Do Two Nazarene Professors Endorse the idea that Rejecting Christianity Is More Viable than Believing Paul in the New Testament?

Well, read on and you decide:

Drs. Darrel Falk and Karl Giberson (both professors at Nazarene universities) are the president and vice president of BioLogos. This is an organization I have highlighted before in this blog because it is aggressively promoting evolution and millions of years to the church. For instance, BioLogos declares the following:

The BioLogos Foundation is a group of Christians, many of whom are professional scientists, biblical scholars, philosophers, theologians, pastors, and educators, who are concerned about the long history of disharmony between the findings of science and large sectors of the Christian faith. We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation. (http://biologos.org/about)

God’s people need to be very aware of what is on the BioLogos website and what those who are apart of BioLogos are teaching. For instance, concerning an essay by Dr. Peter Enns (who was recently featured at the Great Homeschool Convention in Cincinnati), we read the following:

But why are all these issues important, exactly? Why invest so much time in trying to understand Genesis as the ancient Israelites would have, or in reading Paul in a non-literal way? In a new essay, Enns argues that Christians must engage in these activities, because ignoring the scientific and archeological evidence for evolution is not an option for believers in the twenty-first century. (http://biologos.org/blog/pete-enns-on-evangelicals-evolution-and-the-bible-moving-toward-a-synthesis/)

Now here are excerpts from that essay, and prepare to be shocked. First, Dr. Enns shows clearly he does understand the importance of taking Genesis as literal history and as being foundational to the gospel. He also shows he understands that Paul is quoting Genesis, and the first Adam, as literal history—all connected to the last Adam, Jesus Christ. Enns states the following:

As the argument goes, for the analogy to have any force, the first Adam must be every bit as much an actual historical figure (not metaphorical, symbolic, mythical, etc.) as the second. The implications can be quickly grasped. Evolution demands that the special creation of the first Adam as described in the Bible is not literally historical. Paul, however, seems to require it. What purpose does the obedience of the second Adam have if not to counter the actual disobedience of the first Adam? If there really was no first Adam, from whom every human is descended, then there is no fall. If there is no fall, there is no true inescapably sinful condition where we are “dead” in sin (e.g., Ephesians 2:1ff.; Colossians 2:13). If we are not dead in sin, there is no need for a Savior. Christianity, for those who track with this line of thinking, seems to need the Adam story to be an essentially accurate literal/historical account of human origins. Hence, evolution can be acceptable in some a limited sense (micro-evolution), but when it comes to the origin of humanity (macro-evolution), it is completely out of bounds, for, if macro-evolution is true, then Christianity is false. The latter is unthinkable, therefore the former must be judged incorrect, regardless of how eager most Christians are to accept most any other scientifically supported theories about other natural phenomena. This is a conclusion drawn not simply by isolationist Fundamentalists, but by thoughtful, well-versed Christians.

Then he states this:

With this in mind, we can see that the ultimate issue for many⁷ Evangelicals is very specific. Which is right—what evolution tells us about human origins or what Paul tells us about Genesis? Deep Christian commitments lead one to read Paul with utmost seriousness, but scientific sensibilities do not allow one to dismiss evolution. This is the conundrum, and, as I see it, there are essentially four options before us:

1. Accept evolution as valid and embodying tremendous explanatory power, and reject Christianity on the whole as untenable;

2. Develop a true scientific model, open to peer review, that supplies Christian theology with a first pair of some sort and so reconcile Christianity and evolution;

3. Rethink the biblical origin story and related passages so as to synthesize Christianity with scientific reality;

4. Accept Paul’s understanding of human origins as scientifically accurate and reject evolution.

The second option is somewhat problematic …

The fourth option is untenable as members of the human race in the twenty-first century. Ignoring the scientific and archaeological evidence is not an option.

The first option, rejecting Christianity, is more viable than the fourth and does not suffer from the ad hoc posture of the second, but it is certainly not the necessary one. Another option remains, the third listed above: synthesis. In my opinion, it is with this third option that our intellectual energies are most profitably expended, and that should be the focus of future theological and hermeneutical work.

Read this last paragraph again. Note, “The fourth option is untenable as members of the human race in the twenty-first century.”

And also note, “The first option, rejecting Christianity, is more viable than the fourth . . . ”

And what is the fourth option? “Accept Paul’s understanding of human origins as scientifically accurate and reject evolution.”

Thus, in this essay, Enns is saying that “rejecting Christianity is more viable” than accepting “Paul’s understanding of human origins as scientifically accurate and reject evolution.”

Wow!

This is the sort of teaching a number of Christian academics are endorsing, and sadly, it is beginning to infiltrate Christian colleges more and more.

Our new book Already Compromised is going to really wake up the Christian public regarding the compromised teaching rampant in Christian universities. Find out more about this book (and preorder it), which will be available May 1.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken