Evolusionisme op teologiese skole

Sien hier oor verdere verwikkelinge aangaande die Waltke saak:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/04/12/updates-from-waltke-and-from-rts/

Sien ook hierdie artikel:

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/436/cpage/1.html#comment-992

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?

Hoeveel sienings van Genesis is toelaatbaar ?

http://sb.rfpa.org/index.cfm?mode=narrow&volume=86&issue=1171&article=12280&book=0&search=&page=1&chapter=0&text_search=0

Theistic Evolution in Reformed Christianity:

http://bordwineblog.org/?p=583