Peters proclaims: "Calvin College 'Scientists' Now Officially Proclaim that the Bible's Creation Account is Nonsense"

 

 AI generated summary of above: 

The text, an opinion piece by Calvin alumnus Leo Peters, criticizes Calvin College's officials for alleged dereliction of duty regarding declining enrollment and the teaching of what Peters calls a "new bible" or "speculations" about creation. He contrasts Calvin's enrollment performance with similar Christian colleges and argues that the college's officials should be held accountable for prioritizing potentially heretical teachings over biblical truth.

• Peters argues that "true scientists" acknowledge God's Creation as a working parameter for understanding origins.
• He compares Calvin's 5.6% enrollment loss to other similar church-owned colleges, which had stable or increasing enrollment.
• The author suggests that the other colleges' success is due to their teaching of the Bible's Creation account as true history.
• Peters urges the CRC membership to make decisions to restore Calvin's reputation as a "Bible-believing college" by eliminating the "new bible" teachings. ////
• 
  

   

•  AI transcript of one or more of the above (as best as IT could do i guess)
• 
  
• " My advice: Hang on and see
• the CRC can throw the Bible-busters out.
• The extent and Intensity of the personal feeling.
• that drive these defections may be measured by
• these two significant and exemplary examples
• showing the deeply grievous reaction of Christian
• parents who have sent their children to Calvin:
• 1. Author Van Till, commenting on his own teach.
• ing that the Bible's Creation account is "non.
• sense" said (p. 75) that: "there are always sev.
• eral students in each class who have very con.
• sciously rejected it in the sincere Christian be.
• lief that it is clearly contradicted by the teaching
• of The Bible." *It is especially for these stu-
• dents, and for the large number of Christian
• believers that they represent, that I am writing
• this chapter." The "large number" of Christian
• believers are, presumably, the parents. On p.
• 90, the new bible hits the hapless students four
• times with sledge-hammer blows that de.
• nounced God's Creation as "nonsense."
• 2. In The Calvin Spark (Sep. '91), Calvin's Alumni
• magazine, Dan Fletcher '89 wrote, "Even mem-
• bers of my own family, upon learning that I
• have had Dr. Van Till for classes, raged vlo-
• lently at me about these issues."
• Here were family members who were very upset to
• find out that VanTill had taught him a point of view
• to which they violently objected.
• Calvin has been practising such deception in the
• tion of, ard reference for, truth. In sharp distinction
• to Calvin) new bible, the old Bible requires, uses,
• and depends upon miracles for its very existence.
• The very truth of the Christian religion stands or falls
• on faith, or lack of it, in miracles. Since Calvin no
• longer teaches the Bible's miracle of Creation it is
• no wonder that Calvin's new bible (p. 90 again) vicously coldemns the old Bible and trashes it as
• marketplace for years. It's promotional literature is loaded with promises of a Christian, Bible-
• centered, God-as-sovereign, kind of education.
• Then after enrolling, students find out that the most important miracle on which Christianity is founded is being taught as "nonsense."
• SUPERCILIOUS "SCIENTISTS"
• The last minute, postscript, afterthought, quickie
• WHAT IS A MIRACLE?
• voice-vote to exempt Calvin's "scientists" from the "stop" order that Synod had placed on their "non-
• racle is an event in the physical world that sur-
• sense" teachings, made the "scientists" a special,
• n human or natural powers and so
• colocted status aroud within the CRC. Synod thus //// 
  • 
    

• • ai summary of above
  • 
    
  • Calvin College's enrollment loss of 5.6% looks poor compared to similar colleges in 1990-1991.
  • The author claims officials omitted this specific comparison to make the college's performance look better.
  • The primary concern is the teaching of "speculations as truth" regarding creation, rather than the Bible's account.
  • The author calls for the CRC membership to make decisions to restore the college's reputation as a Bible-believing institution.
• The text, an opinion piece by Calvin alumnus Leo Peters, argues that Calvin College officials are failing in their duty by not adequately comparing enrollment data with similar church-owned colleges and by allowing teachings that contradict the Bible's creation account.
  
  partial AI transcript
  
  

  Calvin-lost 5.6%
  Trinity Increase 3.5%
  Dordt-0
  Hope-lost 2.4%
  Redeemer-Increase 40%
  King's College-Increase 10%

  This comparison makes Calvin's performance look sick. It's even worse than the above 5.6% because since its recent peak of about 4,500 to the present enrollment Calvin's loss has been 12%. Is that the reason they didn't include the above comparison in the State Of The College Report?

  They fully realize the importance of a comparison sheet because they included the names of 88 dis- similar colleges that made Calvin's loss of enroll-ment look good. The above-mentioned Similar Church-owned Colleges should also have been in-cluded in the comparison. Why were they omitted? In the competitive business world such omissions would have subjected the guilty employees to in-stant dismissal.

  Should Calvin's officials be given the same treat-ment for this dereliction of duty? No great sums of money have been lost due to this dereliction. But what about teachings that could send students to hell? Such teachings are of far greater importance than any amount of money. So, what should the CRC do about Calvin's new bible and the officials who teach it?

  Except for Calvin, all the above-mentioned colleges teach that The Bible's Creation is true history. They are all Bible-believers; not Bible-busters. That may tell the CRC something about why Calvin's enroll-ment is rapidly going down, and what must be done to change the direction.

  The CRC membership will have to make some fast, hard decisions if Calvin is to be restored to its former pristine, honest, credible, excellent reputation as a Bible-believing college. The most Important decision will be to eliminate com-pletely the teachings of the new bible as Creation truth. The "scientists" may speculate all they want, but there is no warrant for teaching their speculations as truth.

  Leo Peters, Calvin Alumnus
  Member of LaGrave Ave. CR ////
  

  
  

a

• AI Summary of above:
  
  The text argues that Calvin College's "scientists" are undermining the Bible's account of Creation and challenges the college's leadership for maintaining a double standard on the issue.

  • The author asserts that the Bible and science agree on the time-date of the Origin of Creation, but differ on the time needed for it to occur.
  • The Six-Day Creation, estimated to have occurred 6,000 years ago, refers specifically to planet Earth and its unique environment.
  • The text claims that Calvin College officials were granted permission by the CRC Synod to teach that the Bible's Creation account is "nonsense".
  • The author criticizes President Diekema for teaching two opposing positions on God's sovereignty over Creation.

  t

  
  
  
  

AI summary of above

The text discusses a controversy within Calvin College and the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) regarding the teaching of evolution and the Bible's account of creation, focusing on a figure named Casper Booy and accusations of a "double standard" and deception by the college's administration.The author accuses Calvin College of having a "double standard" in its teachings and advertising.

Casper Booy, a key figure in the debate, is accused of making contradictory statements about his credentials as a scientist.

The article suggests the college is hiding its actual teachings from prospective students and parents.

The core issue is the college's alleged stance that the Christian Bible's creation account is "nonsense".

WHO IS CASPER BOOY?

Who is the real Casper Booy? Did he mislead Synod's delegates?
When he submitted his motion to exempt Calvin's "scientists" from Synod's "stop" order on the "nonsense" teachings, he clearly said before the entire Synod: "I am a scientist" When I questioned him recently on his science credentials, he said, "I never said I was a scientist." But the taped recording of Synod clearly reveals he said, "I am a scientist." Then in an editorial July 21, 1991 The Banner editor four times as "The Scientist."

After two contradictory statements about being a scientist, and the church-wide circulation of The Banner calling him the "The Scientist," Casper Booy has never publicly retracted any of his statements even though he was thoroughly aware of their contradictions. Actually he is a civil engineer.

Why do I write this? Because the long record of deception at Calvin poses the question of what and who was actually behind Casper Booy's motion to derail Synod's "stop" order on "the Bible is 'nonsense'" teachings.

BUSINESS AS USUAL
Did the tactical savvy and the political genius of Calvin's officials actually maneuver this abrupt turnaround? Was Casper Booy used as an agent for such maneuvering? Only they and Casper Booy know and they're not talking.

 But certainly someone was sufficiently cunning and crafty to figure out how to maneuver the quick turn around in Synod's orders. This was evident on the floor of Synod where the pro-Calvin forces openly helped Casper Booy properly phrase his motion.

Even though the President of Synod had eliminated debate, Casper insisted on being given time to present the reasons for his motion. He said he wanted to prevent Calvin's "scientists" from being "muzzled," "clubbed" or subjected to "witch-hunts".

CRC membership, prospective students, and their parents were kept "in the dark" for two decades as to what was being taught at Calvin. It was outright deception on a long and large scale. All too often too many embittered parents found this out after their children had enrolled. Then it was frequently too late to pull their children out of Calvin.

Now that the "nonsense" teaching is officially approved by Synod there should be no need to continue the deception. But it still continues. Calvin still does not advertise its teaching that THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE IS "NONSENSE." Why is it? Because deception is now endemic, a way of life at Calvin? 

If so, that's a sad commentary on both obedience to God's sovereignty, and to the 9th Commandment. Or is it because public knowledge of the deception would turn away prospective students? If so, that would be a crass and cowardly reason.

If it is actually true that the Bible is "nonsense," then Calvin should shout it from the housetops", trumpet it boldly, proclaim it out loud in the streets of the city. Why doesn't Calvin do this? If it is actually true that the Bible is "nonsense," then Calvin should headline it in its advertisements. But it doesn't!

So the headline on this page is performing this advertising service for the benefit of both Calvin and the CRC membership. Hopefully this will prod Calvin into ending its deception, tossing out its treacherous advertising, and maybe even abandoning its new bible. That would be a miracle if it happened. 

But Calvin's new bible does not believe in, or teach, miracles. So it will not happen! God's Creation is the greatest miracle of all time but Calvin's new bible denounces it as "nonsense." So the odds are that deception, and the double standard, will continue to rule Calvin's advertising policies and practices.

BEFORE THE "SCIENTISTS"
Before the era of the "scientists" Calvin had a single, unalterable, teaching policy that demanded all teaching be referenced solely on The Bible. This policy, under the vigilant guidance of faithful, devout, Bible-believing CRC members with their sacrificial giving, and trust-worthy Calvin officers, built Calvin into a credible, respected institution of learning with a solid reputation for excellence in a Bible-centered education.