Waltke and Theistic Evolution

Dr. Dominic Aquila, president of New Geneva Seminary and head honcho at the Aquila report brought my attention to Dr. Bruce Waltke's position on evolution that eventually led to his resignation from Reformed Theological Seminary.

Dr. Waltke is a Hebrew scholar of the first kind. He had already moved on when I arrived at Dallas Theological Seminary in the mid-1980's. But his works, including the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament are standards for the scholarly pastor. But it seems to me that being very learned in one area doesn't necessarily mean that one is qualified in another area. (I hope you sense the irony here- Dr. Waltke's degrees are in language...mine in theology).

Waltke makes it very clear he holds to two ideas: 1) He is not a scientist and 2) He holds to theistic evolution or a modified form of intelligent design. Now, back in the late 90's/early 2001 I realized I had gotten way behind in reading in the creation-evolution debate. So I began reading from all quarters to include theistic evolutionists like Hugh Ross, evolutionists such as Stephen J. Gould (Structure of Evolutionary Theory. The one thing I discovered was that there was no way I could ever come out of the mix as a theistic evolutionist.

Gordon Clark, the Reformed Christian Philosopher noted that there are no such things as "free floating facts." IF we believe that scripture is sufficient for faith and practice, we are at the same time affirming that the areas in which it speaks, these must de facto be true. This is NOT to say that Genesis 1-3 is a science manual. It was never intended to be. And yes (a nod to the "framework" guys) something can be both a polemic (against the polytheism and henotheism) during Moses' period while ALL THE WHILE BEING LITERAL. This means that instead of free floating facts subject to whatever interpreter is the cleverist, we take the biblical view on creation.

Yes, the Presbyterian Church in America holds that the Westminster Divines were not all unanimous in their view of a literal 24hour-day creation. That doesn't mean either the PCA or the Westminster Divines for that matter are correct. We must first, and foremost, go to the scriptures and let them speak.

I believe that Genesis 1-3 is literal; i.e., that God created the world in 6 24 hour day periods and rested on the 7th (taking "rest" as cessation from his creative work). Here's the reasons why:
1. There is nothing in Genesis 1-3 that suggest we do not take the information there at face value.
2. When "day [yom]" in Hebrew is used with a number it means 24 hour day periods.
3. Theologically, the Sabbath system rests on the fact of a literal 24 hour day period (Ex 19, 20)
4. Adam must be taken as literally as a day since Hosea 6 and other Scriptures affirm the historicity of the first man.
5. Theologically, the historicity of the story of the Fall is the foundation for Paul's apostolic teaching on the justification of faith of the many (Romans 4, 5).
6. Historically, Jesus held to the historicity of a historic person named Adam.
7. And as, on the Night line or 20/20 show, Answers in Genesis points out that if theistic evolution is true ala Waltke and Ross, then how can Paul say with any sincerity that by one man sin entered the world, and through that sin, death. There would have to be LONG periods of time where evolution percolates, animals and men-like creatures live, die, live die. This is central to theistic evolution (but not to intelligent design) and ultimately undermines the theology of sin, and salvation and therefore Christ's work on the cross.

A Christian CAN hold to theistic evolution, though I think, like Ricky Ricardo said to Lucy, "You got a lot of 'splainin to do." But I believe if a professor holds to that view, it means that he ultimately is influencing young minds of men and women that encourages them to NOT think synthetically but to be shaped around the mold of this world (Romans 12:1-2).