Catholicity, Orthodoxy, and Lordship
Elijah Tuuri–son of CREC pastor Dennis Tuuri– has some thoughts on the importance and necessity of holding a 6 day creation. He observes:
I believe that Jordan, Doug Wilson in his writings, Calvin, and the CREC memorial are correct. Once you deny or question 6/24 creation the entire Bible becomes easily questioned and dissolves in to mush. If Christians can’t fathom literal 6 day creation then why would they believe in a talking snake in Genesis??
Rushdoony in his classic work The Mythology of Science summarizes the only two options available in the scientific quest:
Men will either presuppose God, or they will presuppose themselves as the basic reality of being. If they assume themselves to be autonomous and independent from God, they will then wage war against God at every point. There is no such thing as an area of neutrality: men will either affirm God at every point in their lives and thinking, or else they will deny Him at every point.
If we can set aside the six-day creation doctrine, we have asserted our supremacy over Scripture. Our mind and our convenience now have a higher authority than the Bible, so that we have denied its authority totally and asserted our authority instead. If we claim the right at any point to set aside Scripture, we have established ourselves as the higher authority at every point. Clearly, therefore, the question of authority is at stake in Genesis 1: God or man? Whose word is authoritative and final?
— The Necessity of Creationism (1967) (Reprinted from The Mythology of Science [Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2001], 61–67.)
Ken Ham has a good piece on the recent joint statement between Reasons to Believe and Biologos.
Bruce Waltke posted on Facebook a letter he wrote to the RTS/Orlando constituency with the hope that it might serve to unify the church: Continue reading “Bruce Waltke and Theistic Evolution”
My former professor and friend Chuck DeGroat has asked me to place the following clarifications from Bruce Waltke regarding his video on evolution. Here are his points of clarification:
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 “
I mentioned that Waltke was wrong in his assessment of how Christians should view evolution. Evolution is a dangerous compromise yet, many evangelicals have been allured to the prestige evolution brings. Another more radical example of this comes from professor Peter Enns. Enns asserts that “… the Adam story could be viewed symbolically as a story of Israel’s beginnings, not as the story of humanity from ground zero.” Ideas have consequences.
For all the respect I had for Dr. Waltke at RTS/Orlando and even today, I can’t help but agree 100% with Doug Wilson’s summary.
Christine Dao writes:
Scientists and media outlets around the world are praising “Ida,” the primate fossil hailed as the long-sought-after “missing link” in the human evolutionary theory.
In a major public relations campaign, Ida was unveiled in New York City yesterday, May 19, 2009, and will make a stop in London May 26 before returning to its owners at the University of Oslo’s Natural History Museum. BBC1 will air a documentary based on the fossil the same day as its UK unveiling, and Little, Brown—publisher of the popular Twilight fiction series—put out a book about the find today. Even Internet search engine Google posted a special banner in Ida’s honor.
But despite the hype, a whirlwind of questions still surrounds the discovery. First, the environment in which the fossil was kept for 20 years is unclear. Ida, who bears the technical name Darwinius masillae in honor of this year’s 200th anniversary of British naturalist Charles Darwin’s birth, was found in 1983 by an amateur fossil hunter at Germany’s Messel Pit. He kept it in unknown conditions before deciding to sell it through a dealer two years ago. Continue reading “What’s with ‘Ida?’”
