# Keller's Reason for God



## Grillsy (Nov 30, 2009)

Can anyone out there point me to any quality reviews or critiques of this book?


----------



## Poimen (Nov 30, 2009)

Here.


----------



## Grillsy (Nov 30, 2009)

Poimen said:


> Here.



Thanks! 

Does anyone know of any other reviews out there? Preferably from a Reformed perspective also?


----------



## TimV (Nov 30, 2009)

We've been reading it in men's Bible study. There are about 8 of us, and we all are in agreement he's not really Reformed. In chapter 6 he comes right out and says he thinks we go here through natural selection rather than being made as per Genesis. Several of the other men were disturbed by his tendency to be rather vague, as per NT Wright. None of us would read it again.


----------



## Grillsy (Nov 30, 2009)

TimV said:


> We've been reading it in men's Bible study. There are about 8 of us, and we all are in agreement he's not really Reformed. In chapter 6 he comes right out and says he thinks we go here through natural selection rather than being made as per Genesis. Several of the other men were disturbed by his tendency to be rather vague, as per NT Wright. None of us would read it again.



Thank you Tim. I am attempting to write a critique of the book right now. It is good to see that others have seen the red flags like I have. I am glad I am not the only one.


----------



## ZackF (Nov 30, 2009)

TimV said:


> We've been reading it in men's Bible study. There are about 8 of us, and we all are in agreement he's not really Reformed. In chapter 6 he comes right out and says he thinks we go here through natural selection rather than being made as per Genesis. Several of the other men were disturbed by his tendency to be rather vague, as per NT Wright. None of us would read it again.




I disagree. It's one of the first books I'd pass out to a person wanting something to read about Christianity and such. He certainly doesn't back down from Heaven, Hell and the exclusivity of Christ. In my humble opinion, Lewis's "Mere Christianity" is useful but overrated and certainly not Reformed. Many people come to the Reformation gradually and Keller understands this. I can't think of anything else that is as readable as "Reason for God" and yet isn't simplistic or embarrassing windy neocon-generic-Christianity-culture war-stuff. The book is a place to start and obviously not intended to be the last word. 

Keller's book has reached millions and I think it does much better than Lewis' at getting to the heart of the Gospel. I would rather an unbelieving inquirer read a Horton book but it probably would go over their head and so I would save it for later.


I've came to the conclusion and accepted that I would most likely never pass examination for the diaconate or eldership because my beliefs on origins and AOE. I still don't think it warrants throwing people off the Reformed bus entirely. Are Machen and Warfield not "really" Reformed anymore? It seems a century ago ecclessiology and sacramentology rated much higher in the definition of being Reformed than the age of the earth or length of origins.


----------



## Grillsy (Nov 30, 2009)

KS_Presby said:


> I've came to the conclusion and accepted that I would most likely never pass examination for the diaconate or eldership because my beliefs on origins and AOE. I still don't think it warrants throwing people off the Reformed bus entirely. Are Machen and Warfield not "really" Reformed anymore? It seems a century ago ecclessiology and sacramentology rated much higher in the definition of being Reformed than the age of the earth or length of origins.



It is interesting how you glowingly endorse Keller and then comment on how important ecclessiology used to be.


----------



## Philip (Nov 30, 2009)

> It is interesting how you glowingly endorse Keller and then comment on how important ecclessiology used to be.



Do you consider the RPCNA's ecclesiology to be reformed?

I do think that the review is only valid if one considers presuppositionalism to be the only really reformed apologetic (never mind that it only came into being with Kuyper and Neo-Calvinism). I found it ironic that the reviewer was critical of the Neo-Calvinists who so influenced and shaped Van Til's thought.


----------



## Grillsy (Nov 30, 2009)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > It is interesting how you glowingly endorse Keller and then comment on how important ecclessiology used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you consider the RPCNA's ecclesiology to be reformed?



I'm only kidding settle down, not trying to start a fight. And who said anything about Reformedness?


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 30, 2009)

If one is a pure Vantalian Keller's book would not be the best. If one is a classicalist or a blende of the two then its fine.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 30, 2009)

It is a very good book. I read it & I give it to people to read.

BTW Timv, I must have lost my copy of the memo about 6day-ken-ham-creationism being part of the new definition of "Reformed". Could you forward me a copy please?


----------



## Zenas (Nov 30, 2009)

I can simply find no reason to employ a classic evidential approach to apologetics. In my experience, presuppositionalism is both devastating to the unbeliever's worldview and convincing that Christianity is necessary to a coherent one.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 1, 2009)

I find that many of the unchurched are very blessed by evidentialist approaches, and I view Keller's book as a good, even if imperfect, tool to give unsaved friends and family. There is an audiobook version too.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 1, 2009)

I read the review, and I think we can be more gracious. The Reason for God does not intend to offer a complete apologetic system or to fully articulate God’s call. It merely addresses questions and concerns so today’s unbeliever might be ready to listen to the Scriptures and hear the gospel. This it does with a rare combination of respect for the unbeliever and insistence on the atonement. We can learn from this.



TimV said:


> We've been reading it in men's Bible study. There are about 8 of us, and we all are in agreement he's not really Reformed. In chapter 6 he comes right out and says he thinks we go here through natural selection rather than being made as per Genesis. Several of the other men were disturbed by his tendency to be rather vague, as per NT Wright. None of us would read it again.



It probably was a poor choice for your men’s group unless they truly were more serious about understanding the unbeliever than they were about proving themselves theologically superior. The book is not perfect. I too have been frustrated that for a fuller explanation of the gospel you have to look elsewhere (maybe to Keller’s The Prodigal God). But it can be a powerful starting point in the evangelistic process.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 1, 2009)

Dennison's review is overly harsh. He's a hard-core VanTillian, as am I. Keller does fall short in that regard. But Keller is heavily influenced by presuppositinalism, evidenced in the way he structured the book. 

I think overall it is a very helpful book to expose the actual "religion" of unbelievers, and to wake them up to the fact that they are not nuetral or tolerant, something Van Til would certainly agree with. And, in all honesty, it's probably the most readable near-presuppositional book out there, in my opinion. I could never give a secular unchurched person Van Til or Bahnsen, or most other Reformed Apologists, simply because they're not accessible to those unfamiliar with Christianity. Keller is very readable. It is a very useful book, not only to engage a skeptic, but to give us talking points to engage skeptics ourselves. 

That being said, there are a couple flaws which would have to be addressed if you are working through it with someone else. His chapters on sin and on hell are incomplete I think. And his statement that "Gen 1 is a song" is just plain wrong (but that's something even Reformed folks don't agree on). But I'm not sure why people would be worried about the fact that he says he believes in natural selection but not evolution. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution. Natural selection simply states that some within a species survive better than others. That doesn't mean you believe those survivors actually evolve into something else entirely.


----------



## FenderPriest (Dec 1, 2009)

KS_Presby said:


> It's one of the first books I'd pass out to a person wanting something to read about Christianity and such. He certainly doesn't back down from Heaven, Hell and the exclusivity of Christ. In my humble opinion, Lewis's "Mere Christianity" is useful but overrated and certainly not Reformed. ...Keller's book has reached millions and I think it does much better than Lewis' at getting to the heart of the Gospel.


I'm of the same opinion here. While Keller's book may be lacking in some areas, I'm thankful that he has written a book that I feel comfortable giving to folks who are interested in serious-minded discussion about Christ and his Gospel. I get tired of the numerous and thoroughly helpful apologetics books written for Christians and the lack of such books written to unbelievers. Books aren't given in a vacuum, and so what might be lacking in Keller's book should be easily filled in with personal engagement with those we are seeking to win to Christ, which is the core of Keller's heart in this book.


----------



## TimV (Dec 1, 2009)

From page 98

_For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as an 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 process.



That's called theistic evolution, although for some reason he won't come right out and say it. Rather he leaves by his ambiguity some sort of way of parsing his words to allow his supporters to say "well, he didn't really come out and say he believes in ordained evolution. He just believes in non ordained evolution, and you can't find one place where he's said he believes in ordained evolution."


----------



## caddy (Dec 1, 2009)

Poimen said:


> Here.



Good Review!


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 1, 2009)

We were using the first seven chapters or so of the book (the "objections" chapters) for a Wednesday night study, but I was very displeased with the chapter on science. He does make some good arguments there (and elsewhere in the book), but his interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is exegetically horrendous, in my opinion.

In Keller's defense (and he does consider himself Van Tillian to some degree, If I recall correctly), the book is meant to answer real world objections that one might face with regard to Christianity. He does employ classical arguments (like Thomas or Lewis) in the sense that he is demonstrating the reasonableness of Christian beliefs, but this is not the same thing as attempting to "prove" the existence of God using evidences to "prove" to existence of God. In that sense, the book is good in that it does not simply offer a philosophical argument, but a practical demonstration, of why Christianity is the only viable way of making sense of the world (as well as showing the flaws of objections to Christianity).


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 1, 2009)

*Another Review from Ref 21*

In this 2-part review the author focuses more on the first part of the book. 

The Reason for God: A Critical Interactive Review - Reformation21

The Reason For God: A Critical Interactive Review Part 2 - Reformation21


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 1, 2009)

TimV said:


> From page 98
> 
> _For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as an All encompassing Theory. One commentator on Genesis captures this balance well:_
> 
> ...



How can you NOT believe in theistic evolution?? We see it all around us every day. Are you saying natural selection doesn't happen? If so, you are ignoring what is easily observable on a daily basis. If not, then are you saying natural selection occurs outside God's sovereignty? That can't be right either. So the only answer is that God has guided and continually guides evolutionary processes. I don't see how you can believe to the contrary.

Keller clearly rejects Evolutionary Theory as an explanation for the origins of life and mankind. He accepts God's sovereign control of natural selection and other mechanisms of evolution. In that regard, I agree with him completely...


----------



## Poimen (Dec 1, 2009)

I enjoyed the book and found it helpful in many ways. However I was disappointed by his concessions to atheistic science and feminism. In fact the whole tone of the book seemed to be appealing to the modern man's way of thinking which is why, in my opinion, Dennison spoke so poorly of it. 

On the other hand his work in New York and his many interactions with the 'modern man' has obviously shaped his style of apologetics and approach to speaking of the hope that lies within. In other words, I can appreciate and understand why he wrote the book in the manner in which he did even if I do not entirely agree with it.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 1, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> *How can you NOT believe in theistic evolution?? *We see it all around us every day. Are you saying natural selection doesn't happen? If so, you are ignoring what is easily observable on a daily basis. If not, then are you saying natural selection occurs outside God's sovereignty? That can't be right either. So the only answer is that God has guided and continually guides evolutionary processes. I don't see how you can believe to the contrary.
> 
> Keller clearly rejects Evolutionary Theory as an explanation for the origins of life and mankind. He accepts God's sovereign control of natural selection and other mechanisms of evolution. In that regard, I agree with him completely...



Frankly, I have never witnessed one animal species "evolve" into another. And neither have you, nor the small army of scientists who claim that mechanism drives the universe. So the idea this theory is self-evident from observation is nonsense. Natural selection of the sort observable on a micro biology level does not necessitate macro changes required by modern evolutionary theory. It does fit well with the idea of life being created ex nihilo “after its own kind”. 

The idea of theistic evolution has many logical as well as theological objections.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 1, 2009)

tcalbrecht said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > *How can you NOT believe in theistic evolution?? *We see it all around us every day. Are you saying natural selection doesn't happen? If so, you are ignoring what is easily observable on a daily basis. If not, then are you saying natural selection occurs outside God's sovereignty? That can't be right either. So the only answer is that God has guided and continually guides evolutionary processes. I don't see how you can believe to the contrary.
> ...



I never said macro-evolution or even speciation is observable. I said _natural selection_ is observable, and it is. Not only has it been scientifically documented in numerous species, but it is clearly observable in the human race - one could even make the argument that the swine flu demonstrates very small scale natural selection.

I don't adhere to Evolutionary Theory, and don't believe Pastor Keller does either...at least according to the passage Tim provided.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 1, 2009)

I read the book. Much of it was good, but some of it was deplorable - for instance I thought his section on hell, while perhaps more palpable to modern sensibilities, was utterly nonsense. If I remember correctly, he based almost his entire doctrine on CS Lewis with a verse of Scripture tortured to make it seem like it jived with his position.

In all, he seemed to me to be much more a student of CS Lewis and then modern culture than of Scripture or the Confession to which he subscribes. Indeed, I recall so many of his remarks being so remarkably contrary to the Standards of the PCA that I was surprised it wasn't exhibit A in charges against him.

One other thing: In many ways the book seemed like a modernized "retooling" of Mere Christianity. My problem is this: One's arguments and positions should be consistent with one's beliefs. If not then there's a problem. And in the case of Keller, he's supposedly declared his beliefs, but his book in many places is written as if he doesn't really believe his denomination's position to be "right." Lewis could get away with his book because he was writing from a theological vantage point that is much more inclusive than is the Reformed position of the Westminster Confession.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 1, 2009)

Interview with Timothy Keller | Uncommon Descent

_ In The Reason for God, you make a very brief argument for the validity of evolution within a limited sphere. It would seem to me that apologists for the faith must address this issue at some point. But doing so can call into question the historicity of the Fall and the very need for a savior. How do you talk about evolution without confusing people? 

Oh, it’s a little confusing, but actually I’m just in the same place where the Catholics are, as far as I can tell. The Catholic Church has always been able to hold on to a belief in a historical Fall—it really happened, it’s not just representative of the fact that the human race has kind of gone bad in various ways.


At the same time, if you say, “There is no God and everything happened by evolution,” naturalistic evolution—then you have “theistic evolution”: God just started things years ago and everything has come into being through the process of evolution. You have young-Earth six-day creationism, which is “God created everything in six 24-hour days.” To me, all three of those positions have perhaps insurmountable difficulties.

The fact is, the one that most people consider the most conservative, which is the young-Earth, six-day creation, has all kinds of problems with the text, as we know. If it’s really true, then you have problems of contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2. I don’t like the JEPD theory. I don’t like the theory that these are two somewhat contradictory creation stories that some editor stuck together—some pretty stupid editor stuck together. I think therefore you’ve got a problem with how long are the days before the sun shows up in the fourth day. You have problems really reading the Bible in a straightforward way with a young-Earth, six 24-hour day theory. You’ve got some problems with the theistic evolution, because then you have to ask yourself, “Was there no Adam and Eve? Was there no Fall?” *So here’s what I like—the messy approach, which is I think there was an Adam and Eve. I think there was a real Fall. I think that happened. I also think that there also was a very long process probably, you know, that the earth probably is very old, and there was some kind of process of natural selection that God guided and used, and maybe intervened in. And that’s just the messy part. I’m not a scientist. I’m not going to go beyond that.*
I do know that I say in the book, “This is an absolute red herring—to get mired in this before you look at the certainties of the faith. Because the fact is that real orthodox believers with a high view of Scripture are all over the map on this. I can line up ten really smart people in all those different buckets, which I’ll call “theistic evolution,” “young-Earth creationism,” and let’s call it “progressive creationism” or “semi-theistic evolution.” There are all these different views. And when you see a lot of smart people disagreeing on this stuff, well . . .

How could there have been death before Adam and Eve fell? The answer is, I don’t know. But all I know is, didn’t animals eat bugs? Didn’t bugs eat plants? There must have been death. In other words, when you realize, “Oh wait, this is really complicated,” then you realize, “I don’t have to figure this out before I figure out is Jesus Christ raised from the dead.”

Over the years—it’s not bad, but I’ve gotten sort of hit from both sides._


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 1, 2009)

TimV said:


> From page 98
> 
> _For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as an All encompassing Theory. One commentator on Genesis captures this balance well:_
> 
> ...



Maybe he only really believes in 'commissioned' evolution?


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 1, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > ColdSilverMoon said:
> ...



Why don't you ask him directly? I bet he'd tell you.

His argument there is that natural selection was used to produce humans, right? 

When someone says that, unless he is an INCREDIBLY incompetent communicator, he is talking about the way humans came about from lesser life forms.

I.e. macroevolution.

One might call it 'natural selection' in order to use a less inflammatory term, but if you argue that God used 'natural selection' to create men, I cannot understand it in any other way than to understand you to be saying that human beings arose from life forms lower on the evolutionary 'tree' by natural processes of selection, survival of the fittest. You're talking speciation.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 1, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I never said macro-evolution or even speciation is observable. I said _natural selection_ is observable, and it is. Not only has it been scientifically documented in numerous species, but it is clearly observable in the human race - one could even make the argument that the swine flu demonstrates very small scale natural selection.
> 
> I don't adhere to Evolutionary Theory, and don't believe Pastor Keller does either...at least according to the passage Tim provided.



Natural selection is not theistic evolution. Evolution of all sorts necessarily involves macroevolution and speciation. 

Recall your question, *How can you NOT believe in theistic evolution?? * I cannot believe it because it necessarily involves (non-observable) macroevolution and speciation.

Perhaps I’m just having a problem understanding your use of terms.


----------



## TimV (Dec 1, 2009)

Mason, you prove my point (his ambiguity). He says (thanks, Lynnie)



> So here’s what I like—the messy approach, which is I think there was an Adam and Eve. I think there was a real Fall. I think that happened. I also think that there also was a very long process probably, you know, that the earth probably is very old, and there was some kind of process of natural selection that God guided and used, and maybe intervened in. And that’s just the messy part. I’m not a scientist. I’m not going to go beyond that.



I read that and see clearly he thinks God guided a bacteria into evolving into Adam and Eve. You read that and clearly think that he's only talking about dogs with short legs and dogs with long legs.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 1, 2009)

TimV said:


> Mason, you prove my point (his ambiguity). He says (thanks, Lynnie)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This (the broader context) is PRECISELY what I was talking about. This is not someone talking about "mere natural selection" but a full-fledged evolutionary process by which man (eventually some pair get tagged as "Adam" and "Eve") evolves from slime. Classic theistic evolution - macro-evolution. This ain't white moths turning gray.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 2, 2009)

tcalbrecht said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > I never said macro-evolution or even speciation is observable. I said _natural selection_ is observable, and it is. Not only has it been scientifically documented in numerous species, but it is clearly observable in the human race - one could even make the argument that the swine flu demonstrates very small scale natural selection.
> ...



Respectfully, your point about terminology is wrong. Evolution involves a variety of mechanisms, including natural selection. So when species evolve through natural selection, that is an example of evolution at work, plain and simple. Since I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God over all His creation, I believe God uses natural selection as a means of diversifying and sustaining (ie, evolving) His creation. That's theistic evolution at a very basic level.

You are making the common mistake of confusing Darwinian Evolutionary Theory - or stating that life as we know is a result of evolutionary processes without the direction of God - with basic evolution. Micro-evolution is observable, and macro-evolution (along with speciation) probably occurs as well. But the error atheistic scientists make is using basic observed evolution to explain the origin of life and mankind while excluding God. That is wrong and frankly unscientific.

The point is theistic evolution occurs continuously, and has always occurred. To what degree did it cause the development of mankind and the rest of the biosphere? I believe very little and I don't believe humans evolved from non-human ancestors. Still, I consider myself a theistic evolutionist on a basic level...



toddpedlar said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > Mason, you prove my point (his ambiguity). He says (thanks, Lynnie)
> ...



I agree the quote is ambiguous, but Keller admits he doesn't understand how it all happened - he simply believes God used natural selection to some degree in creation. If he believes humans evolved from animal ancestors I disagree with him, but I don't think theistic evolution is necessarily Scripturally untenable.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 2, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > Natural selection is not theistic evolution. Evolution of all sorts necessarily involves macroevolution and speciation.
> ...



I’m sorry, I’m not confusing anything. You are the one redefining terms to suit your own ideas. 

Theistic evolution is evolution (i.e., it involves macroevolution/speciation).

What you seem to be describing as your own view sounds like progressive creationism. 

Whether that fits with what Keller believes is unclear at this time. His statements are ambiguous at best.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 2, 2009)

tcalbrecht said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > tcalbrecht said:
> ...



I don't know that Wikipedia is the best source to support your argument, but since you cited it, here's a passage from the "Terminology" section:



> The term was used by National Center for Science Education executive director Eugenie Scott to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution holding the theological view that God creates through evolution. *It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God*, with some approaching deism in rejecting continued intervention. Others see intervention at critical intervals in history in a way consistent with scientific explanations of speciation, but with similarities to the ideas of Progressive Creationism that God created \"kinds\" of animals sequentially



So yes, I think fall into theistic evolutionist camp at a very basic level. I've studied evolutionary theory quite extensively during undergrad and graduate schools, and have been taught by staunch atheists, theistic evolutionists, YEC creationists, and everyone in between. I don't know everything, but I am pretty comfortable with the basic terminology and where I fall in the spectrum of beliefs on creation.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 2, 2009)

How did humans evolve if they didn't evolve from something else?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 2, 2009)

Zenas said:


> How did humans evolve if they didn't evolve from something else?



I think that Keller's frame of reference is not origins of the race. Rather, when he speaks of evolution, he means that we've evolved from being old narrow-minded parochial confessionalists to young, hip, urbane, intellectually open-minded postmoderns. Understand his argument and book in that light.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 2, 2009)

I happen to be a young earth creationist who thinks BB Warfield was deceived in this, as is Keller. 

But having said that, I've listened to enough Keller teaching tapes to know that he is a truly great teacher full of so much wisdom and insight on many topics. In subtle ways people want to discredit him and his ministry over this and deaconesses, which is like saying we should not read Warfield, which would be silly. He is an imperfect man on the path of progressive sanctification, with much good to offer us all.

Zenas- at a point in time God breathed in the human spirit/soul into a primate and that was Adam. There is no false teaching that the soul just sort of evolved, it is admitted that God had to divinely create and implant the eternal human soul into the first Adam. ( I don't believe this, but just explaining Warfield). So there is a historic first Adam who fell. He nursed at the breast of an animal Momma, but he was the first person with a soul.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 2, 2009)

> So there is a historic first Adam who fell. He nursed at the breast of an animal Momma, but he was the first person with a soul.


Yech!

Wait! That sounds like Tarzan!


----------



## Zenas (Dec 2, 2009)

Evolution, in order to occur, involves a change. Is Mason's position that our height changed? Noses? If it's something so insignificant as that, did it take millions of years? How long did God need to evolve our noses before He created Adam and Eve? Why didn't He tell us about all of this? 

In the quote above, Keller says that 6-day creationism leaves a lot of unanswered or problematic questions and then proceeds to be as vague as possible in describing his theistic evolution. Why? Because he can't answer the questions above. They're not just hard, they're impossible and have no answer. It appears Dr. Keller framed the situation wrongly. His position is the one without the answers.

-----Added 12/2/2009 at 10:57:50 EST-----



lynnie said:


> Zenas- at a point in time God breathed in the human spirit/soul into a primate and that was Adam. There is no false teaching that the soul just sort of evolved, it is admitted that God had to divinely create and implant the eternal human soul into the first Adam. ( I don't believe this, but just explaining Warfield). So there is a historic first Adam who fell. He nursed at the breast of an animal Momma, but he was the first person with a soul.





> [T]he LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. -Genesis 2:7



If man evolved from something else, Genesis 2 becomes very problematic.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 2, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> > The term was used by National Center for Science Education executive director Eugenie Scott to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution *holding the theological view that God creates through evolution.* *It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God*, with some approaching deism in rejecting continued intervention. Others see intervention at critical intervals in history in a way consistent with scientific explanations of speciation, but with similarities to the ideas of Progressive Creationism that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially
> 
> 
> So yes, I think fall into theistic evolutionist camp at a very basic level. I've studied evolutionary theory quite extensively during undergrad and graduate schools, and have been taught by staunch atheists, theistic evolutionists, YEC creationists, and everyone in between. I don't know everything, but I am pretty comfortable with the basic terminology and where I fall in the spectrum of beliefs on creation.




You seem to be ignoring the first part of that quotation as to the fundamental distinctive of evolution; lower life forms lead to higher life forms. The theistic twist is that God arranged/ordered this speciation. The only question is “how”. That’s where the “wide range of beliefs” comes in.

Without having to redefine terms, if you do not believe the basics of evolutionary theory, i.e., macroevolution and speciation, then you are not a theistic evolutionist. To use such terminology for your belief system (as you have now described it) is confusing at best.

And we are still let with the fact that we do not know what Keller believes, some form of theistic evolution or progressive creationism.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 2, 2009)

What a lot of you don't seem to realize is that you are trying to argue with BB Warfield. 

You have a great theologian who was a defender of the faith against modern higher criticism, a brilliant man who was instrumental in influencing the thought of guys like Machen. 

You are disagreeing with Warfield and condemning somebody who follows in his steps. It can't be done.

Like I said, I happen to think he was deceived. But Keller can appeal to him and you have no grounds to say Warfield was nonconfessional or unbiblical. None. You can't fight BB Warfield.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 2, 2009)

lynnie said:


> You can't fight BB Warfield.



It is actually quite easy to fight a dead man.

I find your words of Warfield's unassailability remarkable. I'll happily disagree with him whereever I think he's wrong. And he was wrong on this, and I'd argue that means he was unconfessional - let me be clear, he was unbiblical on the subject of origins. 

Allow me to digress... Karl Barth. I think his BEST stuff (because a lot of it was very bad)... his BEST stuff against liberalism was nothing substantively different from the stuff put out by guys like Warfield. But in broader academic circles Warfield is a relative unknown while Barth is the one who is credited with single handedly demonstrating the intellectual and theological bankruptcy of liberalism. Why is that? Because Barth made more concessions to liberalism in order to gain a hearing. Guys like Warfield, while yielding the field on the issue of evolution, didn't go far enough with concessions, so they were not even listened to. But Barth's concessions didn't result in a robust faith for his followers, rather, those concessions resulted in a system almost entirely as bad as the older liberalism with which he disagreed.

My point: Without intending to suggest that Keller will have the influence of Barth... In his book, I think Keller makes too many concessions. Too many of his arguments on too many subjects are based upon a syncretism of orthodox Christianity and early 21st Century American cultural and philosophical values. I'm positive that his concessions will make him more intellectually appealling to those who have imbibed from the well of worldly wisdom, but the lasting effects will not be a thoroughgoing robust biblical orthodoxy. They can't because his arguments and conclusions themselves aren't.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 2, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > How did humans evolve if they didn't evolve from something else?
> ...



I'd much rather be young, urbane and intellectually open-minded than old and narrow-minded - so long as we maintain our Confessionalism. Wouldn't you?



Zenas said:


> Evolution, in order to occur, involves a change. Is Mason's position that our height changed? Noses? If it's something so insignificant as that, did it take millions of years? How long did God need to evolve our noses before He created Adam and Eve? Why didn't He tell us about all of this?
> 
> If man evolved from something else, Genesis 2 becomes very problematic.



We're getting off topic discussing our individual beliefs on evolution, but my position is that God created Adam and Eve from dust as it says in Genesis 2. I don't believe Adam and Eve evolved, though I do believe God used and continues to use evolutionary principles in His creation. 



tcalbrecht said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > > The term was used by National Center for Science Education executive director Eugenie Scott to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution *holding the theological view that God creates through evolution.* *It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God*, with some approaching deism in rejecting continued intervention. Others see intervention at critical intervals in history in a way consistent with scientific explanations of speciation, but with similarities to the ideas of Progressive Creationism that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially
> ...



There are several things off base here, and we're getting off topic as it is. Several quick points:

1. "Lower life form leads to higher life forms" is not a definition of evolution in general, and is certainly not synonymous with speciation. A species can become a higher life form within itself without having to change to a different species. For example, humans are faster, stronger, longer-living, etc. than we were 500 or even 100 years ago. So the human race is a higher form of life now than it was then, even though we are the same species. So I reject that theistic evolution requires a belief in speciation. 

2. Having said that, I do believe in both speciation and macro-evolution - both are strongly supported scientifically. In some way God used and is using both mechanisms in creation. 

Again, all of that puts me squarely in the theistic evolutionary camp - no re-definition needed. I don't believe in the degree of evolution and speciation that other theistic evolutionists might (I don't know where Keller falls in that group, if at all), but I still believe God created everything ex nihilo, created a basic array of bacteria, plants, animals, fungi, etc, and superintends creation through evolution. Theistic evolution.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 2, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to be ignoring the first part of that quotation as to the fundamental distinctive of evolution; lower life forms lead to higher life forms. The theistic twist is that God arranged/ordered this speciation. The only question is “how”. That’s where the “wide range of beliefs” comes in.
> ...



I’m sorry, but this is now getting laughable. No knowledgeable person considers humans today as a “higher life form” from those of 100 years ago.

Which gets us back to your original claim to which I objected. 



> How can you NOT believe in theistic evolution?? We see it all around us every day.



My objection was, and still is, that the fundamental truths of (theistic) evolution, macroevolution and speciation, are not observable. We do not “see” evolution acting out about us every day. That is a fabrication of the evolution theorists. As someone mentioned, a change in peppered moths is not evolution to a “higher life form”. They are still moths, not bald eagles. 

You cannot reduce evolution to natural selection. Neither can you make a case from evolution from the simple fact of natural selection. To get from A to B requires a leap of faith. One which you find obvious, but which many of us find extraordinarily difficult to make. So, not believing in theistic evolution is quite possible, and rationally and theologically consistent. 

I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but if you are this confused, it’s apparent your original statement on Keller’s views (“Keller clearly rejects Evolutionary Theory …”) cannot be trusted as accurate, since theistic evolution is one form of evolutionary theory. You hold to it, so why not Keller?


----------



## TimV (Dec 2, 2009)

From Keller's own denomination



> We have found a profound unity among ourselves on the issues of vital importance to our Reformed testimony. We believe that the Scriptures, and hence Genesis 1-3, are the inerrant word of God. We affirm that Genesis 1-3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses. We believe that history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true. In these chapters 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).* We further find the account of an historical fall, that brought all humanity into an estate of sin and misery, and of God’s sure promise of a Redeemer. Because the Bible is the word of the Creator and Governor of all there is, it is right for us to find it speaking authoritatively to matters studied by historical and scientific research





> Retaining our practice of 1973 would be to retain the original boundaries of that widely held earlier understanding of the PCA’s constitution, receiving both the Six Calendar Day and the Day-Age interpretations without constitutional objection, as was the habit in 1973, but noting that any other views were different and ought to be considered carefully by the Presbyteries in light of their historic patterns. This is the only way to both protect the rights of Presbyteries to set the terms of licensure and ordination and at the same time preclude either a narrowing or a broadening of our historic 1973 practice. It should be acknowledged, however, that there are presbyteries that do in fact receive men holding other views without requiring an exception, *provided the men can affirm the historicity of Gen 1-3 and do reject evolution*.



PCA Historical Center: Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly, June 21, 2000


----------



## Zenas (Dec 2, 2009)

lynnie said:


> You can't fight BB Warfield.



BB Warfield was wrong, unbiblical, and unconfessional and that has no bearing on the rest of his corpus of contributions.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 2, 2009)

tcalbrecht said:


> I’m sorry, but this is now getting laughable. No knowledgeable person considers humans today as a “higher life form” from those of 100 years ago.
> 
> Which gets us back to your original claim to which I objected.
> 
> ...



Tom, I mean no disrespect by this, but you are in way over your head here. I humbly suggest you do some more reading on evolution in general - from all perspectives. 

I think the main source of your confusion is the basic definition of evolution. Biological evolution is simply change over time. There are a variety of mechanisms for this, natural selection being just one of many. I have never and would never "reduce" evolution to natural selection. Natural selection is simply one of the means by which evolution occurs - others include mutation, genetic drift, genetic shift, environmental factors, etc. 

Neither does evolution require speciation. Species evolve (humans included) without changing from one species to another. One can quibble over whether or not humans are a "higher" life form than a century ago, but we have certainly evolved. So Darwinian Evolutionary Theory necessarily includes speciation, but evolution can and does occur without speciation. 

Thus the point in my original post is perfectly valid. Evolution happens all around us in many forms, and it is plainly observable. Viruses mutate, bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, moths change color - all evolution. You can either believe that such evolution is random and outside God's sovereignty, or you can believe God is in control of all of it. I believe the latter, which is God-directed evolution, and thus theistic evolution.

As for Keller rejecting Evolutionary Theory, I should have specified _Darwinian_ Evolutionary Theory, which rejects the notion of God's involvement in evolution. Even so, when most people think of Evolutionary Theory they assume Darwinian evolution.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 2, 2009)

Mason:

I believe you are confusing the issue with your definition of 'theistic evolution'. Typically theistic evolution refers a philosophy that has embraced the Darwinian understanding of evolution and tried to reconcile it with a biblical worldview. By that adherents to the system understand that certain species over time evolve into other species. I and others here (and probably most within academia) have never understood or read anywhere that 'theistic evolution' is to be understood to merely refer to changes within species.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 2, 2009)

> I think the main source of your confusion is the basic definition of evolution. Biological evolution is simply change over time. There are a variety of mechanisms for this, natural selection being just one of many. I have never and would never "reduce" evolution to natural selection. Natural selection is simply one of the means by which evolution occurs - others include mutation, genetic drift, genetic shift, environmental factors, etc.



Biological evolution is not just change over time. Evolution is not just any kind of change. Not all changes over time can be called "evolution." For example, certain leaves change color in the fall, but this is not called "evolution." Evolutionists define evolution as "descent with modification from a common ancestor." Moreover, they believe that biological change can occur beyond the boundaries of a created kind. Creationists define evolution as "change beyond the boundaries of a created kind" or "any change that involves an increase in genetic information." 



> Evolution happens all around us in many forms, and it is plainly observable. Viruses mutate, bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, moths change color - all evolution.



Creationists believe that those things happen, but they would not call it "evolution." They believe that evolution is "change beyond the boundaries of a created kind" or "any change that involves an increase in genetic information."


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 2, 2009)

Mason,

As you can see from my comments and the comments of others, the confusion arises because of your redefinition of evolution as "simple change over time". You are either being naive or disingenuous as to the meaning of the concept generally, and most importantly within the scientific community. The suggestion that white moths vs. grey moths or human being over the course of a hundred years or so both represent an evolution to “higher life forms” is truly laughable. 

You may personally believe in theistic evolution and that is somehow materially different from “Darwinian evolution,” but I assert you are mistaken in your assessment. And that still places you in no position to judge or elaborate on Keller’s personal views.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 2, 2009)

> I mean no disrespect by this, but you are in way over your head here.


There's a t-shirt slogan if I ever saw one...


----------



## lynnie (Dec 2, 2009)

sola-

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am a totally diehard creationist and young earther, and I am so far to the fringe right that I would die at the stake for the doctrine of geocentricity, that the earth was created before the sun, and the sun (and universe) orbits it daily. I am not trying to defend BBW or Keller's doctrine.

That said, I just think people need to understand what they are up against. There are all sorts of discussions at the PB where posters refer to old dead theologians to defend their point. Keller studied at Westminster Seminary where Warfield is HIGHLY respected, with good reason. Tim is brilliant and I have it from the best source that they wanted Keller to go on the faculty and fill Jack Miller's place when Miller left, but TK felt called to the pastorate.

There are many people who appeal to BBW for theistic evolution, the same way the vast majority of cessationists would appeal to him to support their cessationism (I am a Sam Rutherford- Poythress type extraordinary providences continuist, to distinguish myself from modern charismatics, and I think Warfield is dead wrong on that also. But I digress). 

Anyway, it is sad that BBW believed in the simple cell concept that underlies all of evolutionary theory. Today we know that the simple cell is actually as many as 3,000 complex factories inside one cell wall, and the math statistics for mutation evolution theory are ludicrous, apart obviously from divine intervention. I really think if the WestminsterTS/Reformed evolutionists studied the subject they might retract their position, but for now they have BBW and Hodge on their side. And you just can't dismiss BBW and Hodge lightly. So yeah, I still think Keller's position is unassailable, like trying to fight a person quoting Calvin or John Owen. You can disagree but you cannot dismiss their sources as unbiblical. BBW was firmly into inerrancy and infallibility and it is not a winnable fight right now if you ask me. Until the PCA, OPC, etc rule otherwise, it will remain a fully acceptable position, sorry to say.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 2, 2009)

cih1355 said:


> > I think the main source of your confusion is the basic definition of evolution. Biological evolution is simply change over time. There are a variety of mechanisms for this, natural selection being just one of many. I have never and would never "reduce" evolution to natural selection. Natural selection is simply one of the means by which evolution occurs - others include mutation, genetic drift, genetic shift, environmental factors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> *Biological evolution is not just change over time. Evolution is not just any kind of change.* Not all changes over time can be called "evolution." For example, certain leaves change color in the fall, but this is not called "evolution." Evolutionists define evolution as "descent with modification from a common ancestor." Moreover, they believe that biological change can occur beyond the boundaries of a created kind. Creationists define evolution as "change beyond the boundaries of a created kind" or "any change that involves an increase in genetic information."



Fair enough. A more precise definition is "genetic change from generation to generation". But evolution occurs within species - speciation is just one evolutionary mechanism. 



tcalbrecht said:


> Mason,
> 
> As you can see from my comments and the comments of others, the confusion arises because of your redefinition of evolution as "simple change over time". You are either being naive or disingenuous as to the meaning of the concept generally, and most importantly within the scientific community. The suggestion that white moths vs. grey moths or human being over the course of a hundred years or so both represent an evolution to “higher life forms” is truly laughable.
> 
> You may personally believe in theistic evolution and that is somehow materially different from “Darwinian evolution,” but I assert you are mistaken in your assessment. And that still places you in no position to judge or elaborate on Keller’s personal views.



Again, change over time may be too broad. The textbook definition is genetic change (or change in the frequency of alleles in a given population, if you want to get technical) from generation to generation. That does not necessitate speciation - species can evolve from generation to generation without becoming an entirely new species. We can argue over the "higher life form" idea. I'll even concede the point, but stand by my statement that species do evolve within themselves, and that is true evolution. 

Darwinian Evolution and Theistic Evolution are by definition incompatible. Darwin was an atheist and argued that life arose through evolution without God. Theistic evolutionists argue that Evolution is superintended by God. The two views are irreconcilable. 

The same confusion arises every time there's a discussion of evolution on the PB: believing in evolutionary processes does not necessitate belief in Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Natural selection happens, mutations happen, speciation happens, genetic change from generation to generation happens, evolution happens. But believing that does not mean I believe that humans - or even plants and animals - evolved from some primordial milieu of organic compounds. Some theistic evolutionists might, but others (including me) do not. 

And I've never judge or elaborated on Pastor Keller's personal views. I've simply gone by the quotes provided here. As I said earlier, I have no idea where he falls in the spectrum of theistic evolutionists, if he belongs in that spectrum at all.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 2, 2009)

lynnie said:


> And you just can't dismiss BBW and Hodge lightly.



On this topic, I sure can. And so have many. And so should everyone else.



> So yeah, I still think Keller's position is unassailable, like trying to fight a person quoting Calvin or John Owen. You can disagree but you cannot dismiss their sources as unbiblical.



I'm sorry, I don't think I understand you. Are you asserting that to quote Calvin or Owen (or by extension) Warfield is tantamount to citing Scripture?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 2, 2009)

Mason,

Would you agree that Darwinian evolution and theistic evolution (as they are commonly constructed) are scientifically indistinguishable?


----------



## lynnie (Dec 2, 2009)

_I'm sorry, I don't think I understand you. Are you asserting that to quote Calvin or Owen (or by extension) Warfield is tantamount to citing Scripture? _

no sola, I am saying that Warfield and Hodge are not liberals. They believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Genesis 1-3. And to appeal to them in a debate is acceptable at Westminster TS. They are in the group of men classified as great Reformed theologians, whose books and theology are source material for teaching students. When we have long threads here full of discussions and debates, certain men are considered respectable and honorable theologians in a way that others are not. BBW is one of the great ones for many scholars.

If I got on here with a charismatic thread about the gifts operating today I can guarantee you the first theologian quoted would be BBW, (before the thread got closed and I got banned, that is.) Plenty of folks here would appeal to him for their views on that. In the same way he is perhaps the father of the theistic evolutionists. God breathed a soul into an evolved primate animal to create Adam. THIS IS ACCEPTABLE DOCTRINE to get ordained in many Reformed churches.

This is to support my position that you just can't win on this one, unless God opens peoples minds. And NO I don't believe this so don't go quoting me like I do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.asa3.org/evolution/noontime.html

_I can think of no better way to support my point here than by quoting from A.A. Hodge, the Old Princeton theologian whose commitment to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture and to the Reformed faith is beyond question. Hodge wrote the following in the Introduction to Theism and Evolution by Joseph S. Van Dyke and reprinted in The Princeton Theology 1812-1921 edited and compiled by Mark Noll (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1983):

Evolution considered as the plan of an infinitely wise Person and executed under the control of His everywhere present energies can never be irreligious; can never exclude design, providence, grace, or miracles. Hence we repeat that what christians have cause to consider with apprehension is not evolution as a working hypothesis of science dealing with facts, but evolution as a philosophical speculation professing to account for the origin, causes, and end of all things.

Hodge's colleague and contemporary at Princeton, B.B. Warfield, wrote the following in his unpublished "Lectures on Anthropology" (Dec. 1888) (cited in Darwin's Forgotten Defenders, p. 119):

The upshot of the whole matter is that there is no necessary antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work apart from law and which does not allow miraculous intervention (in the giving of the soul, in creating Eve, etc.) will entail a great reconstruction of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the detailed authority of the Bible. But if we condition the theory by allowing the constant oversight of God in the whole process, and his occasional supernatural interference for the production of new beginnings by an actual output of creative force, producing something new i.e., something not included even in posse in the preceding conditions,‹we may hold to the modified theory of evolution and be Christians in the ordinary orthodox sense.

The lengthy citation of Abraham Kuyper (cited in Creation and Evolution by Jan Lever) is worth repeating here to express the notion that evolutionary theory is not necessarily antagonistic to the Christian faith if design and purpose are not excluded.

An entirely different problem is that so often discussed in England whether religion permits, as such, the spontaneous evolvement of the species in the organic world from one single primary cell. That question, of course, without reservation, must be answered in the affirmative. We should not impose our style upon the Chief Architect of the universe. (emphasis mine) Provided he remains, not in appearance, but in essence, the Architect, he is also in the choice of his style of architecture the Omnipotent. If it thus had pleased the Lord not to create the species as such, but to have one species arise from the other, by designing the preceding species in such a way that it could produce the next higher, the creation would have been just as wonderful. But this never would have been the evolution of Darwinism because the predetermined plan would not then have been excluded, but would have been all-predominating, and not the world had then built itself up mechanically, but God by means of elements which He himself prepared for that purpose. ... And that same difference would differentiate such a divine evolutionistic creation from the system of the Darwinists. Evolutionistic creation presupposes a God who has first made the plan and then executes it omnipotently. Darwinism teaches the mechanical origin of things that excludes all plan or purpose or draft. 

The acceptance of evolutionary theory by Christians must be seen as mediate Creation, whereby God called some things into existence using pre existing materials and ordinary means. As indicated by the above citations, these orthodox Presbyterian and Reformed theologians, found no reason to disagree with evolutionary theory as long as the certain essential characteristics were not disregarded: the dependence of the Creation on God, His design and purpose, the Creation of human beings in God's image, and God's freedom to act miraculously in his Creation. _


----------



## Zenas (Dec 2, 2009)

No one is saying Warfield is a liberal theologian. We're saying Warfield is wrong in this respect.


----------



## Montanablue (Dec 2, 2009)

tcalbrecht said:


> Mason,
> 
> Would you agree that Darwinian evolution and theistic evolution (as they are commonly constructed) are scientifically indistinguishable?



I can't speak for Mason, but I don't know any theistic evolutionists (and I know many) that would agree that they are "scientifically indistinguishable." Otherwise, what's the point of differentiating yourself as a "theistic evolutionist?" You'd just be a Darwinian. I'm not sure those believing in theistic evolution are as ignorant as you think.

(And for the record and before I'm accused of anything, I believe in a 6 day creation.)


----------



## Zenas (Dec 2, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > Mason,
> ...



No worries. I think that its important to correct misconceptions about another view for the benefit of the discussion, even though you might disagree with that view. Otherwise, everyone's just swatting at a strawman.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 2, 2009)

tcalbrecht said:


> Mason,
> 
> Would you agree that Darwinian evolution and theistic evolution (as they are commonly constructed) are scientifically indistinguishable?



First of all, I want to apologize, Tom, for my earlier statement about you being in over your head. That was arrogant, judgmental, and rude - I hope you'll forgive my lack of charity. 

To answer your question, I don't agree at all. Theistic evolutionists believe God intervenes and supernaturally orders evolution. Darwinian evolutionists reject the notion of God outright. Darwinians believe we evolved from organic molecules entirely through evolutionary mechanisms, while Theists believe we were created, although the extent of their belief in macro-evolution varies.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Dec 2, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > Mason,
> ...



Then what is the scientific difference? The common view of YEC creationists is that Theistic evolutionists take all that regular darwinian science puts forward then stick God at the front of the process, and say "Done".

CT


----------



## Philip (Dec 2, 2009)

Just to note that I've met theistic evolutionists who would claim supernatural intervention as a means by which evolution progressed. Most of these would also maintain that Adam and Eve were entirely separate creations.

The issue is more one of how to reconcile the apparent age and progression of the earth (if the findings are unreliable, then modern nuclear physics--all of it--is most likely false) with the chronology found in the scriptures, particularly with Genesis 1 (the geneologies are fairly flexible, methinks).


----------



## Montanablue (Dec 2, 2009)

ChristianTrader said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > tcalbrecht said:
> ...



Since I'm not a theistic evolutionist and since I don't really care to spend my time arguing their case, I hope you'll pardon me for not responding to your query. To be honest, I would run the risk of misstating their case. I merely responded to the thread because I knew so many of my theistic evolutionist friends would be appalled at what was being put on them. 

I can say that all of them see God as the master and designer of creation and reject a number of Darwin's assertions. But to try to expand on which assertions they reject etc would be foolish of me since I haven't studied the topic in-depth.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 2, 2009)

lynnie said:


> sola-
> 
> Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am a totally diehard creationist and young earther, and I am so far to the fringe right that I would die at the stake for the doctrine of geocentricity, that the earth was created before the sun, and the sun (and universe) orbits it daily. I am not trying to defend BBW or Keller's doctrine.
> 
> ...



I can't speak for the PCA, but the OPC has ruled theistic evolution to be out of accord with our standards and Scripture through a judicial case a few years back. So they have ruled against Warfield's particular view.


----------



## Wayne (Dec 2, 2009)

A sample quote from the PCA position paper on creation in regards to theistic evolution:



> 6. The stress on the principle of analogy between God’s work and ours means that it has special creative events built into it, and hence while it favors some sort of intelligent design model for biology* it is incompatible with theistic evolutionary schemes.*



And another:



> It is only right to note, however, that this description of “proper theistic evolution” is based on the metaphysic underlying the view. Popular usage of the term “theistic evolution” can be broader, and not entirely consistent: some apply the term to all brands of old-earth creationism; some apply it to versions of old-earth creationism that allow large-scale biological development (e.g. those that allow that all mammals share a common ancestor); some apply it to any view that allows common ancestry for all living things.
> 
> A kind of “theistic evolutionary” view that has important historical relevance for confessional Presbyterians is the one that allows that Adam’s body was the product of evolutionary development (second causes working alone under divine providence), and that his special creation involved the imparting of a rational soul to a highly-developed hominid. This view has been associated with James Woodrow and Benjamin Warfield (at least early in his career). *We can supply a strong critique of such a construct *from exegesis of Genesis 1—2, where, as John Murray observed (Collected Writings, 2:8), in Genesis 2:7 the man became an animate being by the in-breathing, and by implication was not one beforehand (for his body to have had animal ancestry, the man’s ancestors must have been animate beings). We may also critique the view from the anthropology involved: man is a body-soul nexus, and the body must have the capacities to support the expression of God’s image; such a body cannot be the product of second causes alone. Finally, we should note that *this kind of “theistic evolution” is an unstable metaphysical hybrid*: it tries to combine the naturalistic picture of the development of the capabilities necessary to support the human soul, with the supernaturalist acknowledgment of the divine origin of what distinguishes us from the animals. This combines elements from incompatible metaphysical positions.



[emphasis added]


----------



## Philip (Dec 2, 2009)

Didn't the PCA report allow for teaching of a theological or literary framework view of Genesis 1, though?

It seems to me that as long as we can say that Adam and Eve didn't have/need navels, we're on fairly solid ground


----------



## Wayne (Dec 2, 2009)

It's online here (as referenced previously, I think):
PCA Historical Center: Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly, June 21, 2000

or in pdf if you prefer: http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.pdf


----------



## lynnie (Dec 2, 2009)

Patrick/PS...thanks, I didn't know that about the OPC.

Wayne....interesting.

I know that in my Presbytery (metro NY, with Keller) there are ordained guys with exceptions to the confession on the sabbath and a few other things. So I would imagine it is also fine to take exceptions to PCA position papers. I can't see that this creationism position will ever be required if the confessional sabbath position about recreation isn't. Just guessing.

One of my kids would agree with everything in a standard statement of faith but he became a theistic evolutionist at college. Drives me nuts when we get talking. He was a history major and took barely any science, and I took almost all botany/biology/geology, but he has lots of theologians on his side for all the old earth, day-age junk, as well as the divinely directed evolution, so it seems like a useless debate anymore.


----------



## Philip (Dec 2, 2009)

After reading the position paper on the framework view, it seems (to me) that Keller is in line with it.


----------



## Jon Peters (Dec 2, 2009)

ChristianTrader said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > tcalbrecht said:
> ...



Why should YEC define the terms of the opposition? I suppose it's easier to refute when you narrow the terms of the debate. Or perhaps I misunderstand something.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 2, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > Mason,
> ...



I will. 



ColdSilverMoon said:


> To answer your question, I don't agree at all. Theistic evolutionists believe God intervenes and supernaturally orders evolution. Darwinian evolutionists reject the notion of God outright. Darwinians believe we evolved from organic molecules entirely through evolutionary mechanisms, while Theists believe we were created, although the extent of their belief in macro-evolution varies.



I agree they are different at a metaphysical level, but that was not my question. Are they physically (scientifically) distinguishable, and if so how?

As I understand things, theistic evolutionists believe that God providentially ordered creation to bring about what we see today. From the PCA Statement:


> theistic evolution: belief that natural processes sustained by God’s ordinary providence are God’s means of bringing about life and humanity.



Hence, speciation becomes a "natural" process. However, the view is essentially deist in that God simply wound up the clock and had nothing else to do. The only supernatural act was the setting up of the initials conditions.

It is distinguished from, say, progressive creation which teaches that God directly/supernaturally intervened at certain points to create new species.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 3, 2009)

Dr. Sam Waldron did an excellent gracious but critical review. I think it is a beneficial read. 

Midwest Center for Theological Studies: Owensboro, KY

First off Dr. Waldron has a lot of commendations for the book. He is very gracious in his look at Keller and the book. He also has some serious critique also.

Here is a small portion of his critique. 



> Keller’s main interest, it seems to me, is also stated on the same page 94 I have already cited a couple of times. He says, “The skeptical inquirer does not need to accept any one of these positions in order to embrace the Christian faith. Rather, he should concentrate on and weigh the central claims of Christianity. Only after drawing conclusions about the person of Christ, the resurrection, and the central tenets of the Christian message should one think through the various options with regard to creation and evolution.”
> 
> While Keller’s zeal for the gospel of Christ and the salvation of the sinner is commendable, this statement raises serious questions. Can we really present Christ apart from the backdrop of what the Bible teaches about creation? Is a Christ that is consistent with theistic evolution really the biblical Christ? If Christ is the last Adam, isn’t a non-literal reading of the first Adam destructive of the very identity and saving work of Christ? At some point the worldview against which the gospel is presented does begin to affect the gospel. I can as a creationist agree that someone should first accept Christ and only in light of that decide about the literary genre of Genesis 1. I can even understand why someone might say, first accept Christ, and then decide, for instance, what he teaches about the identity and role of women in the church. I really do not think we can say, or that it is beneficial to say, first decide for Christ, and then make up your mind about the biological evolution of the human race. The creation of the human race by God is the backdrop of the redemption of the human race by Christ. The two stand or fall together.
> 
> ...


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 3, 2009)

tcalbrecht said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > tcalbrecht said:
> ...



That's a major straw man. Not only is it inaccurate for many theistic evolutionists, but it doesn't fit with the definition you quoted. _Some_ theistic evolutionists might take a deist approach, not certainly not all.

In terms of the scientific distinction, I'm not sure I understand your question. Evolution is evolution - I'm not sure how there can be a "scientific" difference...


----------



## lynnie (Dec 3, 2009)

_Is a Christ that is consistent with theistic evolution really the biblical Christ? If Christ is the last Adam, isn’t a non-literal reading of the first Adam destructive of the very identity and saving work of Christ? _

Actually no, although I don't agree with theistic evolution.

With creation, Adam is made from the dust of the ground directly.

With theistic evolution, the dust of the ground dissolves in the early pool of chemicals that turns into amino acids and comes together into the first cell and on to the worms and fish and finally the primates. 

But in both interpretations,God makes that first Adam a living soul by giving him his human spirit. With Warfield/Hodge/Keller this IS a historic Adam, a first man with an eternal soul who sins. Everything before him in theistic evolution is just animal.

Please note that I am not trying to support this position, but there ARE many true believers who in other respects are Reformed and confessional who hold to it. To say they do not believe in the biblical Christ, in my opinion, is an accusation of heresy and is unjustifiable. They serve the same Jesus we serve.

Here is a nice little blurb on that primordial pool of scum and chemicals we all come from. The ATP molecule parts ( in all living things) had to all come together within about half an hour in a reducing environment. Right.

The Myth Of Chemical Evolution

Even small parts of the components of cells can be unimaginably complex. An example of this is the enzyme adenosine triphosphate synthase, found in all living cells including animals, plants, fungi and bacteria. The elucidation of the structure of ATP synthase won a 1997 Nobel Prize. Every cell contains hundreds of these miniature motors embedded in the surfaces of the mitochondria. Each is 200,000 times smaller than a pinhead. The motor forges a bond between ADP and phosphate to form ATP. The ATP couples with other processes in the cell requiring energy to reform ADP and phosphate. So energy is directed to contract muscles, beat the heart and drive thought processes in the brain, while the products are recycled. At the centre of ATP synthase is a tiny wheel that turns at about 100 revolutions per second and turns out three ATP molecules per rotation. Just to keep us thinking and walking, humans must recycle their own body weight of ATP each day. Each enzyme is composed of thirty-one separate proteins that in turn are made of thousands of precisely arranged amino acids. Take away any one of the 31 proteins and the motor is useless. It could not have evolved. And consider this: the genetic information and RNA plus proteins needed to construct the ATP synthase are in total even more irreducibly complex than the ATP synthase itself. (A car-making factory is more complex than a car.)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 3, 2009)

Lynnie,

I think the point is that Christ as the son of Adam (or son of Man) must be the same as far as creation goes. Christ is the son of Adam and the Son of God. To diminish the first man as a created whole is to diminish the second one as a created person. I have heard some pretty weird interpretations of theistic evolution. I have also heard some compelling argumentation that the first chapter isn't poetic. But that is another topic. And one must take into account what a non-literal reading in the creation of Adam might render. The two Adams are closely connected and therefore what one thinks concerning the first effects the the second. 

It is kind of like the Covenant of Works debate. If one doesn't understand the prelapsarian covenant (or believe in a CofW) his or her view will be skewed concerning the person and work of Christ. It doesn't necessarily mean they aren't saved though faith in Christ's atonement. But they will have a deficient understanding of the work of Christ. Thus the comparison and analogy, if one doesn't interpret the creation account in a literal sense then were can that lead him when he interprets other things that should be interpreted literally. It tends to lead down some dangerous roads in my estimation. 

Just my humble opinion

BTW, what did you think of Dr. Waldron's assessment of Keller's chapter 12 and atonement. There is much more to the story than just his talk of creation. And I believe that is being neglected in our discussion.



> Another point at which I find Keller’s defense of the faith a little troubling is in Chapter Twelve, “The (True) Story of the Cross.” In this chapter Keller attempts, I think, to defend the concept of substitionary sacrifice to the unbeliever by illustrating it from human experience. He argues, first, that “Real Forgiveness Is Costly Suffering.” (187) Here Keller argues that to forgive means that in some sense we bear the cost of the person’s offense against us. He argues, second, “Real Love Is a Personal Exchange.” (193) That is to say, “In the real world of relationships it is impossible to love people with a problem or a need without in some sense sharing or even changing places with them. All real life-changing love involves some form of this kind of exchange.” (193)
> 
> Perhaps there is apologetic value in these kinds of illustrations of the substitionary sacrifice, but as clear accounts of what Christ did on the cross they fall far short of a clear account of substitionary curse-bearing. If I read them simply as illustrations, I find Keller’s observations interesting and perhaps helpful. If I read them as accurate explanations of the cross, I find them deficient. At best Keller’s illustrations are dim and finally inadequate human reflections of substitution.
> 
> Contributing to this fuzziness is Keller’s citation of N. T. Wright at a key point in this chapter (196). The real nature of Wright’s own theory of the atonement has been widely questioned. [Cf. John Piper’s discussion of Wright’s view of the atonement in The Future of Justification (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 46-53, for a very generous assessment of Wright which nonetheless underscores the uncertainty surrounding his view of the atonement.] Keller’s citation of Wright and his idea that the cross involves a reversal of the world’s values reminds me of non-violent theories of the cross coming out of the Anabaptist pacifist tradition.



BTW, Dr. Waldron did have some kudos for the book. Don't forget that either.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 3, 2009)

PC, I agree with you, you have to understand that I am a creationist and I think the points you just made are all correct and well articulated.

Having said this, when people use words like wondering if this is really the biblical Christ, I get jumpy. I mean, to preach another gospel or another Christ, well, let him be accursed. It is loaded language. We cannot use words like "not the biblical Christ" in my opinion here, but I might be wrong. As long as someone holds to a historical Adam who was the very first man with an eternal soul, I think we have to accept them as preaching the same Jesus we preach. Now the ones who hold to gradual evolution with no divine moment in time when God separates man from animals and gives him a soul, well, it is OK with me to call them heretics . But that isn't Keller. To believe in a historical Adam is to believe in a historical Adam.

This [email protected] is all over the PCA by the way. Pray for us.

Re the atonement, I can't for one second think Keller has rejected belief in and preaching the penal satisfaction of God's wrath. I am in his presbytery and I just don't believe he teaches "dim and finally inadequate human reflections of substitution" in his ministry as a whole. I would have to see a great weight of evidence first, and even with that I do believe he would repent of any vagueness and go back to truth, and the presbytery would drag him in anyway if he seriously departed from orthodoxy.

To tell you the truth, I read a lot and I love theology and my hub went to WTS and he reads constantly and we talk a lot. But I started reading Reason for God and stopped part way through as I found it to be just plain uninteresting. And I can enjoy books other people find dry and boring, but I just couldn't see what the big deal was with that book. I love his preaching tapes, but the book just didn't do anything for me. Maybe I'm just not into apologetics?

When I got saved I was starving to think and understand. He is around smart, educated New Yorkers and I don't think anything needs to be watered down with poor examples if you ask me. Feed them the real thing. But hey, he is on the best seller list and leading multitudes to the Lord, and I am not, so what do I know.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 3, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> My point: Without intending to suggest that Keller will have the influence of Barth... In his book, I think Keller makes too many concessions. Too many of his arguments on too many subjects are based upon a syncretism of orthodox Christianity and early 21st Century American cultural and philosophical values. I'm positive that his concessions will make him more intellectually appealling to those who have imbibed from the well of worldly wisdom, but the lasting effects will not be a thoroughgoing robust biblical orthodoxy. They can't because his arguments and conclusions themselves aren't.



Is it "concessions" or attempting to build on "points of contact"? I agree, for example in the creation chapter, that he does concede too much to "science". But I also think that overall he is appealing to the good values of our current post-modern culture, and attempting to show that those good values (i.e. mutual respect, social justice, human dignity, etc.) cannot be consistently held unless you become a Christian. The post-modern worldview cannot logically account for them or even enforce them consistently. The Christian worldview is the only worldview which can account for those values with any logical or moral integrity. 

Would you agree or disagree with that?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 3, 2009)

Lynnie,

I believe there might be a bit too much fuzziness in certain areas. And I believe that is the point Dr. Waldron is making. Though Pastor Keller might be effectual in doing some things right some of his stuff might have some poor renderings in times to come. And that is the point Dr. Waldron made in the last paragraph of the quote I sighted and will show here.



> We do, of course, have to remember that Keller is doing apologetics not writing systematics for Christians. Nevertheless, there is a slippery slope in apologetics by which our attempt to illustrate Christianity to unbelievers subtly becomes our whole understanding of Christianity. Did the Apologists in the 2nd and Origen in the 3rd century intend to teach subordinationism and finally create Arianism by adopting the logos speculation of Greek philosophy? No. But that is what happened when their partial illustrations were taken as whole explanations



I bet you would enjoy the whole blog Lynnie.  It is moslty gracious. I picked out a small part of the critical part since it was what you guys were discussing. Take a look at it. I think you will appreciate the spirit it was written in. 

Midwest Center for Theological Studies: Owensboro, KY 

Be Encouraged,
Randy


----------



## lynnie (Dec 3, 2009)

You are right, it is truly gracious. I love the very last paragraph quote.

I don't know why Keller didn't have nitpicky proofreaders ahead of time to catch the fuzziness. I would have given it to students at his alma mater and let them rip it apart before the final edit. Students are great at that! Better yet the PB  Oh well. Thanks for the link!


----------



## caddy (Dec 7, 2009)

Jack K said:


> I read the review, and I think we can be more gracious. The Reason for God does not intend to offer a complete apologetic system or to fully articulate God’s call. It merely addresses questions and concerns so today’s unbeliever might be ready to listen to the Scriptures and hear the gospel. This it does with a rare combination of respect for the unbeliever and insistence on the atonement. We can learn from this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Prodigal God" is excellent In my humble opinion!


----------



## TimV (Dec 7, 2009)

> It probably was a poor choice for your men’s group unless they truly were more serious about understanding the unbeliever than they were about proving themselves theologically superior.



They chose it in ignorance based on the recommendation by a person new to Reformed thinking (his dad is a pastor in a PCA and a fan of Keller), and came to the conclusion that Keller isn't Reformed. They were neither trying to understand the unbeliever (? weren't we all unbelievers at one time?) nor trying to prove that they are theologically superior. I was the only one familiar with Keller before reading the book (I was not involved in the choice of reading) and even I was shocked. I know he shows contempt of the PCA's constitution by refusing to incorporate the laying on of hands during the ordination of deacons to further erase gender distinctions, I knew he denies the Biblical flood, but I still was unprepared for his telling unbelievers that he thinks evolution is true. The true Reason for God seems to be someone who created the first amoeba and sort of guided things until a pair of apes could walk upright.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 7, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> That's a major straw man. Not only is it inaccurate for many theistic evolutionists, but it doesn't fit with the definition you quoted. _Some_ theistic evolutionists might take a deist approach, not certainly not all.



I’m sorry, but it is not a strawman for the majority view of theistic evolution. It is essentially deistic in its view of the mechanical nature of evolution. It is perfectly in keeping with the definition from the PCA Statement. 


> theistic evolution: belief that natural processes sustained by God’s ordinary providence are God’s means of bringing about life and humanity.


At the heart of theistic evolution is the notion that God created certain laws and principles (“natural processes”) and that by the “normal” application of these processes (“God’s ordinary providence”) every living thing evolved to the state we see today. Natural selection, macroevolution, speciation, are all the result of providential guiding of natural processes. Like a child being born and growing up to adulthood and on to death, it’s just ordinary providence. 



ColdSilverMoon said:


> In terms of the scientific distinction, I'm not sure I understand your question. Evolution is evolution - I'm not sure how there can be a "scientific" difference...



That is my point. From a scientific standpoint there can be no distinction between how the Darwinian evolutionist approaches the data and how a theistic evolutionist approaches the data. The data itself tells the same story. The difference only comes about after imposing certain metaphysical views on the data. 

Theistic evolution, like its Darwinian brother, says that the same natural processes that turned fish into birds also turned apes into humans. There was no “dusty Adam.” Basic evolution precludes such a notion. 

You said:


> We're getting off topic discussing our individual beliefs on evolution, but my position is that God created Adam and Eve from dust as it says in Genesis 2. I don't believe Adam and Eve evolved, though I do believe God used and continues to use evolutionary principles in His creation.






> Genesis 1
> 
> So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (v. 21)
> 
> ...



So, is it your opinion that, naturalistically speaking, there is a different sort of “creation” happening in these three verses? It seems inconsistent with the definition of evolution to suggest they are radically different.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 7, 2009)

TimV said:


> > It probably was a poor choice for your men’s group unless they truly were more serious about understanding the unbeliever than they were about proving themselves theologically superior.
> 
> 
> 
> They chose it in ignorance based on the recommendation by a person new to Reformed thinking (his dad is a pastor in a PCA and a fan of Keller), and came to the conclusion that Keller isn't Reformed. They were neither trying to understand the unbeliever (? weren't we all unbelievers at one time?) nor trying to prove that they are theologically superior.



Trying to feel theologically superior is what I would have been doing, arrogant sinner than I am. Hence the comment. Sorry to accuse.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 7, 2009)

Old agers have to have a local flood. They hold to millions of years of gradual geologic change. For them, Mt Everest is too high to be covered with water thousands of years ago; even Mt Ararat is too high. 

Young earthers believe in catastrophic events at God's initiative. God spoke and the mountains were raised up. A much flatter crust was destroyed when the fountains of the deep opened up during the flood, and deposited sedimentary layers of rock from water that was under great pressure and heat below the crust, saturated with minerals. The mountains rose up during this period of great upheavel, taking their soon to be fossilized fish and ferns up with them. 

The thing about old earth and the local flood is that it isn't even necessary, not even for carbon dating. If people would just read some of the better books out there they'd realize how impossible the billions of year old moon and oceans and earth science really is. But they don't read creation science books, so they are trapped in deception. Sad. I think it is a subtle- or not so subtle- adoption of limited inerrancy, and the end point down the years for followers is liberalism.


----------

