Bruce Waltke on ABC News

ABC News reported on the situation with Bruce Waltke. Peter Enns, Randall Balmer, and Ken Ham are interviewed for the report.

25 Responses to Bruce Waltke on ABC News

  1. John Holmberg April 17, 2010 at 5:43 pm #


    I’m curious to hear your take on this. Do we have commentary coming any time soon?

  2. mike April 17, 2010 at 6:36 pm #

    just curious, do you have an opinion on his being asked to resign? like i said, just curious.

  3. David Vinzant April 17, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    Kudos to Dr. Waltke for his intellectual integrity. The only real surprise is that he and other moderates are surprised at what happened to him.

  4. Darius T April 17, 2010 at 8:26 pm #

    Mike, he wasn’t asked to resigned (at least, according to everything I’ve read). He resigned and originally that was rejected.

  5. Donald Johnson April 17, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    Waltke is one of my heros in this area.

  6. Sue April 18, 2010 at 1:50 am #

    Dr. Waltke has been through this before. He has felt very deeply the statement against the TNIV.

  7. Micah April 18, 2010 at 12:45 pm #

    The article listed below certainly makes it sound like Waltke lost his job b/c of his belief. Here’s the pertinent quote from the article:

    “Michael Milton, president of the seminary’s Charlotte campus and interim president of its Orlando campus, where Waltke taught, confirmed that the scholar had lost his job over the video. Milton said that Waltke would “undoubtedly” be considered one of the world’s great Christian scholars of the Old Testament and that he was “much beloved here,” with his departure causing “heartache.” But he said that there was no choice.”

  8. Darius T April 18, 2010 at 2:48 pm #

    His belief in evolution was NOT why he lost his job. That’s been known for years. Few people have a problem with him deciding that evolution is the best explanation. It was him saying that anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution is a “spiritually dead” Christian that lost him his job… and deservedly so.

  9. Scott April 18, 2010 at 3:00 pm #

    Where did he use the terms “spiritually dead”? I’ve yet to hear that coming from him.

  10. Darius T April 18, 2010 at 10:36 pm #

    Well, if the video was still available, you could see it for yourself. I saw the video before it was taken down, and he said that Christians who didn’t acknowledge that evolution was fact were in danger of becoming “spiritually dead.” That’s a direct quote. Pretty astounding.

    It wasn’t his pro-evolutionary views that got him in trouble, those were well-known and hardly a big deal considering all of the evangelicals who hold similar views. It was calling all Christians who don’t believe in evolution basically NOT true Christians which got people a bit hot under the collar, and rightly so.

    Doug Wilson posted on this before it all blew up, and he called Waltke out for it:

    I wish the original video was still available… Waltke was a bit of a coward to have it taken down. It lets him off the hook and makes it seem like he came under fire for supporting evolution when everyone knows that’s not why he got flak.

  11. Scott April 18, 2010 at 11:04 pm #


    I hope you didn’t take that last post as a “call out.” I didn’t get to see the video, so I didn’t hear the comment.

    You know, I wonder if that whole video wasn’t the case of an otherwise gracious and brilliant man just “messing up.” Maybe he had a bad day, maybe he just got tangled up. I don’t know. But since the incident occurred he’s been nothing short of gracious and conciliatory.

  12. John Holmberg April 19, 2010 at 1:26 am #


    I don’t think he used the term “spiritually dead.” What I believe you’re referring to is him saying we risk becoming a “cult” if we deny the evidence at hand and persist in a narrow belief that has been proven false. He was mainly referring to our anti-intellectual attitude to science and how we need to use all things at our disposal to seek truth. He wasn’t saying that evangelicals are a cult, but that if we ignore the evidence we risk becoming one.

    Regardless, his statements were taken the wrong way and perhaps a bit hyperbolic. One man’s loss is another man’s treasure. He’s still a good scholar and I hate to see such negative criticism directed at the church again over peripheral issues such as this. It’s tragic how all of this has gone down.

  13. Darius T April 19, 2010 at 7:47 am #

    Yeah, I think he might have been sort of “trapped” into saying what he did by BioLogos, since they are strongly anti-creation in their rhetoric. Waltke should have been chastised… it’s hard to know whether or not he should have lost his job since he resigned.

  14. Donald Johnson April 19, 2010 at 9:55 am #

    On Creation, I think everyone should read John Walton’s recent “The Lost World of Genesis 1” before they decide how to interpret it, he has some new insights from a lifelong study of ANE culture, ones that do not show up on lists of how some interpret it.

    My take is that the Bible teaches that God created everything we see and that this happened AT LEAST 6,000 years ago, so a believer should accept those 2 things. Some think it WAS about 6,0000 years ago and I can accept them as a believer, but it seems clear to me they do not accept the evidence and arguments of science. I reject scientism, but not science.

  15. Peter Eddy April 19, 2010 at 10:50 am #

    Did anyone notice that the anchor in the clip said, “Is life as we know it a result of creationism or evolution, the theory that all species have evolved from a common ancestor?”

    No one believe that a theory itself does anything. I wonder whether this was a slip, or due to ignorance.

  16. Micah April 19, 2010 at 11:35 am #

    Darius – Maybe i’m mis-reading the tone of your post but when you say BioLogos ‘trapped’ Waltke and speak of their anti-creation ‘rhetoric’, it sounds that you believe that this organization’s motives are questionable??

    I wouldn’t say that they are ‘anti-creation’…but ‘anti-creationism’. They believe that God created…they just have different thoughts perhaps than your or others as to how this occured.

  17. Derek April 19, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    Donald Johnson,
    There is one very easy answer to your question about the age of the earth – God created Adam as an adult male, so he was at least “18 years old” on his first day on earth. Creationists can accept this and they can also accept that God could have created an earth that had age as well.

  18. Donald Johnson April 19, 2010 at 2:23 pm #


    It is possible but not required to understand Genesis in that way.

  19. Derek April 19, 2010 at 3:10 pm #

    Donald Johnson,
    Maybe so, but your comments did not acknowledge the reality that many young earth creationists do in fact accept that God most probably did create an earth that was “aged”, just as he created a man who was “aged”.

  20. Donald Johnson April 19, 2010 at 3:25 pm #


    I have heard YEC use “appearance of age” arguments, including my sis. But I have not heard them use “aged” arguments. In any case, I was not trying to exclude YEC, I was trying to include them as believers.

  21. Derek April 19, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    Donald, My terminology may not be exactly correct, but I think the distinction between “aged” and “appearance in age” is one of academics, because the way age and time worked before the fall is not likely to be the same as how it works post-fall.

  22. Donald Johnson April 19, 2010 at 5:11 pm #

    I do not see any indication that time changed or even that it can change. I do not read Gen 1-5 as science, I try to read them as 3 origins stories read to ANE shepherds, farmers, etc.

  23. Darius T April 19, 2010 at 7:22 pm #

    Micah, Biologos openly mocks anyone who believes in intelligent design (read their response(s) to Waltke’s situation). As such, I don’t consider them useful in the origins debate and yes, their motives are highly questionable. It’s amazing that we’ve reached a point where the pendulum has swung so far that it is now easier to find Christians who question the faith of their brothers if they do NOT believe in evolution than the opposite.

  24. Scott April 19, 2010 at 7:56 pm #

    I’ve never encountered any “mocking” on Biologos. You may disagree with their positions, but I don’t think their motives are inherently bad.

  25. Donald Johnson April 19, 2010 at 9:01 pm #

    From Biologos website:

    “Dr. Waltke was also concerned that some might construe that he is not sufficiently supportive of those who think differently than he does on issues such as the age of the earth and evolution. He wanted to make it clear that this is not the case. As many of our readers know, we at BioLogos attest that the Young Earth position is not scientifically or theologically credible, and that the Intelligent Design movement has a reached a dead end. Nonetheless, we respect Dr. Waltke’s desire to make it clear that he thinks these views may be credible.”

    I do not see this as mocking of ID, altho it is repudiating.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes