Providence and Science

As a Christian studying in a secular University I find that one of the most frequently occurring issues used to undermine the validity or even feasibility of Christianity is Science (by Science I mean the natural sciences). My previous program of study was Life Science at UofT, so I am slightly familiar with the terrain. Though I did not finish the program I was there long enough to bask in God’s glory demonstrated in the awesomeness and intricacies of nature. Analyzing anatomical systems, cellular structures, and complex chemical reactions just increased my awe before God. "Our God designed all of this!!!" I could not help but be amazed. Though I am astonished at the feats man has created (transportation, internet, architectural marvels), they all pale in comparison to the natural wonders we see around us. As a Christian I do not see Science as incompatible with Christianity. For some odd reason many people do.

One issue that has somewhat disturbed me is the impact Science has on the doctrine of Providence. I am no Theologian, but when I discovered the doctrine of Providence I was startled by the practical implications it bears within one’s own life. The question (at least how I understand it) that the doctrine of Providence asks is to what extent is God active, deliberate, or consciously involved within the Universe. One response that I have heard is that God is not active/consciously involved within every minuscule event. God has set up natural laws such that God is the primary (first cause), but not necessarily the direct, cause to an effect. For example, God is not active/consciously controlling the number of Sodium ions crossing the walls of my nerves. This is not strictly deism. God is not removed from the universe; he is still involved in events.

I have serious issues with this point of view. One must first understand that the proponent of this position is trying to navigate the difficult waters of Science and Christianity. They may affirm that the Bible is the Word of God. Yet it seems that plainly, when one looks into the world, one observes that there do appear to be natural laws. Does this necessarily take away glory of God? From my own personal experience, I can see God glorified in these natural laws. But at the same time, it appears that the biblical witness goes further than saying that God simply creates natural laws and his activity is relegated to primary cause status rather than active within every event.

For me, I would claim that God is active and deliberate within every event in all creation. He is the one holding my chair up as I write this piece, ensuring my computer does not crash, and he is the one deciding and allowing the proper transfer of ions across my nervous membranes such that I can type. Can I argue this from Scripture?

There appears to be many examples which affirm this position. For example in Genesis 8:22 God states that, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease”.[1] This passage is within the context of the receding of the flood. Though the flood brought irregularity to the earth, “there is a return to regularity and predictability in the world of nature”.[2] Victor Hamilton states that “regularity in nature is a given, a promise of God”.[3] This statement seems to be a sweeping proposition regarding God and his activity (and also his promise) in nature. Though it does not specifically state that God sprouts the seeds at harvest, and decides which nutrients are involved in fertilizing agriculture, it is clear that the implication is that God is in control of these regular events. These mundane, repeatable events that we take for granted in life, come about by God’s promise. Vern Poythress rightly states that “according to the Bible, [God] is involved in those areas where science does best, namely areas involving regular and predictable events, repeating patterns, and sometimes exact mathematical descriptions”.[4]

Another passage that seems to affirm this is Hebrews 1:3: "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power". The phrase that has me pondering is he upholds the universe by the word of his power. This text is specifically referring to Jesus. George Guthrie informs one that:"the action (that is of upholding/sustaining) speaks of the continual organization and carrying forward of the created order to a designed end".[5] If this is correct, it implies that the continual existence of the universe is dependent on Christ. What happens when one removes the sustenance to a living object (i.e. food, water, etc)? It ceases to exist. Not only does this passage indicate that the present sustenance is dependent on God’s activity, any future existence is also dependent on Christ.

Is God deliberate in all aspects of life? The above biblical texts seem to affirm this. The regularities of science are not only designed by God, their very nature and existence is dependent on Christ. If God is not in control of the molecules found within cancer cells, if God just leaves them alone and lets them run their course, then what point is there to pray for healing. My prayers are directed to a God who I believe is in control of all things. If He is not, then if I ever contract a terminal disease, then I would be truly lost. Praise God that he is in control of the little details. I can live my life trusting him.

I agree with Calvin when  he said:

God is deemed omnipotent not because he can indeed act, yet sometimes ceases and sits in idleness, or continues by generous impulse that order of nature which he previously appointed; but because, governing heaven and earth by his providence, he so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation. [Quoted by Bruce Milne, Know the Truth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 102.]

---

[1]All biblical texts are taken from the ESV unless otherwise stated.

[2]Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 310.

[3]Ibid., 311.

[4]Vern S. Poythress, Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006), 54.

[5]George Guthrie, Hebrews: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 48.

Evolution

I was originally enrolled in the Life Science program at UofT.  My first class was Biology 105 (at least I think it was 105): Evolution.  As a Christian this is a difficult subject to deal with.  Personally, I do not think the biblical doctrine of providence is compatible with Evolution.  I also am weary of further underlying issues within the present acceptance of theistic evolution which I will not discuss.  There are many people who now more than ever seem to think it is compatible.  Evolution, at least as I understand is contingent on Natural Selection and Genetic Drift, both of which depend on randomness and chance.  Evolution makes non-sense of God's providence.  Fundamentally, if evolution is dependent on randomness (and this is to produce variation within alleles) and chance (the chance that certain traits are actually passed on to an offspring for survival) this would then imply there are certain things that are out of God's control.  A theistic evolutionist, who affirms a classical reformed understanding of the providence of God, may claim that this randomness is in fact driven by God.  Well then, I would further recommend people read this post by Tony Reinke.

Holiness

I am going to read J. C. Ryle's Holiness.  It has been sitting on my shelf for a while (as well as many other books), and it seems about time to read it.  Here is something from his preface which struck a chord with me:

"It is easy to get crowds together for what we called "higher life" and "consecration meetings.  Anyone knows that, who has watched human nature and read descriptions of American camp meetings and studied the curious phenomena of the "religious affections."  Sensational and exciting addresses by strange preachers or by women, loud singing, hot rooms, crowded tents, the constant sight of strong semi-religious feeling in faces of all around you for several days, late hours, long protracted meetings, public profession of experience-all this kind of thing is very interesting at the time and seems to do good.  But is the good real, deeply rooted, solid, lasting?  That is the point.  And I should like to ask a few questions about it.

"Do those who attend these meetings become more holy, meek, unselfish, kind, good-tempered, self-denying, and Christlike at home?  Do they become more content with their position in life, and more free from restless craving after something different from that which God has given them?  Do fathers, mothers, husbands, and other relatives and friends find them more pleasant and easy to live with?  Can they enjoy a quiet Sunday and quiet means of grace without noise, heat, and excitement?  Above all, do they grow in charity, and especially in charity toward those who do not agree with them in every jot and tittle of their religion?

 "These are serious and searching questions and deserve serious consideration.  I hope I am as anxious to promote real practical holiness in the land as anyone.  I admire and willingly acknowledge the zeal and earnestness of many with whom I cannot co-operate who are trying to promote it.  But I cannot withhold a growing suspicion that the great "mass meetings" of the present day, for the ostensible object of promoting spiritual life, do not tend to promote private home religion, private Bible reading, private prayer, private usefulness, and private walking with God.  If they are of any value, they ought to make people better husbands and wives and fathers and mothers and sons and daughters and brothers and sisters and masters and mistresses and servants.  But I should like clear proofs that they do.  I only know it is far easier to be a Christian among singing, praying, sympathizing Christians in a public room, than to be a consistent Christian in a quiet, retired, out-of-the-way, uncongenial home."

Assumptions to Avoid?

As my bio mentions, I am majoring in the study of religion at the University of Toronto.  This is (Lord willing) my last year.  I am one course shy of completing my major in religion (though I am taking extra courses in biblical studies); the course I am missing is world religions.  Today in our course we were graced by the presence of a guest lecturer from another University.  His area of research is Old Testament/Septuagint studies.  Thus he delivered us an introductory lesson on the history of Ancient Israel followed with a quick lesson in biblical interpretation.

Methodology within biblical studies is one of my areas of interest.  A person's method can determine their conclusions.  Some questions that I find intriguing are: can a Christian committed to the bible adopt a historical-critical approach to it?  In what ways can a Christian apply modern scholarly methods to understanding the text?  In many ways, these methods elucidate and reveal much within the text.  But at other points, some of these methods can draw disastrous conclusions that could ship-wreck a person's faith.

Interesting enough, our instructor gave us four assumptions to avoid in order to interpret the text as a scholar:

1. The text is fundamentally cryptic - there are some texts that appear ambiguous and seem apparently morally wrong.  For example, in Genesis 22 how can God command Abraham to sacrifice his son?  Christians (or Jews) may respond to this by first claiming that though this may be the surface meaning, there is an underlying meaning.
2. The texts are a book of lessons ascribed to the reader in their day.  They must be modernized for modern use.  
3. The Bible does not contain any contradictions or mistakes.
4. The Bible is divinely given in which God speaks through prophets.

As mentioned above, these are assumptions that are to be avoided in order to interpret the text correctly.  Now, there are some scholars who claim that faith is compatible with being a biblical scholar.  But, the faith presuppositions must be dropped in order not to dilute/contaminate scholarly work.  If I may return back to my original questions, if a Christian is committed to the bible as the Word of God (as most evangelicals are), then it follows that once these scholarly methods are adopted, and these assumptions dropped, this basic commitment is essentially dropped. 

What hope is there for the Christian (I qualify this with evangelical Christian) within biblical scholarship?  I'll leave on one note:

This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. (Matthew 13:13 ESV)

Gerald Bray talk on Piper and Wright

Listen to this recent talk here.

(HT: JT)

Southern Seminary Panel on Wright

Check out this panel discussion at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on N. T. Wright and his view of Justification.  Watch it here.

BIG NEWS!!!

This is an important announcement:

I now own 1000 books. Anyone can check them out by clicking here.