First, on a personal note, I wanted to respond to a suggestion made earlier
(by Steve Schimmrich? I apologize, Steve, if it wasn't you) that I don't
believe in absolute truth. I've been accused of and called many things,
but have never had that suggested. I'm curious as to why the idea was
suggested (I'd post the original message, but have had some recent software
troubles and lost it).
Second, I wanted to throw in my two cents worth on the theology of TE/EC.
As I understand it (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken),
TE is an attempt to reconcile empirical data that (seem to) suggest
evolution with theistic religious convictions (usually some brand of
Christianity). In 2 Peter 3:4-7, I see a God who intervenes in dramatic
ways. Not all the time, or even that frequently. But the Tribulation,
Millenial Kingdom, and the New Jerusalem will not be ushered in with
natural laws that govern the universe. Any reading of Revelation that
produces any other view employs a hermeneutic even more twisted than the
one alleged by Denis. Yet Peter clearly sees God working in creation and
in the Flood in the same way as He will in the End Times.
So I have a question: How does the picture of God portrayed here fit with
the oft-expressed idea that God "created" the world through the laws that
ordinarily govern the universe (I hope I'm not the only one who sees a
tension here)? Second, with the clear ability and willingness of God to
intervene in dramatic ways, can we safely assume that the natural processes
we see at work in the world today are the same ones that were at work for
15-20 billion years? Such a claim seems rather arrogant on our part.
Third, in response to previous comments on this Reflector about the skewed
hermenutic by theological lightweights such as Johnson (and I guess many of
us on the Reflector, too), I wanted to throw in a quote to generate some
further discussion. Wayne Grudem teaches at Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School and is one of the sharpest Reformed theologians in North America, so
I don't think he counts as a theological lightweight. He here quotes Davis
A Young and Louis Berkhof (neither of them are/were exactly dull-witted,
either). Please do not respond with comments about neither of the works
Grudem cites here not being up-to-date; they speak on theology, not
"empirical evidence":
"It seems appropriate to conclude in the words of geologist Davis A. Young,
'The position of theistic evolutionism as expressed by some of its
proponents is not a consistently Christian position. It is not a truly
biblical position, for it is based in part on principles that are imported
into Christianity.'* According to Louis Berkhof 'theistic evolution is
really a child of embarrassmet, which calls God in at periodic intervals to
help nature over the chasms that yawn at her feet. It is neither the
biblical doctrine of creation, nor a consistent theory of evolution.'"**
(Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. p.
279). (*Young, Davis A. Creation and the Flood. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1977. p. 38) (**Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1979. pp. 139-140. Original--Eerdmens, 1932).
I look forward to the responses (does that make me a masochist?). Thanks,
Justin Keller
==============================================================================
Justin Keller
650 Emerson #310
Evanston IL 60201
847/332-8478
jkeller@merle.acns.nwu.edu
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~jkeller/index.html
Jesus, my all in all thou art:
My rest in toil, my ease in pain,
The medicine of my broken heart,
In war my peace, in loss my gain,
My smile beneath the tyrant's frown,
In shame my glory and my crown.
--Charles Wesley