Church membership for one who adheres to theistic evolution...

[Osage Bluestem]

Yes, I own the book. Yes, I read 93-94. Though I don't know how you can say he leaves no doubt. He is purposefully vague in how he describes what he actually believes. Why? Because he is admittedly uncertain of how exactly God created the earth. He says he believes that there was "some kind of process of natural selection." That doesn't sound definitive to me.
What I don't understand is why some of you have to take that statement, and run with it to suggest he is a theistic evolutionist who believes man evolved from apes.

Because in the book he was talking about evolution when he said that. So the statement in context with the "For the record" attached to it is quite clear to me.

He also siad that the thought Genesis 2 is a poem. What else could he be other than a Theistic Evolutionist?

 

[lynnie]

Tripel, I was quoting BB Warfield, sorry for any confusion.

To repeat from my quote above:

An example of mediate creation in Warfield’s thought would be the creation of Adam. His body could have been created by a long evolutionary process as postulated by Darwin, et al. However, the creation of his spirit, by divine in-breathing, was a supernatural act of creation.

My son who went to Eastern College ( yeah, I know, it was close by so have mercy on us) said the theistic evolution profs saw the development of man like the development of the nation of Israel...a slow and drawn out process with a deliberate plan and end result. Not immediate creation, but instead an evolving creation from Abraham through the 12 tribes through to Caanan land. Same with Adam.

I bet ya'll learned something new today, ha.

 

[Tripel]

He also siad that the thought Genesis 2 is a poem. What else could he be other than a Theistic Evolutionist?

You seem to be suggesting there are only two camps: 1) Those who believe in a strict 24-hour day interpretation of creation, and 2) evolutionists.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

He also siad that the thought Genesis 2 is a poem. What else could he be other than a Theistic Evolutionist?

You seem to be suggesting there are only two camps: 1) Those who believe in a strict 24-hour day interpretation of creation, and 2) evolutionists.

I'm not saying that. However, I do believe if you say you believe in natural selection you are affirming an evolutionary process.

 

[JennyG]

You seem to be suggesting there are only two camps: 1) Those who believe in a strict 24-hour day interpretation of creation, and 2) evolutionists.

..........or to put it another way, those who believe what the Bible actually says, and those who don't!!!
(sorry, I couldn't resist)

 

[Montanablue]

You seem to be suggesting there are only two camps: 1) Those who believe in a strict 24-hour day interpretation of creation, and 2) evolutionists.

..........or to put it another way, those who believe what the Bible actually says, and those who don't!!!
(sorry, I couldn't resist)

Eh, that seems a little simplistic. Certainly there are many people who are not evolutionists who are also not certain that Genesis refers to 24 hour days.

(For the record, I do think that Genesis is referring to 24 hour days - although I've never learnt Hebrew, so I can't read it for myself. I know many Christians who have spent a great deal of time studying this who are of Keller's opinion though. And they are certainly not theistic evolutionists)

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I may get laughed at by some for this because it sounds so simple, but, I believe that Genesis is literal because God spoke to Moses face to face. If there is any argument for the dictation method of inspiration in any of the books of the the bible it is in those Moses wrote.

That is how he knew what happened so many years before he was born in so great detail. It wasn't because he referenced a recorded history or because he relayed stories told to him by elders around a fire. He was told these things by God.

Exodus 33:11 KJV
[11] And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

 

[Zenas]

No laugh, I think that's a a strong argument from the text.

Keller is likely a long-day creationist who believes in a evolutionary process, which doesn't necessarily imply he believes in the evolutionary process espoused by Darwinians. There are learned men who hold to this view and I do believe they are in error. I think that there are ramifications with the rest of Scripture where if you are to hold to an orthodox Reformed understanding, you have to speak out of both sides of your mouth.

As I said before, one may believe in something other than literal creationism, but I think that they do so by sacrificing a rational and logical systemic faith.

 

[JennyG]

You seem to be suggesting there are only two camps: 1) Those who believe in a strict 24-hour day interpretation of creation, and 2) evolutionists.

..........or to put it another way, those who believe what the Bible actually says, and those who don't!!!
(sorry, I couldn't resist)

Eh, that seems a little simplistic.

you think???.... weeeell, maybe just a little!

(For the record, I do think that Genesis is referring to 24 hour days - although I've never learnt Hebrew, so I can't read it for myself. I know many Christians who have spent a great deal of time studying this who are of Keller's opinion though. And they are certainly not theistic evolutionists)

but here I seriously think it's good just to forget textual or technical issues for a moment - step back and apply the old "what would a martian say" test.
If you, or anyone, came fresh to the first chapter of the Bible - as in, with no preconceptions of any sort - what would you think it meant?
And one more way of looking at it - assuming for the sake of argument that God did indeed create the Heavens and the Earth in 6 literal days, -
I know many people really and truly think the text doesn't make that clear.
But can anyone envisage how on earth it could have been expressed differently so as to MAKE it clear?
I'm not really expecting any suggestions...but I think it's a helpful way of looking at it

 

[Archlute]

I think it would be helpful for those defending Keller to try and explain exactly what is meant by a process of natural selection that does not also involve evolution and death before the fall. You won't be able to, and any attempt to say "we just don't know enough to say" is nothing less than fence sitting.

 

[lynnie]

Arch- John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Only the elect have life, everybody else is in death. Death entering the world through Adam refers to spiritual death. All the death for millions of years is not the death the bible talking about regarding Adam and sin and death.

I don't believe this, but the Reformed have entire long involved essays with Hebrew and Greek and what death means, it is really complicated, and I doubt most of us here could even begin to debate them. If any of them got on this thread you have no idea what a challenge their arguements would be.

 

[Montanablue]

..........or to put it another way, those who believe what the Bible actually says, and those who don't!!!
(sorry, I couldn't resist)

Eh, that seems a little simplistic.

you think???.... weeeell, maybe just a little!

(For the record, I do think that Genesis is referring to 24 hour days - although I've never learnt Hebrew, so I can't read it for myself. I know many Christians who have spent a great deal of time studying this who are of Keller's opinion though. And they are certainly not theistic evolutionists)

but here I seriously think it's good just to forget textual or technical issues for a moment - step back and apply the old "what would a martian say" test.
If you, or anyone, came fresh to the first chapter of the Bible - as in, with no preconceptions of any sort - what would you think it meant?
And one more way of looking at it - assuming for the sake of argument that God did indeed create the Heavens and the Earth in 6 literal days, -
I know many people really and truly think the text doesn't make that clear.
But can anyone envisage how on earth it could have been expressed differently so as to MAKE it clear?
I'm not really expecting any suggestions...but I think it's a helpful way of looking at it

Well, here's my issue. If I was new to the text and hadn't been brought up to believe in 7 day creation, I actually don't think that 7 day creation is what I would neccessarily see there. Gensis 1 and 2 is a weird weird section of text, and although I do believe in 7 day creation myself, I can absoutely understand why others have different readings. If I was able to read Hebrew and more throughly investigate for myself, I might think differently too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not "defending Keller." I happen to think he's wrong - just like I think he's wrong about infant baptism! I just think that this is not as simple an issue as some seem to think.

 

[Archlute]

Arch- John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Only the elect have life, everybody else is in death. Death entering the world through Adam refers to spiritual death. All the death for millions of years is not the death the bible talking about regarding Adam and sin and death.

I don't believe this, but the Reformed have entire long involved essays with Hebrew and Greek and what death means, it is really complicated, and I doubt most of us here could even begin to debate them. If any of them got on this thread you have no idea what a challenge their arguements would be.

Lynnie,

Their arguments would not be that much of a challenge. You only have to say one thing - "a priori". The reason essays like that are so long and complex is often due the attempt to set the stage through stacked word studies, angling the theological discussion, and subtly working in one's philosophical presuppositions in order to assert that which they had desired to prove before they began. Anyone can write complex and technically thick essays, but it doesn't mean that they are exegetically factual or truthful. Why do you think some of Kline's works are so convoluted? (cheap shot noted, although the point still stands)

The problem with scholars knowing their Hebrew, Greek, theology, etc, etc, is that it means the sinful heart can seek to baffle the uninitiated through the sophistry of technical jargon. You should read some of the essays liberal feminists have written. They are equally impressive, and yet obviously wrong.

Don't let yourself be intimidated.

 

[Tripel]

...try and explain exactly what is meant by a process of natural selection that does not also involve evolution and death before the fall.

I can't do that. Of course it involves evolution and death before the fall.

But belief in a creation process that "involves" evolution is quite different than the theistic evolution that Keller argues against.

And Keller has said he believes there was death before the fall, as do I (not that my opinion matters)

...any attempt to say "we just don't know enough to say" is nothing less than fence sitting.

I disagree. Sometimes we simply don't know enough. We aren't required to have all the answers, and I don't see how you can say Keller is fence sitting.
I don't know exactly how our world came to be, but I know that God created it and God's creation has clues that it came to be in a way that is quite different than a strict 24-hour day interpretation of Gen 1.

 

[Archlute]

Kathleen,

I think the reason most would come to the seven, twenty-four hour day conclusion if all they had to compare was Scripture with Scripture is the passage in the Decalogue that equates the seven days known by the Israelites with the seven days of creation in Exodus 20:11. I know that ministers will try and argue that this is just God's accommodating the "pre-modern" view of creation, but doesn't that seem also to imply that they are reading their modernist views into the text where they are not explicit?

-----Added 10/6/2009 at 04:05:48 EST-----

But belief in a creation process that "involves" evolution is quite different than the theistic evolution that Keller argues against.

That is where men like you and Keller go offtrack. You cannot logically say what you have said if you think clearly about it. Creation is a direct act, while evolutions is a development. Either Adam and Eve evolved, or they were created, and if they were evolved they had to come from a lower life form (how else does evolution work? did they devolve from a higher life form?), which means that there were no humans to rule the animals for millions of years (day six?), and then God had this great idea that he would pull a man out of an ape, and, and, and....

Do you see how stupid that sounds? But more importantly - where do you see it in either the Old or New Testament discussions of creation? It's not there, and it doesn't take Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek to figure it out.

 

[Tripel]

That is where men like you and Keller go offtrack. You cannot logically say what you have said if you think clearly about it. Creation is a direct act, while evolutions is a development. Either Adam and Eve evolved, or they were created, and if they were evolved they had to come from a lower life form (how else does evolution work? did they devolve from a higher life form?), which means that there were no humans to rule the animals for millions of years (day six?), and then God had this great idea that he would pull a man out of an ape, and, and, and....

Do you see how stupid that sounds? But more importantly - where do you see it in either the Old or New Testament discussions of creation? It's not there, and it doesn't take Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek to figure it out.

Adam and Eve were created. I don't believe they "evolved", and I don't think Keller does either. And yes, I think it's likely that there were no humans to rule the animals for millions of years.

But I don't understand what is so "stupid" about that.

 

[Scottish Lass]

And Keller has said he believes there was death before the fall, as do I (not that my opinion matters)

What is your scriptural support for this?

 

[JennyG]

Kathleen, hi again!

Well, here's my issue. If I was new to the text and hadn't been brought up to believe in 7 day creation, I actually don't think that 7 day creation is what I would neccessarily see there.

No kidding? that's really interesting! I most definitely wasn't brought up to believe that, (it was actually quite an intellectual white-knuckle ride getting there) - but I just can't see it like you do.
But ok, that's step one.
Step two, how would it have had to be written so that you would see 6 day creation there?

 

[lynnie]

The problem with scholars knowing their Hebrew, Greek, theology, etc, etc, is that it means the sinful heart can seek to baffle the uninitiated through the sophistry of technical jargon. You should read some of the essays liberal feminists have written. They are equally impressive, and yet obviously wrong.

Don't let yourself be intimidated.

Good point, but the minute they start I give up. I guess you are smarter than me, or less imtimidated ....or maybe dumber to even try to debate???

 

[JennyG]

....or 7 day, however it's counted

 

[Tripel]

And Keller has said he believes there was death before the fall, as do I (not that my opinion matters)

What is your scriptural support for this?

I don't have any, other than some of the names Adam gives the animals suggest they are animals of prey.

I also don't have scriptural support that the earth revolves around the sun.

 

[Michael Doyle]

On 93: "I personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 15 and 15 do. In each couplet one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event." --Tim Keller

On Page 94: "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". --Tim Keller.

In other words, he said he believes in theistic evolution.

I disagree with your "in other words" summary. Theistic evolution is quite a leap from "I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection". In that interview linked above, Keller clearly states the problems he has with the theistic evolution theory. He said he believes in an Adam and Eve. He believes in a real, historic fall.

-----Added 10/6/2009 at 10:02:22 EST-----

Take time to read the interview with Keller that was linked above. He comes out of the gate sounding confused before he even really gets going.

Sounding confused? I don't think he sounded confused. He admitted that all of the various interpretations are confusing, but I had no problem following what he was saying. I think he said it well, and for the most part, I agree with him.

That interview is just bizarre. I would hate to be so confused. Poor guy.

Was that comment really necessary? How wonderful that you have it all figured out.
I, on the other hand, admire that someone as well-respected as Keller can admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

Daniel, your commentary, though understandable in that you admire Keller, is a little frustrating in that Kellers position is anything but the norm. It is fine to defend Keller, but I see valid assertions made using his own statements in context. Maybe you could cut some slack to those who think differently from you.

 

[lynnie]

Jenny your Martian would say the earth has four corners. It isn't so simple. There is poetry, metaphore, historical narrative. I happen to think Keller is wrong but it is complex theology.

I happen to believe in geocentricity (the earth is at the center of the solar system and the sun with planets and all the stars rotate around the earth daily). They are not as far away as you think and the subject of the speed of light decreasing parabolically in measuremts since 1600 is fascinating. There is an entire group of Reformed physicists and astronomers with the material on this ( Gerhardus Bouw is the most famous). The models both work perfectly ( geo and heliocentric) so it can't be proven either way, although the Michaelson Morley experiments conclusively proved the earth does not move unless you want to swallow Einsteins junk that light measures the same if you are moving or not.


I am saying all this to say that any young earther creationist who turns around and believes in heliocentrism is guilty of the same liberties that the old agers and theistic evolutionists hold to. The exact same. You can twist and turn and come up with all the reasons why the sun does not rise and set nor why it did not stand still and what the ancients didn't know that we know now, but it is all the same logic- or illogic. You must not condemn Keller or any evolutionist unless you are prepared to embrace geocentricity in my opinion, or you become a hypocrite. That's how I see it, no offense intended. But if you can turn some narrative into poetry or ancient scientific mistakes, then the evolutionists have the same right to do so.

 

[Scottish Lass]

And Keller has said he believes there was death before the fall, as do I (not that my opinion matters)

What is your scriptural support for this?

I don't have any, other than some of the names Adam gives the animals suggest they are animals of prey.

I also don't have scriptural support that the earth revolves around the sun.

What is prey now, was not necessarily prey before the fall, right?

On your second point, nice try, but that's not what anyone's positing.

 

[JennyG]

Jenny your Martian would say the earth has four corners. It isn't so simple. There is poetry, metaphore, historical narrative. I happen to think Keller is wrong but it is complex theology.

I happen to believe in geocentricity (the earth is at the center of the solar system and the sun with planets and all the stars rotate around the earth daily). They are not as far away as you think and the subject of the speed of light decreasing parabolically in measuremts since 1600 is fascinating. There is an entire group of Reformed physicists and astronomers with the material on this ( Gerhardus Bouw is the most famous). The models both work perfectly ( geo and heliocentric) so it can't be proven either way, although the Michaelson Morley experiments conclusively proved the earth does not move unless you want to swallow Einsteins junk that light measures the same if you are moving or not.


I am saying all this to say that any young earther creationist who turns around and believes in heliocentrism is guilty of the same liberties that the old agers and theistic evolutionists hold to. The exact same. You can twist and turn and come up with all the reasons why the sun does not rise and set nor why it did not stand still and what the ancients didn't know that we know now, but it is all the same logic- or illogic. You must not condemn Keller or any evolutionist unless you are prepared to embrace geocentricity in my opinion, or you become a hypocrite. That's how I see it, no offense intended. But if you can turn some narrative into poetry or ancient scientific mistakes, then the evolutionists have the same right to do so.

Lynnie, thanks for this reply. It blew me away. Forgive my slowness...
Are you serious about geocentricity? you aren't just using it for a reductio argument?
I am absolutely fascinated, because I have just started reading and thinking about this. I see what follows - yes, it is the same, (though I think you also have to be prepared not to be too hard on sincere believers who happen to have been evolutionarily brainwashed from earliest youth) .
Would you care to start up a thread on geocentricity?? I was considering doing so myself, just to get some input! (sorry, off topic)

 

[Jon Peters]

Jon,

Why do you think it should matter if it affects their view of the gospel or not? We don't evaluate active sins by virtue of their relationship to other issues. Encouraging someone to continue in, or continue promoting, a sinful lifestyle by that criteria is exceedingly unwise. I would say that you don't really know any orthodox, conservative Reformed folk who hold your view. They may attend orthodox, conservative Reformed congregations (maybe), but by definition they cannot be orthodox, nor conservative if they support homosexual unions of any sort.

So Adam, it's not possible to hold an abberant view of homosexuality while still being Reformed and conservative (at lease theologically)? I guess that means when we're saved we are automatically granted, with our faith, a perfectly correct view of homosexuality. No need to work through that one I guess. No room for sanctification there.

My premise is that no one is perfect in their belief system. All of us hold things that are inconsistant, sometimes radically so, from our otherwise sound Reformed views. I don't know your views of homosexuality. I do know that there are some very nuanced views out there that many here, perhaps you, would disagree with. That does not make those views sinful or wrong. Perhaps they are both. Perhaps not.

I continue to maintain that homosexuality is singled out by many as a sin above others. If one does not toe the line in their view then they must be cast aside or not admitted into a church.

You are simply wrong in your final assertion.

 

[Archlute]

And Keller has said he believes there was death before the fall, as do I (not that my opinion matters)

What is your scriptural support for this?

I don't have any, other than some of the names Adam gives the animals suggest they are animals of prey.

Daniel,

The Hebrew (and the Septuagint's translation of those terms) of Gen. 2:19-20 have nothing specifically to do with prey. They merely distinguish between animals to be used in a domesticated manner, and those that live in the field.

Both terms are used in a post fall context to describe carnivorous animals, as well as sheep and livestock, but it would be exegetically unsound to necessitate the reading of a word in one place always to apply to the word in another. That is a word study fallacy. By the biblical account, post-fall (and then post-flood) creation differs substantially from the pre-fall state.

This is why it's a lame attempt to prove pre-fall death by the invokation of Psalm 104. It's often asserted that it is a psalm about creation, and therefore proves death before the fall, but it is ignored that David was writing his observations regarding creation in a post-fall setting. Of course he saw lions tear their prey - he killed one who went after his sheep

-----Added 10/6/2009 at 05:09:27 EST-----

So Adam, it's not possible to hold an abberant view of homosexuality while still being Reformed and conservative (at lease theologically)?

No. Theology includes ethics.

 

[Jon Peters]

Anyone can write complex and technically thick essays, but it doesn't mean that they are exegetically factual or truthful. Why do you think some of Kline's works are so convoluted? (cheap shot noted, although the point still stands)

The point doesn't stand. Long and complicated and be just as correct as short and simple. Your knock at Kline is simply an unsupported assertion. The definition of a cheap shot.

You sound as though someone cannot honestly work through the text of Genesis and arrive at anything other than what you believe. That is simply arrogant.

 

[Tripel]

This is why it's a lame attempt to prove pre-fall death by the invokation of Psalm 104.

I'm not trying to prove pre-fall death with that passage. That passage doesn't prove anything, like you said. I admitted that I don't have Scriptural support for my belief in pre-fall death, which Anna requested. But I don't think I need it. I stated that I also believe the earth revolves around the sun, even though there isn't Scriptural support. I know Anna doesn't think it's a valid argument, but I do. I base my belief of pre-fall death on what I see in creation. I see an earth that is billions of years old. I see animals who are uniquely designed for devouring other life, like venomous snakes, spiders, anteaters, etc.

 

[Scottish Lass]

I base my belief of pre-fall death on what I see in creation. I see an earth that is billions of years old. I see animals who are uniquely designed for devouring other life, like venomous snakes, spiders, anteaters, etc.

Don't your first two sentences contradict each other? Your first sentence would have you as a geocentrist, for example. Your second sentence has you incorporating things beyond scripture that are far from proven (the carbon-dated pine cone, for example). Since we are predators at the top of the food chain, so to speak, does your last sentence include humans? Why?