Theistic Evolution, Common Grace, and Special Revelation

The late Dr. Gordon H. Clark pointed out that science is based on unproven axioms.  Inductive logic can never prove universals.  Someone at the Aquila Report posted this interesting article:

Moving on from what Scripture teaches regarding creation, Pastor Otis briefly discusses the “conflict” between science and faith:

[T]he problem with Christianity and evolution, including theistic evolution, is that we do not have a clash between faith and science but a clash of faith versus faith, that is, we have a clash of worldviews (34). 

From:  Theistic Evolution:  A Sinful Compromise


See also:  Science and Truth, by Dr. Gordon H. Clark

A closer examination of the logic of verification should be made. In the example above, the first veterinarian probably argued: If bacteria cause milk fever, Lugol solution will cure; the disinfectant does cure it; therefore I have verified the hypothesis that bacteria cause milk fever. This argument, as would be explained in a course of deductive logic, is a fallacy. Its invalidity may perhaps be more clearly seen in an artificial example: If a student doggedly works through Plato’s Republic in Greek, he will know the Greek language; this student knows Greek; therefore he has read Plato’s Republic. This is the fallacy of asserting the consequent, and it is invalid whenever used. But it is precisely this fallacy that is used in every case of scientific verification. If the law of gravitation is true, a freely falling body will have a constant acceleration, and the eclipse will begin at 2:58:03p.m.; but freely falling bodies do have a constant acceleration and the eclipse did begin at 2:58:03 p.m.; therefore the law of gravitation is true. Or, if the periodic table of atomic weights is true, a new element of such and such a weight must exist; this new element has now been discovered; therefore the period table is verified. And, if I eat roast turkey and plum pudding, I lose my appetite; I have lost my appetite; therefore, we had roast turkey for dinner. All these arguments are equally invalid. But sometimes there is an adverse reaction if it is claimed that verification never proves the truth of a scientific law. Is it worse to “attack” science, or to “murder” logic?  Gordon H. Clark, Ibid.

2010: On Theistic Evolution and Professor Waltke’s Resignation (updated) – Justin Taylor

Dr. Bruce Walke seems to place general revelation or natural revelation on the same level or even higher than special revelation:

On March 24 Biologos posted one of the videos, where Dr. Waltke said, “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. . . . To deny the reality would be to deny the truth of God in the world and would be to deny truth. So I think it would be our spiritual death if we stopped loving God with all of our minds and thinking about it, I think it’s our spiritual death."  On Theistic Evolution and Professor Waltke’s Resignation (updated) – Justin Taylor

This is why Dr. Gordon H. Clark was the only true presuppositionalist.  The majority of neo-Calvinists and neo-Evangelicals think they have to compromise the Word of God in some way in order to accommodate to the philosophies of this world.  If Scripture is not the final authority or the very words of God, then, of course, doubt sets in and theologians think they must somehow agree with the so-called "science" of evolution.

Charlie

Mike Horton on the "Myth" of the Inspired Bible

The following is a quote that shows how far the Van Tilian theology of the neo-Calvinists is willing to go in compromising with postmodernism and rejecting the special revelation of the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture.  Mike Horton states plainly that he does not believe the Bible is literally true but is instead "inspired myth", which is nothing more than neo-orthodoxy restated:

We do not have to say that Christianity is a metanarrative to affirm that it is true.  C. S. Lewis pointed out that Christianity is the true myth--the myth that actually became fact.  "It happens--at a particular, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences.  We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate.  By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth." 7  In other words, it is still a story, even though it is true.  Not even the resurrection is a metanarrative; its meaning cannot be read off of the surface of historical events but is defined by its intratextual context as part of an unfolding plot.  Mike Horton.  The Christian Faith:  A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way.  (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2011).  Page 18.

In other words, for Horton the Bible is not necessarily narrative history.  It is an inspired myth that happens to be "true", whatever that means.  Since for Horton the Scriptures are at no single point the same knowledge God and man knows on man's level, then it follows that Scripture is not really God's revelation since God cannot possibly reveal anything to man on his level "at any single point."  The Bible is not really God's words after all, according to Horton.  This is the legacy of Cornelius Van Til:  skepticism pretending to believe.  And inspired "myth" is still a "myth" or a "story" and not the literal truth in the very inspired words of God Himself--words spoken through the prophets and the apostles.

Addendum:  It looks like Mike Horton is now promoting evolution as a viable option for Christians on The White Horse Inn.  Why am I not surprised?  See: Out of the Horse's Mouth: Myths about Christianity:  Anglicans Ablaze

Michael Heisner Redefines Inspiration and Inerrancy to Allow for Theistic Evolution

If this Vimeo video is not visible, click here to view it at the Vimeo site: Theistic Evolution and Michael Heisner and Bruce Waltke.

Biologos contributors to present case against young earth creationism at PCA’s 40th GA « Johannes Weslianus

It is a short step from theistic evolution to neo-orthodoxy.

Biologos contributors to present case against young earth creationism at PCA’s 40th GA « Johannes Weslianus