Looking for answers…and not from Ken Ham

Here are some more details on Calvin’s condemnation of the arrogance of scientists who proposed heliocentrism.

Calvin’s opinion of heliocentrism is not in question. His sermon on I Corinthians 10 - 11 is what we moderns would call a “scorched earth attack” on the monstrous and demonic idea of heliocentrism!

“[The Christian is not to compromise so as to obscure the distinction between good and evil, and is to avoid the errors of] those dreamers who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, who reprove everything and pervert the order of nature. We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds we must indeed confess that the devil possesses them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear. So it is with all who argue out of pure malice, and who happily make a show of their imprudence. When they are told: ‘That is hot,’ they will reply: ‘No, it is plainly cold.’ When they are shown an object that is black, they will say that it is white, or vice versa. Just like the man who said that snow is black; for although it is perceived and known by all to be white, yet he clearly wished to contradict the fact. And so it is that they are madmen who would try to change the natural order, and even to dazzle eyes and benumb their senses.”

It seems misleading to state that Calvin didn’t mention any Scriptures in his discourse on I Corinthians and thus (it would seem) to attempt to exonerate him from the charge of misinterpreting Scripture. Calvin’s copious commentaries tie many specific Biblical passages to geocentrism. I will only mention two in this comment. The first is Psalm 93:1, about which Calvin comments:

"The heavens revolve daily, and immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion–nod disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air if not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? " [Emphasis mine]

In modern English, Psalm 93:1 states:

The Lord reigns; he is robed in majesty;
the Lord is robed; he has put on strength as his belt.
Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

  • English Standard Version

One can understand how Calvin would read this verse in a geocentric fashion; does it not state that the world shall never be moved?

Calvin also saw geocentrism in Psalm 104:5, as demonstrated by this commentary:

“Here the prophet celebrates the glory of God, as manifested in the
stability of the earth. Since it is suspended in the midst of the air,
and is supported only by pillars of water, how does it keep its place so
stedfastly that it cannot be moved? This I indeed grant may be
explained on natural principles; for the earth, as it occupies the
lowest place, being the center of the world, naturally settles down
there.”

Again, a glance at the verse shows how Calvin could draw the conclusion that the Scripture supported geocentrism:

He set the earth on its foundations,
so that it should never be moved. - English Standard Version

3 Likes

And then there’s Augustine’s prescient remarks regarding modern science and certain interpreters:

 
Also this:

Often the contempt of vainglory becomes a source of even more vainglory, for it is not being scorned when the contempt is something one is proud of.

3 Likes

Not to mention, that whole having three children out of wedlock thing.

@SonsofThunder - I don’t have much to add to your original questions here. You’ve heard from some of the really thoughtful folks who frequent this forum, and enough further reading suggestions to last you for years.

What I will say is may God bless you as you continue to sort some of these things out. Many of us here have been in a place similar to where you find yourself now. All the best as you strive towards a meaningful faith in God that is intellectually gratifying to you.

7 Likes

Christian. However, I try to be faithful to evidence rather than any particular dogma whether related to Science, Religion or Theology. I see Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian, YEC, Intelligent Design (ID) and EC/TE all as problematic as a completely adequate framework. I wish the politics of these issues were put aside so progress could be made in a more comprehensive theory of Evolution. ID has some things to recommend itself if combined with TE. However, these terms have inspired so much controversy that they probably can’t be reconciled. Also, Evolutionary theory has seemed to be closed to have an honest discussions on its current limitations because of fear of attack from Creationism (even though some of the leading Evolutionist admit that theory need to be extended such as Shapiro).

1 Like

I wonder. To me it seems that the scientific world at large could not clear much less about creationism… It is just a fly in the soup. It becomes an issue only in discussions outside mainstream science in Christian circles primarily. You may well have a point about some tendency to be closed, but only because it is human nature to oppose change and to defend what you have integrated into your understanding. However, science is pretty good about breaking through those tendencies with time as the data piles up.

2 Likes

Many good points here. I often wonder what some people’s PhD mean as they seem to argue outside their field of expertise so ignorantly (and even within their supposed field!). I get people trying to argue and support their world view (wv) but lets try to enlarge our understanding and maybe even be humble enough to change our mind if that is where the evidence takes us (even if we have had a certain view for 50 years!!!).

Unless we are arguing evidence and not engaging in PR/Apologetics/Political rhetoric then we are getting off topic and it becomes a useless exercise. I agree that name calling and put downs are totally out of line. This is simply proper debating and critical thinking 101.

1 Like

If I may be self serving here, I would like to add my own book to your recommend list: Friend of Science, Friend of Faith: Listening to God in His Works and Word. It addresses issues of geology, evolution, and human origins with respect to biblical understanding, scientific evidence, and the impact of YEC on the mission of the church. It has received high praises from leaders in the field. You can find endorsements and links to other works at GreggDavidson.net .

2 Likes

Yes, this is a highly endorsed book in the BioLogos network. I would like to also clarify that it is not one of those self-published manifestos that gets linked here with some frequency. It’s gone through an editorial process and is published by Kregel, which is a legit Christian publishing house. And Gregg is a credentialed scientist who has been a geology professor for two+ decades, he’s not a self-taught science-faith hobbyist.

3 Likes

Thank you for the kind clarification, Christy!

1 Like

Great book! I’ve bought a couple of copies, but keep giving them away.

1 Like

The only reason I didn’t include Gregg Davidson’s excellent book “Friend of Science, Friend of Faith: Listening to God in His Works and Word” is that I thought Gregg’s book was geared toward young earth creationism, whereas the original poster was asking for recommendations of books on theistic evolution.

No worries! For future reference, Friend of Science, Friend of Faith was indeed prompted by YEC claims, but addressing those claims includes walking readers through the scientific evidence for evolution and how it intersects with biblical understanding (through both theistic and atheistic lenses).

1 Like

What we do have in scripture is evidence that we are not to read the early chapters of Genesis as literal history.

You can find the proof in the first two chapters: two creation stories that literally disagree.

The first creation story, Genesis 1.1-2.4a, has the order of creation as plants, animals, man and woman. The method was by declaration. God said “let there be…”. Man was created after the earth had brought forth vegetation. Man was created after the animals.

The second creation story, starting in Genesis 2.4b, has the order of creation as man, plants, animals, woman. In this story, man was created with God’s hands. And plants were created when God planted. Man was formed before any plants had sprung up. Man was alone so God formed the animals looking for a companion for man,

The two stories are literally incompatible as actual history.

The Bible itself, in the first two chapters, makes it clear these stories are not literal history. The Bible doesn’t say the method of creation was evolution. It does not tell us how God created. But the Bible does make it clear that the early chapters of Genesis are not literal history.

4 Likes

I sometimes point people with that view to 2 Samuel 22 (and its duplication in Psalm 18). Those passages tell the story of David’s rescue from Saul.

It includes:
In my distress I called upon the Lord; to my God I called. From his temple he heard my voice, and my cry came to his ears.

8 Then the earth reeled and rocked; the foundations of the heavens trembled and quaked, because he was angry.

9 Smoke went up from his nostrils, and devouring fire from his mouth; glowing coals flamed forth from him.

10 He bowed the heavens, and came down; thick darkness was under his feet.

11 He rode on a cherub, and flew; he was seen upon the wings of the wind.

12 He made darkness around him a canopy, thick clouds, a gathering of water.

13 Out of the brightness before him coals of fire flamed forth.

14 The Lord thundered from heaven; the Most High uttered his voice.

15 He sent out arrows, and scattered them —lightning, and routed them.

16 Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare at the rebuke of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

17 He reached from on high, he took me, he drew me out of mighty waters.

But we also have the historical telling of the rescue, with Jonathan protecting David and David hiding in Philistine cities and other less supernatural events.

A literal reading of 2 Samuel 22 requires us to believe God flew down on a cherub hurling arrows and lightning with smoke pouring from his nostrils.

We have the actual history of David’s rescue from Saul and we have the beautiful picture in song in 2 Samuel 22.

We know 2 Samuel 22 is not literal history because we also have the literal history recorded in scripture.

We know the early chapters of Genesis are not literal history for two reasons:

  1. the two creation stories literally disagree and
  2. the evidence God has given us in creation reveals an ancient earth and a continuing evolution of life.
1 Like

@SonsofThunder , if you’ll send me your email address I’ll mail you an article that I think will be of great help.
roy.a.clouser@gmail.com

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.