Apologies to the recent inquirer Geoff. The length of this posting was necessary to get all necessary quotes in.
CASE (Centre for Apologetic Scholarship and Education) operates from New College, University of NSW, Sydney, Australia. CASE has close links to Campus Bible Ministry spawned by St Matthias Anglican (Episcopalian) Church, Centennial Park. Through the conduct of seminars, conferences and its quarterly magazine of the same name, CASE has been a channel for the homogeneously worldly thinking ISCAST (Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology).
Christian parents around the world should think seriously if their son or daughter suggests taking up studies at the University of NSW and residence at New College. It is bad enough for your son or daughter to suffer the assaults of atheistic and worldly Professors at the university but to have an alleged ally such as CASE giving aid and comfort to those who side with the world against the Word of God on the matter of origins is diabolical.
CASE in quarterly magazine No. 8 of 2005 promulgated the thoughts of Graeme Finlay, Senior Lecturer in Medical and Health Sciences at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Christian students were subjected to Finlay's undemonstrated (but uttered as fact) statement that humans have evolved from primate species. Finlay goes on to criticise Biblical Creationists - you know, those who trust God's Word, like ... say .... Sir Isaac Newton, regarded by secular scientists as the greatest scientist to have ever lived!
Elsewhere, Finlay reviewed the writings of Douglas C. Spanner who believes that the Bible does not state in unequivocal terms that Adam and Eve were the physical ancestors of all present day members of the human race. Finlay also reviewed the writings of R. J. Berry who claims that by the time the God-image was infused into Adam and Eve, Homo sapiens had [already] spread to many parts of the world: there were Indians in America, Aborigines in Australia and so on. Of these two 'great minds' Graeme Finlay says "the Christian church is fortunate to have scholars of such calibre." (for more information on this see "Theological Problems With Theistic Evolution" in Bibliotheca Sacra 150 April-June 1994: 155-74).
So, Graeme Finlay is permitted by CASE to influence the minds of Christians at New College, University of NSW but what scope is given to Biblical Creationists? I am not aware of any hearing given Biblical Creationists by CASE. Those who think like Sir Isaac Newton, Martin Luther and John Calvin don't seem to cut it with CASE.
Theistic Evolution is such a corruption of all sensibility. It is neither hot nor cold but, instead, is liable to being the vomit spewed out of the mouth of the Lord (Rev. 3:14-18). What do some of the advocates of Evolution have to say? They were not without clear thinking. They could see the logical consequences of what they proposed. Their problem is the error of their initial proposition. It is not based on fact. It is an error but, as I say, having once accepted the proposition there is a logical flow of thought which cannot sensibly be denied.
What did Charles Darwin say once he had accepted the proposition of a process for the ordering of life by the evolution of species through natural selection? He said "What book a Devil's Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horribly cruel works of nature!"(Ralph Colp Jnr 'Notes' page 382n. Colp studied Darwin's notes and letters)
What did Jacques Monod, famous Microbiologist, Philosopher and Atheist say during an interview with Laurie John and broadcast on the Australian Broadcasting Commission on 10 June 1976? On the subject of Theistic Evolution Monod said " .... And why would God have to have chosen this extremely complex and difficult mechanism when, I would say by definition, he was at liberty to choose other mechanisms, why would he have to start with simple molecules? Why not create man right away, as of course classical religions believe? ..... selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined species .... the more cruel because it a process of elimination, of destruction. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, is one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution."
What did Dr Tom Ambrose, Director of Communications for the Diocese of Ely (UK) say to the Church of England Newspaper, Friday, October 21st, 1994? He said "When will the church 'come clean' about evolution? Once We admit we share a common ancestry with other animals, certain consequences follow. Fossils are the remains of creatures that lived and died for over a billion years before Home sapiens evolved. Death is as old as life itself by all but a split second. Can it therefore be God's punishment for sin?"
"The fossil record demonstrates that some form of evil has existed throughout time. On the large scale it is evident in natural disasters. The destruction of creatures by flood, ice age, desert and earthquake has happened countless times. On the individual scale there is ample evidence of painful, crippling disease and the activity of parasites. We see that living things have suffered in dying, with arthritis, a tumour, or simply being eaten by other creatures."
"From the dawn of time, the possibility of life and death, good and evil, have always existed. At no point is there any discontinuity; there was never a time when death appeared, or a moment when the evil changed the nature of the universe. People try to tell us that Adam had a perfect relationship with God until he sinned, and all we need to do is repent and accept Jesus in order to restore that original relationship. But perfection like this never existed. There never was such a world. Trying to return to it, either in reality or spirituality, is a delusion. Unfortunately it is still central to much evangelical preaching."
Perhaps G. Richard Bozarth in an article entitled 'The Meaning of Evolution' in The American Atheist, Sept 1978 page 19 has more understanding of the times than some who profess to be Christians today. He said ".... Christianity is - must be - totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might, fair or foul, against the theory of evolution ... It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None."
Perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer, mass murderer, cannibal, necrophiliac in the USA and arguably one of the worst men to have walked on the earth has something to say by his life - both chapters of his life. Some time after his arrest, trial and sentencing, Dahmer said " I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing ..." Dahmer was eventually killed by an another inmate while in prison. In 2004 American TV interviewer Larry King interviewed the father and stepmother of Jeffrey Dahmer. Here is an excerpt: KING: "How was he dealing with prison, Jeff?... " L. DAHMER: "Jeff - he - at first it was extremely hard, but then he - he sent away for 13 books ..... [from the USA Institute for Creation Research]. I told him about the place. And he bought the 13 books that turned him from a - an evolutionist into a creationist and from there into a Christian. And he started talking, handing out pamphlets and so forth and talking with other prisoners, trying to ...." KING: "So he was a born again?" L. DAHMER: " He was - he was - I'm sure, in talking with him, it wasn't just a jail house conversion. I really believe that."
Accept the testimony of those who see evolution to its logical end in thought and being. In their belief in evolution they were cold in outcome. Their problem? They accepted evolution as first premise. They could not see the glory of Jesus Christ in his creative, recreative and resurrection works. Thankfully, Jeffrey Dahmer saw and received this Lord Jesus Christ before leaving the world.
Theistic Evolutionists want a bit of Darwin and a bit of Christ. Advocates will have the creative works of Darwin and the recreative and resurrection works of Jesus Christ. In some strange admixture of the 'jewels of Egypt' and the 'God who saves' they have thrown their gold into a fire to fashion a Golden Calf.
Sam Drucker
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Wow, I wouldn't have thought that a church organisation like CASE would entertain the sort of uncritical 'tripe' that you report. I think you've really go to have a 'head in sand' problem, intellectually, to miss the gap between materialism (evolution) and the creative acts of God revealed in the Bible.
Bob, it astounds me how many who profess Jesus Christ refuse to make the connection between His creative, recreative and resurrection activity. He is the same all the way through - His actions have been and will be instantaneous. Yesterday, today, forever Jesus ever the same.
Sam Drucker
Great post Sam.
I found that whole UNSW CASE/ISCAST scene almost entirely dishonest. That they push the evolutionary line (or some variation, overt or otherwise, of the long age heretical view) and prohibit a formal creationist rebuttal refutes the Anglo argument that they don't have an official line re. origins. I've attended several of their talks and found that, while they were slapping each other on the back for their self-perceived intellectual prowess, they thought creationists beneath contempt (in that inimitable Sydney Anglo "polite" kind of way!). On one occasion I had some guy come up to me after I had questioned the whole underpinning to their ideas and "ask" me who I was. What he meant by this, as I quickly learned, was what education qualifications I possessed. He declined any serious discussion over the CONTENT of my argument. And this brings me to my point.
Sam, I sometimes hardly see the point laying such jewels down as you have for these people. The unbelieving pagans often latch onto the significance of the young amd evolutionary-free earth truth well before the Anglos do (i.e. evolution = a cruel, inept, mindless "creator"). I guess, like in the Bible, the lost still have an ability to reason whereas the chosen elect (i.e. the religious hierarchy and their sychophantic followers) ignore reason and only side with someone who can demonstrate that they are one of them. What other explanation would there be for a supposed Christian organisation to invite only those who subscribe to anti-YECs to give talks.
This is not schadenfreude...well, just a little 'Told ya so!'. The Anglos, after all the hoopla of Jensen's plan to increase numbers by 10% (I wonder if God had heard of his plan?), have found numbers down, quite down in fact.
But seriously, what is amusing is their spin-doctors' take on this whole 'Look-I-made-great-[secular]plans-and-I-can't-understand-why-they-haven't-turned-out-as-conceived' result. Take my favourite bishop, the-one-liner-argument-and-cut-out-of-sight-because-he-thinks-winning-a-debate-amounts-to-putting-his-best-case-forward-and-ignoring-all-rejoinders man of cloth Rob Forsyth (BTW, this is the same bishop who permits Indian guru outreaches and yoga classes in at least one of his churches). His excuses for his Church's inability to pull the crowds are quite humorous, humorous like the excuses pollies regularly trot out from Canberra. For example,
1. “It would be a mistake to over-read the drop in identification”
2. “There are still a very large number of people who don’t go to our churches and still identify with us.” (Not quite sure how you calculate invisible bodies. Imagine the Libs claiming that for recent polls! BTW Rob, isn't that what the job of polls is i.e. actually calculating numbers?)
3. Bishop Forsyth says the drop in numbers identifying as Christian overall, and as Anglicans in Sydney must be carefully considered in the light of the Diocesan Mission.
“It could be a good sign or a bad sign,” he says. (No, Rob, not either/or but, I'm sorry to say....!)
4. “Now that we’re standing for something, the Mission has made Anglican something you don’t want to be part of unless you are keen. Or it could mean people have simply been turned off.” Well, Rob's first spin-free zone!
5. “It does however mean that there are a lot more people further away from us and that’s a concerning thing.” Unless of course, to use your own words, they're "turned off". Now that WOULD be a concerning fact to face up to, wouldn't it mate!
Well, Rob, buddy, you've missed your comedic calling. I can get you a few gigs around town but, mate, we'll have to do something about the name - Robert Forsyth, Anglican Bishop of South Sydney, just won't cut the mustard in the entertainment world. But I'm undecided about the dog-collar, it could be a good or a bad thing. Maybe you could throw a few one-liners about all those biblical miracles not being REALLY miracles. That would pull in the crowds.
John, I partly remember a friend sharing with us his experience with some young people in the foyer of a childrens' court. Something about the direction of their life with evolutionary teaching. Can you remember it?
On the matter of church attendance figures I am convinced the Sydney Episcopalian figures are inflated by transfer growth from the floundering Uniting Church etc. It will indeed be interesting to see whether the Lord will honour the ambition of a denomination that doesn't trust his word at the very beginning.
Sam Drucker
Actually Sam, it happened to me. I was working at a Children's Court and was a silent third in a discussion. The other youth worker and the young person were talking about the "big" questions of life and I finally interjected and said something about if you believe that you are nothing but the accidental outcome of billions of years of chemical mistakes and that your great, great grandaddy was a piece of pond slime, then you'll act according to this worldview. Unbeknown to me was a young Vietnamese girl, a lover of a 3T drug lord, as I found out later, eavesdropping on the conversation. When she heard my comment she reared up from her typical Asian crouching position and screamed out, "This man is right! This man is right!"
And this is my whole point all the way along this blog. The Anglo heretics have stood in front of the door to Christ the Creator, grabbed the key of knowledge, locked it, and then hid the key. Even the pagans can see the truth of Genesis 1, but these dupes can't.
Guys, here's a great little article on Creation and Theology:
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=127
I've been to CASE gigs as well, John, and had a similar experience: when I put up a question at a 'creation but not as you understand it Tertius' talk, I was asked by an old duffer 'what books have you read'? Forget the issues, this was just a book game for this bloke!
Another time I went to a performance where Kell Richards, ABC personality, intro'd a talk by a chemist, Schaeffer his name was, who was, on his own account, very smart, and went on to show how wonderful it was not to worry if the cosmos was 13 or 20 billion years old.
The glib delight these guys took in trying to undo the word of God was rivetting, if distressing! I don't know how much they were clued into the basic premises of materialism: "either there is no God, or if there is, he hasn't spoken"! Therefore, they must assume that any revelation of God is content free and will not throw light on the real world which frames our being. Thus they open the door to an alternative worldview, overlooking that the 'here and now' framing which Genesis 1 gives us is critical to us having a place in relation to God (by place I mean, time and space context).
Now the reference to billions of years is a fascinating one. Because time is relative, we could question: where and when is the universe n billion years old, and in particular, in what gravitational frame of reference? because period depends on where you stand, and in particular, how fast you are going relative to the observed duration.
Another thing while we're on CASE's case. I saw a letter from a previous director of CASE in the current issue of Quadrant magazine. The letter was commenting on a review of Dawkin's recent 'God Delusion'. The review had some points worth engaging on, but Greg (Clarke?), instead of taking these opportunities, only wrote to say that if we only remember that God is God, the questions of the morality of his actions goes away.
Well, all well and good, but the question to ask the reviewer was surely: if there is no independent basis for your moral judgements, and if we are but 'rearranged pond scum' then your moral views are not only not interesting, but are themselves of no value. That is the point of a moral critique of an atheist position, however the position is put.
Ah yes, and it is the atheist worldview from which we get the assumptions of materialism!
What a great idea to accept the results of this world view into Christian Theology: don't you get a great feeling when they meld together into theistic evolution, or some similar oxymoronic claptrap?
Its Bob again!
One thing Clive said really hit me: yes, God made a physical creation: on purpose! I think those who lean to mixing in with evolution really deny, or neglect, the signficance of God having told us of his real physical creation. Maybe they think that God more properly works in the realm of myth like Greek philosophy: keep the pure ideas separate from this grimy world. Is that it? But it is this grimy world which represents the fall and is that which God saves us from in toto, and makes the new creation. In the scheme of the Bible it is the real creation, as reprise of the old creation which is our great end!!! The Apostle's creed hits the right note in reminding us that we believe in the resurrection of the body.
The point I think I'm heading towards is that God made a real physical creation and it is this which is of significance to us in the terms, and only the terms, by which it was made: God has given us the detail (almost unnecessary detail!) because its this very physicality and its 'realness' which is highly important. Deny this and replace it with a world 'really' made another way, not the revealed way, and I think you deny something very important in God's revelation.
It amazes me that a lot of conservative Christians have forgotten Calvin's lead: they've reverted to an approach to Genesis 1 which evacuates it of substantive meaning, and makes it some form of artful 'allegory' type writing.
B. B. Warfield, said of Calvin, quoting an unnamed source:
“In his sober grammatico-historical method, in the stress he laid on the natural sense of the text, by the side of his deep religious understanding of it–in his renunciation of the current allegorizing, in his felicitous, skillful dealing with difficult passages, the humanistically trained master is manifest, pouring the new wine into new bottles.”
We make Genesis mean anything but what it says (denying this I wonder how we can know it means anything), and fail to put a roadblock on man's crazy raod to the gates of hell.
Bob, I had a look at the chalcedon site you referred to and agree that the picture looks grim with ECUSA.
Inroads are being made into the Sydney Episcopalian (Anglican) Diocese by 'wolves in sheeps clothing'. Acceptance of evolution sets the path. What John observed in a church in the South Sydney Region of the Diocese is just another example of what you draw our attention to.
Sam Drucker
Look what happens when the crazies leave go of the Creation account as something that tells what actually happened:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29302
Looks like the Kiwis are affected by the same disease of compromise. See New Zealand Bible college promotes theistic evolutionary conference.
Thanks, Ktisophilos, its seems Graeme Finlay's erroneous views are poisoning an even wider circle than I had known.
Sam Drucker
Post a Comment