Point Loma Nazarene University - Denies Biblical Creation?

Hi everybody,

Today, my pastor told me that PLNU asserts that Genesis 1 and 2 are only a narrative and not to be taken literally. Can anyone verify this? Up until now, I've held PLNU in fairly high regard, but my pastor is very reliable and I have no reason to distrust him.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
http://www.jcsm.org

 

Goeie more, chuckwallas, it's deconstruction time. Why raise an issue about an obscure school that offers no DL? Simple.

An alumnus of that school (together with guess who) pointed out Dr Gastrich's extremely deficient view of the value of studying the inerrant Bible in the original, along with other very unusual aspects of Dr Gastrich's doctorate, (mis)representation of other schools, and assorted strange comments about various religious groups to which he does not belong and of which he does not approve.

Now comes Dr Gastrich, trying subtly (subtly is new) to impugn Bill Grover's credentials as a fundamentalist because of an alleged departure from inerrancy on the part of one of the schools Bill attended. This would be really clever except for a coupla things.

First, in the big wide world out there, many people attend schools whose ideology/theology/political orientation they do not share, or do not share entirely. Coping with such disagreement most of us would regard as paradigmatic of adulthood. Secondly, it is unreasonable to assume that Point Loma's (undocumented) view necessarily equals Bill Grover's view. Another thread demonstrated that Dr Gastrich's view of the value of studying Greek by no means corresponded to the view held by Louisiana Baptist University.

So what we have here is a somewhat snitchy attempt to scandalize--whom? We Gnesios would say there are Eighth Commandment issues involved in the "Point Loma canard," but hey. I don't know or care what Bill Grover's view of Genesis is. I worry about Bill's insulin--not his intelligence or his integrity.

Have a nice day.

 

Jason Gastrich writes:

> Today, my pastor told me

Your Website identifies you as "founder of Jesus Christ Saves Ministries". Interesting that a ministries founder has a pastor.

> that PLNU asserts that Genesis 1 and 2 are only a narrative
> and not to be taken literally. Can anyone verify this?

A astrophysicist or an evolutionary biologist, perhaps? Oh, sorry, I got the wrong antecedent for "this". I don't know what PLNU asserts, but maybe somebody else can help.

> The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained
> http://sab.jcsm.org
> Thousands of answers to the tough questions about the Bible!

I'm a skeptic, and what I've read of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible makes sense to me. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is available free of charge on the Web. You charge $14.99 for your refutation; and "all of the proceeds go directly to Jesus Christ Saves Ministries", and I'm not inclined to support a ministry. Have you considered making your refutation free of charge as well, so that you're not "preaching to the converted"?

Your Website also says, "While atheists are trying to undermine our country's biblical foundation, this masterpiece reminds us that the Bible is a book without error." May I ask who has pronounced your book to be a "masterpiece" -- or is it a "self-proclaimed masterpiece"?

Cheers,
Mark I.

 

I'm the founder of an organization, but I still attend church. I attend The Rock Church and Pastor Miles McPhearson teaches us from the Word.

I'm still very interested in PLNU's beliefs; even though this post is answering off-topic questions.

I've given away a number of copies of my book. However, I won't be offering it for free, though. There is a free sample on the web site that you can download.

The word "masterpiece" was a summary of the book reviews from scholars, Christians, and laypeople. Here is a brief list of them:

"It's about time someone corrected that awful book (referring to 'The Skeptic's Annotated Bible')." - Dr. Kent Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, August 30, 2003.

"100% on form and 100% on content! A+ work!" - Dr. Roy Wallace, Louisiana Baptist University, April 17, 2003.

"I am overwhelmed by your book! It is indeed comprehensive! It's an excellent resource and I am overly impressed! I commend you for your zeal and passion for our Lord." - Mike Gendron, Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries, April 22, 2003.

"If the skeptics are coming out of the woodwork and blasting this e-book, that tells you it MUST be good. The content is a valuable lesson for all who truly believe the Bible as the Word of God. Gastrich uses and proves the skeptic theory to be unfounded and without foundation." - Pastor James Henry, D.T.S. from Washington, D.C., May 17, 2003.

"This CD book opened my eyes to the Word of God. What a fantastic resource and so well explained. The pictures of Israel are awesome and alone are worth the price. A must read for everyone interested in getting the true facts about the Bible." - Anonymous from Washington, D.C., March 25, 2003.

"The Skeptics Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained is a very useful tool to answer those who attack the Bible. It gives clear, accessible answers to many 'problems' in the Bible presented by those who wish to discredit the Scriptures. I found it easy to read and the explanations hold true if anyone cares to look deeper and cross reference any of the points that Mr. Gastrich makes. I am not a computer expert at all and I found it to be easy to use. I would highly recommend this to anyone who is looking to better understand the claim of Biblical inerrancy." - Michael Pratschner from Carlsbad, California, May 19, 2003.

"A very well researched explaining so-called 'discrepancies' noted by the skeptic. Jason Gastrich does a fantastic job with easy to understand explanations." - Richard H. Thomas from Norristown, Pennsylvania, July 16, 2003.

"What a great tool to learn more about the scriptures! I highly recommend the book." - Kristen Moore from Scottsdale, Arizona, May 27, 2003.

"Mr. Gastrich has really put a fantastic work together. His easy to understand style and his knowledge of the Bible make this one of the best I have ever read. Read the comments from his First Edition to get a clear perspective of how well it was received. I am sure this Second Edition will surpass the success of the First. What a wonderful tribute to our Lord and Savior." - James Higgins from Dallas, Texas, July 14, 2003.

"A fantastic companion to Josh McDowell's 'Evidence that Demands a Verdict.'" - Evangelist Serge LeClerc, from Saskatoon, Canada, May 19, 2003.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

 

This is a perfect example of the need to separae things theological into its own thread. For those of us with no interest in things theological this discussion has as much value as the old "how many angels" story, and yet it presumably has an audience that understands the arcane references...

 

Angela,

This is not a theology thread. Uncle Janko identified it for what it is.

This was a weak attempt at an attack on Bill Grover.

Dr. Gastrich is a bigoted phony. Here he reminds me of the nut cases who obsessively rant about about another Degreeinfo member.

 

I'm not sure why Jason brings this up. But I'm flattered and grateful to my fav Unk and my friend Charles.

Still, I don't mind being questioned about my doctrine. I'm not exactly a fundi, but I do have membership in the Evangelical Theological Society. In the ETS Journal opinions are discussed even if not shared in general by the membership.

I'd like to think that I'm flexible and teachable within the perimeters of my broader belief system. Unizul is allowing me to question a popular dogma of Christendom in my dissertation for which I'm thankful. Grad Theological education, IMO, should not indoctrinate. The only requirement is the strength of my argument not its proximity to any church dogma.

So yes, after the BA, ThB from Linda Vista I went to USD a Roman Catholic school for two years taking courses in English and Education. I see nothing wrong with that.

And, yes, I went to Point Loma too. This is affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene. The Nazarene creed states the Bible is plenarily inspired, but I'm not sure that that tenet would preclude taking the creation narrative as metaphoric. When I attended it was in Pasadena, and was called Pasadena College, and for two years I drove up twice weekly from San Diego for classes. The MA there did not, as I remember ( that was 66-68), include any course which would address directly creation. I recall no professor denying the literality of Genesis.

I happily went to Point Loma though I am Calvinistic not Arminian. While for a year in one course we read the three large volumes of the Reformer, Arminius, I was not indoctrinated. Personally, it offends me more than his soteriology for Arminius to say that the Father is the source of the Son's deity. I also think it a bit more important to define who Christ is than how long creation took . But few Christians have taken the effort to form their Christology. Yet many blather on about creation.

Western Seminary, where I went for four years, is Conservative Baptist. In an MDiv course creation out of nothing was taught. At this time I mostly agree with the CB statement of faith. Yet, I do think baptism is more than a sign in the NT, I see no significant Scriptural evidence of a termination of charismata, though I don't practice it, I also have some difficulty with pretribulationalism, and I think the Lord's Supper should be made more significant...and more frequent . The CB Creed includes that God is creator. It ALSO includes the dogma that ONLY the originals of Scripture are inerrant.

One of the two beliefs for membership in the ETS is acceptance of the inerrancy of the originals. But what do the originals really mean? It is my joy to live my life to know that!

As the topic concerns creation, consider the creation statement in Colossians 1:15- 17 and the many difficulties therein:

To what does 'hos' [who] refer? Is the referent the incarnate Son seeing the verb 'sustains' is present tense? But if so, is the man Jesus, Creator? Or is an act predicated on one nature in Christ but not of the other? Can one nature act independently of the other with its own energy? But if so, how is Christ One? What is the meaning of 'prototokos'[firstborn] and how does it relate to monogenes, is it evidence of eternal generation, or what are its nonChristological usages as,eg, the issue of whether Jesus had half brothers? What is the function of 'panta' [all]? Must that adjective always mean everything? Not so, check out the usages. How is eikon [image] to be explained ? As equal to God? But then see 3:10 ; if we are the eikona of Christ, are we Christ? Is an image an equivalent? How does eikon differ from morphe (form) in Phil 2? Is hoti which begins v16 casual? Is en auto [in Him} instrumental or locative and why? But if Christ now is Lord of the universe, then what was lost and regained in the emptying and exaltation in Philippians 2:5-11? How can Martin, in Carmen Christi, or Wallace in his Grammar or Burk or Lightfoot be right that the isa theo (equality with God) in Phil 6 was not the Son's? I know such questions could raise doubt about my beliefs in the mind of a novice , but I really am pretty conservative.



Specifically, IMO, the Bible says that God created the universe.

 

To know that?

Rather TRY to know that!

 

Uncle Janko writes:

> Why raise an issue about an obscure school that offers no
> DL?

Could Jason's curiosity be related to the fact that he and the school in question are both located in San Diego? And isn't the lack of distance learning at least partly offset by the fact that this is in "Off-topic discussions"?

> Simple.

Rien n'est simple; tout se complique.

 

Segregate the thread? Why? Because Angela isn't interested? Why did Angela not only read the thread but waste her own time posting a reply? If you're not interested in something, skip the thread entirely. Is scrolling past it really that taxing? (Believe me, if I can do that physically with severe nerve damage in my hands, I betcha you can too.) There are lots of threads on accounting, maths, business administration, computer stuff, big 3 matters, portfolio prep, testing out, and other topics that don't interest me. I don't need to be protected from inadvertently looking at such threads.

Why should every thread have to interest me? Nobody died and made me pope (not bloody likely for any number of reasons). If I read a thread and find it uninteresting, so what? I wasted a whole 30 seconds. If I thought it would be interesting and it isn't, whose fault is that? Nobody put a gun to my head and made me read the thing, or finish reading the thing, as the case may be. And if I know in advance that I dislike a topic or area of discussion (both Dr Gastrich and Point Loma Nazarene are hints that, in this case, the excuse, though not the substance, of the thread might vaguely be construed as theological) and read about it anyway, what conceivable ground for grousing would I have?

Unless, of course, my point of view is that certain academic topics are just intrinsically offensive to all right-thinking people, who therefore should be protected from them, in which case I have a worse difficulty than inadvertently reading a boring thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------
And, yes, sometimes source criticism is simple.

 

Thanks for your responses.

I've emailed several professors and faculty members at PLNU and I'll try and post what they say on this subject.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

===

Good idea. I'd bet that they know better what they themselves believe about Genesis 1-3 than we here know what they believe. And, I'd also bet that the topic is more interesting to them than it is to us. Personally I find the Nazarenes already to be theologically off center , but nice and learned folks anyway.

No school I ever went to believes exactly as I do. It might be boring if it did. Some how these schools succeed despite their lack of the infallibility with which God has blessed me

 

Today, I received an email from one of PLNU's faculty. He said that he believes the creation account is a theological narrative and many of their professors do, too. He also said that PLNU faculty members are not required to subscribe to any particular belief about the Genesis account of creation.

I'm going to ask him some follow-up questions. He was happy to answer and encouraged more dialogue. I wonder if they will accept professors who believe in the gap theory or theistic evolution. If they do, it would say a lot about the direction they are headed and it would change my opinion of their university.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

test

 

test

 

test 2

 

I think the theology text used for a senior class at PL in the 60s was Wiley's three vols "Christian Theology." Therein Wiley states that the best Hebrew exegesis never has regarded the days of creation as 24 hour days. Wiley says yom may signify a long period of time which fits with geological demands(vol 1, 455-467).

But it is not the creation beliefs of some Nazarene theologians which most concerns me. Most importantly I do not agree with Wiley that the hypostasis of the Son is subordinate to the hypostasis of the Father through eternal generation( vol 1:413-420). To me this is heresy, but to most it is orthodoxy. I also do not agree with Wiley that justification includes actual righteousness rather than just forensic righteousness (2: 383-388). I also do not agree with Wiley that Spirit baptism is entire sanctification (2:466-469). And, I also do not agree with Wiley that baptidzo means sprinkle. (3:177-183).

But the big question is:so what? WHO CARES?

I do not choose schools to attend because they agree with me.

So, I have no interest in your detective work re PL nor, as far as I know, does anyone else here.

I am now involved with deciding in my mind whether the Logos only is personal in Christ. Does the Logos die in Jesus' flesh and does that flesh which wearies in a journey (Jo 4) sustain the universe (Col 1)? So I am summarizing and critiquing 30 varied opinions now for chap six of my dissertation. This is vastly more important than what does yom or bara mean.

Since Christians do not even agree on who Christ is, who cares if a prof at PL holds the creational Gap Theory of Schofield or does not? Theistic evolution to me is far more palatable than the monarchianism of Tertullian or Nicaea or the subordinationism of a Berkhof or a Shedd. So Bill is signing off in this thread! For,

Christology is the crux of Christianity not cosmology.

 

Again, this thread is a fishing expedition on a matter irrelevant to DL. PLNU does not offer DL. The motive of the thread seems to have been an attempt to impugn Bill Grover.

Bill, gallantly, has tried to argue the theology involved. Bill is more optimistic than I am about the ability of reason to reason ill-will away. The theology is not the point.
Dr Gastrich whacking a perceived enemy is.

Dr Gastrich seems to lack the church-historical savvy to recognize that some who are committed to biblical inerrancy do not share his hermeneutical particulars. But that deficiency, like those particulars, is not germane to theological DL in specific or to DL in general. The theological coating of this thread is not inimical to DL, but the core of it is.

Besides, advertising Dr Gastrich's book (which may be a TOS issue) is not an endeavour in which I care to be even obliquely complicit. I'm off this thread.
A revedere.

 

Dr. Gastrich, I don't understand why what you said may be a back-handed slap at Bill Grover. I'm really not interested in the theology discussions that sometime go on here. What I will say though is that I believe that Bill Grover has earned the highest respect by this community and any such feeble attempts to try to embarass him here are destined to fail.

Cheers,
Bill

 

I've been corresponding with Michael Lodahl from PLNU. He is the Co-Director of the M.A. program and a nice man.

Michael tells me that very few professors "(if any)" subscribe to young earth creation. They generally believe that God used evolution to bring things into fruition. I've emailed him a couple of more questions, so I'll post anything new that I receive.

Whether or not Genesis 1 and 2 should be taken literally is an extremely important issue. First, there is no reason to insert billions of years into the text. Next, the word "yom" clearly means one day. There are other Hebrew words that could have been used to convey another meaning.

If we have billions of years in Genesis 1 and 2, then we have things evolving; and disease, suffering, and death before the first sin in the Garden of Eden. This is the opposite of what we read in the Bible. Sin brought disease, suffering, and death into the world.

Those that subscribe to billions of years theories (gap theorists, theistic evolutionists, etc.) often insert a pre-Adamic race of mutant people into the scriptures. This is awfully absurd. The scriptures don't mention this group of mutants. Furthermore, their disease, suffering, and death (that we find in the fossil record) would contradict the biblical account of the first sin bringing these things into the world.

Answers in Genesis articulates these things very nicely. Ken Ham is one of AIG's leaders. His book called, "Why Won't They Listen?" was an awesome read and I highly recommend it. Here is their web site: http://answersingenesis.org .

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

P.S. As you can see, this issue isn't simply about Bill Grover. The messages about him being the purpose of this dialogue were both paranoid and egocentric. However, I did remember that he attended PLNU, so I wanted his input on their teachings.