03.09.2013 Views

Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

and not a condition resulting from destruction. Delitzsch combined with this theory the<br />

idea that the earth was originally inhabited <strong>by</strong> the angels, and that the fall in the angelic<br />

world was the cause of the destruction which resulted in the chaos referred to in verse<br />

2. For some reason or other this view finds considerable favor among present day<br />

dispensationalists, who find support for it in such passages as Isa. 24:1; Jer. 4:23-26; Job.<br />

9:4-7; II Pet. 2:4. But even a careful reading of these passages is sufficient to convince<br />

one that they do not prove the point in question at all. Moreover, the Bible clearly<br />

teaches us that God created heaven and earth “and all the host of them” in six days,<br />

Gen. 2:1; Ex. 20:11.<br />

d. The concordistic theory. This seeks to harmonize Scripture and science <strong>by</strong> assuming<br />

that the days of creation were periods of thousands of years. In addition to what was<br />

said about this in discussing the days of creation, we may now add that the idea that the<br />

earth’s strata positively point to long and successive periods of development in the<br />

history of its origin, is simply a theory of the geologists, and a theory based on<br />

unwarranted generalizations. We would call attention to the following considerations:<br />

(1) The science of geology is not only young, but it is still in bondage to speculative<br />

thought. It cannot be considered as an inductive science, since it is largely the fruit of a<br />

priori or deductive reasoning. Spencer called it “Illogical Geology” and ridiculed its<br />

methods, and Huxley spoke of its grand hypotheses as “not proven and not provable.” 74<br />

(2) Up to the present time it has done little more than scratch the surface of the earth,<br />

and that in a very limited number of places. As a result its conclusions are often mere<br />

generalizations, based on insufficient data. Facts observed in some places are<br />

contradicted <strong>by</strong> those found in others. (3) Even if it had explored large areas in all parts<br />

of the globe, it could only increase our knowledge of the present condition of the earth,<br />

but would never be able to give us perfectly reliable information respecting its past<br />

history. You cannot write the history of a nation on the basis of the facts observed in its<br />

present constitution and life. (4) Geologists once proceeded on the assumption that the<br />

strata of rocks were found in the same order all over the globe; and that <strong>by</strong> estimating<br />

the length of time required <strong>by</strong> the formation of each it could determine the age of the<br />

earth. But (a) it was found that the order of the rocks differs in various localities; (b) the<br />

experiments made to determine the time required for the formation of the different<br />

strata, led to widely different results; and (c) the uniformitarian theory of Lyell, that the<br />

physical and chemical action of today are safe guides in estimating those of all previous<br />

74 Price, The Fundamentals of Geology, pp. 29, 32.<br />

173

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!