Its all old hat

Over at the pro-Anglican blog there's a wonderful post on the apologetic battles of the early Christian era.

Read this one:

The first principle of the universe he supposes to have been air dark with cloud and wind, or rather a blast of cloudy air, and a turbid chaos dark as Erebus; and these were boundless and for long ages had no limit…From its connexion Mot was produced, which some say is mud, and others a putrescence of watery compound; and out of this came every germ of creation, and the generation of the universe. So there were certain animals which had no sensation, and out of them grew intelligent animals, and were called "Zophasemin," that is "observers of heaven"; and they were formed like the shape of an egg. Also Mot burst forth into light, and sun, and moon, and stars, and the great constellations.'

Such was their cosmogony, introducing downright atheism

The point is, back then, 2nd Century, I think, they recognised that evolution was the direct route to atheism (which modern atheism demonstrates in spades).

Meanwhile back down at St Andrew's house, the crowd seems blithely unaware that they are prime boosters for atheism while they fold their hands and tell us that God 'used' evolution to produce his creation.

Madness, if not blasphemy (attributing to the creation what God tells us is his work).

He also clearly indicates that the opposing world-view included 'long ages'. So, that's nothing new as well. This is it: in ancient times there was a known view of the world that had it creating itself over long ages, or in long ages past. It therefore strains credibility to reject the biblical frame with the claim that the ancients didn't know better: the fact is, they knew precisely what was going on and insisted on biblical creation.

The 'by their fruits' test, I've not heard of belief in evolution reliably leading to people turning to Christ; whereas the gospel route via creation, which Paul demonstrates to us in Acts 17, does produce results.

When Silence is Not Golden

"Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. So the spies questioned him: 'Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth, Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?'

He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 'Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?'

'Caesar's,' they replied.

He said to them, 'Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.'

They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent." (Luke 20:20-26 NIV)

and

"One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, 'Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?' But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him away.

Then he asked them, 'If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?' And they had nothing to say." (Luke 14:1-6 NIV)

The aforesaid incidents involving our Lord Jesus Christ demonstrate clearly what to look for when people are firmly entrenched in an erroneous belief and how they will often respond when confronted by the sharp edge of truth.

The teachers (experts) of the law and Pharisees had studied the Scriptures extensively. In their learning years they were under the teaching of those esteemed most learned - who were said to know the mind of God. Surely such schooling would provide capable guides for Israel to know how to live pleasing God and provide guides to identify the long awaited Messiah?

Sadly, they were poor guides. They knew not the mind of God in all things and they knew not all Scripture. They misapplied the law and had an expectation of the Messiah which was not fully in accord with Scripture. When confronted by the Messiah they saw him as an impostor because he had a more humble background than anticipated. Further, he said and did things contrary to their interpretation of the law.

They would have nothing of a Messiah of this nature. They resolved in their mind to put him away but, until that could be accomplished, they had to deal with his presence and influence on the people of Israel. Their knowledge of Scripture and its application in the life of Israel was set against the Messiah but they were left wanting. Confronted by truth "they became silent."

Biblical Creationists concerned that the Church avoid departure from Scripture will have had situations where they have pointed out to the eldership or Pastor of their church where error has infiltrated the theology of the church. Like myself, they will often find their points, derived from Scripture, produce a response from the church eldership or Pastor where "they became silent." This is hurtful. It is unloving. It says that what is important to you is not worthy of interaction. Relational responsibility is negated. The Spirit of God is quenched.

This silence has elements of the contempt the teachers of the law and Pharisees' had for Jesus of Nazareth. It has elements of the vanity of derived knowledge superseding Scripture. It has elements of a determination to put away truth which brings discomfort to an entrenched belief.

When "they became silent" they were serving Satan more than Messiah Jesus.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 32 verse 4

4. And God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness.

Any account may be misread, and thoughts may be imputed to it that are utterly unworthy of it. So here it would surely be beneath the level of the pure and worthy conception of God which pervades the account to make this verse yield the thought that upon inspection God discerned that the work had turned out well, and so He promptly expressed His approval. Rather, this is, on the one hand, for our definite information that we might note that all works wrought by God were actually good and perfect and in every sense adequate for their purpose. There was no experimentation of an unskilled craftsman. There was no trying and testing after the fashion of toiling men. In fact, another very noble conception pervades it all; since there are no other beings to herald the Creator's praise, He, having achieved so praiseworthy a work, in this account Himself voices His approval that all men might know that in the very highest sense His work merited praise. The word for "good," tobh, is perhaps best rendered as "excellent" in these instances (B D B).

The construction of the first clause is marked by a slightly unusual order of words. It literally runs thus: "God saw the light that it was good" (A. V.), the noun "light" being taken into the first clause by "anticipation," also called antitopsis (K. S. 414 b). Besides, the conjunction ki is used more commonly than 'asher to introduce such object clauses (K. S. 384 f).

It had better also be noted that we have thus far had two so-called anthropomorphisms: "God said" (v. 3) and "God saw" (v. 4). This should be remembered over against those who attempt to set chapter one to 2:3 over against the rest of chapter two as though two divergent accounts were being presented by different authors, who held variant conceptions of God, the author of chapter one being usually regarded as having a more exalted conception of God, and the author of chapter two as presenting a more anthropomorphic and less exalted view of the divine nature. Anthropomorphisms are certainly found also in chapter one.

When the next clause states, "God separated the from the darkness," this does not mean "separated" in the sense of "disentangled." They were not commingled together. Wayyabhdel means literally, "And he caused a division," that is in point of time, one functioning at one time, the other dominating at another. One is as much an entity or principle as the other. "Darkness" is not Cancelled and put out of existence. We can perhaps go so far as to claim that a "spatial" separation was also involved according to the terms of this account. (Job 38:19), though largely a poetic statement, seems to give warrant for such a deduction. To make the idea of separation still more prominent the preposition "between" is repeated before the second noun, and both nouns are given the article. "Light" appeared already at the beginning of the verse with the article of relative familiarity (K. C.).

Christian Life is a Journey

"They went forth into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came." Gen. 12:5 KJV

Augustus Montague Toplady is perhaps remembered best for writing that great old hymn "Rock of Ages." He was born in 1740 and died in 1778 at the age of 38 years. Respected Bishop J.C. Ryle, when commenting on Toplady in the Nineteenth Century said: "I should think no account of English religion in the last century complete which did not supply some information about this remarkable man. In some respects, I am bold to say, not one of his contemporaries surpassed him, and hardly any equalled him. He was a man of rare grace and gifts, and one who left his mark very deeply on his own generation. For soundness of the faith, singleness of eye, and devotedness of life, he deserves to be ranked with Whitefield, or Grimshaw, or Romaine."

In a sermon on the Genesis 12:5 passage quoted a above, Augustus Toplady spoke of the journey of faith a Christian embarks upon from the time of conversion to Jesus Christ. Aspects of Toplady's sermon have something stern to say to several Episcopalians in the Diocese of Sydney. A short extract is provided herewith:

"When persons undertake a journey to a distant, unknown country, it is not unusual to have recourse to a guide. The two grand, stated Guides of the Redeemer's church are the Spirit and the Word of God; to which may be added, in humblest subordination to these two, the ministers of God. A minister without the written Word would bid fair to be a false guide who would only set you astray. And the Word itself, without the Spirit, is but as a dial without the sun, a dead letter, and a book that is sealed. Therefore the way for us not to lose our way is to receive nothing from man but what bears the stamp of Scripture; to beg of God that he would shine upon the dial that we may consult it profitably and know whereabout we are; that is, that He would make us understand the Scriptures by the saving light of His Blessed Spirit; and then to look upon no influence, suggestion, or direction as the certain voice of God in the soul except it harmonize and coincide with the sacred Scriptures which Himself inspired. Thus wonderfully and wisely are the means of salvation connected! The Word of God directs us to the Spirit of God; the Spirit of God makes that Word effectual; and the true ministers of God act in the most absolute subserviency to both."

Biblical Creationists need only go a little beyond the diluting argument of Theistic Evolutionists that Genesis Chapter 1 is too stylized to be historical narrative and you find the basis of their argument. Theistic Evolutionists are influenced by the thoughts of man. Men and women who profess a faith in the paradigm of evolution without it being demonstrated by empirical (operational) science have greater influence over Theistic Evolutionists than God. Whether it be fear of ridicule or love of man over God the result is the same. Scripture is abused. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in all their workings, are demeaned.

The path taken by Theistic Evolutionists within what is called Evangelicalism is a pitiful scene. Having long criticized Liberals for mishandling Scripture and throwing off Gospel truths, the Theistic Evolutionists within Evangelicalism are doing nothing more than belatedly following in the footsteps of Liberal scholars of more than a century ago. How smart are they? Not at all! When a brilliant student accurately completes an examination in half as much time as another student the accolades go to the former. When a foolish man pursues a course to disaster, how much more pathetic is a man who first resists the same course but belatedly goes down the same path?

The Northern Kingdom of Israel foolishly set itself outside the will of God from the beginning and brought judgment through exile from God. How much more pitiable was the Southern Kingdom of Judah to have some resistance to the ways of the Northern Kingdom only to later go after false gods, live outside the will of God and thus bring on judgment through exile from God.

I leave the final word of this blog to Augustus Toplady: "It is a just remark, which I have somewhere met with, that the best way to be secure from falling into a well is not to venture too near the brink. Swim not with the stream, if the tide roll downward; neither follow a multitude to do evil. He that fears men, and seeks to please men at the expense of gospel truths, is not an honest man, much less a servant of Christ."

Sam Drucker

War on God and the Bible

James Kidwell Popham was born in Lancaster, England in 1847 and died in 1937. He was Editor of the "Gospel Standard" from 1905 till 1935. For some years he was active with the Trinitarian Bible Society. He preached at Galeed Chapel more than 50 years. Speaking of his conversion he said "On a never to be forgotten day as I was walking along a road the word, 'Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God', was borne in upon my heart with an amazing power. The view of divine holiness filled me with alarm. I saw the uncleanness of my heart; then His divine justice flashed into my conscience and I saw my sins."

James Popham is a hero of faith. Like Noah he was a Preacher of Righteousness. Noah experienced a world prior to its destruction, lived through its destruction and experienced a new world which we now inhabit. James Popham lived prior to Darwinism, experienced the intrusion of Darwinism into Science and later infiltration of Darwinism into Christianity. Darwinism is destructive to Christian faith.

Late in his ministry, James Popham was horrified to hear the Bishop of Birmingham preach to a young audience in Westminister Abbey (the burial place of Charles Darwin) a sermon which was the fruit of receiving Darwinism into Christianity. James Popham made certain the young audience would not be left without correction. He preached a sermon on John 8:24 and gave it the title "War on God and the Bible." It was a lengthy sermon and space prevents me repeating it all here. An extract is provided and I just make comment that James Popham was in no doubt that diminution of the integrity of Genesis has its consequence for knowledge and trust in Jesus Christ. I hand over now to James Popham:

"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24).

How the world came into existence, whether by the immediate creating word of God, "Let there be", or by what is called evolution — with this we are brought face to face. How man came to exist, whether according to Genesis, And God said, "Let Us make man"; or whether there has been a development, a growth covering millions of years, so that from a bit of jelly (protoplasm) we have risen and risen and developed and come to be what we are today — is a question that is openly propounded, and I feel it behoves every minister called by grace and sent to preach, to set the trumpet to his mouth and blow an alarm with regard to these things.
"Science, falsely so-called", as the Apostle Paul speaks, is now very loud in its utterances and has become most daring in its opposition to God. It starts of course with cutting away from us the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture. That inspiration is denied, and when a man denies the inspiration of this Book he is at once adrift and where he will go, how he will end, rests with God. The state today of this nation and of the whole world is terrible, and no wonder that the name of God no longer inspires reverence; no wonder that the inspired writers are regarded as ignorant men and as writing accordingly, and that Jesus Himself is accused of being a Jew speaking under the influence of Jewish prejudices. For there being no inspiration there can be no proper regard for the Bible and no belief attaching to the writings. And for you, my dear friends, especially for you young people, I have a strong feeling of sympathy. What God is to do with this nation is not for me to say, but we have this before us:" Shall not My soul be avenged on such a nation as this?" He has given us in this our beloved nation the greatest of blessings — the gift of the Reformation founded on His holy Word. He gave a race of ministers mighty in the Scriptures. But the Reformation is now forgotten or derided, and the Reformers and Puritans, mighty in the Scriptures, have passed away, and we are in an exceedingly low condition.

Now as I see these things, there is a war being made on God and His inspired Word. Men in high places, religious teachers, are not afraid to speak of Him as if He were one of themselves, and of His Word as in parts unhistorical, contrary to fact, and therefore not to be relied on. Against this unbelieving attitude I speak to you, however feebly, and I take up the following positions:

1. First, I start with this, that this Bible is inspired, that it contains what the apostle speaks of to Timothy — "all Scripture", and that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God". What is signified by inspiration is stated thus by Scripture itself: "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. 1:21). That is, the penmen of this Book were so instructed by the Holy Ghost as to express the very words of God; not to write in their own words the thoughts suggested to them, but to write the words given them (2 Sam. 23:2; Acts 1:16). And truly if they were, as the anti-Scripturist says, "ignorant men", how necessary was it that they should have the very words given them to write and not be left to express thoughts in their own language! Who could depend on the Bible if it were but a transcription of thoughts, and the words left to the choice of the writers? Here we stand this morning: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine" — may we never despise doctrine; "for reproof — God grant we may never turn our ears from reproof; "for correction, for instruction in righteousness" — how a man should live and how a sinner should be made righteous; "that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim.
3:16).

2. My second position is, that the infinite God created heaven and earth and all that therein is, and the sea and all that is therein; that He rules in heaven and earth; that there is nothing hid from His gaze, nothing free from His control, nothing moving of itself absolutely; that God is "God only wise", the "I AM THAT I AM".

3. My third position is, that this God did for about thirty-three years walk on the earth in our own nature; that the Man Jesus is this God and that He is now in heaven in that same nature, even our own nature. And this God speaks in our text and says to His enemies : "If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins".

Now we are brought face to face with two facts, namely, God speaks, and there are men who speak against Him and against His Word. You cannot open your newspaper today without seeing that His name, His word, His work, His glory are trampled under foot; and you, with myself, must more or less perceive that there is an imminent danger to us if we are left at all to receive the things which are taught by them of the Scriptures.

Between us, as we hope, believers in the Word and in the Being of God, and the scientist preaching his "science falsely so-called ", there is a great gulf. He cuts this Book away as to its inspiration; we believe it to be inspired. He derides creation work; we believe in it. He says we men have always ascended and are ascending. We say we descended in the Fall terribly; that man was made by the immediate operation of God in the image of God, his body formed out of the dust and his soul breathed into that body; so he be-came an immortal person, "a living soul". Sin has destroyed the life of the soul, but not the immortality of its being; and the life of the body is destroyed but for a time, for the day is coming when God will raise the bodies of both the righteous and the wicked. I say, there is a great gulf between us and those who deny the inspiration of Scripture and its testimony.

Now this Man who walked on the earth a poor Man, a broken-hearted Man, but a Teacher, an anointed Preacher of righteousness (Isa. 61:1), having the law of God in His heart (Psalm. 40:8) which He came to obey and fulfil — this Man is the only begotten Son of God, and He is the Word. You will find the same Person is spoken of as the Creator. In the first chapter of Genesis you read: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". In his Gospel the Apostle John says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." In the Hebrews the apostle says: "God hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed Heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds". And of the same Person it is said: "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth". And again: "No man hath seen God at any time" — that is just what the Lord said to Moses, "No man can see Me and live" — "the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him". His oneness with the Father, and therefore His eternity, are expressed in this Gospel by the Lord Jesus Himself. When answering Philip's request, "Show us the Father", He said: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. We are so one, one in nature, only distinguished in Person; so one that you cannot see Me without seeing the Father." The question of apprehending and seeing them both is another question which belongs to experience, but the fact, the truth, is that you cannot see Jesus Christ without seeing His eternal Father. And the Spirit is in them both and proceeds from them both.

James Popham proceeded to propound the saving work of Jesus Christ and the blessing of the Trinity being present in all who receive Him. These things are not yet jettisoned by Evangelicals so, for the sake of space and that they are not disputed, I have excluded them from this blog. Popham moves to the end of his sermon:

"If ye believe not that I am He" in these particulars, "ye shall die in your sins." Then this follows — that when a man, when a sinner does believe that Jesus is the I AM, that He is what the Scriptures declare Him to be, that He did what the Scriptures say He did, that He is where the Scriptures say He is, and is doing what the Scriptures say He is doing, he shall be saved, he shall not die in his sins. The sinner that by precious faith — faith which stands in the power of God, fixes here, stands here. casts himself down here before the God-Man Jesus Christ, he shall be saved, he shall not die in his sins.

So far I have set before you, as God I hope has helped me, fundamentals gathered up into one fundamental. We are face to face today with the most appalling infidelity, but let all the many that stand on the side of that terrible word uttered by a bishop in Westminster Abbey, "If there be a God" — let them approve of evolution and the destruction of theology, we have this BOOK, and we believe some have the Holy Ghost who spoke by holy men of old. We have His word for our teacher and our guide. Stand here, dear friends. Young people, you have much to meet with, much to contend against, if you fear God; but Stand fast by this, and remember one thing if you can—that when the Lord Jesus was tempted of the devil He said, "It is written, it is written". Say that also if and when you are tempted. If a subtle argument is brought to you, reply "It is written". This Book is written, these instructions are written. This Jesus is given, God sent Him. He freely came, He lovingly came. He freely, lovingly died; He rose again. He is in heaven. "It is written." That, if you are enabled to hold it, will keep you. The word of Jesus' patience will keep you, and you will keep it; and in the end this will be your blessed happy lot: "Come ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world".

Now I have delivered what was in my mind. Last Monday morning when I saw the terrible thing that the Bishop of Birmingham said to boys in Westminster Abbey, 0 how I felt for those boys! I felt such indignation and sorrow in my soul that made me cry to God to arise and vindicate His name and honour. And my mind has been with you young people more or less all the week. I have felt for you, and I feel for you. It may be that as I am an old man, God may remove me before the terrible day that is coming; but depend on this — you will meet with much "opposition of science falsely so-called", and if you have faith you will need it. Christ said to His disciples, having taught them many things: "Let these sayings sink down into your ears, for the Son of Man shall be delivered into the hands of men". As if He should say: "When I am weak, when I am crucified, when I seem to have no power, then remember I have taught" you these things". God help us to believe and to remember. Amen

I can hear the Theistic Evolutionists of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney saying "Amen, we are not on display here." Wrong! You are included and exposed in your nakedness. Satan does not always come with a "club" as he did with Job. As with our Lord Jesus Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane he may come with a kiss. You may say that you hold to the inspiration of Scripture but what you ignore is that you have been seduced to embrace the world. In your inflamed ardour, an ardour excited by having a love additional to your stated love of the Word you engage in deceit and secrecy. With subtlety you twist the the intent of the Word so that you can accomodate your adulterous relation with the world. This is sin. This is unfaithfulness.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 31 verse 3 Light

3. And God said: Let there be light! and there was light.

Nothing could be more uncalled for and unnatural than to try to make this verse a part of a complicated sentence structure. The simple statement wayyo'mer, "and He said," is apt to be estimated too lightly in this connection. It shows the manner in which God worked--by His Word. Heb. 11:3 gives the clearest expression of this fact. That in reality this creation was in and through the Son .of God, who is also called the Word, appears from (Col 1:16; Joh 1:3; 1Co 8:6); so that the second Person of the Holy Trinity is seen to be involved in the work of creation. True, this is but obscurely taught at this point, but it becomes a matter that is clearly confirmed by the New Testament. In the light of these later passages we must admit that the truth itself is provided for by the nature of the statements found in this basic record. All this serves to explain and to confirm more fully what we said above on v. 1 as conveying a reference to the Holy Trinity.

But besides it is here very clearly taught in what manner the creative work proceeded. It was all wrought by God's omnipotent word, not by mysterious emanations from the divine being, not by natural processes, not by self-causation, but in a manner worthy of God and revealing the character of God. He is at once discerned to be divinely powerful, intelligent, and far above the level of His poor creatures: "He speaks and it is done; He commands and it stands fast" (Ps 33:9). Nothing is altered in reference to this fact if it be pointed out that as we now read the record the primal substance, "heaven and earth," was not said (v. 1) to have been made by a divine word. To argue that it was not is to use the poor argument from silence. We do not know how this was made. But that for all the works that follow God is said to have spoken simply aims to bring that mode of the process more strongly to our attention.

After the primary substance on the first day the most ethereal of all things is brought into being, "light." It is at the same time the most essential prerequisite for life and existence. Since God proceeds in an orderly fashion, He begins at the natural starting point. We may not be shooting wide of the mark if we infer, that with light that other form of energy, heat, must have sprung into being. How inextricably both are interwoven in the sun we all clearly see.

The Hebrew is really more expressive than the English for the word spoken by God which we render: "Let there be light." It is a vigorous imperative of the verb hayah, "to become": "Become light" and "became light." The German comes closer to the original: Es werde Licht und es ward Licht. He who notices at once that there, was no sun to serve as a vehicle for the light observes the truth. But it ill behooves man to speak an apodictic word at this point and to claim that light apart from the sun is unthinkable. Why should it be? If scientists now often regard light as merely enveloping the sun but not as an intrinsic part of it, why could it not have existed by itself without being localized in any heavenly body? If, then, another hasty deduction is based upon this observation in reference to the length of the first three days, as though they could not have been twenty-four hour days because they were not regulated by the sun, the serious limitations of this argument are palpably apparent. The last three days are clearly controlled by the sun, which is created on the fourth day, and all of them are described in the same terms used for indicating the nature, and the course of the first three--a strong argument that the first six days were alike in length and in nature and normal days of twenty-four hours.

No one need think it strange that an inanimate object is addressed as animate when God speaks to the light. The situation is really even stranger: God speaks to the things that are not that they might be. The nature of creation requires just that. K.C. need hardly list instances where inanimate objects are addressed; they do not constitute real parallels, for in-every case objects already in existence are referred to: (Isa 43:6; Am 9:3; Na 1:4; Hag 1:11).

So of the four deficiencies listed above one has been removed, "darkness."

A certain order prevails in regard to significant terms employed in this account. Delitzsch first drew attention to it. He finds ten creative words introduced by "and He said." Seven times the expression "and there was" is found, chronicling the result. "And He called" is found three times; "And He blessed," three times; "good" is used seven times. Whether these numbers were designed and counted by the author we cannot say. In any case, they tally with reality as it actually appears in the account: just so many times God spoke, blessed, etc. Even as in the world of nature certain things now appear in stated sequence or Uniformity according to regular patterns, so God Himself, being a God of order, operates after a pattern of order in harmony with His own being. For seven is the number of divine works and operations; three, the mark of the divine person; ten, the mark of completeness. In God there is nothing that is accidental. Even the number of steps taken by Him in His work are in fullest harmony with His nature and being.

Sydney Episcopalians Evade Blessing and Honour

"Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. 'Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?' they asked. 'Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?' And they took offence at him. But Jesus said to them, 'Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor.' And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith." Matthew 13:54-58

"Familiarity breeds contempt" or so the saying goes. This is clearly demonstrated some 2,000 years ago when Jesus of Nazareth returned to his hometown and, despite their knowledge of him performing miracles post commencement of his ministry, his former neighbours could not believe he was of God, neither would they listen to his teaching. According to Matthew, their lack of faith prevented them benefiting from miracles of healing at the hand of God.

Apparently, that Jesus came from a family who were all known to them, that they had seen Jesus and his brothers and sisters grow up in the house of the town carpenter and that this family were seen to be "as common as mud" was sufficient barrier to prevent the people of Nazareth experiencing one of the greatest privileges any town, in the history of the world, could enjoy. Here among them was the Son of God - God in the person of the Son but they would not know it. As theologian D.A. Carson put it "Obviously some of the questioners' motivation springs less from a serious desire to know whence Jesus derives his authority than from personal pique that a hometown boy has outstripped them." This is sad story. No doubt there was an expectation of Messiah but Messiah did not come to them in the form they expected so the people of Nazareth missed blessing and honour.

The negating of blessing and honour experienced in Nazareth may well be occurring in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney today. In one sense it may be worse in Sydney. Though the people of Nazareth did not heed what he said at least they allowed Jesus to teach in their synagogue. Were it that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, walked the Diocese of Sydney today it is distinctly possible that few Clergy would let him into their pulpit. Why? Because he hasn't come from the desired sources.

Similarly, few Clergy in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney will allow Biblical Creationists into their pulpit. By my raising it here they will be less likely to do it but that is just their sin having its way. Because I donated a small sum to the ministry of Creation Ministries International, the major Biblical Creationist organization in Australia, I receive their ministry diary. It disappoints me to consistently see so few ministry events appear in Episcopalian Churches in Sydney Diocese. As has been said several times on this blogspot, the Biblical Creationist of today is in agreement with Martin Luther, John Calvin, Puritan writers and Sir Isaac Newton (the greatest scientist in the world according to most scientists) on the doctrine of Creation. Why then is an organization like Creation Ministries International so despised in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney? Because its speakers are not in accord with the doctrine of Creation taught nowadays in Moore Theological College, the Diocesan theological institution.

Biblical Creationists trust the word of God in Genesis chapter 1. Moore Theological College does not. Oh, the latter say they do and they say that all views are presented but the "proof is in the eating." Why is it that most graduates of that institution today advocate a departure from a historical prose reading of Genesis chapter 1? Why do they see devices within the passage which lead them to believe the Holy Spirit is concealing truth in Genesis chapter 1? For the graduate today there is something hidden or mystical because of the structure and content of the passage. Further, why do graduates of Moore Theological College, when in ministry, deny the pulpit to those who, like Luther, Calvin, the Puritans and Jesus Christ (Mark 10:6) regard Genesis chapter 1 as historical?

Sadly, most Clergy in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney commit a similar offence as the people of Nazareth by setting up a barrier to those they scorn as being not of their expectation, not of their class. Their means of discernment is built on shifting sand. They deny those who come in the name of the Lord and they deny the congregation under their pastoral care blessing and honour.

Sam Drucker

Prominent Atheist Has Moment(s) of Goodness Without God

Recently I wrote of criticism directed at Atheists by journalist, Andrew Bolt, following the Atheist Convention in Melbourne, Australia. I noted that the comments made by the Atheists were not in keeping with "Being Good Without God."

I have thought a little more about it and, with particular consideration of Professor Richard Dawkins, I now declare there can be moments of goodness from Atheists. Experience now tells me this.

Since writing my blog I had occasion to read a super book "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Human Genome" written by Dr. J. C. Sanders, Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years.

One section of the book took my thoughts immediately to an interview of Richard Dawkins in a DVD called "From a Frog to a Prince." During the interview Professor Dawkins was asked to give an established example of a mutation actually adding information to an organism. There followed an extended period of silence with the camera showing Professor Dawkins thinking hard for eleven or more seconds without providing an example. I understand the period of silence had to be edited down because it actually went much longer and this did not facilitate good production ends. His eventual answer was no answer at all.

What was Professor Dawkins to do in this situation? He did not have knowledge of a mutation which added information. He was on camera, expected to have an answer and exposed to potential embarrassment. Time was passing at an agonizing rate. To his great credit Professor Dawkins was not prepared to fudge an example. He would not lie his way out of this dilemma. Silence in this situation was commendable and all the more so because you can see from the DVD that he was really trying to think of an example.

I hope readers will agree with my view that the actions of Professor Dawkins in the situation were praiseworthy.

Returning now to the writing of Dr. Sanders I quote an excerpt which underlines the difficulty Professor Dawkins had in producing an example of a mutation adding information to an organism. On pages 26 & 27 of his book Dr. Sanders says the following:

"Bergman (2004)* reviewed the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 "mutation" hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word "beneficial" (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, the presumed beneficial mutations were only beneficial in a very narrow sense and consistently involved loss-of-function (loss of information)changes. He was unable to find a single example of a mutation which unambiguously created new information. While it is almost universally accepted that beneficial, information-creating mutations must occur, this belief seems to be based upon uncritical acceptance of the Primary Axiom [Evolution] rather than upon actual evidence. I do not doubt there are beneficial mutations, but it is clear they are exceedingly rare - much too rare for genome-building.

In conclusion, mutations appear to be overwhelmingly deleterious, and even when one may be classified as beneficial in some specific sense, it is still usually part of an over-all breakdown and erosion of information. As we will soon examine in greater detail, mutations, even when coupled with selection, cannot generally create new information. The types of variation created by mutation are more like the dings and scratches of life, and cannot be seen as life's spare parts (spare parts are designed). Mutations are the basis for the aging of individuals, and right now they are leading to our death, both yours and mine. Unless selection can somehow stop the erosion of information in the human genome, mutations will not only lead to our personal death, they will lead to the death of our species. We will soon see that natural selection must be able to simultaneously select against extremely large numbers of nearly-neutral nucleotide mutations in order to prevent genomic degeneration."

Sanders and Bergman have identified the problem facing those who promote the evolutionary paradigm. The very mechanism required by the paradigm is not observed in science. Mutations which add information are not evident. Little wonder advocates of evolution struggle when asked to give an example of a mutation adding information to the genome.

It is to be hoped that there will be an outbreak of honesty and the public informed of the genetic reality that humanity is not evolving to a higher state. Rather, it is deteriorating to extinction and, as explained by Dr. Sanders in his book, we are unable to prevent this.

Neil

(* Bergman, J. 2004. Research on the deterioration of the genome and Darwinism: why mutations result in degeneration of the genome. Intelligent design Conference, Biola University. April 22-23.)

Episcopalian Error Revealed in the Light of Day

Every now and again you run into an Episcopalian who is troubled by the appearance of the sun on day 4 of creation week and from this presumed difficulty finds it easier in conscience "to run with the world" rather than hold to a straightforward reading of the word of God in Genesis Chapter 1.

Biblical Creationists see no difficulty at all with God using the light created on day 1 of creation week to provide the light component for 24 hour days (as we experience them) during days 1 to 3.

Why God chose to switch from one light source to another during the course of creation week is an interesting question but uncertainty as to reason ought not be a barrier to acceptance of the proposition. It is essential for the Christian to have faith in the word of God. As with reason for Job's suffering, explanation can often come later.

I was interested to read last week of a posting at ICR
which, pardon the pun, sheds a bit of light on subject of light before the sun. For the lazy I will quote part of the posting here:

"The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun." (Psalm 74:16)

One of the traditional "discrepancies" attributed by the skeptics to the Genesis account of creation is the fact that there was "light" (Hebrew ôr) on the "first day of creation week, whereas God did not create the "lights" (Hebrew mā'-ôr) to rule the day and the night until the fourth day.

However, It is interesting that modern evolutionary cosmologists find no problem in having light before the sun. According to their speculative reconstruction of cosmic history, light energy was produced in the imaginary "Big Bang" 15 billion years ago, whereas the sun "evolved" only five billion years ago. Thus, even in their attempts to destroy the divine revelation of Genesis, they inadvertently find it necessary to return to its concepts. Light energy somehow had to be "prepared" before the sun and other stars could ever be set up to serve as future generators of light energy. The fact that light is an entity independent of the sun and other heavenly bodies is one of the remarkable scientific insights of the Bible. As the basic form of energy (even Intrinsic in the very nature of matter, as expressed in the famous Einstein equation), it is significant that the first recorded word spoken by the Creator was: "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3).

This is an interesting observation. Something I had not considered before. Caution needs to be taken in applying a historical application to poetic language but it appears to me the psalmist was firm in mind as to there being two distinct fiats regarding the creation of light and the sun and, consequently, the psalmist had a concept of the one not being dependent upon the existence of the other for it to be a reality.

Most bible translators have accurately translated the Hebrew correctly in their bible versions but, sadly, translators of the New International Version have ducked for cover. They have interpreted this passage with culturally influenced minds. Instead of "light and sun" they introduce "sun and moon" with no warrant.

Translators of the New International Version like many alleged evangelicals of today play "fast and loose" with the word of God just to fit in with the world. The alleged issue of the sun being created on day 4 is no issue at all for understanding the passing of 3 days (as we experience them today) beforehand or for accepting Genesis 1 as historical narrative or prose. Episcopalians - drop it! You are making yourselves look silly.

Sam Drucker

Evolutionary T-shirts

A while ago there was an atheist's convention in Melbourne; couldn't make it myself, but if I had I would have had T-shirts for sale with slogans such as:

Support evolution eat plutonium.


I use Dioxin for my mutations, how about you?


or: Mutate faster, drink Dioxin


or: Evolve faster, drink Dioxin (Dioxin clearly has lots of mileage here)


A mutation a day brings the doctor his pay.


Check the latest mutations, visit a hospice.


Don't ask me, I just evolved that way!


Wrong!? Just wait until some other morals evolve.


Help evolution, move to Bhopal.


Chimp operas: only 2% worse than humans'.


Now, prizes for the best contributions in comments (the prize is I won't trash your comment).

Leupold Genesis part 30 Tiamat??

In fact, whatever efforts are made to throw light upon the matter by drawing upon Babylonian myths, and particularly upon the monstrous deity Tiamat, only confuse the issues. Those who at once identify tehom with Tiamat do so without any warrant. The mere similarity of names does not make the Biblical account a derivative from Babylonian sources. As K. W. rightly remarks: "The spirit of the Old Testament has disavowed the personification of the term as well as its mythological implications." The holy writer was not going afield among the grotesque mythological figures of the Babylonian pantheon. His statement is too sober and the term employed quite uncontaminated by crude heathen notions. If any connection exists between the true; sober `Biblical term tehom and the mythological Tiamat, the latter in the sober light of facts must be a derivation form the former during the process of the degeneration of the original truth possessed by mankind. Tiamat lies so much farther down the scale as to appear as a very manifest corruption. That mere "waters" are meant here by tehom is also apparent from the next clause, where the term "waters" is actually substituted for it.

Note well that we have above carefully avoided that rendering of the last clause of v. 2 which makes the verb involved to mean "brooding." A good example was set by the Septuagint translators who used the term epefereto, "was borne along"; "moved" (A. V.) is less colourful but not wrong. The verb rachaph from which the piel participle is used, mera (ch) chepheth, signifies a vibrant moving, a protective hovering. No single instance of the Biblical usage of the verb would suggest "brooding," a meaning which was foisted upon the word in an attempt to make it bear resemblance to various old myths that speak of the hatching out of the world egg--a meaning specially defended by Gunkel, the strong advocate of mythical interpretation. (De 32:11) surely will not allow for the idea of "brooding." An eagle may brood over eggs but not over "her young."` The fact that the Syriac root does happen to mean "brood" cannot overthrow the Biblical usage, which takes strong precedence over mere similarity of root in kindred languages. Koenig (K. W.) rightly shows how such similarity may mislead. The Syriac and the Aramaic melakh, which is the Hebrew malakh, means in Syriac and Aramaic "to give counsel and incidentally "to rule," but in Hebrew it signifies "to be king." Comparative philology has its limitations. Or the Arabic hsslika, "to perish," appearing as the Hebrew verb halakh signifies "to go."

But what exactly is "the Spirit of God"? Since in this account the noun for God 'elohim is without a doubt definite, the word "spirit" also becomes definite, according to a simple rule of Hebrew syntax. Consequently, the thought must be ruled out that we are dealing with some such concept as "divine Spirit." It must definitely be rendered "the Spirit of God." Nor is there any warrant for rendering ruach as "wind" in this instance. The verb with which it is construed implies too much to let the statement merely mean that a wind fanned the face of the waters. Since, then, it actually is God's Spirit, the question might definitely be formulated thus: "Does ruach `elohim mean God's spirit or God's Spirit? Is it a mere potency in God or is it the Holy Spirit who is involved?, Or does the term refer to a principle or to a person?" We must guard against overstatement of the case, but we maintain very definitely: the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity. For all the attributes ascribed to this divine person in the Old Testament agree fully with what is revealed in the New Testament concerning His person and His work. Absolutely none other than the Holy Spirit is here under consideration. Yet it would be inaccurate and premature to claim that this passage alone conveys this fact clearly to the mind of man. It may have been much later in the course of the fuller unfolding of divine revelation that the truth came home distinctly to the mind of believers that God's spirit was God, a separate person or hypostasis. Yet the harmony of the Word within itself and its inspiration by this same Holy Spirit necessitated that the statements made in earlier stages of revelation, nevertheless, are in accurate and full conformity with the truth. It may require the full light of New Testament revelation to enable us to discern that the Spirit of God here is the same as He who in the New Testament is seen to be the Holy Spirit; but having that light, we need not hesitate to believe that it sheds clear light back on the Old Testament usage of the expression. Davidson and Koenig in their Theology of the Old Testament may deny this. Even Oehler may hesitate to make a clear-cut assertion. This explanation, nevertheless, does better justice to the facts. Does it not seem reasonable that the Spirit of inspiration should have so worded the words that bear upon His activity that, when the full New Testament revelation has come, all statements concerning the Spirit are in perfect harmony with this later revelation?

We could never believe that this hovering of the Spirit over the face of the waters was idle and purposeless. From all other activities that are elsewhere ascribed to the Holy Spirit we conclude that His work in this case must have been anticipatory of the creative work that followed, a kind of impregnation with divine potentialities. The germs of all that is created were placed into dead matter by Him. His was the preparatory work for leading over from the inorganic to the organic. K.C. feels impelled to interpret this "hovering" as "an intensified and vitalized type of vibration." We should not be averse to holding that the foundation -L-or all physical laws operative in the world now was laid by this preparatory activity. Other passages relative to the Spirit as "the formative cause of all life" are to be found: (Job 26:13; 27:3; Ps 33:6; 104:30; 143:10; Isa 34:16; 61:1; 63:11).

From the grammatical point of view it may be remarked that the participle mera (ch) chepheth refers to the past in a context which refers to the past (K. S. 237 a). Besides, as a participle it embodies the thought of continuation as well as the idea of repetition (K. S. 238 a). This "hovering" was not a single and instantaneous act. It rather describes a continued process. Mssyim, "waters," is plural of extent not dual (K. S. 259d). The article before "waters" is the of "relative familiarity."

Connect '09 - Was God Listening?

Faithfulness brings its reward.

Recently, I was blessed to see the Lord our God at work in the lives of believers. But first, understand where I had to come from to experience that blessing.

My mind for a couple of years has been occupied with the buzz of promotional activities rallying the troops of Sydney Anglican Diocese toward Connect 09. The year 2008 saw encouragement after encouragement from organizers of Connect 09 to be praying and preparing for the big event the next year. This was to be the event crucial to getting 10% of the public within the region into bible believing churches by year 2012. That 10% were not to all enter those churches in 2009 but 2009 was the year the big connection was to be made from which would flow exponential growth in church numbers.

While unbelievers were celebrating the introduction of the New Year at 00:01am on January 1 2009 the organization team for Connect '09 were undoubtedly filled with excitement in anticipation of what the year would bring. Here was the largest evangelical Anglican Diocese in the universe about to, well, evangelize. But this was no ad hoc isolated exercise, it was to be a unified campaign where ideas would be shared. The Diocesan Newspaper would be the medium for encouraging parishes to adopt the initiatives of others. That same newspaper would carry constant motivational urgings from the Archbishop.

Well, year 2009 came and went but not without a flurry of activity albeit some parishes more active than others. Contacts were made, this cannot be denied. Some people who were not attending church decided to go to church. The name of the parish church was brought to the attention of many in the community. Added to that was presentation to many of the gospel according to Luke under the banner of "The Essential Jesus." Again, a lot would have read this and some motivated to inquire further. However, if it was not obvious beforehand, it became obvious in the latter part of year 2009 that the scale of response to Connect '09 was underwhelming - far below what was needed to predict achieving the target of 10% of the population in bible believing churches by year 2012. In the latter part of the year there emerged utterances urging continuation of Connect '09 into year 2010 and beyond. Read from that enthusiasm emanating from the success of Connect '09 or a statement that results lack fruit? I read the latter! It would be an error to confuse a flurry of activity with an ongoing connection of large numbers of people with the church.

Don't just take my observations. You can read the report on the effectiveness of Connect '09 in the latest edition of Southern Cross. I urge you to read beyond the soothing words which try to reach equilibrium between positives and negatives. Be in no doubt, there are unstated negatives.

Something presently is dreadfully wrong with the capacity of Sydney Anglican Diocese to impact the community with the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. There was prayer. There was a lot of prayer and it was directed to our Lord and God. Remember our Lord's words? - "I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18) Since the work is the Lord's work the obvious question is - "Was our Lord listening?"

I now want you to contrast that background with my recent experience of blessing.

I just happened to visit a church out of my area during its evening service. It was not Anglican. Upon arrival I noted the church building was small. It was one of those buildings which arose on the landscape of greater Sydney in a time when faith in our Lord was far more widespread in the community and each suburb was well represented by varying denominations. This building had served - how shall I say it? - a minor denomination and the dimensions of the building were sufficient for the cause. But, in year 2010, our Lord's church is, across the board, not as dominant as it was in days past. Many similar church buildings to this one had gone by the wayside, either demolished for development or sold and modified for other use by the new owner. What hope could I have for this little building or, more responsibly, the expected small body of believers who meet within it's walls? I soon found out.

Initial arrivals were elderly, about ten of them and each 60+ years of age and of Anglo-Saxon appearance. Signs were not good. Then a mixture of middle aged Asians along with more Anglo-Saxons of middle age and young Asian adults and young Anglo-Saxon adults. Then, finally, 20 to 30 teen to young adult Asians made their way into the building. Seating was almost fully occupied - I counted 56 late teens/adults in attendance. Despite this number, one elder of the church expressed to me later his disappointment that numbers were down on expectation because many students, who would normally be present, had examinations the next day and were 'cramming' for the exams. Only old hymns were sung and each with gusto - far more than most contemporary songs sung these days in Anglican churches. There was a buzz of life in this place. Why? The story is this:

A few years ago this was a dying church. The ten or so congregational members were elderly and the church was going to die with them. However, they had faith in our Lord and a desire to participate in the Great Commission (Matt. 28). Their meeting place is situated a few kilometres from a major university campus. The university is attended by many Asian students on temporary visas. This church decided to acquire a mini bus, advertise on campus the provision of free English lessons, a free meal and free transport to these benefits. There was a quick uptake to the offer. Students were also offered free transport to the Sunday services and this too was well received.

This was a missionary work because most students would be returning to China after completion of studies. Our Lord was at work here because, in the few years since commencement of the mission, there have been a minimum of 50 adult baptisms into our Lord Jesus Christ from within these citizens of largely atheistic China. I was not in a position to test the validity of conversions but discussions with congregational members during the after service supper convinced me they were able to discern a living faith.

This night of my visit was occasioned by a visiting speaker from Creation Ministries International - you know, those Biblical Creationists who, like Whitefield & Wesley a little more than two centuries ago, are refused entry to most Anglican Churches. Anyway, this little church, I learned later, had engaged Creation Ministries International speakers on previous occasions and had been delighted with the effect of the ministry.

On this night it was a long service, far longer than, in my experience, was acceptable. It went for two hours. The reason, it seems was that the church had requested showing of the film "Darwin - The Voyage That Shook The World" as well as a talk from the speaker and other aspects of a church service. Despite my reservations about the duration of the service the audience sat attentive and actually applauded the speaker at the end.

I felt I had to remain for the supper despite it being conducted in a somewhat awkward, I thought, location in an upstairs room. It was crowded and abuzz with conversation. I engaged a Chinese girl in conversation. She spoke in thoughtful, precise English verbiage. I asked how long she had been attending the church. She replied that it was her first time because tonight was the first time she could fit in the mini bus. Earlier attempts were thwarted by those who, on this occasion, were absent due to exam requirements. I also asked her what she thought about the film and speaker address. She replied "It was very interesting because, you know, we have been taught evolution in China. I have to look and consider this." I later stood by to see her collect some literature from the Creation Ministries International people and obtain from them their website details.

Just before supper was over I got the speaker aside and, in an attempt at encouragement, passed on my account of the conversation with the girl. He responded with an account of a conversation he had with a young man earlier. The young man came up to him and thanked him. He then said words to the effect of: "Tonight has been an eye-opener for me; I have to rethink so many things. This is the first time in my whole life I've heard anyone speak against evolution. Your presentation was excellent. I want to thank you very much for doing that."

I later left that little church elevated in spirit. What was, in effect, a few years ago virtually a "valley of dry bones" is today full of lively flesh filled with Holy Spirit. Who can account for the 50 or more (and counting) largely atheistic Chinese citizens coming to Australia, encountering love and hospitality from a church of senior citizens who "[We] demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and [we] take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Cor. 10:5)

May our Lord continue to bless the faithfulness of this little church of missionaries - not the least, their faithfulness to the Word of God in Genesis through which they introduce our Lord Jesus Christ, Creator, Saviour and King.

I am left to ask, has the same activity of Holy Spirit been present in Connect '09?

Neil

"Hey ... Teacher ... Leave Those Kids Alone!"

"Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.

Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.' When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there."

Matthew 19:13-15

As most Christians know and as Theologian Don Carson agrees, "Jesus does not want the little children prevented from coming to him (v. 14), not because the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, but because the kingdom of heaven belongs to those like them (so also Mark and Luke, stressing childlike faith): Jesus receives them because they are an excellent object lesson in the kind of humility and faith he finds acceptable."

Sadly, certain Sydney Episcopalians fail to demonstrate the humility and faith our Lord finds acceptable because of their treatment of the word of God in Genesis 1. Worse still, they discourage and isolate those who bring humility and childlike faith to understanding Genesis 1. Like the misguided disciples exposed in the incident described by Matthew, Mark and Luke, certain Sydney Episcopalians would sooner put away those who have the humility and faith our Lord finds acceptable.

It's as if they have marched in unison out of their oh so precious Moore Theological College to put obstacles in the way of faith. Instead of reading and understanding Genesis 1 as it reads the children of faith are urged by these men and women to look elsewhere for understanding. The children of faith are urged to seek a hidden message invoked by rhythm, parallelism, repetition, chiasmus, number symbolism. Further, Genesis 1 is to be stood alongside the pagan myth "Enuma Elish" and interpreted in the light of the 'wisdom' emitted by the latter.

Little children don't be deterred by these troublers. Blessing from our Lord awaits. Hold firm in your humility and faith. Our Lord is true. His word endures forever against all assaults of his enemies. Trust his word as it reads in Genesis 1.

Sam Drucker

"Lord Save Me!"

"During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. 'It's a ghost,' they said, and cried out in fear.

But Jesus immediately said to them: 'Take courage! It is I, Don't be afraid.'

'Lord if it's you,' Peter replied, 'tell me to come to you on the water.'

'Come,' he said

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, 'Lord, save me!'

Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. 'You of little faith,' he said, 'why did you doubt?'

And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God.'
Matthew 14:25-33 (NIV)

This is a favourite story for Sunday School children. Nevertheless, it is as much an historical event as the creation of the universe described in Genesis 1 and the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth described later in Matthew's account of activities surrounding the Christ.

Truly, a miracle occurred on this otherwise normal night some 2,000 years ago in the Middle East. Laws of Physics repeatedly observed in our world tell us the event described by Matthew was out of order. The physics are just not right for men to walk on water. The choppy waters only added to the difficulty. Yet there it was, it happened and, in the mind of eye witnesses it was as much an unlikely event as we would expect today.

Laws of Physics were overridden and capacity for this rested in Jesus of Nazareth. For Simon Peter to walk on the water required faith that Jesus of Nazareth had capacity to order him to walk on the water. In declaring this, Simon Peter was declaring that it was not just a carpenter and religious teacher from Nazareth before him but one with capacity to order creation.

Simon Peter acts on his faith and is enabled to walk on the water. It is then that problems arise for him. Simon Peter begins to feel the force of the wind and its effect on the waves. His faith in the word of Jesus is eroded by the seeming strength of the natural world around him. He loses heart and begins to sink into the water. Thankfully, he knew who to call upon for help. He calls to his Lord, Jesus. It interests me that Jesus did not respond with a word of order such as "Come" as he did at the outset but instead extends his hand to pull Simon Peter up from the water. Why?

Simon Peter set out on his walk with his Lord trusting in the the word of his Lord but the influence of the world caused him to falter. His condition became a sorry example of faith to those around him. His example was a discouragement to others who may have wanted to step forward trusting in the word of the Lord. One can only imagine his colleagues becoming stilled in helplessness as they watched their colleague slowly sinking in the water.

As already indicated, Simon Peter had sufficient faith to know who to call to for rescue from drowning. He called to his Lord Jesus. Jesus responded in mercy but not with a word of enablement but a hand of help and a word of chastisement for Simon Peter's now exposed doubt.

I cannot help viewing this incident without seeing comparison with many Episcopalians in Sydney. They set out in their walk with the Lord Jesus Christ with a declared faith in his word but, unknown to them and to others, there exists a certain shallowness in their faith. Buffeting from the world soon exposes their weakness. They falter and prove themselves a poor example for others to trust implicitly in the word of the Lord. Many, I expect, trust sufficiently to call on the Lord to deliver them to the Father's 'safe shore' but what example have they been to others to trust in the word of the Lord? To what extent have they quenched the Spirit of the Lord? To what extent have they been a handicap to the growth of the church?

No clearer example of faltering faith in the word of our Lord is found in their treatment of Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 for understanding Origins. We here seldom agree with Richard Dawkins but he got it right when he recently said words to the effect of "The writing is on the wall for those who try to make the Bible compatible with Evolution." The notion of Evolution is a dead hand for Christians. It is, as Richard Dawkins says, incompatible with the Bible. To embrace it exposes a distrust in the word of God.

The utterances of God in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 are as much unmistakable and authoritive as our Lord Jesus Christ's utterance recorded in Matthew 14:29 wherein he says "Come."

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 29 verse 2

2. And now, as far as the earth was concerned, it was waste and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was hovering upon the face of the waters.

Of the two parts of the universe mentioned the author abandons the first, "the heavens," as lying outside of the sphere of the present investigation, for of its creation we need not know or perhaps could not understand its details. Moses definitely limits himself to the second of the two parts by emphatically setting "the earth" first in the sentence. This yields a shade of thought which our translation above tries to reproduce by saying: "And now, as far as the earth was concerned." Or one might render: "Now this earth," etc. As has been remarked, from this point onward the point of approach may be said to be geocentric.

By an outstanding double expression (cf. for similar combinations 18:27 and 21:23) an almost onomatopoeic effect is secured to describe the utmost of an unformed and unshapen mass: "waste and void" --tohu wavohu. Tohu is really a noun used as an emphatic adjective (K. S. 306 r), as is also, of course, bohu. The verb "it was," hayethah, cannot bear the emphasis in a sentence where two such significant predicates follow (K. S. 326 b). It must merely serve as a copula (K. S. 338 q). Consequently, all attempts to put into this verb some thought like: the earth then was there, or lay thus for quite a time, are grammatically quite inadmissible. Now tohu as such means originally unformedness (K. W.) and so can come to mean a "waste" only in the sense of being not yet put into shape, not in the sense of having been laid waste by some catastrophe, as all those would postulate who try at every point to make room for geologic periods of development. All later usage of the word points in the same direction. It occurs once again with bohu, (Jer 4:23). In (De 32:10) the parallel thought is "wilderness." Isaiah uses it to describe the unreality of idols. In (Isa 41:29), where it is rendered "confusion," its parallel is "wind," and similar terms are "vanity" and "nought." Similarly, (Isa 40:17) offers as parallels: "nothing" and "less than nothing." Cf. also (Isa 40:23; 49:4; 1Sa 12:21). The passage (Je 4:23) is not at variance with these claims, for though it pictures a state of desolation by the quotation of the whole phrase tohu wavohu, it evidently means that the land is again to be reduced to a state like unto the primeval chaos. (Isa 24:10) is analogous. Bohu is derived from a root "to be empty," therefore "emptiness." It is applicable to a region without inhabitants of any kind. Its thought is clearly distinct from tohu. Both terms together then indicate two directions in regard to which the newly created world will undergo further changes: first, it must be shaped and formed into definite molds; secondly, it must be peopled with all kinds of inhabitants or beings.

The next sentence, "and darkness was upon the face of the deep," indicates the last two deficiencies or incompletenesses characteristic of this newly formed earth--"deficiencies" being here taken not in the sense of a positive defect but negatively as mere want of those things which in the purpose of God were consecutively to be supplied. The verb "was" carries over from the preceding clause and need not be repeated here. All of what had thus far come into being was wrapped in complete and absolute darkness. This is the first deficiency. The second touched upon in this sentence is that which lay under the darkness was "the deep." Yet even here the expression used is not merely "upon the deep" but "upon the faces of the deep." This "deep" had a variety of aspects, "faces." In fact, since "deep," tehom, from the root hum, "to resound," signifies the surging, raging primeval waters, the term implies anything but a monotonous peace and uniformity. Besides, the absence of the article stamps the word as a kind of proper noun, viz. that one and only primeval deep. Whether now this original form is characteristic cf the whole earth or merely of its surface; whether it involved an earth that had, as it were, a solid kernel but merely a disturbed surface; or whether solid matter and water were originally churned up into one vast conglomerate neither solid nor liquid, no investigation on our part will ever determine.

Sydney Atheists Take Nose-Dive - New Poll Suggests

What a foul blow was struck to the Sydney Atheist group at the Global Atheists Convention in Melbourne last week.

A couple of years ago, Sydney Atheists, mustering all the ingenuity they could call upon, came up with the catchphrase "Good Without God" to promote themselves to the public. They have since emblazoned their promotional material with that refrain.

However, it must have been galling for them to see how some of their Atheist heroes such as Richard Dawkins, Robyn Williams, Ian Robinson and Catherine Deveny have been perceived by at least one journalist.

Andrew Bolt, journalist with the Melbourne Herald Sun, Sydney Daily Telegraph and Adelaide Advertiser is Agnostic yet he was taken aback by the venom delivered up at the Convention by the aforesaid 'heroes of Atheism'. Bolt commented, in the Sydney Daily Telegraph at least, "The Global Atheists Convention last weekend worked a miracle on me. After three days of its venom, I've never felt more like believing in God. Especially the Christian one."

Bolt went on "My near-conversion occurred because three of the convention's speakers managed to confirm my worst fear. No, my fear is not that God may actually exist, after all, and be very cross that I doubt his Almightiness. It's that if the Christian God really is dead, then there's not much to stop people in our society from behaving like barbarians."

Oh Dear! All that money spent by Sydney Atheists in literature and trinkets embossed with their new catchphrase has been urinated (could have used another word but, you know, I'm Christian) up against the wall in one disastrous weekend. In Melbourne, the Atheists exposed - full frontal - what they will deliver to the world if allowed the world stage. Andrew Bolt now realises this and has commented eloquently on it after learning what keynote Atheist speakers had to say.

Hoping for light but being delivered darkness Bolt commented "I'd have hoped that the Atheists Convention's headline speakers would have reassured me, not just in fine words but by finer example, that a godless society will nevertheless be a good one." He then went on to cite comments of keynotes speakers which brought him to his present conclusion. I won't repeat them here.

Andrew Bolt ended his article with "So why do leading atheists, so sure of their superior morality, feel licensed to be meaner than leading Christians? Is this what morally superior people inevitably revert to when they're sure God has gone? Bring God back, in that case. I just don't feel so safe any more without him."

My hearty congratulations to Richard Dawkins, you have worked a miracle in Andrew Bolt. Commiserations to Sydney Atheists, you'll have to hit student's union funds again for new promotional material.

Neil

The Descent of Evolution

A helpful survey of the state of the evolutionary/long age Primary Axiom can be found at
creation

Worthwhile for Theistic Evolutionists to take a look at what they are putting their faith in.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 28 verses 1-2 together

Before we examine v. 2 by itself it is necessary to see how v. 1-3 stand related to one another. There would be no occasion for giving attention to this matter if the familiar English versions (King James or A. R. V.) and the German are followed, for these very correctly indicate that the sequence of clauses is as natural as it can be. But two translations, diverging from the familiar form, have thrust themselves to the forefront, leaning for support on eminent Hebrew scholars. As representative of the one may count what Meek submits (The Old Testament, An American Translation): "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth being a desolate waste, with darkness covering the abyss and the spirit of God hovering over the waters, then God said: `Let there be light.'" This translation makes v. 2 a parenthesis, or it would practically have it set off by dashes and makes of v. i the protasis and of v. 3 the apodosis. The second makes v. 1 protasis and v. 2 apodosis, thus: "When God created the heavens and the earth, then the earth was, etc. ... and God said, etc." (Raschi et al.). A third might be listed here, although it has been disposed of above. It is that which makes v. 1 the heading and then proceeds with v. 2 and 3 as follows: Now as the earth lay there, a waste and empty mass--and darkness, etc. --then God said, etc., (Procksch). The last mentioned having been refuted, we shall dispose of the details involved in the first two as we examine v. 2 and v. 3 more fully. For a summary refutation let the following points be noted, Grammatically such translations as Meek and Raschi offer are possible but in this case highly improbable. The Hebrew does co-ordinate clauses where we prefer subordination. Longer sentences of involved structure are found also in (Ge 5:1) and (Nu 5:12-15; Jos 3:14-16) and in many other instances. But a chapter marked throughout by very simple sentence structure would never begin with so complicated a structure as any of the ones noted above. Besides, against the first combination it must be noticed that the first word of v. 2 could hardly be ha'arets but would have to be wattehi, in spite of occasional exceptions noted here and there for emphasis' sake. Wellhausen's dictum in regard to this modern translation is worthy of being preserved; he called it a "desperately insipid construction" (verzweifelt geschmacklose Construction).

Seeing Light

News reached me in the past few days of an incident at a church in Sydney last Sunday. There was an old lady who had been attending the church for many years. She has been in declining health and unable to get to church by herself. For the past two years her son has been taking her to church. He is an Atheist and only took his mother out of love. He has been known to say "I don't believe this stuff, I just bring my mother."

Last Sunday was a new experience. The church had asked a Biblical Creationist speaker to speak on the credibility of the creation/fall/redemption message. After the message the Atheist said to an elder of the church, words to the effect of, "As a result that man's message today I am now seriously considering becoming a Christian."

This is not an isolated incident. I have read several testimonies of former Atheists being challenged by the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ presented through a Biblical Creationist presentation and they later became a Christian.

Those within the Sydney Anglican Diocese who dismiss Biblical Creationism as a side issue make a serious error. They exclude a means God chooses to honour for the saving of people to eternal life.

Neil

A Critical Perspective

I, Neil Moore, attended a Christian Meeting last Thursday and a friend shared a message I thought worthy of publication.

Based on an essay by David Coppedge in Crev.info – Feb-06

The religious elite vs persecuted minority: same old story continues
Anyone who has read the Bible from cover to cover has undoubtedly noted a recurring theme: those who fear God and trust His word are often a persecuted minority, even within the sphere of “religious” people.

In the Old Testament, “true Israel” (those committed to God’s word) was a small subset of “political Israel”. In the remarkable chapter 9 of Romans, Paul reminds us: “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel”.

In the New Testament, false teachers and heresies quickly emerged, just as Paul predicted. By the late middle ages, the “church” was burning at the stake saints who wanted to distribute the word of God to the common people.

So the most influencial opponents of God and his will on earth are often not the rabid atheists or pagans: it is the corrupt religious leaders: the progressives who call themselves followers of God but take liberal liberties with God’s word:

* After the Exodus, there were the elders who made a golden calf in the name of Jehovah, trying to show that there was no dichotomy between the Lord and the gods of Egypt.

* There was Jeroboam – the first king of Israel after the split from Judah – guided by apostate priests, setting up two golden calves, spin-doctoring this blatant idolatry as being performed in honor of Jehovah with: “Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt”.

* There were the false prophets who opposed Jeremiah (Jer. 23), to whom God said: “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture…. These lying prophets prophesy the delusions of their own minds… they do not benefit (my) people in the least”.

… And in Ezekiel (Eze. 13), there were the “foolish prophets” who supposedly spoke in the name of the Lord but again spoke out of the imagination of their own hearts and in doing so even fooled themselves – listen to this!: “They say ‘The Lord declares’ when the Lord has not sent them; yet they expect their words to be fulfilled.”

The most telling example of all is how the religious elite treated Jesus Christ himself. Here was the Messiah, the Son of God, the LORD incarnate standing in front of them… and look who stood in His way. Who opposed him and accused him of getting his power from the devil, and ultimately crucified him? The scholars – the learned class, the elitists – the scribes and Pharisees against whom He leveled the most biting accusations: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” (Matt. 23).

What do you think was the root evil corrupting these people? I think it was pride. Rather than humbling themselves before the word of God, they elevated their own reason, tradition or status as more important than understanding and obeying God’s will as expressed in his word. (In the Pharisees’ case, though they almost ‘worshiped’ the Torah, they took liberties with the meaning and added profusely their own rules and traditions with the end result of contradicting the clear meaning of the text. In the Sadducees’ case, their love of power and prestige led them to either ignore the word of God or take a more “progressive” interpretation guaranteed to preserve their status and political power.)

Firstly, these historical lessons remind us that there’s “nothing new under the sun” when it comes to a minority of people being true to the faith while the many others persecute them (it’s a spiritual battle after all!).

Secondly, it reminds us that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”, as Solomon said. I’m sure we all have that fear of the Lord, if not we wouldn’t be here tonight. Let us never fear man and his fashionable idolatries more than we fear God!

By the way, isn’t it encouraging to hear of eminent Christian Bible scholars who are willing to change their minds on the creation issue, and thus risk criticism from men? Del Tackett and R.C.Sproul come to mind as folks willing to change their minds on this issue.

So let’s pray that the Holy Spirit convicts more and more people of the need to submit to God and his word.

I, Neil Moore, wonder what traces of the Pharisaic attitude "though they almost ‘worshiped’ the Torah, they took liberties with the meaning and added profusely their own rules and traditions with the end result of contradicting the clear meaning of the text." have manifestation in the Sydney Anglican Diocese today concerning Genesis 1.

Neil

Leupold Genesis part 27 Elohim

Before dropping this verse we should take issue with the question: "Does the term 'Elohim, being a plural, embody a reference to the Holy Trinity?" Two extremes must be guarded against in submitting an answer. He goes too far who sees in this plural a direct and explicit reference to the Holy Trinity. The plural is a potential plural (K. S. 263 a-c) indicating the wealth of the potentialities of the divine being, chiefly in so far as God by His very nature and being kindles man's deepest reverence. However, what all the wealth of this reverence-inspiring Being is, is not fully revealed in all detail by the Old Testament, least of all in the time of Moses. The term 'Elohim, however, allows for all that which the fuller unfolding of the same old truth brings in the course of the development of God's Kingdom. When, then, ultimately the truth concerning the Trinity has been revealed, the fullest resources of the term 'Elohim have been explored, as far as man needs to know them. Consequently, he who would claim that the term can have no connection with the truth of the Holy Trinity goes too far. Nor dare it be forgotten, as we shall show in connection with v. 2 and 3, that the text itself introduces references to the persons of the Trinity without definitely indicating, of course, that they are distinct persons in the Godhead. In that connection certain New Testament words will be seen to have bearing upon the case. Consequently Luther's statement, made in reference to v. 2, is quite in order when he says: "Consequently the Christian Church on this point displays a strong unity that in this description is to be founds the mystery of the Holy Trinity." Even a second statement of Luther's may be accepted, if it be construed in the sense of the first: "But we have clear testimony that Moses aimed to indicate the Trinity or the three persons in the one divine nature."

A test for orthodoxy?

Occasionally there’s a Jehovah’s Witness outside Central Station spruiking her heterodox, Arian-resurrected theology. As she’s a true believer, I’ve given up talking to this woman but the other day she was there discussing matters with a man that I’d not seen before. I just had to insert myself into the conversation.

Although not a JW, the man was clearly an Arian. I asked him if Jesus was the Creator. He replied that he wasn’t, that the Father, or as they claim, Jehovah God, is the sole creator. I then cited Colossians and John 1 where Paul and John state that through, for and by Christ everything has come into existence. The man then said that Christ was creator by virtue of the Father handing that responsibility to him. I expressed how queer that was, that someone is called a creator, the Father, yet does not create. I argued that it would be like my hiring someone to design a house but calling myself the architect. He tried to extricate himself from this impasse by claiming that no matter who the Father gives it to, he still remains the creator. Of course this is pure evasion and intellectually dishonest to boot.

Thinking about it later I could see similarities with Peter Jensen’s position. Peter, as has long been known, is an evolutionist*. Quite naturally Peter, along with all theistic evolutionists, has to play some irrational semantic games and alter the meaning of words in order to mould Scripture to fit a pagan worldview. Somehow – the details, scientifically or theologically, never exactly laid out – God is able to allow chance to create while never surrendering his office of creator. At this point I tend to think that Peter and the others are trying to turn a circle into a square but still have it called a circle. Beats me!

Anyway, the point I want to make is that Peter’s allegiance to evolution puts him outside of Christian orthodoxy, by a theological mile. If a metaphysical principle is creating the enormous amounts of novel biological information that life requires, then it isn’t our Lord doing it. New biological information is the product of thought, of teleonomic conception, not the randomisation processes being acted upon by natural selection that evolution posits as being its source (This is superbly argued in the triple-PhD Wilder-Smith’s book, God: To be or not to be?). Peter can’t have his square and circle be the one object: Either Christ, acting through will and thought, brings forth biological information, and thus life, or it’s chance randomisation of matter, the metaphysical principle of materialism. The two are incompatible and irreconcilable.

* Lest it be said that we are misrepresenting Peter’s views, the following is a quote from Doctrine 1 while he was principal at Moore College: “There is a division of opinion about how God created the world [Actually, there isn’t, Peter. The difference lies between those that truly believe the Bible is God’s unchanging revelation to mankind and those, like yourself, that believe it can change as science, so-called, “proves” God has less and less to do with. Just ask Jack Spong.]. From the standpoint of these notes the ‘theistic evolution’ account offers the best understanding….By ‘theistic evolution’ we mean that God created the world through the process of evolution [there’s that square-circle again folks!].” Doctrine 1, Unit 7, p. 105.

Chaser chases Peter

I saw an old Chaser (Chaser's war on everything, an ABC TV show) where one of the chasers was doing just that: chasing...Peter Jensen.

The object of the chase was asking Peter to explain his response to Leviticus 20:13.

Peter grinned and walked on.

What a great way (NOT) to deal with an evangelical opportunity on national TV...so is Peter really evangelical...is he ready to represent the faith?

So, what could he have said that would have had evangelical intent.

Here's a thought:

"If you were an ancient Jew, it would be worth talking about that quote, but you're not are you?"

"I'd be more concerned that you find the God who wants to put our selfishness to one side so we can be with him forever in real love, not the hot panting of males missing the point."

In Defence of Natural Theology

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring'." (Acts 17:24-28)

It was Neil Moore who a while back posted a blog linking wisdom with science. That set me thinking and I picked up something while recently reading the gospel according to Matthew. But first I need to set the scene with some comments about Paul in Athens.

Several Christian writers have used Acts 17 to encourage Christians to engage in evangelism. For brevity I have not quoted the entire chapter. I leave it to readers to do that. If they do, and do so without scales on their eyes they will see what Biblical Creationists have seen for some time. There are many people in the world for whom the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is nothing more than babbling. They are not ready to receive the message. Further preparation of the 'soil' is required. The Apostle Paul quickly realised this in Athens and amended his preaching to what is today called Natural Theology and then Paul brought into his conversation the resurrection of Christ. This approach attracted some sneering but others said "We want to hear you again on this subject." (Acts 17:32) - a marked improvement on the prior condition.

Perhaps about a millennium prior to that scene in Athens there was, ruling in Israel, King Solomon who possessed a knowledge of the creation which set him over and above everyone else in the world. News of him spread far and wide. The Queen of Sheba heard the reports and went to Jerusalem to test Solomon with some hard questions. What she heard and saw overwhelmed her. She remarked "Praise be to the LORD your God, who has delighted in you and placed you on the throne of Israel. Because of the LORD's eternal love for Israel, he has made you king, to maintain justice and righteousness." (1 Kings 10:9)

Don't miss the point here! The Queen of Sheba, along with observing how God had blessed Solomon with wealth, found Solomon to have an understanding of what is today called science which was far superior to anything or anyone she had known. She tested it against her own understanding and, we ought expect, in its outworking in the world around her. It proved right and played a major part in her praising God. Here was so-called Natural Theology as an instrument in the salvation of the Queen of Sheba.

Salvation of the Queen of Sheba?

What else can one conclude if our Lord Jesus Christ, when speaking of the wicked and adulterous generation of Pharisees and teachers of the law, says "The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here." (Matthew 12:42) Who else is appointed to judge and condemn the world but Jesus Christ and those who are adopted into Him through repentance and faith. (1Cor. 6:2-3)

Note also the distinction our Lord makes between the people of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom (Matt. 11:21-24) and the men of Ninevah at the time of Jonah's preaching and the Queen of the South. (Matt. 12:41-42) The former group are said to be under judgment (albeit a degree better off than Korazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum) whereas the latter are said to perform a role as judges. At one particular moment the citizens in the capital city of one the cruelest nations on earth (Assyria) were recipients of the mercy of God through the preaching of the word of God and their response of repentance. Also, the Queen of Sheba, outside the covenant of God with Israel, hears reports of the wonders of a man (Solomon) blessed of God and she goes to test the veracity of the reports. R. D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, commenting on the reaction of the Queen of Sheba in being "overwhelmed" after testing Solomon, say "This last is literally 'there was no more spirit left in her,' which indicates extremely strong emotion." It presents to me that this spiritual state of the Queen of Sheba is like that of conversion experience. This view is reinforced by our Lord Jesus' words when, at Matt. 5:3, he says "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Where then does this all lead us?

Clearly, the maligning of Natural Theology within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney is misplaced. There always has been and always will be a place for rightly explaining the Creator God and the order of creation. Obviously we are today under a covenant ushered in by Jesus Christ and being brought into that covenant relationship involves explanation of and reception of the redeeming work of Christ. However, the covenant relationship offered by God today, through Christ Jesus, is not so restricted by explanation as to leave out the creating work of God through Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That the order of creation is lightly regarded in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney is indicative of a workman who has no confidence in certain tools of his trade. Those not understood or less regarded will not be employed. Further, holding to a Theistic Evolution view of the order of creation leaves the advocate with an explanation overloaded with words such as "maybe", "possibly", "mystery" and "uncertain." In such circumstance you would be reluctant to employ it or, as hearer, receive it.

Solomon's understanding of the order of creation was an instrument in the salvation of the "Queen of the South" and the Apostle Paul's successful resort to the order of creation when his message of the resurrection was confused by the Athenians are sufficient cause to reject the unhelpful notions of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney toward Natural Theology.

To rely on Natural Theology (or order of creation) alone today is an incomplete theology just as much as not including it. A caution exists. In employing Natural Theology you are only offering empty rhetoric if what you present is not in accord with the clear word of God.

Sam Drucker

"God is Not Your Dog"

Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, in the Feb 2010 edition of Southern Cross, wrote an article entitled "God is not your Dog."

The thrust of his article was a tendency for people to domesticate God as they would a pet dog.

His motivation for this article seems to have been summer vacation reading, with one author doubting the trustworthiness of the Bible because he, the author, found it difficult to accept that God would direct ancient Israel to destroy the Canaanites. To quote the Archbishop "The God this author believes in could not possibly order the destruction of a civiliation with all its people. Naturally I agree that this is a particularly confronting part of the biblical record."

In dealing with how people wrestle with the charge God gave Israel with respect to the Canaanites, Archbishop Jensen offers some helpful comments. He then writes "What we can say is that God has his own good and righteous reasons for what happens and what he brings to pass. The destruction of the Canaanites is a revelation to us of the reality and awesomeness of the day of judgement which lies before us all. It also throws light on the cross and the suffering the Son of God underwent as he bore the penalty of our sins. When we flinch from the story of the Canaanites and refuse to accept it, we are declaring that God will not judge the world and that there is no hell. We prefer to back our own sentimental notions about God and the world rather than the truth. We domesticate God."

Archbishop Jensen then declares the wonder of God drawing near to sinners through his Son and Spirit and establishing a relationship that we may call him Father. He concludes with, "We will always presume on this as part of our attempt to bring God to heel, unless we listen carefully to all he tells us about himself in the Scriptures. When we realise how great he is and how demanding is his righteousness, we will appreciate his grace and mercy. But the way forward is not to deny Scripture and make it conform to the idolatrous dog/god which we would prefer to construct."

Regular readers of this blogspot will know where I am going to take this. It is only right that I do so.

How can it be that the Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney makes such an astute assessment and criticism of the author of the Archbishop's summer reading on one direct utterance of God i.e. concerning the Canaanites, and yet, when it comes to the direct utterance of God on Creation, the Archbishop commits the very same offence of his targeted author?

It is astounding how hypocritical all this looks and how much ammunition it gives enemies of the Gospel. Archbishop, please, consider what you are saying and what you are doing. There must be consistency.

God is consistent. In Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17, God gives a seamless instruction as to the creation process. In no credible way do these utterances of God allow for the imposition of "Theistic Evolution," "Day Age," Gap Theory" or "Progressive Creation" views of Creation.

Archbishop Jensen believes his author 'friend' domesticates God through sentimental notions about God yet, in holding to a Theistic Evolution view of origins, the Archbishop domesticates God in the same way a suburban resident domesticates the family dog to fit in, to give less offence to community expectations.

Our great, awesome and loving God is not to be reduced to the notions of "this age" concerning the origin of life. Creation was an event God alone instigated and he alone is to be trusted on its particulars.

Archbishop Jensen and others, God is not your dog!

Sam Drucker