Sydney Anglican Heretics

Satan's Advantages From Christians' Infirmities (Part 1)

2012-01-25T21:14:00.001+11:00

In two instalments I propose to repeat a well written article, under the same title of this blog, by Maurice Roberts in the May 1991 issue of The Banner of Truth Journal. I shall make my own concluding comments in Part 2.

"There must be something approaching to joy among the devils in hell just as there is joy among evil men in this world. The joy of angels and Christian persons arises from their receiving news of sinners repenting and turning to God. The joy (if we may call it by that name) of devils springs from their witnessing anything which appears to damage the cause of God or to wound and weaken the witness of his people upon earth.

We suppose that the devil and his angels find satisfaction through the triumphing of evil in the measure in which such evil is promoted by godly men. That evil should be advanced by faithless and ungodly men of this world, therefore, must afford to demons a satisfaction at the lower end of the scale. But when, through infirmity or prejudice, godly persons do Satan's work for him - this we may reasonably suppose - is the pinnacle and summit of Satan's joy.

There can be no doubt that Satan employs immense resources of time, skill and effort to win over persons with influence in God's kingdom to do him service. There is more evidence in the Bible for this than one might at first suppose. The general rule of operation used by Satan, it would appear, is the obvious one of striking against God by means of His closest friends and most honoured servants. In this way Satan endeavours to inflict as great a blow against heaven as possible and to
injure God's work from the least-expected quarter.

In all this, let it be said, we do not forget that God's purpose is eternal and inviolable. But we draw attention to the love of cunning and 'subtlety' (Gen. 3:1), the serpentine and crooked (Isa. 27:1) way in which Satan is fond of working. It is this 'cunning craftiness' (Eph. 4:14) which is the distinctive hallmark of all his age-old industry of duplicity against the people of God. Satan's joy, to put it plainly, is most seen in his using God's best instruments against Himself

The above observations are surely borne out by the evidence. When Satan would murder mankind at a stroke he employed as his best ally the wife of Adam, our covenant-head. Here was the world's first and purest lady and the mother of mankind. We all fell in Adam. But it was through the woman given to be his greatest earthly blessing that Adam was induced to murder all his posterity. What satisfaction it must have been to the tempter that he got 'the mother of all living' to be the first instrument in their death! No mother's love was so perfect as hers - and no temptation so deadly as hers.

We see the same dark hand at work as soon as God had formed Israel into a covenanted people to himself. Even while Moses is still on Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments, Satan is busy fostering apostasy among the people. This he does, not by means of some outsider, but by the hand of Aaron, Moses' brother, on whose authority the golden calf is made. Could any craft have been more crafty or could any mischief have been more mischievous? While the one brother serves God on the holy mount, the other serves Satan beneath its shadow. Even as the finger of God graves the second commandment in letters of stone, the very brother of Moses himself is at work graving an idol to cause the people to break it! The subtlety is too great to emanate from any other mind than that of Satan. The irony in wickedness is stamped all over with the serpent's image.

The same pattern is visible in the career of Saul, the first king. Here is a man who receives his kingship very definitely from God himself (1 Sam. 10:lf). If any man in history could claim to sit on a throne by 'divine right' (to use a phrase much loved by Stuart Kings), it was Saul the son of Kish. How ironical then that such a king should be a disaster both to himself and to the people of God! What a joy there was in hell when Saul, the anointed of the Lord, consulted with the witch of Endor and, next day, died ignominiously on the field of battle! 'Tell it not in Gath' was David's mournful reaction. It was too tragic not to be one of Satan's special strategems.

We may well suppose that the crucifixion of Christ at the hands of his Jewish countrymen is the supreme irony ever fostered by the devil. It is history's perfect masterpiece of hellish subterfuge because it is history's greatest crime and it was committed - alas! alas! - by the most devout and religious people history had ever known up to that time That some hidden, and lurking power of spiritual wickedness lay behind the frenzied hatred of the Jews is plain to every reader of the Scriptures: 'This is your hour and the power of darkness' (Luke 22:53). Our instinctive love for the Jews as a people only imensifies our sadness, when we reflect on the awful fact that 'he came unto his own and his own received him not' (John 1:11). In Christian compassion we long for the day when their insensate cry of 'His blood be on us and on our children!' will cease to call down judgment upon them and they as a people will receive the 'Spirit of grace and supplications' and so will 'look on him whom they have pierced' (Zech. 12:10) in repentance and faith.

That Peter did the devil's work handsomely on one occasion is further evidence that Satan always seeks to use the friends closest to God to do his work for him. The lessons which flow to us from the words of Christ on the occasion in question are full of solemn instruction and warning to every minister, elder, church and Christian. Christ's 'Get thee behind me, Satan' (Matt. 16:23) leaves us in no doubt that the best of Christians, the best of preachers, the holiest of saints and the most intimate of Christ's friends may, all unwittingly, do the devil's work for him on occasion. That they do it unconsciously and with the purest of motives goes far to excuse them in our eyes. But this very sincerity makes their influence all the more likely to do harm where they are most convinced they are doing only good."

Final instalment in a few days.

Sam Drucker

There's no more room in the inn, John Dickson

2012-01-21T13:52:00.004+11:00

We're all, by now, quite familiar at this blog with John's own take on Genesis 1. The gist of it is that the chapter is so chock-a-block full of literary devices that it just can't be an historical list. There's no proof attached to this, just a wild assertion that his word is true. As others have pointed out, it's all very circular: anything with lots of literary devices can't be history, Genesis 1 has lots, so therefore Genesis 1 isn't history.

Such logical parsimony grates like one of those common enough modern peaches that lures you to buying it: Looks beautiful in the store but take it home and it tastes like leather, and just as insipid.

Anyway, now another has come along and taken poor SAD apostle John to task over his underwhelming “scholarship”. See here

Sydney Episcopalian Mission Impossible

2012-01-16T00:02:00.002+11:00

The cruise liner Costa Concordia running aground in the past couple of days brings to mind a recurring feature of ships sinking - there is a lot of movement on deck.

Depending on the urgency of the situation the pace of movement varies but there is always movement as passengers and crew seek a place offering the best opportunity for preservation of life.

That scene has its parallel in the Church and never was it more evident in the so-called evangelical church in the latter half of the 20th Century and into the 21st Century. Traditional denominational barriers have collapsed in that period as Christians seek safe haven from the onset of liberalism and consequent departure from recognising Scripture as the inspired Word of God.

While churches which brought on the slide bemoan their falling numbers and rising financial concerns those churches which gained from the transfer growth have been prone to erroneously believing they "have it all together".

Just as a sinking ship has no place affording long term survival so a church compromising at one level or another on the Word of God can offer no long term benefit to Christians.

Deuteronomy 32:36 has application here:

"The Lord will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left, slave or free."

As suggested in recent days by John in his blog, much of the evangelical church, including the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, espouses faith in and upholding of the Word of God but, in reality, they do not trust the Word implicitly. Their failing is at one or more points but it can all be put down to two key themes - they have diluted the Gospel by turning it into a man-centred message and they have ceased to make the Word of God the rule of all practice.

With respect to many co-called evangelical churches and most of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney the thoughts of man override all past interpretation of Genesis 1 to the extent of ruling out having the Word of God the rule of practice. It is no longer what Scripture clearly says but what man says it ought to be saying.

This is a recipe for failure and it is being worked out in practice. The mission of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney to get 10% of the population of Sydney into Bible based churches by this year (although former Bishop Piper said it was to be year 2010) shows no valid sign of being fulfilled. Part of the strategy - Connect '09 - could not possibly be seen as giving the impetus for mission success. The smoothing words and celebrated 'pockets' of encouragement are a long way from the fervent activity one would expect to be seeing if the mission was on track.

Further, the Archbishop's production of figures suggesting a 5% increase in Sydney Episcopalian church attendance for year 2010 fails to identify transfer growth from denominations which have have made greater steps of departure from the Word of God than the Sydney Diocese. Transfer growth as part of only a 5% increase in Episcopalian pewsitting is a far cry from 10% of the population of Sydney being in Bible based churches.

Sydney Diocese, if you persist in trusting the word of man over the Word of God and acting in your own strength instead of God's strength you will run head first into the conviction of Deuteronomy 32:36.

Sam Drucker

Rob Forsyth, you've done it again!

2012-01-13T12:23:00.003+11:00

In the Herald this morning there was a small column about the squabbles over in Manifest Destiny land between various factions in the Episcopalian Church. It concerned the issue of who owned church property when there is break-up, in this case, over the ordination of homosexuals. The piece ended with a few well-chosen comments by our old mate Rob Forsyth.

Rob was quick to point out that the Sydney Anglican Episcopalian Diocese stood back-to-back with their less liberal brothers on the matter. After all, he underscored, faithfulness to Christ was paramount and “at the end of the day, Christians must put honouring and following Christ ahead of everything, including their buildings.”

Sounds great: it's just what you'd expect a bishop to say. But don't forget this is the same guy who erases the immediate hand of Christ at every opportunity presented to him. Take for example his comments about the miracle of the Red Sea parting: "The same can be said of other genuine miracles. By miracle here I am talking not about events in which the remarkable timing of a natural event has significance, like possibly the wind blowing back the Red Sea in Exodus 15."

And: "One point of clarification. I do not think Exodus 14.21 is a miracle as such, but I do believe that the Lord did bring it about that the sea was turned into dry land, by providential use of so called 'natural' means." It sounds so nice, so,ahhh, pious, that you allow God some input at this point.

Let's see what else Rob shies away from:
(i) He has problems with the Virgin Birth.
(ii) Denies Adam and Eve were real people
(iii) He doesn’t believe that Jesus miraculously created the heavens and the earth
(iv) He believes that Jesus used secondary principles to create and not through himself.
(v) He believes that death is natural
(vi) He believes that death is Jesus' preferred method of creation
(vii) He believes that time and chance are the means by which things happen in nature
(viii) He doesn’t believe that God used wisdom in the creation
(ix) He believes that God incorporated errors into the creation from the beginning
(x) He believes that secular science should interpret the Bible
(xi) He doesn’t really take God at his word and prefers to make his own story up about how God did it, even mocking those who trust God and take his word as it is.
(xii) Rob parts company with all theologians prior to Darwin on origins, including Paul and the earliest of Christians, preferring to align himself with men like Spong and Dawkins.

But my favourite of favourite quotes is the following “[I]f, in fact, the earth was not old and life did not gradually develop, it would be a catastrophic blow to the [scientific] disciplines themselves. Quite a cost….One of the key assumptions in my approach…is that God does not teach what is false, and therefore the Bible, as the word of God, will not teach what is false. I think we can be certain that if the most basic observation tools or the most well-supported conclusions of science say that…[the earth] is very old and that life forms appeared gradually over a great deal of time, where the Bible appears to teach otherwise or to suggest otherwise, this cannot be what God is teaching. We have to change our interpretation of what God is saying to us in Scripture…It is much more certain that our interpretation of Scripture is open to question than the whole foundations of the entire discipline of modern science are faulty.” Says it all, doesn't it!

No, Rob. You're not changing our interpretation of Scripture – you're changing what Scripture clearly says. In fact, you're changing Jesus' own words : 'And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying....''for in six days I, the LORD, made the heavens and the earth.'' (Exodus 31:12,17). Let me think through this problem: the creator Jesus and his claim that he did it in 6 days Vs a 43 year old geologist, his expertise and his laboratory chock full of tools that are never-ever wrong and are so accurate they can take us back in time and know exactly how much K-40 and Ar-40 there originally was and if something, anything, happened along that putative 4.5 billion year journey that would alter the decay rate? Man, that is such a difficult problem. I guess I'll have to put all my faith in the guy with the white coat!

For the earlier thread on Rob see here.

The Word of God Under Assault - Moses a Victim!

2012-01-08T20:52:00.005+11:00

I am indebted to O. Palmer Robertson for his article on "Prophecy Today?" in the August/September 1990 issue of the Banner of Truth Journal. The article goes in a certain direction but the foundation of the article has helped me crystallize my thoughts on treatment being given to the word of Moses by many in the Church today. I have extracted sections of O. Palmer Robertson's article for this purpose:

"Biblical prophecy had its origins in the Old Testament, which is a fact of some significance. Prophecy is not a distinctly New Testament phenomenon, but one which dates back to the most ancient experiences of God's people.

Moses was the fountainhead of the prophetic movement in the Old Testament. As a matter of fact, Old Testament prophecy reached its point of highest glory in its beginning with Moses. Contrary to all concepts of an evolutionary development of religion in Israel, the apex of the prophetic movement found its expression in Moses, the original prophet and law-giver in Israel. He played a most unique role as mediator of the word of God to the people of Israel.

God's people themselves had strong feelings on this matter. They pleaded with Moses: Give us a substitute for this terrifying experience of hearing the thunder of God's voice [Deut. 18:16]. In response to the plea of the people. God provided a prophetic mediator and established the prophetic office. One man would receive the word of God in the mountain and subsequently mediate the word to the trembling people below. In this way prophecy had its origins.

Several significant conclusions may be reached about the nature of biblical prophecy as a consequence of the circumstances surrounding its establishment. The origins of prophecy reveal matters of continuing significance about the essence of the phenomenon.

First of all, the small, simple voice of the prophet substitutes for all the awesome signs of Sinai. The thunderous voice of God, the lightning, the fire, the smoke, the earthquake, the peal of the trumpet growing ever louder - all these frightening phenomena find their replacement in the voice of a single Israelite speaking among his brothers. Despite its relatively quiet tone, every word of the prophet comes as the very voice of God.

Secondly, the origin of the truly prophetic word is not to be found in the subjective experiences of a man. The prophet is not hallucinating when he declares, 'Thus says the Lord.' God's own word has come to the prophet, and finds its vehicle of communication in the chosen man's voice. God, not the subjective experiences of man, originates the prophetic word.

Thirdly, the word of the prophet is not primarily predictive in nature. Moses' main task in delivering the law at Sinai was not to predict the future, but to declare God's revealed will. Not a single prediction is found in the 'ten words', the heart of the revelation communicated through Moses.

The common distinction between the 'forth-telling' of the prophetic word and the 'fore-telling' of the future by the prophet must be understood correctly. From the beginning, the 'telling forth' of God's word was just as much a revelation of the infallible, inerrant and perfect word of God as was his 'fore-telling' of the future. It simply is not the case that the speaking forth of the prophet on various issues of the day was a kind of 'preaching' with diminished authority, while his 'fore-telling' of the future was inspired, inerrant and infallible in its character.

As a matter of fact, the essence of prophetism is always defined in the Bible in terms of this 'speaking forth' of the very word of God, whether or not it involved a foretelling of the future. Occasionally the prophet might predict a future event. Obviously, this kind of insight could occur only by divine revelation. But the essence of prophecy was not determined by the predictive element, but by the nature of the prophet's utterance as being the very word of God."

While O. Palmer Robertson does not address it here (because his concern is misuse of fore-telling today) it is blindingly obvious that particulars of events of the past to which Moses would not be acquainted with, such as the first five days and part of the sixth day of Creation (when man did not exist) had to be given to Moses by divine revelation. God, alone, had to be the source of this revelation.

It is my contention (and I am not alone on this) that the revelation contained in Genesis 1 was given to Moses by God at Sinai. The particulars contained in Genesis 2 are what Adam, from his understanding, passed down to subsequent generations. It was known to Moses. Both accounts were 'told-forth' by Moses for our benefit.

As a prophet, Moses (like later prophets) had to 'tell-forth' some extensive amounts of information from God to the people of God. Consider for a moment the particulars of design and furnishing of the Tabernacle which God gave Moses and Moses had to pass on to craftsmen and artisans. Is there not an order in each specification and stage that is rhythmic and reminiscent of the structure of the Creation account in Genesis 1? Added to this is the abundance of regulations for living as the people of God for which an error in transmission by Moses had severe consequences.

Prophets of God were given capacity from the Holy Spirit of God to get it right. O. Palmer Robertson provides some further help here:

"Consider ...:

Exodus 4:14, 15: 'And you shall set the words in his mouth. And I shall be with your mouth and with his mouth, and I will teach both of you what you shall do. And he [that is, Aaron as prophet for Moses] shall speak to the people for you. And it will be that he shall be to you for a mouth and you shall be to him for God.'

'Mouth to mouth': the descriptive phrase underscores the immediacy of the relationship that exists between God's Word and the prophetic word. The divine revelation goes directly from the mouth of God to the mouth of the prophet. The word of the prophet is the very Word of God. God does not communicate his revelation to the prophet 'thought to thought' or 'mind to mind', but 'mouth to mouth'. Prophetism, by definition, is concerned not merely with the reception of the Word of God, but with its communication as well. This description of the mode of communication of the prophetic word underscores the absolute perfections of the prophet's speech in representing God's Word. By a 'mouth to mouth' communication, God's Word is preserved in its integrity as it passes through the vehicle of the prophet."

Moses was the first appointed by God to prophesy as to the event and particulars of Creation occurring before and including the creation of man. Moses conveys the very utterance of God to man on Creation.

Today we are confronted by so-called Evangelicals overturning the very utterance of God on the events of the Creation Week. Unwilling as they are to stand with the faithful of past ages they cower in the face of embarrassment and ridicule from the world. They would sooner run from God than run from man because man is nearer to their heart than God. Oh sure, they would not agree with this assertion for they have an excuse -they are simply "trying to [re]interpret the intention of Moses in Genesis 1". But let there be no doubt they are casting aside the 'Mouth to mouth' Word of God.

They present themselves as false prophets and their number is great. Let the church beware of these wolves.

Sam Drucker

Maintaining the Faith Involves Identifying the Enemy.

2012-01-01T19:00:00.007+11:00

As the church slides deeper into declension one looks for and, at times, finds outposts which stand resistant to the slide. The Banner of Truth Trust has been one such outpost although I am not close enough to know how it stands today. At least up to June 1990 it stood firm. I suspect it still does with Iain Murray continuing as Editorial Director.

The following is an extract of an article in the June 1990 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal by Geoffrey Thomas concerning Stuart Olyott, Missionary to Switzerland:

"There are two services on the Lord's Day. First there is the Reformed Baptist church of 80 folk in their own building up on the third floor of an apartment and office block. From that French service Stuart and Doris drive off quickly to Lausanne's English congregation which meets in the building of an Open Plymouth Brethren Assembly after their morning service has ended (Doris says, 'His brain just switches from one language to another'). One of the officers takes the first part of the service and then Stuart preaches. He was continuing a series on 'What is a Christian?' on the Sunday we were there. In all his work. and with these many doors of service opening, like every real missionary, he is creating more and more opportunities and is crying out for help.

Stuart Olyott's present concern is with the direction of Reformed ministers on the Continent, seeing a trend which appears to be taking the Bible out of the hands of the ordinary believer and limiting understanding of its message to the technical scholar. Understanding the opening chapters of Genesis is the focus of this issue. 'What was the intention of the author?' men ask, for if he intended not to speak historically but theologically then what is found in Genesis 1-3, if read as theology, offers no problems. Ultimately, this method of interpretation is trying to distinguish between the concepts of the biblical writers and the concepts of God himself (contextualisation). Stuart Olyott accepts E. J. Young's conclusion, that 'Genesis [chapter] one is not poetry or saga or myth, but straightforward, trustworthy history, and, inasmuch as it is a divine revelation, accurately records those matters of which it speaks. That Genesis one is historical may be seen from these considerations: (1) It sustains an intimate relationship with the remainder of the book. The remainder of the book (i.e., The Generations) presupposes the Creation Account, and the Creation Account prepares for what follows. The two portions of Genesis are integral parts of the book and complement one another. (2) The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking. There are poetic accounts of the creation and these form a striking contrast to Genesis one. (3) The New Testament regards certain events mentioned in Genesis one as actually having taken place. We may safely allow the New Testament to be our interpreter of this mighty first chapter of the Bible' (Studies in Genesis One, p. 105).

Men like E. J. Young and John Murray stood firmly on such principles as that there is one meaning of biblical texts, that that meaning is the divine thought, that that meaning is discernible to men, and that meaning is inseparably tied to the jot and tittle of biblical revelation. But today there are Reformed scholars and preachers who, in the name of hermeneutics, are studiously using almost every kind of unbelieving radical criticism, albeit in small doses. As a result, the meaning of Scripture is devalued and so is the seriousness with which the Reformed confessions are held. The purpose of Christian scholarship should be to clarify and explain divine revelation and not to confuse the church. Evidently considerable confusion is now issuing from certain distinguished seminary professors on the Continent.

The central question as Stuart Olyott sees it is, What is the meaning of the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1-3? The evident complexities offered by current teachers have several threatening dangers, chief among which is that it puts Scripture outside the reach of the child of God who has no formal training in rabbinic literature, middle-eastern culture or its literary genres. It would seem that really to understand the first chapters of the Bible one must be an expert in all kinds of esoteric subjects. And if one does not have the scholarship credentials that the learned national leaders possess, too bad for such a man! He cannot really know what the Bible teaches. Effectively the Scriptures are taken from God's people and are made the exclusive property of learned men.

That Mr Olyott has raised matters like this in France and Switzerland as a foreign missionary has not commended him to certain national pastors and teachers. But for him the issue is one of faithfulness to Jesus Christ. The Lord taught that God's infinite word is in its jot and tittle. The specific words of Genesis 1-3 are God's thoughts and word [Matt. 5:18]. This means the Scripture is clearly understandable to men and should be taught in its exact language and meaning to men. They should keep even the very least of its commandments and teach them to others. Jesus clearly teaches that Genesis 1-3 is not a mere sign pointing to the meaning in God's mind. It is exactly what God wants to say to us. All the finery of contemporary scholarship is not needed in order to understand the message of God. It is 'near' us and 'in our mouth'."

Pity Moore Theological College doesn't take the stance advocated by the article.

Sam Drucker

Luke?...maybe...

2011-12-30T10:12:00.003+11:00

Michael Jensen, singing, perhaps "maybe" at Christmas Carols service at St Andrew's Cathedral: Christ came for us...maybe?

REPLACEMENT ISRAEL HAS ITS OWN DAGON!

2011-12-26T21:02:00.003+11:00

"Then the Philistines took the ark of God and brought it from Ebenezer to Ashdod. When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon and set it by Dagon. (1 Sam. 5:1-2)

[And it came to pass that the Israelites considered why they had failed to triumph against the Philistines even though the ark of God had been taken with the Israelites into battle. Eventually, many said it was because Dagon, the god of the Philistines, had much to say about how the world was made and how the world functioned. They said that Dagon should be honoured alongside the God of their fathers. Others cried that this was wrong and that Israel should hold only to the God of their fathers. However, these were few in number and the supporters of Dagon in the camp of the Israelites prevailed. It followed that Israel worshiped a new god, a god who had something of the God of their fathers and something the god of Philistines - Dagon.

In the years hence Israel became more and more like the surrounding nations though it seemed to Israel that it was successful in proselytizing some citizens of those nations. All the while, however, Israel was becoming less distinctive. The gods of the other nations were also seen to be as impressive as the god who was a mix of Dagon and the God of their fathers. So much was this so that these gods too were absorbed into the faith of Israel while the proselytes simply brought to Israel a faith in a god who was amenable to what they wanted to believe and how they wanted to live. As such, the proselytes were of no benefit to Israel.

The day came when a distant nation grew in power. Its people worshiped another god. It was the plan of the priests of this nation that their people should infiltrate all the nations of the world and establish the faith of their god so that their god would rule the world. These people were most prolific in producing sons and daughters within the nations of the world. Some priests of Israel saw the danger and urged the people of Israel to pray to their god. Yet the god they now worshiped was deaf, mute and without capacity to help Israel whatsoever. And so it was that the distant nation overcame the nations of the world including that once great nation Israel. Only a remnant remained in the world whose trust was in the God of the fathers of Israel. This remnant were persecuted with many afflictions but their hope remained in the one true God of their fathers. Their hope was not in vain for the God of their fathers had not forgotten them. He took them out of the world, destroyed the world and made a new Creation where there was no suffering or death, only everlasting joy in the presence of their fathers and suffuse with the glory of their God.]

Well might that have been the story but the time was not right for the God of Israel. The right number from all over the earth had not yet come in for establishment of His kingdom. The scenario described in parenthesis had a time for fulfilment sometime later.

What actually occurred in the temple of Dagon was as follows:

"And when the people of Ashdod arose early in the morning, there was Dagon, fallen on its face to the earth before the ark of the Lord. So they took Dagon and set it in its place again. And when they arose early the next morning, there was Dagon, fallen on its face to the ground before the ark of the Lord. The head of Dagon and both the palms of its hands were broken off on the threshold; only Dagon’s torso was left of it. Therefore neither the priests of Dagon nor any who come into Dagon’s house tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod to this day." (1 Sam. 5:3-5)

Nevertheless, the alternative scenario is in progress today.

Sam Drucker

Those oh so hip Sydney Anglicans

2011-12-20T09:28:00.002+11:00

I've just flicked through the latest edition of Southern Cross and was quite surprised to learn that Peter Jensen is now an avid supporter of creationism, well at least of one of its main historical planks. Peter says in his Christmas piece that "The coming of Jesus at the end of history will be sudden. It will catch people unprepared. Just as the people in the days of Noah scoffed and refused to heed his warnings"

Apparently, unlike his uber-postmodernal heir, Peter maybe, just maybe, believes that Noah was a real historical flesh and blood man, like he and I, and not some composite of far too many literary devices to number fashioned along a similar line to John Dickson's spineless, pseudo-academic and ultimately vacuous theory of Genesis 1 being neither history nor non-history because....hang on...wait...wait..wait...while John confirms this by way of his hotline to Moses, the one none of us has except him and all the other liberals...yes, yes, yes, thanks John for your well-connected transcendent insight...yes I can say on John's authority that Jesus didn't really mean Noah was an historical figure so it still leaves open the possibility that Peter may still believe in a literary Noah who, literally, I mean, literalistically, through repetition, chiasm, parallelism and rhyme, wrote that the world, all the world was not actually totally destroyed, despite Noah writing 12 times or so that it was.

If you're confused, Merry Christmas!

By the way Peter, I notice in your Christmas message there's not a single instance that you mention that God loves us. Some gospel you preach, Archbishop of death.

So what message of life did Southern Cross feel the need to impress upon the reader and the lost world? Hey, it's the Halloween message. Yes, dear Christians, the Sydney Anglicans believe that they are called by God to get...let the Holy Spirit inspired preacher of God's Good news and the rag's reporter tell it as it was:

'Jason Partridge, the assistant minister at St Mary's [says] "If the community does something for Halloween, it suggests there are [people who are interested in the spirit world. We've got a lot to say about death – [and here comes their dutiful “Christian” one liner] we've got the truth on death through Jesus Christ, so let's talk about that."

Have you Jason? No, really, have you really got the truth about Jesus? I doubt it, mate, I really can't see it anywhere. I digress..

'The evening congregation at St Mary's embraced the Halloween service positively by decorating the church, creating special Halloween snacks for supper and coming in costume. "We saw a range of dress-ups, from vampires to Supergirl to cats – and someone even came as Michael Jackson," Mr Partridge says.'

What a great time you apparently had Jason. I'm really sad I missed out. You know what, here's a suggestion. You do remember from your time at Moore that parable Jesus said about going out and searching the countryside for wedding guests to come to the celebration because the elect couldn't be bothered. Well, around about March next year why don't you go down to Oxford St, in drag of course, and invite all the gays and lesbians to come back to St Mary's to your Mardi Gras mass. And don't forget to send me an invitation and I'll do my best Divine impersonation, but I'll leave the pooch at home if that's alright with you.

Sydney Anglicans (Episcopalians) and Their Failing Hope.

2011-12-18T21:59:00.001+11:00

"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed - in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself the the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true:

'Death has been swallowed up in victory

Where, O death, is your victory?

Where, O death, is your sting?'

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law." (1Cor. 15:50-56)

God's act of Glorification of the saints on the final day cannot be the subject of a well thought out theology by Theistic Evolutionists. We have demonstrated here previously how defective is the Theistic Evolutionist's theology of origins. The defect is magnified when one considers future Glorification of the saints.

Theistic Evolutionists 'shuffle their feet' a bit and each gives a slightly different answer when you ask them to explain just what God did in creating man through an evolutionary process. However, their case generally involves God creating through 'simple' life forms to animals/primates to man with man being instilled with special features over the animals eg a soul and being created in the image of God.

A thinking person, knowing God as revealed in Jesus Christ, would wonder why God would use such a cumbersome procedure but space must be left to conclude that the god of the Theistic Evolutionist lacks the capacity to create, instantaneously, each life form as Scripture depicts in the six days of the Creation event.

As suggested already, to skip over to the New Testament and consider the various passages of Scripture dealing with the Resurrection of the dead and the Glorification of the saints - we have chosen Apostle Paul's first epistle to the saints in Corinth - one is confronted by the enormity of the task awaiting the god of the Theistic Evolutionist.

Glorification will involve considerable change. This change will be the greatest since the days of Creation and it will be more momentous in many ways even than Creation itself.

The act of Glorification cannot be viewed as entirely simple but must be recognised as complex. The circumstances in which the saints will find themselves when it occurs require that this should be so. For one thing, the disintegrated bodies of the saints who died long before will each require to be reassembled and reorganised. Their souls, which have for so long been in the glory of the Intermediate State, will need to be reunited with their bodies. They will then no longer be 'unclothed' but 'clothed upon' (2 Cor. 5:4). In the case of those believers who died, the act of Glorification will involve an operation of God's capacities upon an element of dead or non-existent material and, at the same time, upon the living soul. The soul will be ever after relocated in its house of clay, now glorified beyond all our powers of imagination in the resurrected body.

Surely, this is all beyond the capacity of the god of the Theistic Evolutionist to do instantaneously because that same god had to work over such a long period of time to create man in the first place using, ostensibly, pre-existing and 'live' material instilled with a soul? Can you see the difference in complexity between the first Creation and the later New Creation inhabited by Glorified man?

Theistic Evolution fails as an explanation for the Nature and Work of God in all respects.

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

Sam Drucker

Sydney Anglicans (Episcopalians) and Which Christ?

2011-12-12T00:18:00.003+11:00

But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.

'Which of the two do you want me to release to you?' asked the governor. 'Barabbas,' they answered.

'What shall I do then, with Jesus who is called Christ?' Pilate asked.

They all answered 'Crucify him!'

'Why, what crime has has he committed?' asked Pilate.

But they shouted all the louder, 'Crucify him!' (Matt. 27:20-23)

It takes only a moment's thought to realize that many in the crowd calling for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ were people who had called out "Hosanna to the Son of David" at the triumphal entry of Jesus of Nazareth to Jerusalem not long before. At the very least, a sizable proportion would have looked on at the clamour surrounding the triumphal entry and wondered with elevated spirit "Could this be the Christ?".

Clearly, their heart had turned for there is no record of a voice speaking for the Christ, bar Pilate, when the later crowd howled for his crucifixion.

How could such numbers with great joy and expectation one day, later call for the crucifixion of the Son of David or, at the least, how could they not speak on his behalf before his accusers if there had not been some turning of heart away from him following his arrest?

To put it simply, their expectation of the long awaited Christ did not fit a man who, to their mind, weakly submitted to capture and to the authorities, who obviously couldn't be a warrior Christ (or king). Barabbas had more qualification for what they sought of the Christ than did Jesus of Nazareth.

Though they knew enough of the Word of God to expect the Christ, their evaluation of his nature was too worldly. Their evaluation was so much shaped by the nature of their earlier warrior king David and the nature of past great leaders of nations around them that they could not countenance a weak, (by worldly standards) suffering Christ.

Their narrow, worldly view caused them to overlook those important parts of the Word of God which describe a much different Christ whose strength and victory was exemplified in suffering. Their resultant actions prompted Simon Peter to later declare "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36)

The error of past Israel should be a lesson to today's evangelicals, including those who claim to be evangelicals of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, to not formulate a nature of Christ based on worldly views. Accepting so much of the nature of Christ contained in the Word of God but leaving out the rest opens the door to grave error.

To ascribe to Christ a nature which willfully uses an horrific and frustration-riddled process of Creation, such as Theistic Evolution proposes, is to impose on Christ a nature which is so counter to his nature attested by the Word of God that it falls firmly in the ground of heresy.

The horrors of suffering and death, along with the futility of a troubled Creation are the product of man's sin (Rom. 8:19-22) not the product of the nature of Christ the Creator.

Yet, this false view of the nature of Christ was promoted by former Principal of Moore Theological College, Rev Peter Jensen, several years ago in the Moore College PTC Notes and is tacitly endorsed in the later (2002) Doctrine 2 Notes jointly edited by the same Peter Jensen and John Woodhouse, present Principal.

Just as the the chief priests and elders in Jerusalem, some 2,000 years ago, persuaded a crowd of seeming believers in Christ to formulate an alternative and false view of the Christ - with serious consequences - so today, leaders in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and other evangelical circles, are persuading believers and potential believers to formulate a false view of the nature of Christ, bringing with it dangerous consequences.

Sam Drucker

Providence in/as History

2011-12-04T21:10:00.003+11:00

Just some quick words as follow-up to the two instalments of an article by Maurice Roberts in the August-September, 1989 issue of the Banner of Truth Journal under the title of "The Interpretation of Providence in History."

How many Christians today would agree with Roberts when he said "It is the duty of the church to interpret history."? I suspect the percentage would be less today than when Roberts made that statement and much less than would have been the case a couple of centuries ago. The majority of those reading this blog would also question the point of my continually making reference to the articles of people twenty to fifty years ago. It is all connected!

Our Lord Jesus Christ reprimanded the Pharisees and Sadducees for not interpreting the signs of the times (Matt. 16:1-3) and also cautioned His disciples to look for the signs of the times (Matt. 24). Interpreting the events of past and present is the duty of Christians and, in this regard, it is helpful for me to bring to readers' attention the issues writers of some decades or more ago were wrestling with so that we can relate them to our present circumstance.

Roberts rightly contends that "A man's theology always determines his view of providence." Events of the past two centuries have seen the church, by majority, giving over to the interpretation of our world and the events if history to secular reasoners. This has fed a foe weak at first but now monstrously strong. So much is this so that one is ridiculed if an attempt is made to present an interpretation of our world and its events from a theological perspective. Today you are seen as a religious extremist if you put a biblical perspective on any of the earth sciences, history, medical science (including psychology), politics etc. This scene is far removed from times long past.

In the face of such ridicule or potential ridicule many Christians and those who errantly purport to be Christian cower and retreat into a compromise with the weapons of choice of the secular foe eg anti-biblical interpretation of history, dating of early historical events, anti-biblical interpretation of earth sciences and deference to anti-theist intellectuals.

This brings to mind Roberts' citation of the contention between Elijah and King Ahab (1 Kings 18). The incident described in that passage of Scripture, an event of history, has similarity with the present situation of compromising Christians and purported Christians dealings' with Christians who remain faithful to God's Word on the matter of Origins (Biblical Creationists). The former grouping and the latter group see each other as the "troubler of Israel" (the Church). The former grouping regard Biblical Creationists as an embarrassment to the Church, the cause of division within the Church and a stumbling-block to people coming to Jesus Christ. The latter group regard the former as being encouragers of compromise and a hindrance to the Church by bringing judgement from God for unfaithfulness to His Word.

Looking to Roberts again, he said "A man's theology always determines his view of providence" and a reverse principle also applies viz. "The way a man interprets providence proves his real theology". To demonstrate this principle Roberts cites a book by Alan P. F. Sell titled "Defending and Declaring the Faith" which by title purports to defend and uphold the Christian faith practiced (in Scotland). However, the content of the book indicates the author admires and praises some men who, in earlier times, were disciplined for heretical views on Scripture.

Commencing in the earlier part of the Nineteenth Century and continuing with pace through the Twentieth and into the present Century, the providence of God in Creation is being interpreted by the majority in the Church in a way contrary to and, it is reasonable to presume heretically, by the Reformers and Puritans. Concerns such as reassigning the génre of Genesis 1, the non straight-forward reading of the passage, death in the world before the Fall and the consequent question mark over the meaning of Christ's death on the cross, the nature of Christ in Creation and Incarnate and the nature of the New Creation all arise from the way Scripture is being interpreted by the majority in the Church today. The stated concerns are riddled with heretical cancers.

Maurice Roberts, when writing more than twenty years ago, brought out some helpful points in interpreting the times for his readers then and for us today. The issue of concern over Roman Catholicism has waned in today's climate but Roberts' mention of the theological liberal's disdain for "Antediluvian confessionalism" seems to have gained greater weight of carriage today through "Antediluvian confessionalism" being subjected to disdain from so-called evangelicals.

Yes indeed, it is our duty to interpret history and to interpret the signs of the times. Declension has characterised the life of the Church in Western Society for at least a Century and this has coincided with the rise of heretical interpretation of Genesis 1 and a disjointed and exceedingly heretical understanding of the Nature of Jesus Christ in Creation and Incarnate.

A Reformation in the manner of that some 500 years ago can reverse the declension. Let's pray for that very thing, that God will be glorified, His Name lifted up and the doubters and compromisers brought to repentance.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 69 (final) recap on facticity

2011-12-01T12:07:00.000+11:00

Before leaving this initial account we must yet take definite issue with one problem involved in the account as a whole. On the one hand, is this a strictly factual account, reporting what actually transpired in the manner in which it transpired? Or have we here a picture devised by human ingenuity, which picture seeks to convey truth by its general outlines or by the basic thoughts which are here expressed in terms highly figurative? Though this latter view has come to be held almost universally, it is still by no means true. We have not in this chapter a marvellous product of the religious creative genius of Israel. Such efforts would merely have produced just one more trivial and entirely worthless cosmogony. The account as it stands expects the impartial reader to accept it as entirely literal and historical. The use made of it in the rest of Sacred Scriptures treats every part referred to as sober fact, not as a fancy-picture. Compare on this chapter the dozens of marginal reference passages found in almost any Bible.

By answering this question we have answered a second one: Does the value of this account lie "in the broad basic truths it embodies" (K. C.), or in the details by which these truths are conveyed? The form of this question is unfortunate. It should not postulate an "either-- or," but a "both--and." The details are truthful, exact and essential, being in all their parts truth itself. Only since this is the case, are the broad, basic truths conveyed by the account also of infinite moment and in themselves divinely revealed truth. Faith in inspiration, as taught by the Scriptures, allows for no other possibility.

THE INTERPRETATION OF PROVIDENCE IN HISTORY (Part 2)

2011-11-30T22:46:00.007+11:00

This is the second and final instalment of Maurice Robert's article in the August - September 1989 issue of the Banner of Truth Journal. I thought the second instalment would be much shorter than the first. Not so! Consequently, my observations/comments will have to appear over the coming weekend.

"PROVIDENCE AND HISTORY

From what we have said, it follows that the way we interpret providence will determine the way we evaluate history, especially church history. And that, in turn, will determine the way we look at the great figures of church history and those who write about them.

It needs briefly to be said that providence and history are the same thing looked at from two different points of view. Both terms refer to the contents of God's eternal purpose or decree as that unfolds in this world. 'History' is the term we use to refer to the events of God's plan on earth when looked at from the standpoint of mankind. 'Providence' is the term we use when we are looking at the same thing from a theological point of view. Of course, many do not choose to accept that there is such a thing as providence. But that does not concern us here. Christians, at any rate, are committed to a belief in providence, which is just history, as God has ordained it and watches over it.

It is important to remember that a man cannot really understand history if he has no true concept of God's providence. It is true that he may be an expert in some details and therefore may be worthy of great respect for his erudition. But to be an authority in the details is not the same as to be competent to understand the overall significance of a period of history. An expert may, strange to say, 'miss the wood for the trees'.

One of the most remarkable examples of this is to be seen in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which is justly regarded as an historical masterpiece. But as an overall explanation of the subject with which it deals, it is unsatisfactory. Gibbon attributes the fall of Rome to its abandonment of paganism and its conversion to Christianity! He was simply reiterating an old pagan view, advanced by such ancient enemies of the gospel as Celsus. Augustine long ago answered their case conclusively in the twenty-two books of his polemical work, The City of God. The pagan view had virtually disappeared till Gibbon revived it in late eighteenth-century England. It is a classic case of a timeless work of history marred by a false view of providence. In that case, there was no very great damage done to Christian faith. But in other cases, great damage can be done to men's faith.

Religious and philosophical assumptions always lie at the heart of the way men write history. This point is brought out very clearly in a helpful book by Dr David Bebbington of Stirling University, entitled Patterns in History. He shows that history has been viewed from various standpoints over the centuries. He mentions several of these views: the cyclical outlook of oriental writers; the traditional Christian view, which considers history to be a straight line; the idea of progress; the theory of historicism, and that of Marxism. Perhaps we today would need to include a further view, that of historical relativism. But the essential point which is made by Dr Bebbington's study is that there are not only the 'brute facts' of history. There is also the deeper question of how we understand and interpret those facts. If those who write about history do not have a biblical view of providence, they will scarcely be able to see the events they write about in their true light.

It is very interesting to evangelical Christians to note that historians who may not share their view of divine providence are nonetheless concerned about the interpretation of history. Sir Arnold Toynbee, for instance, in his monumental work A Study of History, speaks about 'metahistory'. He is evidently quoting from the historian, Christopher Dawson, who had earlier used the word, on an analogy with the familiar term metaphysics'. Toynbee explains the word in this way:

'Metahistory is concerned with the nature of history, the meaning of history and the cause and significance of historical change. It arises out of the study of history, and is akin to metaphysics and theology. The metahistorian seeks to integrate his study of reality in some higher dimension than that of human affairs as these present themselves to him phenomenally.'

At first sight it may not seem a very important matter how one interprets the events of the past or even of the present. But no one who takes the Christian faith seriously could adopt such an attitude of indifference to the providence of God and its meaning. It is the duty of the church to explain history. The Lord Jesus Christ laid it as a sin upon the Jewish leaders that they had failed to discern the voice of providence in their day: '0 ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?' [Matt. 16:3].

Events, especially events in which the hand of God is manifest, have a meaning which we ignore only to our loss or at our peril. Admittedly, there are vast areas of providence which we are not qualified to interpret. But that does not excuse men for their failure to interpret crucial periods of history, such as the life of Christ and the early church, correctly.

The question might well be asked, do we have a key in the Bible by which to interpret events in our day? We believe that we do. The great 'benchmark', so to speak, of modern church history is to be found in the Acts of the Apostles and its inspired account of what God did on and after the Day of Pentecost. In that narrative, along with the other apostolic writings of the New Testament, we have a golden key to the meaning of all subsequent events in the history of the church - and, to some extent, even of the world. The New Testament writings show us what real Christianity is, what the church should be, and therefore what we may confidently expect God to bless and to favour on earth.

Consequently, where, in history, we find that same doctrine taught and those same church ordinances practised, there we may be certain that we see the approval of God in his providence. Conversely, where, in history, we see serious departure from New Testament doctrine and practice, there we know we see God's wrath and curse. It seems impossible to escape from this view of the matter, if we grant the premise that the scriptures are the inerrant Word of God.

The application of the principle here stated drives us towards the conviction that the religion of the Middle Ages was a grave departure from God and that the Reformation was a glorious returning to God. So much is surely clear, whatever else in providence may not be clear. But to be convinced of that is essential and it is enough. It is enough to glorify God by and enough to be saved by, if we are brought in this way to believe in the Christ of the New Testament and of the Reformation.

It is precisely this interpretation of history, however, which is under attack in the western world in the twentieth century. The classic Protestant historians, whose names were once a household word in Christian circles, are now sometimes referred to, even by evangelicals, as biased and untrustworthy writers. This is the new Protestant judgment upon historians such as Knox, Calderwood, Wodrow and McCrie for Scotland, and Foxe, Burnet, D'Augibne and Wylie, who chronicled the events of the Protestant Reformation in England and on the continent of Europe.

The argument is used that a writer like John Knox, in his book The History of the Reformation in Scotland (and the same argument would apply equally to writers like him, some of whom we have named above), is guilty of prejudice. He identifies his own cause with the cause of God. What favours his cause is praised by him as the work of God and what hinders his cause is reported as that work of God's enemies. That, according to modern writers, is not good history. It is said to be too subjective a view of God's cause and it is thought to vitiate the canons of objectivity required in a reliable writer of history.

The objection sounds plausible enough. But it seems to us to leave the most crucial factor of all out of the reckoning. It fails to do justice to the New Testament scriptures. If that religion which the New Testament presents as the truth happens also to be the religion of Knox, then it is justifiable to identify it as the work of God, and its opponents as the enemies of God. The only way to invalidate this conclusion, surely, is to demonstrate that Knox's message and the message of the New Testament were not substantially the same. Knox believed that they were the same. Hence the explanation for his confidence.

The real reason why modern Protestants apologise for Knox's manner of writing history, we strongly suspect, is that they are no longer in sympathy with the theology which he held. It looks very much like being 'ashamed of the gospel' [Rom. 1:16], albeit in a sophisticated way.

There is a corollary to the claim made by early Protestants that the Reformation was a glorious work of God's providence. It is this, that God's blessing must be expected to rest on nations embracing the Reformation teachings and his displeasure to follow nations which turn from those teachings.

Whatever view one holds of the rights and wrongs of British Rule (and both were there) in the days when this country was in its prime, it cannot be denied that the collapse of our national power went hand in hand with the collapse of our Protestant religion. Sir Arnold Toynbee, to whom we have referred, lived to witness both the high water-mark of British power in 1897 and its decline by the year 1972, just seventy-five years later. The dates are significant in that they correspond closely with the decline of the British pulpit. This fact surely illustrates the proverb: 'Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a reproach to any people' [Prov. 14:24]. The curse has not come without a cause. Do we need to look any further afield for our metahistory of the period?

OUR BACKSLIDDEN PROTESTANTISM

Generally speaking, it would appear to be true to say that the backsliding of Britain (and probably of America and some other Anglo Saxon countries belonging to the Protestant family) has taken place in two Stages. As a nation, we rejected the theology of the Reformation about the time of the First World War, and the morality of the Reformation at, or just after, the Second World War. The New Morality and the 'permissive society' appeared in the early 1960s at about the same time. Since then, there has been a marked shift downwards in this country. That is not to deny that there has been, more recently, a recovery of the Reformed faith. But the impact of this movement, intensely promising as it is, is as yet only very small. The point we make here is that society as a whole, and the church as a whole, has sunk Steadily further from righteousness and from God. And, until God sends upon us the blessing of true revival, we can only continue to sink still further.

Of the many contributory causes to this state of national decline, we may here mention just three. We believe one to be the secularisation of our national school system after the passing of the Education Acts of 1870 (England and Wales) and 1872 (Scotland). After the implementation of these Acts, our day schools, many of which had before been in the hands of the churches and had taught the catechisms as well as the Bible, steadily moved towards a position of religious 'neutrality'. After the two World Wars, the pace of secularisation became accelerated. This has meant, not simply that religious education in the traditional sense is now only haphazardly taught, but also that the content of the history syllabus has become chronically anaemic in its treatment of the great spiritual conflict which raged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

So far do some educators today resent the New History, as it is called, that a society or movement has been started with the name 'The Campaign for Real Education'! No doubt they are dissatisfied with the modem approach to teaching other subjects too. But the new approach to teaching history is singled out in their very first pamphlet as desperately in need of improvement and modification. 'The pursuit of truth has been replaced by what is called "the form of knowledge approach", which means in practice that pupils are encouraged to arrive at confident judgments.. .while being dismissive of "facts".... That, like so much else in the New History, is wilfully perverse'. So writes the author of this pamphlet on behalf of this new society, which has the support of MPs, members of the House of Lords and other academics.

A second more powerful and harmful influence upon our land has come from eminent literary men and women, especially in the period since the First World War. Today we have almost come to accept that eminent literary persons must be irreligious. There are, of course. notable exceptions, such as C. S. Lewis. But this appears to have been the main direction taken by men and women of letters in the past sixty years.

A notable assault on Christian standards of behaviour was made about the time of the First War by the Bloomsbury Group. This was a brilliant set of young Cambridge graduates, including Lytton Strachey, Virginia Woolf, John Maynard Keynes, Duncan Grant and Bertrand Russell. They were later followed by D. H, Lawrence and others. These all had a profound influence on the country. The private morality of many of them was a shameless denial of earlier British standards of behaviour and morality. To read Michael Holroyd's biography of Strachey is to see how advanced practical ungodliness had become at that comparatively early date among some of our influential English intellectuals. It was a significant turning-point in the ethical history of this land in modern times. What we see today is not much more than the widespread adoption of their ideals and practices by persons of all sorts. But the lead was taken by these influential figures those many years ago.

The third factor which we may mention as a contributory cause of the present low ebb in our country is the rise of Roman Catholicism to a position of importance and influence unparalleled since the Reformation. This influence extends not only to many aspects of our national life but also to the life of churches and denominations. It is a sobering thought that many of the crucial discussions and heart searchings we face as Protestant churches in this country at this hour have something or other to do with our attitude to the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. That is so whether one belongs to a church which is Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist or of some other denomination. It is a subject which we could ponder for a long time. But the fact is there and it must surely strike us as significant.

Our subject required of us that we should attempt to interpret the providence of God in history. Is there any one great practical issue which such a survey draws particular attention to? We believe that there is. The most urgent question of all for the present-day churches, in our considered opinion, is this: Were the old Protestant historians and theologians right to regard the Roman Catholic Church as no true church and to identify the Papacy with the Antichrist? Let us remember
that they were, for the most part, men of profound erudition and spirituality - men such as Calvin, Owen, Turrettine, Edwards, Cunningham and Charles Hodge. Let us further bear in mind that they claimed that their view of Rome was drawn from Holy Scripture.

Our reason for singling out this one issue is easily stated The twentieth-century Protestant church clung, by and large, to the anti-papal clauses in its creed. The present-day churches have, by and large, discarded them. This change in attitude appears to have begun somewhere around the First World War. The way Protestant churches view union with Rome is going to be momentously important from now on.

If the Catholic Church is not the Antichrist of Scripture as the old Protestant writers affirmed it to be, then there is ultimately no reason in principle why our Protestant churches should not return and reunite - if not this century, at least at some time in the future. But if the Reformers were right, then union with Rome is apostasy.

Precisely how and why Protestantism in this century came to hold a more relaxed attitude to Catholicism is one of the most intriguing, not to say burning, questions raised by the subject we have looked at.

It would make a good theme for research. Indeed, it ought to compel the attention of every Protestant who takes seriously the events of this hour."

Comments in a few days.

Sam Drucker

THE INTERPRETATION OF PROVIDENCE IN HISTORY (Part 1)

2011-11-27T23:09:00.003+11:00

The following is the first of two instalments of a helpful article by Maurice Roberts, Editor, in the August-September, 1989, issue of the Banner of Truth Journal (which was a lecture given earlier, April 1989, at the Leicester Minister's Conderence). Apologies for the length of the two instalments (of equal length) but it is helpful to see an Interpretation of the Times some twenty years ago, evaluate it in the light of the present situation and draw out some observations. The article follows herewith:

'And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, And thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim' [1 Kings 18:17-18]

The occurrence of the word 'interpretation' in the title of this paper informs us at once that we are in the realm of applied, rather than theoretical or abstract theology. All sciences have their theoretical and their applied aspects. This is true of theology, which, in better days, was regarded as the 'queen of the sciences'. What follows, therefore, is not so much a statement as an argument, or a case. It is an attempt to develop an interpretation of God's providence in history which is true to the scriptures and practically relevant to the pastoral needs of God's people in the times through which we are passing.

The general theme of providence is that of God's sovereign and perfect control of all events. There is a natural division of the subject into two aspects: the providence of God in the lives of individuals, and God's providence over nations and over civilisation as a whole. Perhaps it would be convenient to give descriptive terms to these two distinct, thought related, ways of studying God's providence. We could speak of micro-providence as that which concerns the individual, and macro-
providence as that which relates to the larger units of mankind in history. It is with the latter that we are concerned here, and especially with the Christian church in the Anglo-Saxon world.

It needs to be said that the literature which deals with this subject is at one and the same time vast and yet sparse. Whilst all works of history and biography have some tangential connection with the theme, yet books which deal directly and specifically with this subject are, to our knowledge, few in number. That is not altogether surprising because the exercise of interpreting providence is essentially a religious and spiritual, rather than a purely historical, one. It is a task which we can only begin with any degree of realism, once we have accepted the great (and nowadays highly unpopular) postulate, that God is truly known only in the Christian scriptures and that history has ethical and spiritual meaning because it is the unfolding of a divine purpose.

Such a great spiritual classic as Flavel's treatise on Providence, therefore, will not help us greatly, because it deals with the more individual aspect of this theme. Indeed, most treatments of providence naturally tend to look at it from the point of view of the individual, especially that of the Christian believer. This is not true of a recent valuable study entitled The Providence of God by Benjamin Wirt Farley, a contemporary American scholar, who teaches at the Union Theological Seminary, Virginia. Professor Farley's book provides us with a very thorough historical survey of providence. That is to say he works his way comprehensively, first through the views of providence held by the great thinkers of Greece and Rome, then by the early Church Fathers, and then by the Schoolmen, the Reformers and so on, up to the present day. It is a book to which one will turn again and again for information about the opinions of writers through the ages. But it does not set out to address itself directly to the type of application of the theme which forms the title of this paper. Rather than beginning with the books, therefore, it will be better to take our point of departure from the Word of God itself.

In the chapter of the Bible which was read to us this evening, we have the great discourse of the Lord Jesus Christ on the subject of the Last Things. There our Lord is informing his people of the most notable and significant events which would occur in the course of human history right up to the very end. More particularly, Christ predicts the fall of Jerusalem, which occurred in A.D. 70, and also the destruction of the whole world at the Second Coming. From our standpoint today, one event is in the past and the other in the future. And with regard to both these momentous events, Christ says that we are to 'watch' (v. 42). Clearly, the implication is that Christians are to be awake to major events in this world and they are to attempt to understand them, at least to some extent.

Failure to 'watch' and to be awake to what God is doing in the course of history is, according to Christ's warning, both foolish and dangerous. This is supremely true of the unbelieving world. But it is also true of God's own people. If we do not 'watch', then we are likely to become either complacent or, alternatively, discouraged. Events in the external world are integrally related to the words of holy scripture. To be ignorant of scripture is to be unprepared for what God is doing in history. To be unprepared at the end, when Christ returns, is to lose our soul eternally.

Furthermore, the view we take of events between our own day and the end of the world will inevitably have a considerable effect upon our whole state of mind as Christians. If we look for nothing in the future but gloom and declension, then we shall be pessimistic as to the degree of success which preaching and missionary endeavour will have on earth. But if we have an optimistic eschatology, we shall be correspondingly affected in our outlook and in our expectation of coming blessing. This is particularly true of the way in which we interpret the passage in Romans 11, respecting the 'mystery' of Israel. Admittedly, it may amount to no more than our state of mind as we set to work in the task of proclaiming the gospel and praying for its success. But our morale is very important. The overall view of providence which we adopt will have a close bearing on our morale and our degree of expectation in God's work.

SOME BIBLICAL INSIGHTS

The short passage of scripture from 1 Kings 18, which is provided at the head of this article, appears to be of considerable significance for the subject in hand. It consists of a snatch of conversation between the great prophet Elijah and the infamous King Ahab. There had been a serious state of drought in the kingdom for three and a half years. Each man, interestingly enough, blamed the other for the troubles, evidently for exactly reverse reasons.

Ahab's point of view was that Elijah had interrupted the peace and happiness of the land by praying down God's judgement. Elijah's opinion of the matter was that Ahab's idolatry had been the real cause of ruin to the land. It is an instructive exchange between a man of God and a man of the world. To the worldly man, it is the 'sour churchman' who spoils life. To the man of God, it is the reckless sinner who ruins the world by bringing God's curse upon a land. In Ahab's opinion, Israel was his kingdom and Elijah was a nuisance. In Elijah's judgement. Israel was God's theocratic kingdom and Ahab was a thorn in its flesh. It is a notable case of two opposing interpretations of providence.

There is a point of major importance to be noticed in this exchange between Ahab and Elijah. A man's theology always determines his view of providence. It must be so and it cannot be otherwise. What we think of God must determine our interpretation of what we see all around us, both in the church and in the world. This principle is to be found everywhere in the Bible. If we apply the principle to our modem situation, especially in Britain, we shall see that the principle is both a true and a useful one. Who, it might be asked, are the 'troublers of Israel' in Britain today? Every man answers instinctively in terms of his own theology. The Ecumenical finds the 'troublers of Israel' in those who will not lay aside every doctrinal difference and 'heal the wounds in the body of Christ'. The Charismatic blames the church's troubles on those who decline to seek the 'gifts'. The theologically liberal trace the modern church's malady to the presence still on earth of an 'antediluvian confessionalism'. The Evangelical and the Calvinist diagnose the church's ills as the judgment of God upon theological unfaithfulness and departure from Scripture.

This principle holds good also in its reverse form. The way a man interprets providence proves his real theology. This is illustrated interestingly by a recently published book, entitled Defending and Declaring the Faith. From the title, one would expect to find that the orthodox creed of evangelical religion was being set forth and defended. The author looks at the life and thoughts of eight well known Scottish theologians and preachers between 1860 and 1920. It is valuable as a summary of thought of such men as Kennedy of Dingwall. John Caird, A. B. Bruce and James Denney. But what is surprising to the evangelical reader is a comparison between the title of the book and the foreword, the author of which admires and praises John McLeod Campbell, Thomas Erskine of Linlathen, and Edward Irving. Yet all three of these men, far from defending the faith, were disciplined for unorthodoxy by the nineteenth century Scottish church to which they belonged. It is a remarkable instance of hiatus between the title of a book and its message. What today is being called the church's remedy was, in better days, treated as heresy.

This brings us to a further point in the church's duty in a time of judgment and declension - to enquire after the real cause of the trouble. A generation which makes a false diagnosis of the church's ills may land the church in apostasy. 'Whom God will destroy he first makes mad'. There are repeated warnings in the prophets against the folly of either not heeding, or else misinterpreting, the omens of providence. (Cf Isa. 22:12-14; Jer. 23:16-17; Ezek. 22:28-30). This is what Ezekiel caustically terms 'daubing the wall with untempered mortar' [Ezek. 22:28], which he defines as 'seeing false burdens and causes of banishment' [Lam. 2:14]. In the New Testament, Christ refers to this same sin as a culpable failure to 'discern the signs of the times' [Matt. 16:3].

Whatever be the true causes of the church's steep decline in Britain in our generation, there is no denying that the decline is there. There is a worm at the root of the tree which threatens not the leaf or the blossom only, but the very existence of the tree itself. Britain has no patent rights to the gospel of Christ. The church of Christ as such cannot be lost. But national churches can be lost. The Jewish church in Palestine was lost for hundreds of years after A.D. 70. Much the same happened to North Africa and Turkey at later periods in history. We had better diagnose the cause of our modem ills correctly. Failure to do so might plunge our nation into darkness for centuries. If we see the cause. there is hope that we may repent in time. But who will repent of unrecognised sin? The fearful possibility is that we may already be past hope, because God has given our church leaders over to a reprobate mind. God forbid that it should be so. But the situation is urgent. And it is made all the more urgent in that key concepts of God's providence are out of favour.

SOME 'LOST' CONCEPTS

In the modern church, there are a number of concepts relating to providence which are in danger of being lost for one reason or another. They are concepts which are to be found in the Word of God and which were cherished in better ages of the church. Their loss in the modern church has made us spiritually weaker and less able to wrestle with God for a return of his favour. We may look briefly at four such lost concepts.

1. The concept of a 'model age'. Not in an absolute sense, certainly, but in a limited sense, there are 'model ages' of the church. By that, we mean that, in some ages, God is powerfully and wonderfully at work on earth in sending revival, reformation and influential preachers of the gospel. At other ages there is a dryness and a deadness, even on good and orthodox men. It is true, of course, that the church in apostolic times is the only 'model' church in an absolute sense. There we have the inspired men and the blueprint of what the gospel and the church ought to be. But if we see all subsequent church history as nothing more than monotonous shades of grey, we have a false idea of church history. The fact is that some ages have been rich in spiritual greatness while others have been lifeless and dead. It is possibly the influence of Brethrenism which has led to a disparaging attitude towards such golden ages of the church as the Reformation, the Covenanting and Puritan era and the period of the Evangelical Awakening. Such ages do come. If we do not believe in them, how can we begin to pray for such an age to dawn on our country again?

2. The idea that God must be glorified on earth. That God is to be glorified is a belief common to all Christians. But that God is to be glorified on earth, by our obedience and faithfulness, is by no means the common creed of all believers as it should be. The point is well illustrated in an anecdote which has come down to us from Scottish Covenanting times. A conforming Christian put the question to a Covenanter as to why he should suffer such 'unnecessary' trials. 'Because', as he put it, 'I shall have heaven as a Christian and you will get no more'. To this the godly non-conformist replied, 'Yes, we shall have more. We shall have God glorified on earth There is both great theology and also great heroism in these words.

The practical outworking of the point is that carelessness in our walk, worship and witness not only forfeits God's blessing but robs him of his declarative glory on earth - an incalculable loss. Universal obedience to God's written Word becomes, in the light of this, more essential than life itself. It is an aspect of the truth which needs to be recovered.

3. It belongs to the biblical portrait of God's church on earth that its history is like a wave, periodically rising and falling. This is the view of providence implicit in such passages, for instance, as Psalms 44, 78, 106 and 126. Christ himself made it clear that this pattern would continue to the end of the world. There would be times in history 'when the bridegroom' would be 'taken away' from God's people, so that believers would 'fast in those days' [Mark 2:20]. Again, the Lord speaks of times in the history of the New Testament church when believers would desire to see 'one of the days of the Son of man, and should not see it [Luke 17:22]. Periods of revival and declension, to use modern terms, will alternate in the life of Christ's church till the very end.

It is of great importance to believers to be thoroughly convinced of this aspect of God's providence. It kindles afresh our flagging hopes to realise that, however low the cause of Christ may fall, God is able to revive it again, even in a very short time, in answer to believing prayer. The wave that falls to its trough is destined to rise up again to another peak. This concept is essential to us if we are not to sink into despair in such a day as this.

4. The fourth aspect of God's providence which is in danger of being lost is the distinctive concept of the church's history which emerged at the Protestant Reformation. According to this view, there are three clearly-defined periods of the church's history: the early period, the medieval period and the modern period.

This three-fold view of church history is a more important part of our Protestant heritage than might at first appear. It serves to remind us that for a thousand years the church in the West wandered into darkness and superstition. This is not to deny that there were good and great men in the Middle Ages. But it helps us to see the immense debt of gratitude we owe to God for the Reformers and their work. We must never allow this view of history to be blurred in our minds. The Reformers not only gave us a new principle of exegesis and a new systematic theology but also a new way of looking at church history. This view of history is to be found implicitly in the three Reformation treatises of Luther written in 1520. It is also found more explicitly in the Fourth Book of Calvin's Institutes and in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, as it is popularly called.

There are today powerful influences at work tending to obscure this attitude to church history, which was once the commonplace view of Protestants. The Oxford Movement of the 1830s seriously challenged this view of providence which we are referring to. But, more recently, it has been blurred in people's minds by the misguided statements of some Protestant leaders, who are suggesting that the Reformation was something of a tragedy or, at least, an unfortunate mistake.

If the Reformation comes to be looked on as a tragedy, then Protestants will have ceased to be the real spiritual heirs of the Reformers. To give ground on a point of history is, in effect, to concede to a new theology. There are many who do not appear to see that this is the case. But it must be so. To recover out of the present state of decline, therefore, means that Protestants must go back to the older view of history which looked at the Reformation as a return from darkness to light. Post tenebras lux is more than a slogan. It is an interpretation of providence. Indeed, it implies a vital creed.

To be continued.

Sam Drucker

Eternity and Its Pitfalls!

2011-11-20T22:26:00.005+11:00

"God has revealed the true righteousness of his purposes in the just and merciful gospel of his Son."

Such are the closing words of the second of two related articles on Unbelief and Doubts by Rev Michael Jensen in the June 2011 and November 2011 issues of Eternity - a magazine distributed to churches from Sydney.

Taken on its own it all sounds good doesn't it? However, if you had read the content of both articles carefully you ought to have noted the sowing of seeds of tares along with seeds of wheat by Rev Jensen.

In the earlier of the two articles (Unbelief) Rev Jensen recalls a time in theological seminary when a lecturer asked students to rate themselves on a scale of 1 to 6 as to doubts of faith - a 6 indicating a considerable degree of doubt. Rev Jensen felt the only number he could circle with integrity was 6 and he did so. It is evident from the article that he still has doubts today and seems to take comfort in declaring "... there are many Christian leaders wrestling with doubt. " From this position he offers advice to (and appears to affirm) doubters, commencing with the assertion that "the Bible itself speaks from within the experience of doubt." I refute this assertion. There is a gulf between faith and doubt and there are degrees of perception in faith (Heb. 11:1,39). The authors of the books of the Bible had faith in God while not necessarily knowing all the mind of God. Psalmists expressing concern at a circumstance they experienced were not doubting God - for they appealed to God - but, instead, were expressing frustration at not knowing the mind of God in their situation and/or sought delivery from circumstance. The man Job was similarly placed.

Lack of faith is always associated with elevating worldly reason above what God has said (His Word). Those commended for their faith (Heb. 11) are commended for putting worldly reason in submission to the Word of God. They may not have perceived with their eyes (or their mind's eye) fully what God was going to do but they trusted God and will be rewarded with perfection.

Having manufactured a case for doubt from an errant premise Rev Jensen goes on to again disseminate his dangerous view in the November issue of Eternity. After introducing a spurious example of failed doomsday 'prophet' Harold Camping - who obviously doesn't trust the Word of God - Rev Jensen asserts an affinity with Camping and many Christians (obviously including Jensen himself). He alleges a widespread "disappointment and frustration with the uncertainty that necessarily accompanies faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Basically, we just want more certainty than we have been given. And yet, we cannot, we do not, have a knowledge of everything we would wish to know about. This leaves us - well, where does this leave us? Feeling insecure perhaps - or at least, with an insecurity that we seek to, fill with certainties. We would like to know because a little extra knowledge would surely anchor our faith more securely against the winds of doubt that come blowing through from time to time."

This is serious stuff! Moving in the circle of doubters and faithless as he apparently does Rev Jensen attempts to paint the majority of Christians as like-minded and moves on to, in some way, justify lack of faith whereas the Bible says otherwise.

I know, I know, some will accuse me of taking Rev Jensen out of context for, they will say, he goes on to say there is such a thing as "right doubting" (?) and he exhorts Christians to trust, ultimately, in the gospel revealed in Jesus Christ. However, it is the other things he says that dangerously affirm doubting the Word of God and this ought to ring alarm bells for others as it does me.

When he makes statements in the article like "We cannot explain history. In fact, to attempt to do so is a kind of blasphemy. If we could explain God in this way, or know his mind, he would not be truly God." Rev Jensen goes too far, particularly in respect to his discouragement of attempting to know the mind of God. The Apostle Paul encourages knowing the mind of God (Col. 1:9-10) and (Rom. 12:1-2).

Looking beyond Rev Jensen's rounding-off of his articles on Unbelief and Doubts with words of encouragement to persevere I fear what is really going is that Rev Jensen is attempting to justify his trust in worldly reason at the expense of trust in the Word of God. How could you not say that a man is struggling with trust in the Word of God when earlier this year on his blogspot an inquirer asked whether from the mention of Noah in the genealogy contained in Genesis 5 we can conclude that Noah was a real person, Rev Jensen replied with words to the effect of "not necessarily"?

Sadly, Rev Jensen is taking many people down a perilous path to unbelief. For his sake and the sake of others I encourage him to take heed of the words of Bishop J. C. Ryle more than a century ago in his work "Practical Religion" where he says on page 114 " ... the Bible no doubt contains hard things, or else it would not be the book of God. It contains things hard to comprehend, but only hard because we have not grasp of mind to comprehend them. It contains things above our reasoning powers, but nothing that might not be explained if the eyes of our understanding were not feeble and dim. But is not an acknowledgment of our own ignorance the very corner-stone and foundation of all knowledge? Must not many things be taken for granted in the beginning of every science, before we can proceed one step towards acquaintance with it? Do we not require our children to learn many things of which they cannot see the meaning at first? And ought we not then to expect to find 'deep things' when we begin studying the Word of God, and yet to believe that if we persevere in reading it the meaning of many of them will one day be made clear? No doubt we ought so to expect, and so to believe. We must read with humility. We must take much on trust. We must believe that what we know not now, we shall know hereafter, - some part in this world, and all in the world to come."

Eternity magazine, reaching into many churches as it does, has a responsibility to consider carefully what it puts into church buildings. The consequences are eternal when the subjects of doubt and unbelief in the Word of God are left so open-ended and inadequately handled as Rev Jensen leaves them.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 68 Genesis 2:3

2011-11-15T12:06:00.000+11:00

3. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, for on it He desisted from all His work which He had created by making.

Creatures have been blessed (v. 22), man has been blessed more richly (v. 28). The summary creation account which began at 1:1 is aptly concluded by an act of divine blessing, which, however, in this case attaches itself to the seventh day. The object of this rather unusual procedure is twofold: on the one hand, such an act serves as an indication to man that rest such as the divine rest is noble and holy and by no means to be lightly esteemed; in the second place, those blessings of the Sabbath that are later to flow forth for the good of than are potentially bestowed on it. For on the one hand, the verb "he sanctified it" (qiddesh), being a Piel stem, has the connotation of a causative--as the Piel often does (K. S. 95) and on the other hand, it at the same time has a declarative sense: "He declared holy, or consecrated." However, it should be well observed that no commandment is laid upon mankind at this point. Procksch remarks rightly and pointedly: "for the present the Sabbath stays in heaven." Yet this does not make the Sabbath a futile abstraction, but, as was remarked above, its connection with the divine rest or cessation from labour is made to stand forth as. a worthy divine act.

At the same time the entire groundlessness of the critical assumption becomes apparent, where the arrangement of works according to days is attributed to clever and purposeful manipulation on the part of the author. For, having eight major works, he (it is said) nevertheless compresses them within six days, to be followed by a seventh rest day, in order to secure a divine parallel to the Hebrew week. This is not a week ordained for man. It is entirely a divine week. Nor is there clever editorial manipulation, but simply an accurate and straightforward account of things as they actually took place.

With a certain fulness of expression this part of the account comes to a dignified close with the causal clause, "for on it He desisted," etc. The adjective clause "which He had created by making" conveys the thought that, though it was creative work (bara'), yet at the same time this creative work was accomplished by work which was done through successive steps: "by making" (la'asoth). This gerundival use of the infinitive is explained in K. S. 402 y and G. K. 114 o.

Richard Dawkins Triumphs Again!

2011-11-13T23:42:00.002+11:00

It is embarrassing and discomforting when your opponent latches onto and exposes your "Achilles' Heel". Richard Dawkins did this recently when interviewed by Howard Condor on Revelation TV in the United Kingdom.

I recite parts of the interview here following:

Condor. "Was there a particular experience you had where you said, 'That's it, God doesn't exist'"

Dawkins. "Oh, well, by far the most important, I suppose, was understanding evolution. I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right, in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more—what shall we say—sophisticated theologians who are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they're deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that at the age of about sixteen.

Dawkins went on to question the interviewer saying: Why on earth would ... you believe in Genesis, given that the Archbishop of Canterbury is against it, given that the Pope is against it, any respectable bishop is against it ...?" [as, also, is the Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney]

We must make a distinction here between Evangelical and that which is not Evangelical but, instead, a sort of faux evangelical. Dawkins obviously uses the term Evangelical in the traditional and true sense as one who trusts and espouses the Word of God. There are many today who just do not trust and espouse the Word of God fully yet they claim to be Evangelical. Many in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney are of this kind and are faux evangelicals.

Dawkins rightly sees the incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity and he stands as a ready victor in any debate against a Theistic Evolution.

Should Richard Dawkins venture to Australia again, please, please Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, don't put up any Theistic Evolutionist (eg the Archbishop of Sydney) in debate against him. For the sake of Christ's Church here in Sydney, let's keep our embarrassments hidden in a corner.

Sam Drucker

Peace on Earth to All Men!

2011-11-06T19:47:00.003+11:00

Very few who take to the pulpit in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney could be called Preachers. They are more aptly to be called Teachers. We are not in an age blessed with men who preach with power and unction. However, there are certain principles which ought to apply equally to Preachers and Teachers.

What Maurice Roberts, former Editor of the Banner of Truth journal, had to say on "Acceptable Service" in the July 1989 edition of the journal has as much importance to Teachers in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney today as to Preachers in any age. He said this:

"Preachers, more than all other Christians, are to be concerned with faithfulness in their service. They are stewards of the gospel 'mysteries' [1 Cor. 4:1] and hence they are to remember above all men that 'it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful' [1 Cor. 4:2]. To become a preacher is to become, at least in principle, a martyr. This must be so because the preacher's duty is to say to men what they most need to hear but least wish to hear. Men are intensely sensitive about their religious sins and they deeply resent exposure in those things in which they most flatter themselves that they are acceptable to God.

The preacher's task is to take the lion by the beard and the wolf by his ears. If the preacher is not courageous enough to do so, then he can hardly be said to render acceptable service to Christ, his Master. Shall Christ be faithful unto the death of the cross and yet his servants be too craven to annoy men's sleeping consciences? No preacher should let sleeping dogs lie nor sweep respectable religious sins under the carpet for others to deal with twenty years later. 'Fight the devil where you find him', is the motto of the true prophet.

It must be a sign that reformed preachers are rendering acceptable service when they are resented and resisted by the carnal in their congregation. This is not meant as a defence of ministerial indiscretion but as an encouragement to ministerial faithfulness. A young preacher is apt to blame it all on himself when the principal men and women of a congregation are aroused against him. It may indeed be that he is partly to blame. But the greatest sin might rather be in those who rise up against him because his application of God's word is all too true. Religious sinners, when cut close to the bone, can react with incredible fury and they can spit like fire at the hand which wields the sword in the pulpit.

When truth is applied faithfully, it is deemed by God to be acceptable service and a 'sweet savour of Christ' [2 Cor. 2:15], even when - indeed especially when - it brings unjust wrath upon the head of the preacher."

What a far cry from the 'club' mentality prevailing in Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. Into the church come the goats with their carnal ideas of the world along with errant Christians clinging to carnal ideas of the world. Each fashion their own view of God. It is these who dictate the direction and order of the church. It is to these that Pastors and Teachers bow at the expense of the truth of the Word of God. There is no discomfort to be brought to their mind, no provocation of their senses. Harmony and ease of relations is the priority. The Word of God must take second place to an agreeable gathering of souls.

In ninety-five percent of the churches of the Diocese a suggestion of having someone speak to the congregation who holds to the Word of God on Origins, who maintains the position of the Reformers and Puritans, who honours the Office of Jesus Christ as Creator, is rejected as a device for division. Forgotten is the biblical principle of the Word being a sword which divides.

Peace on earth in the church is the goal, not the integrity of the Kingdom of God.

These Pastors and Teachers have forgotten what acceptable service to God is for their desire is acceptable service to men, men who submit to the world instead of to God and His revelation of Jesus Christ in Creation.

And so it is that the church continues its march to removing any distinction between itself and the world.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 67 Genesis 2:2

2011-11-01T12:06:00.000+11:00

2. And on the seventh day God declared His work on which He was engaged, finished, and He desisted on the seventh day from all the work on which He had been engaged.

After the first verse has plainly stated that all was finished, the statement of v. 2 to the effect that not until the seventh day God finished His work (A. R. V.) is, to say the least, misleading. A.V. evaded the problem by substituting "ended" for "finished" (v. 1), although the same verb root is involved yekkullu (v, 1), yekhal (v. 2). But the verb used in v. 2 is of the Piel stem, which is sometimes declarative in sense, as tiher means "to declare clean," Lev. 13:6- 14-48, and timme' means "to declare unclean," Lev. 13:8; 20:25. So here we may have the meaning, "He declared finished." Thus the difficulty, which prompted the Septuagint translators and many since (cf. K.) to alter "seventh" to "sixth," is satisfactorily removed. Cf. K. C. The pluperfect, adopted from Meek, "on which He had been engaged," is not a necessary translation. Pluperfect renderings should be employed with great caution. The meaning is the same when the imperfect is used: "on which He was engaged."

Since the primary meaning of the verb shabhath is "to cease" or "to desist," we are freed of all misconceptions which may attach to God's activity if we adopt this meaning. If God desisted from labour on this day, then no more work was done on it, then nothing had to be completed, then no unseemly thought about God's being weary needs to be rejected. The verse then amounts to an emphatic statement to the effect that just as on the preceding days a marvellous creative work was in progress, so now that type and that manner of working on God's part came to an end. He declared all finished, he desisted from all. The "work" that He desisted from is described by the term mela'khah, meaning a special task He had set for Himself and afterward "used regularly of the work or business forbidden on the Sabbath" (Driver quoted by Skinner) (Ex 29:9, 10; 35:2; Je 17:22, 24) et al. Incidentally, in this connection Skinner makes the very sane observation that "the actual Jewish Sabbath as we know it (is) without any point of contact in Babylonian institutions." However, the thing under consideration in these verses is not the Jewish Sabbath but the creation Sabbath.

Moore College Slumbers in Sleep to Death.

2011-10-23T21:37:00.002+11:00

Our Lord spoke sharply to wake the sleeping church of Sardis (Rev. 3:1-6). "Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God. Remember, therefore what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you."

Such a warning is not out of place with the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and its theological seminary, Moore College.

I have been passed a copy of the Moore College Annual Report 2011. In the report the Principal intimates the theological seminary is at the forefront of upholding and encouraging students in the Word of God.

I restate some of the Principal's words here:

"We are here to serve God who wills to be known and honoured by all people everywhere. Our chief focus is knowing God who has spoken to the whole world by his Son through his word (the Bible). Hence we seek to prepare pastoral-hearted preachers equipped to proclaim the good news in any setting, gospel servants fit for service and mission wherever God might use them to build his church. We aim to equip graduates with a clear understanding of how the whole Bible and all of its parts bear witness to Christ so that they can faithfully teach and defend the evangelical and reformed Christian faith.

So that God's word can comprehensively renew their thinking (about everything!) we are serious about learning well and thoroughly."

Readers of this blogspot will know that that is just not true with respect to our Lord Jesus' Office of Creator. The teaching of Moore College on Origins destabilizes faith in our Lord as Creator. As much as the church in Sardis was failing to hold to the Word of Christ so Moore College fails to hold to the Word of Christ i.e. Christ in Word Written and Incarnate. Whatever "renew[ing of} their thinking (about everything!)" is experienced by students cum graduates of Moore College it can be certain that on the matter of Christ's Office as Creator it is to the demeaning of faith by constraining faith to only part of the gospel. In this, Moore College has departed from "the evangelical and reformed Christian faith."

Surely, something along the lines of "writing on the wall" had been afforded the faculty of Moore College when the man appointed some years ago to instruct students in Theistic Evolution was later exposed to an experience which prompted him to take the serious step of relinquishing Holy Orders? But no, this was all missed.

Notwithstanding that, some later words by the Principal in the Moore College Annual Report 2011 shed light on why the College will have great difficulty returning to the evangelical and reformed Christian faith. Note the following:

In response to our changing world new and exciting patterns of evangelism, church and ministry are emerging. There are some who call for radically different patterns of theological education. At the same time as hostility to Christianity seems to be on the increase, government policies have made theological education accessible to more people than ever (through FEE-HELP and other assistance). This has come at the cost of much greater external regulation of the College's operation. These and other challenges are outlined more fully later in this report."

In its push to get as many people as possible through its doors Moore College has negotiated to put students on the "government welfare teat". Gone is faith in God for discernment as to suitable candidates, reliance on God for sustaining students through seminary and into ministry. Now it is faith in the government and the comfort that affords. Irrespective of the shift in to whom faith rests for needs, the "sting in the tail" is that government regulations are likely to influence what may be taught. When government requires the teaching of evolution in other levels of education it can be expected that funding of students through FEE-HELP will bring pressure against teaching a world view which excludes evolution.

Some key evangelicals in Great Britain last century warned against theological seminaries seeking accreditation with secular institutions. They were right and the church there and here is the worse for not heeding the warning. Moore College has bound itself and its students to compromise. It is faith that will suffer first followed by the death of the church here in Sydney.

What is needed is a reformation - a waking up to sweep through Moore College and the Diocese bringing with it faith in all the Word of God and a reliance on God to bring forward the right candidates for ministry and meet the needs of those students in training and later ministry.

Sam Drucker

And Another Atheist in From the Cold!

2011-10-19T20:36:00.003+11:00

A recent blog concerning a man who left Atheism for Jesus Christ attracted some blind denial from an Atheist. I don't want to labour this blogspot with the multitude of similar accounts of conversion but just one more at this stage won't hurt.

John Sanford made a similar change. Wikipedia records he was formerly an Atheist but became a Christian following his observations in Genetics.

In his subsequent book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome Sanford says:

"Late in my career, I did something that would seem unthinkable for a Cornell professor. I began to question the Primary Axiom [Evolution]. I did this with great fear and trepidation. I knew I would be at odds with the most "sacred cow" within modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world. Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin exploring some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this, but I must confess that I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly "great and unassailable fortress" which has been built up around the Primary Axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory. In fact, it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives largely from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith that the "true-believers" have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection is typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending the religion of a great number of people!

To question the Primary Axiom required me to re-examine virtually everything I thought I knew about genetics."

I can recommend the book. It is a real 'eye-opener' on what confronts humanity.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 66 Genesis 2:1

2011-10-15T12:05:00.000+11:00

CHAPTER II

I. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all their host.

Though the first word literally reads "and they were finished," yet the idea of retrospect involved in the verse was caught, very beautifully by Luther, who rendered "and" also;" thus" is an equally correct rendering of A. V. Attention is particularly drawn to the elaborateness and completeness of this work by the added subject "and all their host" (tsebha'am). Without a doubt, this expression includes all the works found in heaven and on earth as a result of the creative work thus described. "Host" (tsabha') may refer to the stars; cf. (Ne 9:6; De 4:19; 17:3; 2Ki 17:16), etc. It may refer to angels: (2Ki 22:19; Ne 9:6; Ps 148:2). Here its connection determines its reference to the things just made. Since the creation account has up to this point said nothing about angels, it will hardly be safe to advance the claim that the angels are meant to be included in this term. The time of the creation of angels is as little fixed by this account as falling on this day as it is assigned to the fourth, We simply know nothing definite as to the time of their creation.

Wrong...again

2011-10-14T20:10:00.000+11:00

I saw this on the Anglican blog, so worth putting here: John Dickson opens mouth to change feet: if he's wrong here, why would he be right in saying that Genesis has nothing to do with the real world and its days passing!

Another Atheist Comes in From the Cold!

2011-10-07T00:36:00.003+11:00

Following on from a similar testimony a couple of months ago I thought I might post the following extract of a newsletter from Creation Ministries International received this week:

"The really special, deep joy is of course whenever one finds out about someone brought from darkness into the marvellous light of the Gospel, as God is gracious to use us 'earthen vessels'.

One of these occasions involved one of our CMI speakers, prior to his retirement after 3 years ministry in Sydney—Warwick Armstrong. He told us recently of the exciting story of Sai-Chung C. who actually contacted CMI to get in touch with Warwick a few months ago. Warwick wrote":

'Sai-Chung was an atheist activist attending church to study Christianity — so as to be effective in undermining it! I gave a talk at this Chinese church ... in 2003. I vaguely remember a group of young Chinese University students coming forward afterwards, and asking many questions.'

"Warwick told us that the aim of this group was to challenge the creation speaker, but it was they who were challenged. In an email, Sai-Chung told us that this encounter was what God used to very quickly thereafter bring him to Christ. He is now a youth group leader in the Chinese Extension Church of one of the largest churches in Australia. As Warwick puts it":

'How extraordinary and exciting to be part of such a wonderful event! Truth is a mighty weapon.'

"But there is more. Sai-Chung's reason for contacting CMI to search for Warwick was to gain his assistance in polishing Sai-Chung's first-ever creation talk, to 70 high school and university students at the University of Technology, Sydney.

Warwick attended that presentation, along with CMI's Dr Mark Harwood, also based in Sydney. Warwick wrote that it was an impressive, God-honouring first-time effort, and said":

'What an overwhelming experience to listen to an ex-atheist holding forth on the truth of God's Word and the lie of evolution. What a truly emotional experience it was for me to see this regenerated man infusing hope and challenge to the young believers present. It was a bold, strong challenge placed before those yet to believe. Can there be anything more exciting and rewarding than this, to see this fruit which will be there for eternity? I doubt it. Definitely not.'

Events such as the turn around in this young man's life would not have occurred with responses given by Archbishop Jensen in a recent debate with Atheists in Sydney.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 65 on sermons

2011-10-01T12:04:00.000+10:00

HOMILETICAL SUGGESTIONS

There is so much matter in every line of this chapter that perhaps the chief danger encountered is the tendency to use too short a text. We personally believe that here for once it might be permissible to use as a text one verse such as v. 1 or v. 27. But to treat such a Scripture properly requires true homiletical skill. We feel that it might be best to treat the work of each of the creative days separately in six distinct texts, always stressing how each day's work displays primarily God's great power but then also very manifestly His wisdom and His mercy. The apologetic approach should be avoided. Attempts to harmonize science and religion lie too much in the realm of apologetics and usually are not handled very successfully. A warning should be offered here against allegorizing the chapter, as is done by all those who see in the successive stages of creation a picture of the successive steps in the process of conversion. Attractive as the parallel may be, it does not lie in the purpose of the chapter and should not be injected. In sermons on other texts it may be appropriate to use material from Genesis Chapter One incidentally as providing a kind of illustration--a use found in (2Co 4:6). But allegorizing as such does violence to the purpose of this chapter. Talley's A Socratic Exposition of Genesis as well as Rimmer's books tend toward this unwarranted allegorizing.

An Element in Spiritual Declension of Sydney Episcopalian Diocese

2011-09-25T16:02:00.008+10:00

Christians, over the generations, have had various passages of Scripture to wrestle with to understand the mind and intent of God. Understanding the mind of God through the writing of Apostle Paul at Romans 11:26 has been one such passage.

Maurice Roberts, Editor of the Banner of Truth Trust, wrote an essay in Issue 304 of Banner of Truth Journal, January 1989, titled "The Mystery Concerning Israel". In his essay, Roberts said:

There are three principles of interpretation which need to be applied to Romans 11:26, as to any other hard passage of Scripture:

(1) terms are to be taken in their plain and obvious sense unless there is good reason to believe the plain sense to be inappropriate;

(2) the immediate context in which words are found will normally determine the sense in which they are used;

(3) every particular passage is to be compared with similar passages of Scripture. The rule of comparing Scripture with Scripture is one of the most fundamental safeguards we have when searching for the meaning of hard passages.

Roberts ultimately concludes that the Romans 11:26 passage indicated a future time when Jews 'come in'[my term]. His first of four concluding points warrants mention here:

First, we may be compelled to break the mould of our conception of the dealings of God with mankind. We all tend habitually to fall into a two-fold conception of the world's history: Old Testament and New Testament. This is natural enough because that is the form in which God has given his Word to us. But it appears from Paul's manner of arguing in Romans 11 that God in fact is purposing to bless the world by what may be termed a three-fold progression: first Jews, then Gentiles, then both together. Not till the Spirit is poured out on Israel in the future will the high-water mark of God's purposes be reached in his gracious dealings with fallen mankind.

Writers on this site have noted advocates of Theistic Evolution in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney also advocate something of a replacement theology whereby the Israel of promise post Resurrection is Christians of Pentecost and beyond.

Theistic Evolutionists thereby demonstrate their failure to apply a formula for interpreting Scripture tried and proven for understanding the mind of God. Further, it exposes how they have fallen into the pit of ignorance which has brought them to their parlous synchretism of the world and God and resultant Cosmogony.

If Moore Theological College had been able to instruct them in the importance of applying all three principles of application to Scripture, as identified by Maurice Roberts and many before him, the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney would not be in the state of declension currently experienced.

Sam Drucker

News Flash: Peter Jensen resigns his holy orders and becomes a Hindu

2011-09-15T17:53:00.001+10:00

It had been the move many observers of this archbishopric had long been expecting. Having had problems knowing how to fit his view of origins with the biblical Christian data, Peter Jensen threw in the towel and began the debate with a mantra to Kali and Shiva. Of course this took the atheists by surprise but nevertheless they understood the man's stand as an apologetic for a schizophrenic god or gods of the far east and not the Christian orthodoxy handed down to us through the ages by Christ the Creator, the disciples and the early Church fathers.

In this week's debate Jensen, clearly demonstrating he's been “cheated through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ”, anaemically boasted that “it is not with evolution as science that I have a problem; it is with evolution as an idolatrous explanation of all things; it confuses mechanism with agency; science with theology.”

The atheist team perspicaciously responded to Pundit Jensen's calumny against the Creator by pointing out, “As we survey all the world's horrible circumstances, the endlessly varied kinds of excruciating pain, the deep suffering and sheer misery, inflicted on so many human beings and other vulnerable living things, it is not believable that a God of Love would have remotely adequate reasons to permit it all. And it's no use responding to such questions with talk of free will. If free will means anything, it means being able to act in accordance with your own nature and values. God is supposed to have free will, and yet we are assured by theologians that God will never act malevolently because it is not in his nature to do so. God will always freely choose to do good. Well, why wouldn't God create other beings with benevolent natures who will also freely choose to do good? Heaven is supposed to be like that, so why isn't Earth? And anyway, only a relatively small amount of the suffering there has been in the world over hundreds of millions of years could possibly have anything to do with the free choices of human beings. Why has an all-powerful, all-knowing God of Love brought about the world's current life forms through the process of biological evolution, which has, as God could have foreseen, led to untold misery in the animal world? Why would God choose this as the process to bring about beings like us? Biologists tell us that the evolutionary process inevitably produces design flaws - often painful or debilitating for the creatures concerned. These are present everywhere in the natural world, and in fact in the human genome itself. These flaws are just part of the evidence that life on Earth has diversified over time through the blind process of evolution, rather than being the product of a guiding intelligence. So why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God of Love choose a process that foreseeably produces so many atrocious outcomes for the creatures involved? Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God of Love choose the cruel, brutal operation of evolution, in which species supersede each other? You can't reconcile the process of evolution with the existence of such a god.”

Well done, atheists! We salute you!

Jensen, you're an apostate knucklehead!

Leupold Genesis part 64 verse 31

2011-09-15T12:03:00.000+10:00

31. And God saw all that He had made and behold it was very good. Then came evening, then came morning--the sixth day.

The writer says with emphasis that no imperfection inhered in the work God had wrought up till this point: For after all preceding statements to the effect that individual works were good comes this stronger statement to the effect that it was "very good," making a total of seven times that the word is used--seven being the mark of divine operation. The thought that God might be the author of evil and imperfection must be guarded against most strenuously (Strack). The "behold" moves the expression "very good" prominently into the foreground (K. S. 341V). Kol before 'asher lies on the borderline between partitive genitive and appositional genitive (K. S. 337 h). "The Sixth" has the article with the numeral for the first time (G. K. 126 w), meaning: "the sixth day,'" that last memorable creative day of God.

The next three verses had best be taken as the conclusion of the summary creation account of the first chapter, because the record of this account cannot be complete till all of the seven days have passed in review. More appropriate would have been the chapter division at 2:4.

FEEDING SHEEP OR AMUSING GOATS

2011-09-14T21:30:00.000+10:00

The Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, having largely turned its back on the Word of God in Genesis 1, wrestles with how to reach the lost. To put it plainly, the Connect 09 strategy was not a blessed event, bringing only a patchy and mediocre (at best) result. Such as you would expect when the work is of man. Ought the Diocese expect better when it is the Lord's work to build His Church and is he likely to use blunt instruments?

The situation gets no better with the front page pronouncement in the Sept 2011 edition of Southern Cross (the Diocesan newspaper) that music is a vehicle for the Gospel. I wonder what someone like C. H. Spurgeon would say about this. Oh, goodness me, look here, some two centuries ago he had this to say:

An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence, that the most short-sighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years it has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out as the Puritans did, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the Church. If it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? 'Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.' That is clear enough. So it would have been if he had added, 'and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel.' No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him. Then again, 'He gave some apostles, some prophets, some pastors and teachers, for the work of the ministry.' Where do entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is silent concerning them. Were the prophets persecuted because they amused the people or because they refused? The concert has no martyr roll.

Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all His apostles. What was the attitude of the Church to the world? 'Ye are the salt,' not the sugar candy - something the world will spit out, not swallow. Short and sharp was the utterance. "Let the dead bury their dead.' He was in awful earnestness!

Had Christ introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into his mission, he would have been more popular when they went back, because of the searching nature of his teaching. I do not hear him say. 'Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow!' Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them. In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of the gospel of amusement. Their message is, 'Come out, keep out, keep clean out!' Anything approaching fooling is conspicuous by its absence. They had boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon. After Peter and John were locked up for preaching, the Church had a prayer meeting, but they did not pray, 'Lord grant unto thy servants that by a wise and discriminating use of innocent recreation we may show these people how happy we are.' If they ceased not for preaching Christ, they had not time for arranging entertainments. Scattered by persecution, they went everywhere preaching the gospel. They 'turned the world upside down'. That is the only difference! Lord, clear the Church of all the rot and rubbish the devil has imposed on her and bring us back to apostolic methods.

Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the Church met them half-way, speak and testify. Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment had been God's link in the chain of their conversion, stand up! There are none to answer. The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of
the hour for today's ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.

In addition to an unhealthy elevation of music you can add drama as an unhelpful introduction to the church.

Sam Drucker

Angel of Light (Part 2)

2011-09-11T20:03:00.002+10:00

This is the second and concluding reproduction of the Maurice Roberts essay in the December 1988 edition of the Banner of Truth journal.

2. CONFUSING US WITH 'LOOK ALIKE' DOCTRINES

We do not always at first sight detect the difference between the real doctrine and its imitation any more than we do between real gold and cheap alloy which looks the same. The nineteenth-century apostasy took place under the noses of ten thousand theologians, who confused scholarship with infidelity. Professing themselves to be pioneers of a deeper knowledge of the gospel, they all but destroyed the gospel. The key of Higher Criticism did not unlock the door of the treasure-house but effectively shut, bolted and barred it to men

This method of blinding us to truth by 'look-alike' substitutes is an age-old invention of Satan and deserves to be called the 'joker' in his pack. What mirth hell has had with it!

In the fourth century, the true doctrine of Christ's person differed from the false by no more than one iota. He is 'homoousios' (of one essence with) the Father, not merely homoiousios (of similar essence), as the Arians of the day asserted. These 'look-alikes' of Satan have cropped up over and over again in first one and then another department of church doctrine: faith, the Lord's Supper, the ministry, authority, the treatment due to 'heretics'. Church and State, theories of Atonement.

The needle of truth needs only to be pushed a little to this side or to that and it becomes generically different. Justification pushed to one side becomes Antinomianism; pushed to the other, it is legalism. Faith, when overdone, is fancy or fanaticism; when immature, it is bare notion or bald supposition. The Reformed view of the Lord's Supper lies in the mean between the Romish and the Zwinglian, so-called.

Long and hard has hell laboured to rob the church of blessing by such substitutions! Satan lays his cuckoo's egg in the nest and waits to see how his bastard doctrine confounds God's people. How else can we account for the way Calvinism became Hyper-Calvinism so quickly in some circles? Or true Ecumenism the false ecumenism of the World Council of Churches?

Our fathers enjoyed true revivals. But they did not all recognise that the Revivalism of some American theologians is a serious error. 'Revival' is something that man 'can do', said C. G. Finney, in his lectures entitled Revivals of Religion. It is 'the right use of the appropriate means'. Between this theory which we call 'Revivalism' and true revival there lies a world of difference. Much that claims to be a resurgence of the supernatural in the modern church is really nothing but Mediaeval superstition under a new disguise.

3. TURNING DOCTRINES INTO SLOGANS

The strength of churches is their orthodoxy coupled with their spirituality. Orthodoxy will not save churches from decline if spirituality is lost. 'Hold on to your orthodoxy' is advice which Satan will find no fault with provided we can be induced to grow steadily weaker in the love of our orthodoxy.

There are groups which venerate 'the Reformation', 'the Glorious Revolution' and 'the Westminster Confession' and yet whose adherents are virtual strangers to heart-religion, repentance and a holy life.

Every great movement tends to expire with some orthodox breath upon its lips. The Mediaeval church revered Augustine, while it systematically denied Augustine's creed. Methodism expired with the names of its great founders still nominally cherished and yet their high view of Scripture abandoned. The term 'Disruption' still held for Scottish ears a ring of glory long after the central theology of the Disruption forefathers had been watered down into Liberalism.

The same is fast becoming true of the phrase 'the new birth'. As doctrine, the devil detests it; as slogan, it is as harmless to his kingdom as a dead lion.

The trouble is that we are generally two or three generations into a state of declension before we wake up to the fact that we have taken our orthodoxy for granted. We did not see that we had slidden imperceptibly into greater and greater nominalism. Once let our creed be taken with a pinch of salt and we can be as orthodox as we like. Satan will have won the contest with us. The rising generation of young Christians will then not deny the great doctrines of the faith. They will pay lip-service to them—and wink with amusement at the stricter way of life which once went with them.

Truth and spirituality wear out as good carpets do. The pattern is still seen when the pile is gone. Provided there is still some pattern visible we flatter ourselves that the carpet is not worn out. Thus truth is trodden by the foot of complacency until it is threadbare. Truth is reduced to a shadow of its former self It has become a slogan. What began as a living force has degenerated into a dead form.

4. ALTERING THE TRUE NAMES OF THINGS

A common piece of duplicity found in the armoury of the angel of light is the alteration of names. This is a trick of Satan's which much resembles the second point made above but which is worthy of distinct and separate treatment. A man will drink paraquat for lemonade if the label is suitably changed and he will pay the penalty for his mistake. Such is man's gullibility, that he commonly allows himself to be deceived by Satan through the switching of ethical and spiritual labels.

No words are more respectable than the famous church words 'Orthodox' and 'Catholic', for example. Orthodoxy refers to soundness in doctrine. Catholicity to our relationship with all the members of Christ upon earth. Could two more wholesome words possibly be found to describe true Christians everywhere and in all ages? But the angel of light early stamped them with connotations all their own. They first became party-words and then developed meanings the very reverse of their original sense. Historically the 'Orthodox' have sadly embraced much heterodoxy and the term 'Catholicism' has all too often been synonymous with the most narrow bigotry.

More recently, the term 'Neo-Orthodox' has been minted to describe a certain type of attitude to the Bible. But it is by no means the old orthodoxy of the Apostles and Reformers. The poison is there as before. All that has changed is the label.

Infidelity never presents itself as such. It comes to mankind packaged as 'Science'. Sodomy is not now to be thought of as the old sin which the Lord punished with fire and brimstone as a warning ever after to mankind. It is something quite harmless and 'gay'. Ministers and church people who commit it are 'gay Christians'. They are nice, harmless persons, presumably, who will go to heaven the same as others, and to whom the New Testament warnings have no relevance. O! poor, blind humanity whom Satan so easily deceives by no more clever trick than a change of label! We cannot too often be reminded that God is not mocked although man may be. 'Science', if it contradicts Scripture, is not science but a species of blasphemy. Human behaviour, if it conforms to forbidden patterns, is not excusable because 'gay', any more than that of the men of Gomorrah. And for a modern preacher to arrogate to himself the title of 'Apostle' is not to wield apostolic power but merely to rob words of their meaning and to confuse the church of God.

There is a stern judgment threatened by the Almighty against all those who change the labels and thereby spread confusion among God's people: 'Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!' [Isa. 5:20]. It is our wisdom to call things by their proper names, in religion and in ethics, as in all else.

Lovers of Christ's gospel everywhere must be aware of the mists of false charity which envelop them. Men hold out to us the right hand of fellowship. But the price is always the compromise of some truth or Other. The angel of light invites good men to swallow first one hoof and then another, in the hope they will eventually swallow the entire camel. Truth is lost by littles if men are not careful. God has drawn the lines of true religion m the holy Scriptures. We are not free to rub out those lines and redraw them. Our consciences are captive.

Written more than twenty years ago, Roberts' article bears reproduction as a warning to the Church to be alert to the working of the Angel of Light. Theistic Evolutionists, for one, should abandon the one who has led them into compromising the Word of God with the prevailing world view on Origins.

Sam Drucker

Angel of Light (Part 1)

2011-09-07T21:05:00.003+10:00

The essays of Maurice Roberts, former Editor of the Banner of Truth Journal, are always helpful reading. His essay on The Angel of Light in the December 1988 Journal number 303 is worth repeating here in two parts because we will all encounter the Angel of Light or those unwittingly acting for him:

The Christian who is to get through this life unscathed must learn to fight Satan not only as an angel of darkness but also as an angel of light. Even the world has the wisdom to see that 'the devil you know is better than the devil you do not know'. The point is that we do not recognise an unknown enemy so easily and an enemy in the guise of a friend is obviously the worst combination imaginable. The terrorist who approaches us dressed as a policeman is the most deadly foe of all
because he has all the advantages of surprise and deceit. So is the devil to God's people when he poses as 'an angel of light' [2 Cor. 11:14] The velvet glove of hell's diplomacy succeeds where the mailed fist of persecution fails. We are accustomed to meeting Satan as a devil but not as an angel and we are trained to expect him wearing the mantle of darkness but not the garment of light.

It goes without saying that the devil's motive and intention is always precisely the same. He aims to drag God's Name down into the dust. Satan cares comparatively little for the creature. It is the Creator's declarative glory he intends to destroy. In striking at the church, he is aiming his blow at God. But because God is eternally beyond his reach and because Christ, since his exaltation, is beyond the power of temptation Satan directs his fury against the church. The church is almost all that is left to Satan to attack. It is, so to speak, the Achilles' heel of Christ, the only place where Christ is vulnerable. The world lies already in his power [1 John 5:19], So not a day nor a part of a day elapses but all hell schemes fresh attacks upon the kingdom of grace. Every move and counter-move of the devil is made with the end in view of mining God's honour by leading His people into sin.

Sin is seldom, if ever, original. The newest vices of our modern world appear to have all had their counterpart in the ancient world, and, no doubt, were practiced before the Flood. Similarly, the devil's temptations have no need to be original because the old, well-tried snares of the past are usually successful enough in each succeeding generation.

Our particular concern here is not with Satan's fiery darts' [Eph. 6:16] so much as with those subtler methods which he employs as an 'angel of light'. The twentieth-century western church is not so much under attack from Satan's bloodthirsty and brutal attacks as from his 'cunning craftiness' [Eph. 4:14]. It is all the more necessary that we should become a little more familiar with some of the tricks which belong to his 'velvet-glove' diplomacy.

1. DRIVING US TO AN EXTREME

This is a marvellously successful mode of temptation, remarkable alike for its simplicity and effectiveness. The perfection of both doctrine and practice always lies in the mean between two extremes. Christ, so to speak, is always between two thieves, one on the right and the other on the left.

It is the devil's task, therefore, to drive us to one extreme or the other. This he does, not by force of arms, but by the suggestion of serving God more consistently. The movement which extolled virginity and celibacy in the early church did so with the laudable motive of consecrating the whole of life to God's work. Marriage was degraded as a consequence and, by the Middle Ages, the monastic life was marked by the vices which result from sexual repression. The devil foresaw it. Earnest churchmen like Jerome did not.

Generally speaking, Satan will lead us along the path of temperamental inclination so that we end up by making vices out of our virtues. The man (and more especially the minister) who excels in culture and courtesy ends up in compromise. The independent thinker becomes autocratic and ends up a tyrant. The efficient congregation becomes so smooth-running that it resembles a machine rather than a church for needy sinners. What begins as virtue ends up as vice. 'Pray be more like your virtues,' says the angel of light, till extremes are reached and we undo the good we intended to do. To turn the paraffin lamp up too high gives, not more light, but more smoke. It is a common device of our adversary. The history of the church of Christ illustrates his successes in both theory and practice.

Final instalment in a few days.

Sam Drucker

Atheists and Their 'Bedfellows'.

2011-09-04T23:04:00.001+10:00

Periodically, a Biblical Creationist is accused by Atheists of being a 'Flat Earther' i.e. someone who's science is so lacking that they are capable of believing the earth is flat.

Such a 'slag' has returned to bite Atheists on the backside via the following article

It seems Atheists are those who have the strange 'bedfellows' because the leader of the Flat Earth Society believes, like Atheists, in Evolution!

Sam Drucker

The World Marches On

2011-09-04T16:24:00.001+10:00

Ironic to hear the Archbishop of Sydney and one of his Bishops, Glenn Davies, objecting in the media about the new [Australian] national history curriculum removing reference to BC and AD as historical time markers. It's ironic because both gentlemen have been known to make comments which, at the very least, cloud the issue of the historicity of Genesis 1 Creation account.

By equivocating on the historicity of the Creation account the Church has given ground to the 'world' and that ground has turned out to be a vantage point to make further assaults on the significance of biblical history. Having taken the earlier battle with hardly a whimper from the Church the 'world' is all the more confident of victory in the battleground that is the New Testament.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 63 verse 30

2011-09-01T12:03:00.000+10:00

30. So it will also be observed that the directions that obtain for the other living creatures are not exhaustive. Fish are not mentioned. But, no doubt, this word was merely to inform man in reference to the creatures with which he had the more immediate contact. So all living creatures are summed up in this verse in three classes: wild beasts of the earth, birds, and reptiles--and, summing up still more, comes the closing phrase applicable to all, "in which there is a living soul." The food, however, that by God's ordinance is appointed for all these is described as "all the green herbs." It is taken, therefore, from the second of the three classes of v. 11 and the restrictive modifier preceding yereg, yielding the expression "greenness of herb," which we have rendered "the green herbs." That cannot be identical with everything that comes under the class of "herbs." Meek, therefore, renders quite appropriately "all the green plants." The verb of the main clause of this verse is missing; "I have given" is best supplied from the preceding verse.

In brief, this verse is an indication of the perfect harmony prevailing in the animal world. No beast preyed upon the other. Rapacious and ferocious wild beasts did not yet exist. This verse, then, indicates very briefly for this chapter what is unfolded at length in chapter two, that a paradise-like state prevailed at creation.

Skinner pronounces v. 29.and 30 to be an indication of one of the sources which P worked into his account, because these verses, as he says, "differ significantly in their phraseology from the preceding sections.". The trifling difference of an abbreviated summary is exaggerated into what is said to "differ significantly." The critics need far more substantial arguments than untenable exaggerations. The same author claims that we have in these verses an "enrichment of the creation story by the independent and widespread myth of the Golden Age." Why, pray, cannot the simple unadorned account merely be a narrative of things as they actually transpired? Answer: the critics have decreed that such accounts cannot exist; all such narratives must be patchwork in which a generous measure of myth has been incorporated. But decreeing that it must be as the critics surmise is not proof. We refuse to be intimidated by claims which lack actual substance.

Let the student of the original note in v. 29 an instance where the relative is not separated from its adverbial term belonging to it 'asher-bo (K. S. 58).

Terror in Idyllic Blue Mountains of NSW

2011-08-28T17:47:00.002+10:00

Thousands of wheat and tares gather annually in Katoomba, NSW, during the early weeks of January for the CMS (Church Missionary Society) Summer School. It is a popular event and will likely attract similar numbers from 7-13 January 2012.

I have been handed a brochure promoting the upcoming event and I was struck by the promotional statements contained within it - all surrounding the Speaker and topic. I restate a couple of paragraphs:

Who's Speaking?

Dr Peter Jensen has been the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney since 2001. A key leader in the worldwide Anglican Church, he has written a number of books on Christian doctrine, including "At the Heart of the Universe" (1991) and "The Revelation God" (2002). Prior to his election as archbishop, Peter Jensen was Principal of Moore College and lectured in systematic and biblical theology. He is a gifted preacher and teacher. Peter Jensen will be speaking on the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

This summer join us as Archbishop Peter Jensen takes us back to the beginning. The beginning of the world, the beginning of grace. Be inspired as he opens up the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Be challenged as he draws out the relevance of these ancient stories to modern mission

What is in store for attendees? Will it be erosion of faith or encouragement of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ in all His "offices"? It is terrifying to contemplate the former. Yet it is not without good reason - unless the Archbishop has had a sort of "Damascus Road" experience such as Theologian R.C. Sproule had in recent years. Without such a change we are left to be terrified because of past declared Theistic Evolution sentiments expressed in PTC notes, the appointment to staff at Moore College some years ago of a strong advocate of Theistic Evolution and its mouthpiece in the Church - ISCAST, and the rampant spread of belief in Theistic Evolution within the Diocese of Sydney in the years since.

"the beginning of grace" What grace exists in such a monstrous process of Creation?

Sam Drucker

The Church and its Heresies

2011-08-21T20:41:00.003+10:00

Search the dictionaries and you will find 'nature' defined as something corresponding to "Thing's essential qualities, person's or animals innate character". On another level, you think, speak and act according to your nature. As our Lord Jesus Christ put it "Each tree is recognized by its own fruit." (Luke 6:44)

It is important to remember this as you consider heresies which have arisen in Christ's Church since Pentecost. I am going to identify and comment briefly on some of the early heresies here following (much of the commentary is direct quoting from "Know The Truth" by Bruce Milne; Inter-Varsity-Press, 1981):

Ebionism

Derived from Jewish Christianity and attempted to solve a perceived problem of the relationship of humanity and divinity in Christ by effectively removing the divinity. Jesus was simply the human, though divinely appointed, Messiah who was destined to return at the end of the age to reign on the earth by God's sovereign power. In effect this left the gulf between God and man unbridged.

Docetism

Dates from apostolic times. In contrast to Ebionism it solved the problem by excising the humanity of Christ. Jesus only seemed human (Gk. doceo - seem). Its roots lie in Graeco-Oriental convictions that matter is inherently evil and that God cannot be the subject of feelings or other human experiences. Docetism was unacceptable because it cut the bridge between God and man at the other end; God did not really come to us, hence no effective sacrifice was made for our sins.

Gnosticism

The thought-world of Gnosticism has been said to be loaded with bizarre speculations, and it is unclear how far it was a unified system of thought. Christ is seen by some Gnostic writers as descended from the heavenly stratosphere or 'fullness' (Gk. pleroma); he united himself for a time with a historic person, Jesus, whose body was formed of a psychic substance, the two elements being loosely linked in him. Gnosticism clearly reflected a strong Docetic tendency. It effectively cut the bridge at both ends; neither true God nor true man, Christ was unfitted to be the mediator.

Arianism

Revolved around the views of Arius (256-336), a presbyter of Alexandria who had been influenced by the great teacher, Origen. Arius came to hold that 'the Son was created'. Arius had imbibed Plato's division between the tangible world of sense experience and the intangible world of ideas. God, the absolutely unique and unoriginated source of all things, belonged to the second of these worlds, so was radically separated from the created world. Once this framework is accepted there is obviously great difficulty in fitting the Son (Logos, the Word, Jn. 1:1) into the picture. Arius concluded that the Logos must belong to the creaturely side of being; hence he is not eternal,al5 but is himself a created being: 'there was a time when he [Christ] was not'. Christ is the most exalted of all creatures certainly, but ultimately only that.

Apollinarianism

Apollinarius (310-390), an over-enthusiastic supporter of Athanasius, held that in Jesus the eternal Word (Logos) took the place of the human soul. At the incarnation God the Son took up residence in a human body, so that Christ did not possess a full human nature. The position, obviously Docetic in tendency, was rejected since it in effect denies that God truly became man.

Nestorianism

Nestorius was appointed Archbishop of Constantinople in AD 428. In the interests of preserving the full manhood of the mediator, Nestorianism taught the separation of the two natures in Christ to the extent of rendering questionable his authentic personal unity; this rendered the incarnation invalid and imperiled salvation. Many scholars today believe that Nestorius himself did not hold many of the views attributed to him by his 'orthodox' opponents.

Eutychianism

Eutyches, an outspoken opponent of Nestorianism, championed the unity of Christ's person and claimed that, while there were two natures before the incarnation, there was only one composite nature after it. This implies that Jesus is a third sort of being, neither true man nor true God, hence unable to act as mediator. Eutyches was condemned at the Synod of Constantinople in 448, but reinstated somewhat dubiously at Ephesus in 449. Clearly matters could not continue in this manner and a major council was summoned at Chalcedon in 451 to resolve the debates once and for all. The statement of the Council of Chalcedon, which was deeply influenced by the more pragmatic theology of the West, failed to please all the parties but has been the basis for orthodox formulations of the person of Christ ever since.

So ends the examples of heresies I am going to recall from the early church. There have been others but sufficient are provided to make the point.

It should be noted that, for all intents and purposes, these heresies arose from people purporting to be Christian. It should also not escape the reader's attention that, at its root, each heresy was a corruption of the 'Nature' of Jesus Christ. Proponents did not think they were maligning the 'Nature' of Jesus Christ. Instead, they likely hoped to be a help toward a right understanding in believers as to the true 'Nature' of the Jesus Christ.

It is clear that in some instances, and probably all, that their world view influenced proponents in the formulation of their doctrine cum heresy.

It is also evident from closer study that some heresies had large following, had been influential in the life of the church for a long time and incurred great pain and diligence to remove them from Christ's Church. Even today, at least one of those heresies has life in religious bodies considered now to be non-Christian.

We should note from this sad history of the church that the 'Nature' of Jesus Christ is not something to be taken casually because it has far reaching consequences for the Gospel of Jesus Christ i.e. His 'Nature', the condition of Man, His work on the Cross for Man and His Resurrection. Clearly, the 'Nature' of Jesus Christ is intrinsic to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the faithful of old saw this, fought for it and won the battle.

For more than a century another heresy has gained momentum within the church and is proving very difficult to dislodge. Like those heresies of old it corrupts the 'Nature' of Jesus Christ. It is that heresy which ascribes to Jesus Christ a method of creation that is bloody, frustration filled, intelligence lacking, disease and death-riddled and it is that called Theistic Evolution. All those characteristics are necessary components of the Theory of Evolution proposed by Charles Darwin and advocated by Neo-Darwinists today. These same characteristics must therefore be similarly acknowledged by those in the church who seek to super-impose Jesus Christ over the process to arrive at their 'dog's breakfast' - Theistic Evolution.

In their rush to embrace the prevailing world view on Origins, Theistic Evolutionists lose sight of the 'Nature' of Jesus Christ borne in His Incarnate Being. Demonstrating their foolishness these heretics inconsistently recognize the 'Nature' of Jesus Christ in his communications and activities when Incarnate yet are obliged to divorce Him from that same 'Nature' in His creative works at the beginning of Creation. This has to be the consequence of ascribing a bloody, frustration filled, intelligence lacking, disease and death-riddled process to Jesus Christ in His creative works.

Compare for a moment that 'survival of the fittest' principle pregnant in the ordering of life according to the theory of (Theistic) Evolution. Is that principle to be found in the 'Nature' of Jesus Christ? Who:

"being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in the appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross." (Phlp. 2:6-8)

and said "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" (Matt. 5:5)

and "Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy" (Matt. 5:7)

and "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt. 5:9)

and "Do not resist and evil person. if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well" (Matt. 5:39-40)

and "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" Matt. 5:44)

Theistic Evolutionists, I have some questions for you.

Just who is the Jesus Christ you profess faith in?

What is the 'Nature' of this Jesus Christ you profess faith in?

How long will you espouse to the world the monster deity that you do?

How long will you continue eroding faith in Christ's Church?

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 62 verses 29, 30

2011-08-15T12:02:00.000+10:00

29, 30. And God said: Behold, I have given you all herbs yielding seed which are upon the face of all the earth, and every tree upon which there is seed-bearing fruit--to you it shall be for food. And to all the wild beasts of the earth, and to all the birds, of the heavens, and to all the land reptiles in which there is a living soul (I have given) all the green herbs for food. And it was so.

Such basic directions as man needs for guiding his steps in this world which is entirely new to him are here given in the matter of food (v. 29), and at the same time it is revealed to man what manner of food is to provide sustenance for beasts (v. 30). Besides being a very welcome direction, this word is also another indication of the rich and abounding love that the Heavenly Father bears to His creatures, made in His image.

The opening "behold" imparts a certain vigour to this gracious bestowal. The verb "I have given" (nathsstti) stands in the perfect, the usual construction in ordinances or abiding decrees. The perfect gives the impression of a rule firmly fixed and already unwavering. (G. K. 106 m; K. S. 131). Man is permitted to use a great variety of things comprising a vegetable diet. Two great classes are laid open to him: "herbs yielding seed" and, "fruit trees which have seed-bearing fruit." The classes are indicated and the distinguishing marks that are to be observed are stated. This marks two of the three classes of v. 11 as adapted to man's use. Since there is the possibility that since the Fall vegetation may have suffered a very material change, perhaps we are no longer in a position fully to appreciate how apt the descriptive marks mentioned really are. However, the word "all" is indicative of the rich bounty bestowed. In a marvellously rich and beautiful world the rich bounty of very many different kinds of herbs and trees provided the finest proof of the Creator's goodness.

Without a doubt, this word covering what food is permissible was intended to be a complete guide as to what man might eat. If 9:3 be held at the side of this word, the contrast implies that animal food was not permitted. It will hardly do to point to man's dominion over the beasts of the field, over fowl, and over fish (v. 26), for this word (v. 29) very definitely shows man what he may use for food. We believe that sincere regard for the very letter of God's command will have led our first parents to stay strictly within the limits of this word. As to the question, whether any men ventured before the Flood to eat animal food, we can only offer surmises. Not all men continued in the right relation to God, and so there may have been some of the ungodly who ventured to transgress this original permission. But we cannot venture to call such procedure common. Least of all could any true believer have disregarded the restriction implied in this word.

Certainly, a measure of latitude is allowed to man in respect to what may be permissible and wholesome food for him. This broad allowance was never tended to be exhaustive. So it has been pointed out (Dillmann) that nothing is said, for example, about the use of milk and of honey, which may be thought of as lying on the borderline between animal and vegetable food. The critically minded should not forget that a being endowed with the high intelligence that we find in the first man needed no more than a broad outline to guide him to a choice pleasing to God and beneficial for himself.

Signpost on the Road to Irrelevance

2011-08-14T17:46:00.003+10:00

Youthworks is the name given to a Diocese of Sydney Episcopalian ministry to youth. Earlier in 2011 Ruth Lukabyo, Church History and Evangelism Lecturer, Youthworks College, reported on the results of a survey she had undertaken with 208 Scripture students aged 11 to 14 years.

In State schools in NSW, Australia, parents can indicate on the student's enrolment form whether attendance in Special Religious Education i.e. instruction provided by certain religious organizations, should be available to their child. The format is commonly called Scripture and it allows various religious 'faiths' to sustain or 'evangelize' students in the respective faith. Atheists, Sceptics, Humanists (and their ally - the NSW Teachers' Federation Union) want Scripture removed but are frustrated because it is enshrined in an Act of Parliament.

Ruth Lukabyo was surprised at the result of her survey because she believed that earlier Scripture exposure and a likely proportion of students having come from Christian homes would have produced greater understanding of Christian basics. The four survey questions attracting most attention from students were:

1. How can I know that God exists?
2. How could a good God send people to hell?
3. How can I believe in a good God when there is so much suffering?
4. Doesn’t evolution prove that God doesn’t exist?

The survey also allowed students to pose their own questions outside the range provided. In this aspect of the survey the four most asked questions were:

1. Where does God come from?
2. Why did God make us?
3. If the Big Bang is true does that mean God is not?
4. What is heaven & hell and how do you go there?

Amongst other things Lukabyo goes on to say was: At this age adolescents are being taught the scientific law of cause and effect at school as well as the theory of the Big Bang. They seem to take to heart the maxim that every event has a cause: if the cause of the universe is God, then where did God come from, who made God? If the Big Bang is the ultimate cause of the universe, does this mean that we no longer need to believe in God? We need to clearly engage with these scientific questions of causation and show that a scientific explanation of the world and its origin does not rule out belief in God. The importance of this is shown by the number of children who grow up to give up their childhood faith. Mason et al show that the biggest reason for giving up faith at 16%, was “doing further study, especially science" Are we adequately dealing with the questions of origin to give children a coherent Christian worldview that can stand the test of time?

Sadly, most Sydney Episcopalians let loose in Scripture classes fail students at this point. Having syncretized the foundational Christian belief in Origins with the world's view of Origins they present an indigestible message to students. Even more questions arise. For one thing: How could a good/loving God use a bad means of Creation such as the mechanism of Evolution? For another: If the Creator used a process of death and struggle to create what would a future in Eternity with this Creator involve?

Such is the malaise within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney that an affirmative answer to Ruth Lukabyo's question: Are we adequately dealing with the questions of origin to give children a coherent Christian worldview that can stand the test of time? is not to be found in the present order. Only a Reformation from the Hand of God will bring the necessary change. In saying this, I might also validly assert that the Reformation of five centuries ago did not go far enough. While key proponents such as Luther and Calvin upheld the traditional rendering of a six day Creation occurring only thousands of years prior they and others did not go far enough to remove the pagan influence of Aristotle from Christian thought. Perhaps then, the Reformation of centuries past is not yet complete and we ought to pray to God that He will raise up men who will take the Reformation forward to fulfilment. The tools are there on the matter of Origins. There are Christian men and women researching and publishing research which exposes the failings of the Evolution theory of Origins and the alleged Long Age for the Earth. If only alleged Christian brothers and sisters would read the research material and learn the shallowness and futility of the current world view.

If such a Reformation does not occur the increasing irrelevance of Christianity, particularly in the State school system, will hasten the day when provision for Special Religious Education is removed from the Act.

Sam Drucker

When Talk Is Cheap.

2011-08-07T20:07:00.004+10:00

Amid the deplorable decline in trust in the Word of God within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, and it is accelerating under the 'young guns' being given more print and lectern space than merit warrants, is the devious shift toward literary devices to explain away the original intent of the author of Scripture.

As pertaining to the Creation account, undue worth is given to pagan creation myths, even to suggesting that the Biblical Creation account is influenced by pagan accounts.

In their whoring after the world these Sydney Episcopalians literally adopt the position of the whoring wife which prophet Hosea symbolically married to expose an adulterous Israel. Their dilution of the authority of the Word of God has no boundary and the effect, while noticeable now, will have devastating consequences for the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney in years to come.

I wonder whether the world, in its own strength, is showing Sydney Episcopalians something of the wisdom the Diocese is abandoning. The inheritance from the fathers of the Protestant Reformation is being cast aside and, to some extent has been taken up by the world.

This thought was reinforced in me recently when reading "Facts and Values - An Introduction to Critical Thinking For Nurses" written by Stan van Hooft, Lynn Gillam and Margot Byrnes and published by MacLennan & Petty Pty Ltd, 1995.

On the subject of Elements of Communication the following extracts provide principles which Sydney Episcopalians, especially the 'young guns', have long abandoned when approaching the Word of God. I cite some of these principles herewith:

Even in the event that the text has not been read by anyone, the writer can still be assumed to have had an audience in mind when he or she wrote it .....

Knowing how to send and receive communications includes knowing how some statements imply others and how certain things cannot be logically coherent. It includes knowing that if something is green it must be coloured, and that it makes no sense to say that it could be not green as well. (Logicians call this the law of non-contradiction.) .....

Also relevant, but more difficult to specify, are shared attitudes. Parties to successful communication must share attitudes in order to understand one another fully .....

A fifth element in the context of communication is difficult to describe in abstract terms. It is the ethics of communication. Parties to a communication have certain responsibilities in regard to it. Somebody who tells me something has an obligation to tell the truth. And I have an obligation to pay attention and to take what he tells me seriously. Authors and audiences must have appropriate intentions for a communication to succeed, and these are requirements of an ethical kind. There are values inherent in communication. It is important to notice that these sorts of requirements can make a difference as to whether a communication succeeds .....

This seventh and final element in communication might be described as levels of meaning. Most of the time we take what people say and write at face value. What the text says is what the author wants to tell us.

I would suggest the aforesaid snippets of understanding are a legacy of Judeo-Christian influence of times past whereas the 'young guns' of the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese derive their thinking and application to that vaccuous proposition of thought - Post Modernism.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 61 verse 28 Subdue

2011-08-01T12:01:00.000+10:00

"Subdue," the new word in the account of man's dominion, is kabhash, and it differs from "have dominion" (radhah) in that its root rather implies "to knead", or "to tread," whereas the latter is the stronger according to parallel roots, meaning "to stamp down." Yet this difference is not to be pressed. The statement of the things to be ruled is a bit more condensed than in v. 26, for the last statement summarizes, "every living creature moving about upon the earth." This expression covers everything beyond "birds" and "fish," namely everything mentioned in addition in v. 26 with the exception of "all the earth." Again the text needs no correction or addition of "over the cattle" as Kittel suggests after the pattern of the Septuagint and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. This would merely secure a kind of wooden uniformity plus an idle. repetition. The statement in the text covers all this. This broader meaning of the verb ramas, "to move about," (B D B) is assured by the passages: (Ge 7:21; 8:19; Ps 104:20). "Subdue it," the verb with the object suffix (kibhshuha). offers the only. instance in this chapter of an object without the sign of the accusative ('eth).

A very important institution is brought into being at this point, the institution of marriage. Here is another point of correspondence between chapter one and chapter two, though the latter gives greater detail. After v. 26 has now given the summary account of the creation of one pair, "male and female," v. 27 proceeds to have the divine command laid upon this one pair: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." The primary purpose of marriage is here indicated. On "fill the earth" Whitelaw remarks: "This clause may be regarded as the colonist's charter"-- a very proper observation.

More Light Shines in the Dark

2011-08-01T00:59:00.000+10:00

Heard about a panel discussion on Origins at a Egyptian Coptic Church in my neighbourhood tonight. I was free so I thought I would go along.

On arrival I learned that there was to be one each of a Biblical Creationist, a Theistic Evolutionist, an Intelligent Design and an Atheist speaker on the panel. The priest of the church had organised the event as part of the Apologetics stream of church teaching and preparation for the English speaking young congregation. The priest was quite an articulate and most affable man. He announced that every effort to secure an Atheist speaker from the nearby university failed. However, six to ten Atheists (or at least Humanists) turned up to be part of the audience and ask questions. The biblical Creationist was from Creation Ministries International; the Theistic Evolutionist turned out to be skeptic of evolution (but no fan of Biblical Creationism) who taught evolution at a Catholic institution because the curriculum required it; the other speaker was, I think, a member of the Coptic Church who was a medical student, an Intelligent Design advocate and a little antagonistic toward the Biblical Creationist. My rough count put the audience number at eighty plus attendees.

Another member of the church gave a half hour run-down on the different views and laid down guidelines for the audience to watch out for by way of errors of logic in the position to be espoused by panel members.

Each panel member was given five minutes to state their belief then, after a ten minute break, we got into the panel discussion. Most questions were directed at the Biblical Creationist both from other panel members and the audience. He handled it all gently but a little softly for my hearing.

While the priest carefully guided order there was a little disjointedness about the questions asked and answers given. I thought too that some questions and answers were a little over the head of the audience.

One Atheist when asking a question made a preliminary statement observing that this was the friendliest church he had been to. I agree as to the friendliness of the church. I also considered the Atheists to be polite and orderly.

I later overheard the priest in conversation say that his intention of having such an event was to help the young people of the church hear just what the Biblical Creationist position because there had been some animosity toward them from within the young and it was the priest's desire that his young ought not rely on what their opponents say about them. This is commendable but I felt the format did not provide the best means for the Biblical Creationist to state his position with clarity and completeness.

After the event I went to the table in the foyer where the Biblical Creationist's helpers had a table with some of their wares for sale. Notwithstanding my reservations at the format for the event, as I looked at things I heard young members of the church on the way out expressing warm thanks to the Biblical Creationists for coming along. Just politeness or appreciation of what they heard? - I think I read it more the latter. What convinces me most of this were two Sisters/Nuns (in habit) who came to the table while I was there. They were aged in their twenties or thirties and they had a very gentle and earnest manner in desire for more information on the Biblical Creationist position. I listened with interest as they spoke to a helper searching for help. They said they didn't want literature too heavily scientific because they were just starting out exploring the subject. I detected most of all in them that they trusted God, they believed his Word and they had not heard before that there were good reasons to maintain this trust from observations of (empirical and philosophical) science. There was a simple desire to understand their Lord more and this was the highlight of the night for me but close behind that was observing from afar the Biblical Creationist and the Intelligent Design medical student in prolonged discussion after the formalities of the event and then the two going over to the table of wares and the Biblical Creationist handing a book to the Intelligent Design medical student with it being accepted with genuine reception. From antagonism to inquiry - this is information transfer.

May it be that our Lord waters the seeds sown tonight. I'm glad I went and I wish more power to Biblical Creationists in their endeavours in the Name of our Lord.

Sam Drucker

Christians the 'Whipping Boy" Again.

2011-07-26T00:54:00.004+10:00

As time has allowed a more complete assessment of the Facebook page of the Norwegian mass murderer it has become clear the media 'jumped the gun' in labelling the man a "right wing fundamentalist Christian". The following link provides a better evaluation of the man:
worldnetdaily

The man is more Darwinian than Christian.

Sam Drucker

THE LORD'S DAY (Part 2)

2011-07-17T15:21:00.000+10:00

This is the second and final instalment of an address given some thirty years ago by John Richard de Witt under the heading "THE LORD'S DAY". I take up the address with de Witt making his second point about the fourth commandment:

The second aspect of the commandment on which I had thought to speak is the experiential one. What a blessed thing it is to 'call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable'! [Is 58.13] No doubt a large part of the difference between Christians who rejoice in the Lord's Day and the keeping of it and those who disport themselves on it very much as they might do on other days of the week is traceable to early experiences at just this point. Many of us can testify to the blessing, and to the blessed memories, given us by our parents in childhood years on the Lord's Day. Henry Ward Beecher once wrote of the sabbath of his parental home: It might have been made happier and better if there had been a little more adaptation to my disposition and my wants; but, with all its limitations, I would rather have the other six days of the week weeded out of my memory than the Sabbath of my childhood. And this is right. Every child ought to be so brought up in the family, that when he thinks of home the very first spot on which his thought rests shall be Sunday, as the culminating joy of the household'. Sir William Robertson Nicoll, writing of the staunch conservative leader of the old Free Church of Scotland, James Begg, who died nearly a hundred years ago, in some reflections both appreciative and critical, had this to say: 'His ideas about the Bible, the Sabbath, and Popery may be open to much criticism. But are not the Bible and the Sabbath what he called them-the two great pillars of visible religion? Has ever religion flourished where the Book and the Day have been despised?'

The third aspect of the sabbath commandment on which I had thought at first to speak is the eschatological one. The Heidelberg Catechism strikes an authentic note-drawn from Calvin-when it describes this facet of the truth: That all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by his Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath'. In the words of Calvin himself: The purpose of this commandment is that, being dead to our own inclinations and works, we should meditate on the Kingdom of God, and that we should practice this meditation in the ways established by him' [Institutes, 2/8/28]. The same truth is given expression in the Epistle to the Hebrews (it is here, after all, that Calvin learned it): There remaineth therefore a [sabbath] rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his' [4.9, 10]. The spiritual significance of the fourth commandment, then, according to this view - and it surely is a biblical one - is that by leaving off our sinful works and allowing the Lord to work his perfect will in us we foreshadow and in a sense begin already here and now the everlasting sabbath of rest, the life eternal in the presence of the Lord.

The ground which I would have taken, had I followed my original intention, is thus quite clear. But the problem we face - the crisis even - is so urgent and of such significance that it seemed to me I must take another line altogether. What do the Genevan and Puritan - the Continental and British - sabbaths have in common? After all, we are speaking of the closest kinship. And when we read in confessional statements and in the writings of our spiritual forebears we discover that a great deal of ground is shared by these two approaches to the Lord's Day. Moreover, we discover as well that we are - many of us - at a great remove from them in our own practice and in our own attitudes. While Calvin in his Institutes and other writings differs somewhat from the Westminster divines, they were self-consciously walking in what they understood to be his footsteps, and in those of the other Reformers. And while there is no doubt that with respect to the interpretation of the fourth commandment in terms of its theological significance and fulfilment a distinction must be drawn between the 'Continental' and the 'Puritan' sabbath, in practice the Lord's Day observance of Calvin and the Puritans was very much alike. Calvin thus could say: 'If we spend the Lord's day in making good cheer, and in playing and gaming, is that a good honouring of God ? Nay, is it not a mockery, yea and a very unhallowing of his name ?' And again: 'And though the bell toll to bring them [the people of Geneva who were neglecting the worship of God] to the sermon, yet it seems to them that they have nothing else to do but to think upon their business, and to cast up their accounts concerning this and that matter. Some others fall to gluttony, and shut themselves in their houses, because they dare not show a manifest contempt in the open street'. Moreover, while in Calvin's view every day, not just one day in the week, should belong to the Lord and be dedicated to his praise and service, the principle of an observance of one day in seven as a day of worship he held to be a minimum requirement.

What then is the force and effect of all this? One may speak of a crisis in the doctrine of the Lord's Day for many reasons. There is the in credible complexity of the times in which we live. What does it mean to keep the day holy? When we use our telephones, or heat our homes, or cook a meal, we are constraining some to work. Moreover, the very difficulty in keeping the day has led many to increasing degrees of laxity. If one cannot keep it perfectly, then perhaps one need not keep it at all.
Most evangelical Christians at least suppose that they belong in God's house on Sunday morning. But beyond that little is required of them, and they may be permitted to spend the day pretty much as they please. That the greater part of our people do not even go so far as this is evidenced by the fact that the majority of the membership of a typical congregation is not even in church once on the Lord's Day. In my experience - and I do not believe I am far wrong here - a typical congregation of, say, five hundred members may be represented by two hundred, perhaps two hundred and twenty-five at morning worship, and that includes children who have as yet made no profession of faith. What are we to say of the rest? And then what of the second service on the Lord's Day? And what of tile things people do in the afternoon and the evening? What of the abandonment of multitudes to their television addiction on the sabbath day? What of the careless causing of others to work on the sabbath day that we ourselves may be fed? What of the involvement in sporting events on the day? It was once the case - and not so very long ago - that
an athlete who professed faith but engaged in Sunday sports was regarded as suspect in his testimony. Now most Christians appear to have no problem with his conduct, and in fact join him in their enjoyment of the football game or whatever, free of conscience and without a conviction that this is the day which the Lord has made, a day in which to rejoice and be glad in him.

I wonder how many of us may be sabbath-breakers, rather than sabbath keepers. I wonder how many of us may not be careless even at the point of our going up to the house of God. The degree of our indifference to daily chapel services does not speak encouragingly in this respect. I do not, of course, suggest that the daily chapel services here are in the same category as the worship of the Lord's Day. But our joy in the public service of God, as Calvin did not tire of insisting, should extend to the daily praising of his name and the daily hearing of his Word. We have the privilege of worship every day, not only on the Lord's Day. How then is one to interpret and understand our refusal to seize upon and take advantage of an opportunity offered us here which is not likely to be ours again ever in our lifetime?

But what of the Lord's Day - that great pillar, along with the Bible, of true religion in our land? Do you remember the sabbath day to keep it holy? Do you hear God speak in his Word and take delight in obedience to what he commands you to do ? You may say, 'But the Puritan sabbath idea is Sabbatarian, and I want no part of that. I am free; Christ has made me free. And I intend to exercise my freedom'. Do not plead Calvin against the Westminster divines! For one thing, most of us are pledged to the position taken with great emphasis in our confessional standards. We really have no choice in the matter. So important was this issue held to be that, as I have already pointed out, a place of prominence was assigned to the sabbath commandment in the very framework of the Westminster Confession itself. But I need not argue from the Puritans to establish the truth of what I say. I may cite Calvin and cite him freely. And far above and beyond Calvin, I may cite the Word of God itself The other sins prohibited in the decalogue we think are reprehensible. Who of us would rise to the defence of theft, or murder, or covetousness? But what is to distinguish them from disobedience to the fourth commandment? What is to mark them off as far more depraved and aggravated in their depravity than sabbath-breaking, than indifference to the obedience required of us by God with respect to the leitourgia of faith, the service and praise of his name on the day he has reserved to himself for his own worship and for our rest?

As indicated previously, while I look forward to each Sabbath, I need to and will revise what I do on the day to afford myself greater opportunity to be "In the Spirit on the Lord's Day" and to be a vehicle for the Lord to glorify His Name.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 60 verse 28 Fruitfulness

2011-07-15T12:00:00.000+10:00

28. Then God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living creature moving about upon the earth.

That there is a similarity as well as a dissimilarity between man and all other living creatures is indicated by various means, here particularly by the fact that man's perpetuation of the human race is made to depend upon an effective divine blessing, as in the case of other creatures (v. 22), and by the use even of similar terms: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill." This last expression, therefore, is not a stylistic peculiarity but a historical fact indicative of the similarity just mentioned.

THE LORD'S DAY

2011-07-13T19:24:00.004+10:00

I look forward to Sundays because of it being the day when I and other Christians gather in the Name of our Lord. It is my most favoured day of the week. Upon reviewing a message delivered some thirty years ago by John Richard de Witt under the heading "THE LORD'S DAY" I am obliged to rethink what I do on the Sabbath because of some things I have allowed to intrude into the day.

In two instalments I will reproduce John Richard de Witt's address. Part One commences herewith:

"The question of the fourth commandment and its observance among us is a difficult one. And yet it is also one which needs to be addressed. The second table of the law is still regarded with some seriousness, at least by most professing Christians. Who would dispute that it is a fearful sin to take life? or to steal what belongs to another ? The problem is with the first table. And while various kinds of idolatry are to be ascertained all around us, and while the name of God is used vainly by multitudes, perhaps none of the commandments of the first table of the law is as widely ignored as that having to do with the day of rest, the sabbath day. I speak now, not of unbelievers as sabbath-breakers, but of those who would describe themselves as believers: not of Christians in general, but of evangelical Christians: not of evangelical Christians without further distinction, but of reformed Christians. How this can be I do not know. In the Reformed theological and spiritual heritage much has been made of the fourth commandment. Indeed, a great deal has been made of the law of God, the decalogue. And it is difficult to see how one can classify himself as Reformed if he is antinomian at even a single point.

Generally speaking. Reformed Christians have been sabbath-keepers. And their aim in being such has been to live in conformity with the holy law of God. At the same time, however, in Reformed theology at its highest and best, the prevalent view of the fourth commandment has not been such as to teach the need for observing one day of the week as a day of rest and worship in a legalistic fashion, confusing the old covenant with the new, Judaizing the age of the gospel: rather, the accent has been upon the joyful, happy observance of a commandment of God that rooted itself in the Lord and his own pattern of creation and rest at the beginning of the world, a commandment, moreover, designed to foster and encourage the life of the people before God and to minister to their own physical and spiritual needs. It is easy enough to find examples of extreme sabbatarianism: a keeping of the day in a legalistic, external, and Pharisaical manner. But those examples, however characteristic they may be of certain periods in the history of the church, represent aberrations and were never normative. It is obviously possible to find corruptions of believing obedience at any level and in any department of life.

I have found it not a little difficult to know how to approach speaking on this subject. My own conviction is that of the Westminster Standards. I do not doubt that the fourth commandment is rooted in the very nature of God, that it rests upon a creation ordinance, and that there is a binding quality about the commandment for Christians in this age as well as there was for Israel in the Old Testament period. One must admit, however, that not all Reformed Christians have thought alike on the meaning of the commandment. John Calvin and the Puritans, for example - though they clearly belong together in the same family and cleave to the same central truths - were not of one mind in this respect. One often hears mention of the so-called Puritan and Continental views of the sabbath.

These two understandings of the fourth commandment find confessional Statement in the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Shorter Catechism. The Heidelberg asks, 'What does God require in the fourth commandment?' And the the answer follows: In the first place, that the ministry of the Gospel and schools be maintained: and that I, especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church, to learn the Word of God, to use the holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian alms. In the second place, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by his Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath' [Ques and Ans 103]. The Shorter Catechism is much more particular and pointed. 'What is required in the fourth commandment ? The fourth commandment requireth the keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word: expressly one whole day in seven, to be a holy sabbath to himself. 'Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly sabbath? From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly sabbath: and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian sabbath'. 'How is the sabbath to be sanctified? The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days: and spending the whole time in the pubic and private exercises of God's worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy' [Ques and Ans 58, 59, 60J. ft should be remembered here also that the Westminster Confession of Faith devotes a whole chapter to 'Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day'. In the Heidelberg Catechism the spiritual and practical significance of the day is emphasized. In the Westminster Confession and Catechisms a theological and exegetical understanding of the fourth commandment is expressed which indicates clearly that, while the practical meaning of the day is not to be ignored, the keeping of the day as such is a matter on a level with the keeping of the other commandments and that the nature of the command in this respect has not basically changed with the advent of the age of the new covenant.

I had originally thought to speak this morning, from the perspective of the Westminster view of the sabbath, on the three biblical aspects of the fourth commandment. The first is the legal aspect: the fourth commandment is one of the ten; and the same God who said, 'Thou shalt not kill'. and 'Thou shalt not commit adultery', said also, 'Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy'. The commandment is clearly rooted in what is said in the Scriptures of the activity of God at the creation of the world: 'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it' [Ex 20.11; cf Gen 2.1-3].

One need not deny that there are certain ceremonial elements in the Old Testament form of the command. After all, it was then the seventh day that was to be observed; and the observance of the day was also carefully regulated under the Mosaic economy - regulated in a fashion now no longer in force. The Lord Jesus Christ called himself the Lord also of the sabbath, claiming authority over it, changing its character [Luke 6.5], and by his resurrection from the dead changing the day itself. Moreover, there are at least three passages in the New Testament that imply some degree of alteration: Romans 14.5, 6; Galatians 4.9-11; and Colossians 2.16, 17. The last passage is doubtless the clearest: 'Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ'. I myself believe that these more or less indirect references to the matter in hand have to do, not with the institution of the sabbath itself (which is an ordinance of creation), but with those things in its observance which were peculiar to its nature under the Levitical worship of the Old Testament. Moreover, all those regulations which the rabbis had added to the commandment as given in the decalogue were at once swept away. No one is to judge us any longer in meat, or in drink, or in respect of the holy days of a past which has been fulfilled in Christ. But this is not at all to say that the fourth commandment itself has lost its validity and relevance now that Christ has come. It is the Mosaic, the Levitical, the ceremonial, and the sacrificial aspects of the day that are removed, stripped off, done away. But the day remains.

How extraordinary it would have been were the Lord to remove one commandment from the everlasting and always-abiding law reflective of his own holy nature, without a hint to that effect in Scripture, without so much as an intimation that there was something different, something less permanent about the one as opposed to the others! The presumption is extremely strong - indeed so strong as to be no presumption but a certainty-that the fourth commandment remains always with the other nine: and that the holy law of God in this respect is in force and binding also upon Christians, to be sure, in its own way, a way consonant with fullness of the revelation that has come in Christ. Christians, therefore, are to be the sabbath-keepers, not sabbath-breakers. As Robert Murray M'Cheyne, the gracious and godly Scottish preacher of the last century, put it: 'Ah, guilty men! how plainly you show that you are on the broad road that leadeth to destruction. If you were a murderer or an adulterer, perhaps you would not dare to deny this. Do you not know - and all the sophistry of hell cannot disprove it - that the same God who said, 'Thou shalt not kill', said also, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy ?' The murderer who is dragged to the gibbet, and the polished Sabbath breaker are one in the sight of God.'"

Remainder in a few days.

Sam Drucker

Offence Taken.

2011-07-10T20:24:00.001+10:00

In a pitiful demonstration of capitulation to the world, John Dickson, co-founder of Centre of Public Christianity, in an article for the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday 9 August 2011 titled Art of Persuasion Not So Simple, consigns his "six-day creationist friends" to an unthinking underclass but, worse, reveals to the world the grotesque god in whom he believes.

In the article John Dickson observes in many people a mindset refusing to accept the obvious and even intensifying resistance as the evidence mounts against their position. On the subject of origins John Dickson says the following:

Other, specifically religious, arguments provide further examples of the powerlessness of facts to change minds. The evidence for biological evolution is good, but my six-day creationist friends seem to get stronger in their beliefs with every new peer review article from the scientific mainstream. Counter evidence does not conquer belief.

There are two deplorable elements to the citation.

The first I address is the insidious attitude so prevalent in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney of a veneer of niceness extended to Biblical Creationists while the proverbial knife is being run through their acceptance and worth in the Diocese. Every now and again the veneer of niceness slips and the real sentiment is open for all to see. Sadly, the Sydney Morning Herald has been a vehicle for blatant insult on two occasions. First there was reference to Biblical Creationists as "Hillbillies" by the Archbishop and now this article by John Dickson implying Biblical Creationists cannot discern truth when it is set before them.

It is interesting that elsewhere in the article John Dickson cites Aristotle to make a point. A friend has reminded me of the deathbed comment a few years ago by the man who introduced him to Jesus Christ from Atheism. The comment was "What the Church needs is a Copernican type revolution of thought to remove Aristotle from its theology." This was, in effect, a lament at the state of the Church today which the Reformation was supposed to have overcome. The Reformers certainly set out to remove Aristotle and, Peter Harrison, in his work The Bible - Protestantism and the rise of natural science identifies the position of Luther when he says on page 102:

"Religious reformers, too, launched attacks on the slavish adherence to tradition evident in institutions of learning. Luther had long argued that the universities, 'where only that blind, heathen teacher Aristotle rules', stood in need of 'a good thorough reformation'. Various groups in seventeenth-century England echoed this concern."

Somehow the heathen Aristotle remains an undesirable influence and snare in the Church in similar vein to the Canaanites who, despite the will of God, were allowed by the Israelites to remain in the Promised Land.

The second element of the John Dickson article is a greater offence because the man lays siege to the Word of God, His office as Creator and His nature.

On the basis of that which he believes on Origins, the god who John Dickson declares to the world is not the God revealed in Word Incarnate and Written. John Dickson has accepted the postulations of man over the Word of God. There are no "facts" of evolution on which John Dickson places his faith - only assumptions, extrapolations and postulations. Observed variation within species is not the basis of "facts" of evolution. The fossil record and the Word of God, as historical records, are unsupportive.

As an aside, many Sydney Episcopalians are somewhat duplicitous in their application of Romans 1:20. On the one hand they say that the unregenerate, because of the effects of the Fall, have no capacity to discern God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature and yet, on the matter of Origins, these same Episcopalians give all capacity of discernment to the unregenerate. This demonstrates the degenerate state of thinking prevalent within the Diocese as it moves further into irrelevance.

A creator god who, in the thinking of John Dickson, used a process of evolution is a monstrous and dysfunctional god something in the order of the gods of the nations surrounding Israel. Only a limit to intelligence would cause a creator god to use a process loaded with frustrations, dead ends, suffering and death such as the theory of evolution proposes as matter of course. Yet this is what John Dickson must accept and this is the god he presents to the world as the god to worship. How many would choose to accept the pagan gods instead?

Oh, I hear you say that John Dickson presents the very lovely Jesus Christ to the world and this is a gift most desirable. Reader, what you fail to see is that Jesus Christ is the great I AM of Exodus 3:14 and John 8:24 (leaving out the translator's added words in the latter passage) who created all things and in His Incarnate Person showed the fullness of God. In His Incarnate Person he performed recreative acts far and away removed in time and functionality from that process postulated in the theory of evolution and demonstrated He was the Creator God come to save mankind from their sins.

John Dickson, in ascribing a process of evolution to Jesus Christ, is seeking preferment of man while stripping Jesus Christ of His glory as Creator, replacing Him with a dysfunctional god no greater than other pagan gods and placing an obstacle in the way of the lost from knowing the One True God revealed in Word Incarnate and Written.

Let Romans 1:21 apply.

Sam Drucker

Defence of Natural Theology But Nay to Gap

2011-07-03T17:55:00.002+10:00

I recently read a review of the ministry of Thomas Chalmers in the Banner of Truth Journal for March 1980. Biblical Creationists such as myself are mindful that Thomas Chalmers proposed what has become known as the "Gap Theory" as a means to reconcile the Word of God with the 'world's' adopted view of a great age for the earth.

Essentially, "Gap Theory" places a long age and destroyed earth between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Biblical Creationists regard this 'age' as a significant event inadequately addressed in the text and an unwarranted imposition within the first two verses of the Word of God.

Notwithstanding my disagreement with Thomas Chalmers on this point I was interested to read the following from the author of the review:

Chalmers has been variously assessed as a teacher of theology. He was certainly not without deficiencies. In depth and accuracy of learning he is not in the front rank of Scottish theologians. The course of divinity which he set his students embodied the doubtful procedure of beginning with 'natural theology' before he advanced to the subject matter of Christianity itself.

This is a doubtful criticism of Chalmers considering the detachment of the review author by time and circumstance from Chalmers and his method. The method was not without precedent as the Apostle Paul was required to adopt a similar approach to get a better hearing when in Athens (Acts 17). Circumstances arise when a Christian must have an intelligible argument and point to the Creation/Creator before the hearer is prepared to hear of that same Creator being the Saviour who deals with their sin.

Perhaps it was that Thomas Chalmers saw where Scottish thought was heading and he wanted to prepare his students to meet the challenge with a 'complete' armour. Errant scientific propositions had a devastating affect on the Christian faith in the Nineteenth and subsequent centuries. Chalmers was wrong to impose an unwarranted imposition on the first two verses of the Word of God and open the door to the pernicious notion of Theistic Evolution. Nevertheless, many students were influenced by Chalmers and the Lord God was pleased to bring an 'Awakening' to areas of Scotland in the first half of the Nineteenth Century.

The scene before the 'Awakening' was described by Alexander Duff as follows:

The savour and unction of divine grace was gone; the peculiarities of the gospel were despised as offensive to classic taste and culture, and devotion scorned as fanatical and contemptible . . . Instead of the power and pathos of earnest gospel invitations and appeals, there were substituted cold pretences of academic learning, that froze the generous sympathies of the human heart.

As the article in the Banner of Truth Journal notes, The Moderates preached morality, with almost nothing of the supernaturalism of true Christianity. They ignored the Fall of man, sneered at the idea of a new-birth and said nothing of the perfection and power of the work of the Son of God.

Brothers and sisters, I want you to know that one of the fruits of Theistic Evolution is the deadening of faith in the supernaturalism of true Christianity. Because belief in that pernicious notion of Theistic Evolution is so rife in evangelicalism today the scene is set for repeating the deadening of the Church in our age.

The "Gap Theory" is erroneous but not as heinous an error as Theistic Evolution. It is better for the Church to be rid of both and return to faith in the straight-forward reading of the Creation account in Genesis 1 (supported in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17) to put the preaching of other vital points of the work of God on firm foundation.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 59 verse 27 Man

2011-07-01T12:00:00.000+10:00

27. So God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them.

The higher strain of diction is made apparent by a threefold parallelism of the statement--a kind of solemn chant is here inaugurated in the creation narrative. And well might any man who writes an account, of the subject write in a manner that betokens his joy, for the honour bestowed upon man is indeed great. In fact, none could be greater than that a created being be made in the image of God.

The threefold use of the verb "create" (bara') is significant in this connection. To bring things into being that had no previous existence is well described by this word (v. 1). To bring into being creatures endowed with life and a soul is also covered by this word (v. 21). To do so outstanding a thing as to call into being a creature like unto man is in every sense. "to create." However, whether the threefold use of the term is to be accounted for by the fact that the triune God is the Creator, is a question that we feel inclined to leave open. To us such a conclusion seems to lay more into the statement here made than it can justly bear.

Rather important is the possessive pronoun attached to the word "image," namely the singular "his." As much as God, on the one hand, speaking out of the fulness of His powers in the persons of the Holy. Trinity, is able to say, "Let us make," and,"our image," just so much is it a valid and proper statement for Him to say that He created "in His image." One accords fully with the other in the mystery of the Holy Trinity: there is but one God. The Septuagint translators removed a difficulty in a portion of revelation which they should not have tampered with when they simply omitted the phrase "in His image." The notes in the Hebrew Bible of Kittel should not have suggested the deletion of the word.

The change from "His, image" to "the image of God" shows the attempt on the writer's part to make his statement as strong and as dignified as possible. Then, since the second statement, telling of the carrying out of the original command, usually serves in a measure as a commentary of the former, so here a very necessary suggestion is offered. Though from one point of view it is entirely proper to say that God on the sixth day created "man" ('adham), yet, as the rest of the account at once indicates, this term is meant genetically; and, since by a special work of the Almighty woman is brought into being, this first statement of the case amplifies itself into the more exact statement of the case that "the man" (the article of relative familiarity, K. S. 298a) was created "male and female" (zakhar, from the root meaning male; neqebhah, from naqab, meaning to perforate). In other words, all queer speculations about the first man are cut off as well as the quaint heresy. that he was created androgynous, half man and half woman--a notion offered in crudest form by the Jewish speculation which had the two halves of the double creature attached back to back, and then had the Almighty saw them asunder. This account, then, of chapter one shows that its writer knows chapter two and writes in full harmony with the facts of that chapter. As will appear more and more clearly, the first two chapters are in perfect harmony with one another and by no means represent divergent or discrepant accounts. So, according to very permissible different viewpoints, yet without contradiction, the writer may well say: "He created him" and "He created them," even as "our image" and "His image" blend into perfect unity.

Procksch says on this verse: "Man, God's image, man, the crown of creation, man, male and female--we, too, have not been able to advance beyond these thoughts." A characteristic utterance of modern theology and a platitude. Of course, we have not been able to advance beyond this thought; we never advance beyond revealed truth or God's thoughts. This account is not an achievement of the religious genius of P; it is revelation pure and simple.

Hillbillies, Fundamentalists, Extremists, Puritans!

2011-06-26T19:32:00.004+10:00

"Then I said, 'Ah, Lord GOD! They say of me', ‘Does he not speak parables?’" (Ezekiel 20:49) Such was the response of the prophet Ezekiel after the Lord God had directed him to set his face toward the south, warn the forest of impending fire which will destroy all trees, green and dry and that every face from south to north would be scorched by it. 2 Chronicles 36:15ff reminds us that the Lord God sent messengers again and again to warn Judah of the consequences of their lack of faith in him but the people mocked and scoffed at God's messengers while despising God's words.

The history of God's church is dotted with occasions of the messengers of God being opposed, ridiculed, abused sidelined by those within who preferred the errant faith and practice of the day.

For an example I have chosen the time of the Puritans in England in the Seventeenth Century. Less than one hundred years after the Reformation in England the Church had descended into formality. Nominalism was rife with pews occupied by a vast number who had no relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ while believing they did. These were they who the words of our Lord Jesus Christ "Away from me I do not know you" were to become incredibly personal and destroying.

There is a wealth of books and essays informing as to the circumstances of the time of the Puritans. For this blog I have chosen extracts from Iain Murray's ",Thomas Hooker and the Doctrine of Conversion" published by Bannner of Truth Trust in 1980.

Iain Murray said; "The religion to be found in the majority of parishes in England was not therefore the product of sustained Puritan influence. Consequently, most of the early 17th Century Puritans had to give first priority to changing what they found in the congregations in which they settled. Their sermons did not come to their hearers' ears like the accustomed tones of the church bell. They were different and one fundamental reason for the difference was the Puritan conviction that the prevalence of nominal Christianity was then the foremost hindrance to real Christianity. To evangelize those without was not the need of the hour for all the people were already church-goers, all were 'believers', and all were 'gospellers'. Since the accession of Elizabeth the whole population, a few excepted, had lived under the form of the Church which Parliament had so suddenly made 'Protestant' in 1559. Thus, in theory, Christianity was universal. In reality, to use the words of Thomas Goodwin and Philip Nye, it was religion learned 'through the mere efficacy of education, laws and customs'. The faith most commonly to be found in the parishes of England was only the temporary faith of the 'stony-ground' hearers of Christ's parable; it was a religion akin to that of Nicodemus before his new birth.

Such was the assessment which in the 1620's governed the Puritans' understanding of England's need. East Anglia had probably received more of the gospel than any other part of the land except London, yet at Dedham, John Rogers often thought it necessary to warn his hearers on this point. By true faith, he says,

' .... the believer particularly applies Christ to himself truly, and so lives by him a true sanctified life, which this temporary faith falls short of. Therefore let us beware, and not trust to it, the rather because most of the people of England be deceived herewith, and go no further. Yea, most of the people be of the worse temporaries, only believing the Word of God to be true, and professing it, because law enjoins them so to do; but see how they live after their own lusts, and therefore have no true faith, which purifieth the heart. And this would be seen if any alteration of religion should come, as sheep flee from before a dog, so most of these would turn from the Gospel to the Mass, as they did in Queen Mary's time'.

Quotations of similar nature could be multiplied. At Broughton, Northamptonshire, Robert Bolton, also referring to temporary faith, believed that 'This faith deceives thousands, because they think it sufficient for salvation! When Richard Baxter went to Kidderminster, Shropshire, in 1640, and tried the knowledge of his people 'to discern what they thought of the essentials of Christianity, and of the things that Christ hath made necessary to salvation', he discovered 'multitudes that come all their life-time to Church ... so ignorant that it's hard for scholars to believe it, that have not tried. And we have found that multitudes of them will be brought to learn over all the words of the Catechism that never consider or understand the sense, much less the power and practice of what their tongues recite.'

Thomas Hooker fully shared in this evaluation: 'Most of the people. who lived in the bosom of the Church and profess the faith', he believed to be 'formal gospellers', and he refers to this situation as 'notorious to all the English world'.

It is impossible to do any justice to the burden of Hooker's preaching in Essex between 1626-29 without taking this understanding of the state of the people into account. We may disagree with that understanding - as many of the anti-Puritan clergy did, believing that it caused men needless scruples and distress - but at least it should be recognised that it throws important light upon the question why Hooker and his brethren preached as they did. They meant to trouble mens' consciences; they meant to shake their empty assurance; and they persisted in it with much personal cost. Sometimes, as Hooker once reminded his congregation in New England, the result of this preaching was that the very patrons who had introduced them into their curacies turned against them:

'Many a formal wretch hath at great cost and charges laid out himself and estate to bring a faithful preacher to a place; and when the soul saving dispensation of the Word hath discovered his falseness and laid open the cursed haunts of the carnal heart, shook his hopes, and beat all the holds he had of the goodness of his estate, and battered them before his eyes . . . if he cannot cunningly undermine the man, he would rather leave the place than live under the ministry.'

Secondly, it needs to be said that there was general agreement among the Puritans on the question how the influence of nominal Christianity should be counter-acted. Ultimately they knew that it depended upon the Holy Spirit - in whose power they put their faith - yet they also understood that the Spirit used the truth and that preachers must use 'undeniable evidence of reason out of the Word."

We here at Sydney Anglican Heretics Blogspot have constantly held that holding to the straight-forward reading of the Creation account in Genesis 1 (as has been the mainstream Christian reading through the millennia) is not a salvation issue. However, this writer holds firmly that just as a brown deadness on the tip of a leaf signals a problem within the tree, a failure to trust the Word of God in the Genesis Creation account is a symptom of a deeper problem within the person who professes to be Christian. For such a person, faith in man on the subject of Origins exceeds faith in the Word of God and because "the Word of God" is Jesus Christ (Rev. 19:13) the problem becomes evident.

Just as the messengers of God have been opposed in times past, Biblical Creationists are today opposed and ridiculed as they attempt to call the people back to faith in the Word of God. Just as the Puritans encountered difficulties and censure for confronting those in the Church of England who errantly esteemed themselves as "believing the Word of God to be true, and professing it" and regarding themselves as "gospellers", so Biblical Creationists today have to confront those in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney who, in like manner, falsely esteem themselves.

By the Holy Spirit of God we will be instruments for the delivery of some from the cancer that resides within their 'faith'.

Sam Drucker

Getting Genesis Right (Part 2)

2011-06-21T18:33:00.002+10:00

This is the second and concluding blog of dot points made by Dr William Barrick, Professor of Old Testament and Director of Th.D. Studies at Master's Seminary, California, when he recently visited Australia and spoke at a one day conference at St John's Park Baptist Church, Sydney.

"The creation record in Genesis 1:1-2:3 represents some of the highest standards of literature.

The account is a literary masterpiece.

The creation record in Genesis 1:1-2:3 presents a literal historical account.

The creation record in Genesis 1:1-2:3 provides a theological foundation for understanding God, the world, and mankind.

1.0 The beauty and majesty of Genesis 1:1-2:3 does not arise from poetry.

1.1 The creation record lacks the parallelism that characterizes Hebrew poetry.

1.2 The grammar of the creation record is not the grammar of Hebrew poetry.

1.3 No indication of imagery or metaphor occurs in the creation record.

2.0 The historicity of Genesis 1:1-2:3 relies on key elements of Hebrew narrative.

2.1 The verbs and phrases of the creation record indicates actions in chronological sequence.

2.2 The text of the creation record displays formulaic repetitions.

2.3 The creation record comes closer to the pattern of genealogies than to Hebrew poetry.

3.0 Identifying the creation record as narrative Instead of poetry prevents misunderstanding the text of Genesis 1:1-2:3.

3.1 Misidentification leads to bias against the supernatural.

3.2 Misidentification gives the impression that the text does not correspond with reality.

3.3 Misidentification excludes the creation record as a historical witness or testimony.

3.4 Misidentification excludes chronological data.

3.5 Misidentification disrupts the pattern of biblical history.

Conclusion

As historical narrative, Genesis 1:1-2:3 presents six literal days of creation.

As historical narrative. Genesis 1:1-2:3 establishes theological precedents regarding the nature of God and His work.

As historical narrative, Genesis 1:1-2:3 fosters faith in the unity of the testimony Of Scripture."

With the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney almost bereft of theologians holding firm to the Word of God in Genesis it is a blessing from God that He should send among us, if only for a brief time, one of His own to refresh us.

Sam Drucker

Getting Genesis Right (Part 1)

2011-06-19T15:00:00.004+10:00

Recently, Dr William Barrick, Professor of Old Testament and Director of Th.D. Studies at Master's Seminary, visited Australia and spoke at a one day conference at St John's Park Baptist Church, Sydney.

In a two part blog I will provide some points made by Dr Barrick during his address, commencing here:

The Last Things replicate the First Things in inverted order.

Or, eschatology recapitulates protology—in reverse.

Isaiah 65:17-new heavens and

Something to think about: If God can create the new heavens and the new earth instantaneously, why not the first?

Genesis 1:1 Creation
...Genesis 1:3 God's Light
......Genesis 1:26 Man's Rule
.........Genesis 2:8-17 Old Eden
............Genesis 3:17 Curse
............Revelation 21:4; 22:3 No Curse
.........Revelation 22:1-2 New Eden
......Revelation 20:4 Man's Rule
...Revelation 21:23; 22:5 God's Light
Revelation 21:1 New Creation

Genesis 1:1 Creation
...Genesis 3:1 Satan's Freedom
......Genesis 6-8 Worldwide Judgment
.........Genesis l0-11 Babel/Babylon
.........Revelation 17-18 Babylon
......Revelation 19:11-19 Worldwide Judgment
...Revelation 20:2-3 Satan's Confinement
Revelation 21:1 New Creation

The First Things and the Last Things point to Christ as the focal point of divine history.

Testimony to creation as recorded in Genesis 1:1-2:3 permeates all of Scripture.

Denial of biblical creation equals a denial of the Creator.

Denial of the Creator in any form (rejection of divine revelation in
creation or in His written Word, or idolatry) is inexcusable.

Denial of biblical creation is exchanging God's truth for man's lie.

Denial of biblical creation results in greater depravity and immorality due to the rejection of the authority of the Creator and His inerrant revelation.

Denial of the doctrines of the First Things (protology) destroys doctrines of the Last Things (eschatology).

Without historical temporal Creation, there is no hope for a historical, temporal Restoration.

The alternative, secular historical science, changes—Scripture does not change.

Modern science mocks the science by which Augustine felt threatened—what will the science be 200 years from now?

When we affirm biblical creationism,

we propose the plain sense of the rest of Scripture

we provide foundational truths for basic Christian doctrine, and

we preserve the salvific focus of the Christian faith—only the Creator can ultimately save and restore.

Part two will follow in a few days.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 58 verse 26 Image of God III

2011-06-15T11:59:00.000+10:00

To sum up from a slightly different angle we should like to append the thought that the spiritual and inner side of the image of God is, without a doubt, the most important one. It will hardly be safe to say that the body of man is also patterned after God, because God, being an incorporeal spirit, cannot have what we term a material body. Yet the body of man must at least be regarded as the fittest receptacle for man's spirit and so must bear at least an analogy to the image, of God, an analogy that is so close that God and His angels choose to appear in human form when they appear to men (Strack). In fact, we are justified to go even so far as to say that whatever this man is said to have is in a far more real sense a reality in God. Here lies the basis for the propriety of all anthropomorphisms. If man has a hand, an ear, an eye, a heart, not only may these also be possessions of the Almighty; in a far truer sense such potentialities lie in God. Yet, let it be well marked, in saying this we in no sense ascribe corporeality to the Eternal One.

Skinner confuses all basic concepts and departs far from revealed truth, glorifying man and his native ability in an unscriptural fashion, when he remarks: "The `image' is not something peculiar to man's original estate, and lost by the Fall." He justifies this radical departure by the further remark: "Because P, who alone uses the expression knows nothing of the Fall, and in 9:6 employs the term, without any restriction, of post-diluvian mankind." What an untenable assumption even from the standpoint of criticism! Just because what is ascribed to P does not happen to mention the Fall, we at once know what P actually knew or did not know about the Fall. The critic is coming to the point where in his mind the document P and the person P are identical. The passage 9:6 is, of course, to be taken in the light of all that precedes, namely in the light of the Fall, which intervenes between chapters 1 and 9.

When evidence fails to support pet theories in this instance the theory of the derivation of Israelirish knowledge from Babylonian sources--pure suppositions such as the following are resorted to: "The origin of the conception ('image') is probably found in the Babylonian mythology" (Skinner).

What follows is one direction in which the possession of the image of God on the part of man expresses itself dominion over the earth. "Let them have dominion" is the verb radhah signifying "to trample down" or "to master." The breadth of the domain to be ruled by man is expressed by the various spheres of man's dominion that are now enumerated. They are, first of all, the classes previously described as having been brought into being, listed with a slight modification of terminology. The "swarms" or "shoals" previously created (v. 20) are referred to by a term covering the chief members of this class, daghah, "fish" in a collective sense. "The birds of the heavens" are the second group mentioned. Though we have translated behemah "domestic animals," we cannot deny that it might here, as a broader term often so used (cf. (Ex 9:25; 12:12)), include all larger animals, wild and domestic, because man's dominion certainly covered the wild beasts as well, as appears from the remaining terms, yet the wild beasts are not separately mentioned. For the list goes on to mention "the-whole earth," which cannot, as Koenig suggests (K. C.), here be taken to mean "all beings upon the earth" (Erdlebewesen), for then the very last term in the list would duplicate this; nor can it mean "the dwellers upon earth,"-a meaning which "earth" sometimes has, for then the idle statement would result: let man rule over himself. Consequently, we take "the whole earth" in its simplest meaning, as the inanimate earth proper, which man is to master and subdue. We then list, as belonging in this department of his activity, man's mastery the powers of nature, physical, electrical, chemical, physiological and the like. Whatever true scientific endeavour has produced comes under this broad charter which the Creator has given to man. Since, however, man's dominion is to find most frequent expression in the direction of the control of living creatures, the closing statement, the broadest of all, mounts to a climax in the words "over everything that moveth about upon the earth." Every type of being is to be subservient to man. The word employed for this last class is remes, which appears here in the broadest application of its root sense "to move about" and less in the specific sense of "moving about lightly." The verb used (yirdu) is a jussive (K. S. 364h) and actually establishes as a divine word the situation it outlines. Man in reality became the controlling power. Yet there remains--even in the primeval state there remained--much to be achieved by way of a perfect mastery of his whole territory.

Taking the verse as a whole, we cannot but notice that it sets forth the picture of a being that stands on a very high level, a creature of singular nobility and endowed with phenomenal powers and attributes, not a type of being that by its brute imperfections is seen to be on the same level with the animal world, but a being that towers high above all other creatures, their king and their crown.

An Earnest Cry to Atheists.

2011-06-10T14:48:00.006+10:00

A recent publication called Creation Extra from Creation Ministries International contained extracts of a letter from a former Atheist which I believe warrants wider circulation. I obtained permission for Creation Ministries International to reproduce it here following:

The atrocity of atheism
It’s a fate worse than death.

By Gary Bates
CEO, CMI–Worldwide

This month’s Creation Extra is rather sobering, yet encouraging. It should serve as a wakeup call to the very real need to get the truth out about biblical creation as far and as wide as we all can.

Some time ago, Justin S., a former atheist, shared his heart with us. At a time when so many Christians are failing to recognize where the rubber really hits the road when it comes to confronting a secular worldview, this young man really ‘nails it.’ Here are some excerpts of what he wrote:

Dear CMI, I cannot express my gratitude in words. I became a Christian three years ago after struggling with thoughts of suicide due to my atheistic beliefs.

Your ministry truly saved my life.

I was raised in a secular home, and surrounded by atheistic propaganda from an early age … from school or the media. Unsurprisingly, I became an atheist at the age of 12. As the years passed and I truly tried to understand the world around me, I discovered a horrifying truth that had been hidden from me, hidden from everyone.

This is the reason I am writing this letter, as even in your excellent articles on atheism [see creation.com/atheism], you do not truly reveal the extent to which the atheists deceive everyone, even themselves. Atheists often say that they can truly live a happy, fulfilling life. Yet this is a lie, a deception which damns millions of souls to darkness. … Simply put, atheism destroys the possibility of personal identity, choice, and objective and subjective meaning.

Atheism inescapably leads to naturalism, and from naturalism follows atheism’s great skeleton which its followers try to keep hidden; determinism. Determinism is inescapable if one is a naturalist, as all that exists is material and has come about by purely natural processes. This means then, that the mind of man, our greatest treasure, is reducible to material bound by physical laws; namely, our thoughts, feelings, and actions are reducible to reactions of chemicals in the brain.
Few people realize, then, that this destroys all that makes us human. Namely; if our thoughts, feelings, and actions are simply chemical reactions in the brain … This means then, that whatever we do, we do because we have to. We cannot do anything other than what we do, it simply isn’t possible. All actions are the result of prior actions in an unbreakable chain. We are no different than a cog in a watch or a falling domino.

There is no difference between the embrace of a loving husband and the violence of a vicious rapist; the actions of a doctor trying to save a life and the mass murderer who kills at whim; the actions of our greatest leaders and the inaction of a lazy sluggard. Both are totally the same in atheism.

Objective meaning is non-existent, and subjective meaning is incoherent! Would we say the action of a robot picking up a glass bottle has any meaning, value, or significance? Of course not! It’s simply doing what it has to! It can do nothing else! In what sense can an atheist say that he as a person truly exists? The material which composes our body is recycled every seven years, and our consciousness seems to cease every time we go to bed. So in what sense is the mass of matter that wakes up in the morning the same person as the one who went to bed the night before?

As you can see, atheism is utterly horrific! Sadly, most atheists are unaware of these things! I believe if they truly understood the consequences of what they believed, they would reconsider their position.

I know I did, God bless.

Many think that atheism is just a non-belief in a deity. But this well-written letter aptly describes its true meaning. As atheist Cornell biology professor William Provine confirmed, evolution means: “There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.”1 We can see its fruit every day when we read or look at the daily news and see how godless people act on their belief that there is no tomorrow because there is no Creator. Justin was brought up on a diet of evolution and without an alternative viewpoint he was left without hope.

In God’s providence, all it took was for him to be exposed to information that countered the falsehoods that he’d been taught under the guise of science. It doesn’t have to be this way. CMI can do so much more with your help. With your much-needed support, you can help to keep the information machine churning. Even a small amount per month really does help.

Thanks for considering this.

1. Origins Research 16(1/2):9, 1994. Provine also correctly observed that “…belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” In Rossiter, M. ed., Catching up with the Vision, p. S123, 1999.

- End of article -

My heart's desire is for Atheists to come into the truth, that they experience new light and life as did the correspondent cited here.

Theistic Evolutionists would have been no help to this person receiving the truth.

Sam Drucker

The Genesis of Nothing

2011-06-05T18:17:00.003+10:00

Robert Lewis Dabney was a 19th Century Theologian, Chief of Staff to Stonewall Jackson and author. One of Dabney's works was Sacred Rhetoric, published in 1881. In this work Dabney, in addressing the subject of Preaching, said that the state of the pulpit may always be taken as an index of that of the Church. Oh, how Dabney would lament the sorry state of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney when so-called evangelicals can speak up a paper called The Genesis of Everything. This paper, by someone who presents himself as some sort of historian, drains the creation account in Genesis 1 of its historical content.

How can a Christian trust what the author of the paper says about New Testament history when he puts as much credibility on a contrary and pagan creation account as that contained in the Word of God and then proceeds to invoke a range of misappropriated literary devices to remove Genesis 1 of its historical narrative genre?

It is almost as if Robert Lewis Dabney had this day's underwhelming historian and theologian in mind when writing about historical sermons and said:

But, for the tyro, the chief difficulty of historical sermons is to catch correctly the precise didactic scope of the sacred narrative, and to limit himself to it. Certain schools, of even Protestant preachers, have given us deplorable examples of error here. They have used the plain histories of the Bible as though they were riddles for the exercise of an ingenious fancy. They have formed allegories where the Holy Ghost has warranted them in seeing none. They have interpreted these histories as though any analogy which a vagrant imagination could invent between a Bible fact and a supposed moral were a perfect demonstration that this was the truth which the Spirit intended to teach in that place. Your own good sense should show you that a mode of interpretation cannot be correct which enables different men to extract the most variant meanings from the same words. It is utterly condemned by what has been established concerning the preacher's mission. He has naught to do save to deliver God's message out of the Scriptures; his only concern is with the meaning intended by the Holy Ghost in the place expounded.

The author of The Genesis of Everything contravenes all principle espoused by Dabney just so he can accommodate the errant and idolatrous theistic evolutionists within his Diocese.

I'll leave the final word to Lauren S. Bottomly who wrote Concluding Thoughts on R.L. Dabney: The Sensualistic Philosophy, 2006, and made the following comment: Evolution theory is maddening to a Christian. It affronts God; it denies his work and perfect intelligence, and it cancels man’s promised destiny of glorious liberty with him.

Sam Drucker

From Your God Your Morality Flows

2011-06-01T20:20:00.003+10:00

I certainly hope Theistic Evolutionists didn't feel outrage or discomfort at the scenes on the ABC TV Four Corners program on Monday night.

How could they? Their god made a world full of suffering, ripping and tearing and being eaten alive within the animal kingdom which far exceeded the treatment rendered by Indonesian abattoir workers on Australian cattle imports.

For Theistic Evolutionists to take umbrage at what takes place in Indonesian abattoirs is to put themselves above their god. If their god did not have a problem instituting worse suffering and cruelty as part of the creative process then how can Theistic Evolutionists elevate their morality above their god? That is idolatry!

No, just lie back Theistic Evolutionists and admire the capacity of the Indonesian abattoir workers to walk somewhat in the footsteps of your god and pray that you one day will be more cruel than the Indonesians.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 57 verse 26 Image of God II

2011-06-01T11:57:00.000+10:00

Koenig's interpretation deserves mention (K. S. 207 a). He claims that an individual reflecting upon a course of action to be followed may appear to himself both as giving orders and as carrying out these orders. He claims such a thing would happen "quite naturally and easily" (naturgemaess leicht). We can hardly imagine any explanation more stilted and artificial. It is a figment of the clever brain, invented to extricate its inventor out of a predicament.

We should yet especially emphasize that the trinitarian view, presented in modified form above; is not, as many charge, transferring the New Testament back into the Old. We have emphasized above that the New Testament marks an advance upon whatever the Old offers under this head. What the Old Testament offers here would never have been fully grasped if clearer and more. elaborate revelation had not thrown its light upon this passage from the New Testament.

The being to be made is called 'adham, a term whose root significance must very likely be sought in the cognate word 'adhamah (see v. 25) which refers to the soil capable of cultivation. 'Adham would, therefore, be "the cultivator of the soil."

The double modifying phrase, "in our image, after our likeness," requires closer study. It is in the last analysis nothing more than a phrase which aims to assert with emphasis the idea that man is to be closely patterned after his Maker. This feature in man's being is a second mode. of setting forth prominently the singular dignity of man: Man is not only made after the deliberate plan and purpose of God but is also very definitely patterned after Him. In making both phrases practically result in an idea which is one composite whole we are not erasing the distinction between the terms. "Image" is for the word tselem, whose root means "to carve" or "to cut off." We cannot go so far as to apply this idea to the physical similarity of man with God, as some have. But, at least, the term refers to more concrete similarity, whereas the second word demiuth, "likeness," refers more to similarity in the abstract or in the ideal. But here again we cannot venture with the Greek fathers to apply the term to man's inner or spiritual resemblance to God. Nor dare we press the change of prepositions; be "in" and ke "as." For though be describes man as being within a certain mold as it were, it yet must also be called a kind of Beth normae (K. S. 332r), for (Ex 25:40) it is used practically like ke. To this must be added the fact that v. 27 considers the use of tselem without demuth sufficient to express what God did, "image" being used twice. Again it 5:1 demuth with be and not with ke, as in our passage, is thought to be an adequate statement of the case. So we shall have to regard the second phrase, "according to our likeness," as merely supplementary to or explanatory of the first. Of course, the possessive "our" in connection with these two nouns is to be explained like the plural of "let us make" above.

But yet we have not defined what the term "the image of God" implies. Those who would rule out the clear passages of the New Testament and construe a picture only by the help. of what this chapter offers, fail to discern the true unity of scriptural revelation and are bound to arrive at a misleading conception. True, the author of the account may himself not have had a full apperception of what all was involved in this concept, but here most especially the principle must be applied. Scripture must be explained by Scripture. Especially such passages as (Eph 4:24) and (Col 3:10) must be drawn upon. The reformers clearly saw that the most important thing involved was a proper attitude of heart in faith. Luther says: "I understand this image of God to be ... that Adam not only knew God and believed in Him that He was gracious; but that he also led an entirely godly life." Cf. also Apology II, 17-22. As adequate a summary of all features involved as any is that of Koenig in TAT, p. 226 S. He lists the following items as belonging to the outward side of the divine image: (a) man's countenance which directs his gaze upwards; (b) a capacity for varying facial expressions; (c) a sense of shame expressing itself in the blush of man; (d) speech. It cannot be denied that all these are physical features which are noticeably absent in all animals. To the inner side of the divine image the same author assigns the following items: (a) on the material side of man's inner make-up stands immortality; (b) on the intellectual side is self-consciousness, reason and Vernunft;( c) on the voluntative moral side is the ability to discern good and evil, the freedom of the will, conscience, and the right use of his moral capacities--the most important of all. We understand Koenig to make this last statement in the sense of the reformer's quoted above.

This is Our God!

2011-05-29T19:03:00.001+10:00

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

Into the Darkness Light Has Shone.

2011-05-27T00:18:00.001+10:00

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

Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney Wallowing in Toxic Time-Bomb.

2011-05-22T19:31:00.001+10:00

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

Declension Spreads

2011-05-18T21:48:00.001+10:00

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

Leupold Genesis part 56 verse 26 Image of God

2011-05-16T11:56:00.000+10:00

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.

Is Romans 5:12 a Defence Against Adam's Sin Having Brought Death to All Creation?

2011-05-11T14:15:00.004+10:00

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

The Work of the Word of God

2011-05-08T19:33:00.004+10:00

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

The obvious slips right by

2011-05-05T21:50:00.002+10:00

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.

2 books: forked tongue

2011-05-02T21:36:00.003+10:00

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!

Leupold Genesis part 55 verse 25

2011-05-01T11:55:00.000+10:00

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.

Christian Darwinism

2011-04-22T20:09:00.000+10:00

No need for any comment: just hop over to this blog on Christian Dawinism. Just as oxymoronic as 'theistic evolution'.

Anglicanism: Just another word for paganism

2011-04-21T09:21:00.002+10:00

Paul's background offers up insight into the reasons why God chose him to bring the Good News to the Gentiles. While studying under the rabbi Gamaliel provided Paul with a strong grounding in Jewish law and theology, it was his coming from Tarsus, an important university town renowned for its Stoic philosophy, that gave him a first-class education into the pagan mindset. Acts 17 records an incident in which Paul called upon this training.

While preaching and reasoning to the passers-by in an Athenian market-place a group of Stoics and Epicureans took him to task over Jesus and the resurrection. Luke only records a fraction of the debate, and despite his freely quoting Aratus, Epimenides and, quite possibly, Cleanthes, Paul nevertheless saw their philosophies as standing in distinct opposition to the Creator God of the Bible. Few Christians ever investigate precisely what these philosophies stood for, so some quotes from these ancient world-views would be of considerable aid to comprehend why Paul so unequivocally took issue with them.

The Epicurean belief was distinctly evolutionary. While gods may have indeed existed, they did not truly interact with the world. Equally certain was the Epicurean belief entertained no Creator God who used His wisdom, demonstrated by rapid and accurate completion of task, to bring nature and life into existence. Rather, large amounts of time, unfolding an uncountable number of material permutations upon permutations, eventually brought forth the world as we know it. Time and accident were the factors drawn upon to transform God into a superfluous hypothesis.

Lucretius, in his De rerum natura, states “When bodies are being born by their own weight straight down through the void, at quite uncertain times and places they veer a little from their course, just enough to be called a change of motion. If they did not have this tendency to swerve, everything would be falling downward like raindrops through the depths of the void, and collisions and impacts among the primary bodies would not have arisen, with the result that nature would never have created anything.”

Epicurus, in his Letter to Herodotus, lays out his belief in the eternity of matter, the epistemological prerequisite for materialism: “The atoms move continuously for ever...There is no beginning to this, because atoms and void are eternal.”

Central to any materialist account of origins is that life on earth is merely an outcome of probability. Lucretius states, “For so many primary particles have for an infinity of time past been propelled in manifold ways by impacts and by their own weight, and have habitually travelled, combined in all possible ways, and tried out everything that their union could create, that it is not surprising if they have also fallen into arrangements, and arrives at patterns of motions, like those repeatedly enacted by this present world.”

The Stoics, despite being materialists, held that there was one principle which permeated all of reality, Reason, which gave rise to everything else. If 'God' were mentioned it was rarely, if unambiguously ever, referring to a personal deity, let alone a Creator of the magnitude unveiled in the Bible.

Aetius, reporting on Stoic belief, states that they “made god out to be intelligent, a designing fire which methodically proceeds towards creation of the world, and encompasses all the seminal principles according to which everything comes about according to fate.”

Cicero relates how Chrysippus held that “divine power resides in reason and in the mind and intellect of universal nature..the world's own commanding-faculty...it is the common nature of things..the force of fate and necessity.”

Both of these ersatz explanations remove God's presence as much as possible. By this I mean that theological considerations are weakened to the extent that a fully-blown materialism is the final result. While Epicureanism relied on chance as the universe's creative metaphysic, Stoicism embedded an ordering principle within nature that tamed chaos and directed it to complexity.

Luke's specific mention of these pagan philosophies and Paul's counter to them contains an important lesson for us today. These two counterfeits are perhaps the most logical replacements for the Christian Creator Jesus and both have resurfaced, not without, but within the Church. Leading theologians have stripped the pagan philosophies of their inherent atheism but taken on-board their ultimate reliance on chance, deterministic law and matter. According to their quasi-scientism, God, when he is presented, has brought together this faux trinity and allowed the universe to itself unravel from the Big Bang to the present.

John Polkinghorne, a greatly admired and quoted Anglican priest and physicist, has stated that "[n]ecessity is the regular ground of possibility, expressed in scientific law. Chance, in this context, is the means for the exploration and realization of inherent possibility, through continually changing (and therefore at any time contingent) individual circumstances. It is important to realize that chance is being used in this `tame' sense, meaning the shuffling operations by which what is potential is made actual. It is not a synonym for chaotic randomness, nor does it signify just a lucky fluke.... I am still deeply impressed by the anthropic potentiality of the laws of nature which enable the small-step explorations of tamed chance to result in systems of such wonderful complexity as ourselves."

He also argues that “[a]t the heart of evolution is the interplay between “chance” (the contingent detail of what actually happens) and “necessity” (the lawfully regular environment in which events occur). It takes place “at the edge of chaos,” where order and openness interlace. If things are too orderly, they are too rigid for anything really new to emerge. If they are too haphazard, nothing that emerged could persist.”
The evolutionary palaeontologist Simon Conway Morris, also a Christian, writes that “[f]or all this exuberance and flair [in evolution] there are constraints[but] there is also a patent trend of increased complexity.” He also states “[t]he complexity and beauty of ‘Life’s Solution’ can never cease to astound. None of it presupposes, let along proves, the existence of God, but all is congruent. For some it will remain as the pointless activity of the Blind Watchmaker, but others may prefer to remove their dark glasses. The choice, of course, is yours.”

As an aside, Morris is regarded, by some, as an expert on the Burgess Shale, despite admitting its fossil remains being so pristinely preserved “by as yet largely unknown mechanisms”. He writes that “the processes of rotting and decay have been largely held in abeyance so that the true richness of ancient life is revealed: not only are there animals such as trilobites and molluscs with tough, durable skeletons, but completely soft-bodied animals are also preserved. These remarkable fossils reveal not only their outlines but sometimes even internal organs such as the intestine or muscles.” Any chance the early chapters of Genesis provide an explanation, say, a worldwide flood destroying practically all life on the earth?

The perspicuous absence of any mention of Christ's role in the creation by these Christians makes their explanation no better than a pagan one. Particularly counter-productive, with respect to a truly Christian world-view, is the preponderate dependence of their explanation for the creation's existence on the creation itself. What principles are supposedly made manifest in the world are made to substantiate the world itself. That is, the marriage of chance and law, evolution, is entirely able to account for the world's and its occupants' being here.

No where to be seen is the direct link Paul and John make between the world and Christ the Creator. Both make it plain that the creation cannot be explained without Christ's visible input. If nothing that exists can be made without him, then nothing that does actually exist can have their ultimate existence put down to principles operating within the creation. If chance and necessity are sufficient, then Christ can be struck out with an Ockham resolve.

More worryingly is the attitude that the creation cannot directly point us to the Creator. No longer is it “in Christ all things consist” and that we can “attain to all riches of the full assurance of understanding”, but rather it comes down to a preference because nothing can, as Morris believes, prove the creation's ultimate dependence on Christ.

Whenever men subscribe to a metaphysical belief that it is principles upholding the creation, and not Christ, then Paul's daily reasoning in the marketplace against the pagans appears a futile exercise. It now seems that Stoic and Epicurean ideas have well and truly taken hold of Christian men's minds. If these non-Christian philosophies are representative of the church – and I believe they are – then the paganisation of the Church is almost complete.

A Clarion Call From Scotland to the Episcopalian Church of Sydney (Part 2)

2011-04-17T18:30:00.006+10:00

This is Part 2 of a blog based upon an article written by R. A. Finlayson in the September 1976 issue of The Banner of Truth Journal. The article was titled: HOW LIBERAL THEOLOGY INFECTED SCOTLAND.

Finlayson completes his article here following and I will make a closing comment:

THE INFECTION SPREADS

The disease spread rapidly through the ministry of the Free Church, as could be expected with A. B. Bruce in the Glasgow College, A. B. Davidson in the Hebrew Chair and Marcus Dods in the New Testament Chair in the New College, Edinburgh, and Robertson Smith's successors in Aberdeen. The present Century opened with the blare of trumpets sounding the victory of Liberalism, and the complete rout of 'Traditionalism'. Prof George Adam Smith, in Glasgow, himself in the front rank of destructive critics, declared confidently that the battle was over and there remained but the fixing of the indemnity. The Rationalism that had entered so stealthily into the Colleges had by 1900 captured most of the pulpits of the Disruption Free Church, and not a few in the State Church and the United Presbyterian Church, and when the Union of the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church was consummated in 1900 on a basis of theological indifferentism, a remnant of the Free Church - 27 in number - decided to abide by the evangelical traditions of the Free Church at its inception, and on that foundation it exists to this day.

HESITANT SUPPORTERS

True, there were lone voices in the unbroken Free Church that, for some years, pled for sanity and for the retention of the foundation truths of Christianity. But even they were heavily committed to the new order, and for the most part they had a foot in both camps. Their case is sad indeed to relate, and it can be done only to sound a note of warning to the present day. Dr James Denney, who was at heart an evangelical, came, as B. B. Warfield observes, 'under the narrowing and clogging influence of the Apologetic School which Dr Bruce unfortunately founded in Glasgow', so much so that when his valuable work on The Death of Christ came to be reissued by The Tyndale Press, it had to be edited in considerable part and some of its statements excised. Of some others in the forefront of the movement, it can only be said that there was a breakdown in character as well as in faith, over which the veil of charity must be drawn. As sad a case as any was, perhaps, that of A. B. Bruce, because of the early promise of his work on the teaching of Christ; and yet at the end of the day one of his closest friends commented sorrowfully: 'Sandy Bruce died without a single Christian conviction.' It is true that some of the Higher Critics adopted a plan of spiritual survival by developing a dual standard, of piety for their private lives, and of destructive criticism for their professional work. Wellhausen, for example, had a Pietist background and upbringing, and it is said that he retained this pietism in his private life, while he was at the same time making havoc of the Faith in his teaching. How often have we been told of some prominent critic: 'You should hear Prof. . . . conducting a Communion Service, then you could see the real man.' Of Prof William Barclay, lately retired from the Glasgow College, it can be said that he paid exquisite attention, and employed great teaching skill, embellishing the superstructure of Christianity after he had removed the foundations. It is surely a schizophrenic character who can reconcile such contradictions, and indulge in such self-deception!

But it sounds a note of caution to us who profess, and seek to defend the evangelical Faith. There are ominous signs that history, even ecclesiastical history, teaches nothing, except that it teaches nothing! And yet there is a monotonous sameness about the enemy strategy: 'Yea, has God said ?' There is the wisdom of much sore experience, doubtless, in the Apostolic injunction: 'Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, AND HAVING DONE ALL TO STAND.'

Well, R.A. Finlayson provides a helpful analysis of the cancer that entered the Free Church of Scotland more than a century ago. But what does all that mean for the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and its theological seminary - Moore College?

The answer is "It's on!"

The slithering approach of Scottish academics to conceal their abandonment of trust in the Word of God was effective. Just as a snake moves slowly and concealed toward its prey so the Scottish academics, except for one or two overanxious, introduced their new approach to the Word of God with stealth. Students and congregations, save a few alert, were inwittingly seduced into abandoning their evangelical heritage.

It all starts in the Old Testament and spreads to the New Testament.

This is happening in Moore College where the approach of Luther, Calvin, Puritans and the majority of Church Fathers (who commented on the subject) to Genesis 1 is no longer applied. Instead, a student is carefully led to consider the employment of literary devices and other creation narratives.

The fruit of this is ordained ministers rejecting the traditional evangelical acceptance of Genesis 1 as historical narrative or prose and consequent avoidance of the convictive of the passage. This then is passed on to congregations and the cancer is well and truly established.

There are many examples but I will cite just two. The author of one blogspot was recently asked by an inquirer whether he thought the mention of Noah in the genealogy contained in Genesis 5 meant that Noah was a real person, the author replied something to the effect of "We can't be certain." Hullo! What is a genealogy for?

Another, when asked to explain why he held to Exodus 20:11 being only figurative language, his reply was something to the effect of "Whatever God was saying there I will not accept that the world is 6,000 years old." Sad, God cannot tell him only the world can!

These two incidents are sufficient to grasp that the rot is on and that there will be many more within the Diocese who are or will be like minded. And, just as with the calamity within the Scottish Free Church, the cancer can be dressed in a cloak of piety so that it will be difficult to assess just who the Christians are, even for the one committing the offence.

I ask all to trust God. Come out of error. Consider seriously John 17:17.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 54 verse 24

2011-04-15T11:54:00.000+10:00

24. And God said: Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, domestic animals, reptiles, and wild beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so.

We have come to the work of the sixth day. The nobler and higher forms of animal life are to be brought forth and finally man himself. We have a kind of mediate creation as on the third day (v. 11), for the earth is bidden to produce them or bring them forth--totse'-- cause to come forth." The situation is really very simple, as far as the text is concerned. God could have called forth these creatures by His mere word; instead He speaks the word that enables the earth to bring them forth. They are to have such kinship with the earth that they may again be able to return to the earth. There is no confusion here of two points of view, which P here fails properly to reconcile with one another: namely an old view, which is the outgrowth of some ancient natural philosophy, and a higher conception of pure creation by the word (Procksch). That both types of creation here flow into one is the simple fact noted by the text. To create artificial difficulty and to pose as having ability to detect strains of older and imperfectly assimilated elements of tradition, merely serves to make the unlearned suspicious without reason and is proof on the critic's part of not having fully comprehended what the author said.

On the shortened form totse' see K. S. 189.

The "living creatures" brought into being on this day are first described by this general title, which we have noted above (v. 20) to mean literally "soul of life," because the animating thing, the soul (nehesh), is the most prominent feature about them. Let it be remarked separately at this point that according to the Scriptures not only man has a soul but also all living creatures even down to fishes and birds. However, the soul as such is then regarded merely as the animating principle, the thing that causes them to breathe. Yet the soul of other creatures is not the same as that of man; it originated in a manner which makes it inferior by much to the animating principle in man, as a comparison with 2:7 indicates.

These "living creatures" now are of three classes. First we find "domestic animals," behemah, which may also be translated "cattle." According to its root, "to be dumb," this classword describes these creatures as dumb brutes. Used sometimes in reference to all animals, it is here employed in reference to cattle or domestic animals because of its manifest contrast here with the wild beasts. Yet "cattle" is still a bit too narrow a term; "domestic animals" (Meek) is better. The second class is described as remes, which comes from the root meaning "to move about lightly" or to "glide about." "Creepers" almost covers the term, however, "creeping things" is too narrow (A. V.), for it does not seem to allow for bigger creatures like reptiles. "Reptiles" (Meek) again is too narrow, for it does not allow `for the smaller types of life. Everything, therefore, large or small, that moves upon the earth or close to the earth, having but short legs, may be said to be included: The third class comes under" the head of "wild beasts of the earth" (chayyath ha'ssrets). This is an appropriate designation from two points of view: the original comes from the root chay, to live, for these beasts are wild because "of their vital energy and activity" (B D B), an abundance of life throbs in them; then the modifying phrase "of the earth" is added to their name, because in a sense different from the other two classes these beasts have freedom of movement upon the earth. The first time this name is used in v. 24 we have the archaic connective, a remnant from an old case ending chaytho and the word 'erets without the article-- poetic--making a more solemn and dignified double term coming from the lips of the Almighty (K. S. 268 and 292).--When the narrator continues his own account, he lapses into the unarchaic prose chayyath ha'ssrets (v. 25). A double "after their kind," first applying to "the living creatures" as a whole then to the three classes separately, impresses this distinctive limitation upon all these creatures--a truth amply confirmed as not to be eradicated, as all who have engaged in crossbreeding of animals can abundantly testify.

The three class names are in the singular, collective (K. S. 255 d).

An unwarranted critical verdict in regard to the three classes just mentioned is rendered by Procksch, who calls this classification "very imperfect, based half on the history of civilization half on natural history." It certainly is uncalled for to expect a writer of hoary antiquity to operate with the specific scientific nomenclature of the twentieth century. Without a doubt, all readers who perused the accounts in a sympathetic spirit clearly detected that this popular grouping was sufficient to call to mind all types of living creatures as men not trained scientifically are wont to think of them.

A Clarion Call From Scotland to the Episcopalian Church of Sydney (Part 1)

2011-04-14T20:53:00.004+10:00

This is the first of a two part blog based on an article written by R. A. Finlayson in the September 1976 issue of The Banner of Truth Journal. The article was titled: HOW LIBERAL THEOLOGY INFECTED SCOTLAND.

I repeat the article because it provides parallels with a slide taking place in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney through its theological seminary - Moore Theological College. The article commences herewith:

To many it will seem strange indeed that some 20 years after 'the glorious Disruption', in which the majority of the ministers of the Church of Scotland severed the ties with the State on the ground of spiritual liberty and fidelity to the Evangel, the Free Church, thus formed, should be the body first infected by the Liberal virus that was playing such havoc with the Protestant churches in Germany. That, however, is the historical position, and it requires some explanation. The fervour that accompanied the Disruption of 1843 was strong and widespread. The mere spectacle of 474 ministers in serried ranks marching from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland - leaving less than a hundred behind - was something that touched many hearts, especially when it was known that they were leaving, not only their legal stipends, but the manses that were home to themselves and their families. It was left to Lord Jeffrey of the Court of Session to give expression to the feeling of the moment when, on hearing the news, he sprang to his feet, and explained: 'I am proud of my country. There is not another country on earth where such a deed could have been done.'

THE SEEDS OF DECLINE

The popularity of the movement was very apparent throughout the whole of Scotland. And there lay the seeds of spiritual pride and rapid spiritual deterioration. The newly formed Free Church was ambitious to justify its stand for spiritual liberty by all means within its power, eminence in scholarship being one of these. She was not content with opening three Colleges, in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen, but her theological students would not deem their course complete, or their standing in the Church assured, without a post-graduate course of one or more years in one of the more famous Colleges in Germany. From that folly, the product of spiritual pride, the Free Church was to reap a bitter harvest. Germany, then, was the nursery of Liberal Theology, which was spreading like prairie fire through the Protestant churches of Europe. Its popularity was, perhaps, at its height in the second half of the 19th Century, with which we are now dealing.

THE GERMAN RATIONALISM TAKES OVER

What the Critical Rationalism of Colenso, Kuenen, and Wellhausen had originated, the more plausible teaching of Schleiermacher, Ritschl, and Troelsch propagated, till it took firm hold of the Reformed seminaries of Europe. Its main premise was that Christianity could no longer be held as rooted in divine revelation, but as the product of human reason and cultural evolution. The Bible had authority only as the repository of religious sentiments borrowed from many ethnic religions. Christianity would, therefore, have to be regarded as merely a variety of religion in general. There was no room for the supernatural, and so divine revelation, miracle, and personal redemption were but expressions of the universal religious consciousness. The fact so difficult to understand is that this barren nationalism captured so many of the Reformed Colleges within a few decades, and that Church leaders, professing to be evangelical, could not see that it could produce only bankruptcy in the realm of faith, and complete sterility in the life of the church. Our concern, at the moment, is with its rapid progress through the Scottish Divinity Halls, as they were then called.

ITS FOOTHOLD IN THE FREE CHURCH COLLEGES

It is indeed a strange fact that the new unbelief in the Free Church of Scotland should have raised its head first of all in the classroom of Dr John Duncan, the saintly Rabbi whose piety was as deep as his scholarship was extensive. But the good man - no mean judge in such prognostications - was quick to see the course it was likely to follow. He is on record as expressing to his students, as early as 1867, his opinion that 'the attempts are mainly on the Old Testament. It needs more charity than I possess to believe that some of the critics do not know where all this will lead us. The Person of Christ, his Work, his Salvation, are the things against which these attacks are really levelled.' And so it proved to be. What he could not foresee was that the rot would start his own classroom.

In 1863 the Rev A. B. Davidson was appointed Colleague and Successor to Dr Duncan in the Chair of Hebrew and Old Testament Literature in the New College, Edinburgh. Dr Duncan was by then elderly and in feeble health, and his appearances in the College were few. Thus Prof Davidson had the field to himself, and he made the fullest use of it in a subtle way. Deeply versed in the German theology, he gave it to his students with the caution: 'Be careful to give this to your congregation in small doses'. [This given to the writer on the witness of one of them]. But the leaven was working, and the first public evidence of it was the notable Church case of Professor William Robertson Smith, who, while still a student-probationer, was appointed in 1870 to the Hebrew Chair in the Free Church College, Aberdeen. He had been a student in the New College, Edinburgh, under Prof A. B. Davidson, and afterwards in Germany under Prof Wellhausen in the University of Greifswald, and what he had imbibed of the destructive Criticism from his first master, he had it strengthened under the second. Wellhausen's opinion of Robertson Smith, expressed when he had gained prominence, is memorable: 'Smith was not a scholar, but clever at presenting other men's views the very man to do the job in Scotland! But clever or not. Prof Smith's lack of caution came out in a particularly offensive insolence. Articles of his in a new issue of the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1875 on 'Angels' and 'The Bible' brought it all, in its most offensive form, into the open, and the reaction of the older section of the Free Church was quick and decisive in the presence of what they termed 'the cold and poisonous air of negation, irreverence, and pride' seen in his articles. Robertson Smith was not without his friends, and, in the first instance, the Principal of New College, Dr Robert Rainy, gave him considerable support, and, stranger still, Prof James Candlish of the Glasgow College, made it known that that, in his opinion. Prof Smith's views could be reconciled with the Confession's Doctrine of Scripture, on the ground that our belief in the authority of Scripture is said to be derived from the inner witness of the Spirit and is, therefore, 'independent of criticism.' But after an admonition for his first article Robertson Smith, with all the brashness of youth, was more offensive still in his second article, and the General Assembly had to take action. It was for the deposition and dismissal of Prof Smith, the motion to that effect being supported by Principal Rainy, a shrewd but very inconsistent ecclesiastic, who was well able to assess which way the wind was blowing. Where did Prof A. B. Davidson stand in the crisis that his student was passing through? Silent as usual. It is reported that Robertson Smith approached him on his lack of support, and used the argument: 'I learned all this from you, and you are sitting safe in your Chair', and that Prof Davidson replied, in somewhat undignified terms: 'And why did you not keep your blethering tongue to yourself?' These were the high ethics of the new Modernism of the day!

Part 2 of the blog will be posted in a few days and I will comment then.

Sam Drucker

Lost in a Lost World

2011-04-10T19:25:00.002+10:00

One good thing to come out of recent dialogue with the manager of the These Infinite Spaces blogspot was his frank admission that no matter what the Word of God says (via myself and another quoting the Word of God) he would not believe that the world is about 6,000 years old. Although he has since deleted all comments on the topic there are a few witnesses who can testify that he made the statement. What was helpful was that he was actually blurting out what a lot of Sydney Episcopalians hold close to their chest - their lack of faith in the Word of God.

Aside from other problems already addressed in comments and blogs here there is another potential problem in embryo. It was picked up in a review published in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review in January 1868. It is was unsigned but suspected as having been authored by George Smeaton. The review was headed Some Lessons From The History of Rationalism and an extract is provided herewith:

The simple assertion of the Bible alone as the religion of Protestants, might seem to afford a foundation for such a via media [between Rationalism and Roman Catholicism] as we are in quest of; but when brought to the test, it will prove as treacherous as that of the Tractarians. Its danger,however, comes from the opposite side. It is safe enough as against Rome, and far enough removed from that extreme, but it lacks any sufficiently strong barrier to secure us from gradually and insensibly sliding into scepticism. The Bible is accepted as authoritative; but as we have seen it must be both authenticated and interpreted, and for these ends, unless I am simply to acquiesce in some Protestant council or confession instead of that of Rome, I have only my own faculties to use; I set out indeed with the full purpose of using them always in subordination to Scripture, and not as the Rationalist does as its judges. But how do I fare as I proceed ? In examining the evidence for the books of the Bible, I may not be able to acquiesce in the received canon; I may like many learned critics have doubts about the Second Epistle of Peter, or like Luther reject that of James; and if the evidence in their favour does not convince me, I have no alternative but to use my own judgment and reject them. Then I come to the contents of Scripture. I have been led to recognise it as divine partly, perhaps mainly, by the heavenliness of its teaching. But I find some things which seem to be unworthy of God, and inconsistent with his character; I cannot receive them. I endeavour to evade the difficulty by modifying my view of inspiration, and supposing there may be errors or inaccuracies in some parts of the Bible, I have recourse to forced and unnatural interpretations, to avoid what I cannot receive; but presently I find that neither of these expedients will suffice, and I must admit, that the Scriptures do teach these obnoxious doctrines.

What am I to do now ? is the question. You ought to submit to the Bible, and accept these doctrines in spite of your difficulties, would be the answer given by the orthodox Protestant. Yes, I reply, I would do that willingly, if I was sure that the Bible is the word of God. But it was only my reason that assured me of that at first, and now my reason tells me equally plainly that what the Bible says is not true. I accepted it at first among other reasons because of the doctrine it contained, and now it is this very doctrine that stumbles me. I must go back upon my former admission, and at the very least exercise the right of judging of the character of the Bible and of all its parts, and rejecting any portion or statement of it, not merely on external but internal grounds; and if I hesitated about some books at first, because of a lack of evidence, I may now reject many others because of their contents. I began with a real reverence for the Bible; but having no other witness for it save my own reason, this is what I have come to, and wherein does my position differ from that of the extremest Rationalist?

The only real and lasting security for the continuance of sound doctrine in the Church, is the continual presence and working of the Spirit of truth. The Holy Ghost is the river of living water, the streams whereof make glad the city of God. Popery hardens and crystallizes the living stream into an icy mass, making it more definite and tangible indeed, and more bright and brilliant as it glitters in the sun, but withal hard, dead and motionless, incapable of really imparting life; the Spirit is supposed to testify through the outward organism of the Church, and to work only through its ordinances. On the other hand Rationalism, ignoring or denying the work of the Spirit altogether, dries up the stream entirely, and leaves only empty channels that mock the thirst of the beholders. The living water may be something less definite and tangible, not so easy to limit down or portray exactly, but it supplies the real want of the city, as neither her the frozen glacier nor the empty channel can do. So it is not so easy, in some respects, always to realise the testimony of the Spirit, as rely either on ecclesiastical authority or enlightened reason; it requires an eye directed to the unseen, and a heart attuned to the melodies of heaven; it is always an easier thing to acquiesce in the idea that the Spirit speaks through the good and godly whom we can see and hear, and who form the Church, or that the dictates of our own reason are all the voice of the Spirit we are to expect; hence the facility with which either Rationalistic or Romanising principles have insinuated themselves into the Church; but in either of these ways we would be substituting something dead and formal for the Living Spirit, whom the Saviour has sent as the guide and teacher of his Church. This, as we read it, is the great lesson taught us by the history of Rationalism.

Sadly, for the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, a generation has come through which is on a course toward the barren wasteland of Rationalism through their handling of the Word of God. Even sadder is that they are likely to take unwitting followers with them.

Sam Drucker

HOW LOW CAN SYDNEY EPISCOPALIANS STOOP?

2011-04-05T22:39:00.002+10:00

Recent disappointments with a Sydney Episcopalian blogger are a miniature of the bigger problem within the Diocese. It is said that pride goes before a fall but in many instances there is a blow that brings the fall. Nevertheless, that blow can be avoided and the problem of pride rightly addressed.

John F. Brencher became aware of this as did some other notables of the past. Consider the following extract of an essay of John F. Brencher on the matter:

"Dr [Benjamin] Franklin of America related a lesson he had learnt from Cotton Mather in 1724. 'On taking my leave, he showed me a shorter way out of the house, through a narrow passage, which was crossed by a beam overhead. We were still talking as I withdrew, he accompanying me behind, and I turning towards him: when he said hastily - "Stoop - Stoop!" I did not understand him till I felt my head hit against the beam. He was a man who never missed an occasion for giving instruction, and upon this he said to me - "You are young, and have the world before you: Stoop as you go through it, and you will miss many hard thumps." This advice, thus beat into my heart, has frequently been of use to me: and I often think of it when I see pride mortified, and misfortunes brought upon people, by their carrying their heads too high.'

There is a general shallowness with respect to our conception of the Person of God and the nature of His providential works. Glibness of speech in spiritual matters is invariably the product of shallow thinking, feeling and understanding in the things of God. There is therefore nothing more contributory to the holy art of stooping than a good grasp of true theology in all the fulness of its biblical extensiveness. Yet today, there is a treatment of Scripture characterized by a picking and choosing which deprives people of the splendour of an expansive sweep of revelation, and consequently gives them a distorted and restricted view of revelation, and consequently gives them a distorted and restricted view of God. If people were not so obsessed by that well-meant but prohibitive cliché the 'simple Gospel', doubtless our churches would greatly benefit from preachers who unleashed all of His dynamic Word and not merely favourite parts. Considering the type of preaching which has been so prevalent it is no wonder that modern Christians have often such a poor conception of the immeasurable greatness of Almighty God! Of course not all people have got the time to examine the Scriptures and their original languages as they would like to do, and because of this full attention should be given to the public exposition of the Word and other allied means of grace. Let all the attributes of our triune God be vigorously evidenced in our thinking and prayers, and let the comprehensive workings of His gracious will be known among His people that we may be increasingly brought into conformity with His image by Christ Jesus. Such a goal will leave no room for shallowness and it will certainly encourage a bowing down of the entire personality."

The Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney prides itself on its theological seminary and its own self as being a bastion of evangelical conservatism in the worldwide Episcopalian church. All along it is flirting too much with the world.

To maintain such a position it engages in an exercise of "picking and choosing [Scripture] which deprives people of the splendour of an expansive sweep of revelation, and consequently gives them a distorted and restricted view of revelation, and consequently gives them a distorted and restricted view of God."

Within the Diocese emphasis is placed on Jesus Christ being the Son of God, Priest and Redeemer but His office as Creator is constrained to being fed through the filter of the world's view on Origins so that a distorted view (if anything) of Him as Creator is presented to the pewsitter and the world.

The Diocese needs to stoop. To stoop in prayer, in repentance, in submission to the clear utterances of God. A 'simple Gospel' is no match for the full revelation of Jesus Christ in all His majesty.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 53 verse 22, 23

2011-04-01T11:52:00.000+11:00

22. And God blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas and let the birds multiply on the earth.

That this which was last made now actually represents a more important form of life is also made manifest by the fact that God bestows a blessing upon these creatures, a blessing by virtue of which the needed powers for continuance and for multiplying are imparted. The very idea of an initial single pair of creatures of this type is excluded by the statements of v. 20 and 21 where, when called into being, these creatures are bidden "to swarm" and the waters to "teem." But from these copious beginnings these creatures are to keep on multiplying until they fill the earth. Every vestige of emptiness is to be ultimately cancelled. This blessing of God, however, is not a mere wish or a wishing-well on the part of the Almighty. It is a creative word of power which makes possible the things that it commands, and it continues in power to this day. The Creator is glorified by the multitudes of beings which His creative word makes.

It will be worth our while to make a check-up upon what is supposed to be an index of the style of P, to whom critics assign this chapter (P is the author of all that criticism calls the Priestly Codex). Skinner remarks about the double expression "be fruitful and multiply," peru urebhu, that it is "highly characteristic of P" and is used "only three times elsewhere." By such unwarranted remarks are the unwary misled, and by such insubstantial arguments is the case of the source criticism of the Pentateuch supported. B D B lists all the instances of the use of this double expression. The fictitious P is said to have it Gen. 1:22, 28 and 9:1 as well as 35:1.1 and 47:27, yet the last two expressions differ in that one is singular and the other not imperative but future. Yet Jeremiah uses these two verbs jointly in (Jer 3:16) and (Jer 23:3); so does Ezekiel in (Eze 36:11). Is it not an overstatement to call a phrase that one author uses five times and others three, "highly characteristic" of the one? It is not so much a characteristic of style but a case of having the author describe several situations that of themselves demand such a statement. By his statement of the case Skinner would lead men to believe that the so-called P must have used the phrase at least a dozen times.

In trying to make the fictitious P as real a figure as possible and to invest him with distinct characteristics Procksch remarks on this verse: "A tone of solemn joy pervades the knowledge that it is ordained that life should increase; P is in no sense a pessimist." The same note of "solemn joy," if you will, can be discerned just as plainly in chapter 2:4 ff, which is not ascribed to P.

23. Then came evening, then morning--the fifth day.

Cf. v. 5 and 8.

The Weakest Link

2011-03-29T22:12:00.005+11:00

There was once a television quiz program called The Weakest Link. Basically, the contestant who failed to contribute the required level of intelligence was deemed to be The Weakest Link.

One could be excused for thinking that the manager of a blogspot called These Infinite Spaces represents The Weakest Link in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney.

You know people are losing the argument on a matter touching on science when they resort to accusing their opponent(s) of being "Flat Earthers". It happened last week at the No Carbon Tax protest rally in Canberra when three Get Up juveniles unfurled a banner in front of a news camera with the words "Flat Earth" imprinted on the banner. This was Get Up's low level accusation against people who are cautious when differing scientific views exist on the subject of Anthropogenic Global Warming and who thus oppose the imposition of a tax on power consumption.

That incident follows a recent blog titled "Young Earth, Bad Theology" by the manager of These Infinite Spaces, a blog which links Biblical Creationists to Flat Earthers simply because we take God at his word in Scriptural passages which traditionally have been deemed historical narrative.

To counter the remnant God has sustained through the ages, the manager of These Infinite Spaces cites a Nineteenth Century work by Samuel Birley Rowbotham who, through extensive reference to extra Canonical sources and citation of certain passages of Scripture, has a pretext (Flat Earth belief) which he takes to figurative language of Scripture to justify his argument. This is a long standing practice of cultists and heretics. The manager of These Infinite Spaces tumbles in and is impressed with the potential for figurative language to be taken as literal, forgetting of course, to discern whether a pretext has first to be dismissed. Additionally, no thought is given to the potential to commit the converse offence of taking literal language as figurative - something the manager of These Infinite Spaces is guilty of because he has previously declared, without equivocation, that his world view (pretext) dictates his interpretation of Scripture.

In addition to the great offence this is to God, this is a violation of the principle of Scriptural interpretation instilled by God into the mind of men in perhaps the greatest collective work of God since the Apostolic period viz., the Reformation. That principle Sola Scriptura or Scripture Alone is the means to interpret Scripture i.e. let Scripture interpret Scripture. Evangelicals today exhort the Reformers and their works but many have a mind similar to the author of These Infinite Spaces and, like the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law who revered the murdered prophets of God, are held accountable for killing off the ones they revered.

Today the united pronouncements of Martin Luther and John Calvin on interpretation of Genesis 1 are dismissed as error. It is not Sola Scriptura dictating this killing of Luther and Calvin but extra-biblical influences and the manager of These Infinite Spaces is a willing aggressor.

In throwing off our Reformation heritage these modern day heretics even ignore the sober testimony of scholars who, because they doubt the Inspiration of Scripture, can be deemed hostile witnesses to the Reformation and Biblical Creationist position. It is an old quote (nearly 30 years old) but it bears repeating here. It is that of James Barr, Professor of Hebrew, Oxford University, who doubted what 'Moses' believed nonetheless said this of 'Moses':

‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11intended to convey to their readers the ideas that

a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24hours we now experience

b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’

The manager of These Infinite Spaces seems further behind James Barr and other former Hebraists in understanding because, while also influenced by external sources as they were, he cannot see the message that 'Moses' intended to convey in his writings.

Another failing of said manager is his failure to know anything of or grasp something of the use of the word yõm (day). It is definite in Hebrew that when you have an ordinal accompanying the word "day" it means a normal solar day. I think there are about 359 instances of support. If in the Bible anywhere "day" means something else the immediate context makes that perfectly clear. The context clearly shows that "day" is a long period of time. It would be the worst form of eisegesis to read that meaning back into Genesis 1 where "day" has ordinals in a specific series. (extensively a quote from Douglas Kelly, Theologian)

At the risk of criticism for repetition, when yõm is modified by a numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times external to Gen. 1), it means a literal day approximating to 24 hours. When modified by “evening and/or morning”, (38 times external to Gen. 1), it always means a literal day.

Any attempt by me to have said manager justify his erroneous dismissal of the convictive of the direct utterance of God, recorded at Exodus 20:11, was avoided in the first instance and then, when put to further interrogation, he promptly banned me from his blogspot. Since then he appears to have deleted every comment on his posts - strange! He has thus became then The Weakest Link in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney.

I caution new and tender Christians to avoid These Infinite Spaces. It is a black hole of infinite space from which escape to intelligence and understanding of truth is not possible.

Sam Drucker

Genesis code

2011-03-28T22:32:00.001+11:00

Review of the Genesis Code film.

Craig's Epistemic Rule-of-Thumb: What the Man is Really Saying

2011-03-24T11:58:00.001+11:00

Readers of our blog will be familiar with Craig's blog These Infinite Spaces. Craig rarely tackles subjects which rate high on the importance scale - unless of course you find cage wrestling on par with theological considerations – however, of late, he has composed several threads laying out his opinion (and I do stress, opinion!) on creation, the Bible and science. I won't bother going over old ground again; I just want to underscore his most basic presupposition. It requires mention because, unfortunately, it is lost, buried among all the distracting and evasive non-factual material that prevails on his threads on this combined subject.

Craig's latest disconcertingly muddleheaded comment is that “It's foolish for the Bible to be used as a cosmological textbook.” I have no desire to debate either the soundness of his claim or take issue with the appropriateness of his choice of words in this statement. Others can take up the challenge, if they so choose. What I wish to analyse is his fundamental epistemology and demonstrate how inconsistently he applies it. Furthermore, has Craig adopted a truly Christian epistemology or has he opted for an atheist one?

I seem to recall that it was Alvin Plantinga who called some beliefs properly basic. That is, there are propositions which are immediately justified and are in no further need of epistemic support or the inclusion of further beliefs: they just are. Craig, as does just about every heretic within the Sydney Anglican Diocese, asserts the proposition that the Bible isn't a cosmological textbook as though this were an instance of a properly basic belief. But is it really?

Quite clearly it isn't, because, as it stands, it is neither meaningful nor self-validating and lacks any trace of justification, inferential or explicit, notwithstanding Craig's obvious self-belief that it does possesses all these qualities. Consequently, mirroring his wholesale disdain for epistemic warrant, one is free to dismiss Craig's proposition without committing a logical faux pas.

Hidden beneath Craig's foundational belief is a more deeply rooted one, namely, 'Science Rules OK!' Without this additional supporting belief his actual articulated one makes absolutely no sense. Additionally, its particular quality needs to be understood against a universal proposition. In Craig's case it's that science is the filtering tool for all biblical statements. Without a universal Craig would be accused of, as he has been, special pleading. Craig, I've intimated, claims ex cathedra, “Heck, science is allowed to be the final arbiter on these parts of the Bible but not those.” This, you would hope, no rational man could honestly live with – but Craig, apparently, “can”.

The real point of my criticism of Craig's profoundly irresponsible epistemology is that, consistently applied, it destroys the Gospel. If science, so-called, truly is the final truth arbiter or the tool by which biblical propositions are decided to be figurative or not, then Lazarus and Christ didn't rise from the dead. Science has shown that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules and dead men cannot overcome entropic termination. Every day millions are seen to die and none has rise from the dead.

Of course, Craig could rightly object that God can overrule the 2nd Law. We would agree God can. However, if Craig can special plead God out of this dilemma, why then does Craig not allow God to do the same when it comes to the creation of the earth? Why does Craig not permit God to create in 6 real days, as Scripture unambiguously records he has done, but prefers to align himself with what basically amounts to a deeply offensive, non-supernatural and atheist worldview?

One thing is certain, Craig is consistently inconsistent when it comes to instances of applying his own epistemic rule-of-thumb to biblical matters.

6 days! What could they have meant?

2011-03-18T20:10:00.010+11:00

This might help the discussion with Craig of t'other blog: a quote from The Interpreter's Bible (1952 edition) on Genesis (p. 471)

There can be no question but that by Day the author meant just what we mean--the time required for one revolution of the earth on its axis. Had he meant an aeon he would certianly, in view of his fondness for great numbers, have stated the number of milleniums each period embraced. While this might have made his account of creation less irreconcilable with modern science, it would have involved a lessening of God's greatness, one sign of which was his power to do so much in one day.

In a similar vein, have a look at this piece on the Anglican site.

When we decide that we can set aside the truth value of the whole content of Genesis 1, we end up in the odd state that we say that we can infer truth from non-truth. The detail is too much to say it is merely figurative, and Simpson, quoted above, would agree: the author meant it! How can we infer what God did from what we say he did not do? If we set aside the direct meaning of Genesis 1 (and it is clearly not poetry, despite the protestations of some non-Hebrew readers) we have to give a reason as to why the detail of the revelation can be disregarded, when the whole Bible treats it as an account of actual events.

What it does is to say that something that doesn't give information about this world (the world it would speak of) gives instead information about some other world which doesn't exist in terms of Genesis 1 (that is an imaginary world, not the real world, as it holds that Genesis 1 doesn't touch the real world of what actually happened).

The Execution of Dialogue

2011-03-17T00:49:00.004+11:00

It would be easy to write words at length in criticism of the churlishness of Craig Swarze on his blogspot - culminating in his complete removal of a conversation he and I were having in the comments section of a recent blog. It occurred in his blog on the Moore College Think Tank. Look, and you won't now see any comments section.

There is more to his behaviour than just that. Let me just say that there is nothing of Jesus Christ in Craig Swarze's behaviour.

Sam Drucker

What 'creation' is about.

2011-03-15T13:47:00.003+11:00

One of the things missing, it seems, in the debate about origins and the Bible (in the poetry blog), at least as I read it, represented on Craig's blog, is something that Al Mohler says in his conference address on the age of the universe. And that is, the Bible doesn't set out to answer a theoretical question about the origin of the universe and its life, but it sets out to communicate God's relationship with his creation in its full teleological scope and show the ramifications of the interactions between God and his creation.

The Bible unfolds the account of our relationship with God, as relational, physical, dependent and 'in his likeness' beings in a long symmetrical set of events, in palindromic fashion.

It goes like this: creation...dissolution of relationship...rescue of relationship...new creation, or creation, fall, redemption, new creation, in more traditional language.

The creation account sits then as a meaningful (the Spirit revealed it, so its needful us to know, presumably) part of this sequence, and has to be, to make sense in that sequence, delineated by the same spatio-temporal constraints: so the time and event information corresponds to actual things within the world created. As it is, the detailed history of forming the people of God from Abraham, which follows the relating of why such action is needed by God, has a purposive place within the arc of redemptive history. Deny that the ground work in Genesis 1-11 is informative in a realist sense, and the faith of Abraham and the work of Christ, with the hope of renewal, lacks a basis in the way God relates to the world and responds to events within that world.

It is not about 'science' per se, although it interacts with the physical world, definitively, but it is about theology; about God and how it came to be that the world, in need of Christ, is as it is. The whole span of scripture is rich with meaning; not allegory, not figure or metaphor, although it does contain such, for communicative purposes, but, particularly in the case of God's real contact with the creation it has to be real, because what is is a result of what really was and will be.

Moreover, the first half of the sequence: breaking from relationshp, sets the scene that makes the call of Abram and the following events contextually significant: it places them both ontologicall and soteriologically and gives a great 'so this is why!" to Gods acts to save. Then in the second half of the sequence it is not only that we are saved in Christ, but that he is Lord: creator: the bearer of the restored relationship between us and the one who made us. But this has to be in terms the Bible uses: creator as the one whose actions are described in Genesis 1, etc. so that we see that he is creator in as real a sense as he is redeemer and will be creation-restorer.

Leupold Genesis part 52 verse 21

2011-03-15T11:51:00.000+11:00

21. And God created the great sea monsters and each one of the creeping creatures with which the waters teem after their kind and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Verse 21 in its relation to v. 20 furnishes a very excellent example as to how the account of what actually was done furnishes an invaluable commentary upon the original command of what was to be done. We ourselves would, as a rule, not have discerned what the original commands involved if the following statements had not made the full breadth of the original command plain. As far as the "swarms of living souls" of v. 20 are concerned, we are given to understand, first of all, that these swarms included not only the smaller fry among the fish but also "the great sea monsters" (tanninim), a word whose root indicates a creature of some length. In this category are found not only "whales," as A. V. translates, but all larger marine animals like sharks and, no doubt, also crocodiles: Nor do we hesitate to include under this head amphibians like the saurians of every class and description. Then the account specifically mentions what we have translated, "each one of the creeping creatures!" For here, apparently, nephesh has the common meaning of "individual" or "one," and what the account wishes to emphasize is that of the teeming multitudes of these marine creatures each one owed its existence to God's creative work. On this meaning of nephesh see K. S. 302a. The term rendered "creeping" (romeseth) literally implies "moving lightly about" or "gliding about" (B D B). Difficulty in fitting in these terms led to our rendering "creeping," which strictly does not apply to movement in the water. Another distinctive thought conveyed by this half of the verse is the added assertion that these creatures appeared "after their kind," a phrase not new but as important in its bearing as above. (v. 12) and allowing for no transmutation of species [Leupold here conflates the biblical concept of 'kind' with the scientific term 'species. The two are not the same thing. It is 'kinds' that do not transmute. Kinds may exist at the genus or family level. The definition of species is such that transmutation is readily achieved]. In the second half of the verse it is applied also to the birds.

The expression "winged bird" is literally "bird of wing," kanaph, "wing," being a genitive of quality and the phrase' as a whole what is known as an "ornate epithet" (K. S. 335 a) similar to our expression "yellow gold." Of course, birds have wings. But here, besides, where the very broadest of class distinctions are being made, without a doubt, the expression is meant to include every type of being that has wings--the small and the large, and not only what we call birds.

But on the whole an entirely new type of being has come into existence, creatures that breathe and are animated and have power of their own volition to go from place to place. To give existence to such is the peculiar prerogative of God and is a monumental, epoch-making achievement that deserves to be described by the verb "and He created" (wayyibhra') as the opening verse does.

Evangelical Church Absorbed Within Sleep and Self Interest at Cost to the Lost.

2011-03-13T17:44:00.006+11:00

In earlier years there was a sermon illustration about a small group which was instrumental in rescuing shipwrecked passengers from ships which floundered in storms. As I recall, their rescue success brought acclaim, additional resources, comfort and an unhealthy self interest - so much so that a ship in distress was completely ignored and people perished.

That illustration has much application in the church today.

Courtesy of CMI at creation.com I repeat hereunder an article appearing in their Focus section of the latest edition of Creation magazine which I received last week:

"Police investigating the recent Colorado shooting-range death of 29-year-old Kristin Hermeler and the simultaneous attempted suicide of her twin sister Candice, report that the twins had "an unusual interest" in the 1999 massacre at the nearby Columbine High School (Creation.com/bomb). And amongst the twins' belongings the police found a copy The God Delusion by outspoken atheist
Richard Dawkins.

That was the same book that Keith Kilgore linked to the 2008 suicide of his 22-year-old son Jesse. He said a biology college professor had objected to Jesse's professed Christian faith and challenged him to read it.

One of Jesse's friends told Mr Kilgore afterwards that Jesse had been "very upset" by the book - "It just destroyed him." And a relative wrote: "He had mentioned the book he had been reading, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and how it along with the science classes he had take[n] had ended his faith."

The 2007 Finnish multiple-shooting murderer Pekka-Eric Auvinen similarly believed what he had been taught at school about origins, saying that Christians were deluded, with God existing "only in your heads' (creation.com/killer).

By teaching young people evolution as a not-to-be-challenged 'fact', the Western world has been sowing the seeds of its own destruction. It truly is a giant hoax, and Dawkins has certainly played a part in the propagation of such deadly influence - see creation.com/delusion and creation.com/hoax. Sadly, much of the Church has been asleep at the wheel, sending its young people into the secular educational establishment without providing them any intellectual ammunition and defence. The magazine you're reading can help overturn that. Pass it on!

Reference
Suicide twins Kristin and Candice Hermeler had God Delusion in their luggage, news, com.au, 26 November 2010. Dad links son's suicide to 'The God Delusion', www.wnd.com, 20 November 2008."

Sam Drucker