Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Tuesday, April 13, 2010


The beard stroking, academic hypocrites around the internet are worked up into a lather. They are enraged that Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando had the gall to let go ("forced out" is the buzz word being thrown around) Bruce Waltke because of his views regarding theistic evolution.

The commenters at the Inside Higher Ed site despair over how Christians refuse to come out of the bronze age, and until these "literalists" awaken to the reality of how things are in the scientific world, more and more tragic situations like Dr. Waltke will only continue to litter the evangelical waste land, embarrassing Jesus and making Christians look stupid.

USA Today online cites Darrel Falk, professor of biology at a liberal Nazarene college and president of the even more theologically devoid BioLogos website, who likens Waltke to a modern day Amos or some other prophet who had the courage to stand up and tell us young earth creationists dullards how it is:

"Decades from now, when the Evangelical Church has come to terms with the reality of evolution, we hope she will look back at those who were the pioneers on its journey toward a fuller understanding of the manner by which God has created. I could list other pioneers, a number of whom are good friends and colleagues.

"Right there alongside them will be Dr. Bruce Waltke who, in the latter phase of an extremely distinguished career, had the courage to tell the Church what it needed to hear. The fact that he did so with a remarkably gentle spirit of love will be a reminder to all that the real battles are won when we simply live the reality of the Gospel. To do this — in the face of adversity — is the ultimate in courage."

As much as Falk and his sycophants in the blog comments wish to decry the enslavement of "academic freedom," they are bald faced dishonest (say liars) with two obvious areas:

First, they don't care a lick about academic freedom. If one of their fellow "academics" endorsed ID over evolution, they would be the first ones running to get their tar buckets and cutting open pillows. To theological liberals like the folks at BioLogos, academic freedom is only truly free if the person in question comes to the exact conclusions they already believe. But, if you question those conclusions, you're denying scientific reality. There is no other choice but to censor such a person and force him out of his position.

Second, many of these supporters of theistic evolution claim to be strong believers in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. They will often drop that announcement down right in the middle of these discussions with their creationist dissenters in order to confirm to them their orthodoxy. They aren't rabid atheists just because they are theistic evolutionists, or so they say. They merely recognize the overwhelming evidence for evolution and Christians would be foolish to ignore it.

However, at what point does the so-called "overwhelming evidence" give way to the theistic evolutionary affirmation of inspiration and inerrancy? Bart Ehrman certainly claims to be examining the evidence of textual criticism. In fact, every wack-a-doodle heretical group that denies the orthodox views of Christianity claim they are "examining the evidence." Would the Nazarene college where Darrel Falk teaches biology allow John Dominic Crossan the "academic freedom" to spew his anti-Christ views of Jesus? Well.... Now that I think about it, more than likely they would, but you get my point.

Last week I had a theistic evolutionist leave some comments under a post I wrote on the topic of theistic evolution and personal salvation. During my exchange with him the commenter made one comment that I thought was spot on as he outlined the basic disagreement between myself, a biblical creationist, and himself, a theistic evolutionist. He wrote,

But I can see that one fundamental difference we have -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- is that I see the scientific data, or more specifically the interpretation of it, as theologically or teleologically neutral, whereas most of you feel that the interpretation of that same data comes loaded with antisupernatural presuppositions and atheistic/antitheistic baggage. And I really think that's going to be a big point of disagreement right there.

I don't think I could have stated that any better.

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

A friend of mine took a few biology classes at Point Loma Nazarene University (the campus is in San Diego). I had to help her counteract some of the evolutionary dogmatism they were ramming down the student's throats. Even at that time, the middle 1980's, students were taking "a real risk" voicing any opinions they had that didn't march in lock step with Darwinism. It was abundantly clear that the instructors there had a very low view of scripture. In the light of that, Darrel Falk's whining about Bruce Waltke is rather hypocritical.

12:02 PM, April 13, 2010  
Blogger MSC said...

It is not only hypocritical, it is political. They need to demonize YECers in order to advance their agenda. We must be painted as barbaric, myopic neanderthals (excuse the irony here) whose slavish adherence to an antiquated view of reality is destroying the Christian faith.

2:47 PM, April 13, 2010  
Blogger The Seeking Disciple said...

And people wonder why the Nazarene church has been failing when they fail to embrace the inerrancy of Scripture and defend it. They allow their colleges and seminaries to embrace subjects ranging from theistic evolution to the emergent movement.

Thanks for standing for truth at this blog!

4:28 PM, April 13, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ MSC:

You forgot to add "flat-earthers" to the list. ;)

8:44 PM, April 13, 2010  
Blogger Highland Host said...

One wonders what else Waltke was getting up to. I would be surprised to find that his advocacy of theistic evolution was the ONLY issue here. Of course his tone probably has something to do with it as well.

2:46 AM, April 14, 2010  
Blogger DJP said...

Look at the stuff on Taylor's site, and Waltke's tone was all gentle and sweet. But I saw the video: reject evolution, and you marginalize Christianity, become irrelevant and cultic, and embrace spiritual death.

But no big deal. Love ya!


7:00 AM, April 14, 2010  
Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"many of these supporters of theistic evolution claim to be strong believers in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture."

That part of it just irritates me. These folks have already corrupted the Doctrine of Origins. Now they've got to go and corrupt a very important aspect of the Doctrine of Scripture.

Then Fred, don't you just love the kicker that usually follows:

"Yo Fred, whether it's Evolution, ID, or YEC, it's non-salvific. This is a 2nd-order doctrine at best, and we should not let issues of relative adiaphora separate us. We theistic evolutionists are fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and we worship with you in the same churches and we are instructors in various Christian colleges. Let's not unduly anathematize each other and give a bad witness to a fractured Christian Body to an unbelieving and fallen world. Let's embrace each other as fellow inerrantists, as TE and YEC, as fellow heirs of God's kingdom."

1:58 PM, April 14, 2010  
Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said...


Fred, et al,

If you have the time, what do you think of the link above where a Theistic Evolutionist discusses 10 lessons learned from teaching theistic evolution in his church?

11:00 PM, April 14, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ Truth:

I read through the course materials and other associated content for Dr. Harvey's adult education class (Science and Nature in Christian Perspective).

Dr. Harvey pretty much falls into the Hugh Ross camp and uses a lot of his material. He is a proponent of dual revelation which has serious problems (see: Scripture and general revelation). He places general revelation, or at least his perception of it, above scripture whenever an alleged conflict arises between science and the Bible. He achieves this by misrepresenting what the Bible teaches about cosmology (e.g. the flat earth with a dome over it) and then uses that misrepresentation as the justification for allegorizing scripture when it comes in conflict with modern science (evolution). I agree that the Bible is not a science textbook, however, where the Bible touches on science and cosmology, it is correct and there is no need to harmonize it with whatever is the popular pagan creation myth of the age.

Looking at the other materials posted by Dr. Harvey (Evangelicals and the Environment: Checkered Past, Brighter Future), I come away with the impression that his church has created a mirror image of secularism in religious terms.

6:10 AM, April 15, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Thanks for that review. I plan to check it all out when I have a moment. It may make for some good blog material.

6:39 AM, April 15, 2010  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home