27
Mar
2010

Waltke, Bavinck and Evolution

/
/
5
/
27 Mar 2010

Tony Reinke, has a post over at Miscellanies, in which he considers Bruce Waltke’s recent statements concerning evolution, in light of what Herman Bavinck had to say about macroevolution and microevolution. Reinke concludes, contra Waltke, that the rejection of macroevolution will not inevitably  “marginalize the Church into a cult,” rather it will “free the Church to breathe the fresh air of revelation.”

About Post Author

Nick Batzig is the senior pastor of Church Creek PCA in Charleston, SC and an associate editor for Ligonier Ministries. Prior to serving at Church Creek, Nick was a pastor at Wayside PCA on Signal Mountain, TN. Formerly, Nick served as the founding pastor of New Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Richmond Hill, GA and as the editor of Reformation21 and the Christward Collective--sites of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. He frequently writes for Tabletalk Magazine, Reformation 21, He Reads Truth, and the Christward Collective. Nick was also the host of East of Eden, a podcast devoted to the Biblical and Systematic Theology of Jonathan Edwards. You can friend him on Facebook here and follow him on Twitter @nick_batzig

5 Responses

  1. Richard Smithson
    Reply

    This is so scary. We are arguing about 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.

  4. Nicholas T. Batzig
    Reply

    Chris

    This is somewhat different from the Reformers rejection of Copernicus. They had the issue of biblical interpretation, but not the origin of mankind on the table. I realize that you might respond by saying this is also a matter of biblical interpretation too, but it is a different battle. I am interested in knowing what you think about the phraseology “according to their kind” in Genesis 1?

  5. Chris Donato
    Reply

    In all this, Nick, know that I’m primarily concerned that 1) Scripture isn’t twisted; and thus 2) we don’t unnecessarily ostracize folks based on fallacious readings of Scripture. My guess is that Waltke primarily has YEC in mind, the fundamentals of which were refuted over two centuries ago by Christian naturalists. If, then, the church holds on to YEC at the expense of embracing the paradigmatically different fundamentals of macroevolution, it is arguably headed for cultic status. Of course, fundamentalists (both the good and bad kind) are the only ones who will continue to cling to YEC, and, well, most of them are already cult-like. The question that interests me, as I’m sure it interests you, is how will Reformed folk respond?

    Incidentally, have you read Fesko’s introduction to Last Things First (see “Preview Sample” .pdf link)? Good reading to set up any discussion on this subject, in my opinion.

    Regarding “according to their kind,” first, let me state emphatically that I don’t think Scripture favors any scientific theory of origins—God is the creator. Period. But note that with respect to Gen 1:11, 24, the subject is not “animals” “bringing forth” (verb) “animals” (object); rather, the “land” is the subject. I’m not saying this teaches anything scientific, but I am pretty convinced it can’t bear the weight your question presupposes. Even more, the presupposition that “kinds” are fixed is brought to the text; that meaning is not demanded by the text. This might be one of those instances where Plato’s concept of fixed kinds has infiltrated our thinking more than we know.

Leave a Reply