In a recent interview with Christianity Today, Tim Keller said:
Because the church has got so many of its own skeletons and so much coverup of sexual abuse and so on, I don't know how we can adjudicate…right now we don't have any kind of credibility for a lot of reasons…As the church tries to speak publicly to social issues…we have to do it with repentance.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/october-web-only/tim-keller-politics-news-midterms-united-states.html
That's true at the level of public perception, which makes it necessary to correct that misperception. I disagree with how Keller frames the issue. Christians don't need to apologize for "the church". I'm not "the church". I don't speak for "the church". And I shouldn't be saddled with what "the church" did before I was born. Moreover, I don't control "the church". I'm just one guy.
It suffers from a fallacy of personification, as if the church is just one thing, as if the church is identical in time and space, so that whatever was done at one time or place somehow transfers to "the church" at another time or place.
"The church" is an an abstraction. That's a necessary abstraction for ease of reference, but it's becomes an overgeneralization when individual distinctions in time, place, and person are swallowed up by an indiscriminate category.
I don't speak and act as a representative of "the church". My positions should be evaluated by whether they are right or wrong, true or false, backed by reason and evidence, rather than fallacious guilt-by-association, which is a lazy anti-intellectual shortcut.
The situation is rather different with Catholics since they do acquire a corporate identity in a way that Protestants don't. Catholicism is fundamentally and pervasively institutional in a way that the Protestant faith is not, so Catholics can't disassociate themselves from what their denomination does in the same way Protestants can disassociate themselves from institutional Protestantism.
Wow - this topic resonates so well with me. Just as politicians carelessly throw around the phrase "the American people..." What American people? Who? How many American people? Etc. So too, the phrase "the church..." is way too sloppy. In fact, I'd say it is a rather insidious way of excusing personal responsibility. Boy I could say a lot more!!!
ReplyDeleteHi Steve: you said “I shouldn’t be saddled with what ‘the church’ did before I was born.” I realize this is in particular context of a rebut to Keller’s suggestion that the Church needs to apologize for some past sin.
ReplyDeleteWhat you said there got me thinking about the idea of being saddled with the results of what someone else did in the past. Adam’s fall in the garden. Every one of us is saddled with a fallen nature because of what that one man did in the past. This is not so bad for the elect since they get unsaddled, by the reprobate remain saddled into eternity. Do the reprobate have any grounds to protest that their will is under bondage because of what one man did in the past?
Our relationship to Adam is a special case, and I've discussed that in various posts, but perhaps I'll add something in a new post.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Keller has his issues like many other Reformed pastors, I don't think he's a false teacher at all. On the contrary I think he's generally biblically sound when it comes to the fundamentals of the faith. And I think he's shared the gospel and made many biblically faithful disciples in a locale where few others have made much progress.
DeleteThat is, I think it should be taken into consideration that Keller ministers in the heart of NYC (Manhattan). Arguably the most liberal and secular city in the nation. He often speaks from this vantage point and with this audience in mind. That likely comes across the wrong way to say people in the Bible belt.
To take one of your examples, he's not a theistic evolutionist to my knowledge but an old earth creationist, though he sometimes frames it in terms which seem friendly to theistic evolution. He leaves a lot open, but intake that to be more of a tactic to communicate to postmodern secular minded and worldy wise New Yorkers who knee-jerk resist talk of clear and unequivocal certainties. But again I think that reflects the audience he's speaking to more than his personal convictions.
Just my opinion.
Jesse,
DeleteI went ahead and clicked through several of the links you provided. In no particular order:
Keller is on record as a "progressive creationist," which is distinct from "theistic evolution." He's even distanced himself from Biologos.
He's critical of Marxism. He doesn't claim the government should redistribute wealth or really any typical "liberal" or leftwing idea as he is accused of. Why do people interpret calls to generosity as liberal? One of the best ways conservatives can avoid big government is if people give freely of their resources such that their neighbors feel no need to have the government do so.
He's against empty, mystical forms of "prayer".
He has voted for both moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats and doesn't think either party should be promoted.
He plants churches with many Protestant denominations, but refuses to plant Catholic ones.
He's in favor of traditional Christian sexual ethics and thinks abortion is a sin.
Citing one "effeminate" worship service as definitive of the thousands he has overseen is profoundly dishonest. None of the ones I attended would have been considered "effeminate" by any stretch of the imagination.
Related, he takes flak from liberal Christians for his traditional views on ordination, even being rescinded the Princeton Seminary Award after saying women and LGBT can't be ordained. For someone who is accused of liberalism, it's surprising how many liberals, Christian or secular, think Keller's a wolf in sheep's clothing.
He thinks hell is real and that many people will be there.
He clarified his remarks on salvation with Bashir. He thinks they were mistaken and apologized for it. Why is that correction strangely absent from these links? Why ignore the many, many, many other contexts he has mentioned Christ as the only way to heaven?
It is impossible to take seriously critiques that give no indication of any understanding of the source material and rely on a series of dishonest frames and asinine guilt by association tactics (as if Keller's robust defense of the historical reliability of the Bible and its relevance to modern life is in the same universe as Brian McLaren).
Naming your blog "discernment" makes a mockery of the term. Anyone who peddles these kinds of links should be ashamed, not just of their lack of character, but of their pronounced inability to read.
A title that may be of use in your situation: https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Classic-Intelligent/dp/0671212095
This is a ridiculous assertion. I don't agree with some of his positions, but this allegation is absurd
DeleteI was replying to Jesse's comments, just to be clear
DeleteAt the core of this is simply a good, old-fashioned, ad hominem fallacy. And also genetic fallacy, for good measure.
ReplyDeleteThe Left's demands are disingenuous. For them it is not enough to be generally virtuous, we have to be morally perfect, or else our criticisms can be dismissed. Because...HYPOCRISY!!!
They can't deal with the actual substance and merit of Christian ethics, underwritten by divine revelation.
But we should remember that even the true Perfect One, they do not hesitate to criticize and dismiss. There is no pleasing the godless Left.
Whether or not Keller calls himself a progressive creationist or a theistic evolutionist is irrelevant — they are two sides of the same unbiblical coin. Hugh Ross’ PC teaches that God created soulless humans prior to Adam and Eve, and that is rank heresy. Keller has stated in no uncertain terms that if “science” and the Bible seem to conflict, then we should rely on “science.” Of course there is absolutely NO science for evolution, just speculations, assumptions, and assertions. Keller’s teachings on Genesis are heretical, totally disavowing that Genes 1 is literal:
ReplyDelete"The conclusion—we may read the order of events as literal in Genesis 2 but not in Genesis 1, or (much, much more unlikely) we may read them as literal in Genesis 1 but not in Genesis 2. But in any case, you can’t read them both as straightforward accounts of historical events. [...] So what does this mean? It means Genesis 1 does not teach that God made the world in six twenty- four hour days. … "It could be that Adam and Eve were given conditional immortality and, in the Garden, a foretaste of what life in the world would be like with humans in the image of God living in perfect harmony with God and his creation. It was offered to them to work with God to ‘subdue’ the earth (Genesis 1:28.) On any view, the idea of ‘having dominion’ and ‘subduing’ the earth meant that creation was at least highly undeveloped. Even before the Fall, the world was not yet in the shape God wanted it to be. Human beings were to work with God to cultivate and develop it.”. So I guess when God said he had finished his work, he was lying?
Questionable teachings of Keller are common:
"the primary purpose of salvation is – cultural renewal – to make this world a better place." . Really—That is the purpose of salvation?!?
In 2006 at an Entrepreneur’s Forum” Keller stated:
"Conservative churches say 'this world is not our home -- it's gonna burn up eventually and what really matters is saving souls... so evangelism and discipleship and saving souls is what's important'. And we try to say that it's the other way around almost. That the purpose of salvation is to renew creation. That this world is a good in itself. ... And if you see it that way, then the old paradigm if you're going to put your money and your time and your effort as a Christian into doing God's work in the world, you wanna save souls which means the only purpose of your ministry and your effort is to increase the tribe, increase the number of Christians. …. Gee, and I thought Christ commanded us to make disciples!
Keller’s church has been known for teaching Lectio Divina and promoting mysticism:
ReplyDeleteJan Johnson is teaching Lectio Divina, meditation at Keller’s Redeemer Church and on Keller’s church website. Johnson also promotes mystic Richard Foster and Catholic, mystic Ignatius Loyola on Keller’s church website.
Keller’s support for the “social justice” movement is well-known, and that movement has nothing to do with real Christianity — or real social justice. The movement among Christians is called the social gospel, and among the secular it is socialism.
This 2-part book review of Keller’s “Center Church” speaks much about Keller’s unbiblical ideology:
http://thecripplegate.com/center-church-summary-and-contextualization/
http://thecripplegate.com/center-church-and-the-true-church/
Politically, Keller seems to align himself more and more with the ungodly Demokrat party (you know, the party who booed God, promotes abortion and same-sex fake marriage, etc) because he seems to be quite socialist in his ideology.
https://pulpitandpen.org/2017/12/23/tim-keller-helps-the-new-yorker-siphon-off-support-from-republicans/
http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2018/09/25/tim-keller-the-marxist/
What about this “worship service” at his church? https://pulpitandpen.org/2017/07/10/tim-kellers-redeemer-church-puts-on-effeminate-worship-service/
And what about this quote — admitting to having unbelievers lead his worship services?!?
First, we use only professional and/or trained musicians for our worship services, and we pay them all. … Second, we often include no-Christian musicians in our services who have wonderful gifts and talent. … When we invite non-Christians to use their talents in corporate worship, we are simply calling them, along with every other creature, to bring their “peculiar honors” and gifts to praise their Creator.. What kind of a shepherd would use wolves to entertain the sheep!?!!
Of course his promotion of “gay Christian” should say a lot about him.
Keller’s praise for Roman Catholicism is also well-known. And this article should convince anyone that Keller is a dangerous false teacher: http://the-highway.com/keller-false-gospel_Williams.html. Or perhaps try this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcTHueiG98Y
Or how about this article?
http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2018/08/29/5-facts-about-tim-keller-follow-up-to-speaking-out-on-living-out-btwn-post/
I could go on and on with evidence of Keller’s false teachings. It is plain he should be avoided like the plague.
"I could go on and on with evidence of Keller’s false teachings."
ReplyDelete0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 = 0
Apparently the worship of Keller here precludes discernment. Keller has been proven to be a false teacher.
DeleteJesse: "Here is a blog post collection of takedowns of Keller."
DeleteMe: "Here are several reasons these links fail in their criticisms of Keller."
Glenn: "Why do you worship Keller?"
Yeah, I think we are done here.
Glenn E. Chatfield
Delete"Apparently the worship of Keller here precludes discernment."
The fact that you equate those who argue Keller is not a false teacher with "worship of Keller" is a low blow. You could simply have said those who argue Keller is not a false teacher are mistaken or wrong rather than we "worship" Keller.
Speaking for myself, I don't entirely agree with everything Keller says, but I don't think he's "a false teacher". I guess you're the type of person who would throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Well, when people go to the mat to defend false teachings of a highly public figure, it only demonstrates that said persons cannot let go of their high esteem of that public figure regardless of how much false teaching said teacher spews. Just like Beth Moore worshipers.
DeleteAnd the "baby in the bathwater" is a demon.
I'm the type of person who is discerning because I have seen too many people spiritually damaged by false teachers who are defended by your ilk.
Glenn E. Chatfield
Delete"Well, when people go to the mat to defend false teachings of a highly public figure, it only demonstrates that said persons cannot let go of their high esteem of that public figure regardless of how much false teaching said teacher spews."
So you keep saying! Despite the fact that Matthew Schultz has demonstrated otherwise.
"Just like Beth Moore worshipers."
A comparison without rhyme or reason.
"And the "baby in the bathwater" is a demon."
Your imagination continues to run wild.
"I'm the type of person who is discerning because I have seen too many people spiritually damaged by false teachers who are defended by your ilk."
Sure, you're the epitome of "discerning", judging by the things you've said in this very thread! (◠‿◠)
Well it is obvious that there is a huge lack of discernment when it comes to Tim Keller. The man has too many false teachings and yet you are willing to defend him as a teacher of valid.
DeleteNo, Matthew has NOT demonstrated that Tim Keller isn't a false teacher, he just deflects the criticism as not worthy.
The comparison with Beth Moore follower and Tim Keller supports is 100% apt because both defend their false teachers because "they have some good teachings" or "don't throw the baby out..." etc. No matter how much one shows false teachings, it doesn't matter, and then the person exposing the false teachings are personally attacked.
Facts are not "imagination." False teachings are demonic. Just keep defending the indefensible.
I notice you haven't addressed the issue of him using unbelievers to lead worship in his church. THAT alone is enough to disqualify him as a shepherd.
Glenn E. Chatfield
Delete"Well it is obvious that there is a huge lack of discernment when it comes to Tim Keller. The man has too many false teachings and yet you are willing to defend him as a teacher of valid."
You can keep screaming this until you're blue in the face, but it's the very point of contention.
"No, Matthew has NOT demonstrated that Tim Keller isn't a false teacher, he just deflects the criticism as not worthy."
One might say you just "deflect" Matthew's responses! :)
"The comparison with Beth Moore follower and Tim Keller supports is 100% apt because both defend their false teachers because "they have some good teachings" or "don't throw the baby out..." etc. No matter how much one shows false teachings, it doesn't matter, and then the person exposing the false teachings are personally attacked."
Again, this is the very point of dispute. I don't agree with your assessment. I don't agree that's what's happening. Hence I don't agree your comparison is "apt".
"Facts are not "imagination.""
Again, the point of dispute.
"False teachings are demonic."
Depends on the false teaching, which, again is the point of dispute!
"Just keep defending the indefensible."
Just keep emoting.
"I notice you haven't addressed the issue of him using unbelievers to lead worship in his church. THAT alone is enough to disqualify him as a shepherd."
You're referring to his paper in Worship by the Book (p 239). Keller provides a rationale for why he does so. I don't necessarily agree with Keller's rationale, but I notice you didn't deal with Keller's rationale.
"No, Matthew has NOT demonstrated that Tim Keller isn't a false teacher, he just deflects the criticism as not worthy."
DeleteI responded to many of the criticisms you raised earlier when I responded to Jesse's post. You guys are obviously drawing on the same resources.
"I notice you haven't addressed the issue of him using unbelievers to lead worship in his church."
Having a secular, professional violinist play in an orchestral arrangement for an Easter service is hardly "leading worship." From the quote you provided, Keller says he "includes" professional musicians, not that they "lead" worship. You can object on theological grounds to inclusion--and that would be an important argument to have--but you have to make an argument that unbelievers are "leading" in the sense you are implying.
This is why I don't take your criticisms seriously. They don't deal with the argument as presented. No one is under any obligation to respond to lazy distortions.
"I notice you haven't addressed the issue of him using unbelievers to lead worship in his church. THAT alone is enough to disqualify him as a shepherd."
DeleteThere's possibly something of a parallel between this and age old debates over baptism and communion (e.g. paedobaptism, paedocommunion).
Matthew: Your responses have been inadequate, defending the indefensible. The teachings are false.
DeleteMatthew and Dude: Re-read the citation:
First, we use only professional and/or trained musicians for our worship services, and we pay them all. … Second, we often include no-Christian musicians in our services who have wonderful gifts and talent. … When we invite non-Christians to use their talents in corporate worship, we are simply calling them, along with every other creature, to bring their “peculiar honors” and gifts to praise their Creator..
The statement about using non-believers is separate from the statement about using paid musicians. And he specifically states they are used in corporate worship. (Musicians are normally who lead the singing part of the worship time).
There is NO right rationale for using unbelievers to lead or be a part of leading worship. This is about as insane as it gets -- unbelievers do not worship God, so how can they lead worship?!?! I find it absolutely incredulous that you would defend this in any fashion. No argument Keller comes up with is valid. (Oh, I can just see Paul telling the churches to be sure to use pagan musicians in their worship, because, after all, they have talents and you are just calling them to "bring their “peculiar honors” and gifts to praise their Creator.."
And, no, there is no parallel with those other issues.
Glenn E. Chatfield
Delete1. Glenn is responding out of his emotions rather than reason.
2. As I already mentioned, I don't necessarily agree with Keller's rationale, but the problem is Glenn doesn't even bother to interact with what Keller says. Instead, Glenn just dismisses it out of hand when he flatly states: "No argument Keller comes up with is valid."
This kind of response by Glenn, a professing Christian, is basically no different than when atheists say things like "No argument you come up with could ever prove to me that God exists!" It's an unthinking, unintelligent response.
3. Since I own the book in question, I'll excerpt the relevant passage below:
(c) Reasons for Selection of Musicians. First, we use only professional and/or trained musicians for our corporate worship services, and we pay them all. The reason for this has to do with our commitment to excellence. We are one of many congregations today that hire only professional clergy for their staff. Ministers (and other staff, such as counselors) are expected to be schooled and trained specifically for their work and then paid for it by the church. However, many of these same congregations single out and treat musicians differently. At Redeemer, we do not. We retain the services of the best musicians we can find just as we do the best counselors, preachers, and educators we can find.
Second, we often include non-Christian musicians in our services who have wonderful gifts and talent. We do not use them as soloists, but we incorporate them into our ensembles. We believe this fits a Reformed “world-and-life view.” The dualistic view in many evangelical churches is that a godly, sincere Christian who is an average musician is more pleasing to God than a non-Christian professional professional musician. But Reformed theology teaches that God’s natural gifts in creation are as much a work of grace as God’s gifts in salvation. In the film Amadeus, Antonio Salieri can see that Mozart, though “unworthy” in many ways, has been chosen by God’s grace to receive an artistic gift. Musical talent is the gift of God, and to ask a musician to offer up that gift in a service of worship is a good thing both for him or her and for us. (See Exodus 31, which considers artistic talent to be a gift of the Spirit, and James 1:17.)
I believe Calvin’s own approach to music provides guidance for an approach somewhere in the middle, between, on the one hand, the evangelical church that pays its ministers but not its musicians, and, on the other hand, the mainline church that has non-Christians singing or playing as “just another gig.” When we incorporate non-Christians into our services, we pray that the gathered worship itself will have an impact on them. We model for them the difference between just performing and seeking to “catch the conscience” with our music. When we invite non-Christians to use their talents in corporate worship, we are simply calling them, along with every creature, to bring their “peculiar honors” and gifts to praise their Creator.
"The statement about using non-believers is separate from the statement about using paid musicians. And he specifically states they are used in corporate worship. (Musicians are normally who lead the singing part of the worship time)."
DeleteHe specifically says they are *not* used as soloists, only in ensembles. Do you know what an ensemble is? That is not "leading" worship under your sense of the term.
"I find it absolutely incredulous that you would defend this in any fashion."
I don't mean to be rude, but so what? I'd find your incredulity meaningful if you were a friend, but otherwise, don't take yourself so seriously. You don't offer any arguments why including some secular musicians in an ensemble is wrong. Can you tell when an atheist is playing the cello? Does the viola fall out of tune when a Unitarian touches it?
Dude:
DeleteHow about you quit accusing me of responding on emotions; It is totally asinine for you to make such claim since there is nothing of emotions (other than frustration at your defense of the indefensible) in my arguments; I present the data, the factual evidence of the false teachings of Keller, his social ideology, his social gospel, etc.
For both of your: So your quote from the book is supposed to be a rebuttal?!?! He says just what I stated -- He has unbelievers as part of their music ensemble during worship services! The rationale is ridiculous and is only an attempt at justification for having unbelievers assist in worship services. It isn't about the talent of the musicians, it's about them being made part of a worship service. Unbelievers have no business being placed in that position.
I'm done here. You people are so high and mighty that you are unteachable. Keep betraying Christ by supporting false teachers and justifying them. Go pat yourselves on the back now for your triumph.
Glenn E. Chatfield
Delete"How about you quit accusing me of responding on emotions;"
I'll stop doing that when you stop responding with your emotions rather than reason.
"It is totally asinine for you to make such claim since there is nothing of emotions (other than frustration at your defense of the indefensible) in my arguments;"
Don't you think we're "frustrated" at your own "defense of the indefensible"? You're asserting Keller is a false teacher in the teeth of Matthew Schultz's counter-evidence to your claims, and lambasting us for not believing what you believe! That's unreasonable behavior from you. That's more like you reacting emotionally.
"I present the data, the factual evidence of the false teachings of Keller, his social ideology, his social gospel, etc."
Wrong. You say things like "No argument Keller comes up with is valid". That's sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to reason.
"For both of your: So your quote from the book is supposed to be a rebuttal?!?!"
No, it's supposed to provide better context than you've provided.
"He says just what I stated -- He has unbelievers as part of their music ensemble during worship services! The rationale is ridiculous and is only an attempt at justification for having unbelievers assist in worship services. It isn't about the talent of the musicians, it's about them being made part of a worship service. Unbelievers have no business being placed in that position."
So you didn't even bother to read the quote? Or your reading comprehension is so deficient you didn't grasp what Keller said?
"I'm done here."
From your lips to God's ears!
"You people are so high and mighty that you are unteachable."
Unlike you, since you're oh so "teachable"? ;)
"Keep betraying Christ by supporting false teachers and justifying them. Go pat yourselves on the back now for your triumph."
Keep betraying Christ by making false allegations and justifying them. Go pat yourself on the back now for your triumph.
"Keep betraying Christ by supporting false teachers and justifying them. Go pat yourselves on the back now for your triumph."
DeleteYou cast yourself in the role of the true and faithful Christian, but it's hardly true and faithful to Christ and Christianity when you refuse to listen to reason and evidence to the contrary when it's presented to you. Instead, you double down, and you blast us for trying to reason with you! That doesn't support Christ and Christianity; rather, you give Christians a bad name by your unreasonable behavior. It plays into what secularists think about Christians being ignorant, anti-intellectual, and the like.
"Whether or not Keller calls himself a progressive creationist or a theistic evolutionist is irrelevant — "
ReplyDeleteThese are distinct categories that undercut the charge that Keller promotes theistic evolution. If you don't care for precision in evaluating his claims, there is no reason to take your arguments seriously.
Both versions are compromises to evolutionism. I am thoroughly familiar with them.
DeleteThat is prima facie false. Keller believes God directly created in bursts of activity. The point of tying Keller to "evolutionism" is to claim he either directly or indirectly supports the kind of theistic evolution that is indistinguishable from naturalism. Yet his view would be (and is) rejected by secularists as a kind of creationism. That is to say nothing of his belief in historic Adam and Eve--a view he holds because, contra your assertion otherwise, he has stated that if the Bible and science are in tension, you should believe the Bible.
DeleteGlenn E. Chatfield
Delete"Whether or not Keller calls himself a progressive creationist or a theistic evolutionist is irrelevant"
"Both versions are compromises to evolutionism. I am thoroughly familiar with them."
Progressive creationists typically reject key tenets in mainstream neo-Darwinian theory such as universal common descent, novel mutations as a fundamental source for the origin of novel body plans, higher level body plans or architectures derived solely from genetic information, etc. By contrast, theistic evolutionists typically accept all of these. I'm neither a progressive creationist nor a theistic evolutionist, but how are the distinctions between the two "irrelevant"? And how is progressive creationism a "compromise to evolutionism" when it rejects key tenets in mainstream neo-Darwinian theory?
In fact, if you go to BioLogos, the flagship of Christian theistic evolution, there's criticism of progressive evolutionism. Likewise, if you go to Reasons to Believe, a leading progressive evolutionist website, there's criticism of theistic evolution.
DeleteThat's like LDS and RLDS arguing. They are two sides of the same coin as are PC and TE.
DeleteGlenn E. Chatfield
Delete"That's like LDS and RLDS arguing. They are two sides of the same coin as are PC and TE."
I guess you trade in analogies absent arguments because you don't have a good response to what I've said.
BOTH positions are compromising with evolutionism. THAT is my "good response." There is no reason to posit long ages of the earth or "progressive creation" or "theistic evolution" except the need to not want to be considered unscientific, and the need to fit in with evolutionist false time lines.
DeleteGlenn E. Chatfield
Delete"BOTH positions are compromising with evolutionism."
I already explained how that's not the case. Do you have a rebuttal to what I said above?
"THAT is my "good response."
More like a lack of a good response.
"There is no reason to posit long ages of the earth"
I never brought up "long age of the earth". That's just you putting words into my mouth.
"except the need to not want to be considered unscientific"
DeleteKeller has no real problem outright saying the text of Genesis should be believed over the current scientific consensus on Adam and Eve. Your appeal to motive is unconvincing.
Really? The why does he accept the false science of evolutionism? Because every Christian who denies evolutionism is called anti-science. My comment below demonstrates he believes evolutionism.
DeleteYes, really. He explicitly says that. In direct contradiction to your claim that he thinks we should believe science over the Bible. Did you listen to the link I sent?
DeleteHe explicitly says he takes the evolutionist old age ideology over what the Bible says. And that if false science-not science at all.
DeleteAnd, yes, I listed to that video and nothing he says there contradicts what I've stated about his pro evolution (in regards to age of the earth, etc) over the Bible stance
Um, This string is confusing because the string below is where I posted Keller's statements. And that statement is perspicuous. He is saying that the "science" of evolution trumps the Bible.
DeleteGlenn E. Chatfield
Delete"And, yes, I listed to that video and nothing he says there contradicts what I've stated about his pro evolution (in regards to age of the earth, etc) over the Bible stance"
Glenn it's increasingly obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Evolution i.e. neo-Darwinism is quite arguably separable from the debate over the age of the earth. For example, one can be an old earth creationist who is against neo-Darwinism. Indeed, there are many old earth creationists who argue against neo-Darwinism. See Stephen Meyer's books and papers for example (e.g. Darwin's Doubt, Signature in the Cell).
Glenn E. Chatfield
Delete"Both versions are compromises to evolutionism. I am thoroughly familiar with them."
In fact, the opposite is true. Glenn claims he's "thoroughly familiar with" theistic evolution and progressive creationism, but it's obvious he doesn't even understand the basic issues involved. I guess "pride cometh before a fall"!
Dude, you have no idea what I know about these positions, so you can stop with the ad hominem. BOTH are based on evolutionism. That is a fact.
DeleteOh, and OEC has everything to do with evolutionism -- that's where the dating of the universe and earth come from-- the evolutionist. One doesn't have to support the evolutionist position to accept their dating methods, which are not based in science.
DeleteGlenn E. Chatfield
Delete"Dude, you have no idea what I know about these positions, so you can stop with the ad hominem. BOTH are based on evolutionism. That is a fact."
1. So says the guy who constantly engages in ad hominem here.
2. Instead of blanket denials, why don't you offer arguments and counter-arguments? You still haven't responded to my original points (above) which draw distinctions between progressive creationism and theistic evolution.
3. You've never defined "evolutionism". That's such a vague term. Presumably you're speaking about "evolutionism" in terms of neo-Darwinism. Yet progressive creationism typically rejects key neo-Darwinian tenets as I've already pointed out to you.
4. You only assume they're "BOTH based on evolutionism" merely based on the fact that both accept the world and universe are billions of years old. However, as I've already pointed out to you, old earth creationists typically reject neo-Darwinism, while accepting modern chronologies. Hence your real problem is not with "evolutionism" (neo-Darwinism) but with modern chronologies of millions and billions of years. You expect thousands of years, something like 10,000 years, since you're a young earth creationist. This reflects your ignorance of neo-Darwinian evolution, but you need to understand a position in order to accurately criticize it.
Glenn E. Chatfield
Delete"Oh, and OEC has everything to do with evolutionism -- that's where the dating of the universe and earth come from-- the evolutionist. One doesn't have to support the evolutionist position to accept their dating methods, which are not based in science."
All your ranting and raving against "evolutionism" is based on the simple fact that you're ignorantly conflating biological evolution with geological and cosmological evolution. These aren't all of a kind.
And I myself have argued in many places and at many times against neo-Darwinian evolution. But as I've said to you, you have to understand a position first if you want to accurately criticize it. But as has become clear you don't understand neo-Darwinism.
https://thirtypiecesofsilver.org/2018/09/29/agents-of-betrayal-in-the-church/
ReplyDeleteI took a look at this piece. It's anything but fair-minded and objective. It engages in several logical fallacies (e.g. guilt by association, poisoning the well). It's not a rational or responsible post.
DeleteMatthew, I have him on video saying if the two are in conflict, you should believe "science."
ReplyDeleteAt ~8:00 minutes in this video, Keller explicitly *rejects* the scientific consensus *against* historical Adam and Eve. He says that his reading "of the text" of Genesis "has got to correct [his] understanding of what the science says":
Deletehttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/keller-moore-duncan-non-negotiable-beliefs-about-creation/
I realize you are publicly committed to Keller as heretic, but please take a moment to reconsider your claim.
(And here is a clickable link: Keller, Moore, and Duncan on the Non-Negotiable Beliefs About Creation)
Deletehttps://vimeo.com/42020632
DeleteAt 21 minutes and forward
“If the Bible say something, I believe the Bible says that. If science comes along and seems to contradict the Bible—now if the science is there, rather than sneer at the science I’m going to say maybe I misread the Bible.”
The “science” which seems to contradict the Bible is NEVER real science! But for one who believes in progressive creationism, i.e. a compromise with unscientific evolutionist ideology, that “science” trumps the Bible. That is how he is a progressive creationist to begin with, accepting false scientific dating methods. So with P.C. he does indeed take “science” over the Bible. He says he has to have Jesus’ view of the Bible, and yet he denies Jesus’ teaching about young earth creation. He LIES to say that the Bible does not teach that the earth is young, as he totally denies the authenticity of the completeness of the O.T. genealogies. He says that “science” says the earth is very old, yet real science says no such thing.
He is truthful in one way: if you believe in old earth creationism, you have to believe in evolution.
IF this was Keller’s only problem, I could let it slide as him just being ignorant of the facts. But when you add this belief/teaching along with his numerous other false teachings, the man is no longer credible as a Christian teacher.
Glenn E. Chatfield
Delete"He says he has to have Jesus’ view of the Bible, and yet he denies Jesus’ teaching about young earth creation. He LIES to say that the Bible does not teach that the earth is young, as he totally denies the authenticity of the completeness of the O.T. genealogies. He says that “science” says the earth is very old, yet real science says no such thing."
Ah! I see now. This is your real issue: you think anyone who isn't YEC isn't biblical if not an outright false teacher!
"He is truthful in one way: if you believe in old earth creationism, you have to believe in evolution."
You should tell that to all the old earth creationists who argue against neo-Darwinism (e.g. Hugh Ross, Stephen Meyer).
Glenn, this is a profound misreading. You claimed that, when the Bible and science are in conflict, Keller says you should believe the science. Yet what he says here is that if the science seems clearly in one direction, you should exercise some interpretive caution and check to see whether your interpretation is incorrect.
DeleteCombined with Keller's video where he *explicitly* denies the scientific consensus in favor of believing in an historical Adam and Eve as taught by Genesis, it is clear your original statement is just wrong. You think Keller is no longer credible as a Christian teacher, but given your mishandling of the public evidence, the only qualification up for question is whether you are credible as a discernment blogger.
Wrong. I pointed out what he stated as regarding Old Earth Creationism -- he stated that the science is there and that's why he believes OEC. The "science" conflicts with the Bible and yet he follows the science for OEC progressive creation. And that, and only that, is the context as I pointed out above.
Delete"I have him on video saying if the two are in conflict, you should believe "science.""
Delete"The "science" conflicts with the Bible and yet he follows the science for OEC progressive creation."
Live shot of Chatfield
Perhaps Glenn's anti-Tim Keller ranting and raving is partly motivated by his anti-Calvinism:
ReplyDeletehttps://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2013/02/i-am-not-calvinist.html
Well dude, if you read much at all on my blog you will find how most of my favorite teachers/pastors are Calvinists. So my anti-Calvinist beliefs have nothing to do with calling out false teachings.
Delete1. That's fair, though I never claimed it was decisive.
Delete2. You seem to primarily appreciate Calvinists who are already deceased. Do you appreciate any living Calvinists?
3. You recommend people read Dave Hunt. However, James White, for one, has debated and responded to Dave Hunt (e.g. see their book Debating Calvinism).
Likewise Steve Hays here on Triablogue, among others, has a plethora of posts responding to Roger E. Olson's, Jerry Walls', and other leading Arminians on their anti-Calvinism.
One last comment for now to summarize things from my perspective:
ReplyDelete1. I never claimed I agreed with everything Tim Keller has ever taught.
2. Rather, Glenn has been the one who has claimed Keller is a false teacher. I responded by saying I don't think Keller is a false teacher. Instead, I think Keller is faithful to the gospel and other fundamentals of the faith. I think Matthew Schultz has clearly shown this. I think Glenn has yet to rebut Matthew's arguments and evidence.
3. Although I respect Keller and I think he's an intelligent person, Keller is primarily a big city pastor and popular author. As such, I think Keller should be evaluated and assessed with this in mind. Don't expect Keller to be what he's not.
Keller is not a scientist like Francis Collins, Hugh Ross, Todd Wood, or Jason Lisle. He's not a philosopher like Alvin Plantinga, Stephen Meyer, or Bill Dembski. He's not a theologian like John Frame or Vern Poythress. He's not a biblical scholar like D.A. Carson, G.K. Beale, or Tom Schreiner. Again, Keller is primarily a pastor and popular author.
Indeed, Keller is primarily a pastor in NYC, which is arguably America's most international city. NYC (Manhattan) itself is quite secular and left-wing. Often Keller's primary target audience happens to be fellow New Yorkers (Manhattanites) and like-minded people who come from a decidedly secular and liberal background. He's often speaking with such audiences in mind. Much of what Keller has said reflects this. Keller's choice and use words, language, tone, voice, and so on would presumably be different if he were addressing people in the Bible belt or Middle America.
Again, all this should be kept in mind when evaluating Keller. Although it seems to me Glenn (who is from Iowa) expects Keller to be a Midwestern preacher. At the very least, Glenn doesn't seem able to draw such distinctions in his evaluation of Keller.
4. It's obvious Glenn has been conflating biological evolution (neo-Darwinism) with geological and cosmological "evolution".
5. Glenn thinks progressive creationism is "evolutionism" because progressive creationism accepts the earth and universe are billions of years old. This shows Glenn's real problem isn't with "evolutionism" (neo-Darwinism), but with modern scientific dating schemes and chronologies. Hence Glenn isn't arguing against neo-Darwinism so much as he's arguing against the earth and universe possibly being billions of years old. All this is on Glenn's background as a young earth creationist.
Glenn is calling Keller an "evolutionist" not because Keller is a theistic evolutionist (Keller is not, as Matthew Schultz has shown), but because Keller accepts the possibility that the earth and universe might not be thousands of years old. Hence Glenn's original contention that Keller is a "false teacher" and has "heretical" teachings is based on nothing more than the debate between OEC vs. YEC. Glenn evidently thinks if one doesn't accept young earth creationist dates or chronology, then one is teaching "heresy" and a "false teacher"!
6. Regardless, Glenn's weblogs allude to the fact that he's in the business of "discernment". I guess implying some kind of discernment ministry. However, judging by the back and forth with us in this very thread, I would caution people about Glenn's ability to "discern". To weigh the evidence, to reason, to make fair-minded judgments, and so on. Certainly Glenn has been quite unreasonable when it comes to Keller.