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

On Feb 17, 2008, at 7:45 PM, Steve Martin wrote:

> Hi Rich,
>
> Re: Keller & TE: I think the amazon review you were talking about
> was Tim Challies' (repeated on his website here: ). 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)
>

That's the opinion of the non-binding authors of the report. The
report was commissioned as a non-binding advisory one. The context of
the quote is all the authors agreed that this was meaning of Genesis.

> 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.

The General Assembly received (and did not adopt) the report as follows:

"That since historically in Reformed theology there has been a
diversity of views of the creation days among highly respected
theologians, and, since the PCA has from its inception allowed a
diversity, that the Assembly affirm that such diversity as covered in
this report is acceptable as long as the full historicity of the
creation account is accepted.” [Minutes of the 28th General Assembly p.
184-185]

Given your quote where Keller affirmed the historicity of Genesis 1-11
and the likelihood he holds to the Framework Hypothesis which is one
of the views discussed in the report, the 28th GA would appear to my
reading have to hold him harmless. This doesn't mean there won't be
political shenanigans but from a standpoint of ecclesiastical charges
and specifications there really is nothing here. BCO 29-1 pretty well
establishes the confessions as the standard exposition and the quote
above means that the six days of creation reference in WCF does not
force a 144-hour interpretation.

Rich Blinne (Member ASA, Former Ruling Elder PCA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 17 23:12:00 2008