Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We've been reading it in men's Bible study. There are about 8 of us, and we all are in agreement he's not really Reformed. In chapter 6 he comes right out and says he thinks we go here through natural selection rather than being made as per Genesis. Several of the other men were disturbed by his tendency to be rather vague, as per NT Wright. None of us would read it again.
We've been reading it in men's Bible study. There are about 8 of us, and we all are in agreement he's not really Reformed. In chapter 6 he comes right out and says he thinks we go here through natural selection rather than being made as per Genesis. Several of the other men were disturbed by his tendency to be rather vague, as per NT Wright. None of us would read it again.
I've came to the conclusion and accepted that I would most likely never pass examination for the diaconate or eldership because my beliefs on origins and AOE. I still don't think it warrants throwing people off the Reformed bus entirely. Are Machen and Warfield not "really" Reformed anymore? It seems a century ago ecclessiology and sacramentology rated much higher in the definition of being Reformed than the age of the earth or length of origins.
It is interesting how you glowingly endorse Keller and then comment on how important ecclessiology used to be.
It is interesting how you glowingly endorse Keller and then comment on how important ecclessiology used to be.
Do you consider the RPCNA's ecclesiology to be reformed?
We've been reading it in men's Bible study. There are about 8 of us, and we all are in agreement he's not really Reformed. In chapter 6 he comes right out and says he thinks we go here through natural selection rather than being made as per Genesis. Several of the other men were disturbed by his tendency to be rather vague, as per NT Wright. None of us would read it again.
I'm of the same opinion here. While Keller's book may be lacking in some areas, I'm thankful that he has written a book that I feel comfortable giving to folks who are interested in serious-minded discussion about Christ and his Gospel. I get tired of the numerous and thoroughly helpful apologetics books written for Christians and the lack of such books written to unbelievers. Books aren't given in a vacuum, and so what might be lacking in Keller's book should be easily filled in with personal engagement with those we are seeking to win to Christ, which is the core of Keller's heart in this book.It's one of the first books I'd pass out to a person wanting something to read about Christianity and such. He certainly doesn't back down from Heaven, Hell and the exclusivity of Christ. In my humble opinion, Lewis's "Mere Christianity" is useful but overrated and certainly not Reformed. ...Keller's book has reached millions and I think it does much better than Lewis' at getting to the heart of the Gospel.
If evolution is ...elevated to the status of a world view of the way things are, then there is direct conflict with biblical faith. But if evolution remains at the level of scientific biological hypothesis, it would seem that there is little reason for conflict between the implications of Christian belief in the Creator and the scientific explorations of the way which, at the level of biology, God has gone about his creating process.
From page 98
For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as an All encompassing Theory. One commentator on Genesis captures this balance well:If evolution is ...elevated to the status of a world view of the way things are, then there is direct conflict with biblical faith. But if evolution remains at the level of scientific biological hypothesis, it would seem that there is little reason for conflict between the implications of Christian belief in the Creator and the scientific explorations of the way which, at the level of biology, God has gone about his creating process.
That's called theistic evolution, although for some reason he won't come right out and say it. Rather he leaves by his ambiguity some sort of way of parsing his words to allow his supporters to say "well, he didn't really come out and say he believes in ordained evolution. He just believes in non ordained evolution, and you can't find one place where he's said he believes in ordained evolution."
How can you NOT believe in theistic evolution?? We see it all around us every day. Are you saying natural selection doesn't happen? If so, you are ignoring what is easily observable on a daily basis. If not, then are you saying natural selection occurs outside God's sovereignty? That can't be right either. So the only answer is that God has guided and continually guides evolutionary processes. I don't see how you can believe to the contrary.
Keller clearly rejects Evolutionary Theory as an explanation for the origins of life and mankind. He accepts God's sovereign control of natural selection and other mechanisms of evolution. In that regard, I agree with him completely...
How can you NOT believe in theistic evolution?? We see it all around us every day. Are you saying natural selection doesn't happen? If so, you are ignoring what is easily observable on a daily basis. If not, then are you saying natural selection occurs outside God's sovereignty? That can't be right either. So the only answer is that God has guided and continually guides evolutionary processes. I don't see how you can believe to the contrary.
Keller clearly rejects Evolutionary Theory as an explanation for the origins of life and mankind. He accepts God's sovereign control of natural selection and other mechanisms of evolution. In that regard, I agree with him completely...
Frankly, I have never witnessed one animal species "evolve" into another. And neither have you, nor the small army of scientists who claim that mechanism drives the universe. So the idea this theory is self-evident from observation is nonsense. Natural selection of the sort observable on a micro biology level does not necessitate macro changes required by modern evolutionary theory. It does fit well with the idea of life being created ex nihilo “after its own kind”.
The idea of theistic evolution has many logical as well as theological objections.
From page 98
For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as an All encompassing Theory. One commentator on Genesis captures this balance well:If evolution is ...elevated to the status of a world view of the way things are, then there is direct conflict with biblical faith. But if evolution remains at the level of scientific biological hypothesis, it would seem that there is little reason for conflict between the implications of Christian belief in the Creator and the scientific explorations of the way which, at the level of biology, God has gone about his creating process.
That's called theistic evolution, although for some reason he won't come right out and say it. Rather he leaves by his ambiguity some sort of way of parsing his words to allow his supporters to say "well, he didn't really come out and say he believes in ordained evolution. He just believes in non ordained evolution, and you can't find one place where he's said he believes in ordained evolution."
How can you NOT believe in theistic evolution?? We see it all around us every day. Are you saying natural selection doesn't happen? If so, you are ignoring what is easily observable on a daily basis. If not, then are you saying natural selection occurs outside God's sovereignty? That can't be right either. So the only answer is that God has guided and continually guides evolutionary processes. I don't see how you can believe to the contrary.
Keller clearly rejects Evolutionary Theory as an explanation for the origins of life and mankind. He accepts God's sovereign control of natural selection and other mechanisms of evolution. In that regard, I agree with him completely...
Frankly, I have never witnessed one animal species "evolve" into another. And neither have you, nor the small army of scientists who claim that mechanism drives the universe. So the idea this theory is self-evident from observation is nonsense. Natural selection of the sort observable on a micro biology level does not necessitate macro changes required by modern evolutionary theory. It does fit well with the idea of life being created ex nihilo “after its own kind”.
The idea of theistic evolution has many logical as well as theological objections.
I never said macro-evolution or even speciation is observable. I said natural selection is observable, and it is. Not only has it been scientifically documented in numerous species, but it is clearly observable in the human race - one could even make the argument that the swine flu demonstrates very small scale natural selection.
I don't adhere to Evolutionary Theory, and don't believe Pastor Keller does either...at least according to the passage Tim provided.
I never said macro-evolution or even speciation is observable. I said natural selection is observable, and it is. Not only has it been scientifically documented in numerous species, but it is clearly observable in the human race - one could even make the argument that the swine flu demonstrates very small scale natural selection.
I don't adhere to Evolutionary Theory, and don't believe Pastor Keller does either...at least according to the passage Tim provided.
So here’s what I like—the messy approach, which is I think there was an Adam and Eve. I think there was a real Fall. I think that happened. I also think that there also was a very long process probably, you know, that the earth probably is very old, and there was some kind of process of natural selection that God guided and used, and maybe intervened in. And that’s just the messy part. I’m not a scientist. I’m not going to go beyond that.