George wrote,
<< Of course your basic argument is correct but can we finally give Luther a
break on this? He certainly thought the sun went around the earth but so did
virtually everyone else in the mid-16th century. It's hardly fair to pick
out an
after-dinner remark that a student remembered him as saying several years
later &
use it to represent him as dogmatically anti-Copernican. Donald Kobe's
article,
"Copernicus and Martin Luther: an encounter between science and religion" in
_American Journal of Physics_ 66 (3), March 1998, 190--196, is worth
consulting in
this regard. >>
I wondered if you would come to Luther's defence? You are quite correct; and
Calvin also believed the sun went around the earth (but apparently left no
record opposing Copernicus.) But, Luther is wonderfully consistent. In
addition to accepting the earth-centered biblical cosmology of the universe,
he holds to the solid firmament and specifically rejects Calvin's idea that
the "water above the firmament" was clouds, saying he takes his reason
captive to hold to the biblical description that the water is above the
firmament not below it as clouds. He accordingly makes a great example of a
great conservative Christian who held to the inerrancy of Scripture for
matters of science---just as do the YECs, and was quite mistaken
scientifically as a result. The YECs recognize his error for astronomy, and
ought accordingly to learn the lesson that the Bible is not a divine
revelation of science. Up to now, however, they rationalize away the Bible's
statements about astronomy because for them, as for many "conservatives," the
Bible is subordinate to the doctrine of absolute biblical inerrancy. Their
view of the Bible is so "high" that even the Bible itself must be
subordinated to it. At least Luther was consistent.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 15:21:09 EST