Question regarding Tim Keller's view on the historical Adam

[Ploutos]

In Tim Keller's 2012 BioLogos paper on evolution, he seems to be indicating, rather clearly, that he believes in a historical Adam and Eve and a historical fall.

Does anyone know if this is a view he held to consistently? Are there instances, either written or spoken, where he a) adopted a more ambiguous attitude or b) gave voice to a non-literal view of Adam and Eve?

 

[Flowin’JOwen]

I’m not aware of any deviance from this historical view. What makes you suspicious that he may possibly have?

 

[Deleted member 13126]

This chart seems to suggest that he doesn’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve at all:

https://cdn.ymaws.com/network.asa3.org/resource/dynamic/forums/20150829_143039_10526.pdf

At least if you’re defining a literal Adam the way Genesis does: Adam was the first human male made from the dust of the ground.

Don’t get me wrong, all of the headlines and even Keller himself would probably say he believes in a literal Adam and Eve, but upon closer examination I think he’s using those quite words differently than at least how I would. Similar to what a JW or LDS person would do when referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, either out of negligence or malice.

The entire idea of evolution is incompatible with a literal Adam and Eve and a historical fall, since evolution requires death.

To my mind, there can be little doubt that Mr. Keller is presently ashamed of himself and how he had misled countless people.

 

[Ploutos]

I’m not aware of any deviance from this historical view. What makes you suspicious that he may possibly have?

Some acquaintances of ours stated recently that he did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, so I am trying to find out from his writings what he actually said. What I've seen so far indicates that he did believe in a literal/historical Adam and Eve, and I'm just curious if he took a different stance at other points.

 

[TheInquirer]

Spot the problem with Keller’s thinking here:

“Therefore, below I will lay out three basic problems that Christian laypeople have with the scientific account of biological evolution. Nothing here should be seen as meeting the need for rigorous, scholarly arguments in answer to these questions. These are popular-level pastoral answers and guidance. As a pastor I have had to draw heavily on the work of experts. The first question, about Biblical authority, requires that I draw on the best work of exegetes and Biblical scholars. To answer the second question, about evolution as a ‘Grand Theory of Everything,’ I need to draw on the work of philosophers. When we come to the third question regarding Adam and Eve, I must look to theologians.

In short, if I as a pastor want to help both believers and inquirers to relate science and faith coherently, I must read the works of scientists, exegetes, philosophers, and theologians and then interpret them for my people. Someone might counter that this is too great a burden to put on pastors, that instead they should simply refer their laypeople to the works of scholars. But if pastors are not ‘up to the job’ of distilling and understanding the writings of scholars in various disciplines, how will our laypeople do it? This is one of the things that parishioners want from their pastors. We are to be a bridge between the world of scholarship and the world of the street and the pew. I’m aware of what a burden this is. I don’t know that there has ever been a culture in which the job of the pastor has been more challenging. Nevertheless, I believe this is our calling.”

Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople - Article - BioLogos

This essay considers three main clusters of questions lay people raise with their pastors when introduced to the teaching that biological evolution and biblical orthodoxy can be compatible. As a pastor and evangelist himself, Keller takes these concerns seriously and offers suggestions for...

biologos.org

 

[Ploutos]

@TheInquirer - lest we get off-topic here, I want to clarify that the intended topic is fairly narrow. I'm not interested in picking apart Tim Keller's problems, for the main reason that it's not an open question for me that there were serious problems with his theology.

What I am specifically interested in is whether he held to a historical/literal Adam & Eve and whether he was reasonably consistent in this view.

The reason that I'm interested in this particular question is because I have a concern for accuracy and fair representation. Tim Keller's theology is problematic enough and I don't need to invent straw men to criticize him. If he believed in a literal Adam & Eve, I don't need to accuse him of not believing in a literal Adam & Eve. Again, it's not like there's a shortage of problems in his view of creation and his attitude toward science & the Bible.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I was attending Redeemer PCA in Manhattan when Tim was preaching through Genesis. From what I remember – as well as what he said in certain of his writings – he believed in theistic evolution, that man evolved as per the evolutionary theory, and it was from a group of non-human hominoids God chose one of them and put upon him the image of God; this one He called Adam. Eve, so Tim taught, was created as per the Biblical account.

Tim also mentioned somewhere that he was edified / influenced by commentator Derek Kidner who held to the same view in his little commentary on Genesis.

 

[Ploutos]

@Jerusalem Blade - that's pretty close to what he says in the BioLogos article from 2012, and I believe he mentions Kidner's influence there as well.

It's a strange view and one that I cannot but view as errant, but it's certainly not quite the same as denying a literal/historical Adam & Eve.

 

[MyCrows]

@Jerusalem Blade - that's pretty close to what he says in the BioLogos article from 2012, and I believe he mentions Kidner's influence there as well.

It's a strange view and one that I cannot but view as errant, but it's certainly not quite the same as denying a literal/historical Adam & Eve.

It's borderline close in my opinion. Since the literal, and historical Adam was a man created in time, by a sovereign act of God.

Why the need to embellish it with theistic evolution, or any other speculations?

As far as my seeking learning or edification from someone else's work, this is a deal-breaker for me. There's safer options.

 

[Ploutos]

It's borderline close in my opinion. Since the literal, and historical Adam was a man created in time, by a sovereign act of God.

Why the need to embellish it with theistic evolution, or any other speculations?

As far as my seeking learning or edification from someone else's work, this is a deal-breaker for me. There's safer options.

Sure. But the question is not whether his view is internally consistent, or biblical, or whether we can countenance or accept it. Nor is the question whether his view is worthwhile and edifying. Those would be questions for another thread. It seems fairly clear, from the answers given so far, that he believed in a historical Adam, a historical fall, and Adam's federal/covenant relation to the entire human race. Did he mix in all kinds of strange embellishments because of a hermeneutic that makes theological commitments subservient to naturalistic scientific commitments? It certainly seems like it. However, I wanted to make sure this thread didn't get derailed before I obtained, with a reasonable degree of certainty, the answer to my original question for the purpose stated above.

 

[MyCrows]

Sure. But the question is not whether his view is internally consistent, or biblical, or whether we can countenance or accept it. Nor is the question whether his view is worthwhile and edifying. Those would be questions for another thread. It seems fairly clear, from the answers given so far, that he believed in a historical Adam, a historical fall, and Adam's federal/covenant relation to the entire human race. Did he mix in all kinds of strange embellishments because of a hermeneutic that makes theological commitments subservient to naturalistic scientific commitments? It certainly seems like it. However, I wanted to make sure this thread didn't get derailed before I obtained, with a reasonable degree of certainty, the answer to my original question for the purpose stated above.

Fair enough. But what qualifies as a "historic Adam"?

Many people believe in what they would say is a "historical Jesus", but the Jesus they believe in is a figment of their imagination.

 

[Jake]

This chart seems to suggest that he doesn’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve at all:

https://cdn.ymaws.com/network.asa3.org/resource/dynamic/forums/20150829_143039_10526.pdf

Where did this document come from? It looks very interesting, and I would appreciate any context you can give.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Where did this document come from? It looks very interesting, and I would appreciate any context you can give.

No idea, Sir. Found on the Internet while digging into the topic of this thread to refresh my memory. Interesting indeed!

 

[TheInquirer]

My point was to highlight, in Tim's own words, from the Biologos article you mentioned, his thought process behind his methodology. Hopefully you can recognize the connection with your question.

 

[AOB]

In reference to the OP, here is a link to a video from 2017 in which Keller discusses briefly his understanding of Adam and Eve. The relevant portion begins at 6:40 and following.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks, Austin – so it appears that Tim changed his earlier view and contradicted what he had said before. At 8:50 he explicitly says because the Biblical text says God created Adam from the dust of the ground, and not that God "adopted" one from among some near humanlike creatures and upon that one put the image of God. Glad he had a change of heart and mind!

 

[MyCrows]

Thanks, Austin – so it appears that Tim changed his earlier view and contradicted what he had said before. At 8:50 he explicitly says because the Biblical text says God created Adam from the dust of the ground, and not that God "adopted" one from among some humanlike creatures and upon that one put the image of God. Glad he had a change of heart and mind!

Amen, and sound reasoning on his part.

 

[DanSSwing]

The entire idea of evolution is incompatible with a literal Adam and Eve and a historical fall, since evolution requires death.

To my mind, there can be little doubt that Mr. Keller is presently ashamed of himself and how he had misled countless people.

While I agree with your position on the fall and am generally suspicious of Keller (at least his last ~10 years), I don't think that's a fair criticism IF a person believes that the death spoken of in Genesis is purely spiritual death. It's not a position I agree with and it leads to other inconsistencies, but I don't believe it's necessarily incompatible--unless he insists that Eve evolved also rather than being specially created out of Adam.

 

[Ploutos]

Thank you @AOB - that was very illuminating and helpful!

 

[retroGRAD3]

While I agree with your position on the fall and am generally suspicious of Keller (at least his last ~10 years), I don't think that's a fair criticism IF a person believes that the death spoken of in Genesis is purely spiritual death. It's not a position I agree with and it leads to other inconsistencies, but I don't believe it's necessarily incompatible--unless he insists that Eve evolved also rather than being specially created out of Adam.

I don't think it's orthodox at all to believe the penalty for sin is only spiritual death. We are body and spirit and both are important. They are a packaged deal.