"Nothing New at CMU".

Supplemental article #1

I've heard it said the church is not in nearly as grave a danger during times of persecution as it is in times of seduction, whereby she is lulled to sleep. Having attended a course entitled "Creation, evolution, and the bible" at Canadian Mennonite University, I have witnessed this yet again as being true. Just as in the fourth century the sudden lifting of persecution in the church brought in a wave of compromise, so today we see it in our culture, and in our "Christian" institutions.

John Feakes has detailed well a good number of highlights from the course; I suggest you read that article, and then continue with this supplement. (see "Nothing new at CMU")

The intended reader;
In the introduction given to Genesis, Dan Epp started by introducing the idea of the intended reader. To explain this, he read the headlines of a couple of articles from a newspaper, and then had the class go through an exercise whereby we were to figure out who the intended audience was based on clues within the headlines and text. He asked the question "Really, who writes with the whole world as an audience?" Contrary to the teaching of Epp and Klassen, the answer is simple; God does, and God did! Scripture says;

For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope (Rom 15:4).

Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall (1Co 10:11-12).

Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into (1Pe 1:10-12 ).

As John Feakes has carefully documented, who the intended reader was doesn't really matter to Epp or Klassen anyway. When pushed to explain why they interpret scripture any way but at face value, Epp freely admitted the 1^st century Jews, and the church, interpreted Genesis literally but were wrong. In theory he applies the technique of implied audience, but he strays from it in practice as soon as it doesn't serve his interpretations.

This method of appealing to the intended audience is simply a back door method of introducing the idea scripture can be personally interpreted, so those who use it can then go on to do just that without repercussion. In Epp's application he ends in self-contradiction as a result.

The use of eastern logic;
To further confuse our ability to understand what God had clearly recorded, the idea was also introduced that in the eastern world people wrote the bible (not the spirit inspired the bible, see 2Tim 3:16), and meant it to be interpreted using eastern logic. In everyday life we are used to applying an either/or type of logic to figure things out. If I say the light is on, and my wife says the light is off, we would check to see who is right, and then adjust accordingly. Either I am right, or my wife is right. Eastern logic is taught to be both/and. It says the light is both on and off at the same time, and we would both be correct.

In class he was questioned about this; "are you then saying, in order to understand the bible we need to apply eastern logic or else we can't understand the bible then?" The question itself shows the foolishness of the assertion made about interpreting scripture in this way. Western logic must be employed in order to justify the eastern logic being used to dismiss it.

The Pentateuch was written during the Babylonian captivity;
At the end of class three the assertion was made by Professor Klassen, as justification for his pseudo-exegesis of Genesis, that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) was written in Babylonian captivity in the 6^th century B.C. According to this theory, this then is how the succession works;

1. During the sixth century B.C. the Jews were in captivity in Babylon. While there they authored a creation account to come against the Enuma Elish (the Babylonian creation story, as introduced and asserted by Epp in class one), to which they were then exposed to.
2. This creation account is then to be regarded as myth, since it is in response to the myth of their conquerors.
3. Today we understand by that reasoning the bible cannot be intended to teach a young earth creation. The bible must then be reconcilable with evolution.

The problem is why we would make the initial assumption of such a late date for the writing Genesis in particular, and the Pentateuch in general. Historically that idea only came about because evolution was assumed to be true. What kind of foolish circular reasoning is that?

In his study of this late date theory, Finn writes;

"But this (late date) must be treated as a question of evidence. If on the one hand the enquiry must not be prejudiced by theories of inspiration, or fears that possibly faith may be weakened, neither must it be influenced on the other hand by a desire to escape from difficulties of interpretation, or by the desire to find Evolution in Revelation as well as nature."
(A.H. Finn, "The Unity of the Pentateuch", Marshall Brothers, London, third edition, 1928, emphasis mine.)

Because evolution is assumed true, then the late date is assumed, which is followed by the assertion the bible teaches theistic evolution, to which they are certain the late date…and the wheel keeps turning. It is illogical and dishonest to use this reasoning to justify such a ridiculous position held by Klassen. (For more on documentary hypothesis follow this link *Link coming in future update*)

Attacking the trinity;
Many scoffers today hold God in contempt for His actions in the Old Testament. They characterize Him as bloodthirsty and cruel in contrast to the loving merciful God of the New Testament. This wasn't affirmed or denied in class, but it was mentioned using Joshua 5:13-6:5. In response a student defended the actions of God as judgment against wickedness by reminding us the Commander of the hosts of heaven is Jesus pre-incarnate. Professor Epp flatly and adamantly denied this truth. At first glance it might not seem something worth making an argument about, but he later flatly denied the trinity as something the post New Testament church constructed. The assertion was made that the trinity is not taught in the Old Testament either. The scriptures are replete with examples of God explaining Himself as a plurality.

'Let us create man in our image'… In His own likeness He created Him, both male and female. In the image of God He created them" (Gen 1:26-27). One image yet a plurality creating, only the trinity can explain this logically

Deu 6:4 for example says "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" The Hebrew word for one here is "echad", translated unity. God is a tri-unity.

It may seem like a point of doctrinal dispute not worth arguing, but Deu 6:4 is the lead in verse for the greatest commandment as taught by Jesus in Mark' gospel;

Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, "Which is the first commandment of all?" Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: 'HEAR, O ISRAEL, THE LORD OUR GOD, THE LORD IS ONE. AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.' This is the first commandment (Mar 12:28-30)

According to this passage it is the God who is a unity we must love with all we have. This is the primary commandment all mankind must follow. If the God we serve is not the One the bible declares, we must be serving a different god, and are then guilty of the sin of idolatry.

(for more on the Triunity follow this link *Link coming in future update*)

God is not an interventionist;
In class three, Klassen asked "Is God really that much of an interventionist? Not in my life." In my opinion this flirts a little too closely to the line of Deism. God has not created everything and then walked away from it all, having a "laissez faire" attitude about His creation. This brings me to the most important question the CMU course has left me with, what gospel do they teach and did they accept?

Phil 2:5-11 says…

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

…John 3:17
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

…1Ti 2:3-7
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Do these verses sound like God is an interventionist? God, who came down and identified with His creation and took upon Himself the cloak of human flesh; God in the flesh who committed no sin yet died the death of a vile sinner; God the Son who carried the full wrath of God the Father as punishment for sin so our sin debt could be paid; God who did all of this so He can have a reconciled and restored relationship with His fallen creation. This God loves us to the point He has every hair on our heads numbered, and promises us that we are more valuable than a sparrow, yet not a sparrow falls to the ground without His attention. The God of the bible says we are more precious than a flower of the field, and we need not worry about our clothing if He clothes those so splendidly.

Conclusion;
It is saddening and distressing to see how far the compromise is extended. This should, however, serve as yet another example of the outcome when we allow the foundations of all doctrine, which exist in Genesis, to be eroded. All scripture then becomes confusing to understand, and within a generation we are no longer preaching any sort of recognizable gospel; instead it is replaced with one which can no longer save mankind.

Grace and Peace,
Arron Bergeron