Thank you for your candid and fair response. You make excellent observations in the beginning of your comments, regarding what Paul writes in Romans about people being without excuse because they have constant contact with the creation that God made and through which he speaks. Right on. We have something at least in common!
But then you go on to write, “I have a confusion and disunderstanding of your implication that God spoke things into existence while at the same time these things evolved from a spec of virtual nothingness.”
I take it you mean, How can I affirm the truth of Genesis One while accepting the theory of evolution? I do not find any contradiction here. Why can’t we see that God employed the method of slow development over billions of years to accomplish what he wanted with the world he was bringing into existence? So far as I can tell, to believe that what the scientists are telling us about such things as the age of the universe, the age of the planet earth, the appearance and developoment of life, as well as the emergence of human life does not in any way contradict what we read in Genesis One. The scientists are describing as accurately as they can, with what they now know and are continually learning, how these things came to be. In so far as they are accurate, Christians may understand that such truth also comes from God our Creator.
And that is where, it appears, that you have your difficulty. You write, “The issue is not what science teaches, but whether evolution is scientifically proven.” I agree. But it seems that where you and I disagree is whether the developmental theory is scientifically proven. I don’t know whether or not it is even possible to prove conclusively that it is so, but from what little I have read I am personally convinced that this is the way God has brought the world into existence. You are not convinced. That’s fair enough. The CRC as a whole is not yet convinced either, and I suppose that is the reason why Synod made the decision it did not to appoint a committee to investigate the theological implications implied.
What you write about the typological interpretation of Adam involves is again good. I know very well that it does not prove that Adam and Eve are not historical. But it does suggest that if it should prove to be true that they are not historical, there still is a solid Biblical way of interpreting their significance in the Bible.
You challenge me at some length to read the creationist authors you cite. I have no expertise whatever in scientific matters and have not read very much along the lines of young earth theology or flood geology, but what little I have read does not appear to me to be convincing, whereas the other side of the matter does appear to be convincing. I don’t consider myself capable of debating the science involved, and I do therefore rely on the people who do know the issues involved. I recognize that the issue is still being debated, and I am content to let them work at it until some degree of unanimity is reached. This may well take several more years, by which time I will be dead. I trust the Lord will lead his church where he wants it to go, and for my part I am doing what I can to examine what the implications might be if indeed it becomes clear that the developmental theory is accurate.
You write, “By implication also, if the first Adam didn't exist, then the second Adam also becomes somewhat anomalous or pointless, trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.” This is indeed an important point. But your conclusion does not appear necessary. If the Adam and Eve stories of the Bible are not historical, they are still typological. If Adam represents, typologically, all of us human beings, then the reality of sin remains and the work of the Second Adam is just as necessary as we have always maintained. The problem of sin does exist even when Adam is understood as typological. We are all sinners, we are all Adams, we all make the same decision Adam did, and we are all saved by Jesus who is like unto us in all respects except for sin.
I have no problem with your bluntness and candor, and I do appreciate that you did not resort to being “somewhat disrespectful” in your response. I think we must relate to one another as brothers in Christ, not unfairly judgmental either way, but allowing God to be the final judge of the issues involved.
Edwin Walhout
Reply to Communique # 2 from John Zylstra
Dear John,
Thanks again for your analysis of the idea of a type of Christ. You write, “If Adam was not historical, then how could you have a typology of a one man who brought sin into the world? Wouldn't your typology simply be untrue... a lie... a falsehood?”
The answer is: the same way Christian could be a type of all of us in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. In that allegory the person of Christian is understood as Everyman. In the same way the Genesis stories about Adam can be understood as meaning Everyman.
When, accordingly, I read Genesis 3 I can substitute my name or your name when the name Adam is used. I am confronted with the necessity of choosing whether or not to obey God. Outside of Christ I choose wrongly, getting bad results rather than the good results I had been expecting. I find myself, consequently, outside of God’s blessing, outside of Eden, under God’s curse for my wrong decision. Yet I also have the promise that the serpent will be crushed under the foot of the seed of the woman, an event that for us is past, having been accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus.
I do not need to maintain that Adam and Eve were real historical persons in order to perceive their importance for understanding myself and understanding God’s sovereign control over all of life and history. In fact I find it a more powerful way of understanding how the Bible impacts my life. Surely to maintain a typological view of Adam is not “simply untrue … a lie… a falsehood.” It is, on the contrary, a most vital and humbling call to repentance and faith.
I take now the liberty of congratulating you on your personal interest in coming to understand the way God works and how the Bible functions in his plan and purpose. Not many people take the time to articulate their problems and difficulties with new ways of thinking. It is good that you do so.
That being said, I think we need to recognize that God reveals new things to us from time to time, new insights that require us to rethink and reorient our faith. He gave the Israelites at Sinai an entirely new pattern to control their national life, the Torah. He gave the Jews in Jesus’ day a new covenant which mandated that they regard the previous covenant as outdated and no longer in force. He gave the medieval Christians new insights into the gospel at the time of the Protestant Reformation. It is becoming more and more apparent that God is now giving us new insights into the matters that scientists are discovering about the universe and time and life.
I find that what Moses said to Israel at Sinai is a powerful insight into this method of God. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that have been revealed belong to us and to our children to do all the things of this law.” (DT 29:29) There is always a great deal we do not know, but God requires of us that we go by what we do know, what he has revealed to us. In our day this means what God is revealing to us via the scientific community.
You have profound doubts about the matters relating to the age of the earth and the provenance of humanity. This is not a bad thing in itself; it is a process that the Lord is leading you through. On an ecclesiastical level it seems also that the CRC is at somewhat the same stage, not being yet convinced one way or the other, and hence perpetuating the tradition.
For myself, while I am not a scientist and unable to argue scientific matters, I do think the Lord is calling us to better insights into his world and into the way he has been guiding its history. It took God about seventy years to bring me to a breakthrough, so maybe there is good hope for you as well, and for the denomination we both love! God go with you; he has all the time in the world to teach us what he wants us to know!
It appears to me that this discussion is going nowhere between John and Roger. John appears to be the ultra-conservative and Roger appears to be the ultra-liberal. I find myself in disappointment with both. However, I do recognize that John might well see me as a liberal, and Roger might see me as too conservative. There would be good reason for both opinions.
I look at my stance as one foot in and one foot out. I am, after all, an emeritus minister of the CRC in good and regular standing, and that is important for me. When I function in a somewhat official capacity in that regard, I do try to stay within the Reformed fences; as for example the article in the Banner some time ago. I’m looking over the fence in that article but I haven’t jumped it. That being said, in my private life, in my retirement years, I exercise the freedom of following wherever the Lord leads, even if that should be on the other side of the Reformed fence. Which, I am forthright to say, is where I am in my private theological life.
I hear the Lord calling all of us to new horizons of truth and service, and I hear that message mainly from the scientific advances that are being made in recent times. All truth is God’s truth, however and wherever it may be found. When God calls it is our obligation to listen, to understand, and to obey. John points out that there are numerous unknown quantities in the scientific picture. I suppose that will always be the case. There will always be things we do not understand or know. But God gives us what we need to know in our own times and circumstances. And that is what he is doing now. God is calling us to listen to new insights into his truth, and is summoning us to follow its lead by the indwelling guidance of his Holy Spirit.
So that is why I may well appear to John as a raving liberal. I’m willing and ready to re-examine and redefine our entire theological system, retaining that which is necessary but scuttling what is not necessary. One person cannot do this adequately alone, so I am hoping and expecting that God will raise up better theologians than I to continue this work in the future.
But there is also a sense, and perhaps Roger senses it more than John, that I am trying too hard to hang onto outdated theological positions. For example, I am totally enamored of Genesis One, which I regard as the most important and influential document ever written. So I am doing my best to orient my forays into theology using the basic insights of that document as the pattern. I am discovering that the old horizons of ancient Jewish thought have been compromised to an alarming extent throughout the history of the Christian church, so much so that a great deal of what the ancient church defined as true theology is in fact a mixture of Jewish and pagan Greek philosophy. So I am of the confirmed opinion that we need to go back to the beginnings of a theistic and monotheistic pattern of thought, and to understand the sending of Jesus in that context, without the admixture of subsequent theological definitions from the ancient church.
So, to conclude, I see myself as more conservative than John and more liberal than Roger! Blessings on you both!
It's interesting where this discussion is going. Roger and John going at it together, following up on their own problems and insights.
As I recall, what triggered this exchange was some comments I made about the effect of a developmental process on our theology. We have wandered somewhat from that topic into items that have been debated for years, all the way back to Dort. Concerning Roger's idea that Paul and Jesus contradict each other - I have recently written a commentary on the Gospel of John and on the Book of Romans. I have found no contradiction whatever between the what John says about Jesus and what Paul writes. But now here is something else you might wish to chew on.
THE TRINITY. Ihave examined three distinct doctrines of trinity, that of the Apostles’ Creed, of the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds, and of neo-orthodoxy. There may well be others that have appeared here and there in the history of theology, with which I am not conversant. I have done my best to delineate and distinguish these three, and to push hard for a return to the basic Biblical viewpoint of the Apostles’ Creed.
God the Father is the creator of the heaven and the earth, the entire universe. He is and remains in absolute sovereign control over everything he has created, including not only the vast reaches of space but the ongoing process of human civilization. He therefore has a divine plan and purpose toward which he is guiding all things, and has produced a human race to effectuate that purpose. That human race has emerged slowly out of animal origins and is slowly learning how to live as images of God.
We find ourselves in the twenty-first century at a certain place in that historical development, one which we can easily recognize as a definite improvement over sheer animality but nowhere near the perfection of humanity that God intends. So we need to accept that vision, learn as best we can from what God has been showing us how to live and how to proceed. We must not become mired in the past or in the present, but recognize that we are in process, on a journey, toward a destination, and therefore that we need to be open to the constant nudging and and prodding of God through whatever means he chooses to speak.
Jesus the Son, the second person of the trinity, is and remains the touchstone of our faith. It is he, both in his life and in his teaching, who is the constant reference point of truth and life. He incarnates the absolute best of what God wants from the entire human race. He is the Man who incarnates perfectly what Genesis One pictures first as adam, created to image God in its subjugation of the earth. There is no other such person. Only Jesus, born miraculously of the virgin Mary such that he is not only the Son of God but also the Son of Man, born of a woman. Jesus meets temptation and overcomes it. He understands people who do not know very well what it means to serve the Lord God. He puts himself at their disposal such that he allows them to execute him on the cross. He also puts himself at the disposal of God in heaven such that he trusts the creator to raise him from the dead. Having done all he could in one human life he ascends into the clouds, gone forever, leaving the field to his and God’s Spirit.
The Holy Spirit. So we understand that God the Father is now exercising his divine control and sovereign direction of history by means of what his Son Jesus has done on earth. That is, by means of the gospel and the church of Jesus Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit. What God sent Jesus to accomplish is now being carried on by those who believe in Jesus and who follow him as best they can. It is always God’s purpose and God’s instruction and God’s guidance that is in control, but since the time of Jesus this purpose of God is channeled through what Jesus has done and revealed, and thus by the Holy Spirit working in committed Christian believers.
But it is of paramount importance to keep our understanding of this process in Genesis perspective. That is, of the explanation that humans are to subdue the earth and gain dominion over it in such a way as to image God in that process. We are talking here of human civilization. God’s desire is that we humans create a civilization, all of it, in such a way that the virtues of truth and love and justice and all around goodness characterizes all of our politics, economics, education, health services, business, and everything else that we do collectively. All of us, not just the church, but the entire human race. That’s the work of the gospel, of the church, to bring about that kind of civilization. So that, let us confess, is the work of the Holy Spirit, the third item in the Christian trinity.
John, You ask, “Your perpective on the human race slowly learning to live as images of God.... where do you get that from?” Answer: Genesis 1-3, the rest of the Bible, and history. What Genesis One tells us about the image of God and the cultural mandate means that God intends to have a human race that subdues the earth as his image. Then Genesis Three tells us that God is not getting it from the humans he brought into existence. Then the rest of the Bible tells us what God is doing to bring the human race along, step by step, in the direction of what he wants f rom us. First Abraham taken out of the polytheistic culture of Babylon. Then the nation of Israel to be shaped into a holy nation by the Torah given to Moses at Mount Sinai. Then David and Solomon to typify something of the kingdom of God. Then the Babylonian Captivity to eradicate all vestiges of idolatry. Then Jesus to begin the process of expanding the work of salvation to all nations. And so on till our times when the gospel continues to draw people from all nations into the kingdom of God. Wherever large numbers of people follow the Lord Jesus, there we see significant advances in people working for justice, truth, integrity and all kinds of virtues that image God. The result can be seen by comparing the best of Christian civilization with any and all other civilizations.
John, you cite the imperfections that still plague us, but you should be concentrating on the huge advances we have made, or better, that God has made in the human world, recognizing that the evil that exists is still there for us to overcome by the help of the Spirit of God. But always go back to Genesis One to define the goal toward which God is leading us, and do not belittle the effectiveness of the gospel in history. Consider that it was the gospel that changed the barbarian tribes that overran the Roman Empire from marauding destroyers to the creators of a magnificent new civilization beginning in Europe. Don’t despise the real beginnings and the real progress that God has made in shaping the world as he wishes it to become. God’s work is a work in progress.
You both are surprised that I think God is succeeding in making the human race better. You point out a long list of evils, seemingly proving that we are getting worse instead of better. May I suggest that you have clearer eyes to see what Satan is doing than what God is doing? The evils you point out highlight the task that remains to be done, but it does nothing to delineate the progress the gospel is making.
Recall that Jesus said, prior to his ascension, that all authority in heaven and on earth belongs now to him. If the world is getting worse instead of better, would this not negate Jesus’ affirmation? We say now that Jesus sits at God’s right hand. What do you think that means? It means that God, who has absolute authority over everything he has created, is now exercising that authority by means of his “right hand man” Jesus, that is, by the gospel preached by the church and effectuated by the Holy Spirit.
Then, when we put all that in the context of Genesis One, image of God and cultural mandate, we see that God is slowly getting us, the human race, to learn how to be the humans God wants us to become. That includes everything we do, not only as individuals but also as nations and as an entire human race. Actually, it is precisely in the effect of the gospel on our cultural institutions that we must learn to see the power of Christ at work, not only in our personal lives. Are the United States and Canada more just societies than ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome? How can you doubt it? That is because the gospel has had enormous effect in transforming our barbarian ancestors in Europe into the constructive nations of the western world. The evils you point out, accordingly, point to the task remaining to be done.
Another item on a somewhat different tack. God is calling us today in the twenty-first century to listen to what he is saying via the scientific community. John, you are concerned with the gaps in scientific knowledge, rightly perhaps, but we need to listen when such matters as the age of the universe, the construction of the planets, the appearance of life, the provenance of the human race, and other dramatic breakthroughs such as the genome list – when these things are demonstrated to be true. I personally believe we need to adopt an entirely different paradigm around which to reconstruct our theology, a paradigm of developmentalism. You will both recognize that if we do that, then the notion of God guiding us into a better and better life by means of the gospel makes a lot more sense.
Item # 1. 1) The author </em>(Walhout<em>) frames the whole thing in a reading of history that is simply inaccurate. Purgatory, indulgences, relics, etc. did not form the "backbone of Christianity" 500 years ago. When these became too important, the Reformation happened. To put creation, sin and salvation (think Apostles Creed) on par with these is simply wrong.
Response. I believe in creation, sin and salvation. I also believe in the Apostles’ Creed. I would not put the items mentioned “on a par with” more important doctrines. I am simply affirming that the time has come when God is asking us to re-examine our traditional formulations in the light of scientific discoveries, and if found defective, to improve them. Who knows, it may even result in another upheaval the size of the Reformation?
Item # 2. 2) Apart from the concluding blurb from a synodical report, Walhout fails to mention anything about how the church has already been wrestling with these issues for the past 150 years. This includes the various ways Genesis 1 has been interpreted well before Darwin came along, the numerous scholars who have described Adam and Eve as the representative head of the human race, and the work of scholars today in wrestling with these questions (i.e. books and articles by the Haarsmas at Calvin College).
Response. It is because I have read these and similar books and articles that I have come to the conclusions I have. There isn’t room in one Banner article to summarize all that; I articulated the insights that such documents have suggested to me.
Item # 3. 3) This article lacks helpful distinctions, such as the difference between evolution and naturalism, which help us ask and answer the important questions.
Response. What one person considers “the important questions” will probably vary from person to person. I addressed those that were important to me, and in my judgment important for the church as a whole to address. To expose what the article does not do may help some, but it would be much more helpful to address the items it does propose (as in the next item #4).
Item # 4. 4) He does suggest evolutionary theory calls for a reworking of doctrines like creation, sin and salvation. About sin, he says, "We will have to find a much better way of understanding what sin is, where it comes from, and what its consequences are. Theologians will have to find a new way of articulating a truly biblical doctrine of sin and what effect it has on us." In other words, evolutionary theory will enable theologians to be true to the Bible in our theological articulations. The implication being that now we will really understand the Bible. I think the problems in this are obvious. I am a bit floored that anyone in this forum might suggest that sin and salvaiton are not core doctrines of the Christian faith.
Response. I did not suggest that sin and salvation are not core doctrines of the Christian faith. They are. I simply suggested that we may need to find a better way of understanding them. The paradigm of developmentalism will help us to do that.
Item # 5. 5) The author makes a prediction about the future, a prophetic claim, if you will. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that we humans with our best sciences cannot predict the future. Unless Walhout received this from God himself (including being from Scripture), he should not put this forward as something that will inevitably happen. Being a false prophet is a serious matter in the Bible."
Response. What prediction is he talking about? That people a millennium from now might look back on our times with amazement? If so, I do plead guilty. It’s interesting that he says history teaches us we cannot predict the future, but in this case I am pleading the actual precedent of history, the exact opposite of what my critic suggests! From where did I receive this? Where does anyone receive truth from? All truth is from God. So, in so far as my article is truthful, of course it comes from God. I think he misread the article if he says that I am predicting that it “will inevitably happen.” It appears to me that it will happen, but this is a far cry from inevitability. And his last comment. Indeed it is a serious matter to be a false prophet. However, perhaps my critic should raise a mirror. What if it turns out I am right and he is wrong? Would that make him the false prophet?
There is something to be said for the opinion that "The issue is truth vs falsehood, good vs evil." Centuries ago they were asking, Is it true or false that the earth is spherical? Is it true or false that the earth revolves around the sun? Today we are asking, Is it true or false that the universe is 15 billion years old? Is it true or false that the human race can be traced back about 160,000 years to a single female living in a larger clan? Is it true or false that humans have animal ancestors?
If the answer to these questions is Yes, then there will have to be a lot of rethinking of our theology and of our way of understanding Genesis.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Response to your first communique.
Dear John,
Thank you for your candid and fair response. You make excellent observations in the beginning of your comments, regarding what Paul writes in Romans about people being without excuse because they have constant contact with the creation that God made and through which he speaks. Right on. We have something at least in common!
But then you go on to write, “I have a confusion and disunderstanding of your implication that God spoke things into existence while at the same time these things evolved from a spec of virtual nothingness.”
I take it you mean, How can I affirm the truth of Genesis One while accepting the theory of evolution? I do not find any contradiction here. Why can’t we see that God employed the method of slow development over billions of years to accomplish what he wanted with the world he was bringing into existence? So far as I can tell, to believe that what the scientists are telling us about such things as the age of the universe, the age of the planet earth, the appearance and developoment of life, as well as the emergence of human life does not in any way contradict what we read in Genesis One. The scientists are describing as accurately as they can, with what they now know and are continually learning, how these things came to be. In so far as they are accurate, Christians may understand that such truth also comes from God our Creator.
And that is where, it appears, that you have your difficulty. You write, “The issue is not what science teaches, but whether evolution is scientifically proven.” I agree. But it seems that where you and I disagree is whether the developmental theory is scientifically proven. I don’t know whether or not it is even possible to prove conclusively that it is so, but from what little I have read I am personally convinced that this is the way God has brought the world into existence. You are not convinced. That’s fair enough. The CRC as a whole is not yet convinced either, and I suppose that is the reason why Synod made the decision it did not to appoint a committee to investigate the theological implications implied.
What you write about the typological interpretation of Adam involves is again good. I know very well that it does not prove that Adam and Eve are not historical. But it does suggest that if it should prove to be true that they are not historical, there still is a solid Biblical way of interpreting their significance in the Bible.
You challenge me at some length to read the creationist authors you cite. I have no expertise whatever in scientific matters and have not read very much along the lines of young earth theology or flood geology, but what little I have read does not appear to me to be convincing, whereas the other side of the matter does appear to be convincing. I don’t consider myself capable of debating the science involved, and I do therefore rely on the people who do know the issues involved. I recognize that the issue is still being debated, and I am content to let them work at it until some degree of unanimity is reached. This may well take several more years, by which time I will be dead. I trust the Lord will lead his church where he wants it to go, and for my part I am doing what I can to examine what the implications might be if indeed it becomes clear that the developmental theory is accurate.
You write, “By implication also, if the first Adam didn't exist, then the second Adam also becomes somewhat anomalous or pointless, trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.” This is indeed an important point. But your conclusion does not appear necessary. If the Adam and Eve stories of the Bible are not historical, they are still typological. If Adam represents, typologically, all of us human beings, then the reality of sin remains and the work of the Second Adam is just as necessary as we have always maintained. The problem of sin does exist even when Adam is understood as typological. We are all sinners, we are all Adams, we all make the same decision Adam did, and we are all saved by Jesus who is like unto us in all respects except for sin.
I have no problem with your bluntness and candor, and I do appreciate that you did not resort to being “somewhat disrespectful” in your response. I think we must relate to one another as brothers in Christ, not unfairly judgmental either way, but allowing God to be the final judge of the issues involved.
Edwin Walhout
Reply to Communique # 2 from John Zylstra
Dear John,
Thanks again for your analysis of the idea of a type of Christ. You write, “If Adam was not historical, then how could you have a typology of a one man who brought sin into the world? Wouldn't your typology simply be untrue... a lie... a falsehood?”
The answer is: the same way Christian could be a type of all of us in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. In that allegory the person of Christian is understood as Everyman. In the same way the Genesis stories about Adam can be understood as meaning Everyman.
When, accordingly, I read Genesis 3 I can substitute my name or your name when the name Adam is used. I am confronted with the necessity of choosing whether or not to obey God. Outside of Christ I choose wrongly, getting bad results rather than the good results I had been expecting. I find myself, consequently, outside of God’s blessing, outside of Eden, under God’s curse for my wrong decision. Yet I also have the promise that the serpent will be crushed under the foot of the seed of the woman, an event that for us is past, having been accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus.
I do not need to maintain that Adam and Eve were real historical persons in order to perceive their importance for understanding myself and understanding God’s sovereign control over all of life and history. In fact I find it a more powerful way of understanding how the Bible impacts my life. Surely to maintain a typological view of Adam is not “simply untrue … a lie… a falsehood.” It is, on the contrary, a most vital and humbling call to repentance and faith.
I take now the liberty of congratulating you on your personal interest in coming to understand the way God works and how the Bible functions in his plan and purpose. Not many people take the time to articulate their problems and difficulties with new ways of thinking. It is good that you do so.
That being said, I think we need to recognize that God reveals new things to us from time to time, new insights that require us to rethink and reorient our faith. He gave the Israelites at Sinai an entirely new pattern to control their national life, the Torah. He gave the Jews in Jesus’ day a new covenant which mandated that they regard the previous covenant as outdated and no longer in force. He gave the medieval Christians new insights into the gospel at the time of the Protestant Reformation. It is becoming more and more apparent that God is now giving us new insights into the matters that scientists are discovering about the universe and time and life.
I find that what Moses said to Israel at Sinai is a powerful insight into this method of God. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that have been revealed belong to us and to our children to do all the things of this law.” (DT 29:29) There is always a great deal we do not know, but God requires of us that we go by what we do know, what he has revealed to us. In our day this means what God is revealing to us via the scientific community.
You have profound doubts about the matters relating to the age of the earth and the provenance of humanity. This is not a bad thing in itself; it is a process that the Lord is leading you through. On an ecclesiastical level it seems also that the CRC is at somewhat the same stage, not being yet convinced one way or the other, and hence perpetuating the tradition.
For myself, while I am not a scientist and unable to argue scientific matters, I do think the Lord is calling us to better insights into his world and into the way he has been guiding its history. It took God about seventy years to bring me to a breakthrough, so maybe there is good hope for you as well, and for the denomination we both love! God go with you; he has all the time in the world to teach us what he wants us to know!
Edwin Walhout
Posted in: My Banner Article
It appears to me that this discussion is going nowhere between John and Roger. John appears to be the ultra-conservative and Roger appears to be the ultra-liberal. I find myself in disappointment with both. However, I do recognize that John might well see me as a liberal, and Roger might see me as too conservative. There would be good reason for both opinions.
I look at my stance as one foot in and one foot out. I am, after all, an emeritus minister of the CRC in good and regular standing, and that is important for me. When I function in a somewhat official capacity in that regard, I do try to stay within the Reformed fences; as for example the article in the Banner some time ago. I’m looking over the fence in that article but I haven’t jumped it. That being said, in my private life, in my retirement years, I exercise the freedom of following wherever the Lord leads, even if that should be on the other side of the Reformed fence. Which, I am forthright to say, is where I am in my private theological life.
I hear the Lord calling all of us to new horizons of truth and service, and I hear that message mainly from the scientific advances that are being made in recent times. All truth is God’s truth, however and wherever it may be found. When God calls it is our obligation to listen, to understand, and to obey. John points out that there are numerous unknown quantities in the scientific picture. I suppose that will always be the case. There will always be things we do not understand or know. But God gives us what we need to know in our own times and circumstances. And that is what he is doing now. God is calling us to listen to new insights into his truth, and is summoning us to follow its lead by the indwelling guidance of his Holy Spirit.
So that is why I may well appear to John as a raving liberal. I’m willing and ready to re-examine and redefine our entire theological system, retaining that which is necessary but scuttling what is not necessary. One person cannot do this adequately alone, so I am hoping and expecting that God will raise up better theologians than I to continue this work in the future.
But there is also a sense, and perhaps Roger senses it more than John, that I am trying too hard to hang onto outdated theological positions. For example, I am totally enamored of Genesis One, which I regard as the most important and influential document ever written. So I am doing my best to orient my forays into theology using the basic insights of that document as the pattern. I am discovering that the old horizons of ancient Jewish thought have been compromised to an alarming extent throughout the history of the Christian church, so much so that a great deal of what the ancient church defined as true theology is in fact a mixture of Jewish and pagan Greek philosophy. So I am of the confirmed opinion that we need to go back to the beginnings of a theistic and monotheistic pattern of thought, and to understand the sending of Jesus in that context, without the admixture of subsequent theological definitions from the ancient church.
So, to conclude, I see myself as more conservative than John and more liberal than Roger! Blessings on you both!
Edwin Walhout
Posted in: My Banner Article
It's interesting where this discussion is going. Roger and John going at it together, following up on their own problems and insights.
As I recall, what triggered this exchange was some comments I made about the effect of a developmental process on our theology. We have wandered somewhat from that topic into items that have been debated for years, all the way back to Dort. Concerning Roger's idea that Paul and Jesus contradict each other - I have recently written a commentary on the Gospel of John and on the Book of Romans. I have found no contradiction whatever between the what John says about Jesus and what Paul writes. But now here is something else you might wish to chew on.
THE TRINITY. Ihave examined three distinct doctrines of trinity, that of the Apostles’ Creed, of the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds, and of neo-orthodoxy. There may well be others that have appeared here and there in the history of theology, with which I am not conversant. I have done my best to delineate and distinguish these three, and to push hard for a return to the basic Biblical viewpoint of the Apostles’ Creed.
God the Father is the creator of the heaven and the earth, the entire universe. He is and remains in absolute sovereign control over everything he has created, including not only the vast reaches of space but the ongoing process of human civilization. He therefore has a divine plan and purpose toward which he is guiding all things, and has produced a human race to effectuate that purpose. That human race has emerged slowly out of animal origins and is slowly learning how to live as images of God.
We find ourselves in the twenty-first century at a certain place in that historical development, one which we can easily recognize as a definite improvement over sheer animality but nowhere near the perfection of humanity that God intends. So we need to accept that vision, learn as best we can from what God has been showing us how to live and how to proceed. We must not become mired in the past or in the present, but recognize that we are in process, on a journey, toward a destination, and therefore that we need to be open to the constant nudging and and prodding of God through whatever means he chooses to speak.
Jesus the Son, the second person of the trinity, is and remains the touchstone of our faith. It is he, both in his life and in his teaching, who is the constant reference point of truth and life. He incarnates the absolute best of what God wants from the entire human race. He is the Man who incarnates perfectly what Genesis One pictures first as adam, created to image God in its subjugation of the earth. There is no other such person. Only Jesus, born miraculously of the virgin Mary such that he is not only the Son of God but also the Son of Man, born of a woman. Jesus meets temptation and overcomes it. He understands people who do not know very well what it means to serve the Lord God. He puts himself at their disposal such that he allows them to execute him on the cross. He also puts himself at the disposal of God in heaven such that he trusts the creator to raise him from the dead. Having done all he could in one human life he ascends into the clouds, gone forever, leaving the field to his and God’s Spirit.
The Holy Spirit. So we understand that God the Father is now exercising his divine control and sovereign direction of history by means of what his Son Jesus has done on earth. That is, by means of the gospel and the church of Jesus Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit. What God sent Jesus to accomplish is now being carried on by those who believe in Jesus and who follow him as best they can. It is always God’s purpose and God’s instruction and God’s guidance that is in control, but since the time of Jesus this purpose of God is channeled through what Jesus has done and revealed, and thus by the Holy Spirit working in committed Christian believers.
But it is of paramount importance to keep our understanding of this process in Genesis perspective. That is, of the explanation that humans are to subdue the earth and gain dominion over it in such a way as to image God in that process. We are talking here of human civilization. God’s desire is that we humans create a civilization, all of it, in such a way that the virtues of truth and love and justice and all around goodness characterizes all of our politics, economics, education, health services, business, and everything else that we do collectively. All of us, not just the church, but the entire human race. That’s the work of the gospel, of the church, to bring about that kind of civilization. So that, let us confess, is the work of the Holy Spirit, the third item in the Christian trinity.
Edwin Walhout
Posted in: My Banner Article
John, You ask, “Your perpective on the human race slowly learning to live as images of God.... where do you get that from?” Answer: Genesis 1-3, the rest of the Bible, and history. What Genesis One tells us about the image of God and the cultural mandate means that God intends to have a human race that subdues the earth as his image. Then Genesis Three tells us that God is not getting it from the humans he brought into existence. Then the rest of the Bible tells us what God is doing to bring the human race along, step by step, in the direction of what he wants f rom us. First Abraham taken out of the polytheistic culture of Babylon. Then the nation of Israel to be shaped into a holy nation by the Torah given to Moses at Mount Sinai. Then David and Solomon to typify something of the kingdom of God. Then the Babylonian Captivity to eradicate all vestiges of idolatry. Then Jesus to begin the process of expanding the work of salvation to all nations. And so on till our times when the gospel continues to draw people from all nations into the kingdom of God. Wherever large numbers of people follow the Lord Jesus, there we see significant advances in people working for justice, truth, integrity and all kinds of virtues that image God. The result can be seen by comparing the best of Christian civilization with any and all other civilizations.
John, you cite the imperfections that still plague us, but you should be concentrating on the huge advances we have made, or better, that God has made in the human world, recognizing that the evil that exists is still there for us to overcome by the help of the Spirit of God. But always go back to Genesis One to define the goal toward which God is leading us, and do not belittle the effectiveness of the gospel in history. Consider that it was the gospel that changed the barbarian tribes that overran the Roman Empire from marauding destroyers to the creators of a magnificent new civilization beginning in Europe. Don’t despise the real beginnings and the real progress that God has made in shaping the world as he wishes it to become. God’s work is a work in progress.
Edwin Walhout
Posted in: My Banner Article
John and Roger,
You both are surprised that I think God is succeeding in making the human race better. You point out a long list of evils, seemingly proving that we are getting worse instead of better. May I suggest that you have clearer eyes to see what Satan is doing than what God is doing? The evils you point out highlight the task that remains to be done, but it does nothing to delineate the progress the gospel is making.
Recall that Jesus said, prior to his ascension, that all authority in heaven and on earth belongs now to him. If the world is getting worse instead of better, would this not negate Jesus’ affirmation? We say now that Jesus sits at God’s right hand. What do you think that means? It means that God, who has absolute authority over everything he has created, is now exercising that authority by means of his “right hand man” Jesus, that is, by the gospel preached by the church and effectuated by the Holy Spirit.
Then, when we put all that in the context of Genesis One, image of God and cultural mandate, we see that God is slowly getting us, the human race, to learn how to be the humans God wants us to become. That includes everything we do, not only as individuals but also as nations and as an entire human race. Actually, it is precisely in the effect of the gospel on our cultural institutions that we must learn to see the power of Christ at work, not only in our personal lives. Are the United States and Canada more just societies than ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome? How can you doubt it? That is because the gospel has had enormous effect in transforming our barbarian ancestors in Europe into the constructive nations of the western world. The evils you point out, accordingly, point to the task remaining to be done.
Another item on a somewhat different tack. God is calling us today in the twenty-first century to listen to what he is saying via the scientific community. John, you are concerned with the gaps in scientific knowledge, rightly perhaps, but we need to listen when such matters as the age of the universe, the construction of the planets, the appearance of life, the provenance of the human race, and other dramatic breakthroughs such as the genome list – when these things are demonstrated to be true. I personally believe we need to adopt an entirely different paradigm around which to reconstruct our theology, a paradigm of developmentalism. You will both recognize that if we do that, then the notion of God guiding us into a better and better life by means of the gospel makes a lot more sense.
Edwin Walhout
Posted in: My Banner Article
John, you want me to respond. OK.
Item # 1. 1) The author </em>(Walhout<em>) frames the whole thing in a reading of history that is simply inaccurate. Purgatory, indulgences, relics, etc. did not form the "backbone of Christianity" 500 years ago. When these became too important, the Reformation happened. To put creation, sin and salvation (think Apostles Creed) on par with these is simply wrong.
Response. I believe in creation, sin and salvation. I also believe in the Apostles’ Creed. I would not put the items mentioned “on a par with” more important doctrines. I am simply affirming that the time has come when God is asking us to re-examine our traditional formulations in the light of scientific discoveries, and if found defective, to improve them. Who knows, it may even result in another upheaval the size of the Reformation?
Item # 2. 2) Apart from the concluding blurb from a synodical report, Walhout fails to mention anything about how the church has already been wrestling with these issues for the past 150 years. This includes the various ways Genesis 1 has been interpreted well before Darwin came along, the numerous scholars who have described Adam and Eve as the representative head of the human race, and the work of scholars today in wrestling with these questions (i.e. books and articles by the Haarsmas at Calvin College).
Response. It is because I have read these and similar books and articles that I have come to the conclusions I have. There isn’t room in one Banner article to summarize all that; I articulated the insights that such documents have suggested to me.
Item # 3. 3) This article lacks helpful distinctions, such as the difference between evolution and naturalism,
which help us ask and answer the important questions.
Response. What one person considers “the important questions” will probably vary from person to person. I addressed those that were important to me, and in my judgment important for the church as a whole to address. To expose what the article does not do may help some, but it would be much more helpful to address the items it does propose (as in the next item #4).
Item # 4. 4) He does suggest evolutionary theory calls for a reworking of doctrines like creation, sin and salvation. About sin, he says, "We will have to find a much better way of understanding what sin is, where it comes from, and what its consequences are. Theologians will have to find a new way of articulating a truly biblical doctrine of sin and what effect it has on us." In other words, evolutionary theory will enable theologians to be true to the Bible in our theological articulations. The implication being that now we will really understand the Bible. I think the problems in this are obvious. I am a bit floored that anyone in this forum might suggest that sin and salvaiton are not core doctrines of the Christian faith.
Response. I did not suggest that sin and salvation are not core doctrines of the Christian faith. They are. I simply suggested that we may need to find a better way of understanding them. The paradigm of developmentalism will help us to do that.
Item # 5. 5) The author makes a prediction about the future, a prophetic claim, if you will. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that we humans with our best sciences cannot predict the future. Unless Walhout
received this from God himself (including being from Scripture), he should not put this forward as something that will inevitably happen. Being a false prophet is a serious matter in the Bible."
Response. What prediction is he talking about? That people a millennium from now might look back on our times with amazement? If so, I do plead guilty. It’s interesting that he says history teaches us we cannot predict the future, but in this case I am pleading the actual precedent of history, the exact opposite of what my critic suggests! From where did I receive this? Where does anyone receive truth from? All truth is from God. So, in so far as my article is truthful, of course it comes from God. I think he misread the article if he says that I am predicting that it “will inevitably happen.” It appears to me that it will happen, but this is a far cry from inevitability. And his last comment. Indeed it is a serious matter to be a false prophet. However, perhaps my critic should raise a mirror. What if it turns out I am right and he is wrong? Would that make him the false prophet?
Edwin Walhout
Posted in: Science and Faith on Campus and in the Church
There is something to be said for the opinion that "The issue is truth vs falsehood, good vs evil." Centuries ago they were asking, Is it true or false that the earth is spherical? Is it true or false that the earth revolves around the sun? Today we are asking, Is it true or false that the universe is 15 billion years old? Is it true or false that the human race can be traced back about 160,000 years to a single female living in a larger clan? Is it true or false that humans have animal ancestors?
If the answer to these questions is Yes, then there will have to be a lot of rethinking of our theology and of our way of understanding Genesis.