Evolusionisme op teologiese skole

‘n OT professor in die VSA moes bedank by sy teologiese skool omdat hy glo gesê het:
“If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult … some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”
Sien ook hier: 

Dit is verblydend dat daar nog teologiese skole is wat evolusionisme nie in die naam van sogenaamde ‘relevantheid’ en ‘akademie’ akkomodeer en aanvaarbaar probeer maak nie.

Oor die kwessie van die historisiteit van Adam:

8 thoughts on “Evolusionisme op teologiese skole

Add yours

  1. Sien hier oor verdere verwikkelinge aangaande die Waltke saak:


    Sien ook hierdie artikel:


    Ek het die volgende opmerkings daaroor op hul blog geskryf:

    What is the link between the first words about the Waltke issue (denying the historicity of Adam) and the rest of this article about the age of the earth ? Does the latter lead to the first ?

    Is Waltke consistent, but others, accepting old earth but still holding to a historical Adam, inconsistent ?

    The article also seems to say that we must listen to certain (evolutionary) views about the age of the earth (old age) more than the other view (young age). On what grounds ?

    And, why not also listen to that growing body of theologians and evolusionist proclaiming that Adam was not historical ? Where will MR draw the line, and how do you determine who to listen to, democracy: if the most theologians/scientists deny it, then it is correct ? (contra Ex.23:1-3)

    And, why then do we only believe the evidence of certain theologians and certain scientists on certain issues, and not on other issues such as the resurrection. Why do we not listen also to the ‘overwhelming’ evidence of liberal theologians and scientists who ‘confirm’ that people cannot be raised from the dead, it is unscientific. Yes, “a large number of observations over a long period of time will likely be the telling factor”, and has confirmed that people are not raised from the dead. So, maybe the Gospels are trying to teach us something else than that Christ bodily and physically and historically raised from the dead, contra 1 Cor.15 ?

    Where do we draw the line what to accept from modern science and what not ?

    You write: “Likewise, in the present controversy, a large number of observations over a long period of time will likely be the telling factor.”

    In the present controversy, over a long period of time (and still continuing), it becomes more clear that there are many theologians and scientist who reject (or compromise) the tradional view of Genesis 1 and especially the length of the days, who are also now starting to deny the historical Adam and the historicity of Gen.1-3.

    Meanwhile, I do not know of any theologian or scientist (past or present) that holds to the traditional view of Genesis and the length of days and a young earth, that in any sense deny the historicity of Genesis 1-3 or Adam. Indeed, they hold even more firmly to the faith once delivered (Jud.3)

    Prov.4:23 indeed.

    Once again, how do you decide what theologians/scientists to believe on a certain issue, and who not to listen to (The ‘creationist’ theologians and scientist has the same degrees and academic pedigree, why are some biased against them and prefer the atheistic and theistic evolutionist theories more ?)

    In Noah’s time the the majority, and it was a great majority, could see no ‘evidence’ for a coming world wide flood, but Noah was right according to Special Revelation. Once again Hebr.11:1-7.

    It all boils down to, not the ‘large number of observations’ and how many telescopes and scientists using it, but through what lenses (pressupositions) both the theologians and scientists read both Scripture and nature, both special and natural revelation.

    So, if it is so called ‘modern reformed’ to read Genesis and the rest of Scripture through the lenses of of modern (evolutionary) science; and ‘fundamentalistic’ to read nature/general revelation through the lenses of Scripture (Calvin, Luther, etc !), then I prefer to be a ‘fundamentalist’ in the biblical orthodox reformed historical sense of the word.

    John 3:12 “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: