Timothy Keller

[NewCreation435]

I've read two books this year by pastor Timothy Keller. He is a Presbyterian minister who founded a church in New York called Redeemer Presbyterian. I wonder if you have any thoughts about him? I am finishing today his book "Encounters with Jesus" which has been edifying and encouraging.
They have a lot of his sermons online for free and you can also purchase some of them www.timothykeller.com www.redeemer.com

 

[Ackbach]

Rather mixed feelings about him. He's certainly done a lot of good, including for me. On the other hand, his stance on women deacons and origins are not in line with his denomination's policies, which is definitely a problem.

 

[Josiah]

A coward?

https://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2019/02/05/tim-keller-closet-pro-lifer/']https://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2019/02/05/tim-keller-closet-pro-lifer/




.

 

[tango]

Rather mixed feelings about him. He's certainly done a lot of good, including for me. On the other hand, his stance on women deacons and origins are not in line with his denomination's policies, which is definitely a problem.

Why is it a problem for someone to have a stance that differs from a denominational policy?

 

[NewCreation435]

A coward?

https://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2019/02/05/tim-keller-closet-pro-lifer/']https://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2019/02/05/tim-keller-closet-pro-lifer/




.

I couldn't get this link to work. Could you share your thoughts rather than posting a link?

 

[Ackbach]

Why is it a problem for someone to have a stance that differs from a denominational policy?

Because when you are ordained in the PCA, as Tim Keller is, you take vows to uphold the form of government and the Westminster Standards (Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms). He's essentially going against his vows by holding to a view of origins that is not in line with what he vowed to uphold. Same goes for women deacons. The Presbyterian system has a lot of checks and balances to examine this sort of thing.

It can also cause divisions, which is just as serious a problem.

 

[tango]

Because when you are ordained in the PCA, as Tim Keller is, you take vows to uphold the form of government and the Westminster Standards (Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms). He's essentially going against his vows by holding to a view of origins that is not in line with what he vowed to uphold. Same goes for women deacons. The Presbyterian system has a lot of checks and balances to examine this sort of thing.

It can also cause divisions, which is just as serious a problem.

Ah, so the problem is that he's taking a stance different from vows he took, rather than he doesn't accept 100% of the views of the church he happens to attend? That makes more sense.

 

[hedrick]

The Westminster Confession doesn't say anything about evolution. The PCA adopted a report that sort of implied that evolution wasn't true, but there's no actual official statement prohibiting it. Keller thinks that from a Biblical and confessional point of view what matters is a literal Adam and Even, and a literal Fall. He accepts that, and thinks you can believe that and evolution together.

Keller points out that there are non-literal things in the Bible, so the point is to determine whether the author intended something to be literal. He thinks there are signs that Gen 1 is not, and furthermore if taken literally it would conflict with both Gen 2 and other passages. So his conclusion is that it can't have been intended to be literal.

 

[Ackbach]

Ah, so the problem is that he's taking a stance different from vows he took, rather than he doesn't accept 100% of the views of the church he happens to attend? That makes more sense.

Exactly. You can have some differences as an ordained elder in the PCA, but the presbytery or session (depending on which kind of elder you are) has to determine if any differences you hold are acceptable or not.

 

[Ackbach]

The Westminster Confession doesn't say anything about evolution. The PCA adopted a report that sort of implied that evolution wasn't true, but there's no actual official statement prohibiting it. Keller thinks that from a Biblical and confessional point of view what matters is a literal Adam and Even, and a literal Fall. He accepts that, and thinks you can believe that and evolution together.

Right, it's technically a position paper, which is unfortunately somewhat weak in the PCA. It's supposed to be a guiding principle, but it has no teeth. The Westminster Confession does say this:

It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good. WCF 4.1.

This is not compatible with theistic evolution or regular evolution - see the position paper for details.

Keller points out that there are non-literal things in the Bible, so the point is to determine whether the author intended something to be literal. He thinks there are signs that Gen 1 is not, and furthermore if taken literally it would conflict with both Gen 2 and other passages. So his conclusion is that it can't have been intended to be literal.

No doubt that is what Keller says; I would, myself, deny most of that. Sure, there are non-literal things in the Bible, but Genesis 1-3 bears all the hallmarks of historical narrative, including the waw consecutive, imperfect verb forms, and the direct object marker. I'm no expert on Tim Keller, but I did interact with an article he wrote for BioLogos, and my brother Lane published on his blog, GreenBaggins. You can read my article here.

 

[tango]

This is not compatible with theistic evolution or regular evolution - see the position paper for details.

Playing devil's advocate a bit here I know, but I can't help wondering just how much scope there is interpret the concept of "day" as defined in Genesis. Certainly if God created the world and everything in it exactly as described in Genesis he would have had to take time to talk to Adam about it, because there were no humans around until the sixth day so nobody would have known how it all panned out.

If we regard "day" as meaning 24 hours, i.e. the exact way we understand a day in our age, we get a very different concept than if we regard "day" as meaning "period of time". Even if we think of it as the time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis I don't imagine anybody was there when it all happened, so a single axial rotation could have taken more time back when God was hard at work creating.

Even if we accept "day" as meaning a period of 24 hours as we currently understand it, is there anything in Genesis that clearly states God created everything from scratch? The text seems open enough to at least leave the possibility available that God created one creature and then tweaked it to create another one. The only thing I can't see Genesis supporting is the idea that humans evolved from some other creature because the text is very clear that God created us from the ground and breathed life ito us. Admittedly it might seem odd to construct a drawn out process of theistic evolution and then create the top creature from nothing, but does anything in Genesis explicitly rule out this possibility?

 

[hedrick]

Right, it's technically a position paper, which is unfortunately somewhat weak in the PCA. It's supposed to be a guiding principle, but it has no teeth. The Westminster Confession does say this:

The committee whose report was accepted was unable to reach consensus on the issue of days. As I understand it, this leaves the PCA in a position of accepting the "six days" reference as not necessarily meaning 24 hour days. I don't believe Keller's views violate the PCA's understanding of Westminster.

 

[Ackbach]

The committee whose report was accepted was unable to reach consensus on the issue of days. As I understand it, this leaves the PCA in a position of accepting the "six days" reference as not necessarily meaning 24 hour days. I don't believe Keller's views violate the PCA's understanding of Westminster.

The "days" issue isn't really the issue. It's the "evolution" part that is the issue.

 

[hedrick]

The "days" issue isn't really the issue. It's the "evolution" part that is the issue.

But Westminster doesn’t take a position on that. The one passage that seems relevanft to creation says that the world was created in six days.