Recently in the comments section of a blog here I mentioned the Lord Jesus Christ's healing of a man who had been lame for 38 years (John 5).
Subsequent to that comment the following article appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on 21 May 2011:
A PARAPLEGIC man has stood up unaided, moved his legs voluntarily and walked, with help, on a treadmill after neurosurgeons implanted electrodes in his lower spine.
The world-first therapy has been hailed as an exciting advance in the quest to overcome crippling spinal cord injuries.
The electrodes then sent electrical signals to mimic those sent down the spine by the brain to begin movement.
Mr Summers can push up with his legs and reach a standing position, and support his own weight for up to four minutes at a time.
'For someone who for four years was unable to move a toe, to have the freedom to stand on my own is the most amazing feeling,' he said.
Compare the situation of the early Judean man and the Sydney Daily Telegraph's reported lame man. We don't know how the former was made lame. Potentially, he suffered a similar spinal cord injury to the latter day man. Notwithstanding the extent of damaged body parts, each man was completely lame.
Improvement came to both but look at the stark contrast in the time frame and the completeness of healing. The gap is huge and, as I indicated earlier, the healing and recreation wrought by the will of our Lord Jesus Christ was beyond all our capacity to comprehend via modern medical science.
There some 2,000 years ago in Judea, moving among the people, was the Creator of the universe who creates and recreates in an instant.
If only degenerate pseudo-evangelicals of today had more faith in Jesus Christ than they do Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Into the Darkness Light Has Shone.
Oh, how they rail! How they retort their defence over and over "Young Earth Creationism is a hindrance to someone coming to Christ." Those Sydney Episcopalians who distort the Word of God exercise their troubled minds to discover a defence for their desire of the world.
Biblical Creationists know the foolishness of their defence for we know that it is the Spirit of God who does the work of conversion through the Word of Truth. We are familiar with testimonies of former Atheists who have sat under the Word of Truth delivered through the clay vessel of a Biblical Creationist and being brought to conversion by the Spirit of God. Something at least along those lines has happened again.
I was not there and I only have the message third hand but that which I have received indicates the Spirit of God was at work at a Sydney Anglican Church in recent weeks.
Two students who were not Christians (one was a Jew) had an assignment to complete as part of their tertiary studies. They thought the topic of Creationism and the controversy surrounding it might be a worthwhile exercise. They searched the Web, found Creation.com and saw that a message was being delivered by a Biblical Creationist at ........ Anglican Church in the next couple of days. That's handy, they said. They devised their questions to test the veracity of the speaker's position in the face of the Darwinist/Long Age argument and off they went to the event.
During the speaker's address it became evident sensible things were being asserted. Just as the Bereans searched the Scriptures to affirm the message of Apostle Paul these two students searched their sensibilities to affirm the veracity of the message. Questions were being answered. During question time and in private discussion with the speaker afterward all questions were answered. The two guests were profoundly affected under conviction of the Word of Truth. They came away from the event far different in thought and so favourably disposed to the Word of God.
Where things lead for these two students is beyond the scope of this writer to say just now. What is clear is that, once again, when the Spirit of God is at work the Word of God does not return void and Biblical Creationists are instruments in the Hand of God for changing the thoughts of man from death to thoughts of life in the Son.
Sam Drucker
Biblical Creationists know the foolishness of their defence for we know that it is the Spirit of God who does the work of conversion through the Word of Truth. We are familiar with testimonies of former Atheists who have sat under the Word of Truth delivered through the clay vessel of a Biblical Creationist and being brought to conversion by the Spirit of God. Something at least along those lines has happened again.
I was not there and I only have the message third hand but that which I have received indicates the Spirit of God was at work at a Sydney Anglican Church in recent weeks.
Two students who were not Christians (one was a Jew) had an assignment to complete as part of their tertiary studies. They thought the topic of Creationism and the controversy surrounding it might be a worthwhile exercise. They searched the Web, found Creation.com and saw that a message was being delivered by a Biblical Creationist at ........ Anglican Church in the next couple of days. That's handy, they said. They devised their questions to test the veracity of the speaker's position in the face of the Darwinist/Long Age argument and off they went to the event.
During the speaker's address it became evident sensible things were being asserted. Just as the Bereans searched the Scriptures to affirm the message of Apostle Paul these two students searched their sensibilities to affirm the veracity of the message. Questions were being answered. During question time and in private discussion with the speaker afterward all questions were answered. The two guests were profoundly affected under conviction of the Word of Truth. They came away from the event far different in thought and so favourably disposed to the Word of God.
Where things lead for these two students is beyond the scope of this writer to say just now. What is clear is that, once again, when the Spirit of God is at work the Word of God does not return void and Biblical Creationists are instruments in the Hand of God for changing the thoughts of man from death to thoughts of life in the Son.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney Wallowing in Toxic Time-Bomb.
Mark Christopher is a church planter in Cape Town, South Africa, and the author of Same-Sex Marriage: Is It Really The Same? (DayOne Publication, 2009). In the 2010 Annual of Evangelical Action Christopher has an article published under the heading The Ecclesiastical Promotion of Homosexuality and the Demise of Biblical Authority. In this article he nails the problem neo-evangelicals have got the church into concerning the practice of homosexuality despite the express prohibition of homosexuality in Scripture.
However, Christopher indirectly exposes the polluted theology of neo-evangelicals of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney which, while perhaps at present resisting the homosexuality push, has collapsed in the face of assaults of the world on the subject of origins. Sydney Episcopalians, like their fellow neo-evangelical travellers elsewhere of the world dismiss the importance of maintaining biblical authority on origins "because it is not a salvation issue" or "is not of Christ crucified and raised to life again." This, of course, is code for "leave us alone, we are comfortable in the world and we don't want contentious issues in the church."
Mark Christopher identifies and speaks to four "bromides" (corrosive agents) of biblical authority - Higher Critical Method, Naturalistic-Uniformitarian Science, Pluralism and Existentialism/Moral Relativism. He then goes on to discuss their accumulating effect on the church as it addresses the march of homosexuality. I take up extracts of his article here and urge readers to note how the evangelical church has set itself up for toxic death:
The outcome of the four mentioned bromides to biblical authority is fleshed out in our third consideration of this topic — the creed of diminished biblical authority. How do those who subscribe to a watered down variant of biblical authority phrase their skepticism? Well, Francis Schaeffer in his classic on this topic, The Great Evangelical Disaster, gave some good examples of the weasel words that are employed by skeptics. Here is but one example from the 1974 Lausanne Covenant which illustrates the creed of diminished biblical authority:
'We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written Word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.'
The question must be asked, what exactly does the Bible affirm and what doesn't it affirm? In the minds of biblical skeptics and pro-gay interpreters, the Bible only affirms that which is directly related to salvation while Other matters related to history, science, cosmology, and geography are deemed susceptible to errancy. The loophole here is found in the clause 'without error in all it affirms'. This one statement gives many skeptics the latitude they need to justify the latest secular findings without having to suffer the academic embarrassment often associated with maintaining a high view of Scripture.
An example of this creed of diminished biblical authority was advanced by the Rogers and McKim proposal. In 1981 Jack Rogers, a pro-gay interpreter, and Donald McKim published a tome entitled The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach. The thesis of the authors was to prove that the historically central tradition of the church emphasized a biblical infallibility that was limited to matters of faith and practice. Restated, biblical infallibility is confined to redemptive issues and not to other areas the Bible mentions in passing like history, science, geography et al. This means the Bible carries little to no authority in matters outside the circle of salvation.
In close connection to this new creed on biblical authority, the fourth consideration summarizes the roots of diminished biblical authority by surveying one of the key contributors to this thinking: G.C. Berkouwer, of whom Rogers, above, is a disciple. Berkouwer was bothered by the dual authorship approach (human and divine) to inspiration. He held that human involvement necessitated partial annulment of the divine aspects of inspiration. So instead of talking about a God-breathed word, he substituted the word 'witness' or 'testimony' for the idea of inspiration.' Thus, the Bible is only the word of God by virtue of its witness concerning Christ. Scripture is witness to Christ crucified and risen - one can almost hear the echoes of neo-orthodoxy here. Regarding the cosmology and history of the Bible, Berkouwer would maintain there are unintentional errors. This begs the question of how one can be certain there are no unintentional errors in the realm of salvation. This all leads us to the final consideration which culminates in the fruit of diminished biblical authority. The applications of this skeptical creed of Scriptural authority are multitudinous. Schaeffer rightly notes that '... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian and how we live in the full spectrum of human life.' When the standard of biblical authority is lowered it leads to the general worldview of the world infiltrating the church, to include the approval of ethical issues like homosexuality and its corollary same-sex marriage.
Unquestionably the deconstruction of biblical authority by professing evangelicals has swung the door wide open for the aggressive promotion of homosexuality within the church. In response to this, all confessing evangelicals need to ponder and act on Schaeffer's poignant reminder: 'We must say most lovingly but clearly: evangelicalism is not consistently evangelical unless there is a line drawn between those who take the full view of Scripture and those who do not.' Schaeffer would say this is to include not only the belief, but the accompanying practice (obedience) as well.
In order for concerned evangelicals to begin reclaiming some of the valuable territory lost in the same-sex debate, it is first necessary to unapologetically reassert a high view of Scripture while striving to consistently model the holy demands of Sola Scriptura!
Amen!
Sam Drucker
However, Christopher indirectly exposes the polluted theology of neo-evangelicals of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney which, while perhaps at present resisting the homosexuality push, has collapsed in the face of assaults of the world on the subject of origins. Sydney Episcopalians, like their fellow neo-evangelical travellers elsewhere of the world dismiss the importance of maintaining biblical authority on origins "because it is not a salvation issue" or "is not of Christ crucified and raised to life again." This, of course, is code for "leave us alone, we are comfortable in the world and we don't want contentious issues in the church."
Mark Christopher identifies and speaks to four "bromides" (corrosive agents) of biblical authority - Higher Critical Method, Naturalistic-Uniformitarian Science, Pluralism and Existentialism/Moral Relativism. He then goes on to discuss their accumulating effect on the church as it addresses the march of homosexuality. I take up extracts of his article here and urge readers to note how the evangelical church has set itself up for toxic death:
The outcome of the four mentioned bromides to biblical authority is fleshed out in our third consideration of this topic — the creed of diminished biblical authority. How do those who subscribe to a watered down variant of biblical authority phrase their skepticism? Well, Francis Schaeffer in his classic on this topic, The Great Evangelical Disaster, gave some good examples of the weasel words that are employed by skeptics. Here is but one example from the 1974 Lausanne Covenant which illustrates the creed of diminished biblical authority:
'We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written Word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.'
The question must be asked, what exactly does the Bible affirm and what doesn't it affirm? In the minds of biblical skeptics and pro-gay interpreters, the Bible only affirms that which is directly related to salvation while Other matters related to history, science, cosmology, and geography are deemed susceptible to errancy. The loophole here is found in the clause 'without error in all it affirms'. This one statement gives many skeptics the latitude they need to justify the latest secular findings without having to suffer the academic embarrassment often associated with maintaining a high view of Scripture.
An example of this creed of diminished biblical authority was advanced by the Rogers and McKim proposal. In 1981 Jack Rogers, a pro-gay interpreter, and Donald McKim published a tome entitled The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach. The thesis of the authors was to prove that the historically central tradition of the church emphasized a biblical infallibility that was limited to matters of faith and practice. Restated, biblical infallibility is confined to redemptive issues and not to other areas the Bible mentions in passing like history, science, geography et al. This means the Bible carries little to no authority in matters outside the circle of salvation.
In close connection to this new creed on biblical authority, the fourth consideration summarizes the roots of diminished biblical authority by surveying one of the key contributors to this thinking: G.C. Berkouwer, of whom Rogers, above, is a disciple. Berkouwer was bothered by the dual authorship approach (human and divine) to inspiration. He held that human involvement necessitated partial annulment of the divine aspects of inspiration. So instead of talking about a God-breathed word, he substituted the word 'witness' or 'testimony' for the idea of inspiration.' Thus, the Bible is only the word of God by virtue of its witness concerning Christ. Scripture is witness to Christ crucified and risen - one can almost hear the echoes of neo-orthodoxy here. Regarding the cosmology and history of the Bible, Berkouwer would maintain there are unintentional errors. This begs the question of how one can be certain there are no unintentional errors in the realm of salvation. This all leads us to the final consideration which culminates in the fruit of diminished biblical authority. The applications of this skeptical creed of Scriptural authority are multitudinous. Schaeffer rightly notes that '... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian and how we live in the full spectrum of human life.' When the standard of biblical authority is lowered it leads to the general worldview of the world infiltrating the church, to include the approval of ethical issues like homosexuality and its corollary same-sex marriage.
Unquestionably the deconstruction of biblical authority by professing evangelicals has swung the door wide open for the aggressive promotion of homosexuality within the church. In response to this, all confessing evangelicals need to ponder and act on Schaeffer's poignant reminder: 'We must say most lovingly but clearly: evangelicalism is not consistently evangelical unless there is a line drawn between those who take the full view of Scripture and those who do not.' Schaeffer would say this is to include not only the belief, but the accompanying practice (obedience) as well.
In order for concerned evangelicals to begin reclaiming some of the valuable territory lost in the same-sex debate, it is first necessary to unapologetically reassert a high view of Scripture while striving to consistently model the holy demands of Sola Scriptura!
Amen!
Sam Drucker
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Declension Spreads
My recent blog about The Work of the Word of God was another reminder of the failure of evangelicals to uphold the integrity of the Word of God. For the so-called evangelicals of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney the failing is clearly demonstrated nowadays in mishandling of Genesis 1. Shall I call them neo-evangelicals?
Neo-evangelicals elsewhere have long abandoned upholding the integrity of the Word of God in Genesis 1. They are well down the slippery slope of declension to death. Just look for a moment at
this
I guess the Presbyterian Church of the USA can only look back and say to the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney "Keep coming brother, you are heading in the right direction and will catch up one day!
Like Cancer, infidelity grows if not excised early.
Sam Drucker
Neo-evangelicals elsewhere have long abandoned upholding the integrity of the Word of God in Genesis 1. They are well down the slippery slope of declension to death. Just look for a moment at
this
I guess the Presbyterian Church of the USA can only look back and say to the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney "Keep coming brother, you are heading in the right direction and will catch up one day!
Like Cancer, infidelity grows if not excised early.
Sam Drucker
Monday, May 16, 2011
Leupold Genesis part 56 verse 26 Image of God
26. And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the domestic animals and over the whole earth and over every thing that moveth about upon the earth.
A divine counsel precedes the creation of man. By this means the singular dignity of man is very strongly stressed. From every point of view man is seen to be the crown and climax of God's creation.
The hortative "Let us make" (na'aseh), is particularly striking because it is plural. Though almost all commentators of our day reject the view that this is to be explained in connection with the truth of the Holy Trinity and treat this so-called trinitarian view as a very negligible quantity, yet, rightly considered, this is the only view that can satisfy. Koenig (K. C.) may brush it aside with the very briefest remark to the effect that "the number three cannot be expressed by the plural," yet he like many others labours under a misunderstanding of the trinitarian view. Those that hold that a reference to the Trinity is involved do not mean to say that the truth of the Holy Trinity is here fully and plainly revealed. But they do hold that God speaks out of the fulness of His powers and His attributes in a fashion which man could never employ. Behind such speaking lies the truth of the Holy Trinity which, as it grows increasingly clear in revelation, is in the light of later clear revelation discovered as contained in this pural in a kind of obscure adumbration. The truth of the Trinity explains this passage. It would not occur to us to call this an express and unmistakable, clear presentation of the full trinitarian truth. So also, in substance, Keil. So practically also Luther, after he has valiantly championed the trinitarian view even beyond what we might deem the legitimate statement of the case, goes on to remark: "Therefore what is first presented more or less dark, difficult and obscure, Christ has all made manifest and clearly commanded to preach. Nevertheless, the holy fathers held this knowledge through the Holy Spirit, yet by no means as clear as we now have it."
Some have seen the solution of the difficulty to lie in calling this the majestic plural, such as sovereigns are wont to employ in edicts. This type of plural, however, cannot be demonstrated as used in the Scriptures. Luther's somewhat ironical remark should also be considered here: "The Holy Spirit is not wont to employ the courtesies employed for royalty" (kanzleiische Hoeflichkeit). Rightly speaking, a kind of potential plural is involved (K. S. 260 a-e), as the fullness of the potentialities that lie in God is expressed by the plural of 'elohim, which may even be used with a plural form of its predicate adjective (Judg. 24:19; Ps. 58:12), but abstract plurals like these are not yet quite the same thing as a verb used in the first person plural, hortatory, as Strack tries to persuade himself to believe.
The common explanation, perhaps the most popular at present, that God is addressing the angels has been shown up in its deficiencies by Koenig (K. C.). It cannot be denied that on occasion God addressed the angelic host before His throne; (Isa 6:8; 1Ki 22:19-22). Angels are found standing in His presence (Job 1; 38:7; Da 4:14; 7:10). But never once does God actually counsel with them. The distance between God and angels is seen to be a very pronounced one. Even in (Isa 6:8) this important difference stands out: "Whom shall I send?" God acts independently without angelic counsel. Besides, it must be considered that neither here nor by the time 3:22 is reached has anything been revealed about the creation of angels. And lastly, man is not considered in the Scriptures to have been made in the image of angels. If this remark included angels, man would be made in an image which blurred the divine and the angelic into one. The Old Testament does not muddle such important concepts.
A divine counsel precedes the creation of man. By this means the singular dignity of man is very strongly stressed. From every point of view man is seen to be the crown and climax of God's creation.
The hortative "Let us make" (na'aseh), is particularly striking because it is plural. Though almost all commentators of our day reject the view that this is to be explained in connection with the truth of the Holy Trinity and treat this so-called trinitarian view as a very negligible quantity, yet, rightly considered, this is the only view that can satisfy. Koenig (K. C.) may brush it aside with the very briefest remark to the effect that "the number three cannot be expressed by the plural," yet he like many others labours under a misunderstanding of the trinitarian view. Those that hold that a reference to the Trinity is involved do not mean to say that the truth of the Holy Trinity is here fully and plainly revealed. But they do hold that God speaks out of the fulness of His powers and His attributes in a fashion which man could never employ. Behind such speaking lies the truth of the Holy Trinity which, as it grows increasingly clear in revelation, is in the light of later clear revelation discovered as contained in this pural in a kind of obscure adumbration. The truth of the Trinity explains this passage. It would not occur to us to call this an express and unmistakable, clear presentation of the full trinitarian truth. So also, in substance, Keil. So practically also Luther, after he has valiantly championed the trinitarian view even beyond what we might deem the legitimate statement of the case, goes on to remark: "Therefore what is first presented more or less dark, difficult and obscure, Christ has all made manifest and clearly commanded to preach. Nevertheless, the holy fathers held this knowledge through the Holy Spirit, yet by no means as clear as we now have it."
Some have seen the solution of the difficulty to lie in calling this the majestic plural, such as sovereigns are wont to employ in edicts. This type of plural, however, cannot be demonstrated as used in the Scriptures. Luther's somewhat ironical remark should also be considered here: "The Holy Spirit is not wont to employ the courtesies employed for royalty" (kanzleiische Hoeflichkeit). Rightly speaking, a kind of potential plural is involved (K. S. 260 a-e), as the fullness of the potentialities that lie in God is expressed by the plural of 'elohim, which may even be used with a plural form of its predicate adjective (Judg. 24:19; Ps. 58:12), but abstract plurals like these are not yet quite the same thing as a verb used in the first person plural, hortatory, as Strack tries to persuade himself to believe.
The common explanation, perhaps the most popular at present, that God is addressing the angels has been shown up in its deficiencies by Koenig (K. C.). It cannot be denied that on occasion God addressed the angelic host before His throne; (Isa 6:8; 1Ki 22:19-22). Angels are found standing in His presence (Job 1; 38:7; Da 4:14; 7:10). But never once does God actually counsel with them. The distance between God and angels is seen to be a very pronounced one. Even in (Isa 6:8) this important difference stands out: "Whom shall I send?" God acts independently without angelic counsel. Besides, it must be considered that neither here nor by the time 3:22 is reached has anything been revealed about the creation of angels. And lastly, man is not considered in the Scriptures to have been made in the image of angels. If this remark included angels, man would be made in an image which blurred the divine and the angelic into one. The Old Testament does not muddle such important concepts.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Is Romans 5:12 a Defence Against Adam's Sin Having Brought Death to All Creation?
It disappoints time and again when so-called evangelicals today resort to saying Romans 5:12 deals only with death of man consequent to Adam's sin and that the rest of Creation is excluded. This is a vain attempt to keep alive their precious evolutionary view of origins. It is an abuse of the Reformation principle of letting Scripture interpret Scripture, let alone an abuse of the revelation of God in Being and Will.
If these so-called evangelicals were principled enough, if they loved the Word of God more than the world, they would interpret Romans 5:12 in the light of what Apostle Paul says only a little later in his Epistle to the Romans. At Romans 8:18-22, Paul provides clear revelation that Adam's sin and God's subsequent judgement affected the entire Creation. This has been a traditional view of the Church but has been corrupted in recent years as so-called evangelicals deepen their love for the world.
I have chosen two respected writers to reaffirm the traditional interpretation of the effect of Adam's sin. I recently quoted Joseph Alleine in a blog and do so again here. Joseph Alleine was a Puritan writer and his classic work "Alarm to the Unconverted" has been a help to many for approximately 400 years. And more recently, Graeme Goldsworthy has been lecturer at Moore Theological College, Sydney, a writer of books - one of which is "Gospel & Kingdom" and also has been a help to Christians in current times.
First to Joseph Alleine. Alleine, while not speaking to Romans 5:12 directly, does present a view of the created order and the plight of fallen man who continues in an unconverted state. You could not read Alleine's argument and be unconvinced he believed Romans 5:12 applied to the whole Creation suffering frustration and death as a consequence of Adam's sin.
On Page 54 of the 1967 Banner of Truth Trust edition Alleine says:
2: Not only man, but the whole visible creation is in vain without conversion. God has made all the visible creatures in heaven and earth for the service of man, and man only is the spokesman for all the rest. Man is, in the world, like the tongue to the body, which speaks for all the members. The other creatures cannot praise their Maker, except by dumb signs and hints to man that he should speak for them. Man is, as it were, the high priest of God's creation, to offer the sacrifice of praise for all his fellow-creatures. The Lord God expects a tribute of praise from all His works. Now, all the rest do bring in their tribute to man, and pay it by his hand. So then, if a man is false, and faithless, and selfish, God is robbed of all, and has no active glory from His works.
O dreadful thought! that God should build such a world as this, and lay out such infinite power, and wisdom, and goodness thereupon, and all in vain; and that man should be guilty, at last, of robbing and spoiling Him of the glory of all! O think of this. While you are unconverted, all the offices of the creatures are in vain to you. Your food nourishes you in vain. The sun holds forth its light to you in vain. Your clothes warm you in vain. Your beast carries you in vain. In a word, the unwearied labour and continued travail of the whole creation, as to you, are in vain. The service of all the creatures that drudge for you, and yield forth their strength unto you, with which you should serve their Maker, is all but lost labour. Hence, 'the whole creation groaneth' (Rom viii 22) under the abuse of unsanctified men who pervert all things to the service of their lusts, quite contrary to the very end of their being.
On Page 65 he says:
What king would take rebels in open hostility into his court? What were this but to betray life, kingdom, government, and all together? If Christ is a King, He must have honour, homage, subjection. Now, to save men while in their natural enmity, were to obscure His dignity, lose His authority, bring contempt on His government, and sell His dear-bought rights for naught.
Likewise, how would a Holy God continually walk in the garden in the cool of the day if that garden and its inhabitants were forever corrupt and the antithesis of his very Being? No, the Word of God makes it clear that all changed after man rebelled. Aside from providing a metaphor of the failure of Israel's leaders, our Lord Jesus Christ, when cursing the fig tree (Matt 21:18-22), demonstrates that the creation is not worthy of continuance if its life sustaining purpose is not realised in the presence of the Son of God i.e. sinless Adam and/or sinless Incarnate God. A frustrated (mutated or faulty) Creation did not exist before Adam sinned.
On Pages 89 & 90 Alleine says this about the state of fallen and unconverted man:
2: The whole creation of God is against you. 'The whole creation', says Paul, 'groaneth and travaileth in pain' (Rom viii 22). But what is it that the creation groans under? The fearful abuse it is subject to in serving the lusts of unsanctified men. And what is it that the creation groans for? For freedom and liberty from this abuse; for the 'creature is not willingly made subject to this bondage (Rom viii 20-21). If the irrational and inanimate creatures had speech and reason, they would cry out under it, as a bondage insufferable, to be abused by the ungodly, contrary to their natures and the ends that the great Creator made them for. It is a saying of an eminent divine, 'The liquor that the drunkard drinks, if it had reason, like a man, to know how shamefully it is abused, would groan in the barrel against him, it would groan in the cup against him, groan in his throat, in his stomach against him; it would fly in his face, if it could speak. And if God should open the mouths of His creatures, as He did the mouth of Balaam's ass, the proud man's garment on his back would groan against him. There is not a creature, if it had reason to know how it is abused till a man be converted, but would groan against him. The land would groan to bear him, the air would groan to give him breath, their houses would groan to dislodge them, their beds would groan to ease them, their food to nourish them, their clothes to cover them, and the creature would groan to give them any help and comfort, so long as they live in sin against God.'
I think this should be a terror to an unconverted soul, to think he is a burden to the creation. 'Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?' (Lk xiii 7). If inanimate creatures could but speak, your food would say, 'Lord, must I nourish such a wretch as this, and yield forth my strength for him, to dishonour Thee? No, I will choke him rather, if Thou wilt give commission.' The very air would say, 'Lord, must I give this man breath, to set his tongue against heaven, and scorn Thy people, and vent his pride and wrath, and filthy talk, and belch out oaths and blasphemy against Thee? No, if Thou wilt but say the word, he shall be breathless for me.' His poor beast would say, 'Lord, must I carry him upon his wicked designs ? No, I will break his bones I will end his days rather, if I may have but leave from Thee.' A wicked man; the earth groans under him, and hell groans for him, till death satisfies both. While the Lord of hosts is against you, be sure the host of the Lord is against you, and all the creatures as it were up in arms till, upon a man's conversion, the controversy being settled between God and him. He makes a covenant of peace with the creature for him (Job v 22-24; Hosea ii 18-20).
The Job and Hosea citations speak of a restored Creation after sin has been dealt with once and for all. Restored to a pre-Fall condition.
As if to confirm all the foregoing, Graeme Goldsworthy in "Gospel & Kingdom" says on page 55 : The universe, in order to remain under man's dominion, and despite its ongoing challenge to man's dominion, is made to fall with man. The world outside the garden is fallen, for man cannot survive in an unfallen world. 'The creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope' (Romans 8:20)". [emphasis in bold mine]
On page 53 Goldsworthy says:
"It is impossible for God to be true to himself and at the same time tolerate his own dethronement by the creature.
It follows that God would hardly tolerate a corrupted Creation for an alleged millions or billions of years before emergence of Man and it is then Man's corruption which prompts judgement from God. Additionally, our Lord Jesus Christ says at Luke 12:48 "For whom much is given, of him shall be much required". Why should Man, to whom so much of the nature of God has be given and to whom responsibility over Creation is delegated, be subjected to only thousands of years (thus far) of frustrated existence while the lesser of Creation has been frustrated for allegedly millions or billions of years longer?
Finally, Goldsworthy says on Page 45: "Man is not the end of a chain of evolution for he is qualitatively distinct from the animals".
Compromising evangelicals do great harm to the integrity of the Word of God. They cast seeds of desolation into the Church. As with any adulterer they misuse the words of their first love. This is no more evident than in their handling of the Word of God in Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Romans.
Sam Drucker
If these so-called evangelicals were principled enough, if they loved the Word of God more than the world, they would interpret Romans 5:12 in the light of what Apostle Paul says only a little later in his Epistle to the Romans. At Romans 8:18-22, Paul provides clear revelation that Adam's sin and God's subsequent judgement affected the entire Creation. This has been a traditional view of the Church but has been corrupted in recent years as so-called evangelicals deepen their love for the world.
I have chosen two respected writers to reaffirm the traditional interpretation of the effect of Adam's sin. I recently quoted Joseph Alleine in a blog and do so again here. Joseph Alleine was a Puritan writer and his classic work "Alarm to the Unconverted" has been a help to many for approximately 400 years. And more recently, Graeme Goldsworthy has been lecturer at Moore Theological College, Sydney, a writer of books - one of which is "Gospel & Kingdom" and also has been a help to Christians in current times.
First to Joseph Alleine. Alleine, while not speaking to Romans 5:12 directly, does present a view of the created order and the plight of fallen man who continues in an unconverted state. You could not read Alleine's argument and be unconvinced he believed Romans 5:12 applied to the whole Creation suffering frustration and death as a consequence of Adam's sin.
On Page 54 of the 1967 Banner of Truth Trust edition Alleine says:
2: Not only man, but the whole visible creation is in vain without conversion. God has made all the visible creatures in heaven and earth for the service of man, and man only is the spokesman for all the rest. Man is, in the world, like the tongue to the body, which speaks for all the members. The other creatures cannot praise their Maker, except by dumb signs and hints to man that he should speak for them. Man is, as it were, the high priest of God's creation, to offer the sacrifice of praise for all his fellow-creatures. The Lord God expects a tribute of praise from all His works. Now, all the rest do bring in their tribute to man, and pay it by his hand. So then, if a man is false, and faithless, and selfish, God is robbed of all, and has no active glory from His works.
O dreadful thought! that God should build such a world as this, and lay out such infinite power, and wisdom, and goodness thereupon, and all in vain; and that man should be guilty, at last, of robbing and spoiling Him of the glory of all! O think of this. While you are unconverted, all the offices of the creatures are in vain to you. Your food nourishes you in vain. The sun holds forth its light to you in vain. Your clothes warm you in vain. Your beast carries you in vain. In a word, the unwearied labour and continued travail of the whole creation, as to you, are in vain. The service of all the creatures that drudge for you, and yield forth their strength unto you, with which you should serve their Maker, is all but lost labour. Hence, 'the whole creation groaneth' (Rom viii 22) under the abuse of unsanctified men who pervert all things to the service of their lusts, quite contrary to the very end of their being.
On Page 65 he says:
What king would take rebels in open hostility into his court? What were this but to betray life, kingdom, government, and all together? If Christ is a King, He must have honour, homage, subjection. Now, to save men while in their natural enmity, were to obscure His dignity, lose His authority, bring contempt on His government, and sell His dear-bought rights for naught.
Likewise, how would a Holy God continually walk in the garden in the cool of the day if that garden and its inhabitants were forever corrupt and the antithesis of his very Being? No, the Word of God makes it clear that all changed after man rebelled. Aside from providing a metaphor of the failure of Israel's leaders, our Lord Jesus Christ, when cursing the fig tree (Matt 21:18-22), demonstrates that the creation is not worthy of continuance if its life sustaining purpose is not realised in the presence of the Son of God i.e. sinless Adam and/or sinless Incarnate God. A frustrated (mutated or faulty) Creation did not exist before Adam sinned.
On Pages 89 & 90 Alleine says this about the state of fallen and unconverted man:
2: The whole creation of God is against you. 'The whole creation', says Paul, 'groaneth and travaileth in pain' (Rom viii 22). But what is it that the creation groans under? The fearful abuse it is subject to in serving the lusts of unsanctified men. And what is it that the creation groans for? For freedom and liberty from this abuse; for the 'creature is not willingly made subject to this bondage (Rom viii 20-21). If the irrational and inanimate creatures had speech and reason, they would cry out under it, as a bondage insufferable, to be abused by the ungodly, contrary to their natures and the ends that the great Creator made them for. It is a saying of an eminent divine, 'The liquor that the drunkard drinks, if it had reason, like a man, to know how shamefully it is abused, would groan in the barrel against him, it would groan in the cup against him, groan in his throat, in his stomach against him; it would fly in his face, if it could speak. And if God should open the mouths of His creatures, as He did the mouth of Balaam's ass, the proud man's garment on his back would groan against him. There is not a creature, if it had reason to know how it is abused till a man be converted, but would groan against him. The land would groan to bear him, the air would groan to give him breath, their houses would groan to dislodge them, their beds would groan to ease them, their food to nourish them, their clothes to cover them, and the creature would groan to give them any help and comfort, so long as they live in sin against God.'
I think this should be a terror to an unconverted soul, to think he is a burden to the creation. 'Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?' (Lk xiii 7). If inanimate creatures could but speak, your food would say, 'Lord, must I nourish such a wretch as this, and yield forth my strength for him, to dishonour Thee? No, I will choke him rather, if Thou wilt give commission.' The very air would say, 'Lord, must I give this man breath, to set his tongue against heaven, and scorn Thy people, and vent his pride and wrath, and filthy talk, and belch out oaths and blasphemy against Thee? No, if Thou wilt but say the word, he shall be breathless for me.' His poor beast would say, 'Lord, must I carry him upon his wicked designs ? No, I will break his bones I will end his days rather, if I may have but leave from Thee.' A wicked man; the earth groans under him, and hell groans for him, till death satisfies both. While the Lord of hosts is against you, be sure the host of the Lord is against you, and all the creatures as it were up in arms till, upon a man's conversion, the controversy being settled between God and him. He makes a covenant of peace with the creature for him (Job v 22-24; Hosea ii 18-20).
The Job and Hosea citations speak of a restored Creation after sin has been dealt with once and for all. Restored to a pre-Fall condition.
As if to confirm all the foregoing, Graeme Goldsworthy in "Gospel & Kingdom" says on page 55 : The universe, in order to remain under man's dominion, and despite its ongoing challenge to man's dominion, is made to fall with man. The world outside the garden is fallen, for man cannot survive in an unfallen world. 'The creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope' (Romans 8:20)". [emphasis in bold mine]
On page 53 Goldsworthy says:
"It is impossible for God to be true to himself and at the same time tolerate his own dethronement by the creature.
It follows that God would hardly tolerate a corrupted Creation for an alleged millions or billions of years before emergence of Man and it is then Man's corruption which prompts judgement from God. Additionally, our Lord Jesus Christ says at Luke 12:48 "For whom much is given, of him shall be much required". Why should Man, to whom so much of the nature of God has be given and to whom responsibility over Creation is delegated, be subjected to only thousands of years (thus far) of frustrated existence while the lesser of Creation has been frustrated for allegedly millions or billions of years longer?
Finally, Goldsworthy says on Page 45: "Man is not the end of a chain of evolution for he is qualitatively distinct from the animals".
Compromising evangelicals do great harm to the integrity of the Word of God. They cast seeds of desolation into the Church. As with any adulterer they misuse the words of their first love. This is no more evident than in their handling of the Word of God in Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Romans.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, May 8, 2011
The Work of the Word of God
The Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney falsely boasts adherence to the Word of God. The so-called evangelical of the Diocese is a far more degenerate kind than the evangelicals of the Reformation, Puritans and the great instruments in Revival of the Eighteenth Century. This is demonstrated in latter day evangelicals' abuse of the Word of God in the Creation account in Genesis. They have inflicted a wound to the integrity of the Word of God that will later open all the more to the detriment of potential Christian inquirers.
This is a far cry from the regard held for the integrity of the Word of God by Puritan writer Joseph Alleine in his classic work Alarm to the Unconverted. Discussing the personal and real instruments of conversion, Alleine has the following instruction on the Word of God:
The real instrument is the Word. We are begotten by the word of truth. It is this that enlightens the eye, that converts the soul (Ps xix 7, 8), that makes us wise to salvation (2 Tim iii 15). This is the incorruptible seed by which we are born again (1 Pet i 23). If we are washed, it is by the Word (Eph v 26). If we are sanctified, it is through the truth (Jn xvii 17). This generates faith, and regenerates us (Rom x 17; Jas i 18).
O ye saints, how you should love the Word, for by this you have been converted! You that have felt its renewing power, make much of it while you live; be ever thankful for it. Tie it about your neck, write it upon your hand, lay it in your bosom. When you go let it lead you, when you sleep let it keep you, when you wake let it talk with you (Prov vi 21-22). Say with the Psalmist, I will never forget thy precepts, for by them thou hast quickened me {Ps cxix 93). You that are unconverted, read the Word with diligence; flock to where it is powerfully preached.
If only the so-called evangelicals of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney would desist from embracing the world and hold firm to the Word of God in Genesis 1. Then will the death of the Diocese be averted and the Kingdom of God advance in this place.
For the benefit of the lazy I provide hereunder the Authorized Version of the passages of the Word of God cited by Joseph Alleine as well as Psalm 119:160 cited later by Alleine.
Ps 19:7-8 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Jn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Jas 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
Prov 6:21-22 My son, keep thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.
Ps 119:93 I will never forget thy precepts: for with them thou hast quickened me.
Ps 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. [emphasis mine]
Sam Drucker
This is a far cry from the regard held for the integrity of the Word of God by Puritan writer Joseph Alleine in his classic work Alarm to the Unconverted. Discussing the personal and real instruments of conversion, Alleine has the following instruction on the Word of God:
The real instrument is the Word. We are begotten by the word of truth. It is this that enlightens the eye, that converts the soul (Ps xix 7, 8), that makes us wise to salvation (2 Tim iii 15). This is the incorruptible seed by which we are born again (1 Pet i 23). If we are washed, it is by the Word (Eph v 26). If we are sanctified, it is through the truth (Jn xvii 17). This generates faith, and regenerates us (Rom x 17; Jas i 18).
O ye saints, how you should love the Word, for by this you have been converted! You that have felt its renewing power, make much of it while you live; be ever thankful for it. Tie it about your neck, write it upon your hand, lay it in your bosom. When you go let it lead you, when you sleep let it keep you, when you wake let it talk with you (Prov vi 21-22). Say with the Psalmist, I will never forget thy precepts, for by them thou hast quickened me {Ps cxix 93). You that are unconverted, read the Word with diligence; flock to where it is powerfully preached.
If only the so-called evangelicals of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney would desist from embracing the world and hold firm to the Word of God in Genesis 1. Then will the death of the Diocese be averted and the Kingdom of God advance in this place.
For the benefit of the lazy I provide hereunder the Authorized Version of the passages of the Word of God cited by Joseph Alleine as well as Psalm 119:160 cited later by Alleine.
Ps 19:7-8 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Jn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Jas 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
Prov 6:21-22 My son, keep thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.
Ps 119:93 I will never forget thy precepts: for with them thou hast quickened me.
Ps 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. [emphasis mine]
Sam Drucker
Thursday, May 5, 2011
The obvious slips right by
John in your comment on the Forked Tongue post the other day, you mentioned that giant of theological insight Gordon Cheng.
A post on the Anglican blog reminded me of another giant: John Dixon. He who looks deeply into Genesis 1 and finds hidden clues to its not being direct revelation of events that make sense in this world.
Dixon looks past the obvious structure of Genesis 1: the sequence of days, the 'five-fold formula' and the order of events, to say that the resoundingly obvious intent of the author is not to be found in what he has clearly written, but in is in some structure below the surface...something the church has missed for millenia...I don't think so!
But the great irony in Dixon's and similar appraoches that think the sub-surface of the text carries its main message is that their sub-surface 'code' fails to address the lexical-grammatical content of the text and says nothing about the direct content which the 'code' ultimately sets to one side! It doesn't help us with reading the text because it doesn't really explain why the author wrote 'A' to communicate 'B'. The text turns to dust in the hands of such exegetes.
A post on the Anglican blog reminded me of another giant: John Dixon. He who looks deeply into Genesis 1 and finds hidden clues to its not being direct revelation of events that make sense in this world.
Dixon looks past the obvious structure of Genesis 1: the sequence of days, the 'five-fold formula' and the order of events, to say that the resoundingly obvious intent of the author is not to be found in what he has clearly written, but in is in some structure below the surface...something the church has missed for millenia...I don't think so!
But the great irony in Dixon's and similar appraoches that think the sub-surface of the text carries its main message is that their sub-surface 'code' fails to address the lexical-grammatical content of the text and says nothing about the direct content which the 'code' ultimately sets to one side! It doesn't help us with reading the text because it doesn't really explain why the author wrote 'A' to communicate 'B'. The text turns to dust in the hands of such exegetes.
Monday, May 2, 2011
2 books: forked tongue
A while ago in Southern Cross, the SAD monthly rag, there was a letter on when dinosaurs were created: the letter pointed out the logic that they must have been there at the time of Eden, because they were animals; thus, created on day 6.
In response, a local genius, one Stenning, pointed out, as though no one had ever heard of it, that there were 'two books' that God used to communicate: the book of revelation and the book of nature. And anyway, this giant of scholarship pontificated, Genesis 1 was poetry.
Well I think we've can join most Hebraists and disagree that it is NOT poetry (and setting aside the well begged question that poetry cannot be factual), and also put paid to the logic of the two books model, attributed to Francis Bacon.
The basic thrust of the recourse to 2 books is that it can be used to avoid the implications of what we read in Genesis 1.
This approach attempts to equate a real book (the Bible) and a metaphorical book ('nature') only set in words by people’s ideas; not God's revelation. As we know, people are prone to error, bias and philosophical pre-conceptions.
A couple of these pre-conceptions are: firstly, that an enquiry about matters important in the Bible can start outside the Bible, framed independently of God; and, secondly, that the Bible cannot make meaningful reference to origins. Is it strange that the Bible would have an interest in the continuity of time and space and matter, which construct the only world we know?
To claim that the Bible cannot inform us about creation in its own terms implies that God is not directly our creator, or author of the real world in which Genesis sets redemptive history. This claim means that the only information we have about his creation is denied to directly refer to the world created. Other terms than God’s are substituted whose effect is to obscure God's connection with the world. The theological risk of using human ideas to critique the Scripture, instead of the other way around, is that we will end up with a god of our own imagining!
In response, a local genius, one Stenning, pointed out, as though no one had ever heard of it, that there were 'two books' that God used to communicate: the book of revelation and the book of nature. And anyway, this giant of scholarship pontificated, Genesis 1 was poetry.
Well I think we've can join most Hebraists and disagree that it is NOT poetry (and setting aside the well begged question that poetry cannot be factual), and also put paid to the logic of the two books model, attributed to Francis Bacon.
The basic thrust of the recourse to 2 books is that it can be used to avoid the implications of what we read in Genesis 1.
This approach attempts to equate a real book (the Bible) and a metaphorical book ('nature') only set in words by people’s ideas; not God's revelation. As we know, people are prone to error, bias and philosophical pre-conceptions.
A couple of these pre-conceptions are: firstly, that an enquiry about matters important in the Bible can start outside the Bible, framed independently of God; and, secondly, that the Bible cannot make meaningful reference to origins. Is it strange that the Bible would have an interest in the continuity of time and space and matter, which construct the only world we know?
To claim that the Bible cannot inform us about creation in its own terms implies that God is not directly our creator, or author of the real world in which Genesis sets redemptive history. This claim means that the only information we have about his creation is denied to directly refer to the world created. Other terms than God’s are substituted whose effect is to obscure God's connection with the world. The theological risk of using human ideas to critique the Scripture, instead of the other way around, is that we will end up with a god of our own imagining!
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Leupold Genesis part 55 verse 25
25. And God made the wild beasts of the earth after their kind and the domestic animals after their kind, and the reptiles of the ground after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
The report as to how God proceeded to carry out the thing He ordains in v. 24, in v. 25 inverts the order of the classes--a merely chiastic inversion--and provides a comment upon "reptiles" by calling them "reptiles of the ground." Strictly speaking, the inverted order of names changes from 1, 2, 3 to 3, 1, 2. Then the expression "after their kind" is separately added to each class. The word for "ground," 'adhamah, used with "reptiles" (for reptiles creep on the ground) most likely is to be associated with the root 'adhom, meaning a "reddish-brown," a term descriptive of the covering of topsoil found wherever "ground" covers the rock layers. Lest anyone suppose that perhaps portions of the animal world may originally have been characterized by some defect, we find that all: meets with divine approval: "God saw that it was excellent" (cf. v. 4). No blessing is specifically mentioned as in v. 22, apparently because the writer is hurrying to the climax.
The report as to how God proceeded to carry out the thing He ordains in v. 24, in v. 25 inverts the order of the classes--a merely chiastic inversion--and provides a comment upon "reptiles" by calling them "reptiles of the ground." Strictly speaking, the inverted order of names changes from 1, 2, 3 to 3, 1, 2. Then the expression "after their kind" is separately added to each class. The word for "ground," 'adhamah, used with "reptiles" (for reptiles creep on the ground) most likely is to be associated with the root 'adhom, meaning a "reddish-brown," a term descriptive of the covering of topsoil found wherever "ground" covers the rock layers. Lest anyone suppose that perhaps portions of the animal world may originally have been characterized by some defect, we find that all: meets with divine approval: "God saw that it was excellent" (cf. v. 4). No blessing is specifically mentioned as in v. 22, apparently because the writer is hurrying to the climax.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
