In recent weeks, there have been a number of posts about origins (creation and evolution) on the Southern Cross (Anglican) forum. The prevailing view seems to be that the Bible's early chapters must be read in the light of the 'conclusions of modern science'.
This view, espoused by the reigning cohort on the forum, is typical in anglican circles. The reluctance to acknowledge that people other than anglican priests have philiosophical, religous or 'world view' opinions is part of the acquiescence to modern naturalism, I think.
It is an intellectual and spiritual failing to not see that 'scientific' dogma, when it relates to the untestable past, is largely constrained by majority philosophical axioms. These rest today on the foundation of 'naturalism' which starts with the belief that there is no God, and if there is, he is a 'god of the philosophers' who doesn't get involved with the real world. More like the Gnostic view of God than the Christian.
Thus, our priestly friends fail to be able to mount any sort of criticism of naturalism's views of the world's past and so seal off people from the God who created: his being creator being set down in the Bible as Gods most significant credential for our worship of him. This is not a small point, not a quibble about ancient texts, not an obscurantists retreat into an uncritical past, but a pivotal factor in the theological infrastructure underpinning the doctrine of God, the doctrine of Christ and soteriology. Paul the apostle rests much of his theology on the early chapters of Genesis, so it seems obdurate on the part of our priest friends to refuse to follow his lead.
This all comes about I think, because Anglicanism is socialised into establishment thought by its political origins. It is used to being in power and in keeping bedfellows of the establishment. Rather than disturb these deeply held alliegances with prophetic articulation, they subdue the word of God to maintain the countervailing words of men.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Craig that's how the Syd. Anglo forum reads. Man is the authority because they have already decided (because man says so) that evolution/millions of years is a fact. Therefore Genesis has to be reinterpreted through this faulty filter. Also the attitude towards the dredded YEC's is not Christlike but mocking and ridiculing.
Michael you are saying that Jesus mocked and ridiculed those who believed in Him? That what occurs on the Anglospeak forum. Is this Christlike Michael?
Craig some seek truth and others like you (I believe)simply seek debate. A casual read of the Anglospeak forum demonstrates the prevailing man centered nature of the forum. Christian brothers who hold a more Biblical view are mocked and ridiculed. Is this Christlike Craig?
More Biblical Michael? Indeed
As the eternal gospel(Rev.14:7) is to worship the creator it follows that the believer should happily accept that the only foundation of the Gospel of salvation lies inextricably bound in the historical reality of Genesis. Anyone who preaches a gospel removed from its historical roots preaches no real Gospel at all.
Therefore Michael your straw-man point regarding an addition to the Gospel is as mute as a mung bean.
As you admit Michael you feel free to ridicule Christian brothers even sinking to straw-man arguments for justification.
Michael you come across as a rather smug individual.
Do you imagine your above comment somehow addresses what i wrote to you?
Michael I think a drop in altitude to where you can breathe more easily would help. So would a different photo I agree. In fact in my child-like innocence I don't see the point of a photo at all. Silly me.
The point was that the referred to Anglospeak(R)ridicule is aimed innexpertly and unfairly at those foolish souls who believe like Jesus that the earth is young. You seem to be saying that this belief is an addition to the Gospel whereas the historical truth of Genesis is the only basis for the need of the coming, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus. By whom we are saved only by faith, by faith in His finished work. Mute as a mung bean Michael.
As I see it a little friendly teasing is a sign of a friendly and healthy relationship. However what I read upon the Anglospeak forum is ridicule born of embarrassment, embarrassment of those photographed in mid compromise.
By the way my ridicule comments directed to you were bouncing off your statement that you see those who in your view add to the gospel as being worthy of ridicule. How arrogant of you Michael. Surely brotherly correction is the better, that which am endeavouring to achieve with you. I am convinced that Moore College theology is wrong leading people off on the same path the Scriptural liberals set off upon decades ago. Where are they now Michael, surely in the wasteland. I am convinced that the theology espoused at Moore and the Anglospeak forum is leading in the same direction, sadly.
Michael, having discussed what is taught at Moore with the ex-head, lecturers, students and Anglican ministers, I think it deceitful of you to say that Moore upholds the historical truth of Genesis. Deceitful Michael? Definitely so. I remember quizzing a Moore trained minister about his beliefs-one of many. He declared confidently that he believed in 6 day creation. I simply asked- and how long are these days? His confident demeanour changed and the Angloshuffle set in- well they could be days, or years, or millions of years or......said he. I nick-named it the Angloshuffle because it is common amongst some Anglican ministers (and others who also say one thing while meaning quite another)when they are confronted with this deceit or evasiveness they shuffle because they feel put on the spot as their attempt deceit is paraded for all to see.)
I was there when Perry Wiles was asked what view Moore taught of Genesis- he replied we cover all views without recommending any. He was then asked- do you teach six 24 hour creation days along with all the views?. No he replied in front of witnesses. This is deceit, we say we teach all views but don't and I and others were witnesses to it.
So Michael my non-brother(your words) you clearly state you believe in the historical truth of Genesis so do you believe in six-day creation? Now because you is you I define days in this context as that of approximately 24 hours duration- that is the dark bit followed by the light bit, as per Genesis 1.
By the way Michael to me you are still a brother if wayward.
Michael,
Historical truth of Genesis at Moore! Yeh, right! How can you say that when your father, the Lord Archbishop, wrote in Doctrines 1 that evolution is the best understanding of Genesis 1? How can you say that when Perry Wiles wrote in SALT that to take the days as real 24 hour days was akin to intellectually blowing out your brains?
Please, please, Michael, don't insult our collective intelligence and try to think we'll believe such rot!
John
Michael,
I can promise you we never delete anything anyone says. I had a few problems myself posting things - they never appeared. It was google, not us. It was something we agreed upon: no moderators and no editing. The reason? To make us the exact opposite of the Anglican Forum.
BTW, your QLD stuff just shows up the vacuity of your apologetic. (In any case, I was born in Kings Cross and live in Sydney!) You've never once engaged with our biblical argument. Like father, like son!
As one very well-known Sydney Anglican minister said to me about debate, "You creationists would cream my tribe!"
John
Post a Comment