To bring people up to speed.
I enquired in another section of this blog: "Why has your father, Peter Jensen, stated or supported the position in Doctrine 1 that from Moore College's perspective the evolutionary view is the correct view?"
In reply Michael Jensen said, "In Doctrine 1 he said it was 'a' position, not 'the Moore College' one."
My response to this is to quote from Doctrine 1, Moore Theological College Correspondence Course, Unit 7, p. 105...[Are you listening old chap?]
"There is a division of opinion about how God created the world. 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”.
Please note, Michael, the use of the definite article instead of, as you suggested, the indefinite article. There is a world of difference between the two. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I charge $75/hour for grammar lessons, so if you require instruction as to the difference between the two I am for hire.
I enquired in another section of this blog: "Why has your father, Peter Jensen, stated or supported the position in Doctrine 1 that from Moore College's perspective the evolutionary view is the correct view?"
In reply Michael Jensen said, "In Doctrine 1 he said it was 'a' position, not 'the Moore College' one."
My response to this is to quote from Doctrine 1, Moore Theological College Correspondence Course, Unit 7, p. 105...[Are you listening old chap?]
"There is a division of opinion about how God created the world. 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”.
Please note, Michael, the use of the definite article instead of, as you suggested, the indefinite article. There is a world of difference between the two. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I charge $75/hour for grammar lessons, so if you require instruction as to the difference between the two I am for hire.
Posts
50 comments:
Wrong! I was there - it was direct hit, a bullseye.
This blog is such a service to those who disagree with your teaching.
Your message is clear "Disagree with us, and you will be hounded, bullied, libelled, insulted until you submit." People tend to avoid such movements...
John, is there something you are going to add to this title you have posted?
Neil
John, PJ acknowledges there are different opinions on the matter, then states his own view.
I don't understand why you find that objectionable.
Craig I don't understand why you would not find such a non-Biblical opinion expressed by a 'leader' of the Sydney Anglican church to be objectionable. I find it sad that a once Bible based denomination would include such a statement in Doctrine 1, which one would reasonably expect to be the first chapter of a document aimed at building a foundation of faith.
In direct opposition to this most reasonable expectation is a Judas statement,a denial of the plain meaning of God's Word. For thirty silver pieces of worldly approval perhaps? And this from a denomination which prides itself on its evangelical stand. And further makes public statements defending the truth of Scripture while perverting the foundational book.
A number of you who have appeared on these august pages have claimed you are forced into the theistic evolution/long ages view by the overwhelming evidence for this.
In this context I consider this quote from atheist Richard Lewontin to be most revealing:
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated."
Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’,
The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p.31.
Why is the atheist forced to accept material, non-supernatural explanations? Simply because they start with the assumption that there is no God. What is your excuse Craig?
Craig I don't understand why you would not find such a non-Biblical opinion expressed by a 'leader' of the Sydney Anglican church to be objectionable.
Because I disagree with you that his opinion is unbiblical. You believe one thing on this matter, I believe another. It happens.
Why is the atheist forced to accept material, non-supernatural explanations? Simply because they start with the assumption that there is no God. What is your excuse Craig?
I'm not sure exactly what your question. Part of the problem may be that we have much more significant theological differences than the interpretation of Genesis 1.
That's why it's helpful to know what everyone's theological position is.
Warwick, what's your view of God's sovereignty? Is God in total control over every part of the world, including all natural processes? Or do you believe that nature has a degree of autonomy?
Craig the atheist is forced by his starting assumptions to reject Biblical creation.
You don't take Genesis at face value, interpreting in evolution/long ages. As your starting assumption surely is that God is creator what is your excuse for not taking Him at His Word? I would have thought this to be the obvious intent of the question!
You are free to believe what you like & I am free to point out that your view is contadicted by Jesus our creator & redeemer. Scripture says that puts you in a perilous position. Jesus says man wes created-not in any way evolved-at'the beginning of creation' not after millions or billions of years of evolution. Jesus said 'I have spoken to you of earthly things and you don't believe: how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?' How indeed Craig?
The question is: it is obvious why the atheist-as quoted-rejects Biblical creation as per Genesis but why do you reject it as written? That's the question!
After a lengthy argument between myself and a member of St Matthias,at Sydney uni., an observer identified himself as an atheist and said-you theistic evolutionists are full of s**t, you don't know what you believe. You pick & choose what you believe. He turned to me and said -I don't believe in Biblical creation but at least you are consistent.
Craig who would you imagine could have a hope of reaching this man for Christ, the T/E full of s**t, or me who he saw as consistent?
It is my contention that Genesis needs no interpretation(by Oxford Dictionary definition),no more than 'Give Way' or 'Stop does. Obviously many drivers do interpret such signs but not on linguistic grounds. The Oxford says interpretation is about bringing out the meaning of abstruce(hard to understand) words. Though not everything in the whole of Chapter one is perfectly clear the basics are obvious to a smart 12 year old. For example no one would interpret the first day or six-days as anything other than what it says at face value unless they were coming to the text with an already running bias. 'And there was evening & there was morning,
the first day.' What other time period other that a earth rotation day has evening & morning Craig? But you would insist otherwise. God must be a hopeless writer Craig.
Now to your leading question. God is creator & needed no assistance of time or chance to create His universe. He set His creation in motion creating his creatures to reproduce after their own kind. He designed the 'program' down to the tiniest detail but with inbuilt variability. Hence the wondrous variety of life we see. So His living creation,(within the bounds He set & within the genetic information He provided)can vary but nothing was provided for a reptile to evolve into a bird.
I trust I understood your question.
Gotta go a friend has arrived
Warwick, I'm not entirely sure you did understand my question. I have no idea why you think it was a "leading" question.
Your comment "He set His creation in motion..." suggests you believe in a universe that is autonomous to some extant.
I'll try and word the question more precisely using a concrete example. When the wind blows is it -
a) Due to the will of God
b) Due to natural forces
c) Both
I think that covers all the options - if there is another one, feel free to add it in. If you answer that question, I think it will help me understand where you are coming from.
Craig who would you imagine could have a hope of reaching this man for Christ,
It's hard for me to say without knowing a lot more about you and your theology. But by the way you tell the story, it sounds like neither you nor the theistic evolutionist won the man to Christ.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I charge $75/hour for grammar lessons, so if you require instruction as to the difference between the two I am for hire.
John, I would like to hire you for 1 hour of grammar instruction. Please contact me on craig.schwarze@gmail.com so we can make arrangements.
Yes, as Craig has explained, my point still holds. A diversity of opinion was acknowledged; a preference for one was indicated.
The REAL issue seems to be the status of the belief in YECS or no: I say a diversity of opinion on the matter is acceptable, though I stick to my guns in saying my reading of the text is the better one. You say in fact no such diversity is allowable, or one slides into heresy. On that we differ: and I think that if you don't hold this dispute as a matter of adiaphora, you are at risk adding to the gospel. Sorry, but there it is. No doubt this will call down a hail of abuse on my head, but there you go.
Of course, if Michael Jensen could justify his reading of Genesis from the text, there would be no problem. But Moore College, epitomized by Perry Wiles, doesn't accept what the text says because it contradicts "science", i.e. goo-to-you evolution. Instead, they follow a view totally unknown to Josephus, the Church Fathers and Reformers, and instead invented by the likes of Meredith Kline explicitly to avoid conflict with "science". Face it, your father and Moore deny Sola Scripture.
Craig S, the denier of biblical inerrancy and false accuser of the brethren, manages to miss Warwick's clear point. That is, the Moorites compromise because they crave intellectual respectability from the world, which denies biblical creation.
But Warwick showed that the atheists often have grudging respect for Christians who don't compromise, and utter contempt for those who don't really believe their own book.
What are Moorites going to tell them? When does the Bible start telling the truth?
Kristopholes -
May the Lord bless you and keep you.
May the Lord make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you.
May the Lord turn His face toward you, and grant you peace.
Craig your comments above made my skin crawl. They don't ring true.
Your view of Scripture is at odds with Scriptures clear meaning. It is obviuous that such mistranslations are common to those who seek the approval of worldly academics.
You put it down to having a different view. Tell me are the days of creation earth rotation days or not, and if not why not?
Michael said: "my reading of the text is the better one."
As my Christian brother, Michael, would you mind telling me 2 or 3 textual reasons why the days of Genesis should be taken as something other than 24-hour days?
John
Craigs wrote: "P[eter] J[ensen] acknowledges there are different opinions on the matter, then states his own view.
I don't understand why you find that objectionable."
Now that you have finally admitted that Peter Jensen, the writer of Doctrine 1, the then principal of Moore College, now archbishop of the Sydney Anglican Diocese, confesses that God used evolution to create life, we can address that belief.
Such a belief is not only objectionable but it is clearly blasphemous. Saying God used evolution means that Peter Jensen holds that God put his Wisdom in his pocket and operated by chance, the opposite of using one's intellect. Furthermore, Peter must believe that God's character dictated that life operates according to the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest, the weak dying off for the strong.
So, what we have now, according to Peter Jensen, is just not another Gospel, we have a new religion, one in which God no longer is in relationship with his Son and one where he operates according to the principle of death rather than of love.
And the way that this new Gospel is rationalised? Just say the biblical text no longer means what the Reformers took it to mean, that they were clearly wrong.
What say you Craigs?
Warwick, I pray that out of God's glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.
And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
What say you Craigs?
I don't believe Peter Jensen is a blasphemer. I have heard many of his sermons and I've read his books, and from these I can see that he is motivated by his love and faith in Christ.
Was that your question? I wasn't sure.
Tell me are the days of creation earth rotation days or not, and if not why not?
Warwick, we both know all the arguments on both sides of this issue. There is no point going over them again.
I am praying that God will pour out every blessing into your life, and fill your heart with joy.
Yes Craig I have heard the arguments & frankly the argument which says six-days aren't six-days make no sense at all, neither by the rules of language, nor Scripture.
The argument apparently makes sense to those who don't know what a seven-day week means.
Yes Craig I have heard the arguments & frankly the argument which says six-days aren't six-days make no sense at all, neither by the rules of language, nor Scripture.
We are somewhat equal then. The desire of some young earthers to call old earthers "heretics" and "blasphemers" makes no sense to me.
This morning I came across a link from a guy who believes heliocentricism is an atheist doctrine. There are a small number of Christians who believe in geocentricism based on a literal reading of certain texts in the Bible.
It's interesting to note that there are several different camps even on the "creationist" side of the debate. If I've understood Warwick correctly, he believes denial of a young earth is blasphemy - yet other creationists (even possibly on this blog) are not concerned by an old earth.
In the debate over the relationship of God and the natural sciences, there are at least 4 camps (probably many more) -
1. The earth is old. God created species using evolution.
2. The earth *may* be old. God did not use evolution.
3. The earth *is* young. God did not use evolution.
4. The earth is young. The earth is at the centre of the universe. God did not use evolution.
Each group on the list considers those in the groups above them to be guilty of misreading the Bible, and even of heresy. At the same time, they consider those below them to be excessively literal.
Warwick it seems is in group 3, and is astonished that those in groups 1 and 2 cannot see their error. But he should consider that those in group 4 consider him to be just as much in error, and just as guilty of blasphemy.
Is this issue a legitimate one for Christians to divide over? I don't believe so. And it is certainly not legit for Christians to insult one another over this.
The Sydney Diocese tolerates a diversity of views on this matter. I believe this to be the correct stance.
Some have suggested that Sydney does not tolerate Young Earth Creationists. I can state with confidence that this is untrue. Two of my good friends who are ordained in the diocese are undecided on this issue, but one of them leans towards Young Earth. It has never been an issue for him.
And if you follow the Sydney Anglican forum debates on this, you will know there are at least 2 ordination candidates who don't believe in evolution.
Interestingly, my ordained friends are aware of this site and are deeply angered by it. By calling men they know and respect "heretics" and "blasphemers", you have alienated these men who may otherwise have been open to your views.
If the intention of this website was to promote young earth creationism in the Sydney diocese, it has actually had the opposite effect. You have made those views even more difficult for someone in the diocese to hold. When you say "Sydney Anglicans are heretics" you have insulted all Sydney Anglicans - even those who agree with your views on Creation.
Craig what you write it simply entertainingly ludicrous. You say that by being in group 3 someone can be perceived as being blasphemous? Get a grip lad you are losing the plot!
If I am in group three I can stand before the Lord and say-My God you are indeed Almighty because you created the universe & the earth simply by your spoken word needing neither time nor chance to achieve your desire. And you did it, as stated in the short period of six days.
Anyone who would consider that I have committed any error by praising the truth & power of God is to be pitied.
Michael I am convinced David Hull speaks elequently to this situaton:
“The problem that biological evolution poses for natural theologians is the sort of God that a Darwinian version of evolution implies. ... The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror. ... Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.”
David L. Hull (review of Darwin on Trial), The God of the — Galápagos, Nature 352:486 (8 Aug. 1991).
Craigs,
You state that you have friend(s)who lean toward young earth.
NAME THEM!
Geese and ganders!!
Craigs,
I don't know if you are being consciously evasive (it appears you are!), but you have never addressed our argument. For instance, we have detailed how evolution necessarily means, non-intelligent activity, death and killing off the weak as principles that God used. Your avoidance of the issues and your preferred tactic of defending people who subscribe to evolution prove that you love men more than God.
Craigs, your defending the indefensible, without stating any argument but merely asserting what you already believe, shows that your Christianity faith is empty and is based on an anti-intellectualism.
And please, enough self-righteous quoting of Scripture - it becomes tiring as I personally can't take you seriously because you evade every intellectual engagement by pretending to really care for our souls, when you really don't. If you did, you would engage us as brothers, not as a means to show the world what a pious chap you are.
Craigs wrote that some creationists believe:
"The earth is young. The earth is at the centre of the universe. God did not use evolution...and that they may consider heliocentric believers heretics."
However, Craigs belives this should not be an issue Christians be divided over. His point here is that he is trying to make the issues surrounding Genesis 1 on the same level as helio- and geocentricity.
Craigs, please, stop being wilfully disingenuous and creating straw men. The issue of helio- or geocentricity hardly impacts soteriology, but as we have told you again and again why belief in old age earth and evolution can and does.
Your dishonesty here is unlimited and shows us you are lying to yourself and to us.
The Bible makes no claim to either a sun or earth centred solar system. However, the issue of death before the fall, as forming an integral part of the evolutionary mythology, is connected to the Gospel.
Please stop this rot of puerile miscommunication that you seem so fond of. Don't waste our time on this blog if you want to play these anti-intellectual and dishonest games. We are far too busy to engage you on this level.
BTW, in my first lecture in my first year at uni my lecturer in Science and Tech showed an overhead of a cartoon which had an astronomer looking through his telescope which stretched out to the outer limits of the solar system and looked back at itself. The point was that we really can't look at ourselves so we can't really "prove" either a helio- or geocentric solar system. It is just that the data seem to fit the theory better for a sun centred system than an earth one.
And please, enough self-righteous quoting of Scripture -
John, I am absolutely going to keep quoting Scripture. If you don't like it, you have the option to delete it. Do not bother to argue with me about this.
Christ commanded us to bless those who curse us - this seems to be a good opportunity for me to put this command into practice.
John, Warwick and Sam, I prayed for all of you this morning, that God would abundantly bless you.
John, I pray that you would set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. I pray that you would set your mind on things above, not on earthly things.
Please stop this rot of puerile miscommunication that you seem so fond of.
Please do not tell me how or what to write. I'll continue to write in the same manner as I have above.
It is your blog. If you ask me to stop commenting on it, I will.
Craigs,
Yes, quote scripture when it suits you to appear holier than thou, to make you seem a better person to yourself and others, but you won't listen to Scripture when it's arguing against your theological position. You are a hypocrite, young man and typify the smug attitude that is so much despised by those outside the Church.
And as far as cursing you, don't be so proud and think you're a martyr. We're instructing you and now reprimanding you concerning your stubborn and now self-righteous attitude.
You are making God in your own image when you say he did it by evolution and not listening to what God has told us. That is a sin and comes with that endless self-righteous quoting of scriptures. Oh, come on, "Jesus told bless those who curse you." You say that not in love but for oneupmanship.
Craig, you misquote Scripture. To curse someone is to wish or invoke ill circumstance, even death toward them.
I have not seen anyone here cursing you or anyone else. Please tell me where someone here has cursed anyone.
If you can't then please confess your misquoting of Scripture.
Neil
I have not seen anyone here cursing you or anyone else. Please tell me where someone here has cursed anyone.
The proponents of this site have frequently insulted those who oppose them. Just about every article does so.
Indeed, just above your comment John felt entitled to call me a "hypocrite", "smug", "stubborn" and "self-righteous". He also felt entitled to throw my prayers for him back in my face.
As far as what Jesus commands, here is what he says in Luke 6 -
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you....But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High."
It seems to me that "cursing", "mistreatment" and "hating" are exactly what this site has offered to Sydney Anglicans and it's leadership - and to myself in a lesser way.
I don't want to respond graciously. The flesh tells me to respond hatefully. But I'm trying to obey Christ. And so I offer back to you a prayer for your blessing and well being.
If that makes me a hypocrite because I'm doing something out of obedience that I don't completely endorse in my heart, then so be it. I am still a work in progress, deeply flawed, being renewed in the image of Christ.
Schwartz will of course show us his rebuke to the AngloNasties who called biblical creationists "hillbillies", sent from the Devil, and various other lovely comments from MooreMockers like Cheng.
An example of Moorite intolerance is a seminar some years ago. It was organized by YECs with Moore pocketing the money as a venue. One of the speakers was the well known Reformed theologian and author Dr Douglas Kelly.
The organizers even offered free entry to students, but hardly any came. A few revealed that Moore strongly discouraged them from attending. So much for toleration of all views! (I think Warwick pointed out this example, so he would know more.)
Craig's reply exposes his failure to interpret language as he consistently does with the language of God. His reply again demonstrates his incorrect use of the word "curse" and failure to confess.
Neil
Craigs said
The proponents of this site have frequently insulted those who oppose them. Just about every article does so.
Indeed, just above your comment John felt entitled to call me a "hypocrite", "smug", "stubborn" and "self-righteous". He also felt entitled to throw my prayers for him back in my face.
Since you are fond of quoting Scripture, Jesus called the men who thought they had all theological truth and who would not listen to reason because they were full of pride and were irrational, "hypocrites", "vipers", "white-washed tombs full of dead men's bones." Paul called the Galatians "fools".
Your attitude has been one of contempt and one which fails to address our pleas for reasoned discussion. Do you really think that you have not been smug or playing games with us?
I've just reread the first quote above. I haven't insulted you because you disagree but because you refuse to engage us intellectually. You believe, as the majority of SA do, that they have all the answers and cannot stand to be challenged, a sure sign that their hearts are far from God because pride will set a man apart from God.
As I have stated over and over again, when you begin to take our arguments honestly and show some evidence that you actually understand them, then we can fellowship. You rework the argument into a form that suits you e.g. you think it is some sort of Arminian obsession. That I personally know more Calvinists who are creationists than Arminians proves you wrong and your argument a dishonest red-herring. Furthermore, as I understand the situation, most of the leading YECS in OZ are Calvinists.
Your attitude has been one of contempt...
I deny this - I have tried to treat the authors of this site with respect. I have refrained from labelling you with perjorative terms, for a start.
I stand by my comment regarding the correlation between arminianism and YECS.
As I recall from a first year lecture, it was Karl Popper, in exampling his philosophy of science theory, said there are 4 ideas which are unfalsifiable. By this he maent there are ideas which, no matter what counter-evidence is provided, will not surernder there claims to absolute truth. The 4 he named were:
1. Marxism
2. Freud's psychoanalytical theories
3. Survival of the fittest
4. Any idea that the Sydney Anglican Diocese conceives of
Since you are an expert at grammar, John: why did you end that last sentence with 'of'?
Warwick, Neil, Ktisophilos and John, it is time to move on from the time waster and distraction, Craig.
We are "casting pearls before swine" when we try to engage with one such as he who refuses to listen. He is disingenuous.
I would advise all to treat any future comments he makes as intellectual litter.
This blogspot has a higher calling. It is not a place for him to air his ignorance and be given any semblance of credibility.
Sam Drucker
The archbishop's son wrote: Since you are an expert at grammar, John: why did you end that last sentence with 'of'?
Just as you've previously demonstrated your inability to distinguish history from allegory in the Bible, confuse the concrete with the abstract, so unsurprisingly you've now evinced you're incapable of recognising someone's taking the piss out of you guys. That you've ignored the most important issue but responded as only an anal pedant would sums up your character.
Because self-righteous archbishop sons who moonlight as pedants routinely do not see a telegraphed joke, I'll explain: My grammar quips were a piss-take of your sense of self-worth, or, more accurately, superiority. Real men, who work real jobs, who live in the real world, who do not live in the rarified atmosphere of St Andrew's House, would recognise the humour (and occasionally write in a less than perfect manner).
I may be wrong of course. Maybe this is your way of reaching out to a fellow Christian brother and I am not skilled enough to read the language used. Maybe 'last' doesn't mean 'last' but is really a sign for transcendant reality of heaven which is contrapunctual to 'first' and brought together indicates a prophecy that your father and his church are incrementally establishing an updated and improved version of Christian origins.
Such important issues will have to be left to another more learned than I. I am about to finish up my night-duty working with some seriously deranged people and have 3 days off. Which reminds me, did you know that people who are seriously deranged also have difficulty distinguishing the concrete from the abstract?
I was merely answering a fool according to his folly.
Seems I touched a raw nerve!
Clearly at $75 an hour, you would be overcharging.
I worry about the use of words that many would regard as swear words, John.
I know you are your own self but, for my sake (and maybe others), is there hope of you leaving those words out even if you are frustrated to the hilt.
Neil
michael jensen said...
"Since you are an expert at grammar, John: why did you end that last sentence with 'of'?"
What, do you think it's really a grammatical rule not to end a sentence with a preposition? Shows how little you know. Churchill apocryphally replied to such pedantry with: "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."
It really set John off, though didn't it?
It really set John off! So that was your intent?
Michael said, "It really set John off, though didn't it?"
Did it, Michael? Why on earth would you think that someone with my history would be upset by someone like you?
Michael, old son, you are a rather odd fellow.
Hey, Matt, bring us another brewski will ya, and get a load of this!
I have been listening to what youguys been saying and how you have been talking. It sounds to me that christianity ministry is for men only. For just ordinary single christian women are not welcomed to take up ministry within the church or in christian society. I have lived at deaconess house and I can understand why women at moore are revolting and trying to take up positions in the church, because noone listens to the as ordinary christians. If you are married and to a minister then your voice is heard through your husband, but other than that you have to shut-up and sit quitely in the church. Their is ministry for ordinary christian women, but it is if you are a secretary you can be made useful in the church.
I strongly am against ordination of women, because it isnt biblical. Throughout history men theologians have in the evangelical and protestant churches have come in jesus name and failed to preach the full gospel and encouraged jesus sheep. I believe if a man doesnt rise to preach the full gospel and lead his sheep on earth then I reckon God will rise a women to lead and she wouldnt be the one people have wanted and the church has persecuted her. That is how I see might happen.
Post a Comment