Metaxas and Keller Fireside

Tim Keller and Eric Metaxas have become two of the most respected voices within Evangelicalism in the last 5 years. This video is a “fireside chat” the two had at the New Canaan Soceity Washington Weekend in 2012. They discuss Creationism & Evolution, how to define a “Christian”, hell, Rob Bell, universalism, and personality driven Evangelicalism. I highly recommend that you see this video and get a flavor for how Evangelicals approach these controversial topics

Keller makes reference to a paper by Richard Bauckham on Christian Universalism that you can find here. Keller says it’s the paper that Rob Bell should have read first before writing “Love Wins”.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Metaxas and Keller Fireside

  1. I don’t know who Eric Metaxas is, but Katyjane and I visited Tim Keller’s church in New York City a couple years ago and heard him preach, and I was not at all impressed.

  2. Eric Metaxas wrote the recent biographies of William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I haven’t heard Keller preach but I’ve read some of his books and I’m thoroughly impressed.

  3. Thanks for the link. Metaxas is always great. I’ve never heard Keller, nor have I read anything by him. I was most impressed with his general refusal to participate in celebrity driven culture and to stick with pastoring his local church.

  4. I like Keller. He really knows the gospel. A bit weak on the external Word, though. But hey, he’s a Calvinist so he comes by that honestly. 😀

    Not familiar with the other fellow. I’ll have check out his stuff (Metaxas).

    Right now I’m trying to get metaxes done by April 15th.

  5. If I thought that CD Host believed his own posts, I would find them more interesting.

    Meaning what exactly? The main argument I’ve had with you is about how deeply Calvin and Luther were breaking with the Christian traditions that existed from about 200 on, and essentially making up their own religion. What part of that don’t you think I believe?

    The main arguments I’ve had with David are:
    a) That the bible is not historically reliable, nor generally authored by whom evangelicals claim authored it, nor how.
    b) That Poincare’s refutation of Lorentz contraction was so on point that even Lorentz didn’t accept the original Lorentz contraction formulas after 1904.
    c) That Mormon theology, from about 1835-1870s is amazing cool, and represent the best of Mormonism.
    d) That attempting to move closer or merge with evangelical Christianity is unlikely to be successful but very likely to gut what is worthwhile in Mormonism.

    What part of that don’t you think I believe?

  6. The main arguments I’ve had with David are:
    a) That the bible is not historically reliable, nor generally authored by whom evangelicals claim authored it, nor how.

    We only had a tangentially related discussion where you mused that the discovery of an earlier text of Paul somehow invalidates NT formation. This is because it would somehow nuke your preferred theory of how Marcion is the key to everything. How this leads to “the bible is not historically reliable,” is a mystery to me.

    b) That Poincare’s refutation of Lorentz contraction was so on point that even Lorentz didn’t accept the original Lorentz contraction formulas after 1904.

    I’ve never discussed Poincare nor Lorentz with you. I do recall a discussion about physics where we were venturing into territory I was unfamiliar with so out of charity I conceded your point. This was probably an unwise concession on my part.

    c) That Mormon theology, from about 1835-1870s is amazing cool, and represent the best of Mormonism.

    If you really think Adam-God and polygamy are amazingly cool, please sign up for the FLDS church, it’s still alive and well there. You’ll probably have to find some spare women to bring along for them to give you some consideration in the matter.

    d) That attempting to move closer or merge with evangelical Christianity is unlikely to be successful but very likely to gut what is worthwhile in Mormonism.

    I don’t recall ever discussing this with you, because I don’t think I’ve ever made the case for Mormonism to move closer to Evangelical Christianity, though I have tried to make a case for individual Mormons to consider Christianity after a loss of faith in LDS distinctives.

    What part of that don’t you think I believe?

    Since for the most part you can’t keep straight what we have discussed, I think I’ll share gundek’s opinion, you are just making up stuff for the hell of it.

  7. We only had a tangentially related discussion where you mused that the discovery of an earlier text of Paul somehow invalidates NT formation. This is because it would somehow nuke your preferred theory of how Marcion is the key to everything.

    Actually it wasn’t an earlier text of Paul as much as a text of Paul conjoined with a gospel. And I don’t have a theory that Marcion is the key to everything. I do have a theory, which is the standard church theory (i.e. not even a matter of debate) that Marcion is the first one to do that conjoining. A gospel + Pauline epistle from before the later dates for Marcion would mean that either:

    a) Marcion wasn’t the first to conjoin, and yet that does refute the standard history of the formation of the New Testament. We are at the very least missing a crucial step.

    b) That the early dates for Marcion, which are still a minority opinion, should have substantial extra weight.

    I say lots of controversial stuff, that wasn’t one of those things.

    As for Marcion being “the key to everything”, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t attribute your ideas to me. I think Marcion was the guy who came up with the idea that Christianity needed a New Testament and defined the principle structure as well as picked most of the books in today’s New Testament.
    ______

    As for the FLDS. I can and do admire of all sorts of religions without wanting to join them. More importantly, I can object to people misrepresenting LDS history without being a Mormon fundamentalist.

  8. CD,

    It’s nothing personal, I believe you simply like to debate and use esoteric trivia as a cover for controversial arguments presented in a way to have the most shock value.

    In our earlier discussion you showed yourself to be either wholly ignorant of the development of doctrine in the Roman Catholic church and the Magisterial Reformations writing on the church, or you chose a position to debate from and went with it. Being charitable, I assume that you don’t believe in the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was adopted in 180 and instead chose to use a list from a Roman Catholic apologist to make a point about the great apostasy.

  9. Being charitable, I assume that you don’t believe in the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was adopted in 180 and instead chose to use a list from a Roman Catholic apologist to make a point about the great apostasy.

    Here is what I genuinely believe about the Roman primacy in 180.

    1) I think there were still multiple Christianities running around in 180.
    2) I think that all the major groups that would gel to become the Catholic church existed by 180 and were in some sense starting to build ties.
    3) I think the doctrine of “one God, one creed, one Bishop” was widely approved of in Catholic circles by 180. There was a genuine desire for an authoritative church but this was not uniform.
    4) I think there were disputes among Bishops and the idea that the hierarchy would need an additional earthly layer of some sort was fully consistent with “one God, one creed, one Bishop” mentality.
    5) I think there were statements by some church fathers supporting this additional layer as the primacy of the Roman Bishop.

    In other words

    A) I think the doctrine had been proposed by some.
    B) I think a majority of Catholics and likely a majority of Christians would have been in alignment with Roman primacy had they considered it. Though I don’t think most of them had considered the doctrine yet.

    I’m generally pretty comfortable with Catholic history on matters of fact, from 200 CE onward. It is biased history but it is not complete fabrication. My disagreements with them in the 200 BCE – 200 CE range.

  10. Pingback: God is not fooled « The Good News

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s