Re: [asa] Who are the famous TE's?

I am trying to find the right quotes but the Banner of Truth agree with me
that Stott is dodgy theologically like me!!

Through the Bible - Through the Year is written by John Stott, and published
by Baker Books of Grand Rapids, Michigan, in July 2006 (cloth $24.99, 432
pages). A resource for daily private devotion, this rather large volume
strives to guide the Christian reader through the Bible in the course of one
year. From the Creation account in Genesis through to Revelation, page-long
readings are given with a suggested Bible passage at the end. The entire
book is divided into three sections. The first deals with the Old Testament;
the second deals with the Life of Christ, that is the Gospels; and the last
deals with the remainder of the Bible.

It becomes painfully clear at the onset, that John Stott is not a
Creationist; that is to say, he does not believe in a literal six day
creation. Rather, he says that Genesis is a highly stylized and beautiful
poem. The important factor is, he says, that God created from chaos to
cosmos. Time, according to Stott, is of unspecified length. As well, he
designates Adam as a neolithic (stone age) farmer. Adam who is, according to
Stott, at least historically real, fares better than the snake and the named
trees which appear to be mythical, a symbolic form reappearing later in
Scripture. The flood although real, was very likely, according to Stott, not
universal but local. A rather awkward beginning for a Biblical devotional,
and I would like to suggest that the title of the book might have been more
correct had it read "Through With the Bible."

It is true that often Christians are conned into believing that evolution is
a proven fact and that faith in creation is not logical and only for the
uneducated. However, aside from the fact that the Bible is Truth and does
not need our help to defend what it says, the fact is that the concept of
evolution has never been well supported by the evidence and today many
non-Christian scientists are coming forward to say so. John Stott appears to
believe that God used evolution to create and that maybe the days of Genesis
are long periods of time. But where does the fall into sin come into his
frame of thinking? The truth is that John Stott's picking and choosing of
what is historical and what is factua1, can lead to very serious conflict.

and another comment #

John R.W. Stott is a moderately Reformed evangelical founder and president
of the London Institute for Christianity, and head of John Stott Ministries,
which trains pastors in third world countries. Stott has been a model of
fervor but has always represented a less solid brand of evangelicalism, as
indicated by his support for inclusivism, annihilationism, and theistic
evolution.

And another two from JRWS himself

Theologian John Stott adds:

It seems perfectly possible to reconcile the historicity of Adam with at
least some (theistic) evolutionary theory. Many biblical Christians in fact
do so, believing them to be not entirely incompatible. To assert the
historicity of an original pair who sinned through disobedience is one
thing; it is quite another to deny all evolution and to assert that separate
and special creation of everything both subhuman creatures and Adams body.
The suggestion (for it is no more than this) does not seem to be against
Scripture and therefore impossible that when God made man in His own image,
what He did was to stamp His own likeness on one of the many hominoids which
appear to have been living at the time (John Stott, The Church of England
Newspaper, June 7, 1968).

John Stott, in "Understanding the Bible"

My copy is the 1984 revised edition.

Here are three paragraphs from the book, with bibliographic data.

author = {Stott, John}, title = {Understanding the Bible}, publisher =
{ANZEA (Scripture Union Publishing)}, address = {Sydney, Philadelphia,
London, Cape Town}, year = 1984, edition = {Revised}, annote = {An
introduction to the Bible by the evangelical Anglican theologian. Pages
47--50 are headed "The Creation", and indicate Stott's attitude to modern
science. On pages 48, 49 we read:

In general, we can say with assurance that Genesis 1 begins with God (`in
the beginning God created . . .'), continues with progressive stages (`and
God said . . . and God said . . .'), and ends with man (`So God created man
in his own image . . . male and female he created them'). How much further
may we go than this? In particular, what may we say about the `how' of God's
creative activity? Not many Christians today find it necessary to defend the
concept of a literal six-day creation, for the text does not demand it, and
scientific discovery appears to contradict it. The biblical text presents
itself not as a scientific treatise but as a highly stylised literary
statement (deliberately framed in three pairs, the fourth `day'
corresponding to the first, the fifth to the second, and the sixth to the
third). Moreover the geological evidence for a gradual development over
thousands of millions of years seems conclusive.

Indeed, speaking for myself, I cannot see that at least some forms of the
theory of evolution contradict or are contradicted by the Genesis account of
creation. It is most unfortunate that some who debate this issue begin by
assuming that the words `creation' and `evolution' are mutually exclusive.
If everything has come into existence through evolution, they say, then
biblical creation has been disproved, whereas if God created all things,
then evolution must be false. It is, rather, this naive alternative which is
false. It presupposes a very narrow definition of the two terms, both of
which in fact have a wide range of meanings, and both of which are being
freshly discussed today. For example, although the great majority of
scientists continue to believe that there had been a long evolutionary
process, the Darwinian theory of `natural selection' (or `the survival of
the fittest') as its operational principle is being increasingly questioned,
and instead of a single and gradual progression a theory is being developed
which posits multiple changes, in fits and starts, and sometimes by
inexplicable major leaps. Of course any theory of evolution which is
presented as a blind and random process must be rejected by Christians as
incompatible with the biblical revelation that God created everything by his
will and word, that he made it `good', and that his creative programme
culminated in Godlike human beings. But there does not seem to me to be any
biblical reason for denying that some kind of purposive evolutionary
development may have been the mode which God employed in creating.

To suggest this tentatively need not in any way detract from man's
uniqueness. I myself believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve, as the
original couple from whom the human race is descended. I shall give my
reasons in chapter 7, when I come to the question of how we are to interpret
scripture. But my acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not
incompatible with my belief that several forms of pre-Adamic `hominid' seem
to have existed for thousands of years previously. These hominids began to
advance culturally. They made their cave drawings and buried their dead. It
is conceivable that God created Adam out of one of them. You may call them
_homo_ _erectus_. I think you may even call some of them _homo_ _sapiens_,
for these are arbitrary scientific names. But Adam was the first _homo_
_divinus_, if I may coin the phrase, the first man to whom may be given the
specific biblical designation `made in the image of God'. Precisely what the
divine likeness was, which was stamped upon him, we do not know, for
Scripture nowhere tells us. But it seems to have included those rational,
moral, social and spiritual faculties which make man unlike all other
creatures and like God the creator, and on account of which he was given
`dominion' over the lower creation.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hon Wai Lai" <honwai.lai@gmail.com>
To: "'Michael Roberts'" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 11:53 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Who are the famous TE's?

It is inaccurate to classify John Stott as TE. In his commentary on Romans,
he argued against dogmatism on any position in the creation-evolution
debate. While he saw no problem with death of animals with biblical
teaching, he held firmly that the first human made in the image of God were
made immortal. He saw no conflict between the possibility of Adam being made
by God from an existing hominid, and biblical teaching. However, this does
not mean he is convinced by the scientific account of evolution.

I have been looking for statements in Alister McGrath's writings that
confirms his position rests in the TE camp. Can you give quotations?

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Michael Roberts
Sent: 15 December 2007 21:51
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Who are the famous TE's?

Polkinghorne, RJ Berry, D Alexander, M Poole, A McGrath, R White, O Barclay,
G Carey, D Livingstone, Ken Miller, Keith Miller(and contribs to
Perspectives on an evolving creation) G Murphy, Ted Davis, T gray, many in
ASA, G Morton, Sir G Prance, Sir Brian heap, T Mansfield FRS, M Jeeves, J
Stott S Conway Morris, many in Christians in Science. Most speakers at the
Faraday Institute. D Spanner,

also Pope JP2 Pope B 16

Plus lots who don't qualify as evangelical.

and to go back a bit

1858 H B Tristram, an evangelical vicar in Durham. (note this was a year
before the Origin was published)

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 8:37 PM
Subject: [asa] Who are the famous TE's?

A survey question for you all.

Who are the most famous modern outspoken speakers/authors (celebrities) who
advocate any form of Theistic Evolution? If you had to name the top three,
who would you recommend?

As far as I know, it would be:
Francis Collins
Howard Van Till
???

I also heard a little of Kenneth Miller, but don't know much about him. No
Deists, though. If there was a panel of three TE's in a symposium, who
would you most like to see there?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 16 17:32:53 2007