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

Hi Rich,

Re: Keller & TE: I think the amazon review you were talking about was Tim
Challies' (repeated on his website
here<http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/book-review-the-reason-for-god-by-tim-keller.php%20>:
). I had seen others stating that Tim C was wrong on Tim Keller's
acknowledgment of TE (and many that were breathing sighs of relief that
Keller wasn't turning into an evolutionist). However, it looks like you
(and Tim C) are probably right since a further commenter on Tim C's review
quoted from Keller's book:

> "For the record, I think God guided some kind of process of natural
> selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing
> Theory. One commentator on Genesis captures this balance well: "If
> "evolution" is…elevated to the status of a world-view of the way things are,
> then there is direct conflict with biblical faith. But if "evolution"
> remains at the level of scientific biological hypothesis, it would seem that
> there is little reason for conflict between the implications of Christian
> belief in the Creator and the scientific explorations of the way which—at
> the level of biology—God has gone about his creating processes."" (94-95).
>
My interpretation of this is that, at a minimum, Keller agrees that *the
science *of biological evolution can be compatible with orthodox
Christianity. I too would be very interested in what ramifications this
would have in the PCA. The PCA Report of the Creation Study Committee (
http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html) clearly rejects the
evolution of humanity:

> "In these chapters [Gen 1-3] we find the record of God's creation of the
> heavens and the earth* ex nihilo*; of the special creation of Adam and Eve
> as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the
> products of evolution from lower forms of life)
>
Gordon Glover (author of "Beyond the Firmament") had a post on this report
here:
http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2008/01/29/pca-report-on-creation/.
When I asked him about the risks of publicly acknowledging a TE view in the
PCA, he indicated that as a layman (at least in his own local church) there
wasn't an issue, but he did indicate that those in leadership positions
could face trouble. So Keller's stated position on evolution (given his
reputation) could indeed be a bombshell.
thanks,

On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 1:40 PM, 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)
>

-- 
-- 
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.