Re: [asa] Almost Half of Evangelical Theologians Accept Evolution?

My experience is yours, John.

Pete Enns

On Oct 23, 2009, at 6:35 AM, John Walley wrote:

>
> Agian, I contend the schools are localized, and the 46% that accept
> evolution and the 44% that hold to a literal reading of Genesis are
> as well. For instance is Southern Evangelical Seminary represented
> in FESP? I bet you would be hard pressed to find anyone there that
> accepts evolution and if so it is likley a closely a guarded secret.
>
> Excepting what they believe in Ivory Tower seminaries, I can tell
> you that where it matters on a practical level like on the staffs of
> churches, down here in evangelical churches, a non-literal reading
> of Genesis is not really on the table and accepting evolution is a
> one way ticket out of the fellowship.
>
> Hopefully that will continue to change though.
>
> John
>
> From: Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
> To: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> Cc: Keith Miller <keithbmill@gmail.com>; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Fri, October 23, 2009 5:46:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Almost Half of Evangelical Theologians Accept
> Evolution?
>
> Hi John,
>
> That is a good point on who in included in the definition of
> "Evangelical" but I think Waltke's "practical definition" below is a
> good one for this purpose
>
> For practical reasons, I restricted “evangelical theologian” to
> those educators within institutions whose presidents belong the
> Fellowship of Evangelical Seminary Presidents (FESP).
>
> so I don't think the conclusion can be criticized as localized.
>
> I found two points very, very interesting:
>
> 1) I have the same perception as Keith that evangelical Hebrew and
> OT scholars have laid some great groundwork here lately (eg. recent
> books by Waltke, Enns, and John Walton at Wheaton). However, in the
> survey, the straightforward reading of Gen 1 and 2 was the largest
> single barrier to accepting evolution (44%) while the barriers 3 and
> 4 (Adam's Fall, and Adam's headship) were considered barriers by
> only 34% and 28% respectively. So my personal perception that
> Paul's use of Adam is a much, much more difficult issue than the
> interpretation of Gen itself, does not seem to be shared by
> evangelical theologians.
>
> 2) More of evangelical theologians accepted evolution (46%) than
> chose any single barrier identified by Waltke.
>
> thanks,
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:18 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> I suggest this is a localized observation and/or it depends on who
> you consider to be evangelical and who considers themselves
> evangelical.
>
> For instance in a parallel thread we have been discussing the
> apologetics conference at the link below which is a who's who in
> evangelical circles and the only thing in common among all of them
> is that they all reject evolution except possibly Colson. In my neck
> of the woods it is very rare to find anyone who terms themselves an
> evangelical that accepts evolution. I am still glad to hear the
> report though.
>
> John
>
> www nationalapologeticsconference dot com
>
> From: Keith Miller <keithbmill@gmail.com>
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Thu, October 22, 2009 10:04:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Almost Half of Evangelical Theologians Accept
> Evolution?
>
> I am not at all surprised by this survey's results. It has been my
> perception that evangelical theologians - particularly Hebrew and
> Old Testament Scholars - has been increasingly outspoken that there
> is no necessary conflict between evolutionary science and a faithful
> reading of scripture. This is true of theologians who have personal
> reservations or doubts about the validity of biological evolution
> (particularly as it concerns humans) - Henri Blocher and J.I. Packer
> come to mind here. However, once it is recognized that scripture
> does not demand a rejection of biological evolution, then that
> person is open to persuasion by the scientific evidence.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Martin (CSCA)
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 23 14:53:28 2009