The BioLogos Foundation has recently produced a video of Bruce Waltke on the subject of evolution. Â Waltke suggests that the data in favor of the evolutionary paradigm is so overwhelming that the church is in danger of becoming a cult if she continues to reject it. Â Denying a scientific truth is in effect denying the truth of God in the world. Â I realize videos like this are typically clips of larger recording sessions and may or may not fully represent the speaker. Â Regardless, I am struck that Waltke did not address Scripture’s role in interpreting general revelation and the epistemic concerns Christians should have regarding our view of science and evidence. Â Watch the video and tell me what you think.
Bruce Waltke on Evolution
13 Responses to “Bruce Waltke on Evolution”
Leave a reply
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve. (Romans 16:17-18)
This is so scary. We are argue such petty stuff like Baptism. This comes up and nobody talks about it. Great job on bringing this to the public eye. This is not petty.
Ric Canada and the rest of RTS WAKE UP!!!!!!! The devil is at your gate. Your curriculum is compromised and you do nothing, but keep up the status quo and keep women out of classes. Great job up on locking up the women and preaching evolution. Sheesh.
I don’t think the answer to the problem of denying the Scriptural doctrine of creation is to deny the Scriptural doctrine concerning office in the church, but I do agree that this is most alarming and strangely under the radar.
Where are we to find faithful Old Testament specialists? How can anyone consider Waltke even remotely reformed?
Good point, brothers. This is very sad indeed. Where are the Reformed OT scholars in the tradition of E.J. Young and O.T Allis?!?!?!
Bruce has responded to the video:
From Bruce:
1. I had not seen the video before it was distributed. Having seen it now, I realize its deficiency and wish to put my comments in a fuller theological context.
2. Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.
3. Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church.
4. I am not a scientist, but I have familiarized myself with attempts to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with science, and I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position. I apologize for giving the impression that others who seek to harmonize the two differently are not credible. I honor all who contend for the Christian faith.
5. Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy. The latter is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.
6. Science is fallible and subject to revision. As a human and social enterprise, science will always be in flux. My first commitment is to the infallibility (as to its authority) and inerrancy (as to its Source) of Scripture.
7. God could have created the Garden of Eden with apparent age or miraculously, even as Christ instantly turned water into wine, but the statement that God “caused the trees to grow†argues against these notions.
8. I believe that the Triune God is Maker and Sustainer of heaven and earth and that biblical Adam is the historical head of the human race.
9. Theological comments made here are mostly a digest of my chapters on Genesis 1-3 in An Old Testament Theology (Zondervan, 2007).
Bruce Waltke, Professor of Old Testament
Reformed Theological Seminary “
Jim asks,” Where are the Reformed OT scholars in the tradition of E.J. Young and O.T Allis?!?!?!”
We are in the classrooms of RTS in Orlando, Jackson, Charlotte, Atlanta and Washington DC teaching out of the books of Young, Allis and others.
Michael, it seems to me that as long as you affirm these truths as taught in the first chapter of Genesis — creation of a good earth by an all-powerful God, a real historical Adam and Eve created in God’s image, a historical fall into sin that brought all of their descendents into a state of sin and corruption, and in the promise of a redeemer — your views should be permissible in the Reformed Presbyterian Churches and at RTS. As an outside observer, RTS seems to be retrenching into a strict, narrow theological perspective… more fundamentalist and pietist than reformed. Many years ago a fine little article was published in the Nicotine Theological Journal entitled “Science and Its Discontents.” Its wisdom should inform the leadership at RTS.
The NTJ, as you know Pilgrim in the Ruins, is published by an RTS faculty member. What are the indications that RTS is retrenching into a strict, narrow theological perspective?
Read The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. Then read “Preachers who are not Believers,” Evolutionary Psychology, Vol. 8, Issue I, March, 2010, pp. 121-50. You can also find it posted here. The second article is a cautionary tale of what can happen when someone doesn’t come clean with their departures from what passes for “orthodoxy,” as Dr. Waltke has done. Trust me, his departures are minor. Finally, stop wringing your hands, get your heads out of your butts, read some good basic biology and read your Bibles again with both eyes open.
Michael, you asked “What are the indications that RTS is retrenching into a strict, narrow theological perspective?” May I answer with a question? The article I mentioned above challenged the church to allow hermeneutical flexibility regarding the first chapters of Genesis, calling for “responsible flexibility and restraint in the way we handle the Genesis creation narrative.” If you and your colleagues were interviewing a candidate to teach OT or Systematic Theology and Apologetics, and this candidate was agnostic about the specifics of creation, having ambivalence about what the Bible taught “scientifically,” all things being equal, would he be hired? If he didn’t agree with another faculty member, lets say it is Ligon Duncan’s creationist view, would that be grounds to black-ball him, so to speak? Does RTS allow hermeneutical flexibility regarding the texts pertaining to the role of women in the church, to pick on another thorny issue? I am cognizant that there are faculty members in place who hold different persceptives, but is that the current trajectory of RTS as a whole?
Unless you guys know something that I don’t, E.J. Young and O. T. Allis were OECists. Everything I ever read in seminary (and after) by the two was bent toward accommodating the Genesis account to the “findings of modern science.” Did I miss something?
I do so hope and pray that the trajectory of all of our Reformed seminaries (Covenant, RTS, WTS, KTS, et. al.) is bak toward a soundly confessional and unapologetic stand upon the authority, clarity, sufficiency and supremacy of the Word of God.
Pray, brethren. May God be pleased, in mercy, to turn us around and drive us back from the edge of theological compromise and to deliver us, ultimately, from unbelief.
Dean Dough, ribald accusations usually indicae the lack of substance to an argument.
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/.