The Devil Is In the Detail: Dr. R.C. Sproul & Flat Earth

Flat Earth

FLAT EARTH fault-finders will likely breathe a sigh of relief to note the PhD thesis submitted by a young Tunisian Muslim woman, and which caused a worldwide uproarious scandal in 2017 for exhibiting such chutzpah as to dismiss the physics of Newton, the math of Einstein, the astronomy of Copernicus and Kepler, and big bang cosmology, as well as Darwinian biology, has been soundly rejected.

I’ll wait for the applause to end.

By doing so, declaring the Earth to be immovable, young of age, and at the center of the universe, as both the Quran and Bible boldly proclaim, she is unforgivably chastened for taking the meanings of religious texts literally and blindly, at the “irresponsible cost of rejecting sanctioned knowledge.” Her worldwide critics, suddenly taking an interest in the thoughts of a professional and independent-minded woman of North Africa, are morally outraged merely on the sleepless understanding that somewhere in the world a doctorate student has defected from the religion of Scientism. Examples must be made of sinners.

After immediately reassuring his readers that the young woman’s arguments are riddled with moon-sized potholes, Nidhal Guessom, writer for Gulf News in Dubai, conclusively hints at the treasure-trove of comfort and wealth to be found in the compromised religious-morals of Western Civilization by stating, “The Arab world will continue to suffer educational and cultural crises until it properly digests the different methodologies of science and religion.”


What I think Nidhal Guessom is trying to say here, is a deal must struck with the devil! Er, I meanthe west! Not devil. West! And by deal, I mean antichrist spirit! Strike that. Not antichrist spirit. I meant comprise. A compromise must be made! Western civilization has committed itself to such a task centuries ago, recognizing the different methodologies of science and religion, choosing science where religion fails, and just look at our wealth!

In an article titled, “When Science and Scripture Conflict—A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture,” Keith Mathison reported on a then-recent Q&A session at Ligonier’s 2012 National Conference, in which Dr. R.C. Sproul, perhaps the greatest Christian theologian of our age, addressed a series of questions concerning the age of the Universe. Essentially, Scripture interprets Scripture—sort of. He phrased it like this: “However, if something can be shown to be definitively taught in the Bible without questioning, and somebody gives me a theory from natural revelation—that they think is based off of natural revelation—that contradicts the Word of God, I’m going to stand with the Word of God a hundred times out of a hundred.” Sproul then adds, “But again I have to repeat, I could have been a mistaken interpreter of the Word of God.”

Apparently that “hundred out of a hundred rule” didn’t work out so well. And let me just state here that I have immense respect for Dr. Sproul. I have no desire to quarrel with his reputation, but his opinion and my opinion clearly part ways here, because he is essentially taking a surgical knife to the Holy Spirit. By dismissing the “Scripture interprets Scripture” principle almost as suddenly as he seemingly acknowledges it, he has opened the floodgates of humanist interpretation. This is most apparent when he takes to the popular opinion by addressing the glaring disagreement between the Copernican theory and the entire Biblical Canon in the following way. Sproul says, “Here the advances of science helped the church to correct an earlier misinterpretation of Scripture. To say that science cannot overturn the teaching of Scripture is not to say that science cannot aid the church in understanding Scripture, or even correct false inferences drawn from Scripture or actual misinterpretations of Scripture.”


Dr. Sproul is of the opinion that Martin Luther and the Reformers were incorrect in lining up their understanding of Scripture as a literal interpretation. There must be some other explainable meaning, and which the religion of Scientism will surely enlighten us to. John Calvin was not overlooked either by Dr. Sproul, who is historically documented as having spoken in a sermon that those who believe “the sun does not move and that it is the earth that moves” are “stark raving mad” and “possessed by the devil!” John Calvin, it seems—according to Dr. Sproul—was too irrationally tempered and hastily set upon lining his own views with clear Biblical doctrine when not allowing our Scientism overlords to bend the rules of “Sola Scriptura!” and pronounce themselves as our self-assigned theological superiors.

Again, just so that he’s not mistaken, Dr. Sproul rephrases his point: “But historically, the church’s understanding of special revelation of the Bible has been corrected by students of natural revelation with the Copernican revolution.”

Such illogical nonsense tires me to no end. I am regularly directed to the dark catacombs of the humanist mind and asked to surrender any understanding of literal intent to the physicist, mathematician, and the astronomer. But what of the geologist, the biologist, and professor of metaphysics—must I also surrender to them? Everybody wants a turn at reshaping the Bible, from the paleontologist and the historian to the geographer and onscreen actor. There will never be an end to it. Science and the scientific method is a human invention. The Scripture comes from God. How can the two be compatible, if and when such obvious human invention as the scientific method disagrees with God? Indeed, they are two opposing faiths intermingled.

For Dr. Sproul, should he or any of his inside-circle admirers read this, my opinion shall likely pronounce the feathered weight of a passing burp. And I’m fine with that. I am certainly not seeking attention or special audience with the doctor. My Christian reader however needs to understand, and I can’t stress this enough–our church has been taken hostage by false doctrine. We’ve compromised our faith. Essentially, we made a deal with the devil. We have tasked ourselves with preforming the devils work in his stead. And western comfort, which we gladly exchange for the centuries-old compromise, shows for it.

Spiritually we are a naked people (Revelation 3:17).


By abandoning a far superior theological professorship, which teaches the only principle ensuring the light of God, that is: “Scripture interprets Scripture;” he and every other theologian who bends to the will of the humanist in the higher chairs of academia by allowing outside affluence to interpret Scripture, even if ever so slightly (perhaps nobody will take notice—or care), has willingly opened up the floodgates. The Darwinists may commence with their invasion of the church.

To this point Dr. Sproul, who seems terribly trusting with the goodness of men for a man who teaches the need for repentance in a swamp of sin, readily concludes, “When people ask me how old the earth is I tell them, ‘I don’t know,’ because I don’t. And I’ll tell you why I don’t. In the first place, the Bible does not give us a date of creation. Now it gives us hints and inclinations that would indicate in many cases a young earth. And at the same time you get all this expanding universe and all this astronomical dating, and triangulation and all that stuff coming from outside the church that makes me wonder.”