An assessment of the Re-Assessment of Keller

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

This is the thread that is recently being explored at P.S. … treating the topic of BioLogos and Tim Keller’s writings.

As you can imagine, there’s a lot of detail … I haven’t even been able to finish the whole thread yet…

BioLogos Edits Their Response to Keller

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

One thing that drives me a little nuts over at PS is how quickly threads can be locked down…

Not to prevent discussion, but to prevent disruption by PS malcontents… we all know the types.

So, this thread has already been locked down, and a continuation has been launched:

@@swamidass

Continuing the discussion from BioLogos Edits Their Response to Keller :

Comments on the main thread are welcome here. Curious your thoughts @deuteroKJ, @cwhenderson, @Jordan, @TedDavis, and @jongarvey. In particular, @jongarvey, would you please consider publishing a blog post on this? Thank you.

https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-biologos-edits-their-response-to-keller/4799?u=gbrooks9

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@gbrooks9

So, this thread has already been locked down, and a continuation has been launched:

@swamidass:

@gbrooks9

So, this thread has already been locked down, and a continuation has been launched:

@jongarvey discusses an article he had in the Hump:

I’ll have to think about a substantial Hump reply to this development …

But I would just point out that I stumbled across Keller’s video discussion fortuitously whilst writing a piece on the importance of special human creation in Thomistic thinking. The two fitted together nicely, so I posted both in a blog four days before the BioLogos piece was published. The Hump was ahead of the curve (as usual…)

My point is that I was easily able to nuance Keller’s brief statement, or remain agnostic on his views when I couldn’t be sure of them, even though I had little familiarity with Keller, except knowing him as my daughter’s former pastor.

BioLogos - who had had personal dealings with him - should have been able to do the same, and there was no reason to misrepresent him at the time, and even less to wait so long before correcting their misrepresentation.

But I expect they’re very busy doing cutting edge science and all, even though to all appearances they are, as you say, just an advocacy group for a particular theological approach to origins rooted in Enlightenment thinking.

http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/09/08/the-creation-of-adam/

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

test reply…