Further Interactions with Bruce Waltke: Introduction Part 4
This is the fourth of several posts continuing the exchange between Bruce Waltke and me, posted earlier on this site, that first appeared in the Westminster Theological Journal. Click here to read Waltke’s follow-up to that exchange (PDF), which has already appeared in the latest issue of WTJ (and is also posted here with permission.)
Read Part One of my response here.
Read Part Two of my response here.
Read Part Three of my response here
Here is the fourth part of my response to Waltke’s follow-up piece:
Waltke is No Fundamentalist
I can understand why, in view of my previous response, Waltke would want to point out that he holds views that are considered progressive and therefore problematic by fundamentalists. He is open to multi-authorship of Isaiah, an exilic date for the final form of the Deuteronomy, and theistic evolution. I am already aware of this, although those who look to Waltke to champion their fundamentalist causes should take careful note how much Waltke is conceding on these points. Waltke is to be commended for expressing himself so clearly.
Still, given the groundwork that Waltke has laid thus far, I wonder if he would not be more consistent if he did maintain a fundamentalist posture on these issues. For, as Greg Beale has recently reminded us (The Erosion of Inerrancy), any talk of multi-authorship of Isaiah is to discredit the very words of Jesus himself, who quoted from various portions of the book but referred consistently to “Isaiah.” If, after all, Scripture is the very truth of God revealed, and if there can be no foible or misrepresentation of historical fact, must we not take Jesus’ “testimony” with utter seriousness, lest we attribute to Scripture “nonsense” and “human error”? How can we arrive at conclusions Jesus himself did not and would not accept? The same goes for pentateuchal authorship, and most certainly for evolution. To accept these progressive views, even as a possible options, seems to me to be more problematic for Waltke than he admits.
I would suggest that for Waltke to maintain his progressive (and correct) views, he must employ a hermeneutic and derivative doctrine of Scripture that are more subtle than the principles he employs with respect to my arguments. In other words, I don’t think he can have it both ways. The manner in which he argues against some of my views discredits some of his own more progressive views.
