The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Creation

First, Henry did not say anything external to Scripture is not Sola Scriptura.. In his explanation he stated,

Thus, there are things which are useful and other things which are not useful.

Second, what science will you hold over the text of Scripture: geography, modern biology, modern astronomy, modern … ? Which science, philosophy, etc. is the key to biblical interpretation? Sola Scriptura NEVER meant for one to embrace “other sciences” upon Scripture as the rule (or exegetical miracle) for determining truth. Natural Revelation is always to be interpreted by special revelation and then appropriately applied. However, if the “other sciences” are being held up as the primary interpreter of the text then you are asserting natural revelation over special.

Would you not agree that there is some history that would be bad to read upon the text? Of course, you would. What is your grounds for determining what is good history and bad?—the text of Scripture would be a good guess. In this case concerning “creation” what we are saying is that the original audience could not have been thinking about the ever-changing “modern science” paradigm when reading the text and thus you would be in error to impose it upon the text. Modern science cannot be used as the central key of interpretation, though at times it may be confirmatory; like archeology confirming the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah. Now I do not believe in Sodom and Gomorrah because archeology has determined it existed. I believe Sodom and Gomorrah existed because the Scripture says they did. However, now I have some “scientific” confirmation that the text of Scripture is correct (however, I use this "scientific evidence" cautiously, if at all). Science can be used to confirm the “original meaning,” however it should not be used to give us the “original meaning.”