Whoa.We've been duped? Warfield not an evolutionist?

[lynnie]

I found this article to be totally fascinating. All this time I thought the theistics claiming him as their own were correct. (He isn't exactly what I'd call a classic creationist, but neither can today's theistic evolutionists claim his as their mentor if this author is correct.)

BB Warfield has a reputation as a truly brilliant and pious Reformed theologian, fully committed to inerrancy. It seems like so many Christian evolutionists hold him up as the theological standard for their position. So maybe they are wrong in using him to justify their evolutionary beliefs?

Wow. I find this soooooo interesting. It just thrills me to think I was wrong about good old brother BB.

Themelios | Issue 35-2

"This much is clear: although at times speaking with allowance of the possibility of evolution (carefully defined), Warfield never expressly affirmed it. Rather, he affirmed that he had rejected it sometime about age thirty and that he remained unconvinced. The Livingstone-Noll thesis does not reflect the evidence, and the prevailing understanding of Warfield as an evolutionist must be rejected."

 

[Philip]

On the other hand, it is also clear that Warfield was not a six-day creationist either.

 

[py3ak]

I do think Warfield has often been claimed for far more than he would have stood for if he were around to speak up for himself. Consider this, from his review of James Orr's God's Image in Man.

Some striking minor points in Dr. Orr’s arguments should also be mentioned. Among
these is his suggestion (p. 152) of the impossibility of disparate development of mind
and body, with the inference he draws from it that, therefore, it can scarcely be
credited that the body of man was formed by the accumulation of insensible
variations from a brutish original, and the soul made all at once by a divine fiat for the
completed man. Body and mind must go together: and a great brain with a little mind
is just as unthinkable as a little brain with a great mind. The argument does not seem
to be available, however, as against a theory of evolution per saltum. If under the
directing hand of God a human body is formed at a leap by propagation from brutish
parents, it would be quite consonant with the fitness of things that it should be
provided by His creative energy with a truly human soul. And this leads us to say that
the precise point in the question of evolution is, after all, not whether the new forms
proceed from older ones, whether by or without the directing hand of God; but
whether the forces concerned in the production of the new forms are all intrinsic in
the evolving stuff. Man may “breed” many varieties of pigeons, fowls, sheep; and the
varieties he “breeds” may often come per saltum. But they all find their account in
the forces operating in the materials dealt with: his directing hand cannot be traced in
the chain of efficient causes, all of which are discoverable in the evolving stuff.
Accordingly, under man’s hand we can have nothing but an “evolution,” an unrolling
— a drawing out into new forms of what was potentially present in the evolving
material from the beginning. If this were all that God does, there would be no
“creation” in the ease whatever. We do not quite understand, therefore, Dr. Orr’s
remark on p. 87, to the effect that “evolution” and “special creation” are not mutually
exclusive, whether as terms or as things. Surely “evolution” means just
“modification”; and “creation” just “origination”: and surely “modification” and
“origination” are ultimate conceptions and mutually exclude one the other. You
cannot “originate” by “modifying”; you cannot “modify” by “originating.” Whatever
comes by “evolution” that certainly cannot arise by “creation”; and whatever is
“created” certainly is not “evolved.” The old definition of “creation” as the making of
something partita ex nihilo, partita ex materia naturaliter inhabili — ex materia
inhabili supra naturae vires aliquid producere, — is certainly the sound one.
Unless the thing produced is above what the powers intrinsic in the evolving stuff are
capable of producing (under whatever divine guidance), the product is not a product
of “creation” but of “providence.” And “providence” can never do the work of
“creation.” Dr. Orr fully understands this and argues therefore that the apparition of
man implies the intrusion of a new cause, that it is a creation, strictly so called: and
this is what makes the remark on p. 87 inexplicable. Let man have arisen through the
divine guidance of the evolutionary process, there is no creative act of God, but only
a providential activity of God, concerned in his production, unless there has been
intruded into the process the action of a cause not intrinsic in the evolving stuff,
causing the complex product to be something more than can find its account in the
intrinsic forces, however divinely manipulated. Evolution can never, under any
circumstances, issue in a product which is specifically new: “modification” is the
utmost that it can achieve — “origination” is beyond its tether.

 

[Calvinus]

I do think Warfield has often been claimed for far more than he would have stood for if he were around to speak up for himself. Consider this, from his review of James Orr's God's Image in Man.

Some striking minor points in Dr. Orr’s arguments should also be mentioned. Among
these is his suggestion (p. 152) of the impossibility of disparate development of mind
and body, with the inference he draws from it that, therefore, it can scarcely be
credited that the body of man was formed by the accumulation of insensible
variations from a brutish original, and the soul made all at once by a divine fiat for the
completed man. Body and mind must go together: and a great brain with a little mind
is just as unthinkable as a little brain with a great mind. The argument does not seem
to be available, however, as against a theory of evolution per saltum. If under the
directing hand of God a human body is formed at a leap by propagation from brutish
parents, it would be quite consonant with the fitness of things that it should be
provided by His creative energy with a truly human soul. And this leads us to say that
the precise point in the question of evolution is, after all, not whether the new forms
proceed from older ones, whether by or without the directing hand of God; but
whether the forces concerned in the production of the new forms are all intrinsic in
the evolving stuff. Man may “breed” many varieties of pigeons, fowls, sheep; and the
varieties he “breeds” may often come per saltum. But they all find their account in
the forces operating in the materials dealt with: his directing hand cannot be traced in
the chain of efficient causes, all of which are discoverable in the evolving stuff.
Accordingly, under man’s hand we can have nothing but an “evolution,” an unrolling
— a drawing out into new forms of what was potentially present in the evolving
material from the beginning. If this were all that God does, there would be no
“creation” in the ease whatever. We do not quite understand, therefore, Dr. Orr’s
remark on p. 87, to the effect that “evolution” and “special creation” are not mutually
exclusive, whether as terms or as things. Surely “evolution” means just
“modification”; and “creation” just “origination”: and surely “modification” and
“origination” are ultimate conceptions and mutually exclude one the other. You
cannot “originate” by “modifying”; you cannot “modify” by “originating.” Whatever
comes by “evolution” that certainly cannot arise by “creation”; and whatever is
“created” certainly is not “evolved.” The old definition of “creation” as the making of
something partita ex nihilo, partita ex materia naturaliter inhabili — ex materia
inhabili supra naturae vires aliquid producere, — is certainly the sound one.
Unless the thing produced is above what the powers intrinsic in the evolving stuff are
capable of producing (under whatever divine guidance), the product is not a product
of “creation” but of “providence.” And “providence” can never do the work of
“creation.” Dr. Orr fully understands this and argues therefore that the apparition of
man implies the intrusion of a new cause, that it is a creation, strictly so called: and
this is what makes the remark on p. 87 inexplicable. Let man have arisen through the
divine guidance of the evolutionary process, there is no creative act of God, but only
a providential activity of God, concerned in his production, unless there has been
intruded into the process the action of a cause not intrinsic in the evolving stuff,
causing the complex product to be something more than can find its account in the
intrinsic forces, however divinely manipulated. Evolution can never, under any
circumstances, issue in a product which is specifically new: “modification” is the
utmost that it can achieve — “origination” is beyond its tether.

That's an excellent quote especially the concluding statement: Evolution can never, under any
circumstances, issue in a product which is specifically new: “modification” is the
utmost that it can achieve — “origination” is beyond its tether

 

[lynnie]

nice quote Ruben, thanks.

 

[TimV]

Someone who wrote that can't believe in theistic evolution. He took away all ambiguity in that piece.

 

[JennyG]

Who knew? I'm thrilled too!
It always grieved me that such a fine thinker and great warrior could be wrong on such a point- it wasn't surprising the theistics swore by him.
But now! Thanks, Lynnie and Ruben

 

[Steve Curtis]

Yes, thanks for the quotes

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Who cares what Warfield thought? Everyone knows that discipline in the Presbyterian Church was nonexistent during his time. What do the Scriptures teach? What do the Standards say?

 

[Whitefield]

Who cares what Warfield thought? Everyone knows that discipline in the Presbyterian Church was nonexistent during his time. What do the Scriptures teach? What do the Standards say?

I care.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Who cares what Warfield thought? Everyone knows that discipline in the Presbyterian Church was nonexistent during his time. What do the Scriptures teach? What do the Standards say?

In the main I am inclined to agree with you. However, human nature, as it is, seeks to find "allies" for certain views.

If I had a nickel for every time someone says: "But if you say that doctrine X is unconfessional and should not be tolerated then this would mean that {insert theological hero here} would be considered unconfessional."

There are those who have a "Pimp my Ride" form of Reformed Theology where they pick a bit of Edwards here and a little Calvin over here with Warfield highlights and then become agitated when someone points out that the collected writings of any individual theologian does not the Reformed Church make.

In our own day there are "flagship Churches" for certain denominations where some of the men have very large ministries with large followings throughout the denomination and beyond. The same kind of {insert theological hero to determine orthodoxy} methodology is seen as normative by many today and those that even gently admonish caution about ideas expoused are viewed as destroying unity.

Whether or not I would ever appeal to a "theology of my favorite giant" defense for a doctrine, I find it helpful to learn this about Warfield as I was victim of the common myth that he was an Evolutionist. It is, at least, not a haven for those who would hide behind his skirts for validity of their views.

 

[Philip]

Who cares what Warfield thought? Everyone knows that discipline in the Presbyterian Church was nonexistent during his time. What do the Scriptures teach? What do the Standards say?

Given that he was the foremost defender of reformed orthodoxy of the time, I would think we should care. Remember: semper reformanda.

 

[MW]

Who cares what Warfield thought? Everyone knows that discipline in the Presbyterian Church was nonexistent during his time. What do the Scriptures teach? What do the Standards say?

Given that he was the foremost defender of reformed orthodoxy of the time, I would think we should care. Remember: semper reformanda.

I fully support you in the first part of your statement. We should care, if for no other reason then at least because of the influence Warfield generally has on theological students in the reformed tradition. He sets forth a faithful model for bringing our personal convictions into the broader arena of theological discussion. But I cannot support the idea that a commitment to "semper reformanda" has anything to do with caring for the opinions of a single individual on the subject of evolution. That term is not a license for engaging in idiosyncratic speculations on a philosophy which is still in process of proving itself. It stands for the work of the confessing church, not as it adjusts its beliefs to meet the spirit of the age, but as it contends for the continued relevance of Christian truth for all time.

 

[py3ak]

For those who would like to read a little more by Warfield, let me suggest the following (note that articles can often be found online, even if the complete work in which they were published first or later collected is not available online):

Selected Shorter Writings, v.2

"Christian Evidences and Recent Criticism"
"Darwin's Arguments Against Christianity"
"Evading the Supernatural"​

Critical Reviews (Works, v.10)

"Review of GOD’S IMAGE IN MAN, AND ITS DEFACEMENT, IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN DENIALS"
"Review of DARWINISM TODAY"
"Review of NATURALISM AND RELIGION"
"Review of THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF MAN"
"Review of Jesus"​

I have also heard that in some unpublished notes on systematic theology Warfield asserts that there is no proof of progressive stages in man, but that God out of nothing created man in His own image. I would imagine that someone close to Princeton could check that out.

 

[Philip]

But I cannot support the idea that a commitment to "semper reformanda" has anything to do with caring for the opinions of a single individual on the subject of evolution. That term is not a license for engaging in idiosyncratic speculations on a philosophy which is still in process of proving itself. It stands for the work of the confessing church, not as it adjusts its beliefs to meet the spirit of the age, but as it contends for the continued relevance of Christian truth for all time.

That was a bit of a non sequitor on my part, wasn't it? Apologies.

 

[Theoretical]

I found this article to be totally fascinating. All this time I thought the theistics claiming him as their own were correct. (He isn't exactly what I'd call a classic creationist, but neither can today's theistic evolutionists claim his as their mentor if this author is correct.)

BB Warfield has a reputation as a truly brilliant and pious Reformed theologian, fully committed to inerrancy. It seems like so many Christian evolutionists hold him up as the theological standard for their position. So maybe they are wrong in using him to justify their evolutionary beliefs?

Wow. I find this soooooo interesting. It just thrills me to think I was wrong about good old brother BB.

Themelios | Issue 35-2

"This much is clear: although at times speaking with allowance of the possibility of evolution (carefully defined), Warfield never expressly affirmed it. Rather, he affirmed that he had rejected it sometime about age thirty and that he remained unconvinced. The Livingstone-Noll thesis does not reflect the evidence, and the prevailing understanding of Warfield as an evolutionist must be rejected."

That's some excellent work and devastates the ability to use Warfield as a shield. I also like how it showed and discussed Warfield as a scholar and contemplatively thinking through the various ideas of his day, evaluating what can and what cannot be reconciled with Christianity. It shows an admirable deliberateness, dilligence, and caution on his part. It's easy to simply reflexively attack something new because its new. His critique and opposition to evolution is markedly principled and thoughtful, based on this article.

 

[jwright82]

Yeah I agree with Rich that just because you can quote one theological hero that does not make a view Reformed. You at least need some history to it in order for it to be considered possibly Reformed? I wonder what though he said that gave such an impression as that? Did he agree with certian elements of evolution and not others and certian heavly fundamentalsits thought any cencession was complete surrender? I wonder does anyone have any quotes handy to show what people are refering to when they say that he was an evolutionist? I always am cautious in calling someone an evolutionist for this reason, agreeing with say microevolution is practically viewed by some as accepting all of evolution, two different things.