Responding To Nazarenes Exploring Evolution

Dr. Michael Lodahl is​ one of ​ the latest member of Nazarenes Exploring Evolution to post an essay.  For the complete essay, you can read it here: http://exploringevolution.com/essays/2013/05/20/humanity-in-the-image-of-god/#.UaZUrOsXThb

Following are responses to his article from the biblical worldview.

Consider these responses applicable to all who promote theistic evolution.  ​

You can make your own judgment as to the validity of his arguments. In the end, it seems to me that Nathaniel’s question as to allowing a debate with creationist Christians will most likely be answered with a no, or ignored.  They will not debate with creationists.

First, a few quotes from Dr. Lodahl’s essay:

“I also assume that God’s mode or method of creating is through the painstakingly gradual processes that we call ‘evolution.’

“While I do not assume that the opening chapters of Genesis compose a scientific textbook presenting a play-by-play historical description of the beginning of the world…”

“Genesis narrates to us, through poetic language and metaphorical imagery…”

“Genesis 1 does not encourage us to think of our being created in God’s image in terms of hierarchical superiority or absolute difference from all of the rest of God’s creatures.”

“Again, the point is not that these biblical texts are presenting scientific information about the world (including us humans). They need not, and should not, be placed in a competitive relationship with the natural sciences.”

RESPONSES TO DR. LODAHL:

By Gerard R. Oppewal:

I am sorry to see that you are trying to fit evolution into our theology. I believe our God does not need evolution. He’s quite capable to do it right from the start. Evolution is a heresy in too many ways to describe here. I’ll list but a few: evolution puts death before man (as we originate from a rock 4.3 billion years ago). The Bible put man before death, as God intended it.

Evolution teaches that dinosaurs became extinct long before man appeared. In Job 40:17 God speaks of ‘behemoth’ often translated as a hippo or an elephant, but: “He moveth his tail like a cedar” hardly applies to either hippo or elephant. A large dino would fit the description perfectly. Fossils of dino’s feet with human feet within have been found as well.

Breaking that law was the first sin. If there has been a slow evolution from animal to human being, there hasn’t been a single couple Adam & Eve, who fell in sin. Evolution is not a private thing, but a process that occurs within populations. So how could Adam and Eve be the first and only man and woman on earth? If they were not, how could their sin affect all people, as Paul states in Romans? If they were people among many others, how do we see the Garden of Eden?

Why was their sin a global problem and not just a personal one? If they had evolved from other species, when was the moment that God considered them responsible enough for a moral choice and able to either sin or do right? I really don’t see how the biblical message of sin and salvation can be reconciled with Darwinism. And, I don’t see that if there has been no fall as described in Gen. 3 the Christian messages of salvation, as preached by Paul in Rom. 1-5 could make sense.

 

By Peter:
Contrary to the author, I don’t think the main problem Christians have with evolution is that they don’t want to be apes. The biggest issue is not with Genesis 1 and 2, but with Genesis 3. The theological problem is that Genesis 3 requires separate creation of humans. God created men and gave them a single simple law.

Breaking that law was the first sin. If there has been a slow evolution from animal to human being, there hasn’t been a single couple Adam & Eve, who fell in sin. Evolution is not a private thing, but a process that occurs within populations. So how could Adam and Eve be the first and only man and woman on earth? If they were not, how could their sin affect all people, as Paul states in Romans? If they were people among many others, how do we see the Garden of Eden?

Why was their sin a global problem and not just a personal one? If they had evolved from other species, when was the moment that God considered them responsible enough for a moral choice and able to either sin or do right? I really don’t see how the biblical message of sin and salvation can be reconciled with Darwinism. And, I don’t see that if there has been no fall as described in Gen. 3 the Christian messages of salvation, as preached by Paul in Rom. 1-5 could make sense.

By John Henderson:

I have several problems with this essay because it is built upon a basic pre-conception and followed through with a series of assumptions, and a conclusion based on the pre-conception—a sort of circular form of reasoning. Obviously, it is not a research paper but an opinion piece. So be it.

With that in mind, I still struggle to find support for the opinion beyond more opinions. Since we are talking about the Bible’s account of creation and some sort of attempt is being made here and by others on this site to tie it into a theological concept of evolutionism, that should be the challenge—to verify by Scripture. That is hard to do because atheistic evolutionism itself is far from an exact science, being built on preconceptions and assumptions about data that are far from conclusive. It is more accurately a form of religion of its own. It never answers the essential question that asks, “What else can be understood from this data?” Therefore, one cannot lean on the broken reed of atheistic evolutionism (that is where it comes from) as a superior or even equal source of authority. The purest of “pure science” is inundated with doubts at its best—thus they use “margins of error.” The Scriptures suggest no doubts about anything. God’s Word has no margin of error.

There is no hint of an evolutionary process in the biblical record—and it is a record. The Bible is so self-evident that it can be trusted completely without reservation. Any evolutionary assumption is just that—an assumption that is typically drawn from corrupted data that is further corrupted by inaccurate interpretations. Nothing can be proved or even safely supported by assumptions.

Since this is in the context of theology, may I suggest that we rely on the source of Christian theology, the Scriptures, and measure all else by that?

By Lige Jeter:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The first verse in the Bible to me is without doubt one of the most prolific verses found in Scripture. The Torah, in the original Hebrew, never divided its self into chapters and verses as we have today. Therefore, the first account of creation found in chapter 1 and the second account in chapter 2 are the same account expressed differently for different purposes. In Genesis [2: 1-3] actually belongs in chapter 1. Chapter 2 would begin with verse 4.

In Jewish discernment certain passages portray parallel truths about God that otherwise cannot, be understood. In Genesis [1: 3] “Then God said,” carries the same concept as “God willed.” Meaning all creation was intentional as planned and could not have happened by chance. In Genesis [1: 4] “That it was good” acknowledges the will of God was “fulfilled” in His creation. This phrase repeated five additional times in the creation story. In Genesis [1: 3] God said; “it was very good” means that He was pleased with His creation and that nothing was lacking or missing. This is important in understanding His absolute perfection.

Man created as a separate creation, over animals, as an intellectual being, knowing right from wrong. Those who believe in evolution will have a difficult time explaining this. In the Hebrew, the word formed “vayyitzer” is written with two “yods;” therefore, man was created with a “Yetzer Tob and a Yetzer Ra” interpreted means capable of doing both good and evil having to do with one’s choice they make. What is interesting and worthy of note, unlike humankind, animals and creatures created, and their offspring have no moral discrimination or moral conflict. They have only one “yod.” This is why animals can prey on each other, or humankind without remorse or any guilt of conscience. Being undisputable true about animals makes the human race different, and for this reason, man is responsible for his actions and his accountability to God.

It would humble those who think themselves wise to read Job chapters Thirty-Eight through Forty-One. Here God asks Job a series of questions that only a person who was present at the time of creation could answer. Job [38:2-6] “Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who Laid its cornerstone?” Only a creator God knows.

 

By Manny Silva:

To believe in evolution, you must accept that:

-Adam and Eve were not real historical figures as described in Genesis;

-Jesus was not truthful when he talked about Adam and Eve in a historical context;

-You reject God’s account in Genesis that He created everything in six days;

-You reject the ​truthfulness of the​ genealogical account of the Lord in Matthew, which includes Adam;

-The account of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is only allegory;

-You accept that death came into the world many years before Adam and Eve, contradicting Romans 5:12 and its explanation of how sin and death came into the world;

-You pick and choose what you want to believe, instead of accepting God’s historical account at face value;

-You choose to use your own intellect and human reasoning and philosophy to validate the Bible, instead of letting the Bible validate itself;

-You reject the inerrancy and reliability of Scripture as the sole and final written authority for our faith and practice, and instead accept that the Bible has errors.

What do you believe: God’s word, or man’s word?

By Nathaniel Spatz:

I’ve heard you speak dozens of times. At a time when a seminary down the street from you is having their annual Your Origins Matter conference, PLNU will have their Exploring Evolution conference. As a student who graduated from both schools, I’ve seen such as stark contrast between the conservative Bible believing school and the one that is merely known for its “nice campus.” Much like the white-washed description used in Matthew 23, PLNU is filled with professors who claim to live their lives based on a Book they continually claim as false.

It was Stalin who said, “There are three things that we do to disabuse the minds of our seminary students. We had to teach them the age of the earth, the geologic origin, and Darwin’s teachings.” It is interesting to wonder why, in an attempt to purge God from society, that the age of the earth would need to be questioned and Darwin’s teachings would need to be embraced. It was Karl Marx who said on Darwinism and Marxism, “Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose that is provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle…this is the book that contains that natural-history foundation of our view point.”

Mao also sees a link to Darwinism, “Chinese socialism is based on Darwin and his theory of evolution.” In Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, historian Richard Weikart writes that Adolf Hitler believed he was carrying out “evolutionary ethics” by pushing his “survival of the fittest” agenda. It’s no surprise that the Atheists Coalition praises Point Loma’s Christian professors like you ( and Darrell Falk, former President of the BioLogos Foundation, current professor at PLNU) for their work and belief in evolution.

(http://www.atheistcoalition.org/archives.html) You certainly do them a favor; you certainly resemble their beliefs.

It’s unfortunate you won’t even allow for a debate on this subject. There are at least 20 evolutionists and no creationists. If you are actually willing, I have already contacted Bible-believing Christians who are willing to publically debate the first chapters of Genesis. Will you allow a debate on what you teach? Surely, you would base your beliefs on the Bible and would have no hesitancy defending a position rooted in God’s Truth.

“​Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”  2 Tim. 3:5​

Additional Resources: 

Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/importance-of-historical-adam
http://apprising.org/2009/08/01/adam-and-eve-literally-first-humans-jesus-created/

What They Believe

The unbelievers

Tom Oord, Northwest Nazarene theology professor; Michael Lodahl, Point Loma theology professor; Dan Boone, President of Trevecca Nazarene University;
Carl Leth, Olivet Nazarene Dean of Theology; Rob Staples, Professor Emeritus of Nazarene Theological Seminary;  Jon Middendorf, Sr Pastor of OKC First Church; Stephen Borger, Intermountain Nazarene District Superintendent.

(All are members of Nazarenes Exploring Evolution- www.exploringevolution.com)

They all believe in evolution, which forces one to accept the following:

-Adam and Eve were not real historical figures as described in Genesis;

-Jesus was not truthful when he talked about Adam and Eve in a historical context;

-You reject God’s account in Genesis that He created everything in six days;

-You reject the ​truthfulness of the​ genealogical account of the Lord in Matthew, which includes Adam;

-The account of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is only allegory;

-You accept that death came into the world many years before Adam and Eve, contradicting Romans 5:12 and its explanation of how sin and death came into the world;

-You pick and choose what you want to believe, instead of accepting God’s historical account at face value;

-You choose to use your own intellect and human reasoning and philosophy to validate the Bible, instead of letting the Bible validate itself;

-You reject the inerrancy and reliability of Scripture as the sole and final written authority for our faith and practice, and instead accept that the Bible has errors.

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN?  MAN, OR GOD’S WORD?

 

Read their essays, plus essays by others, and be amazed at the unbelief and rejection of God’s account of creation.  See how man’s religion has led these men to bring so many others to a point of denial of God’s whole truth, and how they pick and choose and rationalize as to what is truth and what is not.

www.exploringevolution.com

Quotes:

“…I do not assume that the opening chapters of Genesis compose a scientific textbook presenting a play-by-play historical description of the beginning of the world…

“Genesis narrates to us, through poetic language and metaphorical imagery.

“the point is not that these biblical texts are presenting scientific information about the world”
Michael Lodahl

 

“Gen. 1 takes no position on the age of the earth or the method by which it came into existence.

“Our belief is not rooted in the how, because Scripture has not chosen to reveal the how.”

 “I know that many people have already discovered all the answers they are willing to consider on issues of creation and science. They prefer not to be confused with other facts. Sadly, a conversation will not be possible, and their decision about a college for their sons and daughters may be the way they protest my involvement.”

“So while we believe God to be the Creator of all things, Gen. 1 is not necessarily the story of material creation.”
Dan Boone

“The book of Genesis says “the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground” (Gen. 2:7), but it does not say how long God took to do it. Maybe millions of years?”
“Furthermore, the Genesis creation account is a theological statement, not a scientific one.
Rob Staples

Mocking and Rejecting God And His Word

“Professing to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1:22

They twist God’s word for their own purposes.  We see them all around us now more than ever before, or so it seems.  Perhaps they are just simply less subtle and have been emboldened to be more plain about their heresies.  Complacency by both leadership and laiety alike further enables them to take a stronger foothold in our “Christian” universities, seminaries, and churches.  The sincere desire for “unity”, “love”, and setting aside “minor” differences has led to a watering down of God’s word and a reliance on man’s rationalizing to decide what is valid in Scripture.

Tom Oord of Northwest Nazarene University, a highly regarded professor of theology and philosophy, is perhaps the leading false teacher in the Church of the Nazarene.  He has been allowed to continue on and on with his poisonous agenda of evolution and open theism, and you would think he would be out by now, and teaching in a secular school instead.  Why he remains, as well as others, is either a matter of complacency, or fear, or the leadership sees no problem with his ideas.  He certainly is not there because he holds fast to biblical truth, because he has rejected biblical truth in place of his own.

In his latest article that caught my attention, he practically starts off with a falsehood:

“I take the Bible with utmost seriousness”

Anyone who does not believe Adam and Eve were real, or who believes that God cannot know the future, or who believes that God can learn from His mistakes, or that God could not have created all things in a brief period of days- does not take the Bible seriously!

He then starts slowly explaining how he came to his disbelief:

“Witnessing to God’s truth seemed to require that I believe the Bible was without error on all matters, including matters related to science.”

His love of man’s wisdom instead of God is shown in these words:

“Instead, I started reading the Bible carefully and the work of biblical scholars.”
“I also discovered discrepancies in the Bible.”
(so he says)

“My quest for better ways to think about the Bible prompted me to read theologians and Bible scholars from the past and present.”

His claim of “discrepancies” can be proven to be false, and that is another whole new article in itself.  He also rejects John Wesley’s own testimony that he believed in biblical inerrancy, conveniently dismissing it as being inconsistent at best.

He continues with his high regard for what “leading scholars” think:

“And I discovered through reading and conversations that those considered the leading biblical scholars and theologians today also reject absolute biblical inerrancy.”

“Perhaps even more important was my discovery that great theologians and biblical scholars of yesteryear believed the Bible’s basic purpose was to reveal God’s desire for our salvation.”

“The vast majority of Evangelical scholars with whom I talked also didn’t think the Bible has to be inerrant about scientific matters.”

These statement are all indications that show he clearly does not come to his conclusions based on what the plain teaching of God’s word is, but rather on the wisdom of “great scholars and theologians.”  Throughout his writings you will see examples of what he “thinks” is, instead of taking God’s word for it, when God clearly speaks in a literal, not allegorical fashion.  But leave it to Tom Oord and other intellectuals to decide what’s best for us and convince us that only certain parts of Scripture are infallible; the rest are not trustworthy in what they say, because of a so-called conflict with “science” and man’s foolish and unproven theory of evolution.

Scripture instead asks “Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  1 Cor. 1:20

And then he finishes with a flourish and an example of his superior intellect over what the Bible teaches:

“After my studies, I came to believe that the Bible tells us how to find abundant life. But it does not provide the science for how life became abundant.”

So Tom Oord’s premise is this: we cannot believe anything the Bible teaches us, even if evidently in a plain literal way, if it has to do with such things as geography, science, history, anthropology, or even politics.  No, to Tom Oord and others, we can believe in biblical inerrancy only in matters of salvation.  I don’t know who originally came up with this, but it is certainly not based on God’s word.  The Bible does not teach us this at all; it is man’s invention.  I believe the answer as to why he thinks this way, is that he has no trust in God’s word at all.  It is impossible to trust God’s word, and then at the same time say that parts of it are false.   And if he does not even trust God’s word, let me dare ask the question: is Tom Oord even saved?

How do we determine which parts of Scripture has to do with salvation, and which does not?

For instance, in Romans 5:12, it is written that “sin entered into the world” and thus “death” by sin.  Does Tom Oord reject the fact that the “man” that Paul is talking about is none other than Adam?  And if sin entered the world through Adam according to Scripture, followed by death, how is that compatible with the story (fable) of evolution, which logically says that death came into the world long before man existed?  Is Paul a liar, thus making God a liar, since what Paul wrote IS God’s word?  How then can Tom Oord or any other pastor or Christian leader tell us that this passage has nothing to do with “matters of salvation?”

Let me make it clear as far as what I believe.  If you are actively teaching others that evolution is compatible with the Bible, you are a false teacher.  If you believe this theory to be true, you are sadly deceived and need to re-visit the Bible and what it says.  You have been fed a lie, and if you think that a Christian can continue on in their Christian faith solidly believing in only part of God’s word, and not stumbling on account of that belief, you are sorely mistaken.

In part two of his series on BioLogos, Oord says the following:

I think, however, that the Bible can be trusted about what it says about salvation even though its statements about the natural world – when interpreted literally – may be wrong.”

What total arrogance!  His reliance on “biblical scholars once again brings him to this man-driven conclusion:

“After all, biblical scholars say we best interpret Genesis 1 and other Bible creation passages as hymns and theological poetry, not scientific treatises.”

And then the height of arrogance in the following:

“For instance, evolution tells us that it took millions of years for creatures to evolve into the complex forms we now see. But if God gives freedom and/or agency to all creatures and they act as created co-creators, it would make sense that creating complex creatures takes time.”

Yes, for Tom Oord, it does not make sense that God can create anything in a short amount of time.  For him and his colleagues, it only makes sense that God needs millions and millions of years to create life.  Perhaps Dr. Oord believes that God made some mistakes over those years, and had to try several times before He got it right. After all, that is what process theology teaches, does it not?

This is total foolishness, and this is only a small part of what is destroying the Church of the Nazarene from within.  Tom Oord is a lover of wisdom, not a lover of God’s holy and pure and inerrant word.  The doctrines which he conjures up are senseless and speculative, and in the general sense of how the word “fool” is used often in Scripture, it means void of understanding or any moral sense.  This aptly describes Dr. Oord and all those who are teaching this philosophy.  They are devoid of understanding of God’s word, notwithstanding all of their training and degrees.  They are corrupt shepherds leading the flock to destruction.

And the rest of the leaders in the church?  What about them?  Silent as usual.

Prominent Nazarenes Reject God’s Word And Promote Ungodly Evolution

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,  Rom 1:21-22

There has been a movement for quite some time now to serve up evolution as a viable alternative for Christians as to how God created man.  That movement is trying to gain momentum in the Nazarene denomination, as part of a “big tent” philosophy.  But if you accept evolution, you also must accept certain ideas that come with it.  And in accepting them, you have no choice but to reject what Holy Scripture has to say about it.  You cannot believe in the Bible, and also believe in evolution.  It is an oxymoron.

Believing in evolution means you must accept that, among other things:

-Adam and Eve were not real historical figures as described in Genesis;

-Jesus was not truthful when he talked about Adam and Eve in a historical context;

-You reject God’s account in Genesis that He created everything in six days;

-You reject the ​truthfulness of the​ genealogical account of the Lord in Matthew, which includes Adam;

-The account of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is only allegory;

-You accept that death came into the world many years before any Adam and Eve, contradicting Romans 5:12 and its explanation of how sin and death came into the world;

-You pick and choose what you want to believe, instead of accepting God’s historical account at face value;

-You choose to use your own intellect and human reasoning and philosophy to validate the Bible, instead of letting the Bible validate itself;

-You reject the inerrancy and reliability of Scripture as the sole and final written authority for our faith and practice, and instead accept that the Bible has errors and is written deceptively.

We could list more things from the Bible that require someone to suspend belief in it, when they say they adhere to “theistic evolution.”  These people in the end pick and choose what they want to believe, to satisfy their intellectual snobbery and their disbelief in God’s word.  What is not literal about the following account, as one example?

Gen 2:7 “And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.”

They just cannot accept such accounts as fact.  They twist the word of God, and insist that there is no way it could have happened that way, because “science” disproves it.  Of course, we know how flawed science has been in the past, and evolution is a prime example.  The entire concept of original sin falls apart if Adam and Eve were not created by God as is said in Genesis.

The fossil record actually shows an abrupt appearance of human life, and there is no evidence whatsoever of gradual evolution.  And so, the evolutionists had to come up with something called “Punctuated Equilibrium”  to explain away that problem.  The fact is that Darwin’s theory (really a hypothesis) has been clearly refuted many times by the evidence of science, yet the deniers continue to insist on this fairy tale as being fact, when it is one of the biggest lies perpetrated on humankind.

The Leadership of The Evolution Movement In The Church

Nazarenes Exploring Evolution is composed of a group of Nazarene theologians, pastors and scientists.  Here are two of the more familiar people (to me) who are on the leadership:

Tom Oord: open theist and professor of theology and philosophy at Northwest Nazarene, who rejected my biblical answer to him several years ago at a lecture where he seemed to miss the point of Romans 5:12 and its explanation of sin and death.  He is first on the list of leadership of this group, and that is no surprise.  He is probably the number one prime mover of this unbiblical agenda.

Scott Daniels: pastor of Pasadena First Church and dean of Azuza Pacific University’s School of Theology.  In 2009 at General Assembly, Rev. Daniels teamed up with Jon Middendorf to hold a workshop where they promoted the emergent church, and such mystics as Richard Foster and Thomas Merton.  Rev. Daniels has made the ridiculous claim, against all evidence,  that not only is the emergent church movement dead, but that he is not a part of it as well.

Others on this team include: Bob Branson, graduate of Southern Nazarene and Nazarene Theological Seminary, who has written for several Sunday School handbooks; Jennifer Chase, another product of Northwest Nazarene University who specializes in biology; Kerry Fulcher from Point Loma Nazarene University, another school that along with Northwest promotes emergent ideology and contemplative mysticism; Mark Mann, also a teacher at Point Loma who is a contributor to The BioLogos Forum, which heavily promotes theistic evolution; Sherri Walker, another product of Northwest Nazarene; and Mark Winslow, who teaches at Southern Nazarene and whose interests include  “understanding how college students accommodate evolution and religious beliefs.”

Then there are the various article contributors, which includes some from the extremely liberal and emergent-embracing NazNet blog, an “unofficial” Nazarene site for conversations amongst Nazarenes.  Most notable of these contributors is Dr. Karl Giberson, formerly a science professor at Eastern Nazarene College, author of the book Saving Darwin, and I cannot think of any other science teacher who has caused more damage to students with his open theism and evolution teaching.  The “toxic-ness” is compounded by the utter arrogance of this man, who has been known to rip into the reputation and character of anyone who dares to disagree with his ungodly teachings.  I do not hate him, but I do hate what he has done, and continues to do.  Sadly, his colleague Dr. Randall Stephens is carrying on the same philosophy to the detriment of more ENC students.

Far From Loving And Humble

The final paragraph of their statement describing this project says “In a loving, constructive, and humble endeavor, the Nazarenes Exploring Evolution project seeks to help the Church of the Nazarene consider how evolution can complement rather than contradict Wesleyan-holiness theology.”  This is quite laughable, because it is not believable, when you read the way some of these hold a disdain for those who dare to believe God’s word instead of theirs!  In fact, in the words preceding that statement, the less than charitable Dan Boone, president of Trevecca Nazarene University, says this:

“Will I engage a young generation in an open-minded biblical conversation that welcomes scientific discovery, reasoned philosophy, and careful logic? Or will I ignore all of these in favor of an interpretation of creation that is barely one hundred years old and rooted in the fear of science?”

This type of rhetoric is typical of Dr. Boone and others.  First, they elevate philosophy and human reasoning to a level that is so important that man must turn to it first, in order to then confirm what the Bible says.  Then he throws up a red herring, and paints Bible believers as “fearful of science,” instead of just admitting that we vigorously disagree with what these people promote.  This is the same old way they talk amongst themselves, congratulating themselves for their intellect, and parading their degrees in front of us.  Just read their Leadership page and you will understand what I mean by how much they are so impressed with themselves.  It is, to paraphrase a friend’s comment, more like a mutual admiration society.

Follow The Money

In funding evolution, it takes money to push forth anti-biblical views.  So, what group or person is behind all this?  Enter the John Templeton Foundation.  And what does it have to do with Nazarenes Exploring Evolution, you ask?  First, here is a quote from one of John Templeton’s writings:

 “No one should say that God can be reached by only one path” (The Humble Approach pp. 46,55). Templeton writes in his book Discovering the Laws of Life: “[T]he basic principles for leading a ‘sublime life’… may be derived from any religious tradition, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and others, as well as Christian”

(Discovering the Laws of Life pp. 6-7).  Source: http://www.letusreason.org/Curren40.htm

Then, there is the BioLogos Foundation, which was/is heavily funded by the John Templeton Foundation.http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/grants/the-language-of-god-biologos-website-and-workshop

And now, the connection. The Biologos Foundation has recently granted a significant amount of money to Tom Oord to push forth John Templeton’s philosophical (anti-biblical) views further into the Nazarene denomination via a new website:
http://biologos.org/ecf/grantees

And now, enter: NAZARENES EXPLORING EVOLUTION  http://exploringevolution.com/

By the way, this word “exploring” is very deceptive.  They are not exploring evolution; they are promoting it, plain and simple.  There is no other agenda.

 

At his own blog, Dr. Oord introduces the birth of this new website:
http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/nazarenes_exploring_evolution/#.USJt-_KneKI

So, you just need to follow the money BEHIND these people and their projects to understand how and why these philosophies are being implemented.  It takes money and well networked groups to assault the basic tenets of scripture.  And as always, the best place to start is with the youth in the schools.  This follows happily along with the Brian McClaren philosophy of getting to the children and grandchildren first.

Most parents have no idea how the foundations that they thought they have established with their children will be under assault by a well-funded liberal machine.

Here is another quote:

 “Our vision is derived from the late Sir John Templeton’s optimism about the possibility of acquiring “new spiritual information” and from his commitment to rigorous scientific research and related scholarship.” (end of quote)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation

New spiritual information???  A new revelation from God?  Does not the Nazarene denomination believe in the closed canon of Scripture, and that what God has revealed in His word is our only authority, not some so-called new spiritual information?

It’s no coincidence that Answers In Genesis, run by Ken Ham, has come under attack by groups that hate the biblical account of creation. This ministry serves to equip our youth and to stand strong against the wiles of the devil who goes about like a roaring lion seeking to devour and tear down the foundations of our faith.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/.  Dr. Ham has been at the forefront of fighting back and refuting Karl Giberson and others who are promoting the Bible denying man’s religion called evolution, and he is not even a Nazarene.

The Real Force Behind The Movement

In commenting on an article from Dr. Oord’s blog, a good friend and pastor described it well:

“Just reading this article by Oord – An Alternative Doctrine of Creation.

It’s interesting how he labels his own view of creation, “my alternative doctrine.” That’s exactly what it is! These people have become their own god! It’s the deception of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. “You shall be as God”, with your own alternative doctrine.”

He is exactly right.  These people have been blinded to the truth, and satan is using them for his ends. These people cannot see that if Adam and Eve were not literal, then we could not have been born in sin, and the Lord Jesus died for nothing.  The message of evolution opposes the message of the Bible.  You cannot believe in both.

Every ungodly movement has its leader, sitting in the back unnoticed.  That leader is satan, and he is using men and women like these to deceive countless Christians.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.  Col. 2:8

(By Manny Silva and contributors)

 

For further reference:

Articles by Ken Ham Refuting Karl Giberson and Others:

Nazarene Professor Misrepresents-Again

Is Jesus An Evolutionist?

New Book By Nazarene Scholars Slams Biblical Creationists

What Are Nazarene Students Being Taught?

Why Not Edit The Bible?

Exposing The Anointed (review of book by Goberson and Randall Stephens)

It Is Not “Religion” Versus “Science”

Same Old, Same Old

Maligned By Ken Ham?

What the Bible Says About the Origin of Death and Suffering (Answers in Genesis)

Evolution of Darwin: His Life (video, Answers in Genesis)

 

They Just Won’t Believe God’s Word

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Col. 2:8


The following are quotes from a NazNet thread called “The Search For Adam and Eve.”  Some of these comments are from ordained pastors.  After being on that site for a few years now, my jaw still drops when I occasionally visit and read what they are writing.  If I am the only one disturbed by their discussion, perhaps I’m in serious need of re-visiting what I trust from Scripture.

If on the other hand, there is something terribly wrong there, we need to pray for these folks.

When I read Genesis, God tells us how He created the first man and woman.  He tells us it was two people named Adam and Eve.  Paul referenced Eve and how she was deceived by the serpent, and Jesus  quoted Genesis in regards to divorce, in Luke 10, when He said, “and God made them.”  Paul plainly wrote that sin and death came into the world through one man: Adam.  I have no reason to doubt what God said in His word.  If I did, why would that not lead me eventually to doubt other things He has said in Scripture as being true and historical?  If I need empirical proof of a literal Adam and Eve, then perhaps I should demand empirical proof of Christ’s resurrection!  Yet, these people at NazNet write as if they are members of the heretical Jesus Seminar, who got together and voted one at a time as to what words Jesus said were really His words, or not.

Having read much of what these folks have written in the past, they seem to have the mindset of those from the modernist movement, whose proponents claimed that we can know the truth, but that we would find the truth via man’s intellectual endeavors and reasoning, not by simply believing the truth of the Bible as plainly written.  They have a hard time believing in the supernatural power of God to do what He wants, in the way He says He did, if it does not fit their pet theories.  They reject Jesus Himself when he made a clear statement of Adam’s actual existence.  Yet they have no problem accepting the absurd, poorly devised explanation of our origins, the theory (really a hypothesis at best) called evolution.  They will readily embrace the big-bang, but will also quickly and selectively reject the Bible.  They readily accept the elitist musings of evolutionary high priest Karl Giberson, who rejects Holy Scripture’s teaching, including the fact that it plainly tells us that homosexuality is a sin (see recent post).  And they then proceed to call him a man of strong faith!  Yes, strong faith in his science and his intellect, but not in the Bible.

So here are some highlighted quotes, including from a couple of prominent professors from Nazarene universities who have been causing much damage in our Christian institutions, but few seem to care.  But those who do care will continue to warn others, and expose them, as Scripture requires us to do.  I’ve said in the past that NazNet is a breeding ground for emergent heresy and false teaching, and this proves it again.


Quotes from NazNet Discussion:

“I welcome what Karl Giberson and others in the Church of the Nazarene are doing in the area of life science.”

 “Giberson is a person of strong faith, and I am grateful for his involvement in the discussion. He is not “the enemy.”

“I still think its important we focus people on what scripture intends to teach us with these stories (which has little, if anything, to do with historical details).”

“Archaeology tells us there’s no evidence for anything in the biblical timeline before the Sinai wanderings.”

“I am still comfortable with the idea that God’s word isn’t resistant to truth.”

 “Yea… as far as I know, all signs point to no Sinai wondering, no Exodus..

“somehow it would strengthen my faith in the creator were we to learn that when he made man in His Own image, He did it many places, times and cases, rather than what I have understood as a one time, one case, one pile of dust only.”

“As for ‘Adam’ being one man or representative of all humankind or even both, my hope is that people who desire to grow spiritually will leave room for these interpretations.”

“I can live with Adam and Eve being idealised representations of something that really happened beyond the reach of human awareness…”

“I fully believe there was a first sin – I just don’t think we can believe the writers of Genesis knew exactly how it came about any more than we do. Maybe they did, I just haven’t seen any evidence yet to support it.

“Thankfully, I do believe that God inspired the Bible, so although it’s a cultural mythology, it is the cultural mythology which God selected to tell humans about the relationship between them and God.”

“I didn’t say they don’t exist. [Adam and Eve]  I don’t know….  I just said there’s no evidence to support the claim.”

“I don’t think there were two people named Adam and Eve, but there were people who first understood their relationship to God and those people sinned in a way that has real consequences for the world hereafter. There’s a real difference between the theological position of “first people” and the biological/historical consequences of Adam and Eve.”

“I have come to the place where I find it spiritual strengthening to allow God to have created man however He wanted, and to have described it to man also however He felt it was best for man to hear/discover it. It’s miraculous, however one looks at it.”

 “How does the genealogies given to us in the Bible give us a real connection. They are not exactly verified by empirical data. They have to be taken on some measure of faith.”… I think it is safer to say that Luke is writing that Jesus is in fact a human being, rather than making any statement about Adam.”

“Why does it have to be factually consistent? It was written in a time frame that facts are not really considered the same as facts are today. They would mix in political as well as mythological aspects into their historical writings so to look at something that traces a genealogy of a historic person in this time period you might run into some very complicated problems…”

Response to ‘so Adam was not the first man?’

“I do not know, I was not there. My position in regards to this question is that I simply hold no stock in it. If God reveals to me that there was some guy named Adam who was the very first person I doubt it would change my understanding of Christian Theology.”

This is from a prominent ordained pastor/professor from NNU, Dr. Tom Oord:

“… I think some of you will be interested in Michael Ruse’s June 10 Huffington Post essay, “Adam and Eve Didn’t Exist. Get Over It!” He wrote it in light of the Christianity Today article.  Although his rhetoric can be a bit harsh, I agree with the main point Michael is making…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae…_b_874982.htm

“I’m not buying the theory that in order for Jesus to fulfill the role of the Second Adam, we’d need an historical first one.”

“So my point was that though the story is about individuals, we might very well interpret it more broadly since it doesn’t appear to be historical.”

From another prominent Nazarene professor at PLNU, Dennis Bratcher:

“…this narrative [Adam and Eve]  is not an historical account about ultimate origins (in spite of the Greek name of the book, Genesis). Rather it focuses on a representative couple as a way to talk about humanity in general, and the story of God and humanity…. to try to read this story as a historical account leaves us with questions for which the only answers are speculation and guesses, some of which drift into the ludicrous.”

“According to the scientific evidence, the genre of the story, and the worldview of the Ancient Near East, Adam doesn’t appear to be the first man.”

End Quotes

For further reference:  The Gospel- Evidence For Creation