web site hit counter A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture

Availability: Ready to download

In A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture, Dr. Keith Mathison tackles a topic that has long been a subject of debate, aiming to enable believers to approach questions pertaining to science and Scripture with grace, humility, and patience.


Compare

In A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture, Dr. Keith Mathison tackles a topic that has long been a subject of debate, aiming to enable believers to approach questions pertaining to science and Scripture with grace, humility, and patience.

30 review for A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture

  1. 5 out of 5

    Clark Goble

    Essentially, this little book is a commentary on a statement made by theologian R.C. Sproul. It serves somewhat as a guide for scientists and theologians to come to terms when disagreements arise. The basic argument of the book is as follows: 1. All truth is God's truth. 2. God reveals truth in two ways - General Revelation (nature/science) and Special Revelation (Word of God). 3. Both General and Special Revelation are infallible, however, they are both subject at times to fallible interpretati Essentially, this little book is a commentary on a statement made by theologian R.C. Sproul. It serves somewhat as a guide for scientists and theologians to come to terms when disagreements arise. The basic argument of the book is as follows: 1. All truth is God's truth. 2. God reveals truth in two ways - General Revelation (nature/science) and Special Revelation (Word of God). 3. Both General and Special Revelation are infallible, however, they are both subject at times to fallible interpretations. 4. If a conflict between science and the Bible arises, it can only be one of three things - the scientist holds a flawed interpretation of his data, the theologian holds a flawed interpretation of Scripture, or both are wrong. Mathison reminds the reader of the historical view of geocentrism and that many theologians (Calvin and Luther specifically) clung to a flawed interpretation of Scripture despite Copernicus proving them wrong. As such, it is possible for science, while interpreting infallible general revelation, to inform and educate the theologian. This point is made to argue for a generous relationship between science and theology. Too often, theologians assume the scientist is wrong while the scientist assumes the theologian is wrong - in reality, both scenarios are possible. The author does remind the reader that in cases where science seems to directly contradict God's Word, it is God's Word that gets the nod. However, the theologian must be sure of his interpretation before taking a stand. I would have rated this little book higher has the author applied its principles to the argument over evolution. Rather, Mathison applies his principals to the age of the universe. It was interesting, but it left me wanting more. It does, however, serve as a decent introduction to the subject of science and religion.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Andy

    I found this to be disappointing on many levels. First of all, it was merely a commentary on a lecture by R.C. Sproul. Not that this is a problem. But it was more like reading a review of someone else's work. Secondly, there was no actual "approach" advocated. There was a lot of dancing around issues. Perhaps "that" is the aforementioned approach. Thirdly, the word "science" in the title is far too general. The only issue the book was addressing is the age of the universe. It was not advocating I found this to be disappointing on many levels. First of all, it was merely a commentary on a lecture by R.C. Sproul. Not that this is a problem. But it was more like reading a review of someone else's work. Secondly, there was no actual "approach" advocated. There was a lot of dancing around issues. Perhaps "that" is the aforementioned approach. Thirdly, the word "science" in the title is far too general. The only issue the book was addressing is the age of the universe. It was not advocating any position on that either. So, when all was said and done, we have a second hand report of a lecture in which the speaker danced around the question of the Reformed position on the age of the universe.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Doug Kauffman

    This short book is essentially a commentary on a statement made by R.C. Sproul in response to a question about the age of the earth. And while I do not identify as Reformed, I found the book very helpful. (Incidentally, it also increased my respect for Sproul, and makes me want to read more of his work.) Sproul demonstrates a humility that is often lacking in discussions of science and Scripture. Since all truth is God's truth, then all truth is compatible. When Scriptural revelation and natural This short book is essentially a commentary on a statement made by R.C. Sproul in response to a question about the age of the earth. And while I do not identify as Reformed, I found the book very helpful. (Incidentally, it also increased my respect for Sproul, and makes me want to read more of his work.) Sproul demonstrates a humility that is often lacking in discussions of science and Scripture. Since all truth is God's truth, then all truth is compatible. When Scriptural revelation and natural revelation seem to disagree, we can be sure that it is simply our fallible understanding of the revelation that is at fault - and we shouldn't jump to a conclusion about whether it is the theologian or the scientist who is wrong. Rather, we can rest in the certainty that God is not conflicted. "It is far wiser to say, with Dr. Sproul, “I don’t know,” than to assert falsehoods to be the teaching of Holy Scripture. It is also wiser to say, “I don’t know,” than to make ultimatums that may be based on misinterpretations of Scripture and/or God’s created works."

  4. 4 out of 5

    Ryan

    This was a wonderful but short book on a Reformed approach to science and Scripture. Since God is the fountainhead of all truth, then all truth is God's truth. This means that natural revelation and special revelation are both infallible because they both spring from God. What is fallible, however, is our interpretation to each of them (either our interpretation of the Bible or our scientific theories). There were a lot of quotes from Reformed teachers (Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Hodge, This was a wonderful but short book on a Reformed approach to science and Scripture. Since God is the fountainhead of all truth, then all truth is God's truth. This means that natural revelation and special revelation are both infallible because they both spring from God. What is fallible, however, is our interpretation to each of them (either our interpretation of the Bible or our scientific theories). There were a lot of quotes from Reformed teachers (Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Hodge, etc.), demonstrating that Scripture and science are not at odds with one another—even though our interpretations of either may be. The only thing I disliked about the book is that Mathieson begins almost each chapter by quoting a response from Dr. Sproul that he gave at a national conference in 2012. While Dr. Sproul's answer was full of wisdom and practical insight into the nature of science and Scripture, it felt like more of a teaching based off his answer than rooted in Scripture or history. It was in fact rooted in both, but I would have loved to see the chapters springboard from older Reformed teachers, and then maybe tie in Dr. Sproul's answer there. But nevertheless, it was a helpful little book to see that Scripture and science are not at odds with each other.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Patrick

    Excellent. In this day and age with all the scientific findings that are around it is good to take a step back. God has revealed Himself to man in two ways, general and special revelation. Both are infallible. This means that general revelation cannot contradict special revelation and vice versa. This short book does an excellent job at warning Christians on the dangers of taking an interpretation of Scripture over scientific fact. Conversely it is impossible to believe scientific theory that is Excellent. In this day and age with all the scientific findings that are around it is good to take a step back. God has revealed Himself to man in two ways, general and special revelation. Both are infallible. This means that general revelation cannot contradict special revelation and vice versa. This short book does an excellent job at warning Christians on the dangers of taking an interpretation of Scripture over scientific fact. Conversely it is impossible to believe scientific theory that is in direct conflict over what the Scripture actually teaches. The two must be compatible as both are infallible revelation of God. This gives me pause and grants me caution as to what I dogmatically assert the Scriptures to "plainly teach". Thanks to the author of this short book and to R.C. Sproul

  6. 4 out of 5

    Jesse Larson

    A very interesting read that helped temper my thoughts on the subject. Would have been nice to reference someone other than Sproul all the time, it made it feel a little one sided. This had potential to be a good book but ended up being little more than a long winded paraphrasing of someone else's thoughts. A very interesting read that helped temper my thoughts on the subject. Would have been nice to reference someone other than Sproul all the time, it made it feel a little one sided. This had potential to be a good book but ended up being little more than a long winded paraphrasing of someone else's thoughts.

  7. 4 out of 5

    Frank Peters

    This is an excellent little booklet, which shows how one can deal with debates about origins while remaining faithful to a high view of scripture. The authors are very careful not to be dogmatic about issues that cannot be fully known. While not all Christians come from a reformed background, I believe that all would benefit from this booklet.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Christopher Brehm

    I thought this was a good introduction to the topic if you are unfamiliar with the subject. It was oddly written as a commentary on a speech given by Dr. Sproul in 2012. I think if this book were to be expanded to include discussion on many of the ongoing discussions beyond the age of the universe, that would be very helpful.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Wendy

    This book was a good introduction to the topic of the science/scripture authority debate. It doesn't go into a lot of detail, but gives a good basic foundation to learn more on the topic without getting bogged down with too much detail right away. The book is pretty much an elaboration on RC Sproul's answer to being asked how old the earth is. This book was a good introduction to the topic of the science/scripture authority debate. It doesn't go into a lot of detail, but gives a good basic foundation to learn more on the topic without getting bogged down with too much detail right away. The book is pretty much an elaboration on RC Sproul's answer to being asked how old the earth is.

  10. 4 out of 5

    John Yelverton

    The author makes one good point, which is that we need to make sure that we don't misinterpret God's special revelation and then use that misinterpretation to misinterpret God's natural revelation. Unfortunately, that's the author's only point, and he hammers it chapter after chapter without building on it or moving on from it. The author makes one good point, which is that we need to make sure that we don't misinterpret God's special revelation and then use that misinterpretation to misinterpret God's natural revelation. Unfortunately, that's the author's only point, and he hammers it chapter after chapter without building on it or moving on from it.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Donald

    Generally insightful. More of a wise approach to look at the conversation of creation. It basically covers RC Sproul's comments on the idea with just a bit of logical investigation. Quick read. Generally insightful. More of a wise approach to look at the conversation of creation. It basically covers RC Sproul's comments on the idea with just a bit of logical investigation. Quick read.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Connor Longaphie

    Should be re-titled: a proclamation of a modern PCA approach to science and scripture that directly contradicts their reformed forefathers and gives no actual defense of why they think traditionalist views are untenable besides "but the bible isnt a science textbook" If you want to beleive that OEC and PCA evolutionists like keller have any capability of being "within biblical lines," on their scientific beliefs then fine. you're wrong, but thats fine. But to assert that it is untenable to take Should be re-titled: a proclamation of a modern PCA approach to science and scripture that directly contradicts their reformed forefathers and gives no actual defense of why they think traditionalist views are untenable besides "but the bible isnt a science textbook" If you want to beleive that OEC and PCA evolutionists like keller have any capability of being "within biblical lines," on their scientific beliefs then fine. you're wrong, but thats fine. But to assert that it is untenable to take a hard and clear stance on something such as YEC. Boiiiiiiiiii get back into your PCA conference and toucheth not the golden goose. Intellectual humility is not humility if its forced on us. Nor is it intellectual humility to pretend that the bible leaves room for OEC. It doesnt. YE just find the dates and ages of individuals too hard to beleive so it MUST just be literary art. THIS IS NOT HARRY POTTER. What the Word of God says is truth. The Word of God is inerrant , that is, in all that it says. In its geographical statements, historical statements, astronomical statements. And no That does not mean theres no room for condescension to context I.e. the size of the mustard seed. Jonah is historical fact, Job is historical fact, gen 1 & 2 are historical fact and the bibles dates are historical facts. Will the real reformed view on scripture and science please stand up because this book is not it. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, IN THE SPACE OF SIX DAYS; and all very good. - WCF 4.1 VDMA

  13. 5 out of 5

    Heath

    This books is basically parsing a Sproul quote on Natural Revelation and Spiritual revelation. I don’t know that this book was needed but I guess you can’t say a common sense approach to science and religion and assume that everyone understands. The reformed part I hope is at least not needed as I hope that most conservative Protestants would be close to this but I guess that’s the point. Writing it down means others might not have to wonder as much. Want to know where reformed people stand on sp This books is basically parsing a Sproul quote on Natural Revelation and Spiritual revelation. I don’t know that this book was needed but I guess you can’t say a common sense approach to science and religion and assume that everyone understands. The reformed part I hope is at least not needed as I hope that most conservative Protestants would be close to this but I guess that’s the point. Writing it down means others might not have to wonder as much. Want to know where reformed people stand on specific scientific ideas, this won’t tell you. It attempts to answer the question, how do (or should) reformed Christians deal with the connection between them and where they might intersect with biblical passages interpreted to comment on specific scientific ideas. All that said, I’m glad I read it. I’d recommend it to anyone who cares about these things but hasn’t put loads of thought into it or those that have thought so much about it they would like some realignment.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Kyle

    This is an interesting and informative little book that seeks to explain the relationship between faith and science from a Reformed Christian perspective, specifically that of R.C. Sproul. I admire the simplicity and perspicacity of the writing. In general, the book argues that natural science is a form of divine revelation, and that Christians ought to show more humility in understanding that we are but fallible interpreters of divine revelation, whether it is given to us in the book of Scriptu This is an interesting and informative little book that seeks to explain the relationship between faith and science from a Reformed Christian perspective, specifically that of R.C. Sproul. I admire the simplicity and perspicacity of the writing. In general, the book argues that natural science is a form of divine revelation, and that Christians ought to show more humility in understanding that we are but fallible interpreters of divine revelation, whether it is given to us in the book of Scripture or in the book of nature. So we should not be so quick to judge or condemn scientific theories. The book especially focuses on the age of the universe but draws parallels to the debate between geocentrism and heliocentrism in the sixteenth century.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Nehem

    Was this book even necessary to be written? Written for redherring, it seems. Despite Calvin and Luther's erring on this, how is geocentrism vs heleocentrism even relevant to the issue of the age of the cosmos? Several issues are at stake with the age of the universe, however: Putting death before the original sin (which further puts theodicy in a mire; and undermining Romans chapters 5 and 8 and detaching them from Genesis 1-3), the noetic effects of sin (hence its influence on our intellect for Was this book even necessary to be written? Written for redherring, it seems. Despite Calvin and Luther's erring on this, how is geocentrism vs heleocentrism even relevant to the issue of the age of the cosmos? Several issues are at stake with the age of the universe, however: Putting death before the original sin (which further puts theodicy in a mire; and undermining Romans chapters 5 and 8 and detaching them from Genesis 1-3), the noetic effects of sin (hence its influence on our intellect for the academic pursuits in the "lower things", in Calvin's terms), the whole counsel of God (e.g. ignoring Exodus 20:11 and Mark 10:6?), and the clarity of Scripture to name just a few. It is deplorable that the majority in the Reformed world is intimidated by intellectualism / academic culture (the secular scientism). Wait, hasn't guys like J Mac and Al Mohler given clear answers at the Lig Conferences several times? Had better check it. https://creation.com/age-earth-why-ma...

  16. 4 out of 5

    Tom

    This book brings clarity! there's a lot of discussion surrounding the scripture versus science debate which is an artificial way of framing it anyway. this book looks at an extended quote from RC Sproul where he provides a lot of wisdom and a foundation on how I believe all Christians should respond to questions regarding scripture and science. This book brings clarity! there's a lot of discussion surrounding the scripture versus science debate which is an artificial way of framing it anyway. this book looks at an extended quote from RC Sproul where he provides a lot of wisdom and a foundation on how I believe all Christians should respond to questions regarding scripture and science.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Ronny Fallas

    Too short, an expanded review of Sproul's answer. I expected at least some Scriptural considerations on why there are some valid positions on either side, and which one with certainty can be dismissed. Too short, an expanded review of Sproul's answer. I expected at least some Scriptural considerations on why there are some valid positions on either side, and which one with certainty can be dismissed.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Andy Bintoro

    Genesis interpretation A quick read about reformed's stand on interpreting Bible, especially on Genesis and theory of creation. A sola scripture approach, better say don't know rather than misinterpreted the Bible. Genesis interpretation A quick read about reformed's stand on interpreting Bible, especially on Genesis and theory of creation. A sola scripture approach, better say don't know rather than misinterpreted the Bible.

  19. 4 out of 5

    Eric

    Meh, 3.5 stars. If you really haven't thought about the subject at all this would be a good introduction. If you have thought about it, even a little, you've probably covered most of this. Meh, 3.5 stars. If you really haven't thought about the subject at all this would be a good introduction. If you have thought about it, even a little, you've probably covered most of this.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Jack Richardson

    Wonderful little read. Wonderful little read on the history and interaction between the reformed and science. Also the the topic of special and general revelation.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Rachel

    Super short read but VERY good! Does it answer how old the universe is? Nope. But that's the point. It's ok to say "I don't know." Super short read but VERY good! Does it answer how old the universe is? Nope. But that's the point. It's ok to say "I don't know."

  22. 4 out of 5

    Adriel

    What the Church needs

  23. 4 out of 5

    Jeffrey Ballein

    Interesting

  24. 5 out of 5

    Mike Narvaez

    Excellent essay. It is a good introduction into the doctrine of creation, though I wish it had gone deeper into the subject.

  25. 4 out of 5

    Chris Little

    A good thing about buying a book that really is a book is that you get a sense of what kind of book it wants to be. A 600 page treatment is a different beast from an 80 page piece - neither is necessarily better, but the aims will differ. With an ebook, this is harder. And, perhaps, easier to be disappointed. 'I thought this was going to be in-depth, but it's only a brief guide.' Or, 'I just wanted something simple, not the history of the universe.' So let's explain the intangibles of this book. A A good thing about buying a book that really is a book is that you get a sense of what kind of book it wants to be. A 600 page treatment is a different beast from an 80 page piece - neither is necessarily better, but the aims will differ. With an ebook, this is harder. And, perhaps, easier to be disappointed. 'I thought this was going to be in-depth, but it's only a brief guide.' Or, 'I just wanted something simple, not the history of the universe.' So let's explain the intangibles of this book. A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture is a big title, huge. Science! Scripture! Reformed! Wow. Yet it's not broad, deep, and exhaustive. It is a short work, so does not aim to cover all things. Even more important, it's not even really trying to be a reformed introduction to the philosophy of science. (Which I thought it might be - my mistake.) Instead, it is an expansion on some comments made by R.C. Sproul. At a conference, Sproul was answering the question, 'How old is the universe?' Sproul's answer is wonderful. He did not merely indicate young or old, but in a few sentences touched on science, Christianity, and the relation between them. The answer is quoted in full (tidied up a little for publication purposes). Sproul notes some of the issues: * The Bible does not state how old the earth is, but some hints suggest it's young * Science has plenty to say that is relevant: expanding universe, astronomical dating, etc * All truth is God's truth, scripture and nature * God's revelation in scripture is infallible as also God's revelation in nature is infallible * We know times when natural revelation has corrected the church's understanding of special revelation * Nonetheless, that which is definitively taught in the Bible is never overthrown by science * That is, scientists can be wrong, theologians can be wrong, and we privilege neither * In conclusion: 'I don't know how old the earth is.' This book by Mathison expands on these points. It has some theological points (eg, Augustine, Aquinas). It has some history (eg, Calvin and Luther on the geocentrism). It does not have much science or philosophy of science. The crux of the book - and of Sproul's answer - is the double infallibility of God's double revelation, special and natural. This is, I think, both the strength and the weakness of the book's argument. It is strong, because it highlights the unity of all truth in God. Let God be true, though all men be liars (Romans 3:4). The saying catches it nicely: all truth is God's truth. Yet there are problems with the book's argument. I think these are in the theological terminology used, as well as it's application in the book. Imprecision is introduced: it does no real damage to this book's argument, because it has a narrow focus. But such imprecision is problematic if it flows through the (huge) scope of science-theology understanding. The problem: Mathison persists in speaking of natural revelation, when I think he would do better to speak of truth. In speaking of natural revelation, Mathison has in mind the knowledge of God accessible to all humans through creation. As Romans 1:19-21 indicates, this knowledge is about God, and it makes us without excuse, because natural revelation cannot save. He helpfully quotes and alludes to Romans 1. But the book then slides from this knowledge about God to science, without any reason put forward for the connection. Yet it is not evident that knowing more about the planets' arrangement adds anything to natural revelation. We know more truth, certainly, but no more about God. In other words, Mathison makes no convincing argument that the theological category of natural revelation also applies to science. This imprecision has other effects. I note just one - the use of infallible. Mathison return more than once to a group of seminarians asked two questions by Sproul. "How many of you believe that God's revelation in Scripture is infallible?" They all raised their hands. I then asked, "And how many of you believe that God's revelation in nature is infallible?" No one raised his hand. It's the same God giving the revelation. Two helpful and provocative questions to put! Natural revelation is, indeed, infallible - it does not fail but achieves its purpose. The purposes of natural revelation succeed: people of faith praise the Lord (Psalm 19:1), and rebels against God find they have no excuse (Romans 1:20). Infallibility is a term of theology, and relates to God's purposes in his revelation. But Mathison, having assumed a tight link between natural revelation and science, has thereby partly imported infallibility into science, where it does not belong. Now, that's a long discussion about being precise in terminology. So let me emphasise this: I think this work well worth reading. Have a read, think well, and thank God that all truth is his.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Josiah

    One of the challenges of picking up an e-book is that you're not quite sure how long it's going to be. So as someone who came into this book expecting at least a couple hundred page long investigation of the relationship of science and Scripture, discovering that this was only a fifty-page barely-not-a-pamphlet was disappointing. Such is life, though. It's best to judge something on its own merits and not by what you had expected it to be. The only problem is, there's not much here. This book str One of the challenges of picking up an e-book is that you're not quite sure how long it's going to be. So as someone who came into this book expecting at least a couple hundred page long investigation of the relationship of science and Scripture, discovering that this was only a fifty-page barely-not-a-pamphlet was disappointing. Such is life, though. It's best to judge something on its own merits and not by what you had expected it to be. The only problem is, there's not much here. This book straddles an awkward position of being neither a short pithy blog post on the subject nor a long detailed look at it, which makes it hard to determine exactly what the book's purpose is and who its targeted audience is. Complicating things even further is the fact that this book is essentially just a long commentary on a statement that R.C. Sproul gave during some conference, meaning that it's really just a longer version of what Sproul said in a much pithier and compact way. Yeah, some explanation on some points is nice. But I don't think that really justifies the existence of a whole book on it. All-in-all, this isn't a bad book about how to integrate science with Scripture. It did have a couple original insights that I found helpful. But you're probably best served by reading other blog posts or books on this topic which are more appropriate to your level of research interest than by picking up this ebook. Rating: 2.5 Stars (Okay).

  27. 4 out of 5

    Scott Roper

    This is a short, basic book that argues for what should be elementary: all truth is God's truth. More applicably, Keith Mathison argues that theologians can misinterpret Scripture just as scientists can misinterpret nature. Because it is introductory, the author does not get into the questions of epistemology raised throughout. One illustration of this is in chapter 7 where he argues that only if Christ is not risen from the dead is our faith in vain. Besides limiting Paul's meaning (he didn't sa This is a short, basic book that argues for what should be elementary: all truth is God's truth. More applicably, Keith Mathison argues that theologians can misinterpret Scripture just as scientists can misinterpret nature. Because it is introductory, the author does not get into the questions of epistemology raised throughout. One illustration of this is in chapter 7 where he argues that only if Christ is not risen from the dead is our faith in vain. Besides limiting Paul's meaning (he didn't say "only") and possibly contradicting himself (is this the only thing that Scripture "actually" teaches?), what is one to do with this? If Christ's body was produced, does this mean that we are to conclude our faith is in vain? Or does the priority of Scripture that Mathison has established mean that we conclude that the Scriptures don't "actually" teach Christ's resurrection? Doesn't this completely undermine the force of the apostle's hypothetical? I would like to see these sorts of questions addressed, but I understand that it is beyond this book's scope. This reader was left with an overly skeptical approach to Scripture where the content of what is "actually" taught is unknowable. As it stands, this book might be helpful for those who tend to equate a tentative interpretation, whether of Scripture or nature, with truth itself.

  28. 5 out of 5

    David

    This short e-book gives an overview the Reformed view of truth and applies that to how we understand science. It re-affirms that "all truth is God's truth", and that as Christians, we don't need to be afraid of scientific truth. Any truth, now matter its source, will point us to God. The problem comes in when we confuse what revelation (special or general) actually says with our interpretation of that revelation. If a claim of science conflicts with a claim of scripture, what are we to do? We nee This short e-book gives an overview the Reformed view of truth and applies that to how we understand science. It re-affirms that "all truth is God's truth", and that as Christians, we don't need to be afraid of scientific truth. Any truth, now matter its source, will point us to God. The problem comes in when we confuse what revelation (special or general) actually says with our interpretation of that revelation. If a claim of science conflicts with a claim of scripture, what are we to do? We need to remember that we are fallible human beings, and this affects theologians and scientists alike. Therefore, it is possible that the scientist is wrong and the theologian is right. It is also possible that the theologian is wrong and the scientist is right. We need to approach claims of truth with wise humility. Whether the reader is Reformed or not, I think this is a good introduction to a proper understanding of how science and the scriptures are to be understood in light of one another.

  29. 4 out of 5

    Adam Calvert

    A pretty short book with the main argument that both natural and supernatural revelation are infallible. The interpreters of either form of revelation, however, are not. It’s a great thought. I don’t know that it’s new, but maybe the way it was presented was new. Basically, the book is a recap (and elaboration) on what R.C. Sproul said at some conference. In general it kind of reads like a high school (or maybe early college) paper. I mean no offense to the author of course; but that’s just how it A pretty short book with the main argument that both natural and supernatural revelation are infallible. The interpreters of either form of revelation, however, are not. It’s a great thought. I don’t know that it’s new, but maybe the way it was presented was new. Basically, the book is a recap (and elaboration) on what R.C. Sproul said at some conference. In general it kind of reads like a high school (or maybe early college) paper. I mean no offense to the author of course; but that’s just how it reads - with the basic formula of: Sproul said this at the conference. This means x. Next chapter: Sproul also said this, and this means y. Conclusion: I liked the Biblical idea. But I wonder if just listening to Sproul’s presentation at the conference or just reading the manuscript (a portion if not the entire thing being the introduction to the book) would be enough.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Frances

    An excellent and well-reasoned defence of a biblical approach to the relationship between science and scripture. Sometimes it came across as a bit of a panegyric to R. C. Sproul, but it was probably because the entire short book is based on about a paragraph's-worth of words Sproul said in answer to a question at a conference. It's a quick read, and definitely worth the time. (n.b., if you're looking for a defence of calendar day creationism, day-age creationism, or framework creationism, you won An excellent and well-reasoned defence of a biblical approach to the relationship between science and scripture. Sometimes it came across as a bit of a panegyric to R. C. Sproul, but it was probably because the entire short book is based on about a paragraph's-worth of words Sproul said in answer to a question at a conference. It's a quick read, and definitely worth the time. (n.b., if you're looking for a defence of calendar day creationism, day-age creationism, or framework creationism, you won't find it here. This book is small in scope, and doesn't deal with defending or disproving the particular scientific/religious issues that we wrestle with today. Creationism is certainly upheld because it is absolutely biblical, but Sproul is evasive as to an exact time-frame.)

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.