Theistic Evolution Openly Taught in Metro New York Presbytery

[torstar]

Conclusion: Adam was probably not the first human being but he was most certainly the first one being human.

yikes.

There are many theologians who believe in pre-adamic hominids. If I remember correctly, F.F. Bruce is among them. That doesn't mean they're right.

Stott does in his commentary on Romans chapter 5.

 

[Wes White]

It's being taught in Metro New York. He lives in New York. Where do you think he's blogging from, Uganda?

 

[sastark]

It's being taught in Metro New York. He lives in New York. Where do you think he's blogging from, Uganda?

Knowing missionaries in Uganda, I can say with some measure of confidence that this sort of unbiblical teaching would not be tolerated there.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Where all is Choong out of line with the WCF?

For starters, he is out of line with the WCF where he points out that the WCF is wrong according to his interpretation.

One of the most important and influential creedal statement today is the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), a 17th century document. However, its dated view of the creation account has made it an obstacle for fruitful science and theology conversations.

His church then should be independant. But how many PCAs and others for that matter agree with every tenant of the WCF?

 

[Zenas]

To be sure, affirming theistic evolution as opposed to 6-day creation is a tad different than which lapsarian view or estachatological stance you take.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Where all is Choong out of line with the WCF?

For starters, he is out of line with the WCF where he points out that the WCF is wrong according to his interpretation.

One of the most important and influential creedal statement today is the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), a 17th century document. However, its dated view of the creation account has made it an obstacle for fruitful science and theology conversations.

His church then should be independant. But how many PCAs and others for that matter agree with every tenant of the WCF?

"tenant of the WCF"? I would love to be one of those. How much does the rent cost? I love the WCF so much, I want to live in it.

If I were a "tenant of the WCF," would that mean that everyone has to agree with me all the time?

 

[SRoper]

Now has the PCA put out something like the OPC about creation? I gotta go pick up my beautiful bride and attend a convocation so no time to google for now.

Report of the Creation Study Committee

 

[torstar]

Where all is Choong out of line with the WCF?

For starters, he is out of line with the WCF where he points out that the WCF is wrong according to his interpretation.

One of the most important and influential creedal statement today is the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), a 17th century document. However, its dated view of the creation account has made it an obstacle for fruitful science and theology conversations.

His church then should be independant. But how many PCAs and others for that matter agree with every tenant of the WCF?

"tenant of the WCF"? I would love to be one of those. How much does the rent cost? I love the WCF so much, I want to live in it.

If I were a "tenant of the WCF," would that mean that everyone has to agree with me all the time?

The maintenance fees are almost unbearable.

 

[Zenas]

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.

-PCA Creation Study Committee

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Where all is Choong out of line with the WCF?

For starters, he is out of line with the WCF where he points out that the WCF is wrong according to his interpretation.

One of the most important and influential creedal statement today is the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), a 17th century document. However, its dated view of the creation account has made it an obstacle for fruitful science and theology conversations.

His church then should be independant. But how many PCAs and others for that matter agree with every tenant of the WCF?

"tenant of the WCF"? I would love to be one of those. How much does the rent cost? I love the WCF so much, I want to live in it.

If I were a "tenant of the WCF," would that mean that everyone has to agree with me all the time?

That's what you get when you work in commercial real estate and comment on stuff.

But to be a tenant in the WCF I charge $100/month. Email for application.

 

[lynnie]

I really appreciate much of what Keller has brought to the church at large, his gifting is tremedous. But his book Reason for God expresses belief in theistic evolution so this is no surprise. Many WTS people also accept it in the BB Warfield tradition, and as I have said here a few times, you can't fight BB Warfield.

 

[Dearly Bought]

It doesn't appear that theistic evolution is the worst of Choong's errors:

Let me begin with a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, the foundation of the Christian faith. Do Christians worship one god or three gods? Both options are incorrect. We worship the god who is one! The maker of heaven and earth, who spoke to Adam and Eve, saved Noah and his family, called Abram out of Mesopotamia, named Jacob Israel, called Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, and who guided Joshua into Canaan, is the God who is one and, not one god. The shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 [Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one ] and James 2:19 [You believe that God is one; you do well...] refer not to one God but God who is one. Christianity is not a monotheistic faith. It is a trinitarian faith. We have become theologically corrupted by well-meaning but biblically-challenged worship songs which have become a major source of our biblical knowledge, so we sing “The Lord our God is One Lord”, suggesting that we worship one God rather than the God who is one. But who can understand this mathematical conundrum? It is easier to say that we worship one God expressed in three forms rather than a unitary of three gods. Yet this has no biblical warrant. It is just a cop-out. We should be bold enough to say that God revealed in the Scriptures as the Father, the Son and the Spirit are titles describing the three distinct persons of the trinitarian godhead, for which any attempt at mathematical formulation will collapse. What they have in common is the same will. This we need not wonder about or guess at - they do not contradict each other. It is this character of God which makes our Lord one. In every other respect we do not have a biblical description of a singular god.
(emphasis is mine, link here)

Correct me if I'm reading something erroneous into this... but.... isn't this a mere economic trinitarianism which appears to describe the Trinity's unity as solely volitional and not ontological??? In other words, isn't this a veiled form of polytheism? A slideshow of a "Lecture on the Triunity" on the ACT website seems to convey the same idea. The slideshow also contains the statement: "The term 'Father' does not exhaust the description of God. In a patriarchal society, it is the best referent."

 

[Zenas]

You read him correctly in my estimation. The most telling portion being, "What they have in common is the same will. This we need not wonder about or guess at - they do not contradict each other. It is this character of God which makes our Lord one."

This man is dangerous.

 

[Brandon1]

It doesn't appear that theistic evolution is the worst of Choong's errors:

Let me begin with a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, the foundation of the Christian faith. Do Christians worship one god or three gods? Both options are incorrect. We worship the god who is one! The maker of heaven and earth, who spoke to Adam and Eve, saved Noah and his family, called Abram out of Mesopotamia, named Jacob Israel, called Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, and who guided Joshua into Canaan, is the God who is one and, not one god. The shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 [Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one ] and James 2:19 [You believe that God is one; you do well...] refer not to one God but God who is one. Christianity is not a monotheistic faith. It is a trinitarian faith. We have become theologically corrupted by well-meaning but biblically-challenged worship songs which have become a major source of our biblical knowledge, so we sing “The Lord our God is One Lord”, suggesting that we worship one God rather than the God who is one. But who can understand this mathematical conundrum? It is easier to say that we worship one God expressed in three forms rather than a unitary of three gods. Yet this has no biblical warrant. It is just a cop-out. We should be bold enough to say that God revealed in the Scriptures as the Father, the Son and the Spirit are titles describing the three distinct persons of the trinitarian godhead, for which any attempt at mathematical formulation will collapse. What they have in common is the same will. This we need not wonder about or guess at - they do not contradict each other. It is this character of God which makes our Lord one. In every other respect we do not have a biblical description of a singular god.
(emphasis is mine, link here)

Correct me if I'm reading something erroneous into this... but.... isn't this a mere economic trinitarianism which appears to describe the Trinity's unity as solely volitional and not ontological??? In other words, isn't this a veiled form of polytheism? A slideshow of a "Lecture on the Triunity" on the ACT website seems to convey the same idea. The slideshow also contains the statement: "The term 'Father' does not exhaust the description of God. In a patriarchal society, it is the best referent."

I, for one, don't think your analysis is totally correct. He is not saying they are ontologically different, but he is (in an unclear way) showing the great mystery of the God we worship being Three distinct persons in one essence (or if you prefer Van Til's terminology, one Person). I'm not sure he's helpful, but I don't think he's being heretical here either.

 

[SemperEruditio]

It doesn't appear that theistic evolution is the worst of Choong's errors:

Let me begin with a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, the foundation of the Christian faith. Do Christians worship one god or three gods? Both options are incorrect. We worship the god who is one! The maker of heaven and earth, who spoke to Adam and Eve, saved Noah and his family, called Abram out of Mesopotamia, named Jacob Israel, called Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, and who guided Joshua into Canaan, is the God who is one and, not one god. The shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 [Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one ] and James 2:19 [You believe that God is one; you do well...] refer not to one God but God who is one. Christianity is not a monotheistic faith. It is a trinitarian faith. We have become theologically corrupted by well-meaning but biblically-challenged worship songs which have become a major source of our biblical knowledge, so we sing “The Lord our God is One Lord”, suggesting that we worship one God rather than the God who is one. But who can understand this mathematical conundrum? It is easier to say that we worship one God expressed in three forms rather than a unitary of three gods. Yet this has no biblical warrant. It is just a cop-out. We should be bold enough to say that God revealed in the Scriptures as the Father, the Son and the Spirit are titles describing the three distinct persons of the trinitarian godhead, for which any attempt at mathematical formulation will collapse. What they have in common is the same will. This we need not wonder about or guess at - they do not contradict each other. It is this character of God which makes our Lord one. In every other respect we do not have a biblical description of a singular god.
(emphasis is mine, link here)

Correct me if I'm reading something erroneous into this... but.... isn't this a mere economic trinitarianism which appears to describe the Trinity's unity as solely volitional and not ontological??? In other words, isn't this a veiled form of polytheism? A slideshow of a "Lecture on the Triunity" on the ACT website seems to convey the same idea. The slideshow also contains the statement: "The term 'Father' does not exhaust the description of God. In a patriarchal society, it is the best referent."

I don't see the problem with the bold portion. "Father" is the best we can understand God to be in our society. That is why there is the gender neutral Bible because feminist oppose the fact that we were at one time a patriarchal society. The problem with the Church in the US is that it has become too maternal. However back to the point...no one word can exhaust the description of our infinite Lord and "Father" is no exception.

 

[Zenas]

Brandon,

He clearly says the thing that makes God "one" is the agreement of will. God is not, as a part of His being, one. He is one because he agrees with himself. He's advocating for a very thinly veiled polytheism, not trinitarianism.

 

[Dearly Bought]

I don't see the problem with the bold portion. "Father" is the best we can understand God to be in our society. That is why there is the gender neutral Bible because feminist oppose the fact that we were at one time a patriarchal society. The problem with the Church in the US is that it has become too maternal. However back to the point...no one word can exhaust the description of our infinite Lord and "Father" is no exception.

I don't have any problem with the idea alone that "the term 'Father' does not exhaust the description of God." What concerns me is that the statement about patriarchal society seems to suggest that "Father" would not be an appropriate referent for God in a matriarchal society.

 

[Tripel]

I really appreciate much of what Keller has brought to the church at large, his gifting is tremedous. But his book Reason for God expresses belief in theistic evolution so this is no surprise.

Lynnie,
That's just not true. He references Francis Collins who DOES believe in theistic evolution, but Keller is pretty clear that he himself does not.

 

[lynnie]

Tripel- pulled out my book- page 87, 3rd paragraph, page 94-95. Very clear. " 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." Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is a song. etc.

My former (creationist) pastor was from Keller's church originally, we were in that Presbytery, and it was just common knowledge that TK is a theistic evolutionist, as are many, many PCAers. BB Warfield is the canonical defense

 

[Tripel]

Lynnie, I'm familiar with the statement you quoted, and that is what I was referring to. What he's describing there is not theistic evolution. Yes, he uses the scary phrase "natural selection" but that is not synonymous with evolution. He's saying that he's uncertain how exactly creation occurred, but he believes it happened over a long period of time and God was the orchestrator. What do you think he means when he says "I reject the concept of evolution as all-encompassing theory"? Seems pretty clear to me that he's distinguishing himself from theistic evolutionists such as Collins.

As for the "common knowledge that TK is a theistic evolutionist", well, I don't put much stock in that. Frankly, it's "common knowledge" to a lot of people on the PB that Keller is all sorts of things. He's a controversial and popular figure, so a lot gets pinned on him, both wrongly and rightly.

 

[Zenas]

The statement quoted simultaneously allows Kelly to claim he has rejected creationism and opted for "theistic natural selection" and at the same time plausibly deny the theistic evolution lable.

I'll have equivocation for one please.

Keller increasingly strikes me as one who's pushing the boundaries of acceptability in the PCA in public while vastly exceeding them in private.

 

[lynnie]

Tripel- when Adam nursed at the breast of Momma primate, who had concieved him with Daddy primate, and both of them died normal animal deaths, and God breathed a human soul into him to make the first man, and death refers to spiritual death not animal death, this is not creationism.

 

[sastark]

In addition to the Reasons for God citation, Keller has written for the well-known theistic evolutionist website BioLogos. See his piece here (link is to a PDF): http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

 

[Tripel]

Lynnie,
So can you point me to where Keller has said he believes man evolved from apes?

 

[Zenas]

Evolution is "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. ".

Keller states that he believes in natural selection guided by God. Altering the gene pool through natural selection as a process is, by definition, evolution. While Tim Keller cutely denies being a theistic evolutionist, he is, by definition, a theistic evolutionist.

 

[lynnie]

sastark....excellent, thank you.

Tripel, that link seems to well sum up the current various views. Keller is a bit elusive, but certainly is not a classical creationist at all.

 

[Zenas]

You don't even have to retreat to that Lynnie. Keller is by definition and his own admission a theistic evolutionist. I'm getting particularly weary of things like his frustrating equivocations.

 

[Tripel]

Andrew,
Anybody can include "by definition" into a claim, but it doesn't make it so.

I'm not going to go on and on with this argument. You seem to know what Keller is better than he does. Thank you for clearing it up for us.

 

[fredtgreco]

The issue is that "natural selection" is contrary to the Word of God. Not because of primates, not because of macro evolutionary theory, but because natural selection involves death, and death before the Fall. That destroys the gospel.

 

[Zenas]

Tripel,

Words mean certain things and all we have to go off of are Tim Keller's words. You belie this fact when you rely on his statement that he is "not a theistic evolutionist". While he denies the category, he affirms the definition of evolution and states he believes it was guided by God, therefore making him none other than a theistic evolutionist. Evolution has a definition, a definition which includes the process that Keller says he affirms. If he'd like to amend his claims, he's free to. Don't pick up your toys and leave the playground just because the game isn't going your way.