Try That in a Small Church

Being a Canadian, somewhat removed from the race-related cultural issues more common in the US, I couldn’t detect anything particularly negative in the song when listening to it. My takeaway thoughts were that it seemed to be about how smaller communities tend to hold people more accountable and are more concerned about defending people’s safety than larger cities are.

Not being a big country music fan, I quickly left it at that and moved on to other things, as I’m sure the internet will continue to bat that beehive for a while until the next reason for people to be offended comes along.

Ignoring Obvious Problems

It did, however, get me to consider the interesting dichotomy of how meaning and motive can often be falsely ascribed to someone without warrant, and yet in other cases, how very negative and blatantly obvious statements and opinions people express are often glossed over and protected from being held accountable by others.

Case in point, “Big Eva” (the network of large evangelical organizations and conferences that often shape the outlook and strategies of American evangelical churches) has been covering for organizations within Christian academia who’ve fully embraced theistic evolution (the concept that God used the story of evolution to create) for quite some time now.

Despite several people within that camp making many damning public statements and clearly expressing heretical beliefs, many Christian leaders have invited these speakers and theologians into their Bible colleges, seminaries, and churches under the guise of “inclusivity” and intellectual “open-mindedness.”

I have personally had many conversations with pastors who will excuse the unbiblical and incredibly damaging conclusions such theologians bring into their churches. And it seems to be more common among larger congregations or organizations than in smaller churches—again, under the banner of diversity of thought among a broad base of differing views.

On the other hand, I’ve often experienced that many a “small church” pastor I’ve met are staunch biblicists, fully committed to the authority of God’s Word, and are some of the first to “throw down” theologically in defense of the spiritual wellbeing of their people.

And while some may say (legitimately in some instances) that this can produce narrow-mindedness, should Christians really be so “open-minded” as to say all views are within the realm of orthodoxy?

BioLogos—Champions of Theistic Evolution

Now, not all believers who hold to theistic evolution are automatically heretical by any means; however, the most well-known organized group of theistic evolutionists is the so-called Christian ministry BioLogos, whose stated purpose (as a “ministry”) is to convince Christians to accept the story of evolution.

However, Christians should ask: Does BioLogos teach what the Old and New Testament writers actually taught, preached, and believed? Does an examination of the Scriptures ever indicate that the biblical authors believed God used evolution over billions of years to “create”?

You see, for BioLogos to claim any kind of validity in regard to their theistic evolutionary position, they would have to argue that Jesus and the biblical authors—including Moses and the apostles (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit)—were teaching from an “evolutionary creation” viewpoint.

Why? Because if they claim the biblical authors were not teaching from a theistic evolutionary viewpoint, then BioLogos would be teaching in contradiction to what the biblical writers taught.

Don’t Be Deceived

And this would be no slight admission, because in Romans 16, the Apostle Paul had some very severe things to say regarding those who taught in contradiction to Christ’s Spirit-filled apostles. These words are a serious warning for both the church of his time and churches today.

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. (Romans 16:17–18; emphasis mine)

The Apostle Peter also warned against false teachers, reminding the church that false prophets would plague us throughout history. His warning regarding their ultimate fate is also severe.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1)

Furthermore, Jesus said,

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. (Matthew 7:15)

The New Testament authors constantly commanded Christians to not be deceived (Luke 21:8; 1 Corinthians 15:33; Galatians 6:7; James 1:16).

In summary, Scripture identifies false teachers as anyone that admittedly teaches doctrines contrary to what the church had been taught.

In summary, Scripture identifies false teachers as anyone that admittedly teaches doctrines contrary to what the church had been taught. In historical context, this would have been what the disciples were teaching the church at large at the time, under the Holy Spirit’s guidance, that was later recorded in the Bible. Today, this means the entire Bible.

Clearly, if a professing Christian says, “Yes, I believe Jesus/Paul/Peter/etc. was teaching ABC doctrine in Scripture,” but they don’t believe what the biblical authors taught is true, then they are a false teacher promoting heresy.

And with that said, let’s look at some of BioLogos’ contributors and let them speak for themselves to determine whether they fall into this category.

Dr. Peter Enns

Let’s begin with Dr. Peter Enns, who has several articles and interviews on the BioLogos website. In his book The Evolution of Adam, Enns wrote the following regarding Adam as the first human:

Still, as I see it, the scientific evidence we have for human origins and the literary evidence we have for the nature of ancient stories of origins are so overwhelmingly persuasive that belief in a first human, such as Paul understood him, is not a viable option.1

Notice that Enns admits that the Apostle Paul believed that Adam was the first literal human (in Acts 17), yet Enns teaches the contrary. Enns goes on to say,

Evolution demands that the special creation of the first Adam as described in the Bible is not literally historical.2

Here we see a clear admission that the Bible teaches Adam was the specially created, literal, historical, first human. Why else would Enns refer to this creation of man as “described in the Bible”?

It also demonstrates the true authority that drives Enns’ so-called “theology” when he declares “Evolution demands.” Apparently, when evolution demands, its followers must unquestioningly obey, even if the Word of God disagrees.

This is further confirmation that prior to the popularity of the story of evolution, no one would have had any reason to conclude along with Enns and BioLogos that Adam wasn’t a real, historical person as Genesis and the New Testament teach. Therefore, Enns teaches contrary to the biblical writers.

In addition, in his chapter on evolution in The Sin of Certainty, Enns again admits the validity of Genesis when he says,

The problem for biblically centered Christians is that the Bible, right in the very beginning, tells us clearly that God created all life forms with a simple “Let there be . . .” No common descent, natural selection, or billions of years required.3

But Enns says that he believes in an evolutionary understanding of common descent and natural selection over billions of years, which means that he’s not a “biblically centered Christian” by his own admission. Again, he admits that the literal Genesis creation is biblical and commonly understood—yet he doesn’t believe it.

In a BioLogos paper, he says,

Most Christians understand that, even though the Bible assumes a certain way of looking at the cosmos, from a scientific point of view the Bible is wrong.4

For Paul, Adam certainly seems to be the first person created from dust, and Eve was formed from him.5

So, according to Paul’s warning in Romans 16, Enns identifies himself as a false teacher who should be avoided in the Christian church. But is he the only BioLogos contributor to fall into this category? Sadly not.

Dr. Denis Lamoureux

Unfortunately, fellow Canadian Denis Lamoureux is also a major contributor to the BioLogos website. In one of his articles, he makes the following statement:

The greatest problem with evolutionary creation is that it rejects the traditional literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Scripture. . . . Even more troubling for evolutionary creation is the fact that the New Testament writers, including Jesus Himself, refer to Genesis 1–11 as literal history (Matthew 19:4–6; Romans 5:12–14; Hebrews 4:4–7; 2 Peter 2:4–5). Therefore, the burning question is: “How do evolutionary creationists interpret the early chapters of Holy Scripture?”6

Notice his clear admission that BioLogos’ stance on creation is in direct opposition to the traditional interpretation of the Christian church, despite BioLogos’ declaration that they “embrace” traditional Christianity.

Again, Lamoureux rejects Genesis as history and yet admits the apostles and “Jesus Himself” referred to Genesis as literal history, making Lamoureux a false teacher according to biblical standards.

Dr. Karl Giberson

Karl Giberson has been a major contributor to BioLogos from its inception, having cowritten the book The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions with Francis Collins (available on the BioLogos website).

In his book Saving the Original Sinner, Giberson admits that the Bible describes Adam and Eve as historical figures, the fall as a real event, and so forth; yet he also explains why he teaches evolutionary science.

Genetic evidence has made it clear that Adam and Eve cannot have been historical figures, at least as described in the Bible. More scientifically informed evangelicals within conservative traditions are admitting that the evidence is undermining creation, fall, redemption theology.7

It’s no wonder then that Giberson references Ian Barbour as a major influence in his and BioLogos’ attempt to reconcile science and religion. One of his articles says,

All such conversations take the seminal work of Ian Barbour as the starting point. Barbour—arguably the first true scholar of science-and-religion—identified four ways that science and religion could relate. His analysis first appeared in 1988 and was expanded in 1990 with his influential Gifford lectures.8

What then is Barbour’s opinion on these matters?

You simply can’t any longer say as traditional Christians that death was God’s punishment for sin. Death was around long before human beings. Death is a necessary aspect of an evolutionary world. . . . One generation has to die for new generations to come into being. In a way, it is more satisfying . . . than to see it as a sort of arbitrary punishment that God imposed on our primeval paradise.9

And understand, Giberson has revealed his adoption of Barbour’s position wholeheartedly. He references his pushback from the evangelical community because of his attempt to redefine biblical terms to make them fit the story of evolution:

I suggested that what is labeled theologically as sin remains a useful insight into human nature, even after we abandon a historical Adam, his fall, and the original sin he passed on to us. . . . The story of Adam is thus the story of Everyman, unable to resist temptation, ignoring the better angels of his nature.10

Adam and Eve, as described in Genesis, cannot have been historical figures. Recent work in genetics has established this unsettling truth beyond any reasonable doubt.11

So, again, BioLogos paints itself as “embracing traditional Christianity,” but all the while it’s promoting major influencers like Barbour and Giberson who contradict the church and God’s Word. They are actually wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Kenton Sparks

Let’s examine this quote from another of their contributors—professing evangelical Kenton Sparks.

If Jesus as a finite human being erred from time to time, there is no reason at all to suppose that Moses, Paul, John wrote Scripture without error. Rather, we are wise to assume that the biblical authors expressed themselves as human beings writing from the perspectives of their own finite, broken horizons.12

Now, a breakdown of such a blasphemous statement seems almost unnecessary, yet for the sake of argument, I’ll point a few things out. The fact that Sparks suggests Jesus “erred from time to time” is blasphemous indeed on many levels, in particular, because Jesus declared,

For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. (John 12:49)

If Jesus spoke what the Father said and yet erred, then the Father must have erred and so cannot be the God of the Bible, the Alpha and the Omega who knows everything (error can only be spoken by someone who doesn’t have all knowledge or is being deliberately misleading).

If Jesus is not God, then he cannot forgive our sins, and he is not the unblemished perfect sacrifice for our sins.

And if God knowingly erred, then he is not the God of the Bible, because “God is not man, that he should lie” (Numbers 23:19). And if Jesus is not God, then he cannot forgive our sins, and he is not the unblemished perfect sacrifice for our sins.

Sparks’ statement is a deconstruction of the gospel and the concept of biblical inerrancy as well as Christ’s deity. If Jesus and every other author of the Bible including Paul, Moses, and John did not write without error, how could we ever know truth? Which parts of the Bible could be trusted with absolute certainty? How would we ever know if we are saved or not?

Yet Jesus and the apostles all taught that the Bible was authoritative, with Jesus himself frequently prefacing his teaching with statements like “Have you not read?” and “It is written,” both clear indications of his submission to the authority of God’s Word. Paul taught that:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16–17)

How could Scripture be useful in teaching spiritual or moral truths if it were possible that any portion might be tainted with error? Why would Jesus quote Moses if Moses may have written error into the body of Scripture? Why would Jesus have said,

For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? (John 5:46–47)

And Hebrews 1:3 says,

He [the Son] is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

I emphasize, if BioLogos contributors can suggest that Jesus, the exact representation of who God is (Hebrews 1:3), made errors, then they are saying that God has made errors. And it would be logically consistent to assume that Jesus was not divine, which destroys the gospel, because if Jesus isn’t divine, then his earthly human sacrifice couldn’t and didn’t pay for the sins of mankind.

These are the types of blasphemous concepts iterated through the BioLogos group and the teachers they promote. And yet they are invited into Bible colleges, seminaries, Christian homeschool events, and churches everywhere!

Notice how Sparks contradicts Jesus and the biblical writers when he urges readers to let evolutionary interpretations of science guide our interpretations of Scripture.

The verdict is in. One way or another, it is not a good idea to use the book of Genesis as a guide for our modern scientific queries, or even to expect it to enter into modern scientific conversation. Rather, our science should be deduced mainly by carefully studying God’s world and by receiving the results as a “word” from God and as evidence of his majesty and creativity. I freely admit that this “conclusion” leaves us with more theological work to do. We still have the apparent problem that death entered the cosmos before human beings existed, and also the pressing question of how the “Adam” of Genesis, and more importantly of Romans, should be understood in light of theological orthodoxy and the evolutionary process.13

Thus, Sparks—yet another BioLogos contributor—is also a false teacher.

Joseph Bankard

An incredibly incriminating article from Joseph Bankard (who teaches philosophy at a Christian university), posted on the BioLogos website, demonstrates that, despite their professed commitment to traditional Christian belief, any and all Christian doctrines are “open season” to interpretation because of their evolutionary views. Its preface states,

This post is part of a series of perspectives on how to understand the atoning work of Christ in light of evolutionary science. Readers are encouraged to browse the series introduction by Jim Stump for an explanation of how BioLogos approaches these sorts of issues. Here, we feature the thoughts of theologian Joseph Bankard. We want to encourage our readers to approach his ideas with an open mind, and even if you disagree with him, we hope it stimulates you to think more deeply about how to integrate science and Scripture in a faithful way.14

Bankard, of course, assumes there was no literal Adam who committed a literal original sin, and therefore he is willing to totally reinterpret the atoning work of Christ’s death on the cross of Calvary because of it. He makes the following argument:

How does the view I’ve sketched differ from substitutionary atonement? First, the incarnation is not primarily about the cross. God does not send Jesus to die. God does not require Jesus’ death in order to forgive humanity’s sin. As a result, God is not motivated by retribution or righteous anger. Instead, the incarnation is motivated by love. God wanted humanity to know him in a new and robust way. God wanted to be present to humanity in the midst of its sin and isolation. God desires right relationship. As a demonstration of God’s immense love and compassion, God takes on flesh and bone. He becomes a vulnerable child relying on humans for his every need. He learns what it is to hunger and thirst. He experiences torture, humiliation, and isolation on the cross. In the end, Jesus experiences death. And in so doing, Christ connects to humanity in a new and powerful way. His compassion both shows us the way of our salvation (revelation) and inspires us to follow after him.

I argue that God did not will the cross. . . . Christ’s death was not part of God’s divine plan.15

Of course, this flies in the face of biblical revelation in Acts, where it says,

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:22–23; emphasis mine)

For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. (Acts 4:27–28; emphasis mine)

Bankard summarizes his “big idea” and reveals his motivation for considering such a heretical view of Christ’s sacrifice by saying,

The view sketched above does not require a historical Adam and Eve or a traditional concept of original sin, making it more compatible with evolution.16 (emphasis mine)

In his effort to overturn an essential doctrine of Christianity (the atoning work of Christ), Bankard clearly reveals himself as a false teacher.

Calling All Christians to Account

Inevitably, BioLogos’ teaching leads to a “faith” that has little to do with Christianity but everything to do with a naturalistic, pagan, and secular view of life. A clear example is from BioLogos’ own Karl Giberson, who testifies that by his third year in college, he “was now wearing scientific spectacles almost all the time.”17 As a result, non-evolutionary explanations for life “looked a little too convenient to me.”18 Giberson writes that he “had come to the point where, by definition, nothing could ever be explained by reference to God.”19

No wonder the atheist William Provine once commented,

One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.20

The conclusion that the BioLogos group as a whole promotes heretical teaching is incontrovertible.

The conclusion that the BioLogos group as a whole promotes heretical teaching is incontrovertible. Paul’s command in Romans 16 is abundantly clear that cutting off false teachers is a biblical mandate. Once they have been identified, believers no longer have an excuse to associate with them whatsoever.

The Christian community, regardless of their view of Genesis, should distance itself from BioLogos. Any true believers in Christ associated with the BioLogos organization (supporters, contributors, promoters) should repent and denounce the heretical views espoused by them.

Just imagine inviting someone in to teach your flock who is involved with an organization like BioLogos that openly declares statements such as those we just looked at. “Jesus, Moses, and the apostles were wrong about the Bible! Science has disproven what the biblical authors believed, so we need to reinterpret Scripture to fit with what the world is teaching!”

Try that in a small church, and see how far you make it down the aisle . . . I recommend you don’t.