76 In it, he chastised schools like Cedarville for being what he called “antiintellectual” by holding to a literal Creation account. This position, Noll argued, fails to take into account the scientific evidence for evolution, makes the Christian community look foolish in academic circles, and epitomizes a propensity to ascribe anything to God that cannot be easily explained. Both Noll and Marsden have written extensively about the Creation/Theistic Evolution debate and even testified on behalf of groups seeking to keep Creationism from being taught in public schools. Marsden and Noll believe that God played a role in Creation, but that life evolved over time as argued by most secular scientists of the 20th century. Young earth Creationists, they argue, represent a hermeneutical error of taking Scripture too literally. Tison argues that the variance between these positions is found in both epistemological as well as hermeneutical differences. First, those who hold to a literal Creationist position tend to give “epistemic priority to Scripture rather than to natural revelation”; whereas, Marsden and Noll tend to have “a higher estimate of man’s ability to reason autonomously.”8 It could be argued, at least to some degree, that they have succumbed to rational autonomy in their methodology. Second, the hermeneutical difference stems from a method that tends to take Scripture literally when possible based on an examination of how literary and grammatical elements are used throughout Scripture. In essence, this method allows Scripture to interpret Scripture. Tison has asserted that the distinction is not unlike the difference between traditional evangelicals and German biblical critics in the 19th century. These higher critics eschewed the supernatural element in inspiration, choosing instead to focus on the human aspect and seeking rational support for biblical assertions. Tison is correct in concluding that those who “pursued this course in biblical criticism not only failed to attain credibility [in the academy], they also failed to maintain their theological integrity.”9 While Marsden and Noll have not given up on the supernatural in Scripture, they do emphasize the human element in the inspiration process. To borrow a critique from John Leith regarding contemporary theologians, they have “been subject to the temptation to understand the Christian faith in light of the dogmas of the Enlightenment, rather than the Enlightenment in the light of the dogmas of the Christian faith.”10 This approach is much more in line with the rationalism of the secular university. Noll seems very concerned 8 Richard Tison, “Intellectual Sanctification: A Biblical View of History and Knowledge,” unpublished integration essay, 2014, 67. 9 Ibid., 79. 10 John H. Leith, Crisis in the Church: The Plight of Theological Education. Westminster John Knox Press, 1997, 36.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=