In the editorial in the April issue of Beacon Lights, I treated the problem of apparent conflicts between God’s general revelation and His special revelation and the ultimate impossibility of this situation. I further mentioned that this is but another trial of our faith and as such serves to strengthen the bond that connects the church with God.
Although I had no intention of treating the theories of Carbon-14 and the “period Creation Theory” per se they were cited as examples of ostensible conflicts between general and special revelation. Since these concepts were secondary to the theme of the editorial, little was said to validate or condemn then relative to Scripture.
This lack of further comment on this explosive topic, meant to some readers that I might be paving the way (either intentionally or unintentionally) for the introduction of these theories into our churches or at the best, pleading for their co-existence.
Rather than allow this idea to continue in the minds of any reader may I make it very plain and positive: Although we cannot at the moment disprove the theory of Carbon-14 on a scientific basis, I nevertheless feel that ultimately this theory will be disproved since it conflicts with God’s special revelation.
For a more comprehensive and learned treatment of this matter than I could ever hope to produce, I would like to refer the reader to Rev. H. Hanko’s article in this month’s “Christian Living” section beginning on page 5.
In regard to the editorial, Proof Positive – The Earth is Flat by C. H. Westra, may I first say I read it with interest. From the article I gained the viewpoint that science is to prove Scripture, this is not true, Scripture is to prove science; by this I mean to say Scripture is first and that we should trust in it and have no need of science to prove it.
Science’s purpose is to assure us all that more fully the truth of Scripture. There is a big difference between proof which means that first of all you doubt it and that you must have evidence (Is not Scripture enough evidence?) and assurance, which presumes that you believe it but want to be made more confident (This is needed because we are moral creatures).
When we make a statement about science (or anything which is of spiritual significance) we should give, if possible, references from the Bible. There is a dire need for references in the above said article.
In closing may I quote from Genesis 1 verses 8, 9, and 10 “…And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together into one place and let the dry land appear and it was so. And God called the dry land earth… and God saw that it was good.” It seems to me the purpose of all these evolutionistic ideas is to say God couldn’t create the earth in six days. Is not our God all powerful, even to creating the earth in six days? Thank you, Ileen Griess
Originally Published in:
Vol. 19 No. 4 May 1959