It depends. We all hold theological positions that contradict the Bible's teaching. We will have perfect theology once we are glorified; until then we will be inconsistent.

With that said, one would need to flesh out this person's position to see to what extent their reading of Genesis affects thier understanding of the gospel and the nature of God.

__________________
Jon Peters
Member, Reformation Fellowship (OPC) (Roseville, CA)
Folsom, CA

Lee,

What would you say of the individual who insists that his Christian profession should be accepted for granting him membership in the local church, and yet who uses the same approach to affirm the validity of modern homosexual relationships? There are those who say there are different ways to interpret the passages on sexual ethics as well, and yet no orthodox Christian would feel compelled to grant them their case.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

Where? Do you have a page number?

I read the book pretty closely and I think I would have remembered that, but perhaps I missed it.

__________________
Kathleen M
nondenominational
Montana

Are you sure about this? Can you please quote him directly?

I read the book 6 months ago, and I do not recall Keller saying that. I know that he quotes Francis Collins a good bit in his chapter on scientific objections to Christianity, but I don't think Keller specifically states what he personally believes.

__________________
Daniel
PCA
Memphis, TN

Theres a very big difference between the homosexual argument and the arguments over genesis so please don't compare the 2.

We're talking about a true believer not trying to liberalize scripture here, who for very good reasons, has come to the conclusion that the bible is true, but genesis can be interpreted metaphorically and we've got people proposing he doesn't get full membership to a local church. If he's a born again believer and is protestant in every way, then why shouldn't he be allowed full heatedly, unless you want to depart from sola scriptura and use church tradition as your authority.

__________________
Lee Johnston
Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Paisley, Scotland
Ephesians 1:4-5
"In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will."

Of course I can't answer for Lee, but I think my answer would be: It depends. It depends on how their opinion on homosexuality affects their view of the gospel. I know orthodox, conservative, Reformed Christians who take a very different view of homosexuality than many on this board.

Frankly, I would be more concerned about someone who rejected the historicity of Adam and the fall (if that was in fact what their allegorical method of interpreting Genesis was doing) than someone who supported the civil right of a homosexual to be married or some similar arrangement.

That's where you problem lies then, Lee. If you understand anything about the history of interpretation of Genesis' opening chapters in modern times, and the various underlying agendas, you would be able to affirm that it is indeed a liberalizing of Scripture. They are very much the same spirit, if not the same issue.

In particular, it is a desire to change the interpretation of the opening chapters to find favor with peers in the secular academy, which is not any different than Christians attempting to liberalize sexuality issues in order to find favor with their socially liberal friends/institutions. Both originate from social pressure, and not competent exegesis. It has nothing to do with church tradition.

-----Added 10/5/2009 at 06:02:02 EST-----

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.

Just as regards the OP question, many true Christians especially in the heyday of evolution have believed some version of it perforce - sometimes trusting on in an utter absence of light - see Green Eye of the Storm by John Rendle Short.
I often thank God for letting me be alive at the right time to see Darwin's hegemony finally on the skids!
It is bliss to be on a site where people can actually see that the Gospel no longer makes any logical sense if you try to weld it onto an evolutionary world-view.
It's late here in Scotland, but I just wanted to say that...

__________________
JennyG
Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Fife, Scotland

I'm pretty sure. I'll recheck the book when I get home and reference where he writes that.

__________________
David
PCA
Richardson, Texas

Saving faith is an immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, resting upon Him alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life by virtue of God's grace.
--C.H. Spurgeon

Here's an interview with Keller where he addressed this issue.

Interview with Timothy Keller | Uncommon Descent

__________________
Michael Masztal
Ruling Elder, Chapel By The Sea, ARP
Melbourne Beach, FL

Ok, I'm home from work now .

It's on page 93 and 94 of the book The Reason for God by Tim Keller (Hardcover).

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.

When I hear this type (Keller's) of reasoning, I have to ask, "Then why didn't God just say so? Would it make him any less God? Were it not for the evolution zeitgeist, would a believer inevitably exegete Gen 1 and 2 in a couplet fashion?"

Evolution has many bullet holes in their theories. Unfortunately,much of the likely clergy lacks a strong science background to identify and refute the evolution canard.

And you don't even need a background in science to discredit any attemps at comparing Gen. 1/2 with either Exodus 14/15 or Judges 4/5. The latter two groups are clearly marked off in the narrative as being songs of praise given by God's people to celebrate His victory over their enemies. Genesis 2 has no such relationship with Genesis 1. It is not a song, it is not marked off in form, style, or with narrative pointers as being any sort of metaphorical reinterpretation of the earlier chapter.

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.

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

__________________
Austin
EE student at Texas State University
Member of Church of the Cross (PCA) in San Marcos, TX
Ps. 8:3-4 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"

That's exactly the thought which to me has always seemed a light cutting through all the confusion.
If God had created via evolution (which beyond all doubt he could have done if he had so pleased) then WHY WOULD HE SAY DIFFERENT?
Seriously - is there a good answre to that point of Michael's?

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-----

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.

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.

Natural selection IS evolution. He just thinks it was not 100% statistical chance, but God helped roll the dice.

He is a great preacher with some marvelous (biblical!) tapes available but he is not a creationist. My pastor got saved in his church and I am in his presbytery, and its generally known.

Of course they all believe in a real Adam and Eve and a historic fall, yes indeed. At some point in the process God took a primate and breathed into that evolved primate a human soul. But he had a primate Momma and Daddy; he nursed at the breast of a creature born to creatures who all died. Death means spiritual death.

That Adam disobeyed and fell as the first man, yeah, they DO believe that. But this is not classic creationism, not at all.

BB Warfield was a genius and considered one of the greatest Reformed theologians ever by many. Hodge also was duped by Darwin. It is not uncommon at all to hold to theistic evolution.

We are (if unregenerate) born living but dead, often to parents who are alive but in death. Until we are born again by the holy spirit we are truly dead. We live as creatures who are truly dead until God breathes life into us. Life is from the Holy Spirit. So extrapolate that back to Adam as a monkey and it all works. At least it works for some......

__________________
Lynnie

PCA

Central NJ

No "they all" don't. That is one of Keller's gripes with theistic evolution.

Did Keller say he believes that? Perhaps you can provide a quote.
I certainly do not believe mankind evolved from apes.

On page 94 of The Reason for God he is clear that he believes in "Natural Selection" that was guided by God. Natural selection is a way to say evolution without having to use to word, it sounds less controversial.

Do you own the book? Read pages 93 and 94 in detail. He leaves no doubt.

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?

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.

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 beleive if you say you believe in natural selection you are affirming an evolutionary process.

..........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)

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.

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.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo
Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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-----

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.

What is your scriptural support for this?

__________________
Anna
Wife of Tim/Marrow Man
Louisville, KY
Member of Midlane Park Presbyterian (Associate Reformed Presbyterian)

Kathleen, hi again!
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?

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???

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