I suppose one can ask: "How much do you buy into the theory of evolution?" 100%? 99.9? In math, there is always a distinction between certainty and uncertainty. We do not make what seems as what is. True science is not a game of making truth out of chance (Or academic fluency). In the community of science, I must admit that mathematicians know better. Would biologists frown upon analytical precision? Or are they more encouraged to side with pragmatism?
One who loves the truth, would welcome challenges; One who does, shuns away those who disagree.
Ron Choong is a Malaysian who lives in U.S., received a bunch of Ph.Ds and loves middle Eastern archeology. Unfortunately, as it did many English-ed Malaysians, post modernism view affected Choong's theology.
Literal Adam: I confirmed that though ACT is "supported" by Redeemer (every Sunday we see the Christian society founded by Choong posing a stand in Hunter College after the service), Tim Keller (or Redeemer?) certainly has many crucial views that differ from that of Choong's (or ACT?). Keller is certain to stand on the fact that Adam and Eve were literal people, while Choong believes that they were more symbolic. They both believe Paul's view differently. Of course, with Adam being symbolic/some non-specific evolved form of early mankind, one would have to question not just the authenticity of the Bible, but the doctrine of original sin as well. To display Choong's view, I received their periodic newsletters and he clearly stated:
...For instance, in the book of Genesis, we will examine the ideas surrounding a Garden (of Eden), of the first human couple, of a talking serpent, of the tree of life, and various other iconic symbols that we read of but often do not pause to ask, "Why did the writer use this imagery?" In this course...
~ By Dr. Ron Choong, Academy for Christian Thought: March - April 2015
In light of this, I think there are some who are too quick to judge Keller's doctrine, for his network of friendship may reflect some of his doctrine, but it is not represented by the members of such relationship.
Keller noted C.S. Lewis as a denier of historical Adam. Of course, there are plenty of famous theologians who are in that same boat: Alister McGrath, Karl Barth (in distinguishing Geschichte from Historie[*]), etc. But Keller also said "I do not think the lack of such belief means he cannot be saved." To conclude his view, Keller listed some problems of denying the historical Adam: Trustworthiness of Scripture, consistency of the New Testament, watering down of the Gospel (good advice vs. Good News). Keller may not directly oppose the opposition, but his argument says it all.
I find that Dr. Choong's false accusation of those who disagree with him disturbing when he implied that they were ignorant to science. It appears that he is rather defensive of himself on such matter when he emphatically considered his response a civil one and that others are not.
I can agree with Keller, that denying this may not cost one's salvation, but it sure messes up one's precious mind, way of thinking. It also certainly does not mean that this would never cost one's salvation, because it would affect your relationship with God and your fellow Christian brothers and sisters...especially when your views differ, at the cost of fitting into a post modernism worldview, considering the problems Keller listed.
Update 6/12/2025 My chat with Ron.