Re: Keller, TE, Calvinism, & Open Theism Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

re: Keller -- looking forward to a review of the book. I don't think one
has to be as literal as Dick to say "I believe in the historicity of Gen
1-11" and still hold a TE view. I would make that affirmation, but then we
have to talk carefully about what we mean by "historicity" in the context of
the kinds of literature that constitute Gen. 1-11. I've heard a Keller talk
on the web in which he describes Gen. 1 as a "song."

I'm part of a discipleship / theology group associated loosely with
Redeemer, in which a TE perspective is openly taught (
http://www.actministry.org/). To be clear, Keller is not himself involved
with that group and it isn't necessarily "endorsed" by Redeemer. It may not
in every respect reflect Keller's personal opinion. But, it is at least
possible for such a group to flourish in at least a loose partnership with
Redeemer.

Also to be clear -- personally I'm broadly Reformed in my theology. But I
don't think open theism can just be dismissed and for those of us who are
Reformed, the links between TE and open theism need to be discussed and
addressed humbly.

On Feb 16, 2008 9:22 AM, Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> 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.
> >
>
> Now belief in "historicity of Gen 1-11" does not mean rejection of TE (eg.
> Dick Fischer & many, many others) but I think it is clear in context that
> Keller is traditional OEC.
>
> 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).
>
> 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).
>
> 4) On your last paragraph (over speculation and freedom to say "I don't
> know") .. Amen! and Amen! and Amen!
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Feb 16, 2008, at 8:34 AM, David Opderbeck wrote:
> >
> > How does ID lead to open theism? It seems to me that TE is much more
> > likely to be paired with open theism. It will be interesting to see, for
> > example, what approach Karl Giberson takes in his forthcoming book.
> > Giberson, Francis Collins, Pinnock, Sanders, Greg Boyed, and Polkinhorne are
> > speaking at an "Open Theology and Science" conference at Eastern Nazarene
> > College this summer (http://www.enc.edu/history/ot/open_theo.html) Does
> > this suggest, BTW, that Collins is open to open theism?
> >
> > I've also seen efforts to reconcile original sin and evolution via
> > molinism. Again, it seems to me that TE, not ID, is more likely to head
> > down this route.
> >
> >
> > It could be that Collins is amenable to Open Theism and you do suggest a
> > way that this could happen. To be sure, a proponent of TE needs to make sure
> > that he keeps his eye on God's transcendence to avoid falling into the same
> > trap that ID can fall into. On the other hand, in Tim Keller's new book The
> > Reason for God, he also advances TE in an apologetics context and he is most
> > definitely not an Open Theist. Comparing Keller and Collins you both see the
> > influence of C.S. Lewis -- for Keller you add Jonathan Edwards into the
> > mix. The difference is Keller has much better theological and exegetical
> > chops than Collins. I have the book on order from Amazon and I'll give you a
> > more detailed assessment once I have it. I don't believe it is a coincidence
> > (wink, wink, nudge, nudge :-)) that so many evangelical TEs are Calvinists.
> >
> > The ID trap as I see it is the incessant need to explain and force God
> > to reveal Himself when He has chosen not to do so. God simply must be
> > scientifically detectable. It is not the Calvinism per se that appears
> > to inoculate against Open Theism but the attitude of let man be man and God
> > be God. Many Classical Arminians share this sentiment and thus don't go down
> > this road either. Speculative systems can just be very dangerous, e.g.
> > the use of Molinism you cited above. The three most freeing words in the
> > Universe are "I don't know.".
> >
> > Rich Blinne (Member ASA)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Steve Martin (CSCA)
> http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com

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 13:43:05 2008