Dr. Jefrey Breshears
Reasons To Believe
In
recent years, the interpretation of theologian B. B. Warfield as a
theistic evolutionist has gained popularity—but there is good
justification for questioning this assertion. In this two-part article
series, I will explore the compelling reasons to doubt the validity of
this view of Warfield.
****
Part 1
In the ongoing controversy
over special creation and theistic evolution (TE), advocates of TE
often cite the great theologian B. B. Warfield, principal of Princeton
Theological Seminary (1887–1902), as an example of a thoroughly orthodox
biblical scholar who believed God used the evolutionary process to
accomplish His creative purpose. This view is notably promoted in B. B.
Warfield: Evolution, Science, and Scripture, in which the book’s
editors, Mark Noll and David Livingstone, assert:1
One of the best-kept
secrets in American intellectual history is that B. B. Warfield, the
foremost defender of the theologically conservative doctrine of the
inerrancy of the Bible, was also an evolutionist.
Yet there are reasons to
believe this characterization of Warfield is inaccurate. In part 1 of
this series, I will set the stage for Warfield’s view with a look at the
budding naturalism of the nineteenth century that clashed with the
young-earth creationist perspective, thus leading to difficulties
between the religious and scientific communities.
Birth of the Genesis Creation Dates
Creation date calculations by seventeenth-century scholars
Bishop James Ussher and John Lightfoot
convince many Christians that God created the universe, Earth, and life
less than 6,000 years ago. Ussher and Lightfoot came to this conclusion
based on two assumptions: (1) there are no gaps in the biblical
genealogies of Genesis, Exodus, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles,
and (2) the six “days” (Hebrew: yôm) of creation were consecutive
24-hour periods. After engaging in some competitive scholarship with
Lightfoot over a few years, Ussher deduced that the first day of
creation began on October 23, 4004 BC. Such was his influence that
beginning in the early 1700s many editions of the King James Bible
incorporated Ussher’s chronology into their marginal annotations and
cross-references. In 1909, the Scofield Reference Bible—widely popular
among fundamentalists and evangelicals throughout much of the twentieth
century—also included the Ussher chronology.
Although many biblical
scholars concurred with Ussher, others found his calculations to be
based on a faulty premise, namely, that an accurate historical
chronology could be constructed based on biblical genealogies. Warfield
was among those who had serious doubts about Ussher’s work. In a 1911
essay entitled “On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race,” Warfield
commented that “it is precarious in the highest degree to draw
chronological inferences from [the biblical] genealogical tables.”
New Challenges to Genesis
At the beginning of the
nineteenth century, naturalists began asserting that new discoveries in
astronomy and geology posed serious challenges to the Genesis creation
account’s credibility and historicity. Within a generation, traditional
Christians found themselves confronted by three challenges. First, in
the realm of astronomy, some scientists replaced the instantaneous
creation of the solar system with the
nebular hypothesis, a view first set forth centuries earlier by Swedish philosopher of science
Emanuel Swedenborg and later popularized in the works of Immanuel Kant and Pierre-Simon Laplace.
Second, in the field of
geology, Scottish physician and naturalist James Hutton and others began
to make the case that Earth was millions of years old rather than a few
thousand. In 1862, renowned Scottish physicist William Thomson (later
Lord Kelvin) calculated the age of Earth at 20–40 million years; soon
many naturalists argued that life on Earth, including human life, had
existed far longer than the 6,000 years that the biblical genealogies
supposedly indicated. Third—and perhaps most alarming—was the challenge
posed by Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which holds that all
life-forms, including human beings, evolved over eons of time via the
aegis of common descent and natural selection.
By the late 1800s, many
Christians conceded that the Bible allowed for an ancient universe, an
ancient Earth, and even pre-Edenic life—a notable change from the
consensus opinion only a generation or two earlier. But conceding
Darwinian evolution was quite another thing. So while most naturalists,
including many professing Christians, converted from belief in special
creation to evolution, others remained unconvinced.
Charles Hodge’s Skepticism
Charles Hodge,
a distinguished theologian and the principal of Princeton Theological
Seminary (PTS) from 1851–1878, was skeptical of evolution for several
reasons. For one, he was concerned that a new elite class of “scientific
men” was unfairly stigmatizing Bible-believing Christians as
“narrow-minded, bigots, old women, Bible worshippers, etc.”
2
He resented the new status and influence these scientists held in
society at the expense of Bible scholars, theologians, and ministers. In
that context, he predicted that Christianity was in a “fight for its
life” against these high priests of naturalism who “not only speculate,
but dogmatize, on the highest questions of philosophy, morality, and
religion” while “assiduously poisoning the fountains of religion,
morality, and social order.”
3 But Hodge’s objections to
Darwinism extended well beyond the bounds of professional turf-guarding.
As a rigorous logician, he was adamant that we distinguish between
facts that are absolutely true and theories based on conjecture, a
principle that the scientific elite of Hodge’s day violated with
impunity.
In his
Systematic Theology,
Hodge took exception to Darwinism on several counts, both theological
and philosophical, not the least being that it is an improvable
hypothesis. He objected to the theory’s stance against
teleology
(the philosophical view that final causes exist in nature) and to what
he regarded as the impossibility of matter doing the work of a mind and
of design being accomplished “without any designer.”
4 Because
Darwin claimed that God had not intervened in the universe since the
creation of “living germ(s),” Hodge viewed his system as “tantamount to
atheism” and, therefore, absurd.
5
Hodge’s subsequent book What Is Darwinism?
included an incisive and well-reasoned critique of evolutionary theory,
particularly the antisupernaturalism inherent in the system. Hodge
leveled four charges:
- Darwinism is simply unbelievable;
- “There is no pretence [sic] that the theory can be proved”;6
- Darwinism is antiteleological, which Hodge regarded as his “grand and fatal objection to Darwinism”;7 and
- There is no evidence for trans-species evolution.
In summary, Hodge wrote,
“The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the denial of design in
nature is virtually the denial of God….We have thus arrived at the
answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism.”8
His critique of Darwinism
aside, Hodge was no young-earth creationist; that is, he did not accept
Ussher’s calculations for the date of creation. He readily accepted the
antiquity of the planet, believed in the day-age view of creation
(sometimes called old-earth creationism), and taught that there were
gaps in the Genesis genealogical tables. Furthermore, he conceded that,
at least in theory, theistic evolution might be conceived in a way that
was compatible with divine design.
Hodge also held that the
biblical writers wrote under supernatural inspiration when addressing
issues related to faith and practice, but they “stood on the same level
with their contemporaries” when it came to science, history, and
philosophy.9 Subsequent inerrantists, such as Warfield, disagreed with this assessment of Scripture.
Endnotes:
- See Mark A. Noll and David N. Livingstone, introduction to B. B. Warfield, Evolution, Science, and Scripture; Selected Writings, eds. Mark A. Noll and David N. Livingstone (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000); and David N. Livingstone and Mark A. Noll, “B. B. Warfield (1851–1921): A Biblical Inerrantist as Evolutionist,” Journal of Presbyterian History 80 (Fall 2002): 153–71.
- See Charles Hodge, What Is Darwinism? (1874; Project Gutenberg, 2006), 135, www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-h/19192-h.htm.
- Ibid., 137, 139, 142.
- Charles Hodge, quoted in
Matthew Ropp, “Charles Hodge and His Objection to Darwinism: The
Exclusion of Intelligent Design; A Case Study of American Anti-Darwinism
in the Late 1800’s” (paper, Fuller Theological Seminary, School of
Theology, 1997), www.theropps.com/papers/Winter1997/CharlesHodge.htm.
- Ibid.
- Hodge, What Is Darwinism?, 144, www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-h/19192-h.htm.
- Ibid., 169.
- Ibid., 173.
- Charles Hodge, quoted in Ronald Numbers, The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, exp. ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 37.
Part 2
B. B. Warfield
Hodge’s successor at
Princeton Theological Seminary, Benjamin B. Warfield (1887–1902), was
himself an eminent theologian and the nation’s foremost defender of
biblical inerrancy in his day. Like Hodge, Warfield was convinced that
God testified to Himself through two “books” (the book of Scripture and
the book of nature) and that if these books were understood and
interpreted properly, then there would be perfect correspondence between
them. As Mark Noll and David Livingstone comment, “[Warfield]
reaffirmed in the strongest terms his belief in the physical world as a
scene of divine revelation.”2
Warfield was active in the
great creation-evolution debates spanning the turn of the twentieth
century. His position on Darwinism changed over time. While he was open
to the possibility of evolution, he also understood that critical
theological truths were at stake. Therefore, he prudently reserved
judgment pending more evidence. Like his mentor Hodge, he rejected the
“gap theory” and the idea that the “days” of creation were literal
24-hour days that climaxed successive ages of development. Apparently,
Warfield held Charles Darwin in high esteem as a great man and a gifted
scientist, even eulogizing him as “an essentially noble soul.”3
Thus, there has been considerable controversy concerning Warfield’s exact view on the issue.
Open to Evolution, but Unconvinced
In recent years, Noll and
Livingstone have portrayed Warfield as a convinced theistic
evolutionist. For example, Noll quotes him as declaring,
I am free
to say, for myself, that I do not think that there is any general
statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as
given in Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed
to evolution.4
Livingstone contends that
Warfield “had been a key advocate of evolutionary theory at least since
his student days at Princeton,” and that he “remained enthusiastic”
about Darwinian theory throughout his academic career.5
Although Warfield was open
to theistic evolution arguments in his early career and conceded that
Scripture could accommodate it, he was never an uncritical devotee.
Warfield believed that evolutionary theory, while philosophically
tenable, was scientifically questionable and theologically problematic.
Like Hodge, Warfield suspected the theory was more naturalistic
philosophy than reputable science. He was particularly troubled by its
antiteleological implications. In contrast to theistic evolutionists who
touted the theory of divine immanence in the evolutionary process,
Warfield emphasized the preeminent transcendence of the eternal God.
As Zaspel observes in his article “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution,”6
Warfield was careful to draw a distinction between immediate creation,
mediate creation, and evolution. Immediate creation is an act of divine
fiat in which God brings into existence something new ex nihilo
(out of nothing). Mediate creation is no less miraculous, but it refers
to God bringing something new out of previously existing matter.
Conversely, evolution is a natural process that describes the subsequent
development and improvement of previously existing matter. As Zaspel
comments, “Evolution, by definition, originates nothing; it only
modifies.”7
Therefore, in Warfield’s
words, “Whatever comes by evolution is not created; whatever is created
is not evolved,” and to refer to evolution as “creation by gradualism”
or “creative evolution” is oxymoronic.8 So while at least
theoretically God may have used all three means to accomplish His grand
design for this world, Warfield remained open to but unconvinced of the
idea that the third component (evolution) was part of the process.
Warfield’s Caution against Evolution
In 1888, Warfield
delivered a lecture entitled “Evolution or Development” (which he then
repeated with slight modifications over subsequent years). In this talk
he conceded that evolution might be a “secondary cause” (or a mechanism)
through which “divine providence” acted. Warfield is quoted as saying:
To adopt any form that
does not permit God freely to work apart from [natural] law[s] and that
does not allow miraculous intervention...will entail a great
reconstruction of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the
detailed authority of the Bible. But if we condition the theory by
allowing the constant oversight of God in the whole process, and his
occasional supernatural interference for the production of new
beginnings by an actual output of creative force, producing something
new...we may hold to the modified theory of evolution and be Christians
in the ordinary orthodox sense.9
However, Warfield was quick to add: “I say we may do this. Whether we ought
to accept evolution, even in this modified sense, is another matter,
and I leave it purposely an open question” (emphasis added).10
As he reminded his students, evolution cannot account for the origins
of matter or the phenomenon of life, nor can it plausibly explain the
human soul, the human mind, self-consciousness, the reality of sin, or
the afterlife. Furthermore, by positing a theory of human moral
development, evolutionism is difficult to reconcile with the biblical
doctrine of the fall. So although a theist may see God at work in the
evolutionary process, Warfield cautioned, “to be a theist and a
Christian are different things”11—a vital distinction that many Christian theistic evolutionists seemingly fail to consider.
Essentially, Warfield
implied that while theistic evolution may be philosophically reasonable,
the fundamental question for Christians ought to be whether this
position is compatible with a high view of Scripture. For him, evolution
was a “highly speculative” hypothesis and a “very improbable” theory,
and he cautioned Christians not to adjust their theology to accommodate
“what is as yet a more or less doubtful conjecture.”12
He instead recommended a sensible position (i.e., to regard evolution
as “a working hypothesis which is at present on its probation”13).
In 1898, Warfield charged
that for many scientists, evolution is the presupposition for their
research rather than a conclusion based on facts—a kind of
Darwin-of-the-gaps approach. As he described it, the whole enterprise
“looks amazingly like basing facts on theory rather than theory on
facts.”14 As Zaspel concludes, “This is how Warfield argued
consistently over the course of his career: he allowed the possibility
of evolution, but he remained non-committal.”15
In 1916, near the end of
his career, Warfield related a private conversation about evolution that
he had had several years earlier with
James McCosh,
president of Princeton University from 1868–1888. At the time, McCosh
had noted (undoubtedly, with a sense of satisfaction) that all
biologists under the age of 30 were evolutionists; Warfield remarked,
I was never quite sure
that he understood what I was driving at when I replied that I was the
last man in the world to wonder at that, since I was about that old
myself before I outgrew it.16
The answer to the question
of Warfield’s stance on evolution is that, while he did not wholly
reject evolution as a possible mechanism for life’s diversity, he
remained skeptical of its legitimacy as a theory and its compatibility
with a high view of Scripture. It seems Warfield was far from the
confident theistic evolutionist he is painted to be.
Endnotes:
- Charles Hodge, quoted in Ronald Numbers, The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, exp. ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 37.
- B. B. Warfield, Evolution, Science, and Scripture: Selected Writings, eds. Mark A. Noll and David N. Livingstone (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 321.
- See David N. Livingstone and Mark A. Noll, “B. B. Warfield (1851–1921): A Biblical Inerrantist as Evolutionist,”
Journal of Presbyterian History 80 (Fall 2002): 153–71. This article
appears to accept the view of Warfield espoused by Livingstone and
Noll—a position that I find unconvincing.
- Warfield, quoted in Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 371.
- David Livingstone, “B. B. Warfield, the Theory of Evolution and Early Fundamentalism,” Evangelical Quarterly 58 (April–June 1986): 78–79. See also Fred G. Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution,” Themelios 35 (July 2010), http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/b._b._warfield_on_creation_and_evolution.
- Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution.”
- Ibid.
- Warfield, quoted in Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution.”
- B. B. Warfield, Evolution, Science, and Scripture, 130–31.
- Ibid.
- Warfield, quoted in Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution.”
- Ibid.
- Warfield, quoted in John Kilpatrick, “Hodge, Warfield and Evolution: Investigating What the Great Theologians Believed,” Evangelicals Now, posted August 2002, www.e-n.org.uk/p-1898-Hodge-Warfield-and-evolution.htm.
- Warfield, quoted in
Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution,”
http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/b._b._warfield_on_creation_and_evolution.
- Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield
on Creation and Evolution,”
http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/b._b._warfield_on_creation_and_evolution.
- Warfield, quoted in
Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution,”
http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/b._b._warfield_on_creation_and_evolution.
The biblical master narrative serves as a framework for the cognitive
principles that allow the formation of an authentically Christian
worldview. Many Christians rush to develop what they will call a
“Christian worldview” by arranging isolated Christian truths, doctrines,
and convictions in order to create formulas for Christian thinking. No
doubt, this is a better approach than is found among so many believers
who have very little concern for Christian thinking at all; but it is
not enough.
