Faith, and the Oppositions of Science by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Feb 15, 1877

Faith, and the Oppositions of Science.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

PAUL exhorted Timothy to avoid “oppositions of science falsely so called.” 1 Tim. 6:20. The word here rendered science is that which is generally rendered knowledge in the New Testament. By this we understand that some will oppose the truth of God’s Word under pretence of possessing knowledge superior to that which may be obtained from the Holy Scriptures. Perhaps in no age has this been fulfilled to a greater extent than at the present. The Greeks or Gentiles counted the preaching of Christ and him crucified, foolishness, and so they rejected the gospel. But infidelity has taken another stand in these last days. Under the guise of “science” it has taken the Bible into its own hands for safe keeping, and arrogates the right to give the real meaning of its truths as explained, modified, or corrected, by the opinions of scientific men, and if, as is frequently the case, a conflict arises between the Word of God and human deductions, the Bible is set aside to make room for false “philosophy and vain deceit.” All philosophy is found to be false and vain which contradicts the plain statements of the Holy Scriptures.

And learned men in the church, professing great reverence for the Scriptures, have so far bowed the knee to this scientific Baal as to adopt a system of interpretation called that of “accommodation,” in which it is assumed that the Bible speaks of things, not as they are, but, as they appear to be, while science shows them as they actually are; and then they suppose they have relieved the matter of all difficulty, and rescued the Scriptures from the reproach of science, by admitting the claims of scientific opposers and showing how the Scriptures may be made to harmonize with their deductions. But they have cut the knot instead of untying it. They have not rescued the Scriptures at all, but have really placed the plain word of the Bible at the mercy of every scientific pretender.

The true ground of difference between faith and scientific deduction was well stated by Sylvester Bliss, in his “Review of Prof. Bush on the Resurrection”:—

“Prof. Bush contends that “The results to which reason is brought in its researches, in many of the departments of science, may be regarded as certain”—as “demonstrated truths;” and refers to the sciences of astronomy and geology, and the discoveries therein, as evidence. We are not disposed to controvert the proposition thus laid down. But the question is, whether this is a subject purely scientific. It was long since asked, ‘If a man die shall he live again?’ and all the philosophy in the world could furnish no answer. It was acknowledged that there is ‘hope of a tree if it be cut down, that it will sprout again;’ but man’s resurrection could only be known by faith in the Word of God. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body is unaffected by this proposition, unless an event, dependent only upon the fiat of the Almighty, is to be determined by the deductions of science.

“But as One, who sees the end from the beginning, controls every minute particular in view of any desired result which He may wish to produce, we have no cause to fear that any obstacles will chance to arise to thwart his purposes. There will, therefore, be no natural, physical, or philosophical reasons to oppose what inspiration has affirmed. Consequently, if the Scriptures assure us that the man who dies will live again, it will be even so—true philosophy and true faith will alike receive it.

“Before we leave the argument from reason, we trust we shall be pardoned in making a few observations on the nature of faith. It is believing what the Scriptures assert, because they assert it. It is not hope; nor is it knowledge. That which can be demonstrated and seen, is no longer a subject of faith. Therefore, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Our faith is tested when a plain Scriptural statement is presented for our belief. If we can believe it because it is there recorded, we exercise true faith in God’s Word. But if we believe it because it is in accordance with the deductions of science, then we do not believe it because the Bible asserts it. How do we believe “that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear”? It must be by faith in God’s Word, or by the deductions of philosophy. Is there anything in the whole circle of the sciences to teach the creation of the world? No, nothing. Then it is by faith alone that we understand it. We believe it because the Bible teaches it. The same is true of the flood.—There is nothing in philosophy to explain how the waters could cover the tops of the highest mountains. Looking to philosophy alone, the most profound philosopher would decide to the contrary. How then can we believe it? By faith in the Word of God. But if Professor Bush should subject those and kindred events to the same rule by which he judges of the resurrection of the dead, he would reject them as ‘unintelligible ideas.’ Now if we could not believe what the Bible asserts because the Bible asserts it, and must first submit our faith to the test of philosophy, and then if philosophy indicated that obstacles might arise, be obliged to modify our faith to square with our philosophy, we should accuse no one of doing us injustice who should intimate that we had more confidence in the deductions of science than in the Word of God. We cannot therefore refrain from asking whether Noah would have prepared an ark for the saving of his house, whether Abraham would have ‘hoped against hope,’ or whether Moses would have ventured across the Red Sea at the parting of the waters, if they had been schooled in Professor Bush’s philosophy? And we would most respectfully inquire of Professor Bush, whether, with his views, had he been called as either of those were, he would not have seen ‘difficulties’ ‘absolutely insuperable’ against the fulfillment of those predictions, so that his ‘Philosophy’ would ‘be slow to receive them;’

“All the miracles recorded in the Scriptures might be disproved by such rules of interpretation. And those who have carried them out have argued, that Abraham only dreamed he must offer up Isaac; that when Jacob’s sinew shrank, it was the result of rheumatism; that the thunderings and lightnings on Mount Sinai at the giving of the “law,” were only the result of an accidental thunder-storm; that when Christ walked on the water, he waded as far as he could, and then swam; that the out-pouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost was an accidental gust of wind that struck the house and electrified the disciples; that on Peter’s reproof, Ananias only fell down by fright, and was carried out and buried alive, or as Heinrichs says, that Peter stabbed him, &c., &c.

Now these are not merely suppositions, but they are the actual interpretations given of those texts, by such men as Eichhorn, Ammon, Thiess, and other German advocates of scriptural ‘Accommodation,’ and who would be astonished at the bigotry of any who should question their Christianity, or reverence for the Scriptures.

Now if we can believe nothing but what is intelligible, we shall be constrained to believe that those who reject what they cannot reconcile with philosophy, have more regard for philosophy than for the declarations of inspiration.

And yet such may honestly believe that they ‘yield to no man living in sentiments of profound reverence for the oracles of Scripture.’ ”

All believers in the “literal interpretation” of the Bible must agree with William Bliss that that which may be demonstrated is not a matter of faith. As “hope that is seen is not hope,” even so, faith that is seen or demonstrated is not faith. And we are inclined to think that those learned men, who, out of regard for the safety of the Bible, have tried to accommodate its history to the claims of geology, have done more to undermine faith in it as a book of authority than have any other class. All their efforts are in mistaken kindness. Neither Christ nor his apostles thought it becoming to yield to the claims of professed science, but left all with “the Scriptures and the power of God.” “By faith”—not by scientific data—“we understand that God made the world.”

J. H. WAGGONER.