a Christian.
I’m a theist.
I’m also an advocate of intelligent design.
Among those of us who are Christians, I think
that we’re acutely aware that the age of
the earth has become a strangely toxic issue
within the Christian… within the Christian
church.
And I had an opportunity a few years ago to
attend a creation conversation that was set
up to try to sort out these differences among
advocates of the young earth, and advocates
of the old earth view of creationism.
They were all creationists.
And I was asked to give an opening talk on
the methods by which we weigh evidence.
Similar to…
I was talking about that method of inference
to the best explanation.
And I was trying to explain how people of
good will could come to different views about
things like this based on how they weighed
competing classes of evidence, and that these
things weren’t always simple.
I…
Then the advocates of the different views
set about to argue their cases with each other.
I left the meeting thinking that what we needed
more than excellent exposition or additional
scientific data or greater philosophical acumen
was a good Christian counselor to help with
the communication skills that were in evidence
because the messages that were being sent,
the subtext, you know, the old earth people
were saying, you know, without saying in so
many words they were saying to the young earth
people, “You ignoramuses bringing disrepute
to the church with your, you know, backward
view of things and your ignorance of geology,
etc.,” and the young earth people saying
to the old earth people without saying so
in so many words, “You compromising liberals.
You’re always going with the secular science
establishment instead of standing on the Word
of God.”
Oh, my goodness.
You know, it’s toxic.
And from the standpoint of prioritizing the
issues, I do think it’s a tertiary issue.
The first issue is whether or not…
The first issue is the reality of God.
Is God real or imaginary?
This is the issue that Romans 1 speaks to.
It’s the…
And in our time, the primary apologetic challenge
to the church is coming from this dominant
secular, materialistic worldview.
And while we Christians have been busy arguing
with each other over how long ago it was that
God created, we’ve given the secularists
a pass on the fundamental issue of the day,
which is the reality of God versus this materialistic
worldview.
I think a second issue… a secondary issue
is, can we know that from the things that
are made?
This is what Paul insists on in Romans 1,
that the reality of God is knowable from what’s
been made.
And then it is a perfectly interesting and
acceptable issue to discuss how long ago it
might have taken place, how do we interpret
these days of Genesis.
But we have focused so much attention on that
issue, and we’ve strained at gnats and passed
through the camel.
So we in the ID movement have tried to make
that issue one that can be discussed congenially
or in a friendly way among the different participants
in this scientific research program.
And we have people of different views on that.
But as Phillip Johnson, who is in some ways
the founder of the way for us, he put it,
it should never have become a casus belli,
a cause for war.
This is something that we can discuss amicably.
And so it’s… that’s been our approach,
and in some ways I’m…
I…
I’ll tell you what my view is.
I don’t really want to justify it very much
especially in this context because it becomes
very quickly a deviation from that approach.
And I will tell you I hold an old earth view,
and I… but I tend to the view that anatomically
modern man, our species, is fairly recent,
much more recent than you get from the paleoanthropologists.
I have a kind of a hybrid view.
I have colleagues within the ID movement who
are… who are young earth people with whom
I collaborate on important scientific projects.
Paul Nelson in particular is a very close
friend and collaborator.
So we’re trying to approach this issue in
a different spirit, rather than settle it.
And I have people that I respect who are excellent
Biblical expositors on both sides of the issue,
and I have scientist friends on both sides
of the issue.
I would say that our focus is on a more primary
issue, and I think it would be good for the
church to have some… it is important to
understand that truth divides.
At the same time there are primary truths,
and there are secondary truths and there are
ones that are maybe even further down the
list.
And having some sense of the ranking and the
priority of those things is important so that
we can keep our focus on really the primary
challenge of the day.
So that’s….
Chris Larson: Dr. Tackett.
Del Tackett: So are we out of time?
[laughter] This is a very, very divisive issue
that shouldn’t be divisive, but it is.
And…
Stephen Meyer: Del, before you go for it,
can I say one other thing?
Del Tackett: We only have 20 seconds, so take
it.
Stephen Meyer: You’re hoping I leave you
no time.
There’s a really great person that many
people know, Lee Strobel.
He’s written a wonderful book.
He’s written a series of apologetic books.
And one of the books that he’s written is
The Case for a Creator.
Okay.
And…
And we’ve done some conferences with Lee,
and we have had people in the audience of
all different points of view on this issue.
But the primary affirmative thing that Lee
has argued in some ways based on a lot of
the work that’s been done in the ID movement.
He’s popularized the Privileged Planet hypothesis
or William Lane Craig’s cosmological argument.
And many of these arguments that are coming
out of the ID movement are age neutral.
You don’t need to accept one view or the
other to make them work.
And what happens in churches, even in churches
where people have a very definite view one
way or another, once they see that there is
a winning argument being offered, people suddenly
say, “You know, I’m really not all that
exercised about this issue.”
People got the idea that I needed to defend
one view or the other to have some credibility
to make the Scripture work, so that my apologetic
would work, and when my… the analogy that
I’ve often given is it’s like a dog with
a bone or a dog with a stick.
And the dog is clenching, and you try to pull
the stick out of the mouth, and the dog, you
know, is not going to release it.
Then you give the dog a nice juicy bone, and
suddenly the stick is not nearly so important.
And I think what we’ve seen in some of these
Case for Creator conferences that we’ve
done with Lee Strobel is when people see there
is a winning affirmative argument that maybe
doesn’t settle all these theological questions,
they suddenly relax and say, what I was really
looking for was an affirmation of the core
tenets of my faith in the face of this secular
scientific challenge, and I now realize that
maybe I don’t need to make my response on
those terms.
There may be a more effective way to do that.
And I think what the church has been looking
for is not only truth, but a truth that transforms,
that renews, that is persuasive, and some
of the things that are coming out of this…
the ID movement and focusing on these tremendous
developments in science that are showing us
that there’s a strong affirmative case in
the mode of Romans 1, from the things that
are made we can see the evidence of the reality
of God.
That’s really what people have been looking
for, and that gives us some space to have
these other conversations without feeling
like so much is hanging on them, because what
we’re all really feeling is the pressure
from this secular juggernaut, and now that
some people are coming out of the woodwork
and finding a better way to respond to that,
people I think are relaxing about this other
issue and able to deliberate on it more in
a way that is less toxic, less accusatory
one to another within the church.
So….
Del Tackett: Well, I hope that does continue.
R.C.
Sproul: Just a minute.
I just wanted to see how gracious and patience
you could be.
Stephen Meyer: Del Tackett is a very gracious
man.
R.C.
Sproul: Go ahead, Del.
I was just kidding.
Del Tackett: I fall on the other side of this
issue.
And I think there are some critical things
that need to be addressed in this, and R.C.,
you did an excellent job here in the beginning
because we all need to understand that God
has revealed Himself both in natural revelation
and in special revelation, and that all truth
is God’s truth, and that they can’t contradict
each other.
And so if we find a contradiction between
these two, we must be willing to accept that
we might be wrong in our interpretation of
special revelation or we might be wrong in
our observation and our conclusion from natural
revelation.
When… and here another piece here that’s
so very important is that from my observation,
time and lots of time can be used as a very
easy way to cover up the glory and majesty
of God’s creation.
Do you know what I mean by that?
In other words, given enough time, time is
like the magic wand, so that if time is not
an issue, oftentimes people will use time
as the creative force to bring about anything.
And so there is, I think sometimes there’s
a motive there that can drive us into wanting
to have a lot of time, because an evolutionist
cannot, they cannot accept a young earth because
a young earth will pull the rug out from underneath
any kind of a theory of evolution.
So there’s a motive there.
There has to be a motive in order to have
a very, very old universe, a very, very old
earth.
I think that’s important to keep in mind
because a motive can also sway your observation.
So that if our observation, which we would
hope would always be an honest observation
of the evidence around us, we know that’s
not true.
We know that we’re swayed by our presupposition
and by our own desires.
So what I would say is, that if you want to
see an old earth, you’re going to look at
evidence to support an old earth.
If you want to see a young earth, you will
look at only the evidence to support a young
earth.
So there are motives that have to be understood
in this as well.
Now, I think one of the problems that we have
in the observation of the natural realm is
that if you do not begin with a primary understanding
of special revelation, then we can view the
natural world from a wrong presupposition.
And let me give you one example.
It is my personal opinion that the second
law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy,
was a law that came into being at the fall.
I do not believe that God created a universe
that was dying.
I do not believe that when He created everything
that the law of entropy was in action, that
the law of entropy as we know it, as we’ve
observed it today is actually an observation
of the groaning of the universe, the groaning
of creation that Paul talks about in Romans,
chapter 8, that everything died, not just
man.
The natural realm began to decay, began to
die.
If that is true, then when we are looking
back through that wall to try to go back in
time to determine, for example, how old the
universe is, we’re looking back through
that wall that may distort our observation.
Now I agree with you.
I don’t think God is fooling us.
But if we understand the principles of the
fall and what happened, it’s not that He’s
fooling us.
I think He’s giving us an understanding
we need to be wise in our observations.
It’s just if you… if you were a native
American Indian and your source of food were
fish in the pond, in the lake, and you had
your spear.
If you throw your spear at where the fish
appears to be, you’ll be wrong because of
the refraction that occurs as light goes through
that medium.
So all I’m saying is that if we’re looking
back into time through a wall that separates
a dying universe from a universe in which
there was no second law of thermodynamics
as we know it today, no law of decay, what
kind of universe did that look like?
What…
What were the operations of how the universe,
the speed of light even, who knows?
I don’t know.
All I’m saying is that I think that our…
the observation of the physical realm must
also take into consideration what we know
to be true, and the truth about the creation
that God gave to us and the subsequent fall
must be taken into consideration when we’re
making that kind of a long term observation.
R.C.
Sproul: Would you say that that has anything
to do with the debate between catastrophism
and uniformitarianism?
Because the assumption and that Steve talked
about earlier is that one of the assumptions
that’s made is that the laws as we observe
them today have always been in affect.
That’s what you’re saying, isn’t it?
That maybe they haven’t always been in affect.
That’s always a possibility.
And I remember, you know, seeing that thing
about Mount St. Helens, where the stratification
there in Washington that was laid down in
15 minutes by the volcanic eruption appeared
to be identical with uniformitarian stratifications
that supposedly took millions of years to
accomplish.
Yeah, I mean, that’s possible, but at the
same time even though that’s a possibility,
Del, I don’t think that really solves…
solves it all that easily.
I mean, we still have to take into account
this data and say, how valuable is it?
How…?
Even if it’s a decaying world and shouldn’t
be a decaying world, does the law of entropy
still apply?
Is the expanding universe moving towards a
state of disorganization or isn’t it?
I mean, all the evidence would indicate that
it is moving towards a state of disorganization.
We had that bu-bu-bu-bu-bu Doppler Effect.
[laughter] So what do you do with that?
I’m just saying I don’t know.
I’m not taking a stance on it.
But I want to…
I don’t think that all of the data is in
yet.
But where we need to fight is, Who started
this thing?
And who He is and how powerful He is.
It’s theism that’s at stake.
And that’s the target of the secularist.
It’s the target of the materialist.
It’s the target of the naturalist.
If they can do away with creation, they’ve
done away with Christianity and Judaism and
theism.
And so that’s where we have to fight the
battle.
And I think that’s what Stephen is saying
here.
If we get caught up in the other things, we
have a bad strategy.
Del Tackett: I absolutely agree with that,
R.C.
But I also agree not only do we have to fight
creation, we have to fight the reality of
the fall, because if we do not fight the reality
of the fall, then we have no need of a Savior.
And so it’s not just creation.
It’s the reality…
R.C.
Sproul: Of course not just creation.
Del Tackett: … of death and suffering that
came from…
R.C.
Sproul: I’m just saying that where the guns
are aimed from the atheists are at creation.
I mean, how many atheists are you saying…
are there yelling about saying there was fall?
Well, they want to deny the history of Adam,
but if I say to them, “Are you a sinner?”
These guys will all admit that they’re being
sinners, as inconsistent as that is with their
worldview, because with their worldview there
is no such thing as sin.
But they don’t claim to be perfect people,
so in one sense the issue for them isn’t
the fall, the reality of our… of our corruption.
Del Tackett: But without… without a discussion
regarding even the issue of evil and suffering…
R.C.
Sproul: Right.
Del Tackett: … that whole… the whole notion
of evil and suffering and the argument associated
with that has… it does not begin with creation,
other than to say that God didn’t create
it the way it is.
R.C.
Sproul: I hear what you’re saying, and we…
Del Tackett: I’d never be in a position
to argue with you.
R.C.
Sproul: Well, of course not.
[laughter] You’re way too smart for that.
[laughter]
Stephen Meyer: Well, and Del, there are…
there are Biblical theologians who hold a
high view of Scripture in an inerrantist view,
for example, Jack Collins at Covenant Seminary,
who not only hold, have a very well elaborated
biblical exegetical argument for an old earth,
but also have developed a very careful old
earth views of theodicy that bring that into
account.
My point is simply that those are… those
are important issues, and they need to be
approached in a different spirit that we’ve
approached them before.
And so the…, you know, you’re saying…
you’re raising lots of points that I’d
like to take offline and continue because
of a long friendship we’ve had.
And we’ll have a different kind of conversation
about this than the ones that have been going
on in the church because of the mutual trust
we have and the collaborations that we’ve
enjoyed.
And that’s… that’s what I’m arguing
for.
I think there’s a lot more in this issue
than the caricature, cookie cutter, cutouts
that each side has of the other.
And that’s…
And I think we need to have some appreciation
of that when we approach this, so that we
don’t fall back into the same kind of pitfalls
in rupturing unnecessarily Christian unity
over issues that are, you know, I agree if
there’s no historical Adam, you can’t
have a fall, you can’t have an atonement.
There are some things that are really central.
But how long ago those events took place,
I don’t think, there’s not as much at
stake at that in whether or not there was
an Adam and there was a real fall.
So, and I think as I’ve surveyed the discussion
both on the biblical exegetical side and on
the scientific side, I’m content to allow
that discussion to take place but in a context
where we can lower the amperage on it.
And that’s… that’s primarily what I’d
like to contend for in a setting like this.
If people want to ask, you know, me or you,
or we have a discussion, they’re fascinating
issues, and there’s no reason we shouldn’t
be talking about them because we all do revere
the Word of God, but understanding exactly
what it means and how you integrate the two
sources of revelation, and how we weigh competing
things, and competing….
You know, I’ll… there’s things I’d
love to say about my particular view of the
Genesis text, but I know as soon as you introduce
that into the conversation, unless you set
the context as far as what are the ground
rules of how we’re going to proceed in this
discussion that’s been so toxic, just saying
certain things, say no, no, no, no, someone
will say that’s not right.
Some other theologian says it’s this way
of reading that Hebrew word, and then you’re
off to the races, you know.
And somehow, we’ve got to get out of that,
or else we’re not going to make progress
on this, and that’s…
Chris Larson: Very quickly.
Escaping our time, but I do want to give Dr.
Horton and then Dr. Sproul just a couple minutes
if you could.
[laughter]
Michael Horton: Well, I think, first of all
it has… a lot of this has to do with the
scope of Scripture.
The easiest thing to do here is to do what
many have done sadly and to say that Scripture
is a good resource for truth about… about
spiritual things but not natural things.
If Scripture told me in terms that… that,
you know, I think that the whole church could
recognize as the plain sense of Scripture
how old the earth was, I would go with the
Scriptures.
All truth is God’s truth, but not all truth
is in the Bible.
And that’s why we’ve been talking about
these two books.
And our older theologians used to talk about,
this isn’t the first time most of the scientists,
you know, in the past were priests or theologians
or you know in the 16th and 17th centuries
anyway.
They had all sorts of differences between
each other about how to interpret the science
and Scripture.
My concern here is that we are going beyond
the scope of Scripture in trying to decide
matters that the Bible itself doesn’t address.
I embrace an old earth view mainly on exegetical
grounds.
And I know that we could disagree amongst
ourselves about those exegetical grounds,
but I can honestly say as an inerrantist,
as someone who goes to the Bible for my interpretations,
I…
I conclude from Scripture itself that I don’t
think the Scriptures alone by themselves would
give me that, but I think that they are very
consistent with an old earth perspective.
Having said that, if Scripture itself doesn’t
teach this, if it’s beyond the scope of
Scripture to address the question of how old
the earth is, as Calvin said, Moses was not
an astronomer, and I think Moses wouldn’t
have understood the conversation today, what
you were doing here.
He was not infallible.
His writing is infallible.
He didn’t know everything about the cosmos.
Paul didn’t know everything.
We know more modern science than Paul did.
They wrote infallibly by the Holy Spirit what
they wrote.
Beyond that scope, we ought to let the scientists
tell us I believe the age of the rocks.
R.C.
Sproul, Jr.: I’m a young earth guy, not
for exegetical reasons, but for sound exegetical
reasons.
[laughter] [applause]
Michael Horton: I knew that was coming.
I knew it.
I knew it.
R.C.
Sproul, Jr.: But so that we don’t end up
with doctrine dividing, I do want to point
out an important commonality here that surprised
me.
Listening to Dr. Meyer talk about these meetings
and the undertones that were being said, and
I thought, well, I knew where you were going.
I could imagine that happening.
I could have imagined being there.
But what you may not know, because if you
don’t spend enough time with young earth
guys like I do, is that we have this in common
too.
I do fear that there are people in the church
who are afraid to be embarrassed in front
of the heathen, who will do whatever they
can to avoid disagreeing with what they think
the heathen have demonstrated through natural
revelation, which is that undercurrent that
you are hearing.
Why are you people compromising with the world?
What I’ve found out in young earth circles
though is they do the same thing.
You listen to some young earth apologists,
and you’re thinking, if the science changed,
they would change.
Their confidence is not “thus saith the
Lord.”
Their confidence is our scientists are better
than your scientists.
You know, as a young earth guy, I am persuaded
that the Bible does speak to the issue.
I’m perfectly content to not…
I would ask not to be required to defend the
good bishop’s specific year framework and
all of that.
Yes, October 4, 4004.
The Bible does not say that.
I know that.
But I sincerely believe that while we can
do all sorts of wonderful work on intelligent
design, we can do all sorts of work on thinking
God’s thoughts after Him and how He did
this, I think, and while I agree with Dr.
Horton that the Bible doesn’t say everything,
I have pitched my tent on yom, and that’s
where it’s going to stay.
Now again, other exegesis can make reasonable
cases inside the camp about what you mistakenly
think that word can mean.
[laughter] But I went from old earth to young
earth as a seminary student when my Old Testament
professor taught me that if you want to understand
the text now, you have to understand how the
text was understood then.
And that settled it for me.
R.C.
Sproul: Well, wait a minute.
R.C.
Sproul, Jr.: I’ll wait.
R.C.
Sproul: I would agree that most, I mean, probably
all young earth advocates are seven day creation
advocates and would agree with your understanding
of yom.
But the converse is not true.
Not everyone who believes in the seven day
creation is necessarily a young earth advocate.
Keep that in mind.
R.C.
Sproul, Jr.: Sure.
I understand.
R.C.
Sproul: Okay.
R.C.
Sproul, Jr.: I understand.
[laughter]
R.C.
Sproul: Now, this is a truth that we can’t
have divide us, [laughter] because a house
divided against itself cannot stand.
Chris Larson: Thank you, gentlemen.
Let’s thank our panelists.
[applause]
