With regard to some of the discussion on Craig's blog about what he calls 'creation science' (a misnomer, in my view), a couple of quotes come to mind:
"One must assume that there is a train of thought. "that the text has a central concern and a remarkable inner logic that may no longer be entirely comprehensible to us." One must get in the data, an d one must do so without undue complexity, without using that brute force which swaggers around the byways of a text arm-in-arm with ignorance"
and
"Consideration of literary genre must always remain in dialogue with the question of what the text actually says. Neither can claim the high ground and dictate to the other. The sa me is true of the various forms of structural, or structuralist, analysis."
Both from NT Wright in The Letter to the Galatians: Exegesis and Theology, in Green and Turner, eds, Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology, Eerdmans.
Craig seemed to rely on his view that Genesis 1 represents poetry and therefore its facticity can be discounted. That is, poetry = allegory, metaphor, or symbol. This is not necessarily so, but his understanding of poetry in biblical Hebrew seems deficient. I would suggest the following to give a bit of perspective to his thinking in this area:
James Kugel's work on Hebrew Poetry "The Idea of Biblical Poetry" Yale 1982, is of course the standard text, but you could also consult these, to get a fuller view of some contemporary thinking.
Hobbins, "Retaining and Transcending The Classical Description of Ancient Hebrew Verse"
Tsumura, “Vertical Grammar of Parallelism in Hebrew Poetry” Jrnl of Biblical Literature 128 No. 1 (2009)
Niccacci, “Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry” Jnrl for the Study of the Old Testament, 74 (1997)
Bregoli “Biblical Poetry, Spinozist Hermeneutics, and Critical Scholarship” Jnrl of Modern Jewish Studies, v. 8 n. 2 (2009)
Holladay, “Hebrew Verse Structure Revistied (I)” Jnrl of Biblical Literature v.118, n. 1 (1999)
Holladay, “Hebrew Verse Structure Revistied (II)” Jnrl of Biblical Literature v.118, n. 3 (1999)
and
An essay from the old ISBE that gives a useful overview.
And while we're on links; I mentioned on Craig's blog a couple of talks that could be of interest:
Dr Al Mohler at the 2010 Ligonier conference, and Dr. Joseph Pipa at Grace Reformed Baptist Church. Both good talks which consider exegetical and theological matters in relation to Genesis 1. In fact, at Grace, there's a whole conference devoted to creation and Genesis.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Mistaken Christ.
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever " - Hebrews 13:8
Our Lord Jesus Christ by his nature, by his activity, by his word - all recorded sufficiently for there to be no mistake (only devices would lead to the contrary) - stands irrefutably an argument against any suggestion of an evolutionary process as means of the creation coming into existence - either by chance or by guiding mind.
The point has been made here before and, were he alive today, would be made by John Charles Ryle, former Bishop of Liverpool and author of many works of help to Christians in the 19th Century and subsequent centuries.
To grasp his thinking I have extracted some of his words on the passage of Scripture "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8)
"What of this very world in which we live and move and have our being? It has stamped upon it the marks of a tremendous change; it is no longer the same as it was in the beginning. It cannot be that fair creation of which God pronounced every part and portion to be very good. Doubtless we are not ignorant: it is still a beautiful world, clothed with all that is lovely to the eye, furnished with all that is necessary to our comfort, stored with everything that can make life enjoyable. You may see everywhere the traces of a Father's hand. But still, we repeat, this world is not what it once was: it is no longer the same—no more the same than the gallant ship which yesterday did walk the waters like a thing of life, and today is dashed high on the beach and lies there a wreck, dismasted, shattered, and forsaken—no more the same than the ruin of some ancient house of God, which in days gone by was set apart and hallowed for religious services, and now stands desolate and silent and alone, with weeds and briars creeping over its floor, and ivy hanging about its broken walls like a widow's garment. Just so this world has gone through a blighting, withering change; and therefore it is we see so much of lusts unbridled and tempers ungoverned and passions unrestrained and intellects degraded and affections misplaced and powers misapplied, and God neglected, dishonored, and lightly esteemed. The sicknesses which devour their thousands, and the wars which cut off their tens of thousands, and the graves of infants snatched away in the springtime of life, and the tears and distresses and troubles and sorrows and afflictions which God never placed in Eden, but of which we now hear continually—all these tell you the same tale. The world is no longer the same. All these are the handwriting on the wall to remind us that man, like an unfaithful steward, has marred and spoiled his Maker's handiwork by his own sin, and so put the creation out of order and course ...
But we have not time, beloved, to compare earth as it is with earth as it was before Adam fell; it is enough to know that by his transgression all things suffered, for after his transgression all things were altered. We would rather go on to set before you proofs which are more under your eyes and come within your own observation. We wish you to feel the full force and blessedness of the character St. Paul has given to your Lord and Savior in our text; and in order to this we think it of first importance to establish in your minds this grand point—that there is nothing on earth of which you can say it is unchangeable, it is always the same, yesterday, today, and forever ...
We would remind you, then, that Jesus has always been the same in His office, person, and nature. In these latter days He has graciously made plain to our eyes the way of salvation, by coming upon earth to teach, to suffer, and to die; He has proved Himself the Son of God with power by rising again from the dead. But still we would not have you forget He was always the same—yesterday as well as today ...
Before the mountains were brought forth, or the earth and world were formed, from everlasting Jesus Christ was, like the Father, very God. From the beginning He was foreordained to be the Saviour of sinners;"
Oh, that the Episcopalian Church of today were not predominantly blighted by degenerate thinkers occupying positions of influence over the mind of people earnestly seeking to know their Creator, Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ! Oh, that they would have faith in the word of God!
Oh, that there were a proliferation of clergy and theological seminary lecturers who are of the stamp of John Charles Ryle who was far closer to the doctrine of the Reformers and Puritans than the present generation is ever likely to be! How much healthier would the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney be under such thinking and teaching? How much more likely would the Diocese have been able to avoid the financial crisis which demonstrated our being too nearer to worldly thinking than the mind of God? How much more effective in evangelism would the Diocese be than the failed Connect 09? (I know the Archbishop sensed a slight swelling in our numbers but I expect the swelling will soon be seen as nothing more than a body of air which, like a burp, will soon be expelled from the body).
To restate John Charles Ryle: We would remind you, then, that Jesus has always been the same in His office, person, and nature. This Jesus is the Son of God who once created all things out of nothing in an instant, albeit different orders on different units of six consecutive days in the beginning. This same Son of God Incarnate, some 2,000 years ago, performed all the acts one would assign to the Creator and all in the sight of many earthen witnesses. This same Son of God will one day raise up, fully formed and in an instant, all who have ever lived though they be so long departed from this world that their remains are now as nothing.
If only the many in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney had as much faith in this Son of God as they have in the world.
Sam Drucker
Our Lord Jesus Christ by his nature, by his activity, by his word - all recorded sufficiently for there to be no mistake (only devices would lead to the contrary) - stands irrefutably an argument against any suggestion of an evolutionary process as means of the creation coming into existence - either by chance or by guiding mind.
The point has been made here before and, were he alive today, would be made by John Charles Ryle, former Bishop of Liverpool and author of many works of help to Christians in the 19th Century and subsequent centuries.
To grasp his thinking I have extracted some of his words on the passage of Scripture "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8)
"What of this very world in which we live and move and have our being? It has stamped upon it the marks of a tremendous change; it is no longer the same as it was in the beginning. It cannot be that fair creation of which God pronounced every part and portion to be very good. Doubtless we are not ignorant: it is still a beautiful world, clothed with all that is lovely to the eye, furnished with all that is necessary to our comfort, stored with everything that can make life enjoyable. You may see everywhere the traces of a Father's hand. But still, we repeat, this world is not what it once was: it is no longer the same—no more the same than the gallant ship which yesterday did walk the waters like a thing of life, and today is dashed high on the beach and lies there a wreck, dismasted, shattered, and forsaken—no more the same than the ruin of some ancient house of God, which in days gone by was set apart and hallowed for religious services, and now stands desolate and silent and alone, with weeds and briars creeping over its floor, and ivy hanging about its broken walls like a widow's garment. Just so this world has gone through a blighting, withering change; and therefore it is we see so much of lusts unbridled and tempers ungoverned and passions unrestrained and intellects degraded and affections misplaced and powers misapplied, and God neglected, dishonored, and lightly esteemed. The sicknesses which devour their thousands, and the wars which cut off their tens of thousands, and the graves of infants snatched away in the springtime of life, and the tears and distresses and troubles and sorrows and afflictions which God never placed in Eden, but of which we now hear continually—all these tell you the same tale. The world is no longer the same. All these are the handwriting on the wall to remind us that man, like an unfaithful steward, has marred and spoiled his Maker's handiwork by his own sin, and so put the creation out of order and course ...
But we have not time, beloved, to compare earth as it is with earth as it was before Adam fell; it is enough to know that by his transgression all things suffered, for after his transgression all things were altered. We would rather go on to set before you proofs which are more under your eyes and come within your own observation. We wish you to feel the full force and blessedness of the character St. Paul has given to your Lord and Savior in our text; and in order to this we think it of first importance to establish in your minds this grand point—that there is nothing on earth of which you can say it is unchangeable, it is always the same, yesterday, today, and forever ...
We would remind you, then, that Jesus has always been the same in His office, person, and nature. In these latter days He has graciously made plain to our eyes the way of salvation, by coming upon earth to teach, to suffer, and to die; He has proved Himself the Son of God with power by rising again from the dead. But still we would not have you forget He was always the same—yesterday as well as today ...
Before the mountains were brought forth, or the earth and world were formed, from everlasting Jesus Christ was, like the Father, very God. From the beginning He was foreordained to be the Saviour of sinners;"
Oh, that the Episcopalian Church of today were not predominantly blighted by degenerate thinkers occupying positions of influence over the mind of people earnestly seeking to know their Creator, Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ! Oh, that they would have faith in the word of God!
Oh, that there were a proliferation of clergy and theological seminary lecturers who are of the stamp of John Charles Ryle who was far closer to the doctrine of the Reformers and Puritans than the present generation is ever likely to be! How much healthier would the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney be under such thinking and teaching? How much more likely would the Diocese have been able to avoid the financial crisis which demonstrated our being too nearer to worldly thinking than the mind of God? How much more effective in evangelism would the Diocese be than the failed Connect 09? (I know the Archbishop sensed a slight swelling in our numbers but I expect the swelling will soon be seen as nothing more than a body of air which, like a burp, will soon be expelled from the body).
To restate John Charles Ryle: We would remind you, then, that Jesus has always been the same in His office, person, and nature. This Jesus is the Son of God who once created all things out of nothing in an instant, albeit different orders on different units of six consecutive days in the beginning. This same Son of God Incarnate, some 2,000 years ago, performed all the acts one would assign to the Creator and all in the sight of many earthen witnesses. This same Son of God will one day raise up, fully formed and in an instant, all who have ever lived though they be so long departed from this world that their remains are now as nothing.
If only the many in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney had as much faith in this Son of God as they have in the world.
Sam Drucker
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Leupold Genesis part 51 verse 20
20. And God said: Let the waters swarm with swarms of living souls, and let birds fly above the ground across the face of the firmament of the heavens.
The work of the fifth day is also in a sense a double one, but its double character is by no means as pronounced as that of the third and the sixth days. For to have the waters and the skies filled with such creatures as these parts are best adapted to is in reality a work whose two parts are practically identical in nature. However, here the situation is not analogous to the work of the third day, where "the earth brought forth." Here it is not the waters that bring forth. A. V. is in error when it translates: "Let the waters bring forth abundantly." Luther did not make this mistake. The optative of the verb sharats followed by the cognate object shaerets here must mean: "Let the waters swarm with swarms." Meek is more idiomatic: "Let the waters teem with shoals," but he loses the cognate object. We simply do not know from what source fish and birds sprang. They are simply bidden to people their respective domains. In apposition with the cognate object sherets stands the expression, "living souls" or literally, "souls of life." The word "soul" (nephesh) is here used for the first time--a collective singular--as a designation of these aquatic creatures, because the soul is the most important part of them, and at the same time the term definitely points to the new and distinctive thing involved. This is the first time that life in souls or living souls appears. According to the Biblical viewpoint plants have no life. But the life of living creatures is present in their "souls," and so they have souls ascribed to them. But this "soul" again is regarded as nothing more than "that which breathes" (B D B) in any being. A kindred form of life to that of fish is that of birds. Each type has its special element. The polel form ye'opkepk is intensive and so implies: birds shall "fly back and forth." Their element is described as being "above the ground across the face of the firmament of the heavens." The firmament is regarded as having a face, that is a side turned toward and, as we say, "facing" the earth. Across this the birds are to disport themselves. Sherets used in reference to the fish is a graphically descriptive term. All forms of life that love to move in continual agitation through one another, like shoals of fish and the like, are involved. This pronounced gregarious instinct marks these creatures to this day. By this work the emptiness (bohu) of the heavens and the waters is cancelled.
The work of the fifth day is also in a sense a double one, but its double character is by no means as pronounced as that of the third and the sixth days. For to have the waters and the skies filled with such creatures as these parts are best adapted to is in reality a work whose two parts are practically identical in nature. However, here the situation is not analogous to the work of the third day, where "the earth brought forth." Here it is not the waters that bring forth. A. V. is in error when it translates: "Let the waters bring forth abundantly." Luther did not make this mistake. The optative of the verb sharats followed by the cognate object shaerets here must mean: "Let the waters swarm with swarms." Meek is more idiomatic: "Let the waters teem with shoals," but he loses the cognate object. We simply do not know from what source fish and birds sprang. They are simply bidden to people their respective domains. In apposition with the cognate object sherets stands the expression, "living souls" or literally, "souls of life." The word "soul" (nephesh) is here used for the first time--a collective singular--as a designation of these aquatic creatures, because the soul is the most important part of them, and at the same time the term definitely points to the new and distinctive thing involved. This is the first time that life in souls or living souls appears. According to the Biblical viewpoint plants have no life. But the life of living creatures is present in their "souls," and so they have souls ascribed to them. But this "soul" again is regarded as nothing more than "that which breathes" (B D B) in any being. A kindred form of life to that of fish is that of birds. Each type has its special element. The polel form ye'opkepk is intensive and so implies: birds shall "fly back and forth." Their element is described as being "above the ground across the face of the firmament of the heavens." The firmament is regarded as having a face, that is a side turned toward and, as we say, "facing" the earth. Across this the birds are to disport themselves. Sherets used in reference to the fish is a graphically descriptive term. All forms of life that love to move in continual agitation through one another, like shoals of fish and the like, are involved. This pronounced gregarious instinct marks these creatures to this day. By this work the emptiness (bohu) of the heavens and the waters is cancelled.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
TRAMPLING ON THE HESED OF GOD
My final visit to John Bright's Kingdom of God reveals his words found on pages 73 & 74 where he observes the state of Israel resulting in the judgment of God. Somewhere in the picture of Israel is, at some stage, the evangelical church of this generation and no less represented by the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. Bright's words are provided to help the reader imagine the state of things today:
No less menacing than the international situation was the internal decay of Israel. The book of Hosea is the best possible commentary upon it, and it deserves a whole chapter. For Hosea lived through the collapse, and it tore at his heart. He pictures graphically the political vacuum, the mad plotting for power, the collapse of law and order, civil anarchy in which life is no longer safe (e.g., 4:1-2; 7:1-7; 8:4; 10:3). Even worse, the heart has gone clean out of religious faith, and there is complete moral decay. The priests are timeservers who utter no moral rebuke but who are, through the practices they countenance and abet, themselves the corrupters of religion (4:8-9; 5:1; 6:9-10). Instruction of the true religion has lapsed, and with it all knowledge of the God of Israel; the land is permeated with the poison of paganism. Parents set for their children examples of immorality which the children only outstrip (4:6, 11-14). No more revolting or truer picture than this could be drawn of what the breakdown of religion really means. Nor did this sick nation know any way to cure itself save by political maneuvering (5:13). Yet even here was its bankruptcy evident. They trimmed their foreign policy to every political wind that blew, and they were always wrong - because they were morally wrong. Israel is a half baked cake (7:8); "a silly dove without any sense" (7:11), fluttering and cooing this way and that in a panic; a worn-out roué who will not wake up to the fact that he is growing old (7:9). Israel is done for!
Clearly there could be no peace between Hosea and such a nation as that! But Hosea's attack differed somewhat from that of Amos. Although it moved from the same theology, it was delivered at a different point. Hosea has less to say of idle luxury and unethical behavior - although he is well enough aware of these things. After all, he spoke not to national prosperity but to national collapse, and his message was shaped by his own peculiar temperament. The target of his attack was idolatry, Baal worship, apostasy. This is the seat of the disease, the sin in which all sin consists, the poison in the body politic. It is this that has separated Israel from her God, and is the cause of all her calamity. An apostate nation cannot be the people of God.
Most interesting of all is the formulation Hosea gave to the covenant bond which bound Israel to her God. It is a formulation which became classic, and which was taken up by many a subsequent prophet - particularly Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The covenant is a wedlock; in it God "married" Israel and made her his "wife." To worship other gods as Israel has done is plain "adultery," and, if no sincere reconciliation is effected, the end of it will be "divorce" - national ruin. God demands of his people hesed, that utter loyalty which is the only proper response to God's hesed, his covenant favour. No amount of protestations of loyalty through the external forms of religion can play substitute for it:
For it is hesed that pleases me, and not sacrifice;
And the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings(6:6)
Rather than imposing upon God a corrupt form of creative process (evolution); rather than trusting in the corrupt interpretation of God's direct utterances by weak willed men, wouldn't it be desirable for the Church today to respond to the love of God with faith or loyalty to the nature and word of God?
Learn a lesson from an adulterous Israel.
Sam Drucker
No less menacing than the international situation was the internal decay of Israel. The book of Hosea is the best possible commentary upon it, and it deserves a whole chapter. For Hosea lived through the collapse, and it tore at his heart. He pictures graphically the political vacuum, the mad plotting for power, the collapse of law and order, civil anarchy in which life is no longer safe (e.g., 4:1-2; 7:1-7; 8:4; 10:3). Even worse, the heart has gone clean out of religious faith, and there is complete moral decay. The priests are timeservers who utter no moral rebuke but who are, through the practices they countenance and abet, themselves the corrupters of religion (4:8-9; 5:1; 6:9-10). Instruction of the true religion has lapsed, and with it all knowledge of the God of Israel; the land is permeated with the poison of paganism. Parents set for their children examples of immorality which the children only outstrip (4:6, 11-14). No more revolting or truer picture than this could be drawn of what the breakdown of religion really means. Nor did this sick nation know any way to cure itself save by political maneuvering (5:13). Yet even here was its bankruptcy evident. They trimmed their foreign policy to every political wind that blew, and they were always wrong - because they were morally wrong. Israel is a half baked cake (7:8); "a silly dove without any sense" (7:11), fluttering and cooing this way and that in a panic; a worn-out roué who will not wake up to the fact that he is growing old (7:9). Israel is done for!
Clearly there could be no peace between Hosea and such a nation as that! But Hosea's attack differed somewhat from that of Amos. Although it moved from the same theology, it was delivered at a different point. Hosea has less to say of idle luxury and unethical behavior - although he is well enough aware of these things. After all, he spoke not to national prosperity but to national collapse, and his message was shaped by his own peculiar temperament. The target of his attack was idolatry, Baal worship, apostasy. This is the seat of the disease, the sin in which all sin consists, the poison in the body politic. It is this that has separated Israel from her God, and is the cause of all her calamity. An apostate nation cannot be the people of God.
Most interesting of all is the formulation Hosea gave to the covenant bond which bound Israel to her God. It is a formulation which became classic, and which was taken up by many a subsequent prophet - particularly Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The covenant is a wedlock; in it God "married" Israel and made her his "wife." To worship other gods as Israel has done is plain "adultery," and, if no sincere reconciliation is effected, the end of it will be "divorce" - national ruin. God demands of his people hesed, that utter loyalty which is the only proper response to God's hesed, his covenant favour. No amount of protestations of loyalty through the external forms of religion can play substitute for it:
For it is hesed that pleases me, and not sacrifice;
And the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings(6:6)
Rather than imposing upon God a corrupt form of creative process (evolution); rather than trusting in the corrupt interpretation of God's direct utterances by weak willed men, wouldn't it be desirable for the Church today to respond to the love of God with faith or loyalty to the nature and word of God?
Learn a lesson from an adulterous Israel.
Sam Drucker
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Leupold Genesis part 50 verse 19
19. Then came evening, then came morning--the fourth day.
Cf. v. 5 and 8.
In this connection one particular problem still requires our consideration, and that is the computation of the light years by which the distance separating the earth from certain stars is measured. Some claim that then, of necessity, certain stars now visible could not yet have appeared to our first parents. If the astronomical calculations involved are correct, what if all stars were not at once visible but have only become apparent as time went on? Such a situation is not out of harmony with the Creation account; it would indicate merely a greater vastness to creation's work than man had first surmised. Where, however, it is claimed that this situation involves a greater antiquity of the earth than our construction of the Mosaic accounts allows for, we on our part still believe that the laws of light refraction in the interstellar spaces cannot be asserted to be identical with those prevailing under conditions as we know them. There still is the possibility that the tremendous spaces and the times resulting from certain astronomical calculations are based on assumptions whose correctness will always be only in part demonstrable.
The claim of Skinner must yet be disposed of when he maintains that the Genesis account presents a "religious advance to pure monotheism" over against "the idea of them (the heavenly bodies) as an animated host" as it "occurs in Hebrew poetry (Jud 5:20; Isa 40:26; Job 38:7); but here it is entirely eliminated." We do not grant that the passages cited are earlier than Genesis 1. But they are poetic and, when rightly construed, offer no other view than that which any enlightened Christian now holds. They are far from teaching anything about heavenly bodies as "an animated host." The attempts of the critics to prove evolution of ideas where no such evolution occurs are unconvincing.
Cf. v. 5 and 8.
In this connection one particular problem still requires our consideration, and that is the computation of the light years by which the distance separating the earth from certain stars is measured. Some claim that then, of necessity, certain stars now visible could not yet have appeared to our first parents. If the astronomical calculations involved are correct, what if all stars were not at once visible but have only become apparent as time went on? Such a situation is not out of harmony with the Creation account; it would indicate merely a greater vastness to creation's work than man had first surmised. Where, however, it is claimed that this situation involves a greater antiquity of the earth than our construction of the Mosaic accounts allows for, we on our part still believe that the laws of light refraction in the interstellar spaces cannot be asserted to be identical with those prevailing under conditions as we know them. There still is the possibility that the tremendous spaces and the times resulting from certain astronomical calculations are based on assumptions whose correctness will always be only in part demonstrable.
The claim of Skinner must yet be disposed of when he maintains that the Genesis account presents a "religious advance to pure monotheism" over against "the idea of them (the heavenly bodies) as an animated host" as it "occurs in Hebrew poetry (Jud 5:20; Isa 40:26; Job 38:7); but here it is entirely eliminated." We do not grant that the passages cited are earlier than Genesis 1. But they are poetic and, when rightly construed, offer no other view than that which any enlightened Christian now holds. They are far from teaching anything about heavenly bodies as "an animated host." The attempts of the critics to prove evolution of ideas where no such evolution occurs are unconvincing.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Victory to Atheists! (Albeit Temporary)
Atheists should be readying themselves for occasions of debate with alleged defenders of the Christian faith. Opportunity exists to knock over your opponent by destroying his or her theology.
However, the opportunity is a key and it works only on a certain lock. Nevertheless, that lock is a very commonplace lock - wide spread throughout the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and rife throughout the evangelical church worldwide. The lock gives appearance of being secure but it is not secure at all. It is the heresy of Theistic Evolution.
All that Atheist debaters need do is a little probing to ascertain whether their opponent is a Theistic Evolutionist. Once confirmed it is all easy from there. You can play with your opponent for as long as you like - as a cat does with its prey - until you go for the key and bring undone your opponent. The greater the earthly stage the greater your earthly triumph.
Before proceeding further I have to set down some background.
Immediately prior to the Incarnate ministry of the Son of God there came John the Baptist proclaiming words to the effect of "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven [God] is at hand." (Matt. 3:2) Later the Son of God Incarnate had occasion to say " ... the Kingdom of God has come to you." (Luke 11:20)
It is the Kingdom of God upon which all Israel's hopes rested and it is the Kingdom of God which the Son of God Incarnate ushered in - though not yet fully realized. It is not the State, it is not the church visible nor is it any one or more denominations of allegedly Christian churches, though several members of the Kingdom may be present within those bodies (or not). The Kingdom of God is not visible.
For more understanding on this premise I quote from John Bright's work "The Kingdom of God" page 92. (Bright's work was once necessary reading at Moore Theological College) Referring to the message of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, Bright says:
"It is the Kingdom of God toward which all history moves. There justice shall reign (11:3-5); there peace will be unbroken (Isa. 2:2-4, Mic. 4:1-3). There Israel shall find at last her destiny to be a blessing to the entire world (Isa. 2:3, Mic. 4:2; cf. Gen. 12:3). God is the real ruler of that Kingdom. The Prince of David's line is imbued with God's spirit, and by that spirit he rules; he is God's own charismatic [Judges-like figure] (11:2). He stands before us as no fierce warrior, but as a little child (9:6) established in his rule by God's power (9:7). He reigns over a people transformed through their obedience to the divine Will. It is God's Kingdom and it will endure forever (9:7).
And, then, with a change of imagery that Kingdom is described not as a transfigured age of David, but as a recovery of the lost bliss of Eden. An Edenlike peace reigns in all the earth (11:6-9): peace among men, peace in nature, peace with God. The balance in creation, upset so long ago by sin, is now restored—for God's law is supreme. If the prophet had said that there will be a new Eden, a new Adam, it would hardly be surprising. He did not, of course, but the idea is there. Keep it in mind! We shall in due time hear of a new Adam in whom all are made alive (I Cor. 15:22, 45-49)."
While some other aspects of Bright's work are questionable his explanation here of the activity of God since the Fall of Adam is soundly in tune with Scripture and Reformed doctrine pertaining to the restoration of the Creation through the Kingdom of God fully realized in the coming again of the Second Adam - the Son of God.
This restoration activity is the Achilles' heel and key to undoing the heresy of Theistic Evolution. The Atheist need only ask his or her debating opponent "If, as you say, your God used evolution to create all things, to what then is the creation being restored or regenerated?" (Matt. 19:28)
Any reply allowing for an evolutionary order is contrary to the order of creation envisioned by the Spirit led prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 11:6-9) because evolution provides death, suffering and competition in, at least, the animals before sin entered the world. Any reply excluding an evolutionary order exposes an inconsistency in his or her present world view. It does not take much mental exercise for the Atheist to develop the argument from here. The squirming of the Theistic Evolutionist will be palpable as his or her theology of the New Creation, the Kingdom of God fully realized, indeed his or her whole theology will dissemble before your eyes.
However, your victory here while appearing to knock out Christianity, will not triumph over the Kingdom of God. It is a victory only over a generation of heretics. Even as the apostatizing Israel of old appeared defeated by pagans (aided by God) there was a remnant among the exiled to whom God spoke words of promise towards fulfillment of the Kingdom of God.
Nevertheless, your victory over heretics today has value and ought to be pursued if only for the sake of truth alone.
Sam Drucker
However, the opportunity is a key and it works only on a certain lock. Nevertheless, that lock is a very commonplace lock - wide spread throughout the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and rife throughout the evangelical church worldwide. The lock gives appearance of being secure but it is not secure at all. It is the heresy of Theistic Evolution.
All that Atheist debaters need do is a little probing to ascertain whether their opponent is a Theistic Evolutionist. Once confirmed it is all easy from there. You can play with your opponent for as long as you like - as a cat does with its prey - until you go for the key and bring undone your opponent. The greater the earthly stage the greater your earthly triumph.
Before proceeding further I have to set down some background.
Immediately prior to the Incarnate ministry of the Son of God there came John the Baptist proclaiming words to the effect of "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven [God] is at hand." (Matt. 3:2) Later the Son of God Incarnate had occasion to say " ... the Kingdom of God has come to you." (Luke 11:20)
It is the Kingdom of God upon which all Israel's hopes rested and it is the Kingdom of God which the Son of God Incarnate ushered in - though not yet fully realized. It is not the State, it is not the church visible nor is it any one or more denominations of allegedly Christian churches, though several members of the Kingdom may be present within those bodies (or not). The Kingdom of God is not visible.
For more understanding on this premise I quote from John Bright's work "The Kingdom of God" page 92. (Bright's work was once necessary reading at Moore Theological College) Referring to the message of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, Bright says:
"It is the Kingdom of God toward which all history moves. There justice shall reign (11:3-5); there peace will be unbroken (Isa. 2:2-4, Mic. 4:1-3). There Israel shall find at last her destiny to be a blessing to the entire world (Isa. 2:3, Mic. 4:2; cf. Gen. 12:3). God is the real ruler of that Kingdom. The Prince of David's line is imbued with God's spirit, and by that spirit he rules; he is God's own charismatic [Judges-like figure] (11:2). He stands before us as no fierce warrior, but as a little child (9:6) established in his rule by God's power (9:7). He reigns over a people transformed through their obedience to the divine Will. It is God's Kingdom and it will endure forever (9:7).
And, then, with a change of imagery that Kingdom is described not as a transfigured age of David, but as a recovery of the lost bliss of Eden. An Edenlike peace reigns in all the earth (11:6-9): peace among men, peace in nature, peace with God. The balance in creation, upset so long ago by sin, is now restored—for God's law is supreme. If the prophet had said that there will be a new Eden, a new Adam, it would hardly be surprising. He did not, of course, but the idea is there. Keep it in mind! We shall in due time hear of a new Adam in whom all are made alive (I Cor. 15:22, 45-49)."
While some other aspects of Bright's work are questionable his explanation here of the activity of God since the Fall of Adam is soundly in tune with Scripture and Reformed doctrine pertaining to the restoration of the Creation through the Kingdom of God fully realized in the coming again of the Second Adam - the Son of God.
This restoration activity is the Achilles' heel and key to undoing the heresy of Theistic Evolution. The Atheist need only ask his or her debating opponent "If, as you say, your God used evolution to create all things, to what then is the creation being restored or regenerated?" (Matt. 19:28)
Any reply allowing for an evolutionary order is contrary to the order of creation envisioned by the Spirit led prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 11:6-9) because evolution provides death, suffering and competition in, at least, the animals before sin entered the world. Any reply excluding an evolutionary order exposes an inconsistency in his or her present world view. It does not take much mental exercise for the Atheist to develop the argument from here. The squirming of the Theistic Evolutionist will be palpable as his or her theology of the New Creation, the Kingdom of God fully realized, indeed his or her whole theology will dissemble before your eyes.
However, your victory here while appearing to knock out Christianity, will not triumph over the Kingdom of God. It is a victory only over a generation of heretics. Even as the apostatizing Israel of old appeared defeated by pagans (aided by God) there was a remnant among the exiled to whom God spoke words of promise towards fulfillment of the Kingdom of God.
Nevertheless, your victory over heretics today has value and ought to be pursued if only for the sake of truth alone.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Baal Bones Found in Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney
Attributing an inferior means as evolution to God is nothing more than adopting a philosophy first then moulding perception of God to conform to that a priori. Such thinking, or any variant of it, is not without precedent in those who purport to be the People of God.
It has been often spoken here that Theistic Evolution has a parallel with Baal worship in Israel of old. A fresh insight into this proposition can be found in John Bright's The Kingdom of God, first published in 1953. In pages 52-54 Bright speaks of the Northern Kingdom of Israel's further descent into idolatry in the time of King Ahab and Jezebel.
I cite a section of Bright's comments and encourage readers to observe some similarity with what is going on in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney under the 'rule' of one or more Theistic Evolutionists.
The danger to Israel was immense. The more we know of Canaanite paganism the clearer this becomes. Here was a paganism of the most degrading sort. Its gods and goddesses - Baal, Astarte, Asherah, Anat, it, and the rest - represented for the most part those forces and functions of nature which have to do with fertility. Its myth was closely linked with the death and rebirth of nature. Its cult was concerned to control by means of its ritual the forces of nature and thus to produce the desired fertility in soil, in beast, and in man. As in all such religions sacred prostitution of both sexes and other orgiastic and ecstatic practices of the most disgusting sort were involved.
Clearly the question, Yahweh or Baal? was not a trivial one. We moderns tend to view it as a sort of denominational quarrel, and to find the prophet hostility to Baal rather fanatical and narrow. But we are wrong. For these were not two rival religions, one of which was some what superior to the other; they were religions of wholly different sorts; they could have nothing to do with each other. It must be understood that Israel's very being as a people rested in her confidence that Yahweh had called her, entered into covenant with her, summoned her to live in obedience to his righteous law, and given her a sense of destiny as his people. Baal, on the contrary, would have been destructive of the very faith that made Israel what she was. Here was a religion which summoned men not at all beyond their animal nature, and even fostered that animal nature; which posed no moral demands, but provided men with an external ritual designed to appease the deity and to manipulate the divine powers for their own material ends; which was incapable of creating community but rather, by pandering to the selfish desires of the worshiper, was destructive of real community. Paganism was, then as now, no trivial thing. As long as men take on the character of the gods they serve, so long does it greatly matter who those gods may be. Had Israel embraced Baal it would have been the end of her; she would no longer have lived as the peculiar people of God. Not one scrap of her heritage would have survived.
Of course the menace of Baal was not new with Jezebel. It had been there since the conquest, when Israel first confronted the superior material culture of Canaan and, in taking over her land, took over her agrarian way of life, her cities, and her shrines. The temptation was always present to imagine that the worship of the gods of fertility was a necessary part of the agrarian life. Many were quick to apostatize to Baal or to address Yahweh as if he were Baal. The incorporation of new blood into Israel no doubt much faster than it could be assimilated, and the tolerant attitude of Solomon and others in such matters, could only have facilitated the process. Baal was no stranger to Israel.
Yet we must not allow this to obscure the magnitude of the threat which Jezebel posed. Here for the first time was an overt attempt on the part of the state to impose a foreign paganism by force. Jezebel, as we said, resorted to persecution, and this persecution had far-reaching effects. It fell with especial force on the prophets of Yahweh (I Kings 18:4; 19:14). For the first time in Israel the prophet was faced with reprisals for speaking the Word of Yahweh. In the face of pressure some of them gave way and surrendered to the state. We see thereafter groups of prophets, in the pay of the court or the shrine, clustering about the king to lick the royal hand and to say- unanimously - what the royal ear wished to hear (I Kings 22). But we see also a succession of lone individuals who like Micaiah, because they refused to compromise their prophet Word, were ever more completely alienated not only from the state but from their fellow prophets as well. To these prophets Yahweh
was against the state.
I leave it to readers who have participated in the life of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney over the past fifteen or so years to see the irony of what went on in Israel of old and what has been recent Sydney experience - some not so dramatic yet difficult just the same and some concern for what the like idolatry produces.
Sam Drucker
It has been often spoken here that Theistic Evolution has a parallel with Baal worship in Israel of old. A fresh insight into this proposition can be found in John Bright's The Kingdom of God, first published in 1953. In pages 52-54 Bright speaks of the Northern Kingdom of Israel's further descent into idolatry in the time of King Ahab and Jezebel.
I cite a section of Bright's comments and encourage readers to observe some similarity with what is going on in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney under the 'rule' of one or more Theistic Evolutionists.
The danger to Israel was immense. The more we know of Canaanite paganism the clearer this becomes. Here was a paganism of the most degrading sort. Its gods and goddesses - Baal, Astarte, Asherah, Anat, it, and the rest - represented for the most part those forces and functions of nature which have to do with fertility. Its myth was closely linked with the death and rebirth of nature. Its cult was concerned to control by means of its ritual the forces of nature and thus to produce the desired fertility in soil, in beast, and in man. As in all such religions sacred prostitution of both sexes and other orgiastic and ecstatic practices of the most disgusting sort were involved.
Clearly the question, Yahweh or Baal? was not a trivial one. We moderns tend to view it as a sort of denominational quarrel, and to find the prophet hostility to Baal rather fanatical and narrow. But we are wrong. For these were not two rival religions, one of which was some what superior to the other; they were religions of wholly different sorts; they could have nothing to do with each other. It must be understood that Israel's very being as a people rested in her confidence that Yahweh had called her, entered into covenant with her, summoned her to live in obedience to his righteous law, and given her a sense of destiny as his people. Baal, on the contrary, would have been destructive of the very faith that made Israel what she was. Here was a religion which summoned men not at all beyond their animal nature, and even fostered that animal nature; which posed no moral demands, but provided men with an external ritual designed to appease the deity and to manipulate the divine powers for their own material ends; which was incapable of creating community but rather, by pandering to the selfish desires of the worshiper, was destructive of real community. Paganism was, then as now, no trivial thing. As long as men take on the character of the gods they serve, so long does it greatly matter who those gods may be. Had Israel embraced Baal it would have been the end of her; she would no longer have lived as the peculiar people of God. Not one scrap of her heritage would have survived.
Of course the menace of Baal was not new with Jezebel. It had been there since the conquest, when Israel first confronted the superior material culture of Canaan and, in taking over her land, took over her agrarian way of life, her cities, and her shrines. The temptation was always present to imagine that the worship of the gods of fertility was a necessary part of the agrarian life. Many were quick to apostatize to Baal or to address Yahweh as if he were Baal. The incorporation of new blood into Israel no doubt much faster than it could be assimilated, and the tolerant attitude of Solomon and others in such matters, could only have facilitated the process. Baal was no stranger to Israel.
Yet we must not allow this to obscure the magnitude of the threat which Jezebel posed. Here for the first time was an overt attempt on the part of the state to impose a foreign paganism by force. Jezebel, as we said, resorted to persecution, and this persecution had far-reaching effects. It fell with especial force on the prophets of Yahweh (I Kings 18:4; 19:14). For the first time in Israel the prophet was faced with reprisals for speaking the Word of Yahweh. In the face of pressure some of them gave way and surrendered to the state. We see thereafter groups of prophets, in the pay of the court or the shrine, clustering about the king to lick the royal hand and to say- unanimously - what the royal ear wished to hear (I Kings 22). But we see also a succession of lone individuals who like Micaiah, because they refused to compromise their prophet Word, were ever more completely alienated not only from the state but from their fellow prophets as well. To these prophets Yahweh
was against the state.
I leave it to readers who have participated in the life of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney over the past fifteen or so years to see the irony of what went on in Israel of old and what has been recent Sydney experience - some not so dramatic yet difficult just the same and some concern for what the like idolatry produces.
Sam Drucker
Monday, January 31, 2011
Evangelicals Reap What They Have Sown ..... and There's More to Come!
Long term readers will recall my posts citing evangelicals of the 19th and 20th Centuries who were concerned about the decline in evangelicalism - the introduction of arts into the church service, the ecumenical movement embraced by leading evangelicals and so on.
In more than one post I identified the concerns of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones about the direction of the Lausanne Conference. I also commented on the dangers of the latter day Lausanne ie the Cape Town conference.
Just released is the Cape Town Commitment and it can be found at lausanne
There is much to be concerned about. Critics I referred to previously would be grieved at the state of evangelicalism today and some extracts of commitments I provide hereunder:
We long to see the Church in all cultures energetically engaging the arts as a context for mission by:
1.Bringing the arts back into the life of the faith community as a valid and valuable component of our call to discipleship;
2.Supporting those with artistic gifts, especially sisters and brothers in Christ, so that they may flourish in their work;
3.Letting the arts serve as an hospitable environment in which we can acknowledge and come to know the neighbour and the stranger;
4.Respecting cultural differences and celebrating indigenous artistic expression.
When earnest and lively preaching in the Spirit of God is beyond so-called evangelical churches here is the recommended recourse. Don't expect multitudes to turn to the Lord. Don't even expect the church to survive.
Also, notice the subtle reversal of the traditional rendering of "brothers and sisters" when referring to both sexes. Why should there be any separation anyway? Why not just use the term "Christians" unless there is an agenda?
We lament over the widespread abuse and destruction of the earth’s resources, including its bio-diversity. Probably the most serious and urgent challenge faced by the physical world now is the threat of climate change. This will disproportionately affect those in poorer countries, for it is there that climate extremes will be most severe and where there is little capability to adapt to them. World poverty and climate change need to be addressed together and with equal urgency.
Here is the highly dubious socialist agenda being adopted by the so-called evangelical church without question.
A divided Church has no message for a divided world. Our failure to live in reconciled unity is a major obstacle to authenticity and effectiveness in mission.
A) We lament the dividedness and divisiveness of our churches and organizations. We deeply and urgently long for Christians to cultivate a spirit of grace and to be obedient to Paul’s command to ‘make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
B) While we recognize that our deepest unity is spiritual, we long for greater recognition of the missional power of visible, practical, earthly unity. So we urge Christian sisters and brothers worldwide, for the sake of our common witness and mission, to resist the temptation to split the body of Christ, and to seek the paths of reconciliation and restored unity wherever possible.
The broad sentiment here expressed is also a precursor for what follows:
A) We stand together as church and mission leaders in all parts of the world, called to recognize and accept one another, with equality of opportunities to contribute together to world mission. Let us, in submission to Christ, lay aside suspicion, competition and pride and be willing to learn from those whom God is using, even when they are not from our continent, nor of our particular theology, nor of our organization, nor of our circle of friends.
B) Partnership is about more than money, and unwise injection of money frequently corrupts and divides the Church. Let us finally prove that the Church does not operate on the principle that those who have the most money have all the decision-making power. Let us no longer impose our own preferred names, slogans, programmes, systems and methods on other parts of the Church. Let us instead work for true mutuality of North and South, East and West, for interdependence in giving and receiving, for the respect and dignity that characterizes genuine friends and true partners in mission.
Here is a foundation statement of discouragement of evangelical churches from drawing people out of the darkness of Roman Catholicism. It would go even further to discourage the drawing of people out from the errors of so-called evangelical denominations/churches.
All of us, women and men, married and single, are responsible to employ God’s gifts for the benefit of others, as stewards of God’s grace, and for the praise and glory of Christ. All of us, therefore, are also responsible to enable all God’s people to exercise all the gifts that God has given for all the areas of service to which God calls the Church. We should not quench the Spirit by despising the ministry of any. Further, we are determined to see ministry within the body of Christ as a gifting and responsibility in which we are called to serve, and not as a status and right that we demand.
A) We uphold Lausanne’s historic position: ‘We affirm that the gifts of the Spirit are distributed to all God's people, women and men, and that their partnership in evangelization must be welcomed for the common good.’ We acknowledge the enormous and sacrificial contribution that women have made to world mission, ministering to both men and women, from biblical times to the present.
B) We recognize that there are different views sincerely held by those who seek to be faithful and obedient to Scripture. Some interpret apostolic teaching to imply that women should not teach or preach, or that they may do so but not in sole authority over men. Others interpret the spiritual equality of women, the exercise of the edifying gift of prophecy by women in the New Testament church, and their hosting of churches in their homes, as implying that the spiritual gifts of leading and teaching may be received and exercised in ministry by both women and men. We call upon those on different sides of the argument to:
1.Accept one another without condemnation in relation to matters of dispute, for while we may disagree, we have no grounds for division, destructive speaking, or ungodly hostility towards one another;
2.Study Scripture carefully together, with due regard for the context and culture of the original authors and contemporary readers;
3.Recognize that where there is genuine pain we must show compassion; where there is injustice and lack of integrity we must stand against them; and where there is resistance to the manifest work of the Holy Spirit in any sister or brother we must repent;
4.Commit ourselves to a pattern of ministry, male and female, that reflects the servanthood of Jesus Christ, not worldly striving for power and status.
C) We encourage churches to acknowledge godly women who teach and model what is good, as Paul commanded, and to open wider doors of opportunity for women in education, service, and leadership, particularly in contexts where the gospel challenges unjust cultural traditions. We long that women should not be hindered from exercising God’s gifts or following God’s call on their lives.
So-called evangelicals who emphasise the authority of Scripture and who declare themselves to be Apostolic are here urged to abandon their stance on the role of women in the church.
This places many, especially the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, in a very awkward position should they attempt to honour the Cape Town Commitment. They have already abandoned the authority of Scripture on Creation thus betraying hypocrisy in holding out against the role of women over men in the church. In time they will wilt. They must submit to the worldly agenda on the role of women in the church as they have done with interpretation of Scripture on Creation.
Thus is the degeneration of evangelicalism in the past three centuries to gather pace unless the Lord intervenes. It is not within the capacity of men to reverse it. It will be something akin to Josiah's reading of the Book of the Law or Luther's finding a Bible and reading what had not been taught him - all at the inspiration of God's Spirit to bring about great change.
Sam Drucker
In more than one post I identified the concerns of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones about the direction of the Lausanne Conference. I also commented on the dangers of the latter day Lausanne ie the Cape Town conference.
Just released is the Cape Town Commitment and it can be found at lausanne
There is much to be concerned about. Critics I referred to previously would be grieved at the state of evangelicalism today and some extracts of commitments I provide hereunder:
We long to see the Church in all cultures energetically engaging the arts as a context for mission by:
1.Bringing the arts back into the life of the faith community as a valid and valuable component of our call to discipleship;
2.Supporting those with artistic gifts, especially sisters and brothers in Christ, so that they may flourish in their work;
3.Letting the arts serve as an hospitable environment in which we can acknowledge and come to know the neighbour and the stranger;
4.Respecting cultural differences and celebrating indigenous artistic expression.
When earnest and lively preaching in the Spirit of God is beyond so-called evangelical churches here is the recommended recourse. Don't expect multitudes to turn to the Lord. Don't even expect the church to survive.
Also, notice the subtle reversal of the traditional rendering of "brothers and sisters" when referring to both sexes. Why should there be any separation anyway? Why not just use the term "Christians" unless there is an agenda?
We lament over the widespread abuse and destruction of the earth’s resources, including its bio-diversity. Probably the most serious and urgent challenge faced by the physical world now is the threat of climate change. This will disproportionately affect those in poorer countries, for it is there that climate extremes will be most severe and where there is little capability to adapt to them. World poverty and climate change need to be addressed together and with equal urgency.
Here is the highly dubious socialist agenda being adopted by the so-called evangelical church without question.
A divided Church has no message for a divided world. Our failure to live in reconciled unity is a major obstacle to authenticity and effectiveness in mission.
A) We lament the dividedness and divisiveness of our churches and organizations. We deeply and urgently long for Christians to cultivate a spirit of grace and to be obedient to Paul’s command to ‘make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
B) While we recognize that our deepest unity is spiritual, we long for greater recognition of the missional power of visible, practical, earthly unity. So we urge Christian sisters and brothers worldwide, for the sake of our common witness and mission, to resist the temptation to split the body of Christ, and to seek the paths of reconciliation and restored unity wherever possible.
The broad sentiment here expressed is also a precursor for what follows:
A) We stand together as church and mission leaders in all parts of the world, called to recognize and accept one another, with equality of opportunities to contribute together to world mission. Let us, in submission to Christ, lay aside suspicion, competition and pride and be willing to learn from those whom God is using, even when they are not from our continent, nor of our particular theology, nor of our organization, nor of our circle of friends.
B) Partnership is about more than money, and unwise injection of money frequently corrupts and divides the Church. Let us finally prove that the Church does not operate on the principle that those who have the most money have all the decision-making power. Let us no longer impose our own preferred names, slogans, programmes, systems and methods on other parts of the Church. Let us instead work for true mutuality of North and South, East and West, for interdependence in giving and receiving, for the respect and dignity that characterizes genuine friends and true partners in mission.
Here is a foundation statement of discouragement of evangelical churches from drawing people out of the darkness of Roman Catholicism. It would go even further to discourage the drawing of people out from the errors of so-called evangelical denominations/churches.
All of us, women and men, married and single, are responsible to employ God’s gifts for the benefit of others, as stewards of God’s grace, and for the praise and glory of Christ. All of us, therefore, are also responsible to enable all God’s people to exercise all the gifts that God has given for all the areas of service to which God calls the Church. We should not quench the Spirit by despising the ministry of any. Further, we are determined to see ministry within the body of Christ as a gifting and responsibility in which we are called to serve, and not as a status and right that we demand.
A) We uphold Lausanne’s historic position: ‘We affirm that the gifts of the Spirit are distributed to all God's people, women and men, and that their partnership in evangelization must be welcomed for the common good.’ We acknowledge the enormous and sacrificial contribution that women have made to world mission, ministering to both men and women, from biblical times to the present.
B) We recognize that there are different views sincerely held by those who seek to be faithful and obedient to Scripture. Some interpret apostolic teaching to imply that women should not teach or preach, or that they may do so but not in sole authority over men. Others interpret the spiritual equality of women, the exercise of the edifying gift of prophecy by women in the New Testament church, and their hosting of churches in their homes, as implying that the spiritual gifts of leading and teaching may be received and exercised in ministry by both women and men. We call upon those on different sides of the argument to:
1.Accept one another without condemnation in relation to matters of dispute, for while we may disagree, we have no grounds for division, destructive speaking, or ungodly hostility towards one another;
2.Study Scripture carefully together, with due regard for the context and culture of the original authors and contemporary readers;
3.Recognize that where there is genuine pain we must show compassion; where there is injustice and lack of integrity we must stand against them; and where there is resistance to the manifest work of the Holy Spirit in any sister or brother we must repent;
4.Commit ourselves to a pattern of ministry, male and female, that reflects the servanthood of Jesus Christ, not worldly striving for power and status.
C) We encourage churches to acknowledge godly women who teach and model what is good, as Paul commanded, and to open wider doors of opportunity for women in education, service, and leadership, particularly in contexts where the gospel challenges unjust cultural traditions. We long that women should not be hindered from exercising God’s gifts or following God’s call on their lives.
So-called evangelicals who emphasise the authority of Scripture and who declare themselves to be Apostolic are here urged to abandon their stance on the role of women in the church.
This places many, especially the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, in a very awkward position should they attempt to honour the Cape Town Commitment. They have already abandoned the authority of Scripture on Creation thus betraying hypocrisy in holding out against the role of women over men in the church. In time they will wilt. They must submit to the worldly agenda on the role of women in the church as they have done with interpretation of Scripture on Creation.
Thus is the degeneration of evangelicalism in the past three centuries to gather pace unless the Lord intervenes. It is not within the capacity of men to reverse it. It will be something akin to Josiah's reading of the Book of the Law or Luther's finding a Bible and reading what had not been taught him - all at the inspiration of God's Spirit to bring about great change.
Sam Drucker
Saturday, January 29, 2011
"I Will Send Them Prophets and Apostles, Some of Whom They Will Kill and Others They Will Persecute."
Oh Dear, Oh Dear, just where does it end?
On his Blogging Parson website, Michael Jensen had conversation going within a narrow framework which he was prepared to operate. Someone who demonstrated a clear faith in the opinions of men over the Word of God was unchallenged by Michael.
I gently rebuked Michael and pointed out the man's need. Michael did not respond but Mike Russell did. Two separate comments were posted by Mike Russell. The latter comment sought a debate, effectively on the subject of Origins. I responded with gentle respect to matters raised by Mike Russell and invited him to discussion on the subject at this blogspot.
Obviously, Mike's comments and my reply were posted to Michael Jensen's site before Michael Jensen saw them. Since then, Michael has seen them and wiped them completely from his site.
What sort of person is this man? I can only conclude he hates very well and he is unprepared to entertain discussion with Biblical Creationists - the people who trust God's Word on Creation.
Oh dear, Oh dear, Anglican Diocese of Sydney, you get what you deserve.
Mike Russell, if you read this blog, I am happy to discuss the subject with you here.
Neil
On his Blogging Parson website, Michael Jensen had conversation going within a narrow framework which he was prepared to operate. Someone who demonstrated a clear faith in the opinions of men over the Word of God was unchallenged by Michael.
I gently rebuked Michael and pointed out the man's need. Michael did not respond but Mike Russell did. Two separate comments were posted by Mike Russell. The latter comment sought a debate, effectively on the subject of Origins. I responded with gentle respect to matters raised by Mike Russell and invited him to discussion on the subject at this blogspot.
Obviously, Mike's comments and my reply were posted to Michael Jensen's site before Michael Jensen saw them. Since then, Michael has seen them and wiped them completely from his site.
What sort of person is this man? I can only conclude he hates very well and he is unprepared to entertain discussion with Biblical Creationists - the people who trust God's Word on Creation.
Oh dear, Oh dear, Anglican Diocese of Sydney, you get what you deserve.
Mike Russell, if you read this blog, I am happy to discuss the subject with you here.
Neil
Friday, January 21, 2011
Paganism Dressed in Robes of Scholarship
In 338AD Emperor Constantine died and was succeeded by Julian as ruler of the Roman Empire. Julian was commonly called Julian the Apostate. For some time prior he had professed himself a zealous Christian, was ordained and read the Scriptures before the congregation. By the year 361AD Julian commenced to openly restore Paganism to the Empire.
His strategy was cunning and wide reaching, too wide reaching to mention here but some aspects drawn from his Epistles deserve mention.
A lesson for Atheists who accuse Christianity of being of no good to the world is that of Julian's attempt to copy Christian activity. He "designed and endeavoured to introduce schools for the education of youth in every city, lectures both of moral and speculative divinity, stated times of prayer, alms-houses and hospitals for the poor and cripple, and reception of strangers; and what he most admired, commendatory ecclesiastic epistles, or letters testimonial, from the governors of the church, whereby persons travelling from one country to another, were upon producing these letters sure to meet with a kind entertainment. All which he commends in his letter to Arsacius."
As if to pioneer the practice of many latter day Atheists and several who call themselves Christians "He took all occasions of exposing Christians, and their religion, to ridicule. He was a man of sarcastic wit, and principally turned it that way. When he read the Scriptures, if he met with a seeming contradiction, he made it real, if with an hyperbolical expression, he improved it to blasphemy. He scorned at the simplicity of the apostles and prophets, whom he represented as ignorant and illiterate fellows."
Surreptitiously, (yet unwittingly mimicked in variant form by many Sydney Anglicans today) "In his pictures and statues he represented Jupiter near him, coming down from heaven, and delivering to him the crown and the purple, and Mars and Mercury giving him skill in war. His design in this was, that when his officers paid their respect to the Imperial statue, they might at the same time worship idols, or that he might have the better occasion to punish their pretended contempt." Do not Theistic Evolutionists within the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, in their attempt to accommodate Evolution within Christianity, impose a Pagan image upon the background of biblical representation of the One who alone is to be worshiped?
Paganism is never far from the Church.
Quotes are from John Gillies - "Historical Collections of Accounts of Revival" (1745) page 18 wherein he cites from Julian's Epistles.
Neil
His strategy was cunning and wide reaching, too wide reaching to mention here but some aspects drawn from his Epistles deserve mention.
A lesson for Atheists who accuse Christianity of being of no good to the world is that of Julian's attempt to copy Christian activity. He "designed and endeavoured to introduce schools for the education of youth in every city, lectures both of moral and speculative divinity, stated times of prayer, alms-houses and hospitals for the poor and cripple, and reception of strangers; and what he most admired, commendatory ecclesiastic epistles, or letters testimonial, from the governors of the church, whereby persons travelling from one country to another, were upon producing these letters sure to meet with a kind entertainment. All which he commends in his letter to Arsacius."
As if to pioneer the practice of many latter day Atheists and several who call themselves Christians "He took all occasions of exposing Christians, and their religion, to ridicule. He was a man of sarcastic wit, and principally turned it that way. When he read the Scriptures, if he met with a seeming contradiction, he made it real, if with an hyperbolical expression, he improved it to blasphemy. He scorned at the simplicity of the apostles and prophets, whom he represented as ignorant and illiterate fellows."
Surreptitiously, (yet unwittingly mimicked in variant form by many Sydney Anglicans today) "In his pictures and statues he represented Jupiter near him, coming down from heaven, and delivering to him the crown and the purple, and Mars and Mercury giving him skill in war. His design in this was, that when his officers paid their respect to the Imperial statue, they might at the same time worship idols, or that he might have the better occasion to punish their pretended contempt." Do not Theistic Evolutionists within the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, in their attempt to accommodate Evolution within Christianity, impose a Pagan image upon the background of biblical representation of the One who alone is to be worshiped?
Paganism is never far from the Church.
Quotes are from John Gillies - "Historical Collections of Accounts of Revival" (1745) page 18 wherein he cites from Julian's Epistles.
Neil
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Leupold Genesis part 49 verse 18
Verse 18, in stating again what v. 14 said, "to separate the light from the darkness," prefixes the supplementary statement, "to rule over the day and over the night." This allows for that control of day and of night which expresses itself in their varying length as indicated and regulated by the sun and the moon.
This work also is so excellent (tobh) as to merit divine approval.
This work also is so excellent (tobh) as to merit divine approval.
Leupold Genesis part 48 verse 17, 18
17; 18. And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth and to rule over the day and over the night and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Lest anyone be inclined to attribute any other or further purpose to these luminaries, v. 17 reasserts what was stated v. 15b, they are in the expanse of the heavens "to give light upon the earth." It would be a crude interpretation of the opening verb "and he put," if this were understood to mean that God first fashioned the luminaries in one place and then took them and set or suspended them in the firmament. For a literal translation of wayyitten is "and He gave" in the sense of "appointed." Yet the original idea of "to give" is also very appropriate here inasmuch as the luminaries are one of God's good gifts to mankind.
Lest anyone be inclined to attribute any other or further purpose to these luminaries, v. 17 reasserts what was stated v. 15b, they are in the expanse of the heavens "to give light upon the earth." It would be a crude interpretation of the opening verb "and he put," if this were understood to mean that God first fashioned the luminaries in one place and then took them and set or suspended them in the firmament. For a literal translation of wayyitten is "and He gave" in the sense of "appointed." Yet the original idea of "to give" is also very appropriate here inasmuch as the luminaries are one of God's good gifts to mankind.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Face it Michael, such stuff is literalistic nonsense
On a recent piece of tortured, evasive prose by the Archbishop's son, the chief whip for the SADs, wrote, “The word ‘literal’ refers to the Protestant preference for a way of reading the texts of Scripture on their own terms. The ‘literal’ - or better ‘plain’ - reading is an attempt to read the text in terms of its original context and genre and so on, and by recognising metaphor, symbolism and other literary devices in the text. For the literal or plain reader, a text may describe historical events in a variety of ways and still be validly historical. It is not interested in pursuing the kind of allegorical readings that were popular in the Middle Ages.
"Put simply: a literal reading of a metaphor reads it as a metaphor.
"On the hand, a ‘literalistic’ reader reads without (or with a deficient) awareness of metaphor, symbolism, genre, literary style, inexact numbers, and so on, and in fact may deny the presence of these things entirely. The literalistic reader sees the relation of the text to historical events as necessarily very exact."
One reader, Andrew Mackinnon, quite rightly asks, “Does a literal reading of Genesis 5:29-32 interpret Noah as being a real, historical man who lived on the earth?”
The Son of the Archbishop responds in his inimitable manner, one characteristic of a cerebrally extended personality, “It might do. It would depend what kind of literature we were talking about and what kind of relationship the ancient people understood to pertain between their texts and history.”
Andrew, seeking clarification from such noble blood as the Archbishop's son, reiterates his sensible question, “Michael, in reference to your comment, the kind of literature I'm talking about is the book of Genesis in the Bible. I'm interested in your response to the following question:
"Does a literal reading of Genesis 5:29-32 interpret Noah as being a real, historical man who lived on the earth?
"Your response of, "it might do", is, in my opinion, a non-response.”
HRH Jensen, son of, replies with ever-expanding perspicuity: “it isn't a non-answer. It's a refusal to be drawn into a rather petty either-or. And a refusal to avoid the actual work of listening to the text itself. That isn't the end point of hermeneutics mind you; there's still more to do to put the text in the context of the whole Bible, too.”
Get that folks: It isn't a non-answer when you refuse to be drawn into self-assessed pettiness and simultaneously throw an implicit ad hominem at your inquirer by claiming that he's refused to examine the text the way that Moore academics properly and responsibly examine it. Holy deja vu: the priestly caste doing their Gnostic thing once again i.e. Maybe we understand, maybe we don't - but we aren't going to tell you in any case. How unevangelical! How Romanist!
Luke Stevens, in an ephemeral moment of self-parody, experiences a flash of enlightenment by sensing the transparent vacuity of the SADs' attempt to extricate themselves from their pseudo-intellectualism (“highsounding nonsense”, as Paul labels it!): “Ah, the old literal-but-not-literalistic chestnut...it is a bit ironic that we try and redefine "literal" to say "We don't mean 'literal' (in a popular sense)"! Only Sydney Anglicanism could use a non-literal meaning of 'literal' to mean 'not literal'...Nevertheless, I guess the device is useful to describe a difference between more fundamentalist readings, but it does seem a bit self-serving. 'We read it in the correct sense, yay for us...', as though avoiding fundamentalism and basic errors of comprehension deserves a gold star. This is unfortunate as it masks the big problems with how we read the bible.”
I think I got that, mate. However, sorry to be a pedant Luke, but the problem lies with you guys, and you guys alone...as well as your bedfellow Spong and his gang of liberals
For the whole useless navel-gazing flakery see
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/culture/literal_or_literalistic_whats_the_difference/
Yep, see all the familiar faces: Dave in all his inter-galatic cosmic rayness, Martin Shields, who can't even begin to see the forest for the trees (or maybe because of his alter-ego Enkidu can't even see the trees for the Mesopotamian forest) and a reference to a thread by Mark "Badass" Badeley who presents a straw man regarding the creationist position on death before the fall.
My last words on Noah and Flood are these: “Jesus began his ministry at about 30 years of age being....the son of Shem, the son of Noah...the son of Adam, the son of God.” (Luke 3); and “People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17:27) [Is that literal-but-not-literalistic drink and food Michael?]; and “For God spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly.” (2 Peter 2:5); and lastly “Beloved... that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts... For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.” (2 Peter 3)
"Put simply: a literal reading of a metaphor reads it as a metaphor.
"On the hand, a ‘literalistic’ reader reads without (or with a deficient) awareness of metaphor, symbolism, genre, literary style, inexact numbers, and so on, and in fact may deny the presence of these things entirely. The literalistic reader sees the relation of the text to historical events as necessarily very exact."
One reader, Andrew Mackinnon, quite rightly asks, “Does a literal reading of Genesis 5:29-32 interpret Noah as being a real, historical man who lived on the earth?”
The Son of the Archbishop responds in his inimitable manner, one characteristic of a cerebrally extended personality, “It might do. It would depend what kind of literature we were talking about and what kind of relationship the ancient people understood to pertain between their texts and history.”
Andrew, seeking clarification from such noble blood as the Archbishop's son, reiterates his sensible question, “Michael, in reference to your comment, the kind of literature I'm talking about is the book of Genesis in the Bible. I'm interested in your response to the following question:
"Does a literal reading of Genesis 5:29-32 interpret Noah as being a real, historical man who lived on the earth?
"Your response of, "it might do", is, in my opinion, a non-response.”
HRH Jensen, son of, replies with ever-expanding perspicuity: “it isn't a non-answer. It's a refusal to be drawn into a rather petty either-or. And a refusal to avoid the actual work of listening to the text itself. That isn't the end point of hermeneutics mind you; there's still more to do to put the text in the context of the whole Bible, too.”
Get that folks: It isn't a non-answer when you refuse to be drawn into self-assessed pettiness and simultaneously throw an implicit ad hominem at your inquirer by claiming that he's refused to examine the text the way that Moore academics properly and responsibly examine it. Holy deja vu: the priestly caste doing their Gnostic thing once again i.e. Maybe we understand, maybe we don't - but we aren't going to tell you in any case. How unevangelical! How Romanist!
Luke Stevens, in an ephemeral moment of self-parody, experiences a flash of enlightenment by sensing the transparent vacuity of the SADs' attempt to extricate themselves from their pseudo-intellectualism (“highsounding nonsense”, as Paul labels it!): “Ah, the old literal-but-not-literalistic chestnut...it is a bit ironic that we try and redefine "literal" to say "We don't mean 'literal' (in a popular sense)"! Only Sydney Anglicanism could use a non-literal meaning of 'literal' to mean 'not literal'...Nevertheless, I guess the device is useful to describe a difference between more fundamentalist readings, but it does seem a bit self-serving. 'We read it in the correct sense, yay for us...', as though avoiding fundamentalism and basic errors of comprehension deserves a gold star. This is unfortunate as it masks the big problems with how we read the bible.”
I think I got that, mate. However, sorry to be a pedant Luke, but the problem lies with you guys, and you guys alone...as well as your bedfellow Spong and his gang of liberals
For the whole useless navel-gazing flakery see
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/culture/literal_or_literalistic_whats_the_difference/
Yep, see all the familiar faces: Dave in all his inter-galatic cosmic rayness, Martin Shields, who can't even begin to see the forest for the trees (or maybe because of his alter-ego Enkidu can't even see the trees for the Mesopotamian forest) and a reference to a thread by Mark "Badass" Badeley who presents a straw man regarding the creationist position on death before the fall.
My last words on Noah and Flood are these: “Jesus began his ministry at about 30 years of age being....the son of Shem, the son of Noah...the son of Adam, the son of God.” (Luke 3); and “People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17:27) [Is that literal-but-not-literalistic drink and food Michael?]; and “For God spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly.” (2 Peter 2:5); and lastly “Beloved... that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts... For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.” (2 Peter 3)
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Smiling Assassins of Dialogue
It is so sad, it is just so sad. More than that is is also frustrating in the extreme.
Time and time again, any attempt to engage in conversation, to open dialogue with Sydney Episcopalians on their reading of the biblical creation account ends in early closure - a prompt shut-down of the subject.
More than that, they shut you down with a cool, precise, we-are-nicer-than-you way but the effect is still the same slamming of the door in you face as if they had raged at you before doing so.
This barrier to engagement and the veneer of niceness has an ill effect on those who attempt to redress the error pervading the Episcopalian Diocese on the subject of origins.
It draws serious rebuke as occurred in comments of the topic "Evangelical Courage" of 14 Nov at www.markdthompson.blogspot.com/
This is all unhelpful.
For the record, Dr Thompson did not post my reponse to his irrelevant questions so I provide what I said now:
Mark, I was walking but you called to me. I will respond.
Nowhere did I say that you had denied the office of Jesus Christ as Creator nor had I said you failed to attribute to him the glory that is his due as the one for whom and by whom the universe was created.
I don't believe you have asked the appropriate question(s).
You shut down the conversation before I could make a thorough examination of your position.
Off to the CMS Summer Camp, I suppose?
Sam Drucker
Time and time again, any attempt to engage in conversation, to open dialogue with Sydney Episcopalians on their reading of the biblical creation account ends in early closure - a prompt shut-down of the subject.
More than that, they shut you down with a cool, precise, we-are-nicer-than-you way but the effect is still the same slamming of the door in you face as if they had raged at you before doing so.
This barrier to engagement and the veneer of niceness has an ill effect on those who attempt to redress the error pervading the Episcopalian Diocese on the subject of origins.
It draws serious rebuke as occurred in comments of the topic "Evangelical Courage" of 14 Nov at www.markdthompson.blogspot.com/
This is all unhelpful.
For the record, Dr Thompson did not post my reponse to his irrelevant questions so I provide what I said now:
Mark, I was walking but you called to me. I will respond.
Nowhere did I say that you had denied the office of Jesus Christ as Creator nor had I said you failed to attribute to him the glory that is his due as the one for whom and by whom the universe was created.
I don't believe you have asked the appropriate question(s).
You shut down the conversation before I could make a thorough examination of your position.
Off to the CMS Summer Camp, I suppose?
Sam Drucker
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Engaging With Eyes Closed
I now bring to a close excerpts from Iain Murray's helpful biography on Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones - The Fight of Faith 1939-1981 with the following excerpt from pages 715 & 716:
"Yet, saying nothing of his condition, ML-J reappeared in his usual chairman's seat at the Westminster Fellowship on July 2 and, though looking pale and aged, he led a valuable discussion on homosexuality which extended over the morning and afternoon sessions. It was typical of the freshness of his mind that on what he called 'the approach to the question' he differed from all the early contributors to the discussion who believed that the Scriptures had to be the starting point for what was now being so frequently debated in public. ML-J surprised everyone by arguing that in the wider, public discussion we would get nowhere if we began by denouncing homosexuality from Scripture. The majority of people already rejected the Bible and, if they were to be won, a different starting point was necessary. Preparatory to introducing the Bible he advocated an appeal to 'nature' ('Doth not even nature itself teach you . . . ?) (1 Cor. 11:14), that is to say, to the physical and psychological evidence that male and female are essentially different. That female attracts male and that the production of families is dependent upon that attraction are facts of nature. Homosexual practice is patently abnormal and unnatural. This is not to deny that there are biological variations — there are 'masculine' women and 'effeminate' men—but these variations no more justify the practice of sin in an individual with homosexual tendencies than they do in the case of those whose physical constitution inclines them to be highly sexed or hot tempered. Biological factors do not put the homosexual in a special category with a peculiar problem. 'The practising of homosexuality is sin, in exactly the same way as any other sin is sin.'"
How perceptive of the good doctor. When many of his well meaning colleagues sought to respond to quote Scripture against the push in the 1970s for acceptance of homosexual practice he recognised the changed world view and unlikelihood that people would accept simple quoting of Scripture as valid argument.
It seems that little has be learned in the broader evangelical circle some thirty years later. A world some further three decades indoctrinated in the theory of the evolution of the species is less likely to regard any quotes from a book allegedly invalidated on origins by the theory of evolution.
The Church needs to take the doctor's prescription and demolish the theory of evolution through presentation of the real observations of nature and the better interpretation of those observations which the Bible offers. At that point is the "soil" better prepared for evangelical harvest.
Sam Drucker
"Yet, saying nothing of his condition, ML-J reappeared in his usual chairman's seat at the Westminster Fellowship on July 2 and, though looking pale and aged, he led a valuable discussion on homosexuality which extended over the morning and afternoon sessions. It was typical of the freshness of his mind that on what he called 'the approach to the question' he differed from all the early contributors to the discussion who believed that the Scriptures had to be the starting point for what was now being so frequently debated in public. ML-J surprised everyone by arguing that in the wider, public discussion we would get nowhere if we began by denouncing homosexuality from Scripture. The majority of people already rejected the Bible and, if they were to be won, a different starting point was necessary. Preparatory to introducing the Bible he advocated an appeal to 'nature' ('Doth not even nature itself teach you . . . ?) (1 Cor. 11:14), that is to say, to the physical and psychological evidence that male and female are essentially different. That female attracts male and that the production of families is dependent upon that attraction are facts of nature. Homosexual practice is patently abnormal and unnatural. This is not to deny that there are biological variations — there are 'masculine' women and 'effeminate' men—but these variations no more justify the practice of sin in an individual with homosexual tendencies than they do in the case of those whose physical constitution inclines them to be highly sexed or hot tempered. Biological factors do not put the homosexual in a special category with a peculiar problem. 'The practising of homosexuality is sin, in exactly the same way as any other sin is sin.'"
How perceptive of the good doctor. When many of his well meaning colleagues sought to respond to quote Scripture against the push in the 1970s for acceptance of homosexual practice he recognised the changed world view and unlikelihood that people would accept simple quoting of Scripture as valid argument.
It seems that little has be learned in the broader evangelical circle some thirty years later. A world some further three decades indoctrinated in the theory of the evolution of the species is less likely to regard any quotes from a book allegedly invalidated on origins by the theory of evolution.
The Church needs to take the doctor's prescription and demolish the theory of evolution through presentation of the real observations of nature and the better interpretation of those observations which the Bible offers. At that point is the "soil" better prepared for evangelical harvest.
Sam Drucker
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Leupold Genesis part 47 verse 16
16. And God made the two great luminaries, the greater luminary to rule the day and the lesser luminary to rule the night--and also the stars.
The previous verse closes the initial command of the work to be done on the fourth day with the customary notice that "it was so," that is, what God commanded came into being. According to the almost invariable rule of this chapter we should now expect an account in detail as to how God actually wrought what He had ordained, beginning like all the others with either wayyss'as, "and He made," or with wayyibhra', "and He created." This is just what we have with the usual situation that the account of how the original order was carried out affords sufficient variety of form to serve as a commentary upon the first statement of v. 14, 15. Stereotyped repetition would be both mechanical and wearisome. However, critics fail to see this clear situation in a number of instances. Skinner brings an indictment against the account: "The laboured explanation of the purposes of the heavenly bodies is confused, and suggests overworking (the difficult 14b and 15a a). The functions are stated with perfect clearness in v. 16-18." Yet we have found both v. 14 and 15 perfectly simple and plain. The only difference between the initial command v. 14, 15 and the account of its being done v. 16-18 is that of the supplementary but entirely harmonious statements of purpose, the first gives greater prominence to the secondary purpose of serving for "signs, seasons," etc.; the second stresses particularly the primary function of controlling day and night and giving light.
So v. 16 is supplementary in mentioning for the first time the chief luminaries--"chief" as far as the earth is concerned. They are "the two great luminaries, in reference to the earth and also in view of how they appear to man. Naturally, a simple account such as this will not attempt to give to man the useless information as to which of the heavenly bodies are the largest in the absolute sense. Besides, in the very nature of the case the expression, "the great luminary," must be understood as a comparative, "the greater." Likewise "the small" (haqqaton) means the smaller (K. S. 308 a). Because the definite and very specific use of "the stars" in reference to the earth is very much inferior to that of sun and moon, they may well be added as a kind of afterthought, "and also the stars." Now man at least knows how important they are and how they originated--a type of account which is the complete negative of all astrological conceptions. So as a whole v. 16 is seen to be a very helpful commentary upon what preceded.
The previous verse closes the initial command of the work to be done on the fourth day with the customary notice that "it was so," that is, what God commanded came into being. According to the almost invariable rule of this chapter we should now expect an account in detail as to how God actually wrought what He had ordained, beginning like all the others with either wayyss'as, "and He made," or with wayyibhra', "and He created." This is just what we have with the usual situation that the account of how the original order was carried out affords sufficient variety of form to serve as a commentary upon the first statement of v. 14, 15. Stereotyped repetition would be both mechanical and wearisome. However, critics fail to see this clear situation in a number of instances. Skinner brings an indictment against the account: "The laboured explanation of the purposes of the heavenly bodies is confused, and suggests overworking (the difficult 14b and 15a a). The functions are stated with perfect clearness in v. 16-18." Yet we have found both v. 14 and 15 perfectly simple and plain. The only difference between the initial command v. 14, 15 and the account of its being done v. 16-18 is that of the supplementary but entirely harmonious statements of purpose, the first gives greater prominence to the secondary purpose of serving for "signs, seasons," etc.; the second stresses particularly the primary function of controlling day and night and giving light.
So v. 16 is supplementary in mentioning for the first time the chief luminaries--"chief" as far as the earth is concerned. They are "the two great luminaries, in reference to the earth and also in view of how they appear to man. Naturally, a simple account such as this will not attempt to give to man the useless information as to which of the heavenly bodies are the largest in the absolute sense. Besides, in the very nature of the case the expression, "the great luminary," must be understood as a comparative, "the greater." Likewise "the small" (haqqaton) means the smaller (K. S. 308 a). Because the definite and very specific use of "the stars" in reference to the earth is very much inferior to that of sun and moon, they may well be added as a kind of afterthought, "and also the stars." Now man at least knows how important they are and how they originated--a type of account which is the complete negative of all astrological conceptions. So as a whole v. 16 is seen to be a very helpful commentary upon what preceded.
Friday, December 31, 2010
The Fight of Faith (Part 2)
This is the final blog on the subject introduced last week. I reproduce the words of Iain Murray in his biography of "Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones - The Fight of Faith 1939-1981" - pages 668 to 671 refer.
"Few voices were to be heard in support of ML-J's contention that the drift within evangelicalism was following the mood of the age but two testimonies from a few years later are worthy of note. In the opinion of Francis Schaeffer: 'A significant section of what is called evangelicalism has allowed itself to be infiltrated by the general world view or viewpoint of our day."¹ What he called 'The Great Evangelical Disaster' was the acceptance of the mentality of accommodation: 'in the most basic sense, the evangelical establishment has become deeply worldly'.²
A second testimony comes from a less expected source. Dr Carl Henry was Editor of Christianity Today and a leading figure in the Billy Graham organization during the period when that organization was commonly regarded as the epitome of the new evangelical strength. ML-J, as we have seen, spoke alone in that period when he expressed to fellow ministers his conviction that the Graham programme was actually weakening historic evangelicalism. Carl Henry's book Confessions of a Theologian is a revealing book in this connexion. Henry saw the image building and the concern for influence with non-evangelicals at close quarters and came at last to the conclusion that 'the evangelical movement looks stronger than in fact it is'.³ 'While evangelicals seek to penetrate the culture, the culture simultaneously makes disconcerting inroads into evangelical life.'4 The truth, as he wrote in 1986, was that evangelicalism was no longer definite about its own message:
The term evangelical during the past fifteen years has become ambiguous through deliberate distortion by critics and needless confusion invited by some of the movement's leaders ... Many evangelicals now measure growth mainly in terms of numbers; distinctions of doctrine and practice are subordinated in a broad welcome for charismatic, Catholic, traditional and other varieties of evangelicals. Theological differences are minimized by evangelical publishers and publications reaching for mass circulation, by evangelists luring capacity audiences and even by evangelism festivals seeking the largest possible involvement. Church growth seminars have even embraced 'miracle-growth' churches that claim to raise the dead and to reproduce all other apostolic gifts. Numerical bigness has become an infectious epidemic.5
This brings us to Dr Lloyd-Jones' second reason for the drift in evangelicalism. The compromise with worldly standards of thought had occurred because of the basic spiritual weakness within evangelical churches themselves. In other words, it was ultimately the old problem upon which we have heard him speak repeatedly in these pages. 'Evangelism' and 'influence' had become ends in themselves instead of being seen as the results of the church being true to her calling: the acceptance of expediency and compromise could only mean that prayer, confidence in Scripture and dependence upon the power of the Holy Spirit were no longer the great priorities. Evangelicals had ceased to say 'that, if we are faithful, the Holy Spirit has promised to honour us and our testimony, however small our numbers and however despised by "the wise and prudent"'.6
Carl Henry's book gives indisputable evidence on this point. It confirms that the overall policy of the Graham organization (closely parallel to the policy taken up by Anglican evangelicals at Keele) was to attain 'prestige' and influence for evangelicals.7 To do this there had to be a successful image and that would not be possible, it was believed, unless every effort was made to avoid a division with those who did not believe the Bible. Henry speaks of the church's credibility being 'compromised by an evaporation of discipline' and regrets that Graham did not call evangelicals to 'a long, hard look at their need of more comprehensive unity and at the neglected issue of evangelical ecclesiology'. But Graham could not do this because it 'would have seriously complicated relationships of his crusades to ecumenically oriented churches, since he exacted their endorsement as the price of city-wide meetings'.8 The Graham organization, for precisely the same reason as the Anglican evangelicals, was unready to 'forfeit dialogue with the ecumenical leaders and churches'.9 It feared a loss of influence. So it also said one thing and did another. The Berlin Congress of 1966, says Henry, 'exposed the speculative philosophy that underlay pluralistic ecumenism' but, simultaneously, the Graham Crusades were committed to such ecumenism. The direction was set long before the American Festival on Evangelism of 1981, where the participants, writes Henry, included everyone from 'partisans of traditional papal Catholicism' and '150 Protestant denominations' to 'charismatics and establishment conservatives'. In a major understatement, he concludes, the Festival 'did little to clarify the identity of evangelicalism'.10
So ends my citation of Iain Murray's helpful study of the climate within evangelicalism observed by Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Dr Carl Henry late last century.
Well, things have not improved to the present day. Indeed, going beyond Dr Henry's point we are left to say that evangelicalism does not penetrate the culture but the culture penetrates evangelicalism. It is all a one-way street with a dark and murky end.
This is a sorry state. It is death. It is death like that of Adam's when he sinned against God, he seemed alive but was estranged from the source of life and, eventually, he was no more. The day fast approaches when the present remnant of evangelicalism still holding to its its original tenets will be a valley of dry bones. What is needed is regeneration, for God to call and empower men to preach to open hearts, hearts receptive to the Word of God to the exclusion of the world's seductions, hearts abounding in number that the culture is overwhelmed by the authority of the Word of God. There has been such activity of God in times and places past. Let us pray earnestly for God to so act now. Lest us pray for an increase in faith - faith in God as he has revealed himself in Word written and Incarnate.
Sam Drucker
References
1. The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1984, p. 51.
2. Ibid, p. 142. 'What is the use,' he asks, 'of evangelicalism seeming to get larger and larger if sufficient numbers of those under the name evangelical no longer hold to that which makes evangelicalism evangelical?'
3. Confessions of a Theologian, 1986, p. 390.
4. Ibid, p. 388. See also Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism, p. 275.
5. Confessions of a Theologian, p.387.
6. Puritans, p. 147.
7. In the years when 'the new evangelicalism' was first being heard, Edward
Darnell of Fuller Seminary wrote to Henry: 'I want to command the attention of Tillich and Bennett; then I shall be in a better place to be of service to the evangelicals. We need prestige desperately.' Marsden's book, op. cit., details the effects which this priority came to have in the history of Fuller Seminary, where Dr Graham was a prominent member of the board of trustees.
8. Confessions of a Theologian, p. 384.
9. Ibid,p. 293.
10. Ibid ,p. 351
"Few voices were to be heard in support of ML-J's contention that the drift within evangelicalism was following the mood of the age but two testimonies from a few years later are worthy of note. In the opinion of Francis Schaeffer: 'A significant section of what is called evangelicalism has allowed itself to be infiltrated by the general world view or viewpoint of our day."¹ What he called 'The Great Evangelical Disaster' was the acceptance of the mentality of accommodation: 'in the most basic sense, the evangelical establishment has become deeply worldly'.²
A second testimony comes from a less expected source. Dr Carl Henry was Editor of Christianity Today and a leading figure in the Billy Graham organization during the period when that organization was commonly regarded as the epitome of the new evangelical strength. ML-J, as we have seen, spoke alone in that period when he expressed to fellow ministers his conviction that the Graham programme was actually weakening historic evangelicalism. Carl Henry's book Confessions of a Theologian is a revealing book in this connexion. Henry saw the image building and the concern for influence with non-evangelicals at close quarters and came at last to the conclusion that 'the evangelical movement looks stronger than in fact it is'.³ 'While evangelicals seek to penetrate the culture, the culture simultaneously makes disconcerting inroads into evangelical life.'4 The truth, as he wrote in 1986, was that evangelicalism was no longer definite about its own message:
The term evangelical during the past fifteen years has become ambiguous through deliberate distortion by critics and needless confusion invited by some of the movement's leaders ... Many evangelicals now measure growth mainly in terms of numbers; distinctions of doctrine and practice are subordinated in a broad welcome for charismatic, Catholic, traditional and other varieties of evangelicals. Theological differences are minimized by evangelical publishers and publications reaching for mass circulation, by evangelists luring capacity audiences and even by evangelism festivals seeking the largest possible involvement. Church growth seminars have even embraced 'miracle-growth' churches that claim to raise the dead and to reproduce all other apostolic gifts. Numerical bigness has become an infectious epidemic.5
This brings us to Dr Lloyd-Jones' second reason for the drift in evangelicalism. The compromise with worldly standards of thought had occurred because of the basic spiritual weakness within evangelical churches themselves. In other words, it was ultimately the old problem upon which we have heard him speak repeatedly in these pages. 'Evangelism' and 'influence' had become ends in themselves instead of being seen as the results of the church being true to her calling: the acceptance of expediency and compromise could only mean that prayer, confidence in Scripture and dependence upon the power of the Holy Spirit were no longer the great priorities. Evangelicals had ceased to say 'that, if we are faithful, the Holy Spirit has promised to honour us and our testimony, however small our numbers and however despised by "the wise and prudent"'.6
Carl Henry's book gives indisputable evidence on this point. It confirms that the overall policy of the Graham organization (closely parallel to the policy taken up by Anglican evangelicals at Keele) was to attain 'prestige' and influence for evangelicals.7 To do this there had to be a successful image and that would not be possible, it was believed, unless every effort was made to avoid a division with those who did not believe the Bible. Henry speaks of the church's credibility being 'compromised by an evaporation of discipline' and regrets that Graham did not call evangelicals to 'a long, hard look at their need of more comprehensive unity and at the neglected issue of evangelical ecclesiology'. But Graham could not do this because it 'would have seriously complicated relationships of his crusades to ecumenically oriented churches, since he exacted their endorsement as the price of city-wide meetings'.8 The Graham organization, for precisely the same reason as the Anglican evangelicals, was unready to 'forfeit dialogue with the ecumenical leaders and churches'.9 It feared a loss of influence. So it also said one thing and did another. The Berlin Congress of 1966, says Henry, 'exposed the speculative philosophy that underlay pluralistic ecumenism' but, simultaneously, the Graham Crusades were committed to such ecumenism. The direction was set long before the American Festival on Evangelism of 1981, where the participants, writes Henry, included everyone from 'partisans of traditional papal Catholicism' and '150 Protestant denominations' to 'charismatics and establishment conservatives'. In a major understatement, he concludes, the Festival 'did little to clarify the identity of evangelicalism'.10
So ends my citation of Iain Murray's helpful study of the climate within evangelicalism observed by Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Dr Carl Henry late last century.
Well, things have not improved to the present day. Indeed, going beyond Dr Henry's point we are left to say that evangelicalism does not penetrate the culture but the culture penetrates evangelicalism. It is all a one-way street with a dark and murky end.
This is a sorry state. It is death. It is death like that of Adam's when he sinned against God, he seemed alive but was estranged from the source of life and, eventually, he was no more. The day fast approaches when the present remnant of evangelicalism still holding to its its original tenets will be a valley of dry bones. What is needed is regeneration, for God to call and empower men to preach to open hearts, hearts receptive to the Word of God to the exclusion of the world's seductions, hearts abounding in number that the culture is overwhelmed by the authority of the Word of God. There has been such activity of God in times and places past. Let us pray earnestly for God to so act now. Lest us pray for an increase in faith - faith in God as he has revealed himself in Word written and Incarnate.
Sam Drucker
References
1. The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1984, p. 51.
2. Ibid, p. 142. 'What is the use,' he asks, 'of evangelicalism seeming to get larger and larger if sufficient numbers of those under the name evangelical no longer hold to that which makes evangelicalism evangelical?'
3. Confessions of a Theologian, 1986, p. 390.
4. Ibid, p. 388. See also Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism, p. 275.
5. Confessions of a Theologian, p.387.
6. Puritans, p. 147.
7. In the years when 'the new evangelicalism' was first being heard, Edward
Darnell of Fuller Seminary wrote to Henry: 'I want to command the attention of Tillich and Bennett; then I shall be in a better place to be of service to the evangelicals. We need prestige desperately.' Marsden's book, op. cit., details the effects which this priority came to have in the history of Fuller Seminary, where Dr Graham was a prominent member of the board of trustees.
8. Confessions of a Theologian, p. 384.
9. Ibid,p. 293.
10. Ibid ,p. 351
Sunday, December 26, 2010
The Fight of Faith (Part 1)
We press on with understanding drift evangelicalism into demise and advise that we have to look back at past events to see how the decline has taken effect. Earlier blogs went back to the Nineteenth Century but more recent blogs draw from events surrounding a key figure in the evangelical church in the Twentieth Century.
Such a figure was most certainly Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the excellent biography of Dr Lloyd-Jones by Iain Murray (subtitled 'The Fight of Faith 1939-1981)gives important insights into why the evangelical church in England and even as far away as the Sydney Episcopalian Church is today in such poor health. I provide an extract from pages 665-668 in Part 1 now and Part 2 from pages 668-671 shortly. I shall not provide my own comments until Part 2:
"When major changes occur in the history of the church such as the doctrinal slide in England of the 1960's and 70's there are always major reasons. In ML-J's view two things principally explained why this occurred as it did.
First, it happened because of the degree to which the spirit and attitudes of the world had penetrated the church. It was no accident that evangelicalism began to favour openness and to repudiate 'exclusiveness' at the very period when the prevailing climate of opinion was against dogmatism in every field of knowledge: even science had lost its one-time near infallibility. The contemporary mood was against all absolutes. Almost all beliefs in society at large had become of only 'relative' value, none could be said to be definitely right or wrong. Religion was acceptable in terms of human experience, not in terms of any revelation from heaven. 'Experience', not truth, was now central. Describing the general situation as he saw it in 1971, Dr Lloyd-Jones said:
There is a very obvious reaction at the present time against intellectualism. .. This is found among the students in America, and increasingly in this country. Reason is being distrusted and set on one side. Following D. H. Lawrence many are saying that our troubles are due to the fact that we have over-developed our cerebrum. We must listen more to our 'blood' and go back to nature. And so turning against intellectualism, and deliberately espousing the creed of irrationality, they yield themselves to the desire for 'experience', and place sensation above understanding. What matters is feeling and enjoyment; not thought. Pure thought leads nowhere.¹
Instead of seeing the danger, evangelicals accommodated themselves to the change as though it could serve the interests of their own cause. The popular culture was openly appealed to for justification of major change in the life and witness of the church. The old 'written culture', it was said, was dying. There had to be a new appeal to the eye and to the senses: 'It is surely the job of this generation of Evangelicals to recreate the dramatic and poetic means of passing on guidance in the spiritual, ethical and social life of man.'² The leading role in the introduction of this change was taken by David Watson of York who saw 'the potential for marvellous communication' in music, dance and drama. 'The reason why I travel with a team,' he later wrote, 'gifted as they are in the performing arts, is that they are able to communicate the Gospel much more effectively than I could with mere words.' He criticized 'much western Christianity' for concentrating 'almost exclusively upon the mind'. 'Most churches rely heavily on the spoken or written word for communication and then wonder why so few people find the Christian faith to be relevant.'³
There were many variations in this new emphasis. In the groups where tongues-speaking was prominent the anti-intellectual approach disarmed any criticism of the widespread use of 'language' which no one understood. Hocken represents a common view in regarding 'baptism with the Spirit' as of divine origin because its reception bypassed the mind: 'Not being first mediated through human understanding, it involves a directness of encounter with the living God'.4
This same influence not only switched attention from preaching to 'sharing', it came to justify a massive change in what was now considered warranted in the singing and music of services and evangelistic meetings. Worship was 'liberated'. It was plausibly proposed that sound, rhythm and the form of lyrics be brought closer to what was popular in the everyday world. The early development of this change drew some critical comment in the Christian press. 'Countryman' wrote of how the Filey Christian Convention in 1967 had become 'Swinging Filey', 'with a Sunday afternoon sacred concert; a fresh beat to the music and a drum-roll in the middle of "Praise my soul, the King of heaven".'5 At the Evangelical Alliance Assembly meetings in London the following year, the platform was given one evening to the youth who presented the 'Why Generation'. Commenting on this event, Tim and Doreen Buckley, instructors in music at the London Bible College, wrote in The Life of Faith of the impression gained by friends who had attended: 'The programme was intended to show how to communicate in the '6o's, but the decibels of sheer noise made it impossible to distinguish either the tune or the words of the first three items. If this is '68 communicating, our friends, who are not "squares", were not communicated to . . ."6
But criticisms such as these were few and far between and the 1970's saw changes in the content and conduct of public worship on a scale scarcely imaginable a few years earlier. ML-J traced this same change to the effect of a popular culture which wants 'sensation' and feeling and is against stress 'on the intellect and the understanding'. Speaking on one occasion of how this spirit 'militates very much against the kind of thing for which we stand in the Evangelical Library' he went on:
In this country the form which it takes, perhaps most of all, is what is known as the charismatic movement. . . The emphasis is upon experience and feeling, and a type of service with much singing, but not the singing of the kind of hymns that are to be found in the Evangelical Library, nor the hymns written by the men whose biographies are in the Evangelical Library! They have their own hymns and choruses . . .7
Making a similar point about the way in which Christians were being influenced by the spirit of the world, he said at another Library meeting:
The days in which we live are characteristic of superficiality, the cry is for entertainment and endless meetings, music, drama, dancing, etc. but a solid life and witness cannot be built up that way."8
References
1. The State of the Nation, BEC Address, 1971, p.16.
2. Evangelicals Today, p.101.
3. David Watson, I believe in the Church, 1978, and You Are My God, 1983, where these themes are pursued at length. For ML-J's opposition to this see his address on 'Preaching' in Puritans, p. 373.
4. One Lord, One Spirit, One Body, 1987, p. 44
5. English Churchman, October 13, 1967.
6. The same writers urged readers to obtain the WR for October 1968 v8 v
contained ML-J's sermon, 'Melody and Harmony' on Ephesians 5:19 (preached
in 1959); it 'leaves one in no doubt as to where this preacher stands as regards modern trends in music'.
7. The Evangelical Library Bulletin, Spring 1978, pp.9-10.
8. Ibid, Spring 1975, p.6.
Such a figure was most certainly Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the excellent biography of Dr Lloyd-Jones by Iain Murray (subtitled 'The Fight of Faith 1939-1981)gives important insights into why the evangelical church in England and even as far away as the Sydney Episcopalian Church is today in such poor health. I provide an extract from pages 665-668 in Part 1 now and Part 2 from pages 668-671 shortly. I shall not provide my own comments until Part 2:
"When major changes occur in the history of the church such as the doctrinal slide in England of the 1960's and 70's there are always major reasons. In ML-J's view two things principally explained why this occurred as it did.
First, it happened because of the degree to which the spirit and attitudes of the world had penetrated the church. It was no accident that evangelicalism began to favour openness and to repudiate 'exclusiveness' at the very period when the prevailing climate of opinion was against dogmatism in every field of knowledge: even science had lost its one-time near infallibility. The contemporary mood was against all absolutes. Almost all beliefs in society at large had become of only 'relative' value, none could be said to be definitely right or wrong. Religion was acceptable in terms of human experience, not in terms of any revelation from heaven. 'Experience', not truth, was now central. Describing the general situation as he saw it in 1971, Dr Lloyd-Jones said:
There is a very obvious reaction at the present time against intellectualism. .. This is found among the students in America, and increasingly in this country. Reason is being distrusted and set on one side. Following D. H. Lawrence many are saying that our troubles are due to the fact that we have over-developed our cerebrum. We must listen more to our 'blood' and go back to nature. And so turning against intellectualism, and deliberately espousing the creed of irrationality, they yield themselves to the desire for 'experience', and place sensation above understanding. What matters is feeling and enjoyment; not thought. Pure thought leads nowhere.¹
Instead of seeing the danger, evangelicals accommodated themselves to the change as though it could serve the interests of their own cause. The popular culture was openly appealed to for justification of major change in the life and witness of the church. The old 'written culture', it was said, was dying. There had to be a new appeal to the eye and to the senses: 'It is surely the job of this generation of Evangelicals to recreate the dramatic and poetic means of passing on guidance in the spiritual, ethical and social life of man.'² The leading role in the introduction of this change was taken by David Watson of York who saw 'the potential for marvellous communication' in music, dance and drama. 'The reason why I travel with a team,' he later wrote, 'gifted as they are in the performing arts, is that they are able to communicate the Gospel much more effectively than I could with mere words.' He criticized 'much western Christianity' for concentrating 'almost exclusively upon the mind'. 'Most churches rely heavily on the spoken or written word for communication and then wonder why so few people find the Christian faith to be relevant.'³
There were many variations in this new emphasis. In the groups where tongues-speaking was prominent the anti-intellectual approach disarmed any criticism of the widespread use of 'language' which no one understood. Hocken represents a common view in regarding 'baptism with the Spirit' as of divine origin because its reception bypassed the mind: 'Not being first mediated through human understanding, it involves a directness of encounter with the living God'.4
This same influence not only switched attention from preaching to 'sharing', it came to justify a massive change in what was now considered warranted in the singing and music of services and evangelistic meetings. Worship was 'liberated'. It was plausibly proposed that sound, rhythm and the form of lyrics be brought closer to what was popular in the everyday world. The early development of this change drew some critical comment in the Christian press. 'Countryman' wrote of how the Filey Christian Convention in 1967 had become 'Swinging Filey', 'with a Sunday afternoon sacred concert; a fresh beat to the music and a drum-roll in the middle of "Praise my soul, the King of heaven".'5 At the Evangelical Alliance Assembly meetings in London the following year, the platform was given one evening to the youth who presented the 'Why Generation'. Commenting on this event, Tim and Doreen Buckley, instructors in music at the London Bible College, wrote in The Life of Faith of the impression gained by friends who had attended: 'The programme was intended to show how to communicate in the '6o's, but the decibels of sheer noise made it impossible to distinguish either the tune or the words of the first three items. If this is '68 communicating, our friends, who are not "squares", were not communicated to . . ."6
But criticisms such as these were few and far between and the 1970's saw changes in the content and conduct of public worship on a scale scarcely imaginable a few years earlier. ML-J traced this same change to the effect of a popular culture which wants 'sensation' and feeling and is against stress 'on the intellect and the understanding'. Speaking on one occasion of how this spirit 'militates very much against the kind of thing for which we stand in the Evangelical Library' he went on:
In this country the form which it takes, perhaps most of all, is what is known as the charismatic movement. . . The emphasis is upon experience and feeling, and a type of service with much singing, but not the singing of the kind of hymns that are to be found in the Evangelical Library, nor the hymns written by the men whose biographies are in the Evangelical Library! They have their own hymns and choruses . . .7
Making a similar point about the way in which Christians were being influenced by the spirit of the world, he said at another Library meeting:
The days in which we live are characteristic of superficiality, the cry is for entertainment and endless meetings, music, drama, dancing, etc. but a solid life and witness cannot be built up that way."8
References
1. The State of the Nation, BEC Address, 1971, p.16.
2. Evangelicals Today, p.101.
3. David Watson, I believe in the Church, 1978, and You Are My God, 1983, where these themes are pursued at length. For ML-J's opposition to this see his address on 'Preaching' in Puritans, p. 373.
4. One Lord, One Spirit, One Body, 1987, p. 44
5. English Churchman, October 13, 1967.
6. The same writers urged readers to obtain the WR for October 1968 v8 v
contained ML-J's sermon, 'Melody and Harmony' on Ephesians 5:19 (preached
in 1959); it 'leaves one in no doubt as to where this preacher stands as regards modern trends in music'.
7. The Evangelical Library Bulletin, Spring 1978, pp.9-10.
8. Ibid, Spring 1975, p.6.
Monday, December 20, 2010
"You travel over land and sea to win a single convert ..." To What?
This blogspot is critical of Moore Theological College - the theological seminary of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. Our concern is the College's handling of Genesis on Creation but, primarily, the problem is deeper than that. That erroneous teaching is a symptom of the Cancer that has eroded the evangelical church in Western culture for more than a century. It is a pursuit of the same error found in Higher Criticism and Liberal Theology which places the thoughts of man above the Word of God.
It is not as if the evangelical church has not had sufficient warning in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. We have publicised some of the warnings that people concerned for Christ's Church broadcast last century. The Cancer continues with little abatement. Closer to home Moore Theological College lures students from many parts of the world, proselytizes via its distance studies course - PTC - and spews its converts into evangelical churches around the globe.
We publicise here now more sampling of earlier warnings of the Cancer diagnosed last century and, despite proud protestations about its purity, is manifest in 'evangelicalism' today - no less evident in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney via it's theological seminary.
Upon hearing of the proposed retirement of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones in 1968 a Suffolk pastor wrote to the doctor and thanked him for the help received when he and his once fellow students of Richmond College wrestled with the compromised teaching at the college. He said, in part:
"I have just seen the notice of your resignation as minister of Westminster Chapel. At such a time I feel that I must tell you what a very great help your ministry was to me and to several other theological students while we were studying for the Methodist ministry at Richmond College. Often, at the end of a week of lectures which sometimes left us wondering just what we could believe, we would go up to the [Westminster] Chapel, as we called it, and there we would receive food for our souls, and would catch a fresh vision of the power and relevance of the gospel we had been called to preach. We came to see that God was greater than we had ever imagined before, and that the Bible was indeed His Word to us, inspired and wonderful in all its teaching."
It would not have been Richmond College alone which has compromised the Word of God because there was a broad departure from the Reformers and their principle for understanding the Word of God. Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones alludes to this when he wrote his 1967 annual letter to the members of Westminster Chapel on January 1, 1968. I cite part of his letter hereunder:
"When one turns to the more general position however, the situation is very different. Here, the main impression is one of confusion, uncertainty, and divided opinions. This is true not only in this country but throughout the world. This is something that one expects in 'Christendom', but in the past it has not been true of those calling themselves evangelical. This is the new feature which is so disturbing. No longer can it be assumed that to be evangelical means to accept the authority of the Scriptures on matters of history, and on the creation of the world and man, and at the very lowest to be sceptical about the theory of evolution. In the same way there has been a recrudescence of denominationalism and an entirely new attitude towards Romanism.
It is, alas, a time of conflict and of trial, indeed a time of tragedy when old comrades in arms are now in different camps. It is not that one in any way questions the honesty or the sincerity of such friends. There is only one explanation and that is, 'an enemy hath done this'. Never has that enemy been more active or more subtle . . .
What the outcome of the present upheaval will be no one can tell. Our duty is to be faithful knowing that the final outcome is sure."
Well, the upheaval has continued inasmuch as 'evangelicalism' is being turned on its head. As in the past, where certain institutions commenced with sound biblical principles but later turned to an opposite principle, 'evangelicalism' is abandoning its primary principle founded on trust in the Word of God.
Ecumenism may have lost momentum but just as Israel longed to return to Egypt when faith in the Word of God waned so it is likely that many who call themselves evangelical today will, one day, desire to return to Rome as loss of faith in the Word of God runs its course. The disease is there, all that is awaited is its consequence.
The lost of the world are in desperate need of a strong evangelical church but all they have tottering before them is a diseased and ever diminishing church.
Sam Drucker
It is not as if the evangelical church has not had sufficient warning in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. We have publicised some of the warnings that people concerned for Christ's Church broadcast last century. The Cancer continues with little abatement. Closer to home Moore Theological College lures students from many parts of the world, proselytizes via its distance studies course - PTC - and spews its converts into evangelical churches around the globe.
We publicise here now more sampling of earlier warnings of the Cancer diagnosed last century and, despite proud protestations about its purity, is manifest in 'evangelicalism' today - no less evident in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney via it's theological seminary.
Upon hearing of the proposed retirement of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones in 1968 a Suffolk pastor wrote to the doctor and thanked him for the help received when he and his once fellow students of Richmond College wrestled with the compromised teaching at the college. He said, in part:
"I have just seen the notice of your resignation as minister of Westminster Chapel. At such a time I feel that I must tell you what a very great help your ministry was to me and to several other theological students while we were studying for the Methodist ministry at Richmond College. Often, at the end of a week of lectures which sometimes left us wondering just what we could believe, we would go up to the [Westminster] Chapel, as we called it, and there we would receive food for our souls, and would catch a fresh vision of the power and relevance of the gospel we had been called to preach. We came to see that God was greater than we had ever imagined before, and that the Bible was indeed His Word to us, inspired and wonderful in all its teaching."
It would not have been Richmond College alone which has compromised the Word of God because there was a broad departure from the Reformers and their principle for understanding the Word of God. Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones alludes to this when he wrote his 1967 annual letter to the members of Westminster Chapel on January 1, 1968. I cite part of his letter hereunder:
"When one turns to the more general position however, the situation is very different. Here, the main impression is one of confusion, uncertainty, and divided opinions. This is true not only in this country but throughout the world. This is something that one expects in 'Christendom', but in the past it has not been true of those calling themselves evangelical. This is the new feature which is so disturbing. No longer can it be assumed that to be evangelical means to accept the authority of the Scriptures on matters of history, and on the creation of the world and man, and at the very lowest to be sceptical about the theory of evolution. In the same way there has been a recrudescence of denominationalism and an entirely new attitude towards Romanism.
It is, alas, a time of conflict and of trial, indeed a time of tragedy when old comrades in arms are now in different camps. It is not that one in any way questions the honesty or the sincerity of such friends. There is only one explanation and that is, 'an enemy hath done this'. Never has that enemy been more active or more subtle . . .
What the outcome of the present upheaval will be no one can tell. Our duty is to be faithful knowing that the final outcome is sure."
Well, the upheaval has continued inasmuch as 'evangelicalism' is being turned on its head. As in the past, where certain institutions commenced with sound biblical principles but later turned to an opposite principle, 'evangelicalism' is abandoning its primary principle founded on trust in the Word of God.
Ecumenism may have lost momentum but just as Israel longed to return to Egypt when faith in the Word of God waned so it is likely that many who call themselves evangelical today will, one day, desire to return to Rome as loss of faith in the Word of God runs its course. The disease is there, all that is awaited is its consequence.
The lost of the world are in desperate need of a strong evangelical church but all they have tottering before them is a diseased and ever diminishing church.
Sam Drucker
Thursday, December 16, 2010
No he couldn't!
Great blog over at the staid Anglican origins site: check it out: its about people who say that God could have used evolution to 'create'. Well, the answer very simply is NO HE COULDN'T!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Leupold Genesis part 46 verse 14
But the luminaries have functions other than to divide day and. night. The fourteenth verse alone expresses two more general functions. The first of these two is so broad in scope as to cover four items, expressed by the terms, "and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years." A wide diversity of opinion exists as to the actual enumeration here given: are these two, three, or four distinct objects? Nothing very vital hinges on the answer. For though we stated above that four purposes are here listed, we could readily from one point of view consent To reduce them to three. For the preposition "for" (le) is used but three times and has a double object in the last instance--the closely related terms: "days and years." Others, like Koenig, make a double hendiadys, thus, "for signs, as well for seasons as also for days and also years." This again, depending on the individual's, viewpoint, might mean either three or two purposes. But though hendiadys is a common enough figure, we feel that nothing definitely indicates its use here; and also we notice that such translations push the independent meaning of the word "signs" too much into the background.
Now "signs" ('othoth) is here used in the broadest possible sense. Indeed, the luminaries are signs from various points of view. They are "signs" to devout faith, declaring the glory Of their Creator (cf. Ps. 8 and-19).--They are "signs" by which men get their bearings, or the point of the compass by day or by night. They may convey "signs" in reference to future events (Mt 2:2; Lu 21:25). They furnish quite reliable "signs" for determining in advance the Weather to be expected (Mt 16:2, 3). They may be "signs"` of divine judgments (Joe 2:30; Mt 24:29). That they may well serve in all these capacities is clear both from Scripture and from experience. Dwelling only on one scriptural parallel, Skinner, pointing to (Jer 10:2), where "astrological portents" are referred to, misconstrues the use of the word when he claims to find a similar use here, "though it is not quite easy to believe the writer would have said, the sun and moon were made for this purpose." But (Jer 10:2) does not identify the expression "signs of heaven," with "astrological portents." These signs become such portents only by the fact that the "nations," who are "dismayed at them," make them to be considered such. Skinner construes the forbidden abuse of "signs of heaven" as: the normal meaning of the expression. How Procksch injects the meaning "epochs" into the term is more than we can discern. The fact remains that men always have and in manifold ways still do regard and use luminaries for signs.
Besides, the luminaries are "for seasons." A certain brevity of expression obtains here. We could supply the implied term quite readily, for "fixing seasons, days and years." But without this added term the expression is not unclear. But "seasons" are called mo'adhim, from the root ya'adh, "to appoint"; therefore, "appointed time." The luminaries do serve as "indicators" (Meek) of such fixed, appointed times, whether these now be secular or sacred. To attempt to exclude what we are specifically wont to call seasons is unwarranted and grows out of the assumption that the hypothetical author P has a special interest in things ritual. Therefore, "seasons" or times in the widest sense are to be thought of: agricultural seasons (Ho 2:9, 11; 9:5), seasons for seafaring men, seasons for beasts and birds (Jer 8:7), as long as they are times that are fixed and come with stated regularity.
To complete the list of the things determined by the luminaries the divine command adds "days and years." These are respectively the shortest and the longest measures of time definitely fixed by the movement of the heavenly bodies. What "day" yom, is (here the whole twenty-four hour day) every one knows, and yet the etymology of the term is entirely unknown. The word for "year" (shanah) seems to be traceable to the Assyrian root "to change."
Note that after the imperative "let there be" there may follow a converted perfect wehayu (K, S. 367 c).
When now v. 15 says distinctly that these luminaries are to be "in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth," this plainly indicates that from the time of this creative work onward all light that the earth receives is to be mediated through the luminaries. How light functioned in the universe prior to this time we shall never know. How the regular alternation of day and night was regulated will forever escape our discernment. What we know is only that as day and night now follow upon one another due to the light centred in luminaries, is an arrangement which God ordained on this day. It all certainly is a marvellous and praiseworthy work, but that is all that these luminaries are appointed for, as far as we are able to discern.
Now "signs" ('othoth) is here used in the broadest possible sense. Indeed, the luminaries are signs from various points of view. They are "signs" to devout faith, declaring the glory Of their Creator (cf. Ps. 8 and-19).--They are "signs" by which men get their bearings, or the point of the compass by day or by night. They may convey "signs" in reference to future events (Mt 2:2; Lu 21:25). They furnish quite reliable "signs" for determining in advance the Weather to be expected (Mt 16:2, 3). They may be "signs"` of divine judgments (Joe 2:30; Mt 24:29). That they may well serve in all these capacities is clear both from Scripture and from experience. Dwelling only on one scriptural parallel, Skinner, pointing to (Jer 10:2), where "astrological portents" are referred to, misconstrues the use of the word when he claims to find a similar use here, "though it is not quite easy to believe the writer would have said, the sun and moon were made for this purpose." But (Jer 10:2) does not identify the expression "signs of heaven," with "astrological portents." These signs become such portents only by the fact that the "nations," who are "dismayed at them," make them to be considered such. Skinner construes the forbidden abuse of "signs of heaven" as: the normal meaning of the expression. How Procksch injects the meaning "epochs" into the term is more than we can discern. The fact remains that men always have and in manifold ways still do regard and use luminaries for signs.
Besides, the luminaries are "for seasons." A certain brevity of expression obtains here. We could supply the implied term quite readily, for "fixing seasons, days and years." But without this added term the expression is not unclear. But "seasons" are called mo'adhim, from the root ya'adh, "to appoint"; therefore, "appointed time." The luminaries do serve as "indicators" (Meek) of such fixed, appointed times, whether these now be secular or sacred. To attempt to exclude what we are specifically wont to call seasons is unwarranted and grows out of the assumption that the hypothetical author P has a special interest in things ritual. Therefore, "seasons" or times in the widest sense are to be thought of: agricultural seasons (Ho 2:9, 11; 9:5), seasons for seafaring men, seasons for beasts and birds (Jer 8:7), as long as they are times that are fixed and come with stated regularity.
To complete the list of the things determined by the luminaries the divine command adds "days and years." These are respectively the shortest and the longest measures of time definitely fixed by the movement of the heavenly bodies. What "day" yom, is (here the whole twenty-four hour day) every one knows, and yet the etymology of the term is entirely unknown. The word for "year" (shanah) seems to be traceable to the Assyrian root "to change."
Note that after the imperative "let there be" there may follow a converted perfect wehayu (K, S. 367 c).
When now v. 15 says distinctly that these luminaries are to be "in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth," this plainly indicates that from the time of this creative work onward all light that the earth receives is to be mediated through the luminaries. How light functioned in the universe prior to this time we shall never know. How the regular alternation of day and night was regulated will forever escape our discernment. What we know is only that as day and night now follow upon one another due to the light centred in luminaries, is an arrangement which God ordained on this day. It all certainly is a marvellous and praiseworthy work, but that is all that these luminaries are appointed for, as far as we are able to discern.
Monday, December 13, 2010
On Understanding - The Difference is Chalk and Cheese.
Quotes a) Iain Murray (biographer) b) Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones found on pages 546 & 547 of the former's biography on the latter:
"At the next meeting of the Westminster Fellowship on July 3, I 1967, he also gave an address which concentrated on the nature of the unity to be sought among those who were agreed in their opposition to ecumenism. At this point they faced, he believed a danger which was the very opposite of the threat from ecumenism. Ecumenical leaders worked on the principle of minimum doctrinal statement, they sought to say something so loosely that no one is excluded. 'Among us, on the other hand,' he went on, 'in our desire to safeguard orthodoxy we tend to become too precise. We go to the opposite extreme of the ecumenical mentality. Even the detailed statements of the 16th and 17th centuries have not been able to safeguard the faith. You can never safeguard the truth by statements on paper or guarantee continuing orthodoxy by paper declarations.'
Two main things, he proceeded, should govern our attitude:
First, it is spiritual life, the experience of the grace of God, which creates the desire for fellowship (Acts 2:46). This was primary in the unity of the early church. If we do not say this we are in danger of scholasticism. An interest in theology which is not based on life is dangerous . . . Such was the position of the Pharisees and of many since. Sound theology can be taken up as a great system in the same way that some people take up crossword puzzles.
Second, the seriousness of schism, rightly defined and understood. Schism means separations among those agreed on fundamentals on account of secondary matters. It is constantly condemned in the New Testament. Unless we have a burning desire to preserve unity we are in a dangerous position.
He believed that the crux of the present position had to do with the recognition of the distinction between truths which are essential and those which are not essential. To be anti-ecumenical was essential because the ecumenical movement was deliberately guilty of doctrinal indifferentism. Its chief concern was a kind of organisational fellowship.
'Ecumenical thinking is to take the churches as they are and to bring them all together. So they take up a minimal statement of faith and even that they do not apply .. . The first thing we want to know with regard to a man who comes to us for fellowship is. What is his attitude to this. To have fellowship with men who deny the truth is to deny the truth by implying that the truth does not matter.'
Foremost among the doctrines he listed as 'absolutely essential' was the sole authority of Scripture in faith and practice. We do not receive tradition as being a subsidiary authority. There must be a full acceptance of revelation: 'We have no fellowship with a man who does not submit himself as a little child to Scripture. It is no use for a man to profess he believes in the "supreme authority of Scripture" in general and then question the foretelling aspect of prophecy or the historicity of creation and of Adam as the first man.' A new tendency to do this among evangelicals he described as 'one of the saddest things I have known in my ministry'. Then among the chief doctrines taught in Scripture he specified: the Trinity; the devil and evil powers; the plan of redemption; the person and work of Christ; man (born spiritually dead, having died in Adam); regeneration by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit; justification and sanctification, with the necessity of good works.
He then turned to non-essentials, which he did not understand to mean truths which are unimportant, 'but they are not so important as to divide us'. 'You notice that I did not put in my list of essentials the doctrine of election. I believe the doctrine of election. I cannot interpret Scripture without it and I preached it last night as one of you has ever done, but I cannot say that a man who does not believe it is not a Christian, or that I cannot have fellowship with him. I say he is seriously defective in his understanding. I do not say that Arminianism is "another gospel". It is rather another understanding of the mechanism of how salvation is given to us.' Among other subjects upon which Christians differed in their understanding he instanced views on baptism, assurance, church polity, unfulfilled prophecy and charismatic gifts. 'On such issues we may hold to our convictions, but with love and patience towards others. We must not break fellowship. We must condemn all wrangling. We all realize that we are saved in spite of ourselves. Not one of us is perfect in our understanding of these matters.' He concluded:
I have never proposed a united evangelical Church. What I have believed in is fellowship for mutual edification and encouragement and perhaps certain other activities. There may be groups of churches even in such fellowship who are disagreed on some of these non-essential matters: I cannot see the impossibility of a loose fellowship including those who are Presbyterian, those who are independent, and those with varying views on baptism."
Note the distinction between the man used mightily of our Lord in bringing glory to Himself in the salvation of sinners compared to the diluted opinion of moderates within the current Episcopal Diocese of Sydney on essential understanding of the historicity of creation. The latter regard the issue as secondary.
Sam Drucker
"At the next meeting of the Westminster Fellowship on July 3, I 1967, he also gave an address which concentrated on the nature of the unity to be sought among those who were agreed in their opposition to ecumenism. At this point they faced, he believed a danger which was the very opposite of the threat from ecumenism. Ecumenical leaders worked on the principle of minimum doctrinal statement, they sought to say something so loosely that no one is excluded. 'Among us, on the other hand,' he went on, 'in our desire to safeguard orthodoxy we tend to become too precise. We go to the opposite extreme of the ecumenical mentality. Even the detailed statements of the 16th and 17th centuries have not been able to safeguard the faith. You can never safeguard the truth by statements on paper or guarantee continuing orthodoxy by paper declarations.'
Two main things, he proceeded, should govern our attitude:
First, it is spiritual life, the experience of the grace of God, which creates the desire for fellowship (Acts 2:46). This was primary in the unity of the early church. If we do not say this we are in danger of scholasticism. An interest in theology which is not based on life is dangerous . . . Such was the position of the Pharisees and of many since. Sound theology can be taken up as a great system in the same way that some people take up crossword puzzles.
Second, the seriousness of schism, rightly defined and understood. Schism means separations among those agreed on fundamentals on account of secondary matters. It is constantly condemned in the New Testament. Unless we have a burning desire to preserve unity we are in a dangerous position.
He believed that the crux of the present position had to do with the recognition of the distinction between truths which are essential and those which are not essential. To be anti-ecumenical was essential because the ecumenical movement was deliberately guilty of doctrinal indifferentism. Its chief concern was a kind of organisational fellowship.
'Ecumenical thinking is to take the churches as they are and to bring them all together. So they take up a minimal statement of faith and even that they do not apply .. . The first thing we want to know with regard to a man who comes to us for fellowship is. What is his attitude to this. To have fellowship with men who deny the truth is to deny the truth by implying that the truth does not matter.'
Foremost among the doctrines he listed as 'absolutely essential' was the sole authority of Scripture in faith and practice. We do not receive tradition as being a subsidiary authority. There must be a full acceptance of revelation: 'We have no fellowship with a man who does not submit himself as a little child to Scripture. It is no use for a man to profess he believes in the "supreme authority of Scripture" in general and then question the foretelling aspect of prophecy or the historicity of creation and of Adam as the first man.' A new tendency to do this among evangelicals he described as 'one of the saddest things I have known in my ministry'. Then among the chief doctrines taught in Scripture he specified: the Trinity; the devil and evil powers; the plan of redemption; the person and work of Christ; man (born spiritually dead, having died in Adam); regeneration by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit; justification and sanctification, with the necessity of good works.
He then turned to non-essentials, which he did not understand to mean truths which are unimportant, 'but they are not so important as to divide us'. 'You notice that I did not put in my list of essentials the doctrine of election. I believe the doctrine of election. I cannot interpret Scripture without it and I preached it last night as one of you has ever done, but I cannot say that a man who does not believe it is not a Christian, or that I cannot have fellowship with him. I say he is seriously defective in his understanding. I do not say that Arminianism is "another gospel". It is rather another understanding of the mechanism of how salvation is given to us.' Among other subjects upon which Christians differed in their understanding he instanced views on baptism, assurance, church polity, unfulfilled prophecy and charismatic gifts. 'On such issues we may hold to our convictions, but with love and patience towards others. We must not break fellowship. We must condemn all wrangling. We all realize that we are saved in spite of ourselves. Not one of us is perfect in our understanding of these matters.' He concluded:
I have never proposed a united evangelical Church. What I have believed in is fellowship for mutual edification and encouragement and perhaps certain other activities. There may be groups of churches even in such fellowship who are disagreed on some of these non-essential matters: I cannot see the impossibility of a loose fellowship including those who are Presbyterian, those who are independent, and those with varying views on baptism."
Note the distinction between the man used mightily of our Lord in bringing glory to Himself in the salvation of sinners compared to the diluted opinion of moderates within the current Episcopal Diocese of Sydney on essential understanding of the historicity of creation. The latter regard the issue as secondary.
Sam Drucker
Friday, December 10, 2010
God's got it under control
It never ceases to amaze me that 1. questions of faith and religion get such huge airplay in the media (see the number of religious questions mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald's blogs) and 2. the silence of the SADs in really trying to address them (and in a non-preachy 'I'm a smarter man than thou' manner; naw, that would be asking too much.
The topic of 'adverts for God' came up in a recent blog: it was about God loving us; of course he does, but the semi-sceptic of the blog asked about young death in its face:
Well, I don't think that the Bible has God 'in control' like the theo-controllers seem to think (Romans talks about his active involvement: relationship, not 'control'), and the SADs are completely disempowered in dealing with evil, because most of them say that it's 'natural' or is inherent in the world as we know it (they have to because they are unreconstucted evolutionists: whereas the Bible is not). And that stops any evangelical response to death in the world stone dead: its a gospel killer, as the theological contrast the Bible has is denied!
Thanks guys, and thanks from all the questioning people who are thus short-changed.
The topic of 'adverts for God' came up in a recent blog: it was about God loving us; of course he does, but the semi-sceptic of the blog asked about young death in its face:
Well, I don't think that the Bible has God 'in control' like the theo-controllers seem to think (Romans talks about his active involvement: relationship, not 'control'), and the SADs are completely disempowered in dealing with evil, because most of them say that it's 'natural' or is inherent in the world as we know it (they have to because they are unreconstucted evolutionists: whereas the Bible is not). And that stops any evangelical response to death in the world stone dead: its a gospel killer, as the theological contrast the Bible has is denied!
Thanks guys, and thanks from all the questioning people who are thus short-changed.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
The Gathering of the Mob at Lausanne
Interesting to see in the December 2010 edition of Southern Cross (Sydney Episcopalian Newspaper) that Bishop Glenn Davies returned from the Lausanne Conference on Evangelism with some pluses and minuses for what he observed. His positive mark for the conference was the broad commitment to evangelism. His negatives were not identified.
The Lausanne Conference is a periodic event having the stamp of Dr Billy Graham. Dr Graham had approached Dr Lloyd-Jones around the middle of last century for his involvement in a similar type conference in Rome but Dr Lloyd-Jones declined. In considering the later Lausanne conferences it is difficult to see what benefit it provides other than as an opportunity to 'back-slap' and encourage one another in the great commission we ought to be doing anyway compelled by love for our Lord Jesus Christ, to see God glorified and a concern for the lost.
Reading Part 2 of Iain Murray's autobiography of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones has given me some insight into the good doctor's concerns about an aspect of Dr Billy Graham's ministry and aspirations for the Church in the 20th Century. By and large the Church was on the slide in that century and it was a time when Evangelicals were failing on many fronts to the extent that the Church lost its impact and influence of society generally (I posted blogs a little while back citing - "The Decline of Evangelicalism in Nineteenth-Century England" by R. J. Sheehan in Issue 278, November 1986, of The Banner of Truth). Obviously the rot had set in during the 19th Century and it continued to eat away in the following century.
The great concern for Martyn Lloyd-Jones was the strong push toward ecumenism in the United Kingdom and, one after another, Evangelicals were being seduced into embracing Liberals for the cause of unity at the expense of the authority of the Scripture. Such an outcome was to show the soft underbelly of those who professed to be Evangelical and, in effect, it showed they were not truly Evangelical. The same situation applies today and I suspect what Bishop Glenn Davies was reluctant to comment upon has its nexus in the same bondage of Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals that Martyn Lloyd-Jones had concerns about last century.
That said, the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese is not without question as to what side of the fence it rests. I am certain Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones would have problems with the Diocese based on his address to the Westminster Fraternal at Welwyn on 19 June 1963. Quoting Haggai Ch 1, Dr Lloyd-Jones raised a series of issues for the Church and I cite them from point 5 to quantify my charge:
"(5) The blatant unbelief in the official churches is coming into the open. And there is evidence of a subtle change of emphasis in evangelical thinking — an acceptance of looser views of the early chapters of Genesis and of miracles, a new atmosphere in book-reviewing, a disinterest in doctrine and a tendency to gloat in scholarship. (6) There is the whole moral condition of the country. There is need of prophetic statement but we seem to be living in our 'cieled houses' [sic]. (7) There is an appalling need of evangelical preaching. Evangelicalism is concentrated in the Greater London area. We forget the appalling conditions that prevail in the great bulk of the country.
This is a great challenge and unique opportunity. It is we alone who can give the message. But we seem to be ineffective and silent. . . Our Statements are tepid and harmless. Evangelicals in all the major denominations are in the same position." (see page 413 of the autobiography)
Because of the current failure of Moore Theological College (the Diocesan school of thought) to uphold the Word of God on origins it places itself and the Diocese in the same camp as the wilting band of so-called Evangelicals of the 19th and 20th Centuries which Dr Lloyd-Jones had concerns about.
Rev Michael Jensen counts regard for integrity of God's Word in Genesis Ch 1 (and, by extension, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17-18) as a secondary issue and is thus prepared to allow Jesus Christ, Creator, to be robbed of his glory in creation. Given that Bishop Glenn Davies is of the same school of thought he ought not be pointing out the splinter in the eye of non-Evangelicals at the Lausanne Conference without taking the plank out of his own.
It remains for me to find the plank resident in my own eye.
Sam Drucker
The Lausanne Conference is a periodic event having the stamp of Dr Billy Graham. Dr Graham had approached Dr Lloyd-Jones around the middle of last century for his involvement in a similar type conference in Rome but Dr Lloyd-Jones declined. In considering the later Lausanne conferences it is difficult to see what benefit it provides other than as an opportunity to 'back-slap' and encourage one another in the great commission we ought to be doing anyway compelled by love for our Lord Jesus Christ, to see God glorified and a concern for the lost.
Reading Part 2 of Iain Murray's autobiography of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones has given me some insight into the good doctor's concerns about an aspect of Dr Billy Graham's ministry and aspirations for the Church in the 20th Century. By and large the Church was on the slide in that century and it was a time when Evangelicals were failing on many fronts to the extent that the Church lost its impact and influence of society generally (I posted blogs a little while back citing - "The Decline of Evangelicalism in Nineteenth-Century England" by R. J. Sheehan in Issue 278, November 1986, of The Banner of Truth). Obviously the rot had set in during the 19th Century and it continued to eat away in the following century.
The great concern for Martyn Lloyd-Jones was the strong push toward ecumenism in the United Kingdom and, one after another, Evangelicals were being seduced into embracing Liberals for the cause of unity at the expense of the authority of the Scripture. Such an outcome was to show the soft underbelly of those who professed to be Evangelical and, in effect, it showed they were not truly Evangelical. The same situation applies today and I suspect what Bishop Glenn Davies was reluctant to comment upon has its nexus in the same bondage of Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals that Martyn Lloyd-Jones had concerns about last century.
That said, the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese is not without question as to what side of the fence it rests. I am certain Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones would have problems with the Diocese based on his address to the Westminster Fraternal at Welwyn on 19 June 1963. Quoting Haggai Ch 1, Dr Lloyd-Jones raised a series of issues for the Church and I cite them from point 5 to quantify my charge:
"(5) The blatant unbelief in the official churches is coming into the open. And there is evidence of a subtle change of emphasis in evangelical thinking — an acceptance of looser views of the early chapters of Genesis and of miracles, a new atmosphere in book-reviewing, a disinterest in doctrine and a tendency to gloat in scholarship. (6) There is the whole moral condition of the country. There is need of prophetic statement but we seem to be living in our 'cieled houses' [sic]. (7) There is an appalling need of evangelical preaching. Evangelicalism is concentrated in the Greater London area. We forget the appalling conditions that prevail in the great bulk of the country.
This is a great challenge and unique opportunity. It is we alone who can give the message. But we seem to be ineffective and silent. . . Our Statements are tepid and harmless. Evangelicals in all the major denominations are in the same position." (see page 413 of the autobiography)
Because of the current failure of Moore Theological College (the Diocesan school of thought) to uphold the Word of God on origins it places itself and the Diocese in the same camp as the wilting band of so-called Evangelicals of the 19th and 20th Centuries which Dr Lloyd-Jones had concerns about.
Rev Michael Jensen counts regard for integrity of God's Word in Genesis Ch 1 (and, by extension, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17-18) as a secondary issue and is thus prepared to allow Jesus Christ, Creator, to be robbed of his glory in creation. Given that Bishop Glenn Davies is of the same school of thought he ought not be pointing out the splinter in the eye of non-Evangelicals at the Lausanne Conference without taking the plank out of his own.
It remains for me to find the plank resident in my own eye.
Sam Drucker
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Leupold Genesis part 45 verse 14, 15
14, 15. And God said: Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs and seasons and for days and years; and let them be for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth; and it was so.
It at once stands out in reference to the work of this day that the purpose of the things that are made to function is stated in a far more detailed fashion than is the ease in regard to any other of the creative works. Nothing in the text explains this greater fulness of statement, but the suggestion advanced by Dillmann and others may be as satisfactory as any: "is there perhaps a silent contrast involved with the superstition of the heathen that is wont to attach itself to the stars?" The statement, therefore, is unusually exhaustive in order to show what purposes the Almighty fixed for the heavenly bodies and to leave no room for heathen misconstruction.
At once now the next problem suggests itself: how do the "luminaries" stand related to the light which was created on the first day? With this is involved a second question: how do these luminaries stand related to the heavens, which were created on the first day (v. 1)? The analogy of "the earth" created simultaneously with "the heavens" (v. 1) and its equipment and arrangement up till this point through v. 2-13 points in the proper direction. In other words, the earth is created in the rough, subject to certain deficiencies or incompletenesses which are removed one by one through the following days; similarly the heavens are created in the rough, heavenly bodies in vast spaces, not yet functioning as they shall later. What still remains to be done in and with them is now completed on the fourth day. The sun, moon and stars were in existence but were not yet doing the work which gets to be theirs in the fourth day's work. Light was in existence, but now these heavenly bodies come to be the ones that bear this light in themselves--"light-bearers," "luminaries," me'oroth. Heavenly bodies were in existence, but from this point onward they begin to serve a definite purpose in reference to the earth. Consequently, we are out of keeping with the plan according to which the course of creation has been proceeding if we separate the elements of 14a so as to make a definite pause after the statement, "let there be luminaries." This would imply the initial creation of all heavenly bodies. Rather, translating still more literally, the thing that is to transpire is this: "Let there become luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide the day from the night," etc. This really involves a double achievement: the non-luminous heavenly bodies become bearers of light, and this for the purpose of dividing the day from the night. The expression, "let there be lights"( A. V.) and Lichter (Luther) is inaccurate and misleading. "Light" in Hebrew is 'or; here stands the word ma'or, "light-bearer." This does not, however, now mean that "the atmosphere being completely purified--the sun, moon and stars were for the first time unveiled in all their glory in the cloudless sky" (Jamieson), for such a result would have been achieved automatically without divine fiat by the work of the second day. More reasonable is the assumption that the existing light, by being allocated to the sun, was tempered specifically to the needs of plant and animal life upon our planet. In any case, the purposes following arc definitely tied up ; with having the sun in particular function, as the primary light-bearer.
Consequently, though day and night following one another in rotation function satisfactorily as day and night without sun and moon, from this point onward the dividing of day and night is tied up specifically with these luminaries. So this purpose is stated first. The adverbial modifier "in the firmament of the heavens" shows the relation of the fourth day's work to that of the second. The firmament prepared in advance had to be thus prepared, otherwise the light of these luminaries would have failed to benefit the earth. The singular verb yehi is followed by the masculine plural (feminine only as to form) me'oroth, according to general Hebrew practice of letting the most general form of the verb begin the thought (G. K. 145 o).
It at once stands out in reference to the work of this day that the purpose of the things that are made to function is stated in a far more detailed fashion than is the ease in regard to any other of the creative works. Nothing in the text explains this greater fulness of statement, but the suggestion advanced by Dillmann and others may be as satisfactory as any: "is there perhaps a silent contrast involved with the superstition of the heathen that is wont to attach itself to the stars?" The statement, therefore, is unusually exhaustive in order to show what purposes the Almighty fixed for the heavenly bodies and to leave no room for heathen misconstruction.
At once now the next problem suggests itself: how do the "luminaries" stand related to the light which was created on the first day? With this is involved a second question: how do these luminaries stand related to the heavens, which were created on the first day (v. 1)? The analogy of "the earth" created simultaneously with "the heavens" (v. 1) and its equipment and arrangement up till this point through v. 2-13 points in the proper direction. In other words, the earth is created in the rough, subject to certain deficiencies or incompletenesses which are removed one by one through the following days; similarly the heavens are created in the rough, heavenly bodies in vast spaces, not yet functioning as they shall later. What still remains to be done in and with them is now completed on the fourth day. The sun, moon and stars were in existence but were not yet doing the work which gets to be theirs in the fourth day's work. Light was in existence, but now these heavenly bodies come to be the ones that bear this light in themselves--"light-bearers," "luminaries," me'oroth. Heavenly bodies were in existence, but from this point onward they begin to serve a definite purpose in reference to the earth. Consequently, we are out of keeping with the plan according to which the course of creation has been proceeding if we separate the elements of 14a so as to make a definite pause after the statement, "let there be luminaries." This would imply the initial creation of all heavenly bodies. Rather, translating still more literally, the thing that is to transpire is this: "Let there become luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide the day from the night," etc. This really involves a double achievement: the non-luminous heavenly bodies become bearers of light, and this for the purpose of dividing the day from the night. The expression, "let there be lights"( A. V.) and Lichter (Luther) is inaccurate and misleading. "Light" in Hebrew is 'or; here stands the word ma'or, "light-bearer." This does not, however, now mean that "the atmosphere being completely purified--the sun, moon and stars were for the first time unveiled in all their glory in the cloudless sky" (Jamieson), for such a result would have been achieved automatically without divine fiat by the work of the second day. More reasonable is the assumption that the existing light, by being allocated to the sun, was tempered specifically to the needs of plant and animal life upon our planet. In any case, the purposes following arc definitely tied up ; with having the sun in particular function, as the primary light-bearer.
Consequently, though day and night following one another in rotation function satisfactorily as day and night without sun and moon, from this point onward the dividing of day and night is tied up specifically with these luminaries. So this purpose is stated first. The adverbial modifier "in the firmament of the heavens" shows the relation of the fourth day's work to that of the second. The firmament prepared in advance had to be thus prepared, otherwise the light of these luminaries would have failed to benefit the earth. The singular verb yehi is followed by the masculine plural (feminine only as to form) me'oroth, according to general Hebrew practice of letting the most general form of the verb begin the thought (G. K. 145 o).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
