Comments

Sigh. Seems like the 'militant' Reformed crowd finds something to get upset about each week. Almost makes me embarressed to be Reformed. I'm just sick of the Piper/Ref. 21/T4G crowd, its always the same thing.

The Jesus Creed post is not by Scot McKnight. It's from his co-blogger, RJS.

Please also note that Dr. Waltke has not accused RTS of any sort of "drumming out" and RTS has not accused Dr. Waltke of error. In fact, Dr. Waltke has been clear that he felt the video was presented in a way that would mislead its viewers which is why he himself asked that it be taken down.

Be careful about stumbling into a false narrative about these events. In some cases, the Galileo paradigm is just not the correct paradigm. I fear, however, that in our soundbyte-blogpost culture, the familiar explanation is always perceived to be the true one.

Thank you, jr. What you say is absolutely true and very important.

The statement in the video of evolution by Dr. Waltke carries a lot of weight because of his influence in the Reformed community. The belief of evolution as a form of creation does not fit in the Christian worldview. It is unfortunate that Dr. Waltke didn't get a chance to provide more context to his statement. I can see that such a statement without further clarity can be misleading to new converts or students to the faith in an academic environment at Reformed Theological Seminary. It is unfortunate and don't agree the solution is fire him because of the video, but correcting him is in order because of the school's mission statement.

Dr. Waltke is a kingdom asset!

The belief of evolution does fit the Christian worldview. Evolution describes how life emerged on the planet through natural processes involving adaptation and breeding populations interacting with their environment, it does not address God as creator, which is something accepted by faith alone. One can be orthodox and believe in a creator God,and still hold to an evolved world. These are not incompatible.

Just saw this yesterday. Amazing. Just goes to show that a creedal mindset will not permit the free investigation of the Scriptures. Essentially you have two individuals (Longman and Waltke) who both affirm the inspiration of Scripture but differ on its interpretation and implications (vis-a-vis a theistic evolutionary view) and do so only because they are attempting to do justice to the Holy Spirit by reading His revelation in its historical-cultural-literary context - who are cast out! What nonsense!

Those on the other side should recognize they are walking with John in Lk. 9;49-50.

I would add, what has already been noted in other blogs, that B.B. Warfield - as demonstrated in Mark Noll's book on Warfield - actually appreciated Darwin and was himself a theistic evolutionist. Noll and David Livingstone described Warfield's evolutionary views, "The best kept secret in American intellectual history." Irony that the father of the modern inerrancy movement would himself be cast out of the university - by his own great grandchildren. Utterly disgraceful.

I argued about the dangers of the creedal/traditional mindset several years ago in a letter exchange with Timothy George in First Things. George attempted to argue that the Scriptures were the roadway, the creeds the guardrails. Fail. On two counts: 1) Too often the tradition or creed (in this case Reformed) becomes a roadblock to truth, not a guardrail; and 2) Why do Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures need guardrails? I should think the Spirit can do it himself!

The statement in the video of evolution by Dr. Waltke carries a lot of weight because of his influence in the Reformed community. The belief of evolution as a form of creation does not fit in the Christian worldview. It is unfortunate that Dr. Waltke didn't get a chance to provide more context to his statement. I can see that such a statement without further clarity can be misleading to new converts or students to the faith in an academic environment at Reformed Theological Seminary. It is unfortunate and don't agree the solution is fire him because of the video, but correcting him is in order because of the school's mission statement.

Why is there an evolution-creation debate? In spite of the fact that the evolution hypothesis is stuck in step 3 of the 7- scientific method and there are 4 gaps in the hypothesis that evolutionary scientists admit cannot yet be explained, Evolutionists have already won. Evolution is taught in public schools, creationism is prohibited. Evolutionists have won in the courts. The media unanimously supports evolution. Why don’t Evolutionists simply ignore the Creationists’ objections? Or, why not point out that Creationism is not within the purview of science because God is not a falsifiable hypothesis nor can he be proved by science?
Consider the fact that of the 6 major theological positions on creation, 3 allow for evolution, albeit with a divine influence of some sort, such as to fill those 4 gaps that scientist are struggling with. There are 2 reactions when a Creationist proposed theistic evolution as an answer to the incomplete hypothesis testing and the 4 gaps. An evolutionary scientist would respond by admitting there is no scientific explanation for the gaps, as yet, and dismiss the influence of God as something outside the purview of science. The Evolutionist philosopher, however, becomes extremely agitated at the mention of God because Evolutionism is about atheism, not science.
As a philosophy, Evolutionism is not held to the rigor of hard science – the scientific method can be ignored. As a philosophy, Evolutionism can object to theism whenre hard science cannot comment. Evolutionism is a major cornerstone of Marxism and Human Secularism because is supports those philosophies built on atheism. Twenty-five percent of the Humanist Manifesto is devoted to opposition to religion and theism, and the establishment of evolution and atheism. As long as there is a God, those philosophies fail. But Darwin supplied the “missing link” to their philosophies,; a way to explain how we got here – without a God.
Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, but theism and atheism are. So when a supporter of evolution attacks creation (and usually the Creationist), he does so as a philosopher, not as a scientist. And, when a Creationist opposed evolution, he must do so as a philosopher/theologian – not as a scientist. An excellent resource regarding the creation-evolution debate can be found at http://sechumanism.blogspot.com/p/secular-humanism.html

Well said. I never thought I would agree with this opinion, but I’m starting to view things from a different view. I have to research more on this as it seems very interesting. One thing I don’t understand though is how everything is related together.

Funny. No comments here or in the article about scientists who believe in creationism being shut out of science positions because of their beliefs. In the sense of acceptance or rejection by the establishment elite or the establishment majority, there is no difference between the discovery of something new and unacceptable to the establishment (Galileo) and something old, forgotten or rejected by that establishment (creation ex nihilo in 6 days). The question is not whether the oddball scientific theory or theological position is disfavored, as implied by Waltke, but whether it is true. Whether Christianity is accepted or rejected as a cult should make no difference to the Christian, particularly a Christian scholar.

As illustrated by Bruce Waltke, there is a pressing need within Christianity for a credible explanation of Genesis, one that respects the biblical text (1) yet allows for extensive time (backed by solid evidence) and (2) rejects evolution (random, undirected change) as a powerful constructive mechanism. Millions of years are not a cure for the severe limitations of random change.

I have just finished reading The Real Genesis Creation Story: A Credible Translation and Explanation at Last by J. Gene White. Of all the books I have read on the subject that attempt to explain Genesis, this is the most comprehensive, lucid and logical. Based on solid scientific evidence and his in depth analysis of the Hebrew text, he appears to have a translation and explanation of Genesis Chapter 1 and 2 that finally makes sense. Without giving away the main thesis of the book, I will say that he does not focus on redefining the terms, “day, create, make, heaven or earth.” He does not treat any verses as metaphorical, mythological or untrue. He does not view evolution as a powerful constructive force. His book can be ordered from the publisher’s website at http://www.sunnybrookepub.com/.