Thanks again Tom for saying what I have believed for a long time.  We just don’t have it all figured out.  God is at work as He always has been and just about the time we think we have Him pegged He reveals more.  How presumptuous for us to say that God meant “this” or “that”...the end.  There is no end except, that He loves us and that He will reveal himself in whatever way necessary for us to understand that love…the end.

Interesting developments to say the least Tom.  Thanks for your comments and your integration of the Church of the Nazarene’s creedal statements that provide some background of where we may view things from perhaps a slightly different view, yet find ourselves worshiping side-by-side. 

My question in this discussion is which side holds more dogmatically to their approach?  Unfortunately, just as Dr. Waltke fell victim to a close-minded system from within the church, there are others who have suffered the same close-mindedness from within science.  Sadly, this causes both sides to normally talk by each other (or about each other) without ever really stopping to attempt to engage with each other in meaningful debate.  We end up with a general public that thinks the two camps have competing realities (which is somewhat difficult to imagine being…well, a reality).

So, where do we go?  I think there are some phenomenal efforts out there underway to almost create a medieval marriage of the two empires that may have some success.  I see works like your recent “Creation Made Free” perhaps being a start to the conversation.  I also see people like Lennox and Polkinghorne who are engaging the common churchman with impeccable scientific credentials in theological settings as another route to gaining a better interchange.

This whole debate really seems so odd when you look deeper into the whole science and religion thing.  Let me draw a simple illustration—

4 People Sit on Stage in a discussion about Science and God—here are their qualifications:

Person A—PhD in Physics
Person B—Single Degree with reading in Philosophy, Economics, and Politics
Person C—2 PhD’s, Mathematics and Philosophy, MA in Bioethics
Person D—PhD with research in belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.

Which 2 are the atheists? The answer would surprise many.

Tom, The revised Church of the Nazarene Manual statement on creation now reads as follows (it was changed at the 2009 General Assembly)

“903.9. Creation
The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”—Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind (Hebrews 11:3). (1, 5.1, 7) (2009)”

Thanks for this, Tom. I find Alvin Plantinga’s and Kelly James Clark’s letters to the Chronicle of Higher Education’s editor in response to Michael Ruse’s recent essay to be very helpful in appreciating Reformed philosophical views on these matters.

I enjoyed your comments Tom.  There is currently a resolution before the synod assembly in my church (ELCA Lutheran) affirming evolution.  I think it is high time for Christians not to bury their heads in the sand on this issue.  One cannot selectively choose the facts that support only the conclusion one wishes to reach.  I have also heard some dismiss the physical evidence saying that it is a purposeful deception.  I cannot accept this idea either.  Truth is truth.  Ideas that cannot pass scrutiny from multiple perspectives are false.

Friends,

Jack Haas alerted me to a new letter written by Bruce Waltke (April 14?). It describes more clearly his relationship with the seminary and his resignation. It doesn’t say, however, why the seminary felt it must accept Bruce’s resignation.

Here’s the link:

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

This blog is very interesting and really leaves you thinking. I found it particularly interesting the reasons why the Wesleyan belief finds it possible to believe in evolution. I do believe that God did everything knowing the outcome of it and this blog makes it seem very possible that he did create in some form of evolution. When the blog was talking about how God created co-creators it states, “when the authors of Genesis write that God asks creation to bring forth other creatures, this indicates that God invites creatures to cooperate in creating.” I find this very interesting because it is very possible that God did create certain things other than humans to create also. This was a great blog I really liked it.

very interesting. I have always felt we shouldn’t just ignore science and keep going the way we have. For a long time the church didn’t believe the sun revolved around the earth instead of the earth revolving around sun. I don’t think we should just ignore the findings of science because we have for so long believed otherwise.

I fully agree with you Dr.Oord, we shouldn’t necessarily just ignore evolution and should maybe look into evolution being a tool that God used to create. Evolution isn’t Godless.

Within my own life I have found that if it doesn’t effect they way that I daily live/think out my life, than I try not to burden myself with it. Spending a semester in England, where evolution is commonly accepted in the Christian community caused me to think on this matter. I cannot know the mind of God, though I do know he exists. When I try and figure out all of the intricacies of creation than I would bog down how I live my life serving others.

The main contention I have with theological evolution is that many of the main value systems proposed by Jesus and other Bible authors direct humans to act in spite of their natural tendencies (Mark 10:21, Matt. 5:5, etc…).  Why would God have used a method of creation which would lead to a creature that would need such radical behavioral modification?

My theological concern, which I have previously shared with you, Tom, is Paul’s theological statement in Rom. 5:12-14 that identifies death as being the result of sin.  Further, the picture of death, in Scripture, as being the last great enemy, which is overcome by the resurection of Christ.  -  That concept is my one reservation about evolution.

Interestingly, I watched a dvd sometime back about the search for biological (or genetic?) Adam.  This was a Science dvd (my wife is licensed as a Science teacher).  This was not a “Bible-based,” religious dvd.  I found it interesting and a possible evolutionary, scientific explanation that could fit, even if one has a literal Adam and Eve.

Though I am not all that familiar with the Reformed Theological Seminary, I don’t see why that institution would dismiss Waltke because of a greater scientific understanding of the world. Just like the example of the boiling pot of water there is more than one way to describe a particular event. Evolution is just one way in which man searches for an answer to an almost impossible question. Dismissing Waltke on these grounds seems close minded in letting individual members of the Reformed Theological Seminary search for answers from a discrusivly fractured perspective.

It seems to me that it should not matter what one believes about evolution as long as God as Creator is affirmed.  I do not know a whole lot about this subject, but if God chose to create the world and humans through some sort of evolutionary process I dont think there is a problem at all.  This doesnt contradict the orthodox belief that God is the Creator of all. 
Especially when we are confronted with overwhelming evidence that that evolution may be true. I think that the Wesleyan tendency to allow evolution to be accepted is helpful and it is unfortunate for Reformed Theological Seminary to dismiss a professor on these grounds.  We dont know exactly how God created, we just know that He did.

It seems like there is a strange dichotomy between Waltke’s harsh criticism towards fundamental creationist and his own beliefs regrading the existence of an actually Adam and Eve.  Does he not see the problem with calling out creationist as part of a “cult” while still believing in something that would be outright dismissed in the scientific community.  He accepts the authority of science until it conflicts too much with his world view then scoffs at those that stopped one set back, ignoring the fact that “awareness” is still miles away.

I agree with Jake for the most part. The dichotomy is a bit strange. Personally I do believe God could have used evolution, in some form for creation, but I haven’t given much thought to Rob’s point. It is worth consideration.

While I have witnessed discussion of evolution within my church, it seems to be a topic on one side of the spectrum. This is to say; creationism verses evolution is an issue that you are either very passionate about or seemingly neutral. I am currently leaning towards a creation evolutionist opinion, but my change in direction hasn’t affected my views of God. This brings me to question the extent of this dilemma. As a whole, is the Christian faith greatly affected by the model of creation?

I’m with Jake. This guy is confused. I think you can take the Bible seriously, view the first ch. of Genesis as poem, meaningful, but just as we don’t read Chaucer as a scientific textbook, we shouldn’t read the Bible this way.
It really upsets me when a school makes decisions based on funding rather than ethics and intelligence. I attended Olivet before coming to NNU, and the student body was furious as a professor who had published a book on evolution was fired/resigned as a result of misinformed churches threatening to withhold funding. I wish congregations were as up to date as institutions.