Elsewhere in this blogspot, Neil Moore indicated he would provide the statement made by Perry Wiles concerning the matter of "brains" and belief on origins. Neil and I have consulted and agree that I would provide the information. We also agree that what Perry Wiles said is now a moot point in relation to Michael Jensen's concerns because Michael has since made it clear that his "libellous" intimation had nothing to do with mention of Perry Wiles. Nevertheless, because there is more that I feel needs to be said about Perry Wiles' paper, I cite and expand on the matter herein.
In his paper "Creation vs Evolution?" which was produced by Perry Wiles while on study leave in Illinois, USA, he included the following statement: "What is perhaps more tragic is that faithful Christian people can end up thinking they are doing gospel work by promoting creation science. Whether creation science is valid or not it is not gospel ministry. Gospel ministry is about the Lordship of Jesus Christ and him crucified - not about evolution. Apologetically, because again by forcing the issue of Bible versus evolution it can put obstacles in the way of unbelievers, especially those scientifically minded , and it can leave them with the impression (perhaps the justified impression in this case) that becoming a Christian means kissing your brains goodbye. Not only that, it allows people to use evolution as a smokescreen to avoid the challenge to put their faith in in Christ". (emphasis mine)
That then clarifies what Perry Wiles actually said on the matter of brains and the origins issue. There is so much else said in that paper that deserves attention and correction but space and time limits me to addressing the argument put in the statement quoted.
The argument made by Perry Wiles is, of course, a fallacy. Itself is a smokescreen to avoid leaving off the adornments of the world and a device to avoid scrutinising and exposing the bankruptcy of the evolutionary model of origins. Worse than that, it diminishes the gospel of Jesus Christ and him crucified because it seems to focus solely on the crucifixion of Jesus Christ with vague reference to his Lordship.
In addressing this failing I defer to one who had a much closer walk with the Lord Jesus Christ than myself.
I defer to John Owen (1616-1683), Christian, Puritan, Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell and Dean of Christ Church at the University of Oxford.
In his work, "Apostasy from the Gospel" John Owen addresses the difficult Scripture passage Hebrews 6:4-6. There were many issues confronting the church in Owen's day, the greatest probably being Romanism. The issue of the attack on the book of Genesis is much more an issue today than Romanism. However, the 'dress' of apostasy raised by John Owen can just as much be applied to today's issues as those of Owen's day. I will quote John Owen and you can judge for yourself the relevance.
First, I must make one qualification. John Owen acknowledges the existence of "partial apostasy" ie as I understand it, something along the way toward apostasy but not complete apostasy. I am not aware of anyone who has posted blogs to this blogspot holding a view that certain Sydney Anglicans are apostates. Rather, I gather that the view is held that a heretical interpretation of Genesis, something alien to the straightforward reading of Scripture and alien to the position of the Reformers, has emerged in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church in the latter half of the Twentieth Century. If readers can demonstrate I am in error on this then I am willing to apologise.
I quote from "Apostasy from the Gospel" - John Owen - Puritan Paperbacks published by The Banner of Truth Trust - abridged and made easy to read by R.J.K. Law.
Speaking on the topic of "Darkness and Ignorance a Cause of Apostasy" and with reference to Sceptics on page 66 Owen says "Scripture, the Trinity, Christ and his offices, justification by grace and all the other great truths of the gospel are weighed and examined in the defiled, tottering scales of bold, irreverent sceptical discussions. They may be teachers of religion, but they show their ignorance of the fundamental difference between truth and error. They cannot see the glory, beauty and power of truth, so it is all one to them whether it is truth or whether it is error". The office of Christ as Creator is considered part of the gospel and ought not be subjected to assault just as Christ as Redeemer or other office ought not be subjected to assault.
Speaking on the topic of "Pride, Neglect and Worldliness, Causes of Apostasy" on page 79, Owen says "The corrupt mind exalts its own ideas. It loves, applauds, dotes on and firmly embraces its own ideas and opinions. This is the origin of all heresy" and on page 80 "The corrupt mind exalts itself as the sole and absolute judge of God's Word....... whatever the mind rejects as not in agreement with its own ideas and system of logic is scorned and despised". On the same topic on page 89, Owen says "(2) Secondly, God delivers up willful apostates to false teachers and deceivers. These, deceived and taught by Satan, are used by God to carry out his just displeasure on wicked apostates whom he delivers into their power. The deceived people exalt these false teachers and deceivers into high positions in the church and then submit implicitly to them".
Speaking on the topic of "Apostasy from the Doctrine of the Gospel" on pages 92, Owen says "So none will remain constantly faithful to Christ who is not able to spiritually discern the glory of his person and his offices" and on page 93, "The whole foundation of all gospel faith rests in the glory of Christ's person and offices (Heb. 1:2, 3; Col. 1:15-19)". Note that Owen specifically cites passages of Scripture addressing the creative work of Christ in this assertion.
Speaking on the topic of "Apostasy from the Commands of the Gospel" on page 103, Owen says "By the Word of God and the Spirit of Christ, multitudes have been made holy, and multitudes more are still being called out of this world to holiness of life. These shall never utterly and finally fall away from true holiness, but shall be preserved by the power of God through faith unto salvation. Yet even these may fall away from wholehearted obedience to the holy commands of the gospel and become for a while unfruitful in their lives. In every backsliding there is a partial apostasy, with much dishonour to Christ. Nor does anyone know whether his backsliding will not end in total apostasy".
These and so much more are sober words from John Owen for reflection on all aspects of our life and testimony to Jesus Christ. In connection with the full gospel of Jesus Christ, they have relevance to the glory that is his in his office as Creator and are a caution against diminishing the glory due.
Calvinists should remember that it is not us who convert the unconverted. It is God working through Holy Spirit in the revelation of the person of Jesus Christ and his works. God is able to create out of nothing and is thus able to save through a faulty message but that message more desired and honouring to God is that which is true to his Word.
In closing, I give an example of an apostate who, if he read it, failed to heed the advice of John Owen. His name is mentioned elsewhere on this blogspot. His name was Charles Templeton, now deceased.
Charles Templeton, born 1915, rose to evangelical prominence in the 1940's in the USA and Europe. In 1946 he was listed among those "best used of God" by the National Association of Evangelicals. He was a good friend of contemporary evangelist Billy Graham and spoke to audiences numbering in the thousands. Newspapers reported him wining 150 converts per night. He became a troubled man because he couldn't reconcile the book of Genesis with the world's view of origins and the age of the earth.
Templeton warned Billy Graham that it was "intellectual suicide" to not question the Bible and to go on preaching God's Word as authoritative. He commenced theological studies at Princeton University but received no insights to qualm his doubts in the Bible. Finally, the doubts about everything he stood for became too great and he resigned his ministry.
In his 1996 book "Farewell to God" Templeton listed his reasons for rejecting the Christian faith. Most of these reasons related to his view of the accuracy of the book of Genesis. Sadly, the church of his day did not adequately answer Charles Templeton's questions. Answers are available but even more sadly, many in the church will not trust their own brethren and instead run to those who reinterpret God's Word in Genesis or who reject it altogether.
Upon accepting an evolutionary long age view of origins, Charles Templeton logically perceived "How could a loving and omnipotent God create such horrors as we have been contemplating?"
Charles Templeton died an Atheist. His life portrays the image of an Apostate described by John Owen when addressing Hebrews 6:4-6.
It puzzles this writer how so many in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church can do what Charles Templeton could not logically do ie reconcile a death, disease and frustration riddled means of origins with the Word of God and the glory of Christ contained in Genesis. The charade will be seen through by many of the generation now coming through. A strong stand on the reading of God's Word as it is presented in Genesis and likewise presented in the New Testament accounts of the acts of Jesus Christ is the will of God and returns the church to its former position with the Reformers.
Sam Drucker
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Something else Perry Wiles did was to criticize Christians donating to creation research. Nice one!
If Christians didn't have other Christians with science qualifications evaluating the alleged evidence for what is continually presented as the case for evolution and long age of the earth we would be swamped with paradigms presented as fact and which undermine the integrity of God's Word written.
I remember one issue of Societas, the student magazine of Moore College in the early 1990's. It contained an article by the then Principal, Peter Jensen, wherein he emphasised the need for students to be abreast of scientific developments in their preparation for ministry. He said to expect this need to be addressed in the future curriculum. Lo and behold, there later appeared the appointment of Perry Wiles.
Sadly, Perry appeared to be just a 'shop-front' for ISCAST, an outfit made up of compromisers with the world's view of origins. They are a funny lot. I remember a few presentations their reps have given. On a particular occasion, during question time, the speaker retreated. He slipped out of the building while attendees took supper. He hid in his car.
Today, ISCAST has developed a cosy relationship with CASE over Kensington way.
Neil
I remember being with Perry Wiles & Peter Jensen at Moore college for lunch. After lunch Perry Wiles was asked a direct question about a forthcoming ISCAST event at Moore. His reply was to the effect of- They just rent the premises, we are not involved. The questioner produced an ISCAST brochure which showed Wiles to be an officeholder of the ISCAST organization. As God is my witness Wiles caught in deceit coloured deeply & had nothing to say. There were witnesses. Does Wiles deny this?
What I find puzzling is how members of the Sydney Anglican community doggedly defend the reality of Scripture, trinity, virgin birth, miracles, death & resurrection, & actual salvation to an actual heaven. All supernatural.
On the other hand they deny the historical reality of the plain meaning of Scripture, resorting to amazing interpretive ducking & weaving to make Genesis conform to a non-Christian, indeed anti-Christian evolutionary/long ages world view. Sydney Anglicans (proud of their evangelical stand)have written here & elsewhere & said to me they are forced to reinterpret Genesis because science has proven the six-day version to be unsound.
It is thereefore fair to say their authority is not God & His Word but sinful fallible man.
But the stunner is that their authority-so called science- also denies the reality of the few Biblical truths to which they hold & defend so vigorously. Do passionate, God-haters like Dawkins et al, while ridiculing those who hold to Biblical creation, accept virgin-birth, resurrection & miracles? Of course not he & his band of evangelical anti-Christians laugh at the very notion.
Wake up Anglicans your running with the hares & hunting with the hounds behaviour makes you appear gullible in the eyes of God-haters. And sad liberals in the eyes of many of your Christian brothers. Within & without the Anglican church.
Thanks for pointing me toward ISCAST - what a great site! Donate generously, friends...
http://www.iscast.org.au/
Calvinists should remember that it is not us who convert the unconverted.
Are you a Calvinist Sam? It would be helpful if you guys had a statement of beliefs on this site.
Craig you refer to this as a site when I have always thought of it as a chat room. From what I have read there is not one position on Scriprure, but many.
It isn't like an organizational site, such organization having a statement of faith, but a chat room about what the originator referred to as Anglican heresy.
I don't belong here I just make comments as when I have time and when I have something to say.
Do the Moorites know (or care) that prominent ISCASTians overtly deny biblical inerrancy, which Moore ostensibly holds?
And do the Moorites care how ISCASTians resolve the problem (for compromisers) that Christ accepted Genesis as real history? They agree that Jesus really did so, but they claim that He was mistaken, while we know better because "we have the light of science". This is a good illustration of the heresy that Moore's compromise logically leads to.
See also this critique of ISCAST, The Skeptics and their ‘Churchian’ Allies.
Reviewing Sam's blog as brought to mind something seriously to ponder. Charles Templeton's farewell to God is disturbing because it fits precisely what John Owen forecast for those holding a corrupt view of Jesus Christ's offices, in this instance - as Creator.
I wonder whether Perry Wiles still professes faith in Jesus Christ. Can anyone tell me?
The reason I ask is that (if I have the story right) when in the USA on study leave he was confronted by a gunman. I understand it was a terrifying experience for Perry. He later relinquished Holy Orders.
Now, relinquishing Holy Orders is a very BIG decision to take. A life decision to be a "Cure of Souls" is suddenly evaporates. What thoughts were passing through the mind? Was the health of Perry so demonstrably affected that he felt he couldn't effectively continue as "Cure of Souls"? or did Perry now have an issue with God?
It would be good if Perry could come on board here and let us know if he is well. I hope he is well and I certainly hope he saved in the Lord. Perhaps he would provide us with some comfort that the words of caution of the former Dean of Christ Church at Oxford University, John Owen, on apostasy have no currency for Perry. Perhaps someone close to Perry might give the all clear to allay concern?
There is no malice here. It is a genuine inquiry in the light of disclosures in Sam's blog and events which overtook Perry's life.
Neil
Perry still attends church. His personal issues are non of your (or my) business.
Michael, thanks for that information. There is some encouragement that Perry is at least still attending church.
I hope all is well with him. Perhaps I will catch up with him again one day soon.
Neil
Post a Comment