# Tim Keller on Gen 1-11?



## augustacarguy (Aug 7, 2013)

Folks at my church idolize him. I've heard that he is part of the Biologos, Peter Enns, group, who really attack Gen 1-11 as non literal, and even take a theistic evolutionary (or maybe not even theistic) view on creation. On the other hand, I also see a lot of stuff saying he's not involved. What gives with Keller? Is he solid, or not, in your opinion. Generally inquisitive. I've only read his book, The Prodigal God. I don't really get the fuss about him, but I'm thinking there are some bigger issues at stake with him than just a lukewarm taste for his preaching.


----------



## ZackF (Aug 7, 2013)

There are plenty of threads on Pastor Keller and his church here. Members run the spectrum from "idolize" to well not so "idolize." I suggest searching and reading through some of them. I'm not a moderator but that is what I'd suggest if I was.


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 8, 2013)

It would be good for you to read: Engaging with Keller: Thinking Through the Theology of an Influential Evangelical: Iain D. Campbell, William M. Schweitzer: 9780852349281: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Jack K (Aug 8, 2013)

In a nutshell... based on sermons I've listened to (and until a few years ago I listened weekly), I think its fair to say that if you're a literal 7-day guy and you think that's important, you'll be unhappy with Keller. He points out the poetic nature of Genesis 1 and sees it as not necessarily referring to seven 24-hour days. However, it's going too far to lump him in with Enns or to imagine that he takes all of Genesis 1-11 the same way he looks at chapter 1. I say that based on what he's preached from the pulpit. Some critics try to tie him in to the views of all sorts of people who might associate with his church, but it's a huge church that practices many diverse associations, so you shouldn't assume much from that. It's best to just look at what the man himself has actually taught publicly. He's been preaching for decades, so there is material on record.

You should also be aware, though, that these topics aren't Dr. Keller's main interest. As an apologist and pastor, he's dealt with them, of course. A few sermons and talks exist that address this stuff, but not many compared to other topics. His popularity has little if anything to do with his views on Genesis 1. And I would wonder if he's actually interested enough to be heavily "involved," as you put it, with these matters—or to denounce views he may disagree with. It's not where he wants to focus people's attention.


----------



## nicnap (Aug 8, 2013)

Jack K said:


> He points out the poetic nature of Genesis 1 and sees it as not necessarily referring to seven 24-hour days.



The trouble with that is that it is not poetic. No matter how he may try to slice it, it is narrative. Since context helps us determine meaning, we apply that same hermeneutical principal to Genesis 1. It is _clearly_ historical narrative; many things clue us into this: the use of the cardinal numbers for each day, the hinge phrase "evening and morning", the testimony of the rest of Scripture, and on it goes. Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit went out of his way to demonstrate a chronological six ordinary day creation. (Though, I guess I've proved your point that 6 literal day guys don't care for Keller's thoughts here. It is not good practice to say he shows the poetic nature of X...when he doesn't; he demonstrates a faulty hermeneutic at that point, but doesn't demonstrate any poetry.)


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 8, 2013)

nicnap said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > He points out the poetic nature of Genesis 1 and sees it as not necessarily referring to seven 24-hour days.
> ...



 The problem with this view is that it not only demonstrates a faulty hermeneutic, but it also destroys the rest of Scripture. If Genesis 1-11 is not literal history, then sin and death did not really enter the world at the fall, and if this is the case, then Christ himself becomes pointless.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 8, 2013)

nicnap said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > He points out the poetic nature of Genesis 1 and sees it as not necessarily referring to seven 24-hour days.
> ...



For the record... I'm just reporting what I've heard him say, not advocating either way.

Bill, I've heard Keller draw a distinction between the style of chapter 1 and the rest of the book, NOT between chapters 1-11 and the rest of the book. His argument as I remember hearing it is based on the literary style of the first chapter, NOT stemming from the liberal I-can't-buy-that-in-light-of-science approach to chapters 1-11. I've never heard anything from him remotely suggesting that the fall is not literal history.


----------



## augustacarguy (Aug 8, 2013)

I do not see, in any way, how someone who does not read Gen 1-11 rightly, could reconcile that with what Paul says in Rom 5 concerning imputation. And, yes, I think I it is important, Jack.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 8, 2013)

augustacarguy said:


> Folks at my church idolize him. I've heard that he is part of the Biologos, Peter Enns, group, who really attack Gen 1-11 as non literal, and even take a theistic evolutionary (or maybe not even theistic) view on creation.



The PuritanBoard - The 9th Commandment


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 8, 2013)

Jack K said:


> Bill, I've heard Keller draw a distinction between the style of chapter 1 and the rest of the book, NOT between chapters 1-11 and the rest of the book. His argument as I remember hearing it is based on the literary style of the first chapter, NOT stemming from the liberal I-can't-buy-that-in-light-of-science approach to chapters 1-11. I've never heard anything from him remotely suggesting that the fall is not literal history.



Well I certainly don't want to attribute something to Keller that he does not actually believe. My comment was more directed to the general view that many Christians hold which does not view Genesis 1-11 as literal history. Regarding chapter one of Genesis, I would just say if it is indeed poetic, than it should follow that chapter 2 and 3 and so on would be as well because each of these chapters builds upon the previous one.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 8, 2013)

augustacarguy said:


> Folks at my church idolize him. I've heard that he is part of the Biologos, Peter Enns, group, who really attack Gen 1-11 as non literal, and even take a theistic evolutionary (or maybe not even theistic) view on creation.



Obviously if people at your church idolize him, then that is their problem and not his. As far as Biologos, he does have some blog posts on their forum addressing the issue of science and faith, but I don't think he goes nearly as far as many others who belong to Biologos. Keller, Tim | The BioLogos Forum


----------



## thbslawson (Aug 8, 2013)

Having just read about this in his book _The Reason For God_, here's a quote...

_“I personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 14 and 15. In each couple one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event… I think Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is therefore a “song” about the wonder and meaning of God’s creation. Genesis 2 is an account of how it happened… For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing Theory.” - pp 97-98_

From other statements he's made he takes Genesis 2-11 literally.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 8, 2013)

BioLogos features his sermons on their site: Keller, Tim | The BioLogos Forum
BioLogos features his written answers on the question: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf
The Aquilla Report discusses the realtionship of Keller and BioLogos at: Dr. Tim Keller and BioLogos
Christianity Today discussed the association of N.T. Wright, Alister McGrath, John Ortberg, Tim Keller, Scot McKnight, Os Guinness, Joel Hunter, and Andy Crouch at a BioLogos event last year: Evangelical Evolutionists Meet in New York | Christianity Today


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 8, 2013)

An Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) presbytery brought up its concern to General Assembly about the longtime public teachings of a longtime (PCA) ruling elder who was, until recently, on Session of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. The teaching promoting a "rising beasts" theory of evolution.

Dakotas Presbytery Overtures OPC GA Concerning Views on Adam Taught by a PCA Minister

In the PCA, a Senior Pastor is presumed moderator of Session and a member of presbytery.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 8, 2013)

"Rising Beasts Theory" - Good name, in more ways than one.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## SRoper (Aug 8, 2013)

Scott1 said:


> An Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) presbytery brought up its concern to General Assembly about the longtime public teachings of a longtime (PCA) ruling elder who was, until recently, on Session of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. The teaching promoting a "rising beasts" theory of evolution.
> 
> Dakotas Presbytery Overtures OPC GA Concerning Views on Adam Taught by a PCA Minister
> 
> In the PCA, a Senior Pastor is presumed moderator of Session and a member of presbytery.



I haven't seen any evidence that Dr. Choong was a ruling elder at Redeemer (or senior pastor for that matter--not sure why your last sentence is there). It appears he was on staff for a time many years ago. He is now a TE in Metro New York as director of the Academy of Christian Thought.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 8, 2013)

SRoper said:


> I haven't seen any evidence that Dr. Choong was a ruling elder at Redeemer (or senior pastor for that matter--not sure why your last sentence is there)



The Senior Pastor of the church, Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, is the esteemed subject of this thread.


----------



## lynnie (Aug 9, 2013)

Keller has publicly stated that he believes in a first Adam, and that Paul's teaching in Romans is literal. He is not in the camp that believes genetics proves that the modern human race began with a group of at least several hundred, or that Adam was a myth or symbol. 

Now, his first Adam nursed at the breast of an evolved primate, and I am not sure where Eve came from. And death meant spiritual death of the eternal soul, which God breathed into Adam as the first man, so for all that evolution there was lots of animal dying happening. But Adam had the first soul, and was the first sinner, and everything Paul taught about imputation of sin and imputation of justification is literal. 

Now I happen to think his primate evolution position is terribly wrong...but it is not Pete Enns who sounds heretical in brief quotes I have read (he may have been misquoted, I do not know) and denies a first Adam. You must differentiate between those who hold to a first Adam and those who do not.

I will say that some of the speakers invited to conferences Keller sponsors do not hold to a first Adam, and it is hard to know who is just there for debate and apologetics. He is into dialogue I suppose.


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford (Aug 10, 2013)

I try to stay away from Keller's false teachings.

Creation is a foundational issue as it is linked in the Scriptures with the Fall and Redemption. Keller promotes theistic-evolution, a concept that questions the clear teaching of the Bible, introduces death before sin, and undermines Biblical-authority. Someone who believes in theistic-evolution is not submitting to God's Word, but rather standing over Scripture and inserting their own false ideas.

The Aquila Report posted this review of a book that takes a sharp look at Keller's theology (raising a number of concerns): Engaging with Keller: Thinking Through the Theology of an Influential Evangelical

A friend commented on the above article: 


> It says that he [Keller] speaks one way to moderns and another to post moderns. There is a term for this, "he speaks with a forked tongue". He is almost moslem in his approach, as the moslems believe in taqiyya, the art of obfuscation, where you teach one thing to placate one group but it is only to advance your real agenda and you tell this to another group.



Keller also went to the The Veritas Forum and was interviewed by Martin Bashir. In the the interview Bashir asked Keller about the eternal destiny of those who don’t believe in Jesus Christ. See The Cripplegate's post for reference: Keller and the Exclusivity of Christ | the Cripplegate

Keller's pathetic answer: 


> If they die and they’ve never, if they die and they don’t have Jesus Christ, I don’t know.



How about quoting Scripture? 

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). 

“Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

Keller also refuses to believe God's Second Commandment in regards to the prohibition of making images of the Lord:

Redeemer PCA sermon description:


> It is indeed moving to consider the “Christmas-card images” of the Baby Jesus in a manger [...]


The Terrifying Jesus | Redeemer Sermons

Sadly, Keller doesn't mean "moving" in the Acts 17:16 sense of paroxunō: "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry." (Acts 17:16)

And a blogger named Jeremy Tate on Jan 3rd, 2011 provided description of one of Redeemer's services (I will not link to the blog because of the Second Commandment violation(s):



> Keller founded Redeemer in 1989 and over the past twenty years it has become one of the most influential churches in America. During this time Dr. Keller himself has become one of the most influential leaders in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). It would be an understatement to say I was incredibly excited to see Dr. Keller preach in person. Even to this day, I have the highest respect for the man. As I walked into the Redeemer service, however, I was shocked by the church bulletin I was handed. A gory painting of Jesus, dead on the cross, covered the entire front cover of the bulletin. Having been schooled by “truly reformed” folk in the Deep South I could hardly believe my eyes. The leading church in my denomination was openly violating the Second Commandment! I was so disturbed I could hardly listen to a word of the sermon.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 11, 2013)

*Lynnie*


> his first Adam nursed at the breast of an evolved primate



This is where things just get silly with some of these guys, if they weren't heretical (theistic evolution) before.

Also highly disappointing for those Christians who may have benefited from others of their writings and sermons.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 11, 2013)

> Jas 4:4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 11, 2013)

lynnie said:


> Now, his first Adam nursed at the breast of an evolved primate



I agree that this statement makes the man in question look really bad. I've seen it used a few times now on this board. My concern is that I've never heard him actually say anything like this, or read any statement from him that says this. One _might_ presume it from his article published by BioLogos—if one was looking to put the most damaging face possible on that article. But he doesn't say anything like this sentence in that article (in which he presents possiblities, including some that he goes of the way to point out are not necessarily his own theories).

As this sentence has been attributed to him a few times now on this board, it's high time it came with an actual citation. If he has indeed said it, cite the source. If you can't cite a source, don't make the damaging attribution.

His views and speculations are available via the links posted above. Let's take time to read, and report accurately. There's plenty there to take issue with and challenge without making up stuff to make it sound worse. Report what he's actually said and written, and allow him to summarize what other have speculated (which he does often) without then claiming that he holds to their views just because he mentions them or attended a conference with them once upon a time. I don't agree with everything written in the paper BioLogos published, but I do know that I'm getting uncomfortable having my name and picture up on a site that's pubishing dirt about a PCA pastor without citing any reliable source.

Concern for truth and close attention to accuracy must come first, or any ligitimate critique that may be warranted will carry no weight.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 11, 2013)

Jack, if what he propounds would logically require that Adam suckled at the breast of an ape, why would he need to actually say it for it not to be true of his view? I don't know what Keller holds to other than the few quotes I've seen on PB, but I can say that there are many in my own Church who hold to a theistic evolution paradigm that generally get antsy when I ask them if they believe that of Adam. At that point the discussion stops, and listeners are left to decide if my point is cogent or if I am just a... neanderthal. Sadly, it often appears the latter is the general consensus. Gee, I wish I were just a little more... evolved.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 11, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> Jack, if what he propounds would logically require that Adam suckled at the breast of an ape, why would he need to actually say it for it not to be true of his view? I don't know what Keller holds to other than the few quotes I've seen on PB, but I can say that there are many in my own Church who hold to a theistic evolution paradigm that generally get antsy when I ask them if they believe that of Adam. At that point the discussion stops, and listeners are left to decide if my point is cogent or if I am just a... neanderthal. Sadly, it often appears the latter is the general consensus. Gee, I wish I were just a little more... evolved.



IF that's true (and as I read him, he's mentioned that sort of human evolution as a possible theory but not necessarily his own view), then we say something like "what he propounds would logically require that Adam suckled at the breast of an ape." That's an argument that addresses the issue with some wit and presents an honest challenge. But to simply state that he believes such a thing is to put unflattering words in his mouth that he never uttered. That's a technique used often by the FoxNews/CNN pundits of our world, but not one that truth-loving Christians ought to employ.

Ironically, much of what makes Dr. Keller himself such a talented apologist is how he follows the maxim that when debating your opponent, you first state his position in such a way that he will agree with it or even think you've expressed it better than he could himself. Then, having shown that you understand him and are treating his position fairly, if that position is wrong you proceed to show how it's wrong.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 12, 2013)

OK, Jack, slandering my FoxNews homies with the same technique you are accusing some on this post of using against Keller is . . . ironic. 

With a Scot-Irish name, my peeps were not even evolved enough to make it onto the standard evolutionary tree. We still consider chimps first cousins.

Keller has intentionally positioned himself in a different place than most of us on this board. Regardless of the fine points, he holds a number of views (e.g., role of women, latitude for literary interpretations of Genesis) that locate him differently from more conservative PCA folks (and most of us on the PB). I am in strong disagreement with some of his (evident) views (e.g., role of women and interpretation of Genesis) but agree with you Jack that it is not appropriate to slander him inaccurately.

Most denominations have some kind of "range" on issues of interpretation that each group accepts as legitimate diversity. Keller is clearly a "conservative" Christian, maybe more conservative than most broad evangelicals. It is certainly appropriate to argue with his views (accurately stated), but you are correct that we ought not put words into his mouth.

Now, please excuse me. I need to get back to my Fox News, swinging from trees, and calling my wife with my best chimp call.


----------



## psycheives (Aug 12, 2013)

Jack K said:


> IF that's true (and as I read him, he's mentioned that sort of human evolution as a possible theory but not necessarily his own view), then we say something like "what he propounds would logically require that Adam suckled at the breast of an ape." That's an argument that addresses the issue with some wit and presents an honest challenge. But to simply state that he believes such a thing is to put unflattering words in his mouth that he never uttered. That's a technique used often by the FoxNews/CNN pundits of our world, but not one that truth-loving Christians ought to employ.



Good reminder to always portray the other side clearly, honestly and as we ourselves would want to be represented. Since Keller didn't actually say those words, I agree we should quote what he DID say and then expound the logical conclusion of such beliefs. As I grow, I am more and more aware of the need to follow this mature line of thinking. Much appreciated reminder, Jack.


----------

