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

I don't know either!!! However I do know God is creator , there is something unique about humans who are fallen beings and that early Genesis brings out all of these and that we should look for the theological teaching rather than whether Adam ate a banana or an apple!

The trouble is that too many don't realise that we can only partially know God and his redemption and that we have been given SUFFICIENT for our needs and not all we want to know.

I prefer to look at a sunset over the Irish Sea from one of our hills and contemplate the wonder of God's creation than the precise nature of the design of a flagellum!

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Steve Martin
  To: Rich Blinne
  Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
  Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 5:22 PM
  Subject: Keller, TE, Calvinism, & Open Theism Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

  (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 16:48:04 2008