On Feb 16, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Steve Martin wrote:
>
> (Note: Changed to subject since it is getting WAY off topic of
> original post ... & to acknowledge that where I'm turning this to is
> hardly focused). So the rest of you can go back providing more
> stimulating ideas on the issue at hand with the original topic ...
> great thread!)
>
> Hi Rich,
> 1) On Keller book: Just a small correction. There have been a few
> reviews of Keller's book / interview that claim he is TE. I
> believe this is incorrect. See this post (http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/2008/02/tim_keller_on_evolution_and_ot.html
> ) where Keller states:
>
> I believe in the historicity of Gen 1-11 and Adam and Eve and I
> don't believe in young earth-creation or six 24-hour day creation,
> but, as far as she's [the interviewer] concerned, that means I
> believe somewhat in evolution. She's not used to the fine
> distinctions on these things we make inside the church.
From a reviewer of the book on Amazon (and not the Newsweek article
that's the she mentioned above who merely stated that Keller believed
in evolution):
> Nobody but Tim Keller could have written this book. It seems likely
> to me that nobody but Tim Keller will agree with everything he says.
> For example, many believers will be uncomfortable with his defense
> of evolution--not the naturalistic evolution of so many skeptics,
> but a theistic evolution that attempts to reconcile rather than
> ignore the creation accounts of the Bible.
Like I said before I have the book on order and will be able to answer
the question concerning the "fine distinctions". If he is indeed an
OEC I will correct the record here. For me my curiosity is piqued more
as to where he is on the concordist/accomodationist spectrum. The
other thing I will be curious about if it turns out to be true that
Keller is a TE how much of a bombshell it will be within the PCA.
> 2) On Open Theism & TE: I think I agree with David on this one that
> there is a lot of coherence between a TE and Open Theism position, &
> not as much between ID & Open Theism (although the relationship you
> point to is interesting ..never thought of that). That conference
> David pointed to is particularly interesting - check out some of
> last year's resources (Polkinghorne had a good talk). There were
> also some process theologians speaking here & interestingly, Howard
> Van Til. So for those apt to say Open Theism is the first step
> over the edge, this might be seen as further evidence. (Not my
> personal opinion though).
As for the nexus between Open Theism and TE I believe that has more to
do with recent sloppiness in evangelical theology than a necessary
conclusion from adopting TE. Theological orthodoxy has been replaced
by orthodoxies of another kind, often the kind that involved thinking
"short cuts". For example, Gregory Boyd's church suffered no decline
as he espoused Open Theism. But, when we refused to have a patriotic
service on the fourth of July because Jesus is not a R epublican or D
emocrat then members left in droves. Likewise if you have a TE Open
Theist or process theologian the opposition with the evangelical
community is because of the former rather than the latter.
Furthermore, even when focused on the theological, evangelicals are
rarely sophisticated in their analysis leading to the "slippery slope"
issue you raised above. This in turn causes people to be accused of
being process theologians when they are not.
> 3) On the fact that most "Evangelical TEs are Calvinists" .. I think
> this has more to do (IMHO) with the fact that modern (North
> American) Evangelicalism's intellectual leadership was predominately
> Calvinistic. (Ok, that statement could open up a slew of dissent).
I believe your analysis is correct here. [Rich quickly ducks under his
desk.] :-)
Rich Blinne (Member ASA)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 16 13:41:32 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 16 2008 - 13:41:32 EST