Was B. B. Warfield a Theistic Evolutionist? Part 2

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 of this series set the stage for discussion of B. B. Warfield’s stance on the biblical creation accounts and their relationship to modern (nineteenth century) scientific discoveries. Moreover, I discussed how the newly budding naturalistic perspective clashed with the young-earth creationist perspective, thus leading to difficulties between the religious and scientific communities.

In particular, I focused on the opinions of Charles Hodge, a distinguished theologian and the principal of Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS) from 1851–1878, who, despite his strong stance against Darwinism, 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.1 Subsequent inerrantists, such as Warfield, disagreed with this assessment of Scripture.

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:

  1. Charles Hodge, quoted in Ronald Numbers, The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, exp. ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 37.
  2. B. B. Warfield, Evolution, Science, and Scripture: Selected Writings, eds. Mark A. Noll and David N. Livingstone (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 321.
  3. 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.
  4. Warfield, quoted in Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 371.
  5. 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
  6. Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution.”
  7. Ibid.
  8. Warfield, quoted in Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution.”
  9. B. B. Warfield, Evolution, Science, and Scripture, 130–31.
  10. Ibid.
  11. Warfield, quoted in Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution.”
  12. Ibid.
  13. Warfield, quoted in John Kilpatrick, “Hodge, Warfield and Evolution: Investigating What the Great Theologians Believed,” Evangelicals Now, posted August 2002, http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-1898-Hodge-Warfield-and-evolution.htm.
  14. Warfield, quoted in Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution,” http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/b._b._warfield_on_creation_and_evolution.
  15. Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution,” http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/b._b._warfield_on_creation_and_evolution.
  16. Warfield, quoted in Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution,” http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/b._b._warfield_on_creation_and_evolution.

  ****

By Dr. Jefrey Breshears

Dr. Jefrey Breshears received his PhD in history from Georgia State University in 1988 and currently serves as president of and historian and apologist at The Aréopagus, an interdenominational Christian study center in Atlanta, Georgia.

About these ads
Comments
2 Responses to “Was B. B. Warfield a Theistic Evolutionist? Part 2”
  1. Maureen says:

    Hi Clarke,

    I forwarded your comment to Dr. Breshears. Here’s his reply:

    Clarke:

    In all likelihood, if Warfield were to rise from the dead, he would probably first want to have dinner with Tim Keller and set him straight on a few things — including his views on TE. Then Os Guinness… then Alister McGrath. But I can assure you that he’d have more fun hangin’ out with Fuz.

    Jefrey

  2. Clarke Morledge says:

    Jefrey,

    Have you corresponded with Mark Noll on this? Your thesis is very intriguing, but so is what Dr. Noll puts forth. I am not sure entirely what to make of it yet. It would be great to sponsor some type of interchange on this topic.

    In other words, we all want to know: if B. B. Warfield were to rise from the dead today, with whom would he go first to have dinner with: Dennis Venema or Fuz Rana? ;-)

    Clarke Morledge

    http://sharedveracity.net

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job

    Arguably the oldest book in the Bible, the book of Job has a surprising amount to say about some of the newest scientific discoveries and controversies. With careful consideration and exegesis, Hugh Ross shows that the Bible is an accurate predictor of scientific discoveries, and that both the book of Scripture and the book of nature are consistent both internally and externally.
  • Creating Life in the Lab

    Representing the best of RTB's efforts to anticipate scientific breakthroughs and explain their contribution to the case for Christian faith, biochemist Fuz Rana shows how recent advances in synthetic biology actually undermine the evolutionary explanation for the origin of life. Creating Life in the Lab addresses the scientific, theological, and philosophical aspects on both the dangers and promises of synthetic biology.
  • If God Made the Universe…Why Is It the Way It Is?

    Drawing from his popular book Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, Dr. Hugh Ross shares Scripture, stunning satellite photos, and the most recent scientific findings to explain the great love story that is our universe. This DVD series invites you to be a part of Dr. Ross’ small group. Each session includes a brief presentation (about 20 minutes), followed by Q&A.
  • Impact Events: The Earth

    In this unique student devotional, astrophysicist Jeff Zweerink and seasoned small-group leader Ken Hultgren connect little-known facts about our planet with faith-building insights about the Creator. The booklet includes practical, yet thought-provoking questions to help students apply each lesson’s principles to their lives. This Impact Events series is designed to transform your life and faith with truth from God’s Word and evidence from God’s world. God wants to impact your life. Will you let Him?
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 137 other followers

%d bloggers like this: