Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Wilderness or Promised Land for Sydney Episcopalian Diocese?

This site's exposure of heretics of the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese must continue. Moore College, the theological seminary of the Diocese continues to churn out potential 'cures of souls' with a heretical, even unbelieving, view of the Word of God recorded in Genesis.

The spurious view prevails among them that non reference to "evening and morning" for the seventh day, as recorded in Genesis 2:2-3, implies the Creation Week did not comprise seven 24 hour days and that the 'rest' or 'sabbath' of the seventh day continues to the present and beyond.

Most of them, at least, will accept that Jesus Christ is a type of Adam, a type of Israel, a type of Moses, a type of Joshua (but superior to them) and yet Adam, Israel, Moses and Joshua are historical beings or entities who have existed in real time and space. But, as if to give appearance of being gnostics or mystics, they inconsistently apply the principles of observing 'types'. In their desperation to stay in with the world on origins these people elevate the concept (or 'type') of "God's rest" to the exclusion of the particular. For these heretics of the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese, the "seventh day" spoken of in Genesis 2:2-3 is only about the eternal Kingdom of God and not a real day and that this "unending" one day out of seven nullifies the historical reality of the previous six days of Creation Week.

They draw upon Hebrews 3 & 4 to support their claim. Perhaps they defer here to Canadian Astronomer, Hugh Ross, of 'Reason to Believe' ministry, California, USA, who was feted several years ago in the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese. Hugh Ross holds a similar view of the "seventh day" and has expressed a belief that the world was occupied by some man-like spiritless beings prior to the creation of Adam. Also feted within the Diocese some years ago was John Polkinghorne, Physicist, who has expressed doubts about the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. Such are some of the influences within the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese.

Jonathon Sarfati, Ph.D., in his book 'Refuting Compromise' (published by Master Books, 2004) competently deals with Hugh Ross and fellow compromisers. On page 83 of his book, Sarfati says: "However, the evening and morning mark the beginning and end of a day respectively. So if Ross thinks the absence of both means the seventh day has not ended, then to be consistent, it would follow that the seventh day had not begun either!"

Sarfati later says " Ross also argues that Hebrews 4:1-11 teaches 'that the seventh creation day began after the creation of Adam and Eve, continues through the present, and extends into the future' (GQ ie The Genesis Question:64). However, again Ross repeats an argument rebutted in VB&T [ie Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross]: 69-73. Hebrews 4 never says that the seventh day of creation is continuing to the present; it merely says that God's rest is continuing. If someone says on Monday that he rested on Saturday and is still resting, it in no way implies that Saturday lasted until Monday. Kulikovsky carefully analyzes the grammar of Hebrews 4 and concludes:

'The "rest" of Hebrews 4 clearly refers to the Kingdom of God. This type of rest was aluded [sic] to right back at the time of creation, as well as the time of the Exodus. Nowhere in the text is it equated with the seventh day of creation, nor is there any grammatical or contextual data suggesting any such equation. Thus, the progressive creationists' claim that the seventh day of creation is still continuing is without any exegetical foundation whatsoever, making it a worthless argument for non-literal creation days' [A.S. Kulikovsky, "God's Rest in Hebrews 4: 1-11," TJ 13(2): 61-61, 1999]"

The heretics of the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese need to regard with all seriousness the Hebrews passage they are 'dallying' with to oppose those who trust God's Word. For the author of Hebrews goes at length to remind readers of the Psalm 95 caution against unbelief. Psalm 95 recalls the historical event of Israel on the verge of the Promised Land but refusing to enter the land because of unbelief (well, most of them!). Their unbelief angered God and He said of them "They shall not enter my rest" (Psalm 95:11b).

Who were they who heard and rebelled? Those who Moses led out of Egypt to the verge of the Promised Land.

Dear Sydney Episcopalian heretic, you have been led out of total captivity to the world. You have professed faith in the One who led you out. How much do you trust Him? Do you trust His Word thoroughly? There are those about appealing to you to trust the Lord to give you victory over the seeming giants of the land He promised you. They appeal to you to cast off your longing for the fish, the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic of Egypt. Overcoming the weight and might of a world opposed to God will be a challenge but God is on our side. The food of Egypt might have been full of taste but the Manna from God will sustain you to eternity.

Great is your sin of ill-informed propagation of a heresy, greater still is the deliberate sin of unbelief. It is now unacceptable for you to delude yourself with the thought that it is acceptable to reinterpret the Word of God to make sense of it in this largely Godless society. God has raised up people to tell you quite clearly, without shadow of doubt, that His Word clearly stated holds true and cannot be wilfully compromised without consequence.

"See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God." (Hebrews 3:12)

Archbishop Peter Jensen, examine your faith. Look upon those to whom you have a responsibility in the Lord. Where and to what will your belief lead you and where and to what will it lead those to whom you have responsibility - death in the wilderness or life in the Promised Land?

Sam

10 comments:

neil moore said...

Hmmm, thanks Sam. I was interested to note that the author of Hebrews a) was making the case for the new covenant ushered in by our Lord Jesus Christ, b) was speaking to people who supposedly had professed faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and c) cautioned them to (as the King James Version puts it) "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God."

There is fair warning in this that those who profess faith in our Lord Jesus Christ can, by their actions, not be in Him after all. This makes me ponder the actions of some who hunt in a pack on the Sydney Anglican Forum.

Neil Moore

Eric said...

Sam,

I find it endlessly perplexing that people can confess Christ, then resile from acceptance of the biblical historical scheme in the face of, what? materialism? Are these guys crazy. I just cannot imagine that their agreement with materialists on 'origins' gives then any credibility. Indeed, in my own contact with materialists, it is the very reverse. A reasoned discussion about biblical origins that deals with the fall leads straight to Christ and grounds salvation in the reality of our fallen state. Agreement on origins undercuts the gospel, not enhance it and defeats proclamation.

Witness, for example the decrease in church attendance that is correlated with the introduction and acceptance of Darwinism.

sam drucker said...

Eric, a confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ must be demonstrated in action as the epistle of James indicates. There are degrees of action or sanctification but it seems to me, that on the matter of taking God at His Word, once an obvious flaw has been pointed out in a person's interpretation then a continued breach is wilful unbelief.

We must leave these compromisers no room to weasel out.

Sam

Critias said...

Hey, they think that people will like them more because they agree with the world's godless view of itself. The joke is, the world finds Christ the offense and his resurrection incredible. Their stand on origins just cements their irrelevance in the eyes of the world: it goes like "yeh, so you agree that the world is a meaningless material shambles, so what is the place of your god? whence sin? whence pain and suffering? and why would it be eliminated if it is a basic part of the world?

Dave Lankshear said...

Yeah, we're all crazy for looking at literary styles to interpret meaning. Mad! MAD I SAY!

Now, what was that song?

"They'll know we are Christians by our LOVE".

Thanks guys for demonstrating that love yet again.

Ktisophilos said...

Love doesn't mean sickly sentimentality or toleration of evil, but sometimes can be "tough". See also What is "Agape" and How Did It Work?.

Dave Lankshear said...

No, but love requires staying on track when blogging with someone, answering the questions they ask if you can, admitting when you can't, and not being a snide, superior patronising so-and-so every time you post! That was my recent encounter with Mr "I don't know what an 'intertextual reference' is" John of this blog.

Sam wrote: "wilful unbelief. We must leave these compromisers no room to weasel out."

Hmmm, I think you're being wilfully Ad Hominem. I'm honestly trying to be faithful to the message I have received in the bible. So there you go.

See, my experience of this blog is that contributors and creationist fans of the blog would rather interpret my motives in the most evil way possible, insult and denigrate any Sydney Anglican source I quote, and do ALMOST ANYTHING to ignore any arguments that they find too hard to deal with!

EG: Recently I asked John from this blog about Dr John Dickson's paper on the meaning of Genesis 1 in the light of the OBVIOUS inter-textual references it was making. John couldn't seem to grasp what an intertextual reference even was!

So if you can avoid Ad Hominem attacks, spiritual superiority, smug-self righteousness (as if you'd never heard that YOU TOO are a sinner!), and all the other wonderful behaviour I was exposed to last time, and if you have a calm, decently argued, polite and factual paper that replies to Dr Dickson's argument, I'll have a look.

But childish name calling just isn't going to cut-it today OK? EG: John's tactic... "I don't like John Dickson's other writing, so Nyeeeer nyeeer nye nye nyeeeeer nyeeeer!" Avoided the actual subject all-together with that one John, well done!

Ktisophilos said...

Lanshear hasn't lost his mimophantism. Dickson, like the other AngloCompromisers, is very disparaging of YECs. Yet apparently YECs are verboten from defending themselves or critising Dickson or the other AngloCompromisers because that's "unloving".

But see this later thread for a spattering of Dickson's chiasmus argument. Chiasmus doesn't disprove history, since it is found in biblical history as well as other ancient literature.

Dave Lankshear said...

Chiasmus is irrelevant.

The term you're looking for "inter-textual reference" and if the thing the reference is based upon is fantasy, then any re-writing of that fantasy — even with God inspired 'morals of the story' coming out of the genre loud and clear — it doesn't change the literary style from 'fantasy'.

Make no mistake — I believe Genesis to be the inerrant word of God, even Genesis 1. I just disagree that your reading of it is the only possible explanation, and am quite horrified that my brothers in Christ could behave they way they do over it.

I wonder if you devote as much time to any other voluntary pursuits, whether church related or community related? Or is defending creation and spitting at Sydney Anglicans a full time passion?

It certainly seems to be a DISTRACTING passion.

As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord — whatever He has actually caused to be written in Genesis 1 — and we'll actually do other ministry and community things such as scripture teaching, youth work, and even the occasional bit of peak oil campaigning.

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,