Yes, Jamin Huber this is very old news which has already been blogged about and found to be nothing all that controversial.
Main issue on blogs is that Tim Keller doesn't believe in a literal 6 days of creation of 24 hour duration each. Since the year of our Lord 1980 this is not a popular position to take thanks to the many para-church creation ministries. John Frame addressed that matter with other controversial issues in the Reformed Faith Community in his article "Machen's Warrior Children".
12. The Days of CreationIn a Google+ discussion with Jamin Huber and other AOMIN.ORG channel rats of the radical Watchblogger kind which included rather in your face comments to me by RazorsKiss. One reason I don't hang out with James White is the radical Watchblogger types that hang out with James White. I am anti-Watchblogger so I don't hang out with Watchbloggers. I stay out of the AOMIN.ORG discussion channel as there is too many Watchblogger types that hang out there, but not all fans of James White are Watchbloggers. Stephen Macasil , Daniel Chew, and TartanArmy are fans of James White and as some who know me know; I am a critic of all three as they are Watchbloggers. TartanArmy and I have not spoken for years due to disagreements on various discussion threads on issues that he had become rather Calvinist Pharisee about.
As in the broader evangelical world, the interpretation of Genesis 1 has been controversial in Reformed circles. Nevertheless, there has been relative peace and tolerance over this issue until recently. A number of Old Princeton professors, including Charles and A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and Oswald T. Allis, held that the days of creation were not literally twenty-four hours long. Edward J. Young, who taught Old Testament at Westminster for many years, held that the days referred to long ages of time. [40] In 1957, Meredith G. Kline published an article, “Because it Had Not Rained,” [41] arguing not only that the days were non-literal, but that the narrative does not even teach a temporal sequence of events. Following N. H. Ridderbos, [42] Kline argued that the list of days is a literary framework that has no implications for the length of time or the sequence of events. So in the Reformed community, some have held to literal days, others to age-long days, and others to symbolic days. These positions coexisted fairly comfortably in Reformed churches until around 1980.
But since then many have taken up the cause of twenty-four-hour-day creation, [43] and their disciples have followed the twentieth-century Reformed pattern of being militant about their views. Many Christian Reconstructionists have embraced a literal position, joined by many strict subscriptionists (see later discussion) who base their argument on what the writers of the Westminster Confession are likely to have believed. Some presbyteries in the OPC and the RCUS have denied ordination to candidates who reject the literal view of Genesis 1.
Should one’s view of the length of the creation days be a test of orthodoxy? I think not. The exegetical questions are difficult, and I don’t believe that any other doctrinal questions hinge on them. A non-literal interpretation does not entail, for example, that Adam was anything but a real person, or that human beings evolved from animals.
I often state that I love James White but his channel rats I cannot stand being anywhere near accept for a quick escape in running as fast as possible to put as much distance from them and me as possible before they have time to label me as being some sort of heretic that needs to repent or burn for eternity.
Since the all knowing genius RazorsKill (aka RazorsKiss but I desire to call him RazorsKill) doesn't believe anything that John Frame writes; I post a link to an article on the WTS website here. Thanks to the discussion on Google+, I have yet another AOMIN.ORG channel rat that I have added to my list that I don't like for their Watchblogger behavior. Someday I may post a complete listing of the AOMIN.ORG channel rats that I desire to stay as far away from as possible.
I will be posting more on this matter later, but this is all I have to post at this time.
Jamin Huber's complete blog posting on AOMIN.ORG blog:
The Borderline Compatibility of Keller and Westminster Seminary
08/05/2011 - Jamin Hubner
Probably old news for some, but something hit me in reading Keller's (generally good) book The Reason for God that some might find interesting.
Tim Keller is on the part-time faculty list for Westminster Theological Seminary (PA):
Timothy J. Keller
Adjunct Professor of Practical Theology
B.A., Bucknell University, 1972; M.Div., Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 1975; D.Min., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1981; Pastoral ministry, Virginia, 1975–1984; Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, New York City, 1989– ; Westminster, 1984– .
Contributor: Theonomy: A Reformed Critique.
In 2008, Westminster released the document "Affirmations and Denials of Recent Issues" which contained the following:
We affirm that Adam and Eve were real flesh-and-blood individual human beings and that their fall into sin was subsequent to their creation as the first human beings. (WCF 6.1; 7.2; WLC 17.)
We deny that the narrative in Genesis 3 is merely symbolic for what is true of mankind in general.
We affirm that God's acts of creation, as listed in each of the six days of Genesis 1, really happened in space and time. (WCF 4.1; WLC 15.)
We deny that Genesis 1 merely teaches that God made everything.
In 2008, Tim Keller said on page 97-98 of The Reason for God (softcover Riverhead edition):
I personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 14 and 15. In each couple one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event. When reading Judges 4 it is obvious that it is a sober recounting of what happened in the battle, the language is poetic and metaphorical. When Deborah sins that the stars in the heavens came down to fight for the Israelites, we understand that she means that metaphorically. I think Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is therefore a "song" about the wonder and meaning of God's creation. Genesis 2 is an account of how it happened...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.
________________________________________
Posted on Google+ and re-posted here:
In response to AOMIN Channel Rats after a review of blog postings on this matter and their claims during the discussion on Google+ with me. - RZH
In 2008, Westminster released the document "Affirmations and Denials of Recent Issues" which contained the following:
Ironically, it appears to be a response to the issue that WTS has never and continues to not confirm that the six creation days of Genesis 1 were 24 hours in duration each. - RZH
We affirm that Adam and Eve were real flesh-and-blood individual human beings and that their fall into sin was subsequent to their creation as the first human beings. (WCF 6.1; 7.2; WLC 17.)
Adam and Eve are named in Genesis 2 whereas in Genesis 1 it only states that God created male and female. Keller stated that only Genesis 1 was a song or poem whereas Genesis 2 was historical. It is assumed that Keller confirms that Adam was male and Eve was female; but I suppose it could be claimed that Keller may question the genders of Adam and Eve since this was not made clear in "The Reason For God" book. - RZH
We deny that the narrative in Genesis 3 is merely symbolic for what is true of mankind in general.
Tim Keller didn't say anything about Genesis 3 in "The Reason for God" book in the particular chapter quoted. However, he stated that only Genesis 1 was a song or poem which appears to imply strongly that the remainder of Genesis was historical. Therefore, there is no evidence in "The Reason For God" book that Keller considered that Genesis 3 was merely symbolic. - RZH
We affirm that God's acts of creation, as listed in each of the six days of Genesis 1, really happened in space and time. (WCF 4.1; WLC 15.)
Keller confirms in that he stated that Genesis 2 is historical and Genesis 1 which is a poem is to be understood in terms of Genesis 2 which is historical. If the six days of Genesis 1 were 24 hours in duration he does not confirm but WTS believes WCF doesn't make it a requirement to believe in days of creation that are 24 hours long. - RZH
We deny that Genesis 1 merely teaches that God made everything.
Keller to the best of my understanding appears to have no issue with the statement in "The Reason For God" book. It is not clear to me what this statement is designed to deny unless it is evolution but it doesn't appear to deny evolution. I continue to research and think about this one. - RZH
In 2008, Tim Keller said on page 97-98 of The Reason for God (softcover Riverhead edition):
I personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 14 and 15. In each couple one chapter describes a >historical event< and the other is a >song or poem< about the theological meaning of the event. When reading Judges 4 it is obvious that it is a sober recounting of what happened in the battle, the language is poetic and metaphorical. When Deborah sins that the stars in the heavens came down to fight for the Israelites, we understand that she means that metaphorically. I think Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is therefore a "song" about the wonder and meaning of God's creation. Genesis 2 is an account of how it happened...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.
So far blog articles against Tim Keller that attempt to prove that Genesis 1 is not a poem or song only end up verifying that Keller is right. The arguments that Genesis 1 should be taken literally get rather silly. I continue to study this matter but it appears that Keller has a valid point about Genesis 1. - RZH





