Section 12...The New Age

003white Index To   New Age     >     John Marks Templeton


 John Marks Templeton

Carol Brooks

Norman Vincent Peale called Templeton “The greatest layman of the Christian church in our time” (Discovering the laws of Life, 1994). However, it was Robert Schuller who introduced Templeton to the church in 1986. Schuller even put a picture of Templeton on his Possibilities Magazine front cover which said “The Christ spirit dwells in every human being whether the person knows it or not nothing exists except God” (Possibilities, pp. 8-12, Summer 1986). So considering the terrible spiritual record of both these men, we are forced to ask who Templeton really was, and what his spiritual views were. Unfortunately, the answer is far form palatable. Templeton was not only a non-Christian, but an evolutionist, universalist, pantheist, who often set himself against Christian doctrine. In fact he had distinctly New Age ideas. [More On Peale and More on Schuller]


Section I: John Marks Templeton
An Overview
Sir John Templeton, the Presbyterian Church and Princeton Theological Seminary
John M. Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion
Sir John Templeton and The Unity School of Christianity
Sir John Templeton and the Parliament of World Religions

Section II: Sir John Templeton.. A Christian? You have to be kidding - 
Templeton's beliefs clearly expressed in his numerous writings, with comments by IPS]

Section III: The Theological Foundations of the John Templeton Foundation
In this article, the written words of John Marks Templeton, the founder of the John Templeton Foundation (a.k.a. Templeton Foundation), are analyzed. Theological concepts that govern the Templeton Foundation and their relation to basic Christian doctrine are fully investigated and the source of the Templeton Foundation theological doctrine is identified.

Section IV: Evangelical Colleges Paid To Teach Evolution
By AIG -  Answers In Genesis


Sir John Marks Templeton
(November 29, 1912 – July 8, 2008)

An Overview:
Sir John Templeton, knighted in 1987 for services to charity, died at the age of 95. He was an American-born British stock investor, businessman and philanthropist and a legend in the world of fund management. Born in the town of Winchester, Tennessee, Templeton attended Yale University and became a billionaire (he was listed in a 7-way tie for 129th place on the Sunday Times Rich List) by pioneering the use of globally diversified mutual funds. He renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1968, thus avoiding U.S. income taxes [1] and became a British subject after moving to the Bahamas. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1987, the year he set up the John Templeton Foundation.

However what is really interesting is that Templeton invested much of his multi-million pound fortune in promoting spiritual and religious progress, writing editing several books about religion and spirituality, including Wisdom from World Religions: Pathways Toward Heaven on Earth. In fact, in 2007, he was named one of Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People (Time 100) under the category of "Power Givers." Templeton was given this honor for his "pursuit of spiritual understanding, often through scientific research" through his establishment of the John Templeton Foundation.

A Jul 2008 article in the Telegraph.co.uk says in part…

    “Templeton once described his speculative activities as a “ministry”, and saw the workings of the money market as part of God’s plan for His creation.  His Bible-belt religiosity appealed to small investors in middle America, and they entrusted him with their savings…

    in 1992 he sold the Templeton Funds to the Franklin Group for $440 million, a move which freed him to devote his time to the work he considered really important — the promotion of religion and spirituality.

    Templeton believed in the possibility of religious as well as scientific advance, and argued that theologians should match the achievements of science with spiritual research, harnessing the tools of science to make “progress”…. [2]

Sir John Templeton, the Presbyterian Church and Princeton Theological Seminary
Unbelievably, Templeton was a lifelong member of the Presbyterian Church and a trustee on the board of Princeton Theological Seminary [the largest Presbyterian seminary] for 42 years serving as its chair for 12 years.

In fact, on March 18, 2002, Princeton Seminary and the John Templeton Foundation co-sponsored a workshop titled “Exploring Prayer and Spiritual Formation during Adolescence,” [3]

In fact not only does Princeton boast a ‘Templeton Hall’ but, Princeton Seminary's Board of Trustees endorsed the establishment of the Bryant M. Kirkland Minister of the Chapel Endowment. Kirkland was not only minister of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in New York City, a past president of the American Bible Society but also vice president of the John Templeton Foundation. [4]

Perhaps both Princeton Seminary and B. Kirkland missed Templeton saying

    “I am still an enthusiastic Christian,” Templeton once said, explaining his commitment to what he called religious progress. “But why shouldn't I try to learn more? Why shouldn't I go to Hindu services? Why shouldn't I go to Muslim services? If you are not egotistical, you will welcome the opportunity to learn more.” [5]

Or as written on his site [Emphasis Added]

    “Although he was a Presbyterian elder active in his denomination and served on the board of the American Bible Society, Templeton espoused what he called a "humble approach" to theology. Declaring that relatively little is known about God through scripture and present-day theology, he once predicted that "scientific revelations may be a gold mine for revitalizing religion in the 21st century." [6]

And I guess they have not been to his home page recently, which as of October 10, 2008, prominently featured an article called Science and Religion in Islam, saying that

    “The Interdisciplinary University of Paris (IUP), whose Science and Religion in Islam program was launched in 2004 with support from the John Templeton Foundation, held a major conference in Doha, Qatar this past spring in collaboration with the Al Jazeera Center for Studies (the think tank of the Arabic television network Al Jazeera). The conference, titled "Science, Cultures, and the Future of Humanity," was funded by Al Jazeera, which also gave the event extensive coverage, reaching millions of Arab viewers.

    For Dr. Jean Staune, founder and general secretary of the IUP, the gathering in Doha was a unique opportunity "to create dialogue and debate between Muslim experts in science and religion and their Western counterparts."

John M. Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion.
Templeton inaugurated the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in 1973, to remedy “the Nobel Foundation’s omission of religion from its prizes” . According to The Telegraph, a British Newspaper…

    “A brilliant publicist, Templeton guaranteed that his prize would always be worth more than the Nobel, and arranged for the Duke of Edinburgh to present the award at Buckingham Palace, thus ensuring full press coverage. From 1973, when it stood at £70,000, the prize money has risen to £820,000, making the Templeton Prize one of the world’s largest annual monetary awards.

    Winners over the years have included Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Alexander Solzhenitzyn, the Reverend Dr Billy Graham, and Charles Colson, the Watergate-burglar-turned-minister. Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and Jews also qualified to win the prize”. [7]

It is especially disquieting when people, who call themselves Christians (Billy Graham was awarded and accepted the Templeton prize in 1982, Charles Colson in 1993 and Bill Bright of Campus Crusade in 1996) accept the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, since the ‘judging’ committee is made up of leaders of the world’s five major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity). And while Templeton claims to honour all religions he is strongly in favour of the Unity School of Christianity and the Church of Religious Science. He commends them for viewing man as "an expanding idea in the mind of God," and for striving for "progress" in religion because, "as mind advances [evolves], the old forms [of religion] die - " (The Humble Approach.  P. 60). See The Unity School of Christianity

Besides which Christianity is NOT subject to progressive development. Jude 1:3 tells us that [Emphasis Added]

    “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints”.

Another so-called Christian leader that has been associated with the Templeton Foundation is Rick Warren, pastor of Saddle Back church and author of the Purpose Driven Program.

Sir John Templeton and The Unity School of Christianity
“Templeton took a broad view of spirituality and ethics. He was influenced by the Unity School of Christianity, a movement that espouses a non-literal view of heaven and hell and a shared divinity between God and humanity. As he wrote, "We realize that our own divinity arises from something more than merely being 'God's children' or being 'made in his image.'" Templeton did not claim to be a theologian, but he was determined to support the work of those who might deepen our "knowledge and love of God."” [8]

According to Media Transparency… Between the years of 1998 and 2004, The Templeton Foundation made 43 grants, totaling $3,509,971, to the Association of Unity Churches. [9], which begs the question.. What does Unity believe and teach?

According to the web site of the Unity of the Shenandoah Church [10] - [Emphasis Added]

    Q What are the basic tenets of the Unity teachings?

    “ -  Jesus was a special person in history who expressed perfection and thereby became the Christ, or Jesus Christ. He was a Teacher who demonstrated the importance of thoughts, words, and deeds in shaping the life and world of the individual”

    Q Do Unity ministry teachers believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ?

    A Yes. Unity church leaders teach that the spirit of God dwelt in Jesus, just as it indwells every person; and that every person has the potential to express the perfection of Christ, as Jesus did, by being more Christ-like in everyday life.

    What are Unity's distinctive characteristics?

    A “Unity students are encouraged to align with the spirit of the Christ within for personal guidance and direction that will best enhance their spiritual growth - .”

And [Emphasis Added]

    Jesus: We believe that Jesus expressed his divine potential and sought to show humankind how to express ours as well. We see Jesus as a master teacher of universal truths and as our Way-Shower. In Unity, we use the term "Christ" to mean the divinity in humankind. Jesus is the great example of the Christ in expression.

    The Nature of Humankind: We are each individual, eternal expressions of God. Our essential nature is divine and therefore inherently good. Our purpose is to express our divine potential as realized and demonstrated by Jesus and other master teachers. The more we awaken to our divine nature, the more fully God expresses in and through our lives.

    The Bible: Unity co-founders, Charles and Myrtle Fillmore, studied the Bible as history and allegory, and interpreted it as a metaphysical representation of humankind's evolutionary journey toward spiritual awakening. In addition, Unity recognizes that the Bible is a complex collection of writings compiled over many centuries. We honor the writings as reflecting the understanding and inspiration of the writers at the time they were written. The Bible continues to be a valuable spiritual resource for us. [11]

More about The Unity School of Christianity.
Also see Roots of Evil.. It is unlikely that many Christians are aware of the  the common roots of some popular beliefs in the church and the New Thought beliefs without.

Sir John Templeton and the Parliament of World Religions
Templeton is also linked to some very important and wealthy people that have been known to be involved in Globalism, both politically and religiously.

The Council for a Parliament of World Religions promotes inter-religious dialogue and plans for the world's “spiritual future by having government institutionalize a global ethic.” I have heard that Sir John Templeton serves on the Parliament of World Religions board of trustees, and while I have not been able to confirm this, it is known that the Templeton Foundation has been one of the financial contributors to the Parliament. The Media Transparency Site lists a donation of $47,500 over two years (1999 and 2000) [See The  Parliament of World Religions]

Sir John Templeton.. A Christian?
In the words of Let Us Reason Ministries

    “Templeton's beliefs are clearly expressed in his numerous writings: He is an evolutionist, pantheist, universalist, and has occultic views. His writings display a rejection of the God of the Bible, Christ as the only way to God. He claims that heaven and hell are states of mind we create here on earth that truth is relative, and that Christianity is no longer relevant today as it was in Christ’s day”. [A Bridge over other Waters]

The Templeton web site says

     “In day-to-day life, we encounter men and women who seem driven by something outside of themselves, whose commitment to their profession or volunteer activities, their community, or their cause seems to rise above the necessary, above the possible, above even the human. Indeed, we say that in such people we see “the divine spark.”

    Many religious traditions, both Eastern and Western, subscribe to the idea that there is something of God’s presence in each of us. Even for the growing number of people who describe themselves as spiritual, but not necessarily religious, there is a certain attachment to this concept of the divine spark. It is the sense that our lives can be guided from within by something more important than our simple survival, something not merely intellectual either, something in our souls.”  [12]

In his own words.. Excerpts from various of Templeton’s books [All Emphasis Added]

Templeton: "The truly humble should be so open-minded that they welcome religious views from any place in the universe that is peopled with intelligent life. Seekers following the humble approach - never -  reject ideas from other nations, religions, or eras - the humble approach to theology is ongoing and constantly evolving - . In fact, at the heart of true religion is the willingness to see truths in other religions. The Persian scriptures claim, "Whatever road I take joins the highway that leads to Thee - . Broad is the carpet God has spread - ." (The Humble Approach, Pages 35-36, 45)

    Comment: Except that the Bible disagrees with the Persian Scriptures. Jesus also, spoke of the broad road; but far from commending it, He said it led to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13). And why shouldn’t we reject ideas from other religions, when Scripture explicitly tells us that NO man can come to the Father except through Jesus. When The Bible warns us NOT to have anything to do with pagan practices and idols and asks “what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [2Corinthians 6:16].. WHY should I look to any other religion… all of which lead people to perdition. Do not be fooled.. .. any person who can make a statement like the one above.. IS NOT A CHRISTIAN.

Templeton: “God is billions of stars in the Milky Way and He is much more …Time and space and energy are all part of God …God is five billion people on Earth… God is untold billions of beings on planets of millions of other stars …God is the only reality… God is all of you and you are a little part of Him” (The Humble Approach. Pages 37-38.)

    Comment: The Old Testament draws a clear distinction between the Creator and created beings. While God is omnipresent (everywhere all at once) He is not the physical universe He created. In the opening chapter of Genesis we find eight instances of the phrase 'Then God said, Let  - ', and ten instances of 'God said' all in reference to the words He used as he created the universe and everything in it. Like every cause, the Cause of the universe must be independent of its effect. Thus, the first cause must be separate from the universe, not a part of it.  From ancient times, the Bible has clearly presented God as non-physical, a Spirit who cannot be contained, even by the heavens.

      "But who is able to build a house for Him, for the heavens and the highest heavens cannot contain Him? So who am I, that I should build a house for Him, except to burn incense before Him? (2 Chronicles 2:6)

      Thus says the LORD, "Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest? "For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD (Isaiah 66:1-2)

    Isaiah was pointing to God's transcendence when he wrote,

      To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare him to? Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded? He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing. “To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One. Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. He gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak. [Isaiah 40:18-29]

    And Scripture records God's own testimony . . .

      “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. [Isaiah 55:8,9]

Templeton: According to Templeton, the world's scriptures (including the Bible) "were written - [by] men whose minds were limited by cosmologies long since discredited" (The Humble Approach, P. 61). Nor does the Bible accurately record the words of Christ, because those who reported them "could write down only what they understood -  [as] ignorant and primitive - Jews." (The Humble Approach, Pages 39-40).

"No one should say that God can be reached by only one path. Such exclusiveness lacks humility - .New, freer, more imaginative and adaptable creeds will have to be devised in order that man's God-given mind and imagination can help to build the kingdom of heaven" (The Humble Approach, 46,55). As for Templeton's "heaven,"

    Comment: On the contrary, Paul affirmed that every word in the Bible "is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tm 3:16); Peter said of the Bible, "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pt 1:21); and the psalmist said, "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven" (Ps 119:89). While Jude 1:3. says “Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”.

[Also See Inspiration of The Bible   and   Authorship of The Bible]

Templeton: “No one should say that God can be reached by only one path” (The Humble Approach Pages 46,55).

    Comment: Actually the Bible not only states that there is only one path but that this path is very narrow. "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. [Matthew 7:13]. “And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them, Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. [Luke 13:23-24]

Templeton: “Some people do appear to come closer to God when they pray in Jesus' name, possible because they have progressed more in that upward path if the humility and meekness of Jesus more than others. But on the other hand, some appear more spiritual when they pray as disciples of Buddha or Mohammed or Abraham. Theodore Parker taught that the doctrinal formulation of Christianity have changed and will change from age to age and what is sometimes called heresy at one time is accepted as orthodox and infallible in another age”. [The Humble Approach. Pages 48]

    Comment: This is a totally ridiculous statement.. the “doctrinal formulation” has never changed. For a heresy to exist there must be an authoritative system of dogma designated as orthodox. In Christianity the authority is, and always has been, Scripture. Any departure from the foundational and critical doctrines of Scripture are deemed heretical, regardless of how many people believed the heresy at the time. And as far as Templeton’s statement about some people appearing more spiritual or closer to God than others.. Please note the use of the word “appear” because this is all that it is.. appearances.

      No human made up the doctrine of Jesus being the only way to God..   Jesus made this claim, saying "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me" (John 14:6). "For unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24). Christ's apostles later affirmed His claim: "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved, " Peter says in Acts 4:12. Paul writes "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5).

Templeton: "Maybe one of the attributes of God is change" (The Humble Approach. Page 52).

Templeton: “Christians think God appeared in Jesus of Nazareth two thousand years ago for our salvation and education. But we should not take it to mean that education and progress stopped there, that Jesus was the end of change, the end of time. Is such a notion compatible with God's law of the universe? To say that God cannot reveal Himself again in a decisive way because He did it once years ago seems sacrilegious. We should be gentle, kind and sympathetic towards God’s new prophets even though they bring strange new ideas" [The Humble Approach. Page 53]

    Comment: Christianity is NOT subject to progressive development. Jude 1:3 tells us that .. “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints”. There are warnings aplenty in Scripture pertaining to “strange new ideas”, just one of which is in Galatians 1:8 “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!”

Templeton: "the idea that Heaven is a locality situated on the other side of death and that we must be either wholly in heaven or wholly in hell, has stunted progress in religion and caused it to march out of step with the rapid progress of business and science. Should we not see all around us that heaven is like sanity or wisdom? Few are totally without it. It usually comes gradually, not all at once. Some travel back and forth between heaven and hell -  Heaven may be the union of our spirit with God's spirit in a constant striving and studying to become like Him" (The Humble Approach. Page 97).

    Comment: In spite of what the average Christian believes “love” was not at the core of Jesus’ message. The Romans wouldn't have crucified someone whose main crime was telling Jews to love them and turn the other cheek! Jesus’ core message was summarized succinctly in Mark 1:15, where Jesus proclaims, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news." The phrase "kingdom of God" appears 53 times in the New Testament gospels, almost always on the lips of Jesus. The synonymous phrase, "kingdom of heaven," appears 32 times in the Gospel of Matthew. Throughout the accounts of Jesus' ministry, he is always talking about the kingdom of God.

    Jesus uses the Greek phrase he basileia tou theou, "the kingdom of God." The word basileia could sometimes refer to a locale over which a king ruled, but it's primary meaning in the first-century was "reign, rule, authority, sovereignty." (The same was true of the Aramaic term, malku, the word actually spoken by Jesus.). So when Jesus proclaims that the kingdom of God has come near, he doesn't mean that a place is approaching like the giant comet in the movie Deep Impact, but that God's own royal authority and power have come on the scene. "God's reign is at hand. God's power is being unleashed," Jesus says. "Turn your life around and put your trust in this good news."

    Part of the is that most people are not clear on the location of the kingdom of God. The language of Mark 1:15 certainly suggests that God's reign is coming on earth. This fits, with the promise found repeatedly in the Hebrew prophets: someday God will come to reign on earth, establishing justice and peace for his people and, indeed, for all nations.

    In Matthew 6 Jesus taught his disciples to pray:

      Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven . . . . (Matt 6:9-10).

    In other words, we are to pray that God's reign will be experienced on earth as it is right now in God's own heavenly presence. When God's rule is completely established in this world, then all things will be ordered according to God's perfect design.

    And that will be ‘Heaven’. [Excerpted from article What Was The Message of Jesus?]

Templeton: Astronauts travel into outer space; and - they did not bring back any evidence of heaven - drills had penetrated the earth, they'd found oil, not hell, in the depths. The definitive descriptions of the afterlife we received as children called for some revision in the light of the scientific discoveries of the modern age - .Through our own choices and attitudes we create our own heaven or hell right here on earth (Discovering the Laws of Life, 208).

Templeton: ““I am hoping to develop a body of knowledge about God that doesn’t rely on ancient revelations or scripture (the bible)… The main purpose of the Templeton foundations is to encourage enthusiasm for accelerating discovery and progress in spiritual matters” (The Humble Approach. Pages 135-139).

    Comment: A “body of knowledge about God”? And how this is to be accomplished is well beyond me. Unless God takes the initiative and communicates with us, how can we possibly learn anything about Him. How can we know that the feelings and experiences we have are at all related to God? Besides which 

      “  - the restrictions God places on how and by what means we may legitimately come to Him and receive spiritual truth, are for our own good. The spirit world is complex and the dangers of deception are real. In fact, if we journey into the world of the spirits by means other that what God has ordained, we will be deceived, not may be deceived. The spirits who inhabit that world have been there for many thousands of years practicing the art of deception. They willingly give people whatever experience they would tend to think is from God.” [Excerpted from article Contemporary Christian Divination]

Templeton: "The basic principles for leading a 'sublime life' - may be derived from any religious tradition, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and others, as well as Christian" (Discovering the Laws of Life. Pages 6-7).

    Comment: You can live as “sublime” a life as you want provided you have no objection to going to hell at the end of it.


[01] http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/0328/092_print.html
[02] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/2269415/Sir-John-Templeton.html
[03] http://www.ptsem.edu/Publications/inspire2/6.3/feature_2/index.htm
[04] http://www.ptsem.edu/Development/capital.php
[05] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aOGiN456OwHY&refer=us
[06] http://www.templetonprize.org/about.html
[07] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/2269415/Sir-John-Templeton.html
[08] http://www.templetonprize.org/about.html
[09] http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientfundergrants.php?funderID=29&recipientID=7055
[10] http://www.unityoftheshenandoah.org/Whatisunity.html#jesus
[11] http://www.unity.org
[12] http://www.templeton.org/powerofpurpose/about.html


The Theological Foundations of the John Templeton Foundation
by Robert A. Herrmann Ph. D.
30 NOV 2002. Revised 4 DEC 2002.

ABSTRACT: In this article, the written words of John Marks Templeton, the founder of the John Templeton Foundation (a.k.a. Templeton Foundation), are analyzed. Theological concepts that govern the Templeton Foundation and their relation to basic Christian doctrine are fully investigated and the source of the Templeton Foundation theological doctrine is identified. At the end, a link to a recent but different analysis by AIG is also provided.


In 1996, I was nominated for the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. (You can see this URL (link is no longer valid) for my actual nomination and determine for yourself whether it constitutes progress in religion.) After much debate with individuals within the creationary science community, I decided to accept the nomination. The major reason for my acceptance was that I wished to establish that the committee that determines the prizewinner would not recognize the progress I had made in applying the science of mathematical modeling to theology. This lack of recognition is due to the fact that one interpretation of the modeling results verifies that the attributes of the Biblically described God are scientifically rational. Since my nomination, the Templeton Foundation has amply demonstrated that the prize, in the main, is awarded to a scientist only if his writings, when they pertain to a deity, uphold the notion of a universal god whose attributes do not point to the Biblical God as the only true deity one should worship. To give the false impression that some of these prizewinners are "Christians," the Scriptures must be reinterpreted. Indeed, John Marks Templeton, who was born and raised in the United States and then in the 1960s gave up his citizenship to become a naturalized British subject, is classified, by many, as a Christian. His organization, the John Templeton Foundation, also claims to be Christian orientated. [I point out that some recent scientist prizewinners are agnostics, at best.]

In past years, a close associate of the Templeton Foundation has tried to convince me to give up my strict Biblical stance and to return to the fold, so to speak. This I have steadfastly refused to do. In what follows, I use the 1990 written statements of John Marks Templeton as they appear in the 1992 and 1996 issues of "Who's Who in Theology and Science." This written expression of his and the Templeton Foundation's philosophy, which appears from all prevailing evidence to be accepted in complete detail by Templeton and members of his foundation, is couched in a proposal format where many statements are qualified by such terms as "perhaps," actually meaning probably, "maybe" and other such qualifiers. This is not an unusual modern method to express ones philosophy. It is done in this manner so as not to give the appearance of an individual espousing absolute knowledge and allows for future modifications. The theology portions of these writings have not been modified.

The theology stated in the document is clearly that followed by the John Templeton Foundation with its adherence to the notion that various "scientific" findings require a vast reinterpretation of the Scriptures, at the very least. This is especially so when the "scientific" findings require acceptance of either cosmological or biological evolution as defined by the atheistic community. As I have shown in my research, this reinterpretation requirement is utterly false. No interpretive modifications are need; no changes whatsoever from the most literal Scriptural meanings are necessary when a particular interpretation of the scientific model I term the General Grand Unification model (GGU-model) is applied. Members of this organization continue their efforts to prevent my research findings from being properly disseminated to the public since my work contradicts this organization's absolute philosophic stance.

As I quote from this expression of the Templeton theology, I will not include many of the qualifying expressions mention above. I will not quote this document in full but present only the pertinent portions. Templeton does believe in a god. However, as will be shown, if these theological statements are accepted as fact, then that god is not the God described within the Bible.

The Theology
Templeton uses the exaggerated title "The Theology of Humility" for his new approach to theology. The title has almost nothing to do with the actual material in the document. [All set-off statements are quotations from this document.]

    It [the theology of humility] proposes that the infinite God may not even be describable adequately in human words and concepts and may not be limited by human rationality.

This statement is, indeed, Scriptural and as I have shown via mathematical models it is a scientifically rational statement. Indeed, one of the Templeton Foundation's present day surrogate organizations, the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), published my first paper on certain results of my scientific modeling techniques that includes such notions ["The reasonableness of metaphysical evidence," J. of the ASA, 34(1)(1982):17-32.] When the then ASA director, Robert L. Herrmann (no relation), announced that the ASA would concentrate upon the notions of theistic evolution and would consider Genesis 1 as but myth, I removed myself from membership.

    . . . there was no absolute beginning and there will be no absolute end,

If this phrase refers to the material universe as it was created, then this phrase contradicts the beginning and the ending of the Bible. On the other hand, trivially, it describes attributes of the Biblical God. Unfortunately, the next phrase

    but only everlasting change and variety in the unlimited purposes, freedom and creativity of God

does contradict the Scriptures in that the God (of the Bible) never changes in any respect. Although we cannot know all the attributes of God nor all of His purposes, they never change. He can be trusted to never change His mind.

    . . . and so God is all of Nature, is inseparable from it, and yet exceeds it.

This seems to allow pantheists a place in this theology.

    . . .it is mankind's own ego which leads us to think that we are at the center, rather than merely one tiny temporal outward manifestation of the vast universe of being which subsists in an eternal and infinite reality which some call God.

This contradicts the Scriptures, and many commentaries such as that of Matthew Henry, in that Christianity is God, Bible and man centered. The Bible specifically teaches that man was created in a very special way different from all other created objects. That the universe was created, in the first place, to harbor God's specially created humans on a specially created platform called the Earth. Humans are the major part of God's plains. Humans are created with a supernatural spirit. This aspect was used originally to communicate personally with God, to honor God, to worship God. The ultimate goal is to have members of the human race choose to worship God, choose to be fully indwelled with His spirit, choose to fellowship with Him in the appropriate manner and, in glorified form, to be forever in His presence so the God's plain is completed. This form of man-centered theology has nothing to do with ego. It has everything to do with the actual desires of God as stated within the Scriptures and which a true Christian accepts as fact.

    . . . God is now providing new revelations in ways which go beyond any religion, to those who welcome the originality of the Creation and its continual surprises. For example, some theologians and scientists see tremendous possibilities for our future understanding of ourselves and our Creator through an integration of the discoveries of science with many religious traditions - a new "theology of science." . . . old scriptures need new interpretations.

This quotation is the very heart of the Templeton Foundation theology. The Bible is not complete and also requires vast reinterpretation. Science will yield new discoveries that will yield new "revelations" as to the nature of God. And, as is usual, in order to accommodate these "new revelations," scriptures will need to be reinterpreted. What could be more anti-Christian than this? What could be more cult-like? Templeton is correct in that a way has been found to use scientific methods that are not specifically stated within the Bible. However, the "revelations" obtained are, in a sense, not new but are assumptions accepted by many for thousands of years; assumptions that have been criticized by most modern scientists as being inaccurate. These scientific results are what the Templeton Foundation leaders do not want you to consider and they must either ignore them or eliminate their influence through fallacious criticism. These Bible verifying scientific conclusions do not alter any Scriptural concept in any manner. They are "revelations" that uphold the Bible as a viable rational source for accurate scientific information. These are the very "illuminations" discussed in my Templeton Prize nomination.

If the leaders of the John Templeton Foundation were truly interested in scientific research that reveals new information about the attributes of God, then it would herald and promote the GGU-model interpretation that shows that the behavior of all natural-systems is absolutely associated with the behavior of a deity. There are many theological interpretations for the intelligent design aspects of the GGU-model. Nevertheless, one of these interpretations points directly to the God of the Bible as the Creator and the absolute validity of the literal Genesis 1 scenario. Since this organization and its surrogates continue to ignore or belittle these findings, there can be no doubt that the theology they wish to foster is counter to the major attributes displayed by the Biblically described God. This fact will be reinforced shortly.

The idea of "integration of the discoveries of science with many religious traditions" does not mean simply Biblically stated traditions. It means selecting only those god attributes that are common to different theological doctrines; doctrines that in their complete form describe the Biblically defined false gods. These general attributes must then be interpreted so that they "fit" these "scientific" discoveries. Thus, this requires, at the least, rejecting any attribute of the Biblically described God that is not a common attribute for these competing Biblically rejected false doctrines. These facts are revealed in the following quotation.

    The Theology of Humility seeks to build on the great theologies of the past and present and does not oppose any other theology.

    To a Christian, there is only one great theology, Christianity. All others are Biblically defined as false theologies. Unless Christianity is greatly altered, as mentioned above, its doctrine contradicts and opposes that of the other so-called major religions. We now come to an insult, of the highest order, to the Christian Godhead.

    . . . while recognizing that God should not be thought of as impersonal, our names for God should be less heavily focused on personhood, since their usage favors man-centered concepts.

As mentioned, Christianity is God, Bible and man centered where an almost incomprehensible personal relation between God and man can be attained. The titles Redeemer, Savior, Comforter, Everlasting Father and the like indicate this personal relation. It is this personal relation that is the major difference between Christianity and these competing religions. And, it appears that this is the major difference that must be rejected if one seeks a Templeton styled universal god and one-world religion. There are hundreds of Biblical verses that directly describe this special relationship between God and man, even after the sin of Adam and Eve. It is really only necessary to mention one that indicates the strength of this relation since it is spoken by Jesus himself.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Many other statements are made that imply that the Scriptures need revision, such as

    It [the Theology of Humility] encourages change and progress and does not resist any advance in the knowledge of God or of nature, but is always ready to rethink what is known and to revise the assumptions and preconceptions behind our knowledge.

Also, it's clear that this statement is a lie. This organization, most certainly, resists the progress I have made in advancing knowledge that details relations between the Biblical God and the behavior of each natural-system within our universe. Further, it resists any findings that question various atheistic theories that contradict a literal Biblical interpretation such as aspects of biological evolution.

Templeton also is explicit in his acceptance of the general notions of atheistic biological evolution.

    Perhaps human beings, so late an appearance in this evolutionary process, have been given some creative role in seeking to understand and interpret awesome and mysterious processes which science only now begins to fathom.

The Spiritual World

The term "spiritual" is used, and it seems to mean an incorporeal domain. However, this term seems to have as many definitions as there are different organizations that write about this concept. It is enough to say that Templeton acknowledges elsewhere that his thoughts on this matter are some of the more fined notions of the New Age movement. He mentions Unity and Religious Science as well as aspects of Christian Science.

I postulated in 1978 and have since shown that the concept is rational, that there can be "supernatural," ultranatural, laws that govern the incorporeal world and that through the Holy Ghost a Christian can apply these principles. However, there are such laws that could be used for non-Christian purposes and, indeed, can be used by demonic beings. Templeton writes in this 1990 document

    It may be that we shall see the beginnings of a new age of "experimental theology," wherein studies may reveal that there are spiritual laws, universal principles which operate in the spiritual domain, just as natural laws function in the physical realm.

The Templeton Foundation is actually funding such experimentation. Nevertheless, Templeton's notion of a "new age" is a false notion. The spiritual laws have been known previously and are described within the Bible. Truly spirit filled Christians have applied these laws for a few thousand years. Any application of these laws that is not associated with the Holy Ghost is more likely to be an application being governed by a demonic being. These demonic beings are the exact type of beings that the so-called New Age movement employs. And, some individuals closely associated with the John Templeton Foundation exhibit one major supernatural method employed by these demonic beings. The method is called the first stage, at the least, of demonic "overshadowing.'' [This first stage is an external process where an individual's "thoughts" are altered and, usually, they have no knowledge that the alterations have come from a supernatural demonic source. This is why the Bible is so important as a "check and balance" against such supernatural attacks.]

The Seductive Methods Employed
One of the methods that the Templeton Foundation uses to seduce, even the "elect," is the concept of "honoring" individuals, groups, colleges and universities by listing them as being high-achievers in some laudable endeavor. For example, the Templeton Foundation has presented in their guide to Colleges that Encourage Character Development "555 profiles of exemplary programs, presidents, and colleges and universities that inspire students to lead ethical and civic-minded lives." On the Internet, you will find these individuals and organizations proudly announcing this "great honor." This is a seduction based upon the sin of pride. It is a standard method to hide the true purpose of an organization since I can find no rejections of this "honor." Since these individuals, colleges and universities seem to accept this "honor," one might assume that they also agree with the Templeton Foundation's philosophic bases.

However, the major method is the seduction of "money." With a yearly budget that is estimated at 40 million dollars, the Templeton Foundation funds, often via or in connection with surrogate groups like American Scientific Affiliation or the Center for Science and the Natural Sciences, various prizes, college courses, books, lectures and conferences, most of which satisfy one or more of its theological goals. Grants have been given to many so-called Christian colleges and even accepted by fundamental Bible colleges. (See the AIG link below.)

Intelligent Design
Finally, I mention that both the John Templeton Foundation and the Discovery Institute of Seattle, WA, supply funds to promote restricted intelligent design theory. This theory satisfies the universal god theology of the Templeton Foundation in that it is such a weak theory that it points to no specific deity as a possible cause for such a restricted design. Indeed, Dembski, who introduced restricted intelligent design in 1996, has stated many times that he considers this lack of a causal connection as a significant and important aspect of restricted intelligent design theory.

General intelligent design theory (GID) as developed from 1978 through today by myself (see "Science Declares Our Universe Is Intelligently Designed") also has an "interpretation" that does not point to a specific deity. However, among various theological interpretations, one does point directly to the Creator as He is described within the Bible. This, of course, is why members of both the Templeton Foundation and the Discovery Institute do not promote GID since they want to hide the fact that the scientific GID model exists and has this specific interpretation.

The Scriptures teach that there is only one supernatural being that has the power to demonically overshadow individuals and to entice them to accept a theology that is distinct from that described by the Bible. That being is the one that controls a vast array of demonic beings. I often characterize this being as the most intelligent of all created incorporeal beings. The Bible often names this incorporeal being as the Adversary. I have no choice but to identify the theology of the Templeton Foundation as a theology accepted by many individuals who are so overshadowed. It is being promoted in order to weaken significantly the Scriptural foundations for Christian doctrine and, indeed, is also being used to "deceive the very elect."

The following is an article from Answers in Genesis [AIG], which discusses the Templeton Foundation's attempt to seduce Bible believing Christian churches to abandoned their fundamental beliefs.

Notice: Dr. Herrmann is not personally associated with the Templeton Foundation nor any organization that is itself associated in any manner with this foundation. He does not endorse any Templeton Foundation publications. "Indeed, I firmly believe that most individuals associated with the Templeton Foundation have absolutely no idea as to the true attributes of God. I condemn any attempts by any organization or individual that claims to be Christian to popularize any god other than the God with the attributes and only the attributes specifically described within the Bible. I reject the present day theology of the Templeton Foundation." 12/20/2002


Evangelical Colleges Paid To Teach Evolution
by Russell Grigg, M.Sc.(Hons)
6 August 2002

Increasing numbers of evangelical colleges around the world are accepting large monetary 'awards' for running courses that promote evolutionary teaching and millions of years. It is not that evangelical colleges are being targeted specifically. The US$10,000 (Aus$18,000) award is available to any tertiary institution that will host an approved course.  Half the money goes to the college and half to the lecturer who runs the course.

Institutions that have already run such courses include Bible College of New Zealand (BCNZ), Bible College of Queensland (BCQ), St Marks National Theological Centre in Canberra, Tabor College in Adelaide, Oxford University in the UK, and Yeshiva (Jewish) University in New York.  They have all received funding from the John Templeton Foundation in the USA to run courses on the relationship between science and religion.

This funding is usually via or in conjunction with another body such as the American Scientific Affiliation or the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, Berkeley, USA, whose Science and Religion Course Program originated from and is funded by the John Templeton Foundation.

Students attending one such course, run by an evangelical Bible college, reported that the programme was well presented and interesting.  But the two-week course never touched on the implications of evolution and millions of years for the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the implications for the authority of Scripture.  The lecturers were theistic evolutionists and the possibility of Creation in six days was not presented as a serious option.  In fact, that position tended to be disparaged.  The recommended reading was either pro-millions-of-years or against the 6-day Creation view.  Some genuine seekers of truth were observed to be strongly influenced to accept evolution over millions of years because of the structure and teaching of the course.

What is the John Templeton Foundation?
The John Templeton Foundation was founded in 1987 in the USA by billionaire Sir John Mark Templeton, a highly successful pioneer of globally diversified mutual funds, who also created the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in 1973.

The John Templeton Foundation describes itself as ‘a non-profit grant making organization.’ [2] It says its grants program goal is ‘to create a “responsible dialogue” about the relationship between science and religion, and to restore that discussion to the province of the research university.’ [3]  One way it does this is to fund courses and conferences on this subject at tertiary institutions around the world.  Concerning all this, the Foundation's Web site says:

    ‘… we neither encourage nor generally consider unsolicited proposals.  Rather the Foundation chooses to design large-scale, cost-effective, and high impact projects, determining the best individual or organization to administer and implement these initiatives.’ [2]

 The John Templeton Foundation thus limits its financial support to courses and conferences that are in line with its own philosophy and ethos. To understand the Templeton philosophy and ethos we will first consider the Templeton Prize.

Templeton Prize
The Templeton Prize is ‘awarded annually on the decision of a panel of judges from religions of the world today’ [4] to ‘a living individual who has shown extraordinary originality advancing the world's understanding of God and/or spirituality.’ [5]  It is a monetary award, intentionally set at a higher value than the Nobel Prize and is currently worth £700,000 sterling.

It is important to understand that, to the Templeton Foundation, the term ‘God’ is not confined to the God of the Bible.  The Foundation's Web site says:

    ‘The Prize is intended to help people see the infinity of the Universal Spirit still creating the galaxies and all living things and the variety of ways in which the Creator is revealing himself to different people.  We hope all religions may become more dynamic and inspirational.’ [4]

The Web site continues: ‘The Templeton Prize does not encourage syncretism … but rather it seeks to encourage understanding of the benefits of diversity. [3]  Thus, ‘Nominations are sought for potential recipients from all nations and religions of the world.’ [4]

With the above aims in place, it is hardly surprising that the views of many of the Prize recipients are detrimental to the very foundation on which Christianity is built—the Bible.  One of the current judges is Monshu Koshin Ohtani, ‘spiritual leader of Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji-ha, one of Japan's largest Buddhist institutions.’ [6]  And former judges have included the Dalai Lama, Prof. Paul Davies, Prince Charles, and Nikkyo Niwano (co-founder of the world's largest Buddhist lay organization, who also himself received the Prize in 1979). [4,7,8]

In 2001, the recipient was the Rev. Canon Arthur Peacock. According to Peacock, God continuously creates the world and sustains it in its general order and structure; He makes things make themselves. Biological evolution is an example of this and, according to Peacocke, should be taken as a reminder of God’s immanence. It shows us that "God is the Immanent Creator creating in and through the processes of natural order." (473, original italics) Evolution is the continuous action of God in the world. All "the processes revealed by the sciences, especially evolutionary biology, are in themselves God-acting-as-Creator". (474) [9]  The 2000 Prize went to Freeman Dyson, a self-professed agnostic who believes that if ‘God’ exists, he should be labelled a ‘sloppy manufacturer’ [Templeton Prize: a Regress or Progress in Religion? April 8, 2000. Answers in Genesis. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/08/templeton-regress-in-religion

].  The 1999 recipient, evolutionist Ian Barbour, had this to say:

    ‘Now we know that … evolution is God's way of creating.  You simply can't any longer say as traditional Christians that death is God's punishment for sin.  Death was around long before human beings.  Death is a necessary aspect of an evolutionary world … In a way it is more satisfying … than to see it as a sort of arbitrary punishment that God imposed on our primeval paradise.’ [10]

Problem: if death was not the punishment for sin, what does this do to the whole reason for Christ's death on the cross?

It is true that Templeton Prize recipients have included some Bible-believing Christians, such as Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ in 1996, Chuck Colson in 1993 ‘for establishing the world's largest prison ministry’, and Billy Graham in 1982 ‘for using the power of broadcasting to share his religious message.’ [5] However, others have been from Buddhism, [11] Hinduism, [12] Islam, [13] and Judaism, [14] ‘as well as some recipients, such as mathematical physicist Paul Davies in 1995, who adhere to no particular faith at all.’ [5]

All of this shows that the Templeton Foundation in its philosophy and ethos is neither Gospel-oriented nor concerned with upholding the authority of God's Word, the Bible, but often rewards those who oppose Biblical Christianity. 

The Templeton Science and Religion Course
The Foundation's Web site says: ‘In 1994 the John Templeton Foundation developed the Science & Religion Course Program to encourage the teaching of interdisciplinary courses in science and religion at colleges, universities and seminaries worldwide.’15 The course ‘focuses on the relation between contemporary physics, cosmology, technology, evolutionary and molecular biology, ecology and theology and ethics’.  It is administered by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS), which offers grants of US$10,000 (funded by the John Templeton Foundation and divided equally between the course instructor(s) and the host institution) to colleges and universities around the world to run the course (or one sufficiently similar to qualify).

A Templeton-funded 10-day course was held at the Bible College of Queensland (BCQ) in January 2002 and was titled The Quest for Meaning: The Dialogue between Science and Theology; the six-day course at St Marks National Theological Centre in Canberra in January 2002 was titled Creation and Complexity 2001; the 8-week (2 hours per week) course at Tabor College in Adelaide in October-November 2001 was titled An Introduction to Science and Christianity; and the one-day conference at BCNZ in June 2001 was titled Evolution and Ecology 2001.

Understandably, these courses all follow a common pattern, i.e. the organisers have prominent speakers, such as professors and lecturers or research scientists from the science departments of secular universities, to begin the course by giving addresses on their fields of science.  They then present addresses from professors and lecturers in theology, which purport to show that there is no conflict between ‘science’ (i.e. evolution) and theology. However, the conclusion is always that Christians must rethink their theology in terms of ‘science’, rather than vice versa.  The lists of speakers advertised and the authors of the reading lists are from the theistic evolution camp in every case that we know of.

One can only hope that Christian Bible and Theological Colleges that run Templeton-funded courses on Science and Religion are oblivious to the Templeton philosophy and ethos (gleaned from the Templeton Web sites listed) incorporated in these courses, when they proclaim that they have won a ‘Prestigious Award’ and then proceed to run courses that basically seek to interpret Christianity in such a way as to make it agree with the theories of modern science, seemingly regardless of whether these theories oppose the Bible or not.

The Problem
The idea of running a course or conference on ‘bridging the gap between the Bible and science’ could be laudable, if it were not for the fact that where modern science deals with origins it is based on strict naturalism.  This is the view that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural, as opposed to supernatural, causes and laws.  In discussing naturalism, the Skeptic's Dictionary says that ‘naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation.’ [16]  Thus the terms ‘naturalistic’ and ‘atheistic’ as used here are synonymous.

With God excluded from the realm of discussion in scientific research, evolutionism has taken over.  Currently, the ‘big bang’ is the naturalistic conjecture as to how everything began.  Chance combination of inorganic molecules is the naturalistic opinion of the cause of the beginning of life.  And evolution is the naturalistic theory by which animal life has evolved into Homo sapiens.  However, these conjectures, opinions and theories should not be labeled as if synonymous with ‘modern science’.  Rather, they are the conjectures, opinions and theories of some modern scientists.  Collectively they form the logical basis for the false religion of humanism.

Naturalism by definition excludes the possibility of the truth of Genesis Creation.

So the problem for Christians is that if one begins with the foundational premise that the claims and pronouncements of naturalistic origins science are all true, and then tries to build a path from this to God, one ends up far away from the living, miracle-working God of the Bible.

When Christians assume that 'science' has proved evolution, they try to salvage belief in God by introducing theistic evolution to those portions of the Bible which do not otherwise fit the evolutionary paradigm.  But no-one has any authority from God to add to or to change what He has said.  Templeton Prize winner Ian Barbour has said: ‘Death is a necessary aspect of an evolutionary world … .’10  However, God says something entirely different!  God says that death came into the world as the result of the sin of the first man, Adam.  Furthermore God's Word tells us that both the need for and the outworking of the Gospel depend on this fundamental fact. [17]

The Answer
What then should Christians think and teach about God, the Bible, and science?

First, the answer cannot be for Bible Colleges and churches to evolutionize the Bible or Christianity.  This merely reduces God to the before-mentioned ‘unnecessary hypothesis’.  And if we evolutionize God by saying that He used evolution, we will merely be making a god in our own image (cf. Exodus 32:1–2).

When an atheist hears a Christian say, ‘God used evolution,’ he is not likely to be converted to Christ.  Rather he is much more likely to react, ‘You Christians acknowledge that evolution is true; it won't be long before you acknowledge that God does not exist—after all if ‘God’ is good, why did he create such a dog-eat-dog world?’  Evolutionism is a strategy of deception, and many professing Christians who have embraced it have abandoned the faith.  These include Billy Graham's former high-profile colleague in evangelism, who was also ironically (though coincidentally) surnamed Templeton. [18]  This is not surprising, because Jesus said that people who do not believe what Moses wrote are not likely to believe in Him (John 5:46; Luke 16:31).  He also said that those who do not believe His words in regard to earthly matters are not likely to believe what He says about heavenly matters (John 3:12).  Jesus Christ clearly stated that people were on Earth from the beginning of Creation (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6) not towards the end of a billions-of-years process. And of course, by definition, Christians are those who believe in Jesus Christ, who was fully God and fully man, and through whom all things were created (John 1:1–18)

The Key Issues

    If Genesis was written as a literal and historic record, then evolution and millions of years cannot be true.  Bible Colleges, churches and individual Christians need to recognise and acknowledge this basic fact.  

    There are two major worldviews.  These are the Christian worldview, which is based on the historicity of the Bible, including Genesis, and thus on the truth of Creation, the Fall, the Flood and Babel, and also on the fact of Christ's death, resurrection and future coming again.  The other is the non-Christian worldview, which is based on evolution, billions of years, and death and struggle before sin entered the world.  There is no conflict between science and theology when both are based on the Christian worldview.  Similarly, there is no conflict when science and theology are both based on the non-Christian worldview.  Conflict, for Christians, arises when they try to base their science on the non-Christian worldview and their theology on the Christian worldview. No matter how hard one tries, one cannot make two opposites agree.

    Thus Bible Colleges, churches and Christians should always start their thinking with the Word of God properly exegeted.  Therefore any analysis of the past must recognise the reality of the recent 6-day Creation and the global Flood, and interpret the scientific evidence accordingly.

    Bible Colleges, churches and Christians should never begin a conference, a dialogue, or even their own thinking with the assumption that evolution is true.  Rather they need to understand that many of the claims of naturalistic origins science have not been proven and many are contrary to the Word of God.

    Bible Colleges, churches and individual Christians have no mandate from God to re-interpret His infallible Word to make it fit any currently prevailing fallible human opinion.

Christians do not need to rescue the Bible when there is a perceived conflict with ‘modern science’ by re-interpreting the Bible.  Rather we should be questioning the ‘science’.  ‘Science’ does not speak with more authority than God's Word about origins and the age of the Earth, because, as noted American evangelical theologian Dr John MacArthur says in his new book The Battle for the Beginning (right), ‘Scripture, not science, is the ultimate test of all truth.  The further evangelicalism gets from that conviction, the less evangelical and more humanistic it becomes (emphasis added).’ [20]

John MacArthur also writes:

    ‘Evangelicals who accept an old-earth interpretation of Genesis have embraced a hermeneutic [i.e. interpretation] that is hostile to a high view of Scripture.  They are bringing to the opening chapters of Scripture a method of Biblical interpretation that has built in anti-evangelical presuppositions.  Those who adopt this approach have already embarked on a process that invariably overthrows faith.  Churches and colleges that embrace this view will not remain evangelical long  (emphasis added).’ [21]


Index to The New Age