In the current issue of 'Go' the Interserve magazine (let's all support Interserve!!) there is a fabulous article about an Interserve worker discussing the Bible with a Buddhist monk.
In precis, the monk was confounded by God's care for the poor, the weak and the suffering. In Buddhist lore, people suffered because they had bad 'karma', and they prospered becuase they had good 'karma', thus the strong the powerful, the rich, represented 'god's' favour (I know, no 'god' in Buddhism).
So in Buddhism, as it appeared from the article, it is the strong who triump. In Christ, it is the poor in spirit; quite the contrary!
So, knowing that fruit of the Spirit ("But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness"), along with this ("Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth . . ."), it seems odd that one could entertain that 'evolution' which is right up there with, "kill the weak" would have any part of a non-fallen reality.
The internal contradiction of theistic evolution, and all similar forms of pagan syncretism, is that on the one hand, we've got God, declaring his characteristics (see above), presumably having made the creation consistently with these declared characteristics, but evolution working in opposition to God's declared characteristics! How amazing, God is like . . . love, evolution is like . . death and destruction, but (in the demented TE view) God somehow used evolution!!
Notwithstanding that the idea of evolution has a pagan history, a recent genesis on the assumption that their is no god, and no real evidence for it occuring (aside from question-begging and equivocation: that is confusing adaptation for transmutation of kinds of life forms with growing genetic information), TEs see some sort of consistency in reality between a cosmos grinding down the weak (and heading for dissolution) and God who is love.
Mad and madder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Interserve sent me to the Middle East a few years back. They are a great organisation powering on for the Word in closed countries.
The State Director is actually a very close friend of mine. Should I ask him his thoughts on Genesis 1 and evolution for you? If he was a theistic evolutionist, would you still say "Let's all support Interserve"?
Geoffc, answers:
1. if you like.
2. yes.
Hi Eric
Why can't you therefore say "Let's all support Sydney Anglicans"?
Geoffc, answer:
1. Interserve is not a 'church' which actively promotes the denigration of the words of the Spirit.
2. Sydney Anglican teachers (at least some, and some have commented on this blog) deny that the word of God is accessible to the ordinary reader, contrary to the reformation concept of the perspicuity of the Bible.
3. In its published material, evolution as an explanation of the real world is endorsed, and those who counter this run the risk of being denied formal office within the church, are referred to as 'hillbillies' (Craig, saw the post on your blog: wrong! calling an idea 'hillbilly' is really hard to separate from referring to its proponents as such), are tossed off the official church forum and are finally, not engaged: that is, ideas are not discussed and arguments are not dealt with.
The fundamental thing is that Interserve does not programatically do these things, but the Sydney Diocese does, in its official voice. The effect of this is to cut off Christ from the real world, and eliminate the core of his identity as Creator.
Now this connects with your earlier discussion on the resurrection. The point of the resurrection is it shows Christ as creator: able to put down and pick up his life; death cannot hold him. This is consistent with the way God represents himself in the OT, particularly: as creator. But TE must hold that death is inherent in creation if it was the means of advancing evolution (death is essential to the expression of selective advantage given by adaptive novelties, at least theoretically, see Re Mine's book's discussion on Haldane's Dilemma). So the heretical point is that death is not the final enemy, but is part of the very good creation!
This makes the gospel to be incoherent, because we are saved from the very good, and, presumably, the new creation will include death!! This sheer nonsense.
So if the Director of an organisation is a heretic, and the organisation supports heretics to do the work of the gospel, you're still okay with that organisation, because it is not a church?
I imagine the heretics who Interserve support are off in countries not promoting the world created in 6 days under 10,000 years ago. This is not a problem for you, and you still say "Let's all support Interserve"?
This Geoffc character thinks down a bit like Kungfu Craig!
Gwen
maybe I do, but I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.
Can I have a cool nickname too?
But my questions are nevertheless serious. I don't see the difference between not supporting a church and then not supporting a diocese that may have the same theologies.
Geoff,
There is another aspect forgotten in all of this. Can you tell us why you should not take the 6 days of Genesis 1, Exodus 20 and 31 as ordinary days?
Geoff,
I, too, have worked in the Middle East and have never found evolution as a major obstacle to faith as it is in the West. Atheism is extremely rare (the exception being Israel) and so one can discuss the redeeming work of Christ immediately (if you know what I mean!). Apart from the inconsistency in the Koran (2 ayah with 6 and 7 day creations) Muslims believe that God created quickly.
As Eric said - and I am not familiar with Interserve - one would hardly think that the falsity of evolution is an issue to broach with a Muslim.
Your argument is really a red herring. Stay focussed!!!
John Said;
"Geoff,
There is another aspect forgotten in all of this. Can you tell us why you should not take the 6 days of Genesis 1, Exodus 20 and 31 as ordinary days?"
No :-)
John also said
"As Eric said - and I am not familiar with Interserve - one would hardly think that the falsity of evolution is an issue to broach with a Muslim."
Does that mean it is okay for Interserve to not hold to a six day creation? If that is true, it sounds like your issue is to do with pragmatics, not the truth.
Sorry, but I still don't understand how it is okay by you for a missionary organisation to be heretics and support heretics, but not okay for the Sydney Diocese?
Or have I interpreted Eric falseley? Eric said he would still support Interserve if the director was a theistic evolutionist (just to clarify, I have no idea whether they are or aren't).
Cheers
Geoff
Third time, anyone want to grab a cup of coffee some time?
1. I asked Geoff: "There is another aspect forgotten in all of this. Can you tell us why you should not take the 6 days of Genesis 1, Exodus 20 and 31 as ordinary days?"
Geoff replied: "No"
If you can't think of a reason why the days of Genesis should be other than 6 ordinary days, why do you tolerate the preaching of people who say it can't mean 6 ordinary days and go on to teach others that the world is old?
Surely the truth of God's word is to be upheld and if you can't think of any reasons then aren't you mocking God?
Surely the truth of God's word is not a matter of our will but what God has already purposed in his revelation to us. The unacceptable alternative to this, the one which the Sydney Diocese leans to for support, is that God-hating and truth-loathing philosophy called postmodernism which holds that truth is a matter of how the reader wants to read the text. Do you really believe that God is a post-modernist?
Because you refuse to exercise your mind here and grasp with your understanding something so obvious (i.e. 6 days = 6 ordinary days) aren't you hardening your heart?
Maybe because your heart is hardened then God won't reveal to you mind the "hidden" pearl that the 4th commandment contains.
Not having a reason in the face of all reason saying the opposite is a sign of a heart which has been hardened. Does God reveal his wisdom to those who have hardened their heart?
2. As for a drink...to what purpose?
Geoff wrote: "Does that mean it is okay for Interserve to not hold to a six day creation? If that is true, it sounds like your issue is to do with pragmatics, not the truth.
Sorry, but I still don't understand how it is okay by you for a missionary organisation to be heretics and support heretics, but not okay for the Sydney Diocese?"
Now you're just being silly, Geoff.
We've explained our position and I repeat, this is nothing but a red-herring.
If Interserve went around telling Muslims that the world was old and that evolution was a fact, we would regard them as heretics. Because they don't, it's not an issue. If one didn't understand the issue, and wanted to know what the truth is, and argued with humility rather than just putting on a show to try and look intelligent in front of one's friends (as Gordon Cheng, Mark Baddeley, Michael Jensen, Rob Forsyth etc have done on this blog), then bravo. Go back and read the first few months of this blog and Mark Baddeley's weak arguments and how they ran when they were shown to be such. These lads were never interested in truth but keeping their egos polished in front of their crowd. They just loved being loved by the people.
The point is that Peter Jensen and his gang actively promote evolution and long ages. This is the destruction of the very Gospel he believes he upholds. Do you really think that because Peter Jensen is an archbishop and a real nice guy to boot that he is theologically perfect and much closer to God than you or I? The Church's history is littered with "nice" bishops e.g. Arius.
One must look at the issue. If Peter Jensen teaches that God purposely used death and chance to create i.e. evolution, and not the direct application of his Wisdom i.e. Christ, then he is a heretic. It's not just something you can shrug off and try to offer up pseudo-arguments about another Christian organisation in order to rebutt our position. Theistic evolution cuts to the very heart of who Christ is as Creator. Evolution robs God of being God and challenges his authority to be creator. Can you take that risk and stand before God and say, "Ahh, I just didn't think it an issue. But I do believe that Jesus died for me!"
Peter's predecessors at Moore refused to teach what he taught at Moore and even argued against this blasphemy against God because they saw it as it was - heresy!
Coffee? Kung-fu Craig would take us for a beer and show us some of his evangelistic movies he shows at his church's outreach events, although I would prefer a nice fruity wine.
Gwen
"Now you're just being silly, Geoff.
We've explained our position and I repeat, this is nothing but a red-herring."
Maybe it is, but just telling me it is doesn't help. I apologise that I don't understand you.
"Because you refuse to exercise your mind here and grasp with your understanding something so obvious (i.e. 6 days = 6 ordinary days) aren't you hardening your heart?"
The thing is, it isn't that obvious to me. I could have given you reasons, but I'm sure you've heard them all. The fact is I see problems with both sides of the argument, and if you were to ask me what I thought of Genesis 1, I would say "I'm not sure".
John said;
"Do you really believe that God is a post-modernist?"
No. But do you really believe he is a modernist?
"If one didn't understand the issue, and wanted to know what the truth is, and argued with humility rather than just putting on a show to try and look intelligent in front of one's friends (as Gordon Cheng, Mark Baddeley, Michael Jensen, Rob Forsyth etc have done on this blog), then bravo. Go back and read the first few months of this blog and Mark Baddeley's weak arguments and how they ran when they were shown to be such. These lads were never interested in truth but keeping their egos polished in front of their crowd. They just loved being loved by the people."
I have followed most of these discussions. From my perspective I don't know how you came to these conclusions. They seem a little harsh, and you seem to be attacking them, not their arguments.
We'll have to leave it here, because it is not going anywhere. You think my argument (I'd say it's my confusion) is a red herring, but I just don;t understand why supporting a diocese of heretics is different from supporting a missionary organisation of heretics is different. Sure, Interserve don't actively promote it (Neither does the SAD, as far as I'm aware), but surely if they believe the heresy it is not that much different?
"Coffee? Kung-fu Craig would take us for a beer and show us some of his evangelistic movies he shows at his church's outreach events, although I would prefer a nice fruity wine."
That's twice you've mentioned Craig. Something going on here? :-)
Post a Comment