Search This Blog

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Always Reforming?

"When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his clothes." (2 Kings 22:11)

King Josiah had made a startling, distressing discovery. Judah had wandered so far from the Lord. The long lost and now found Book of the Law showed quite clearly how far Judah had moved from living the life of faith required as the People of God. What had been intended at the beginning as a pure life of trusting and honouring God had descended into syncretising with the belief systems of the nations around Judah.

The sin was great and the Lord made it clear destruction was coming on Judah. Josiah's distress and repentance was looked upon favourably by the Lord and Josiah was blessed to not see the destruction to come. He quickly instituted reform.

At other times, whether in the Northern Kingdom of Israel or the Southern Kingdom of Judah, periods of syncretism or worse were notable by the Lord raising up kings more righteous than others or sending prophets to call the people back to trusting Him and His Word. There were times of correction under more righteous kings but overall the slide was in one direction. As regarding the prophets, a blessing is not received as a blessing if one is determined to continue in one's ways. For many, the prophets' message was rude and blunt and the life the prophets called the people to was unpalatable compared to the life they were living. Understandably, rejection of the message of the prophets resulted in destruction. The Lord does not withhold justice indefinitely.

The history of the Church established by Jesus Christ is not without similar episodes of 'ebbs and flows'. I turn my attention to one episode which has a clear message for the Church today.

I commend to the reader the late Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones' address entitled "1662-1962 : From Puritanism to Non-conformity" given as the Annual Lecture of the Evangelical Library for 1962. A forty eight page reprinting of the address has been undertaken by the Evangelical Press of Wales in conjunction with the Evangelical Library, London.

Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a great reader and built a solid understanding of developments in the Church from the time of the Reformation up to his own time. In his address at the Annual Lecture of the Evangelical Library for 1962 he goes back to the Reformation to provide a synopsis of one hundred years of activity and individuals leading to the Act of Uniformity in 1662. Dr Lloyd-Jones was drawing from history to caution against the Ecumenical Movement of mid last century.

"1662-1962! There has never been a time, perhaps, since 1662, when conditions, and the whole atmosphere and climate of thought and of opinion, were more inimical to what we are doing to-night than this very period in which we live. We are living in an age which seems to me to be an exact reproduction of what we are told about the children of Israel in Judges 2:10, '....And there arose another generation after them, a generation which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works He had done for Israel.' Now that is a very significant statement. You observe that they not only did not know the Lord, they did not even know their history - they did not really know what the Lord had done for Israel before their time. That is a perfect description of this age. It is an age which does not know the Lord as the fathers knew Him, and the result is that it is not interested in the fathers either; it is not interested in what God has done in past ages and generations. It is an age which is self-centred and very proud of itself, proud of the twentieth century, proud of its knowledge, proud of its learning, and especially proud of its superiority over the preceding age." Dr Lloyd-Jones goes on to apply this scenario to the advocates of "ecumenicity" who, he asserts, pay lip service to the Reformers and Puritans and, of whom, "At the very best they are excused in a patronizing manner. The argument is that we are in such an entirely different position to-day because of our 'advance', and our greatly increased knowledge and understanding as contrasted with the people 300 years ago, that we can no longer possibly hold the views which they held."

"Fast-forwarding to the early part of the twenty-first century, do we not find these words of Dr Lloyd-Jones having resonance with the thinking of today's Church concerning the view and teaching of the Reformers and Puritans on the creation account in Genesis? As if to reinforce the point for today's issue, Dr Lloyd-Jones goes on to cite an advocate of 'ecumenicity', Rev John Huxtable. Note carefully a term used which is applied today to Biblical Creationists.

"Let me give but one illustration of this from a recent address by the present chairman of the Congregational Union of England and Wales. 'Next' he says, 'we must reckon with a different attitude to the Bible. Part of our fathers' security was in the Bible; and here we confront another revolution. They handled the Bible in a way no longer possible. I doubt whether John Calvin was what is now crudely called a Fundamentalist (emphasis mine); but those parts of his writings which have given rise to this modern heresy had great influence over our fathers.' " Dr Lloyd-Jones ponders how advocates of ecumenicity could link the events leading up to and including the Act of Uniformity of 1662 with the ecumenical movement of the twentieth century. He says, "So they find themselves in this curious position of feeling compelled to praise these men, but, at the same time, compelled to indicate quite clearly that their motives and ideas and reasons were altogether wrong, and quite impossible for us with our new and greater understanding of the Scripture."

"The more I read these modern references to 1662 the more I am reminded of what our Lord says in Matthew 23: 29-31 'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.' What is the point of of praising the fathers of 1662 if you say that they were essentially wrong in their teaching and outlook? That is to put yourself into the position of enemies of the men whose glorious memory we are commemorating this evening."

Precisely the same observation can be applied to many in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church when they claim to be 'Reformed' in the tradition of Martin Luther and John Calvin. They praise these men, their colleagues and the Puritans for their doctrine yet they deny the doctrine and teaching of these 'fathers' on the creation account contained in Genesis. The same Sydney Anglicans are witnesses to themselves that they are children of those who were enemies of the Reformers and Puritans.

I might add that I am confident that Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones would share my view here. He had long been opposed to Evolution as a theory on life. He had also been earlier influenced by B. B. Warfield so he quite possibly held to a 'long age' for the earth. However, later in life Dr Lloyd-Jones rejected this view and came to be what is today roughly called a YEC but more appropriately called a Biblical Creationist.

Well, where does this all this lead us? Is there a lesson from the past for the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church? Most certainly! The Ecumenical Movement is not dead but it is probably does not have the momentum today it had fifty years ago.

Yet the issue of what is today defined as Biblical Creationism, the belief of the Reformers and Puritans, is no longer the mainstream teaching of the Church. Instead, a form of syncretism, a merging of the world's view of origins and the Biblical account pervades to the exclusion of pure truth.

How can this now despised teaching of the Reformers and Puritans regain its place in the doctrine of a Church declaring itself to be Reformed?

It will be difficult because the impure abounds with great freedom. It is entrenched! How prophetic was the utterance of Puritan and Martyr, John Hooper, when speaking of the perceived indifference within the Church of England to retaining certain objects of Romanism. He said, "Great shame it is for a noble king, emperor, or magistrate contrary unto God's Word to detain and keep from the devil, or his minister, any of their goods or treasures as candles, vestments, crosses, altars! For if they be kept in the church as things indifferent, at length they will be maintained as things necessary."

In similar vein, propositions such as theistic evolution, gap theory, day age and progressive creation were received into the Church as "just other possibilities" alongside biblical creationism but, as a body of thought opposed to biblical creationism, these intruders are now settled and dictate terms. In the main, to suggest having a biblical creationist speak to a congregation within the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church is to invoke, at the least, avoidance and, at worst, verbal hostility.

How can this sorry situation be redressed.

Well, King Josiah upon recognising how far Judah had departed from the pure Word of God was so grieved as to to rend his clothes and then inquire of the Lord. He later renewed the Covenant with the Lord and then instituted reforms in Judah.

By the inspiration of Holy Spirit, Martin Luther saw how far the Church of Rome had departed from the pure Word of God. By the grace of God he became a key means of reforming the Church.

The Puritans sought to complete the Reformation. Puritanism was defined this way: "It was a purification, an effort, wise or unwise, to rid the Christianity of England from all adhesions foreign to its nature, or obstructive to its power; an endeavour to remove everything in doctrine, discipline, ceremonial, which during the Middle Ages had been added to the Gospel of Christ." Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones adds something to this definition which seems to come through in Puritan writings so I will add it here; "... that Puritanism was not primarily a preference for one form of church government over another; but it was that outlook and teaching which puts its emphasis upon a life of spiritual, personal religion, an intense realization of the presence of God, a devotion of the entire being to Him."

However, the Puritans did not achieve their goal for the Church but their writings were a significant influence others, particularly on later men such as the Wesleys, Whitefield, Rowlands, Edwards and the Erskines who were key figures used of God for the Great Awakening of the eighteenth century. The Great Awakening came at a time (perhaps even to redress) when the Church had absorbed a deistic view of God. Deism arose from a flawed view of the world and its relationship to the Creator.

Several in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church make claim that the church is "always reforming." This couldn't be any further from the truth. In fact, the Sydney Diocese is regressing. Not as fast as the Anglican Church in other parts of Australia or the globe but it is heading in the same undesirable direction due to the diluting of the pure Word of God with the "flesh of man."

What is needed then is a Reformation. This cannot come about by the will of man but by the Will of God. Elements required are an awakening to the parlous state of the Church, an earnest repentance and calling on the Lord God for forgiveness and cleansing. Only then, by the mercy of God, is He likely to act for the revival of His Church. May it be then that all the aforementioned desires of the Puritans are endowed upon the Church.

May it first be that greater numbers in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church see how far the Church has departed from the pure Word of God on origins and the nature of God. In earnest repentance may they call upon the Lord for forgiveness and cleansing and await His most righteous and merciful blessing.

Sam Drucker

23 comments:

neil moore said...

Interesting to note that the early Presbyterian Puritans felt there was something wrong with the the doctrine and practices of the Church of England. They then came out of the Church of England.

In Australia, after the amalgamation to form the Uniting Church in 1977(?) some Prebyterian Churches held out. The Uniting Church went into a continuous slide and so did much of the Prebyterian Church. Some in the more evangelical Presbyterian Church identified with those in the Sydney Anglican Church, even encouraging prospective Pastors to train at Moore College.

The slide was still on, though, until the heresy case in the early 1990's(?) where a signal was sent that change for the better was taking place. Accompanying this new life in the Presbyterian Church has been a tendency not to promote Moore College as much for its prospective Pastors.

Neil

Warwick said...

I still can't follow what it is that the Anglican theistic evolutionists believe.

Has anyone here been able to work out what they do indeed believe & how it is supposed to work?

I would be happy to hear from anyone on this.

If I remember correctly someone said that God set things in motion which continue 'evolving' in line with natural laws. That God then acts supernaturally from time to time to guide these natural processes.

If so where does Adam come in? Is man created in the image of God, from the dust of the earth as Genesis says or is he the 'evolved' product of a blending of natural laws & God's intervention? That is is he the end product of an animal line?

Steve Carlisle said...

So is your issue a theological one? If so, should we be engaged in an honest and frank discussion with the ability to disagree?
Or is it a personal one? Are there personality issues with some Sydney Anglicans people? (I'm not suggesting that some of them may have always dealt fairly or nicely with the writers of this blog, but it goes both ways)
So which is it, theology or personality?
Or has someone been hurt in the past?
Not trying to point fingers, just trying to get the full story...

Warwick said...

Steve I assume your comments are in regard to my theistic-evolution comments.

I don't hurt easily & haven't been hurt by anyone in the Anglican community.

I am aware however by both personal experience & the experience of others, of very improper behaviour including deceit & bullying by leaders in the Anglican community, especially some involved with Moore College. I have given details of this churlish behaviour on this site & don't plan to go over it all again.

I am also aware that well before this site was given birth members of the Anglican community made rude, ridiculing comments about the 'hillbillies & morons, etc' who hold a 6-day creation view.

The attitudes expressed upon this site were a reaction to this bad behaviour & rudeness. So to say it goes both ways is, I believe, to patch over the behaviour which brought this site into existence.

But to the question I posed as to the mechanics of Sydney Anglican brand of theistic evolution you can take it as a straight forward question to which I would appreciate a straight forward answer. I have asked numerous Anglican T/E's to explain what they do believe but have received vague almost metaphysical answers. Maybe you can explain things?

Regards,

Warwick

neil moore said...

Steve, I speak for myself and, I think, for my colleague Sam when I say we have a deep feeling for the life of the Anglican Church (Church of England). We have noted its rich heritage - times of great doctrinal faithfulness to the Lord and His Word balanced by times of dilution of this.

An invitation was extended to us to contribute to this site given the ridicule cast at YECs at the Sydney Anglican forum. I think you are correct to observe the verbal assault going both ways. Frustration at a lack of willingness to address the issue has contributed to this.

For me, it is faith in God in what he has revealed in Word and Person that is the paramount issue to be addressed. I know also from Sam that something likewise is his intent on this site.

We can learn a lot from history. It helps us see subtle shifts in thinking which lead to major departures and harm to the Church. It is like looking from on high at how much of a shift has occurred and where the shift is heading. We see it in the history of Israel in Scripture and the Church since establishment by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes, the issue is theological and will remain theological in spite of the defence of ego which so often arises.

If you would like to engage on the theological issue that would be great. That is my heart's desire.

Neil

sam drucker said...

Sorry Neil, I would go so far as to say that it is the Name of the Lord which must prevail at the expense of everything else.

In that sense, the Anglican Church or any Church can perish if its existence is a slight on the Name of the Lord.

So called Theistic Evolution is a slight on the Lord and those who promote it soil the Name of the Lord.

Sam Drucker

Steve Carlisle said...

Cn you then explain why all the contributors are anonymous? If someone leaves an anonymous note in my letterbox I circular file it. Surely you would like to 'own' your beliefs? Who are you people? I am very open about how I am, and let me tell you, you will not be impressed by my lack of just about everything...:)

What about you people? Who are you, give some context to your arguements. I would love to hear more of your life and experiences to give context to the discussion

Warwick said...

Steve, who is anonymous? I am Warwick Armstrong and have given all my details on this site which allowed an Anglican contributor to send a whinging letter (recently) to my denominations head office & my pastor. No harm done they know me well.

I asked a question about what it exactly is that Sydney Anglican theistic evolutionists believe. Are you prepared to do this for me or not? It seems people either can't clearly explain what they believe or don't want to. I think that is strange.

Regards,

Warwick

ps I blog on other sites under Warwick & no one has ever accused me of being anonymous.

Steve Carlisle said...

Not as obvious as you might think!! Your profile contains no detials at all, there could be hundreds of wawricks out there

neil moore said...

Warwick's nasty experience demonstrates that at least one on the side of the debate will go beyond reasonable limits. There may be more but one is more than enough.

Steve, the context doesn't come down to who you are or "I follow Paul" or "I follow Apollos".

The context of the debate, as far as I am concerned, is always to be the Word of God. Keep it to that and you are less likely to be led astray.

Neil

John said...

Steve,

May I suggest - and I don't think you have done so thus far - read all the postings, for these will give you ample information re our complaint.

But to summarise, it's both theology and the epistemic basis that we have an issue with in the SA Diocese. Our argument is that if a church is teaching something contrary to the Word of God (and evolution and long ages certainly are!) then the Christian and sensible attitude is for that church to begin serious dialogue with the people who are saying something is wrong. After all, no archbishop or church has a monopoly on truth and SA could very well be wrong on this issue.

Warwick said...

Steve, you are entitled to think we should have a profile. I currently blog & have bloged on numerous sites & never had a profile. No one even suggested I need a profile.

On one site I and others endeavour to defend the word of God against liberals, T/E's & cult members. I know them as Jerry, Mike, Steve, Alan & have no desire to know what star sign they are or their favourite music. It seems to me you are exhibiting insecurity. I don't know why.

I simply asked some SA to explain what form of T/E they believe. It doesn't look as though I am going to get an answer. Strange.

Steve Carlisle said...

Why do you assume I hold those views, why cant I hold you views and dislike your methods?

Warwick said...

Firstly Steve your question 'Why do you assume I hold those views' is quite bizarre. I posed the question to the ether, before you bobbed up, not knowing you,never having heard of you therefore not able to assume anything at all about you. Nothing at all.

And therefore could not & did not pose my question to you. Surely that is clear.

I have said quite a few times- I just want a Sydney Anglican Theistic evolutionist to explain exactly what it is they believe.

Frevins sake is that too difficult to understand?

Regards,

Warwick




This was not directed at you or anyone in particular. I had never heard of you when I posed my question. I would just like an answer!

Secondly what do you mean 'dislike your methods"? What personal methods of mine do you dislike?

Warwick said...

Isn't it strange how the SA T/E's so vocal & rude in their attack & ridicule of 'mindless moron's' who take the straight-forward meaning of Sripture(relatively recent 6-day creation)are not keen to explain exactly what they do believe.

Methinks why? Are they somehow afraid of airing a non-Biblical view in 'public'? Are they concerned that some may expose the error in their views? Curious.

No Steve this isn't aimed at you.

neil moore said...

Steve, it would help, at this point, to learn of what your belief is on the Creation/Evolution/Long/Short Age issue.

It is obvious you haven't appreciated the existence and approach of a blogspot which appears to bring into question the 'good' name of the Diocese of Sydney and its teaching Institution - Moore College. Others haven't either, so they have resorted to nothing more than a sniping attitude without engaging the validity of the theological argument we present.

It appears to me that we are seen to be soiled and not worth engaging. Is there a screening process within the Diocese to discern who is worth engaging with? Are only those who come with a kiss to be received and engaged with in the Sydney Diocese?

Neil

Craig Schwarze said...

Is there a screening process within the Diocese to discern who is worth engaging with?

Once it was ascertained who was behind this thing, I think most people lost interest. He has quite a reputation.

Steve, if you want to know the background, email me sometime.

Warwick said...

Some SA'a appear a funny lot. On the AngloForum they are very confident, sometimes rudely dismissing anyone who disagrees with their un-Biblical T/E view.

We are an unsavoury lot apparently, quite deserving of abuse & ridicule but not worth engaging in honest dialogue.

Confident on the AngloForum but here they won't even explain the details of their T/E view. Curious?

I also noted the smug dismissive attitude some on the AngloSite had towards Answers in Genesis. All the while clearly showing they had precious little knowledge of the organization or its beliefs. They didn't even know AiG had changed its name to Creation Ministries International a year before! But hey don't let ignorance of the facts get in the way of a good ridicule.

A few said that AiG wouldn't even answer their questions so Andrew Lamb from CMI bloged on the AngloSite inviting their questions. Has Andrew been swamped with their questions? As far as I know he hasn't received one.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story perhaps. Actually that's deceit pure & simple.

When I have made such statements before certain folk have suggested I was anti-Anglican,attacking every Anglican in Australia. Actually I created the term AngloNasties to refer ONLY to those AngloBlogers who I considered to be nasty. Apparently this was confusing to some.

Let me make it clear I am strongly opposed to the promotion of the anti-Biblical theistic evolution view. I respect people as people & respect their right to hold whatever view. However balancing that respect is my right to expose the T/E view as a compromise, as contrary to Scripture, being in fact is a worldly view imposed upon Scripture, distorting its plain meaning.

Then there are the deceived those who attend institutions & churches where T/E is the prevailing view. Institutions & churches where the traditional 6-day view is rejected & ridculed.

I am pleased that I have been able to show many the folly of the T/E position & hope to see many more released from this errant darkness.

But I am still awaiting some brave SA T/E soul who would spell out what they do believe about creation. The nuts & bolts! From reading between the lines it isn't what others take T/E to mean. Here I sit waiting patiently.

Warwick said...

I have waited patiently but apparently no one is prepared to explain the ins & outs of the SA T/E view.

That's a pity as I would like to know what they do believe.

Craig Schwarze said...

That's a pity as I would like to know what they do believe.

I don't believe you. I think you just want to argue.

Anyway, I have spoken at great lengths about what theistic evolutionists believe on this blog, on the Sydney Anglican forums and also on Michelles blog. I'm not going to repeat myself, so if you can't figure it out from that, there is nothing more to be done.

Warwick said...

Suit yourself Craig if you don't want to explain what you believe I won't lose any sleep over it. It isn't of earth-shattering interest to me. I just think it curious that none have been prepared to do so.

As you say I should be able to figure it out however you haven't supplied enough information for me to do so.

My interest is in defending the truth of Gods' Word against any dangerous un-Biblical compromise. If that's arguing to you then so be it. I am far from ashamed about my behaviour.

Warwick said...

Steve I just read Craigs little dummy spit & it reminded me you had said: 'why cant I hold you views and dislike your methods?'

You never did grace me with an explanation of which of my methods you may dislike?

Isn't this called the cheap parting shot?

Craig Schwarze said...

In all frankness, I'm pleased that you guys have managed to scare off genuine enquirers like Steve and Michelle. You've gone a long way toward convincing them that your style of YECS is something they should have nothing to do with.