When Protestants and Catholics agreed: the sun revolves around the earth

Despite the mathematical proofs of the Greek mathematicians Pythagoras (580-500 BC) and Eratosthenes (276-194 BC), the later of whom calculated the earth's circumference within 2% by comparing the angles of shadows at different locations on the earth, it was still possible to find Early Church leaders hundreds of years later who rejected the notion of a spherical earth based upon references in the Scriptures to the "foundations of the earth, "corners of the earth", pillars of heaven", and the "waters above the firmament".  While the prevalence of those believing in a "flat earth" prior to Columbus is often over-stated by prideful modern people disdainful of the wisdom of the ancients, it is clearly true that some within the Church had theological reasons for doing so that had nothing to do with scientific observations.

Eventually the Church embraced the Ptolemaic system (Ptolemaeus AD 83-161) which continued to place the spherical earth at the center of the universe and posited ten concentric spheres which rotated around it containing the heavenly bodies.

"The geocentric model represented the best that science had to offer during the time when it was firmly held.  It was entirely consistent with both naked-eye observation and philosophy.  It was equally accepted and endorsed by both science and religion.  The problem is that while scientific conclusions are always tentative, the Christian Church - just as some did with the ancient cosmogony - decided to build an elaborate theological and scriptural defense of the geocentric model.  By failing to apply the lessons of the past, the church once again foolishly committed itself to a popular scientific theory supposedly based on the testimony of the Scriptures." (Gordon Glover, Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation)

In the 16th century, when Copernicus proposed that the earth and all the planetary bodies revolved around the sun, a theory which would soon be confirmed by observation's made by Galileo Galilei with the newly invented telescope, it became a theological issue rather than merely an astronomical one because the Church had previously decided that the Ptolemaic system had the support of Scripture.  Thus Copernicus and Galileo would eventually be condemned as heretics by the inquisition; a stain upon the reputation of the Church that remains to this day {Galileo was not officially rehabilitated by the Catholic Church until Pope John Paul II did so in 1992}.

Protestants might want to snicker at the following words of Pope Paul V in response to Galileo, but they might want to hold that thought.  "The first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.  The second proposition, that the earth is not the centre but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith."

There were few issues of agreement between the leaders of Catholicism and Protestantism during the 16th and 17th centuries, the two sides couldn't even agree to present a united front against the ongoing threat of Ottoman invasions.  And yet, both sides had chosen to elevate the language of Scripture into the scientific realm, turning any contrary scientific observations and theories into challenges to Church authority and potentially heresy.

Martin Luther (1483-1546): "People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.  Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best.  This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." (Martin Luther, Table Talk)

Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560): "The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours.  But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves...Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious.  It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it." (Philipp Melanchthon, Elements of Physics)

John Calvin: "We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center." (John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis)

With hind-sight, the words of these respected and often brilliant theologians seem both appallingly arrogant and exceedingly foolish, and yet they are a symptom of a larger problem that even those gifted by God to lead his Church can fall victim to: The Pride of Certainty.  I'm all for certainty in its proper place, without it we have only shifting sands and chaos.  We, as a Church, must be certain about the core tenants of our faith and the essence of the Gospel.  But what happens when we elevate other issues, other ideas and interpretations to the level of dogma and with disdain dismiss those who disagree with us as heretics?  In that case, not only does the Church suffer a lack of humility and grace, not only does it foster anger and divisions, but it also appears foolish to the Lost, to those with whom we are called to share the Gospel.

Consider, then, how the lesson of these futile attempts to deny that the earth revolves around the sun might be applied to the Church in our world today.  Let us take great care to distinguish between the Truth revealed to us by God's Word, a Truth that never changes and has no fear of knowledge and fact, and the interpretations and theories of men, however brilliant we might think them to be.

Sermon Video: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" - Acts 26:1-16

Imagine spending your life, all of your passion and effort, on behalf of God, only to learn at the end that your entire attempt was not simply ineffective, but actually entirely counter-productive and detrimental to the very cause you thought you were serving.  Such was the mind-blowing revelation that occurred to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus when he discovered that the voice from Heaven was that of Jesus.  Up until that moment, Saul had been firmly convinced that he was doing the right thing, that his violent response to the followers of Jesus was justified by zeal for the Law of God.  Saul was, catastrophically wrong, and but for the amazing grace of God he would have gone to face his Maker with their blood upon his hands.
Certainty without wisdom is folly.  As Christians, there are a limited number of core Truths regarding the Scriptures, the nature of God, and the person and work of Jesus about which we must be certain, and for which we ought to be willing to lay down our lives (although not be willing, ever, to kill for them).  Upon these central Truths we must stand and not be moved, but beyond them we claim absolute certainty at our own peril, and would better be served by confident belief that allows for others to disagree.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Why the Bible skeptics and KJV only fanatics have something in common.

As I continue to prepare for my upcoming History of the Bible series, I’ve been watching some of the Youtube videos of James White’s debates with both Biblical skeptics and KJV fanatics.  In doing so I’ve come to a realization, although I’m sure someone else has noticed this already, to me it was still worth noting.  The skeptics and the KJV fanatics are two sides of the same coin.  Now, they certainly won’t say that, and would likely have a hard time having a civil conversation, but that doesn’t change the fact that both groups are over-reacting to the same historical fact that we don’t have a perfectly preserved New Testament text, a fact which has been known since at least Erasmus first published his Greek NT over 500 years ago, but one that both groups never tire of using as some sort of “secret” that the Church doesn’t want you to know.

            The skeptics, like Bart Ehrman and John Shelby Spong, look at the textual history of the NT, see that there are certainly uncertainties, (which any rational Bible believing scholar readily admits without fear) and erroneously and over-zealously concludes that the entire NT is therefore untrustworthy, that Jesus never claimed to be God, that the resurrection and the virgin birth are myths, and that the Church has been part of some Dan Brown-like conspiracy to hide the truth from the rubes that still believe such things.

            The KJV only fanatics, like Peter Ruckman and Sam Gipp, look at the textual history of the NT, see that there are certainly uncertainties, and erroneously and over-zealously conclude that the only solution is to posit a perfect re-inspiration of the Bible in the form of the KJV, thus concluding that whatever mistakes the KJV contains don’t actually exists, that all further scholarship and all modern translations are perversions of the devil, and that the only option for the Church is blind faith in the KJV to the extent that even foreign missionaries should teach illiterate tribes English so that they can read the KJV instead of doing new translation work.

            That both of these positions are clearly unnecessary and exceedingly dangerous is clear.  If either group had their way, the Church as we know it would be destroyed and be replaced by something that either has no soul, because it has lost its faith to doubt, or no mind, because it has had to silence its intellect to exist. 

            The history of the Bible isn’t a fairy tale full of perfect people, but it also isn’t something to be afraid of.  For those who wish to maintain both their faith and their intellect, the study of the history of how the Bibles we have today came to exist is both enlightening and enriching.  Don’t let the skeptics or the fanatics scare you away, the truth is not our enemy.

* On a personal note.  This observation of the connection between these two groups occurred to me as I lay in bed, rather than hoping I remembered it the next day, I got up to post it to my blog.  I assumed that somebody else had noticed this before be, and of course they had.  Two days later I was watching a debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace, during which Wallace drew the comparison between skeptics like Bart and KJV Only advocates.  Thus my "original" observation lasted only two days before I found out it had already been made by a NT expert, oh well.

Caught between two worlds

One of the fascinating thing about study history is the chance to see patterns emerge that may lend insight into the world we live in today.  I understand that not everything would think this to be exciting, but I often find that an example or illustration from the past works wonders in helping people understand the present.
As I continue to read through Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, one of the things that keeps popping up is the contrast and conflict between men and women in Church history who desired certainty (in theology, morality, cultural norms, etc.) and those who valued ambiguity.  Sometimes the difference is one of personality; some people simply cannot abide ambiguity, they feel a deep need to categorize and label everything; others feel the opposite, being asked to take an either/or position makes them uncomfortable, it just feels wrong.  On top of differences of personality we have cultural differences.  Some cultures emphasize the need to take a stand, others value including multiple viewpoints.
Church history (and human history in general) has often been a case of two people who care about the same thing (on a host of different issues) not being able to see eye to eye because one is seeking certainty and the other is valuing ambiguity.
As you read this you may be thinking, "Of course we need certainty, only a Commie liberal would want that multi-cultural crap".  Or perhaps the opposite, "What kind of fascist jerk would assume he has all the answers to everything!"  That our politics often seems divided between similar viewpoints is no fluke.  Western Civilization is a combination of the heritage of two cultures: The Greek world of Plato and Aristotle, and the Jewish world of Moses, Jesus, and Paul.  The Greeks were forever seeking ultimate truth, unable to let an issue lie, they loved the constant questions necessary to peal away layers of uncertainty.  The Jewish mind on the other hand, disdained those who claimed to know it all in favor of consensus, including every opinion and letting a majority decide things but always leaving the back door open in case a change of mind was necessary down the road.  The very languages of which our Scriptures are comprised reflect that, the precision of Greek and the ambiguity of Hebrew shows itself in the very structure of the languages themselves.
As a result of our mix and match heritage, the Church (and Western Civilization) has always prized the search for ultimate Truth but at the same time has felt discomfort when we think we have found it.  We crave unity of opinion, but know that we should leave room for those who don't fit in.  We value diversity, but find ourselves hoping that all that diversity agrees with us.  Is it any wonder that there are more Christian denominations in existence today than we can even keep track of, and yet at the same time we still long for a universal big "C" Church to stand above the fray.
My own intellectual experience reflects these tendencies.  When I was younger I craved the neatness of certainty, but the more I learned and the more I experienced the more I came to realize that such textbook answers are rarely as cut and dried as people think.  When I was younger I hesitated to extend the term "Christian" to peoples and groups with whom I saw little in common, but as time went by I began to see the underlying bond we share beneath the surface disagreements.  In the end, I've come to a place where I can affirm ultimate Truth with confidence on the core issues of our faith (see I John, or better yet download and read my book for more on this topic) and yet remain open to the multiple of expressions of that faith that exist in the Church today.
Maybe you don't want to be caught between two worlds, maybe you want only one or the other, but I'm sorry to tell you that isn't an option.  Everything we think, say, and do is a product of our common heritage, a heritage God intended to be born of two worlds, a Hebrew Old Testament and a Greek New Testament.