Geisler on General Revelation

I have been reading Geisler's systematic theology recently. Compared to much modern theology, his work is extremely good. It is exactly what a systematic theology should look like. I am saying this so that you know that I do not disagree with everything that Geisler says. In fact, I agree with almost everything he says that I have read so far. However, his account of the relationship between the Bible and general revelation is flawed. There are three different problems with it. First of all, he gives no argument for the claim that science is the interpretation of general revelation. Second, he ignores the fact that general revelation requires an extra layer of interpretation in comparison with the Bible. Third, he does not consider the idea that sin may have distorted general revelation in a way that the Bible cannot be distorted.

The first point is quite important. There are two different positions on the content of general revelation. One of these positions is that general revelation is only about God and morality. Therefore, such scientific details as the composition of rocks, or the workings of animals are not a part of general revelation. Those details are general revelation only in the sense that they reveal a divine designer. The other position simply states that one is discovering God's truth through science. Such science (when correct) will disclose part of God's general revelation that was not understood before. In one position, general revelation has little content and scientific discoveries simply reinforce the same material. In the other position, science helps us discover new information about God's general revelation. Geisler's argument simply does not address this alternative view.

The second point is even more important than the first point. Let's suppose that science really is an interpretation of general revelation. Geisler later states that neither science nor one's interpretation of the Bible should be given precedence in a conflict between the two. Instead, one should pick the side that is more certain. This will only work if one of these does not suffer from some sort of epistemological disadvantage. Yet that scenario is exactly what he does not discuss. It is obvious that the Bible is verbal. Interpretation of the Bible proceeds by examining the text. In the case of nature, there is no text. One has to first set out some observations about the world, and then interpret those observations through a theory. This setting out of fact is not neutral, but is influenced by theory. Therefore, science has a layer of interpretation that Biblical interpretation does not have. An extra layer of interpretation means that science is epistemologically disadvantaged in any conflict with the Bible.

The third point is the most important one of all. The Bible is inerrant in the autographs. General revelation is also "inerrant" when the world was first created. These cases are not similiar. For we have a great confidence that our manuscripts are very close to the originals. We obtain this confidence through the scientia of textual criticism. Without the Biblical information, we do not know what part of general revelation has been altered by sin. I do not mean to claim that the moral code is unclear or a designer is not obvious. What I mean to claim is that we have diseases, death and evil designs. Such evil designs include poison, attack and defense structures and other classic examples of natural evil. Without the Bible, one can easily conclude that God is a designing, all-powerful and extremely evil intelligence.

I could add another example to interpretive problems in science vs Biblical interpretations, but for now this should be enough. Apart from a sustained argument against these sort of positions, one of Geisler's positions present in one of his preconditions has not been established. Any time that he discusses issues about the relationship of science and the Bible, one may not need to follow his conclusions. (This could affect his later arguments about scientific evidence for the age of the earth, for example.)