Reformed Nazarene Exposes the Evil of Pastors who Believe in Evolution

gods%2520perfect%2520word

The Church of the Nazarene has an increasing problem in their churches and colleges with professors and pastors accepting evolution as the best explanation for the natural world:

The debate is over.  Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Science Guy… I was perhaps most grateful to Ken Ham for the fact that several times in the debate, he was able to share the Gospel message, pointing to us what is most important. I was also thankful that folks like him and Dr. Purdom are faithfully defending God’s clear and unambiguous account in Genesis of how we were created.  My prayer is that God will use this event to move hearts and minds, bring people to the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ, help remove doubt and confusion in the minds of wavering Christians, and that He will rebuke those professing Christian leaders who are promoting this ungodly teaching.

I know, perhaps not many minds were not changed right away, and some minds may never change on this issue.  Yet, the biblical Christian knows that the theory of evolution is a farce.  Even a non-believer who looks at the evidence knows it is a farce.  It is unproven, it is full of holes, and many parts of it have been discredited over time, after many scientists were so sure about it.  Yet, the sad irony is that not only does Bill Nye reject the truth of the biblical account of creation, so do many pastors!  And this is one of the great dangers in our church today- pastors who deny the truth of Scripture, and you need to be warned about this.

It is very possible today that you could be under the leadership of a pastor who denies the historical accuracy and truthfulness of Genesis 1-11.  In fact, I would advise you to ask him what he does believe, if he has not made that clear yet.  If you believe what God has said in Scripture, and if you reject the godless theory of evolution, what does it say to you if you find out that your pastor accepts evolution?…

…Those pastors who are promoting the godless theory of evolution must be confronted.   If not, they will continue deceiving countless Christians without opposition.  They will sow the seeds of doubt in their minds, and soon, the floodgates will open for some, who will start doubting other parts of Scripture.  These pastors are the “corrupt shepherds” that were so aptly described by Walter Martin….

Nothing new here, right? Just another literalist fundamentalist who believes the Bible is a science textbook. He is likely one of three people who thinks Ken Ham won the debate last week.

Reformed Nazarene, whose name is Manny Silva,   does raise one valid point when it comes to those who are Evangelical and believe in theistic evolution. Speaking of theistic evolutionists, the Reformed Nazarene states:

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;

I don’t know of any Evangelical who does not accept Romans 5:12 at face value:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

I think the Reformed Nazarene raises an unassailable point. If you believe that humans are inherently sinful and death is the consequence of this sin, how do you explain Romans 5:12 in light of the fact you think humans evolved and that death occurred before humans evolved into their present state?

Comments (27)

  1. Anne

    Say what???? “Even a non-believer who looks at the evidence knows it is a farce.” Brain boggling.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Yeah, when I read that I thought the same thing. Imagine how much science this guy has to throw out and deny to come to this conclusion.

      Reply
      1. gimpi

        Pretty much all of it, Bruce. Biology, cosmology, geology, physics, quantum-mechanics, medicine, the whole smash. Offhand, I can’t think of a branch of science he left intact.

        Reply
  2. kittybrat

    See, that’s the thing, though. If Adam and Eve were NOT the original sinning perps, with death the inevitability due to the wages of that sin, then the whole salvation story crumbles like a house of cards. Oops!

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Yep. So, on one hand Ken Ham is right, Evangelical theology hangs on the authority and literalness of Genesis 1-3. But, as you mention, if it is not literal, then the very salvation story that Evangelicals preach is not true.

      Reply
  3. gimpi

    “Even a non-believer who looks at the evidence knows it is a farce. It is unproven, it is full of holes, and many parts of it have been discredited over time, after many scientists were so sure about it.”

    Reformed Nazarene is referring to ‘creation-science’ here, right? No? Oh dear…

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Of course he is. :)

      Reply
  4. Ed

    Bruce, can you explain why in most of the creation account defenses, the arguments end with the 1st chapter of Genesis, and never address the alternative account in the 2nd chapter? When you were preaching, how did you address the two accounts for those who argue the is no error n the Bible.?

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      I ignored it or merged the the two accounts together. Of course this does violence to the text, but hey, I had to do something. :)

      I think the book of Genesis is a huge problem for Evangelicals, and not just for the reason you raise here. I think a good case can be made for polytheism in Gen 1-3, and that Evangelicals read NT monotheism back into the text.

      Reply
  5. Scott

    So God told Adam that the day that he ate of the fruit of the tree he would surely die.
    1. What could that have meant if Adam wasn’t already cognizant of what death entailed?
    2. Adam didn’t die that very day – he lived hundreds of years after…. hey might have it meant some kind of spiritual death?

    It’s all a mystery to me and woe betide people like Ham and the YEC start condemning others on this fuzzy wuzzy account.

    (See I’m showing I haven’t completely deconverted – ha…. But I guess peole shouldn’t follow this wold in sheeps clothing)

    Bruce – how about using some forum software, where we can give a thumbs up or down to posts.. (No – I’m kidding)….

    Keep stimulating us with your posts sir.

    Reply
  6. marfin

    Bruce you know I have no problem with atheists , people are free to believe anything they choose, but can any one who has left a comment here about how true evolution is, please explain how evolution get us from non living material to humans, butterflies, fish, and bats.
    If you can`t give a reasonable step by step mechanism for this I can only assume you either don`t know or don`t understand how it happened.If this is the case can I assume that you are just as much sheep as those so called Christians who just say the bible says so. If I am wrong please state why.
    And please don`t say the origin of live has nothing to do with evolution because if the big bang started things and all there was was hydrogen gas for many thousands of years after the big bang then without a God evolution is the only other option, so evolutionary processes must have started life.
    I will continue to comment sporadically not because you don’t have the right to be atheist and I demand you change, its because of your faulty science and trying to use this faulty science to support you position, atheist`s are supposed to be more truth seekers than mislead Christians well seek the truth and be honest no matter where it leads you, even into limbo , not the catholic place or the Caribbean dance but the philosophical position..

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

      I have said every time you rant on about this, that I don’t know. Nobody knows, including you. But I don’t know doesn’t mean God created everything. It means we don’t know. (As Bill Nye stated in hid debate with Ken Ham)

      Evolution is the best explantation for the natural world. There are many questions yet to answer and this is why scientists continue to study, observe, and test.

      Marfin you are a broken record . Try to play a new tune next time or don’t bother playing.

      Reply
      1. marfin

        Bruce if evolution is the best explanation then please explain the process , single cell to every single creature alive today, and only a broken record as no one seems to be able to provide the evidence to fix me.and just saying evolution did it is not evidence.

        Reply
        1. Kat

          Just because we don’t know for certain exactly how abiogenesis (organic life from inorganic compounds) occurred does not mean that it did not or that scientific uncertainty automatically means the Christian god created life. Just because, for example, we don’t know what causes the disease fibromyalgia doesn’t mean there is no cause, or that it’s caused by demons or fairies.

          There are many theories as to how life arose from inorganic ingredients, which you can scan at your leisure using a handy tool (you may have heard of it) called Google.

          Be that as it may, it has been proven in the laboratory that abiogenesis is possible in conditions like those of the earth at the time life evolved on it. For your reference:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140121092738.htm (and its source: http://www.jove.com/video/51039/conducting-miller-urey-experiments, though you have to be a member to read the entire article)
          http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2009/January/09010901.asp

          Reply
        2. gimpi

          What? I’m sorry, did you ask a question?

          Reply
    2. gimpi

      I can state why you’re wrong. The evolution of life is not involved with the beginnings of life, but with the development of species. The word I believe you want is abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the hypotheses that life can arise spontaneously from non-alive molecules under certain circumstances. This hypotheses is being studied now, but is not a part of the theory of evolution.

      As to your “don’t say the origin…” request, sorry, but you’re simply wrong. These two fields of research are related, but not the same. You don’t get to re-define science.

      Cosmological evolution (Big-Bang model) is also not linked to the evolution of life. However cosmological evolution does a good job of explaining the existence of the heavy elements necessary for the formation of amino acids. You might want to look into it, as well as brush up on some life-sciences.

      Reply
  7. Chikirin

    These pastors are always trying to control what people say and think in order to prevent harm to the body of Christ. But how is it that the body of the almighty Christ/God is so easily injured? Doesn’t say much for the body of Christ does it, being so delicate and fragile? It doesn’t add up. If God is all powerful, I don’t see the need for these kinds of pastors to always be trying to shut other people down.

    Reply
  8. Tim

    I guess I have always had Genesis 1 and Romans 5 linked in my mind. My father would say “If you give up the creation story, you give up everything.” I probably deconverted backwards from most people. Instead of science convincing me the Bible was not inerrant, I was only willing to consider what science had to offer after I became convinced the Bible had (numerous) errors.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Same for me. Once the Bible was no longer authoritative, I was then free to consider what science had to say. This is why I insist, with people like Gary, that they read at least one of Bart Ehrman’s books. I think it is impossible to fairly read his books and come away still believing the Bible is an inerrant, infallible text.

      Reply
  9. Scott

    Marfin,
    Try reading and research. There are boatloads of good books on basic science and the basics of evolution. Asking questions that show you don’t even know the basics as “gotcha” questions is annoying. So go learn or stop, because it’s not our job to teach you.

    Scott

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Marfin is a broken record. He isn’t a scientist but he did stay at a Holiday Inn once. He thinks because I am not a scientist that there is no way I can possibly believe evolution best explains the natural world. Like all science novices, I put my trust in those who have made science their life’s work. I think books like Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution is True, are quite persuasive. Far more persuasive than Genesis 1-3. What I love most about science/scientists is there willingness to admit they are wrong. This is a trait apologists for Christianity lack.

      Reply
  10. ismellarat

    test (having WordPress problems)

    Reply
  11. marfin

    You ask for some evidence and all you get is evolution did it, and when you ask how ,you get told it just did,talk about religious faith .I have read why evolution is true and I understand perfectly the crux of the argument in this book if you want to discuss it , no problem. But now its time to be honest I asked for some evidence some explanation of how you get from molecule to man, now read back the responses Bruce not one piece of evidence.Now Bruce you would have a field day with any theist who you asked for evidence from, and they just say read the bible and make no effort at an explanation why should it be different for the atheist.You know why no atheist wants the origin of life tied in with the theory of evolution , because they have not got a clue how life could of started just Google some honest quotes from biologists.Now I could go on but just like most evangelical christians
    you can stop them or most atheist`s being sheep if sheep is what they want to be.
    I will still read your blog from time to time because you have mostly honest insights into the minds of those leaders in the evangelical movement, but what surprises me is that you seem to fail to acknowledge that people are all the same, and sheep will be sheep and people like the leaders in the atheist movement are just as vain petty power hungry , shallow and dishonest as any evangelical big wig.
    So read I will but comment probably not.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      No, what I am saying is that it doesn’t matter to me very much. I read science books so I can at least have a cursory understanding of what is being talked about. Yes, I trust men and women who have spent their lifetime studying and working in their respective field. I know that creationism does nor explain the Natural world in a satisfactory manner. If archeologists tell me the earth /universes is millions/billions of years old, I believe them. I trust them enough to be, over time self-correcting if they are wrong. Since I accept this, I reject the creationist explanation for the natural world. Call that being a sheep, I don’t care. How it all started is of little interest to me. You have no explanation for how it all started either. Bill Nye admitted this. He said, we don’t know. Not Ham, he knows, because the Bible says _________________.

      I have told you numerous times…you want to talk theology, the Bible, I am game. Science? I remain a novice, will die a novice, and I leave the science discussions to the experts. There are plenty of educated people who will gladly discuss these things with you. I know my strengths and weaknesses. Want to talk theology, here I am.

      Reply
    2. sgl

      so i assume you think god did it? if so, please explain step by step how he did it. also, explain why the christian bible is the correct source, and not the koran, or the bagavad gita, or any of the other creation stories from the numerous civilizations and cultures that have existed in the world.

      i reject the bible as being divinely inspired for numerous reasons, including that it conflicts with itself, and it conflicts with science. also, the various creation myths of the world all conflict if taken literally. most people are ethnocentric, and most children grow up learning and believing the stories of their tribe. so i strongly suspect you’re a christian because of where and when you were born, and you’d be hindu if you were born in india. all your whining about the truth of christianity over any other world religion sounds just like a little child telling his sibling “mommy and daddy love me more than they love you”; how much research do you need to do to make an educated guess that the kid is just making that up to boost his own ego?

      and just because someone doesn’t have “an answer” to your satisfaction, doesn’t mean that your answer is the truth. so, the only people that *might* be charmed by your rantings probably already agrees with you. but for anyone that’s already deconverted, it doesn’t hold much weight.

      and anyone that’s on the fence and has some legitimate doubts, and recognizes that that there are some real problems with the christian story, can probably see thru your false “gotcha” claims of evolution not being the answer and therefore christianity is true.

      Reply
  12. plutosdad

    I think when I was a Christian I managed to convince myself Paul referring to the second death here, and that the human-like creatures before us were not humans with souls, (God just put souls in them at some point). Yes that was a lot more convoluted than evolution. It was math and computer science that proved to me that systems not only can but will become more complex if you have replication, error/change in replication, and selection. It no longer boggled the mind

    Reply
  13. Pingback: Answers in Genesis Cartoon Fixed

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>