Ashland University is giving an endorsement to theistic evolution in its upcoming Faith and Culture lecture. They are bringing in Deborah Haarsma, president of BioLogos, an institution that vehemently denies the biblical teaching of six day creation.
Haarsma herself wholeheartedly backs the humanistic / Darwinian view. This is evidenced by a recent blog post where she says, "We disagree that is it essential to believe God used a miracle to create a first pair [Adam & Eve]; we instead argue that God used the natural mechanisms of evolution to create the first group of humans."
The link she provides takes the reader to another Biologos web page that explicitly denies the fact that Adam and Eve were humanity's first parents. This, of course, is an outright denial of the headship of Adam and the important doctrines that accompany it, such as federal representation (i.e. the imputation of his sin, the atonement of Christ), male headship in the family, etc.
More specifically, this view poses the greater problem of forcing into the text of Scripture the evolutionary worldview. The overall premise is "The Bible really doesn't say what it really says." Thus, it ends up undermining the whole of the Bible.
The lecture itself may or may not necessarily deal with the question of origins. The posed tiltle for the lecture is "Can Science and the Bible Work Together? Christian Perspectives on Creation, Design and Evolution." Even if it does skip matters pertaining to the subtitle and lean more towards the topic of Christian faith being the foundation for science, there are potential problems. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, "theistic" evolution rejects the plain reading of the text and must twist the Scriptures to make it fit the evolutionary worldview. Thus, they inherently say that science and Scripture are opposed to each other. The Scriptures, they essentially say, must be corrected by our "science", rather than the (so called) science being corrected by Scripture.
It is disappointing, to say the least, that this the university is bringing in this lecturer and promoting this as a healthy thing for orthodoxy. Someonefrom a more biblical perspective could easily have been obtained.
I have started reading, Competent to Counsel, a book that I've longed to read for some time. It has been a treasure so far as it dismantles the Freudian blather that typically passes for counseling even within Christian circles.
While my highligher is in danger of running dry for its being used so much, this quote is blog worthy. It hits the true core of Christian counseling...
"Usual counseling methods recommend frequent long excursions back into the intricacies of the whys and wherefores of behavior. Instead, nouthetic counseling is largely committed to a discussion of the what. All the why that a counselee needs to know can be clearly demonstrated in the what. What was done? What must be done to rectify it? What should future responses be? In nouthetic counseling the stress falls upon the “what” rather than the “why” because the “why” is already known before counseling begins. The reason why people get into trouble in their relationships to God and others is because of their sinful natures. Men are born sinners.
Kindled Fire is dedicated
to the preaching and teaching ministry of
Matt is blessed to be a husband, father, and pastor in Ashland, Ohio.