Tuesday, March 22, 2011


(Please understand the fact this post was written as the facts were just coming out.  I will repost updates as I become aware of them.)

I was just on Facebook only to see Ken Ham's status...

ELIMINATED! I have been eliminated from the Homeschool Conventions in Cincinnati and Pennsylvania (King of Prussia)! Received an email from their board this morning. I took a public stand against the teachings of Peter Enns (Biologos). Homeschoolers need to know that I will no longer be speaking at these Conventions. AiG is eliminated also. Full details later today.

Here is what Ken Ham wrote last week on the subject for which he was "eliminated."
Another Compromiser—Speaking at Homeschool Conventions

This week from Thursday to Saturday, I will be speaking at a homeschool convention in Greenville, SC. Sadly, one of the speakers also listed to give presentations does not believe in a historical Adam or historical Fall (he will also be promoting his “Bible” curriculum for homeschoolers). In fact, what he teaches about Genesis is not just compromising Genesis with evolution, it is outright liberal theology that totally undermines the authority of the Word of God. It is an attack on the Word—on Christ. Dr. Enns now works with the very liberal Biologos Foundation (which I have discussed a number of times before in this blog). Dr. Enns is also listed to speak at the Cincinnati and Pennsylvania homeschool conventions where I will be speaking.

From the Biologos website, we read this from Peter Enns:

In my last post I suggested that the Adam story could be viewed symbolically as a story of Israel’s beginnings, not as the story of humanity from ground zero.

But some might ask, “Why go through all this trouble? Why not just take it literally? The Bible says Adam was the first man. That’s the end of it.”

It’s not that simple, and if it were, people wouldn’t be talking it about it so much. First of all, reading the Adam story symbolically rather than as a literal description of history is not a whim, and it is certainly not driven by a desire to undermine the Bible. Rather, as we have seen, the Bible itself invites a symbolic reading by using cosmic battle imagery and by drawing parallels between Adam and Israel (to name two factors).

There is also considerable external evidence that works against the “just read it literally” mentality.

The biblical depiction of human origins, if taken literally, presents Adam as the very first human being ever created. He was not the product of an evolutionary process, but a special creation of God a few thousand years before Jesus—roughly speaking, about 6000 years ago. Every single human being that has ever lived can trace his/her genetic history to that one person.

This is a problem because it is at odds with everything else we know about the past from the natural sciences and cultural remains. (http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/)

He accepts what the secular world teaches concerning evolution and millions of years, and it is so obvious this determines how he approaches the Bible. He does not have the same view of inspiration as I do. In fact, he doesn’t have the biblical view of inspiration: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” (2 Timothy 3:16).

To understand Peter Enns’s approach to Genesis and Romans (which will shock you), you need to watch his lecture given recently at Westmont College. To make it easier for you, here are some of the sections to watch in the video:
  1. 2:00–3:00
  2. 3:00–5:15
  3. 10:00–11:30
  4. 17:00–17:15
  5. 35:50–36:40
  6. 45:00–49:10
  7. 18:30–19:05
  8. 19:05–19:40
It's me again.  What also is distressing to me is that Enns' Bible curriculum is published by Olive Branch Books which is part of Peace Hill Press which is owned by Susan Wise Bauer of The Well-Trained Mind.  I've considered her a reliable source for classical education materials.  We use her Story of the World for history.

Now, just by a few minutes research, I'm not liking what I see about Enns' curriculum, but guess what?  I don't have to use it or buy it.  I don't have to attend any workshops by the author.  If I feel strongly enough, I could even stop using Wise-Bauer's other stuff.  But to eliminate a well respected and reliable ministry and speaker such as AIG and Ken Ham for disagreeing with it is ridiculous. 

No comments:

Blog Archive