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

But Rich -- if you've gradually migrated to some kind of acceptance of
evolution, and you've worked on trying to reconcile your theology with that
-- as I think is true of many of us here -- don't you find that it's causing
you to push at least a little on the question of "orthodoxy?"

On Feb 16, 2008 10:40 AM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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 13:49:33 2008