Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

How Religions Relate

The article by Ian Mcfadyen is a couple of years old but still very much relevant. Note the many parallels with the religion of Darwinism and its influence on the thinking and actions of the world.

Sam Drucker

Thursday, July 22, 2010

When 'Black' is 'White'

The surprise birth of a 'fair coloured' child to 'black coloured' parents announced in the UK this week presents no problems for the Biblical Creationist position but presents problems for elements of Darwinism nowadays 'swept under the carpet.'

Assuming no infidelity on the part of the mother, Geneticists were left to declare that a mutant gene was at work to produce a child with 'fair coloured' skin to parents of 'black coloured' skin.

Let us be clear, there is only one skin colour - the pigment called melanin - and there is only one human race. If the first humans had a content of melanin giving the appearance of 'mid brown colour', potential then existed to produce apparent 'skin colour' in descendants extending from 'mid brown' to 'black' in one direction to 'albino' in the other direction. This, then, gives scope to produce a genetic recession to a 'fair colour' in the child reported this week in the UK.

One of the sad chapters of Darwinism is (and perhaps remains with some Darwinists today) the belief that 'fair coloured' humans were more advanced or evolved than 'black coloured' humans. This led to racism and abuses of 'blacks.' Sadly, some Christians fell for this erroneous world view and were as guilty as secular proponents of racism.

It was ironic to hear the Geneticist, commenting on the recent incident reported in the UK, say that the 'fair coloured' child was, in effect, a mutation. This, in its way, is a reversal of the past perception of 'fair coloured' people.


Sunday, July 18, 2010

Sydney Episcopalians - "Take Courage! It is I. Don't Be Afraid."

"Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray.

When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw him and were terrified.

Immediately he spoke to them and said, 'Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid.' Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened
." (Mark 6:45-52)

Mark records this incident immediately after recording the incident of the "Feeding of the Five Thousand" and it is clear to him that there is a connection. The connection is just who it was in the midst of the disciples and the disciples' failure to recognize him.

The feeding of the five thousand was instructive yet the disciples failed to grasp the significance. To draw from Temple, "Every Evangelist supposed our Lord to have wrought a creative act; and for myself, I have no doubt that this is what occurred. This, however, is credible only if St. John is right in his doctrine of the Lord's Person. If the Lord was indeed God incarnate, the story presents no insuperable difficulties." (W. Temple, Readings in St. John's Gospel [London: Macmillan, 1940], p. 75).

According to John, the five loaves were barley bread (John 6:9). The general view is that barley loaves were not like the sizable loaves of bread seen today but were small and flat. Consequently, a more than plentiful supply was necessary from the hand of our Lord to sate the appetite of each present and to have loaves and fishes left over.

Grasp what had occurred here. It was not the practice of Jews to eat raw fish and the bread eaten in daily life was the result of blending raw ingredients of grain, olive oil, water or milk, usually then flattened and subsequently baked. Before the eyes of the disciples and the crowd our Lord instantaneously recreated and even multiplied finite objects without need of time consuming processes of preparation and cooking. Here, in their presence, stood the Sovereign Lord of the universe, the Creator of all things, yet they grasped it not.

Here was an act, among other purposes, intended to convince the audience that the One who created all things instantaneously "In the Beginning" was in their presence. Matter i.e. material substance was no barrier to His will. No, it was subject to His will, even a product of His will.

The subsequent incident recorded by Mark of our Lord walking on water exposed the failure of the disciples to recognize who it was among them for they were, at first, terrified then completely amazed when he got into the boat. They should have known after the feeding of the five thousand but they didn't. Their hearts were hardened. As such, they were no better off as to faith as were the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law. Mark purposely makes this point.

There is a substantial lesson to be learned here for those Sydney Episcopalians who are Theistic Evolutionists and, thus, whose limited faith causes them not to recognise the Lord's Person and Will mirror imaged in the account of Creation and incidents such as the feeding of the five thousand and walking on water. Hardened hearts prevent reception of full revelation of the Lord of the universe and are injurious to the need of lost.

Sam Drucker

Friday, July 16, 2010

Finding of Science Once Again Affirms Bible

The discovery announced by British Scientists yesterday that the "Chicken came before the Egg" will come as no surprise to Biblical Creationists.

Had the scientists come and asked Biblical Creationists some time ago a lot of money and time would have been saved because advice given would have enabled scientists to direct money and time on researching the chicken for the answer while discarding the egg as the origin source.

The Bible says that the creatures were made as they were with capacity to reproduce after their kind. Obviously, the chicken came before the egg. We knew all that!


Thursday, July 15, 2010

Leupold Genesis part 36 verse 6 Day 2

Now follows in v. 6-8 the creative work of the second day, the creation of the firmament or the lower heavens (Erdhimmel).

6. And God said: Let there be a firmament in middle of the waters, and let it be causing a division between waters and waters.

Again a creative word having the same power as the one of the first day, in reference to which Luther said: "God does not speak grammatical words but real things that actually exist." The "firmament" that results is called raqia'. It comes from the root meaning "to hammer" or "to spread out." Therefore, by some the word is rendered "expanse." Our "firmament" is from the translation of the Vulgate, firmamentum, which involves the idea of something that firmly put in place. The Greek sterewma conveys same idea. Yet the raqia' is the vault or dome of the heavens, or "that immense gaseous ocean, called the atmosphere, by which the earth is encircled" (Whitelaw). That so widely differing definitions as "dome" and "gaseous ocean" can be given in one breath is due to the fact, that whole set of physical laws is involved which makes the lower heavens possible: an air space encircling the earth, evaporation of waters, rising of gaseous vapours, etc. For the purpose of the firmament is declared to be that it be "in the middle of the waters" and "causing a division between waters and waters." Apparently, before this firmament existed, the earth waters on the surface of the earth and the cloud waters as we now know them were contiguous without an intervening clear air space. It was a situation like a dense fog upon the surface of the waters. Clear vision of all except the very nearest objects must have been impossible. Free activity unhampered by the fog blanket would have been impossible. Man would not have had an appropriate sphere for activity, nor could sunlight have penetrated freely to do its beneficent and cheering work. Now the physical laws that cause clouds and keep them suspended go into operation. These clouds constitute the upper waters. The solid masses of water collected upon earth constitute the lower waters. He who has observed that the heavens may pour down unbelievable quantities of waters will not hesitate to call these upper lighter cloud masses "waters" also. The languages familiar to us have the same viewpoint as v. 8, which calls this firmament "heavens." The cloud heaven is the one we mean. The English word "heaven" is from the root "to heave" or "lift up."

Very queer constructions have been put upon this raqia'. A. Jeremias wrapped up in his speculations on Babylonian mythology and the great importance the signs of the zodiac played in Babylonian thought, identifies the raqia' with the zodiac (Tierkreis). A sober reading of the definition v. 6-8 gives of the "firmament" ought to make such an attempt impossible. Far more common is that view which imputes singular crudities to the Biblical narrative at this point. Let Dillmann furnish the picture: The raqia'" was in olden times conceived of as made out of more or less solid matter, firm as a mirror of glass, ... supported by the highest mountains as by pillars ... having openings," namely the windows of heaven through which rain might be dropped upon the earth. But in spite of passages like (Re 4:6; 15:2; 22:1) there is no doctrine of the Scriptures to the effect that there were "ethereal waters," and though the "windows of heaven" are referred to (Ge 7:11; Ps 78:23; 2Ki 7:2; Isa 24:18), these purely figurative expressions (also e. g. (Job 26:11)) are such as we can still use with perfect propriety, and yet to impute to us notions of a crude view of supernal waters stored in heavenly reservoirs would be as unjust at it is to impute such opinions to the writers of the Biblical books, The holy writers deserve at least the benefit of the doubt, especially when poetic passages are involved. Again: the view expressed in this verse is not crude, absurd, or in any wise deficient. Its simple meaning has been shown above.

The expression wihi mabhdil, "and let it be causing a division," presents a very strong case where the participle is used to express duration or permanence of a certain relationship (K. S. 239 b; G. K. 116 r). Yehi is repeated to make the separate parts of the process stand out more distinctly (K. S. 370 s).

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Sydney Episcopalians Throwing Calvin at Natural Theology

Our Lord told a crowd the Parable of the Sower (or Soils). Later, his disciples came to him and asked him about the parable as follows:

When he was alone, the twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' " Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?" (Mark 4:10-13)

A constant expression of alarm is raised by graduates of Moore Theological College (the theological seminary of choice for Sydney Episcopalians) when Christians affirm evangelising the lost by means of Natural Theology. Any reference to Romans 1:20 (For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse) as sufficient recourse for such evangelism is countered with John Calvin who said: "Wherefore, the apostle, in the very place where he says that the worlds are images of invisible things, adds that it is by faith we understand that they were framed by the word of God (Heb. 11:3); thereby intimating that the invisible Godhead is indeed represented by such displays, but that we have no eyes to perceive it until they are enlightened through faith by internal revelation from God. When Paul says that that which may be known of God is manifested by the creation of the world, he does not mean such a manifestation as may be comprehended by the wit of man (Rom. 1:19); on the contrary, he shows that it has no further effect than to render us inexcusable (Acts 17:27). (Calvin's Institutes Ch 5)

Oh! How they pick and choose from Calvin's doctrine. Remember how they reject Calvin's acceptance of six days of twenty four hours duration for the Creation event and his acceptance of it occurring some six thousand years ago? They play fast and loose with Calvin yet declare themselves to be Calvinist in doctrine.

Well, for the exercise, let me test their credibility a little further.

Accepting Calvin's proposition that, in effect, man is so far fallen he is unable to discern God from observing the creation without the light of faith from God where then does that leave man when attempting to discern God from Scripture without light from God? In my opinion he is in the very same position. Without being enlightened through faith by internal revelation from God man is as much able to come under conviction of the reality of God through Scripture as a dog is able to discern the nutritional value of a can of dog food by looking at the list of contents on the label.

Consider our Lord Jesus' disciples of whom "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given." You would think that such an affirmation of their privileged position would have them well placed to understand the parables. But, no, they were no better in understanding than unbelievers, no better in understanding than those who sought death for our Lord. It required the light of explanation from our Lord for understanding. It later required light from the Holy Spirit to teach them all things and remind them of everything he said to them.

The thoroughgoing Calvinist must accept we are all so far fallen that, without the light of faith from God, there is no way we would receive the gospel of Jesus Christ with the conviction it requires.

This then poses a question for Christians engaging in evangelism. What message is God prepared to use to enlighten through faith by internal revelation?

In Athens, through the Apostle Paul, it was not immediately the message of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead but more immediately something akin to Natural Theology through explanation of a Creator of all things. Only this message, followed by the message of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, provoked some hearers to inquire further. The rest of the audience, in ignorance, sneered.

Consider, Sydney Episcopalians, the parables of our Lord Jesus Christ which you have used in evangelism. Are not many of his parables drawn from the natural order of life? The parable of the sower, the growing seed, the mustard seed, the yeast, the lost sheep and others involving man made objects and human relations are drawn from the natural order of life. Our Lord was not averse to evangelising with deference to Natural Theology so why do you criticise those who are likewise inclined?

You are in error to criticise your brethren who use Natural Theology and you are inconsistent. Criticism is only due if Natural Theology is confined only to that and has no intention to inflame a spark of interest by expounding all of Christ Jesus. For some hearers, only so much will be taken in one sitting and, though willing to say more, we must be wise to the situation. It is for God to use the means to enlighten through faith by internal revelation and we must leave to God that which is his.

Before closing I want to suggest a reason why many Sydney Episcopalians recoil at Natural Theology. Discussion with several reveals a lack of confidence in understanding the natural world and its relationship with God. This follows from their adoption of the chaotic proposition of Darwinism and trying to fit that with a God of order. Most will honestly admit difficulties they have in accommodating their view of the natural world and the revelation of God in Scripture. This is all a product of their making.

Sydney Episcopalians, your approach to evangelism and your understanding of the Creator God is confused and because of this you resort to a narrow revelation of God in Jesus Christ. In such a sorry state you ought not impose your limitations on your brethren nor on the will of God.

Sam Drucker

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Leupold Genesis part 35 verse 5 'yom' and 'period'

There ought to be no need of refuting the idea that yom means period. Reputable dictionaries like Buhl, B D B or K. W. know nothing of this notion. Hebrew dictionaries are our primary source of reliable information concerning Hebrew words. Commentators with critical leanings utter statements that are very decided in this instance. Says Skinner: "The interpretation of yom as aeon, a favourite resource of harmonists of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain sense of the passage and has no warrant in Hebrew usage." Dillmann remarks: "The reasons advanced by ancient and modern writers for construing these days to be longer periods of time are inadequate." There is one other meaning of the word "day" which some misapprehend by failing to think through its exact bearing: yom may mean "time" in a very general way, as in 2:4 beyom, or Isa. 11:16; cf. B D B, p. 399, No. 6, for. numerous illustrations. But that use-cannot substantiate so utterly different an idea as "period." These two conceptions lie far apart. References to expressions like "the day of the Lord" fail to invalidate our contentions above. For "the day of the Lord." as B D B rightly defines, p. 399, No. 3, is regarded "chiefly as the time of His coming in judgment, involving often blessedness for the righteous."

Other arguments to the contrary carry very little weight. If it be claimed that some works can with difficulty be compressed within twenty-four hours, like those of the third day or the sixth, that claim may well be described as a purely subjective opinion. He that desires to reason it out as possible can assemble fully as many arguments as he who holds the opposite opinion. Or if it be claimed that "the duration of the seventh day determines the rest," let it be noted that nothing is stated about the duration of the seventh. This happens to be an argument from silence, and therefore it is exceptionally weak. Or again, if it be claimed that "the argument of the fourth (our third) commandment confirms this probability," we find in this commandment even stronger confirmation of our contention: six twenty-four hour days followed by one such day of rest alone can furnish a proper analogy for our labouring six days and resting on the seventh day; periods furnish a poor analogy for days. Finally, the contention that our conception "contradicts geology" is inaccurate. It merely contradicts one school of thought in the field of geology, a school of thought of which we are convinced that it is hopelessly entangled in misconceptions which grow out of attempts to co-ordinate the actual findings of geology with an evolutionistic conception of what geology should be, and so is for the present thrown into a complete misreading of the available evidence, even as history, anthropology, Old Testament studies and many other sciences have been derailed and mired by the same attempt. We believe that writers on the subject like Price and Nelson deserve far more consideration than is being accorded them.