The Finnish teenager who killed other children at his school (8 Nov 2008) was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying: "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection".
Now there's someone who knows their Darwin.
I wonder what his view would have been if he'd been taught that he is in the image of the God who is love and who spoke the cosmos into existence, with us for eternal relationship with him? That he and his fellows are of great value and their lives, actions and beliefs are eternally significant.
Of course, if he'd been exposed to the Sydney Anglican mainstream he'd have been told none of the above, because the kick in the tail would have been: but God did all this by the mind numbing meanness and waste of evolution and its aeons of disease and death constituting the 'very good'. Great eh?
He, Geoffery Dahmer, Adolph Hitler and Stalin are great examples of 'sow evolution, reap death'.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
The quote reveals a deep contradiction in the boy's mind: he wants to live by natural selection, but his notion of 'disgrace' and 'failure' imply a teleology inconsistent with Darwinian natural selection: in that system, if it 'fails' it doesn't matter. It only matters if there is more to us and our lives than we alone.
But, if we say there is this 'more' but deny the only information we've got that credits it (Genesis 1), then we pull our own rug from under our feet and the edifice of hope is reduced to materialist rubble.
We've just had Mark leave the blog when the going got tough. He'd argued that the early Church did not push a young earth. We showed him quotes to the contrary. We gave him arguments why evolution and long ages are so harmful for a robust theology and why it deceives the non-believer and leads him away from Christ.
Now, regardless of my tone, Mark et al have always played the man. Rather than demonstrating their "love being patient", they make a big show of our supposed "toxic" personalities and run from facing the truth as real men ought.
Today we have evidence of a worldview that pushed a man over the limit of what it means to be human. Of course the Anglicans will never accept that they push the same belief system that drove this Finn to mass murder. The Anglicans try to remould their atheistic worldview by attaching the very vacuous "God did it" or "God can do anything he likes". Naturally there are a dozen or so variations of what the Anglicans mean by this, some looking so ridiculous as to resemble something akin to a square circle.
By rejecting plain meaning at Genesis 1 and Exodus 20, by replacing clear revelation of God's action in history with academic mumbo-jumbo, by priding themselves on having solved the "riddle" of origins by claiming that in former years God was only accommodating to men and not really communicating historical truth, they have committed grievous sin. It's one thing to ask and to seek truth; it's an entirely different matter to fight at every turn and claim your opponent is adding another Gospel.
When are the Sydney Anglicans coming back to the "old paths" as the prophet Jeremiah pleaded?
If we look at the world, does it look like it was produced by itself? I mean, look at it in totality.
The young man in Finland looked at it, and maybe 'thought' it did: he acted, in part consistently with this; but in part he recognised that it did not, and sought to justify his actions, at some level: that is he had some sort of teleology in his motivation.
If I look at the world Paul tells me it will look like it is from the hand of God; but if we tell people that Genesis 1 is to be discounted and the world really is the product of random processes; denying the purposeful hand of God, even though the counter theologians will claim that 'method' and 'intention' can be separate (despite Hebrews 11:3), we in effect cut people off from God who represents his chief 'credential' in relation to us, as being our creator.
It seems to me that this view is helping people to hopelessness, not helping them to Christ. The world has enough hopelessness; let's help people to Christ instead.
Good article on this sad incident at:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5435.
I was amazed at the negativity of this young man, and his direct implication of his evolutionary beliefs!
In the real world, where people live and die it is clear: evolution=bad; creation=good. How crazy to defend 'evolution' from a Christian standpoint when people use it to kill and die!
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness ..." Galatians 5:22.
"...the Spirit of God (G)was [b]moving over the surface of the waters". Genesis 1:1
So, if the Spirit whose fruit is love, joy, peace, etc is the same Spirit who moved ('brooded' in some translations) at the inception of the creation, it seems that his creation would be consistent with his fruit.
We can see the articulated fruit of evolution: their statements (and the referenced article adds to this), consistent with evolution: red in tooth and claw, and we as part of 'evolution' according to it, share this redness (bloodshed), so death is our object, not life.
But no, of course, life is our object, marred by the fall, and so, death.
A gospel that presumes the doctrines of death in materialism (i.e. evolution) is a gospel of despair.
I belong to the Sydney Anglican mainstream and I have been told that I am "in the image of the God who is love and who spoke the cosmos into existence, with us for eternal relationship with him? That he and his fellows are of great value and their lives, actions and beliefs are eternally significant"
Even if being a theistic evolutionist (or whatever the term is, I'm not sure) and to then say someone is made in the image of God who spoke the world in to existence is a logcial fallacy, that does not mean Sydney Anglicans are not saying it.
They do say man is made in the image of God. They do say God spoke the cosmos into existence for us to be in an relationship with him.
Those comments seem harsh and untrue.
Cheers
geoff
Geoff
Theistic evolution and progressive creation put millions of years of death and suffering before the Fall. Since God declared the creation "very good" after He had created Adam and Eve, it follows from these compromse positions that God is calling death and suffering "very good". So how can the Anglocompromisers say that this Finnish murderer did anything wrong, when his actions merely generated more of what their theology declares is "very good".
One day they might return to the biblical position that Moore ostensibly holds. But this would mean replacing that warped view of death with the biblical view: the wages of sin and the last enemy. Of course that would mean abandoning their love affair with secular uniformitarian evolutionary "science", so I'm not holding my breath.
I understand the implications you're implying of evolution mixed with a 'very good' creation. I too don't know how they could fit together.
But although it may be a logical fallacy, the point is that in a Sydney Anglican church you will be told you are made in the image of God, intended to be in a relationship with God.
I've been in an Anglican Church for over 10 years, and I remember sermons and other expositions on Genesis that taught exactly this. They didn;t teach evolution was correct, nor did they teach 6 literal days was correct, they stated the point was we were intended to be in a relationship with God, and that God created things into being by his word, which was "very good"
My problem is not that you conclude it is a logical fallacy to put evolution alongside a biblical view of creation. My problem is Eric states that "If he'd been exposed to the Sydney Anglican mainstream he'd have been told none of the above".
That is simply a false assertion. The Anglican mainstream would definately conclude and teach those things. Your issue is that is is a logical fallacy, which I'm fine with, and I can understand your point. But to say that "he'd never have been told" is simply false.
Cheers
Geoff
Geoff wrote: "[I]n a Sydney Anglican church you will be told you are made in the image of God, intended to be in a relationship with God. I've been in an Anglican Church for over 10 years, and I remember sermons and other expositions on Genesis that taught exactly this. They didn;t teach evolution was correct, nor did they teach 6 literal days was correct, they stated the point was we were intended to be in a relationship with God, and that God created things into being by his word, which was "very good"...My problem is Eric states that "If he'd been exposed to the Sydney Anglican mainstream he'd have been told none of the above"...That is simply a false assertion."
Geoff,
The problem is, We were to have a relation to what sort of God?
If we present a false image of God, both to believers and to the world, then we cannot be experiencing and knowing the real relationship that God intended. If we tell the world that evolution is true, that physical death is as natural to the creative order as life is, then why should a non-believer accept Jesus as his creator and redeemer?
If God created through the Darwinian law of survival of the fittest, where the weak die for the strong, if death is a necessity in the creative order, I am not quite sure how I am supposed to relate to a "god" whose image this is. It runs completely contrary to how Jesus acted in life and Paul's Christology and theology of creation. If I am confused, how can I expect an unbeliever to resolve this contradiction.
The issue is not primarily whether a minister believes it a priority to teach evolution, 6 days or nothing at all. It's whether or not the Bible teaches God created in 6 days. Geoff, no creationist has ever been given any sensible argument why 6 + days does not equal 6 actual, consecutive days. Even the most liberal scholars understand that the Bible teaches 6 days, and means it to be understood that way.
I believe that too many Anglicans put the horse before the cart in that they first ask 'Is it important?' rather than 'Has God told us he created in 6 days?' One can only answer the first when you know the answer to the second. Creationists just don't believe God created in 6 days, we know he did. And so, we now understand why it's important that God did create in the timeframe he said he did: it shows the glory of God and is evidence for him and him alone working to bring his creation to perfection. Long periods of time sideline God by having imposters enter picture. Evolution is a general term for half a dozen pagan gods, chief among them being the ancient gods of time and chance. The God of the bible creates instantaneously by, through and for his Logos. He does not need time or chance to weave their "magic". God creates by saying "Rise", "See", "Let their be", words not normally associated with large amounts of time and waiting.
The history of the Old Testament prophets is a testimony to Israel's religious ministers falling away by their acceptance of pagan ideas, trying to marry them with the Lord's truth, and then teaching these adulterous practices to the people.
It's on record that Peter Jensen believes that God used evolution to create. I make no apology when I say that evolution is a pagan theory of origins. Peter, as head of the Sydney Anglicans, has fully swallowed a pagan lie about God. Why should we remain quiet about the leader of a Church who marries the Jesus of Scripture with a nasty, brutish, godless theory of origins?
On Sunday, at the Newtown Festival, a non-believer approached a creationist stand, gazed at one photo showing actual T-Rex blood encased in unfossilised bone (thus showing scientifically that the world can't be the millions of years it's supposed to be), turned to one of the Christians on the stand and said, "Is this a religious stand?"
Now why would this pagan see that picture and instantly conclude that there was something about its content that made the whole issue of origins a religious one? Why would he conclude that the age of the earth and when life arose are necessarily and inextricably tied to the question of God's existence? The heathen can see it as an issue but the Sydney Anglicans can't. How surprising...not!
Let's just say I'm in an Anglican church and Genesis is preached to me, and the preacher makes no reference to a six day literal creation, nor does he to evolution. The thrust is that God spoke the world into being and it was very good, and we were created to be in a relationship with God.
Now, he believes in theistic evolution, but I haven't thought about it at all, and he doesn;t mention it in his sermon. Am I still not hearing from the word of God the meaning of Genesis?
This is the case for me, as I think back to my previous Anglican church, the two times I remember it being preached on (one was at an abortion seminar), the thrust of the message was that God intended for me to be in a relationship with him. If that man who shot down those people was sitting there as well, would he have not heard that message? Eric is claiming he wouldn't have. I think what Eric said is false.
So I understand that you believe (with good reason) that evolution can't coincide with Genesis 1 and 2 and it's central message. But what I am saying is that in Sydney Anglican churches, (the two I've been to)what is preached is the message Eric says would never be preached.
Cheers
Geoff
Geoff said: "Let's just say I'm in an Anglican church and Genesis is preached to me, and the preacher makes no reference to a six day literal creation, nor does he to evolution. The thrust is that God spoke the world into being and it was very good, and we were created to be in a relationship with God.
Now, he believes in theistic evolution, but I haven't thought about it at all, and he doesn;t mention it in his sermon. Am I still not hearing from the word of God the meaning of Genesis?"
1. If evolution is a lie (and the Word of God clearly tells us it is!), and if Satan is the father of lies, then your minister believes something that the Liar has created in the minds of men to deceive them (i.e. that things can come into being from material processes alone).
By his not stating the truth the Bible says is truth (i.e. that God created everything very quickly in 6 days), then this minister has kept the truth from his congregation. He has done the arch Deceiver's work even when he hasn't overtly lied. How could he then be preaching the word of God? How could you be hearing the meaning of Genesis if it teaches God created in 6 days and the minister doesn't teach that historical fact?
Geoff, do you really believe that a man who holds a falsehood about a fundamental topic as the origin of life is sufficiently responsible and on the ball to be able to discern truth in other matters. If a man can be secret about his error concerning our past, is he capable of telling us about our future?
2. No Geoff, the thrust is not that "God spoke the world into being and it was very good, and we were created to be in a relationship with God." That's not what Genesis says. It says that God spoke the physical reality into existence really, really, quickly. The relationship you mention is a deduction or inference from the text: it isn't what a straightforward reading produces. In other words, that, rightly or wrongly, is an interpretation and is eisegetical not exegetical.
3. You could apply your minister's technique to any miracle in the bible. For example, the miracle of Cana could be preached on and could sound like this from the lips of Rev. Larry Liberal: "My brothers and sisters in Christ, it is of no consequence whether or not Christ produced wine from water within seconds or if it had occurred over a period of several months. What is important, what this wonderful didactic story is telling us, is that Christ wants us welcomed into the Kingdom of God. What is important is that God wants us to share in his bounteous kingdom. This is what the symbolic message in this episode teaches."
4. As I have asked many times before, if the 6 days were not truth and state exactly what happened, why would God bother to include this statement in the 10 commandments?
5. BTW, your minister is dishonest.
To clarify, one preacher said "I don't know if it was 6 literal ays or a really long time". The other preacher made no mention of the 6 days, just preached about humans being created to be in the image of God and have immense value. I'm guessing neither were 6 day cretionists because they didn't preach it.
Neither preacher was the senior minister, I might add (Was a large congregation with a large staff team of pastors). I should also add it was hypothetical, I have no idea actually of any my previous ministers thoughts about evolution.
Aaaaanyways, back to the topic of discussion.
Eric states that "I wonder what his view would have been if he'd been taught that he is in the image of the God who is love and who spoke the cosmos into existence, with us for eternal relationship with him? That he and his fellows are of great value and their lives, actions and beliefs are eternally significant.
Of course, if he'd been exposed to the Sydney Anglican mainstream he'd have been told none of the above"
Can I (and the murderer) know the great truth that I am made in the image of God and have immense value without knowing that God created the world in 6 literal days?
Because I have known (at least thought I have known) that truh my whole Christian life without actually thinking about whether or not the world was created in 6 literal days? If I haven't then what exactly do I know?
I apologise for my lack of ability in being succint. In short what I'm trying to say is; Eric says in a mainstream Anglican Church you won't hear X preached. I'm saying I have heard X preached. If I haven't (according to you), then what exactly have I heard??'
Cheers
Geoff
I am a bit with Geoff in his proposition because I have sat under various Sydney Anglican sermons on Genesis. When neither the issue of six day creation or theistic evolution is raised in the sermon my initial comment to myself is "No damage done here!" But I am always asking "What does this fellow really believe about the six days of creative activity described in the Bible.
There are, of course, those who launch into the 'framework hypothesis' as part of the sermon. These are they who inadvertantly disclose their evolutionary/long age bent. In regurgitating the 'framework hypothesis' much advocated by the late Meredith Kline they espouse the same motivation for his enthusiasm for the model - "In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man" (M.G. Kline "Space and Time in the Gensis Cosmogony" - Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith.)
Yes, not much damage done to Scripture in not taking sides on the reading of Genesis but the issue of six days or evolution and how long ago is nonetheless there in the mind of hearers who are going out into the world to be confronted with the world's view of origins and they are ill equipped to deal with the world. A failure of the 'cure of souls'.
However, as stated, the 'framework hypothesis' advocates dislose their position
Sam
Just wanted to know the answer to my previous question.
Can I (and the murderer) know the great truth that I am made in the image of God and have immense value without knowing (I don't mean believing, i mean knowing) that God created the world in 6 literal days?
Geoff asks: "Can I (and the murderer) know the great truth that I am made in the image of God and have immense value without knowing (I don't mean believing, i mean knowing) that God created the world in 6 literal days?"
If by 'know' you mean 'true, justified belief', then the answer is no. You may believe it to be true but you won't, according to the classic definition of 'knowledge', know it to be true.
If you hear Genesis 1 being expounded upon and infer that it signifies what you call the "great truth", then you still have to have some basis for saying I am perfectly justified to say that it is true belief about the world. You may accept it on a blind leap of faith and put that "fact" in to your upper storey faith basket, but what are you going to do with the world's faith that says the world is billions of years old and was created through billions of years of death and destruction? Do billions of years of blood and misery tell us that God loves his creative order?
By merely assenting to the "great truth", by saying "I believe" this without the supporting biblical and scientific evidence for the non-evolutionary and rapid creation of life that apodictically demonstrates God's love, then you're going to have a schizoid belief. Our faith must be a whole faith not the partial one the Anglican Church pushes from its pulpits.
I ask you, Geoff: How do you know the great truth from Genesis 1? We're all ears.
Geoff, I think I can understand your view, and perhaps was a little tough in my initial blog. But the key point that I think you've missed, and I think is the common lapse in the Sydney theology is the diffence between proclaiming that God did something because of a sort of verbal reference (he said he created so he did) and that God's action as stated bears equivalence in the real world.
I see the Bible as presenting a uniform 'concrete realism' in its content, notwithstanding figures of speech which, to my reading, rely on 'concrete realism'. This means that the intense drama of God creating directly by his word in quick order, and quite recently (according to the pagan time scale) is a real drama, something that really, and profoundly happened.
The line I think you have in mind is that the words of God are over here meaning (a) but the real world is somewhere else, where (b) in concrete reality happened. I would call this the 'platonic' mistake, and allowing the Bible to be filled with meanings other than those which spring from its words (not as a caricature fundamentalist, but as one who seriously reads for the 'real reality' in those words).
The presumption is that God revealed his acts as information important to us to know. If he revealed an act which did not occur, and in fact (in this particular matter) evolution occured; and that evolution is 'creation by death' then a fundamental challenge is raised to the viability of any approach to the Bible. In fact, the approach is one that is inconsistent with the Bible's own 'philosophical framework' (my 'concrete realism') and prefers an Eastern framework which allows backfilling of words with the readers preferred concept.
The pastoral and kerygmatic ramifications of this are stark. It means that we must explain a God to the world who is, in his chief credential (that as creator) not continuous with this world. What is this world really like? Is it really like the pagan assertion that death dominates, the struggle is to the powerful and material, if left to itself for long enough, can produce unconditional and truly significant love; or is it like the world of the Bible, that death is the last enemy, that the creation (material) has responded to love, but been marred by our wilful estrangement from God, besmirching God's 'very good'?
One cannot have one without the other. If we say the words consistent with the Bible, that God created, etc. etc. but really believe that doctrinaire materialism holds the key to this world, we are sadly misleading ourselves, cutting ourselves off from the wonder of God's love in action, and misunderstanding the en tire framework of our being.
Eric, your point can be refined, I think.
The only information we have that God created is that where he tells us the details: Genesis 1. But the typical modern view is that none of the details actually mean what they say. So they think God is creator, but the only place he really established this they claim is not factual. So how do they know he's creator?
Moreover, they say that the 'world story' of the materialists is right, but God's 'world story' (the wrong one, the only one by which he is set out as our creator) which would obstruct the chain of reasoning built by the Finnish boy, by Hitler, by Stalin, etc. does not hold up.
In the end, they've got to side with the materialist becuase they've just denied the only story which confounds the materialist story, and might just show people that the cosmos is finally and ultimately 'personal' not material, and that 'love' not death is the key to our significance.
Evolution, however mixed, mixes up people's minds and aligns them with the last enemy, not the victory of Christ over this very enemy.
John Said:
"I ask you, Geoff: How do you know the great truth from Genesis 1? We're all ears."
The Holy Spirit opens my ears, I guess.
But I have no idea what I think of Genesis 1 and how best to read it to be honest, I really don't. So perhaps in your eyes the Holy Spirit hasn't opened them at all, and I'm a heretic.
Thanks Eric for your reply.
I guess he (murderer) would have heard the message, but it would have been inconsistent with the theology they teach (according to you). Just getting my head around it.
Cheers
Geoff
Geoff, I hope my thoughts were of interest to you. I've extended the discussion with a new post "Quote on time (just in time)". Providentially, I came across it in a paper on literary theorists' take on Genesis 1.
Geoff, our Lord's application of grace and justification is a glorious outworking of his love. There are no degrees of justification. Your coming to faith in the completed work of our Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient to salvation in him. Should the murderer have taken the same path then the same salvation derives.
As I see it, the Christian ought love the Lord Jesus Christ and be sanctified. There are degrees of love and sanctification but each goes with justification as important elements of saving faith. As in any relationship love is aided by knowledge. An inadequate knowledge of the one you love leaves the relationship open to strain during times of trial and hardship.
Elsewhere on this blogspot I have leant my support to the statement of Puritan, John Owen, which reads "The whole foundation of all gospel faith rests in the glory of Christ's person and offices."
Again, as I see it, an inadequate or corrupted knowledge of Jesus Christ in his office of Creator is a recipe for problems but not in all circumstances leading to no faith in him.
The Finnish mass murderer would have had an obstacle coming to saving faith in Jesus Christ because he had been taught, and believed, a system of elimination of the weak existed from the very beginning of life on earth. Such a system is contrary to the nature of Jesus Christ revealed in Scripture. That man's world view was always going to be a handicap to him seeing the mutual grace (self sacrificing)nature resident in Jesus Christ.
Sam
Sam
Why is this blog called "Sydney Anglican Heretics" if you feel it is not necessary for one to believe in a literal 6 day creation?
Or do you not agree with the title of the blog?
Geoff, rather than going through it all again I refer you to the discussion, questions and answers between myself and Mark on the blog "Sydney Episcopalians and the Harlot" on this site.
Sam
Geoff wrote: "I guess the difference in our point of views is, you believe Peter Jensen (and many other Sydney Anglicans...though not all of them) is a heretic because of his views on Genesis. If 6 day creationism is right, I still don't think it makes him a heretic, I think it just makes him wrong.
I think Peter and the diocese on the whole are very faithful to the word of God, and I don't think they succumb to the ways of the world. Maybe they have been fooled by it in this case (I'm not sure), but I don't think it warrants them being labelled heretics."
Geoff, would you provide me with a straightforward answer to the following please: If I believed everything about the orthodox Christian faith one is supposed to believe in order to remain orthodox, but I believed that instead of a physical resurrection Christ rose spiritually, would you regard me as heterodox or orthodox?
1 Corinthians 15 makes it clear to me that if Christ wasn't raised from the dead our preaching and our faith is useless. I would call it heresy to say Christ didn't rise from the dead physically, yes.
Geoff wrote: "1 Corinthians 15 makes it clear to me that if Christ wasn't raised from the dead our preaching and our faith is useless. I would call it heresy to say Christ didn't rise from the dead physically, yes."
I know what Corinthians says, but I want to know why it was important that he resurrected PHYSICALLY. (Geoff, just indulge me for a moment or two.)
I don't get it? Indulge you?
I haven't thought about WHY it is important beyond that the scriptures testify that it is important (1 Corinthians 15).
So maybe I have to do more thinking about it. But it seems to me from the scriptures (gospels and Paul) that Christ rose physically from the dead.
Geoff,
God always does something for a reason. If you think it's important that Jesus rose physically and not just spiritually, what's the reason?
God does all things for the glory of hs name. God is glorified through the physical resurrection of Christ.
I don't know why god wanted to do it that way, but he did. The reason he did it was for the glory of his name.
If you want something more specific you might have to tell me, because I don't think I'm on the right track. :-)
Geoff said: "God does all things for the glory of hs name. God is glorified through the physical resurrection of Christ.
I don't know why god wanted to do it that way, but he did. The reason he did it was for the glory of his name."
Since you stated that not believing in a physical resurrection is heresy, are people who only believe in a spiritual resurrection saved?
I will, in time, answer your question re the importance of a physical resurrection.
Paul says if Christ didn't raise from the dead, our faith is futile. Also he says in Galatians that if anyone preaches a gospel different from the one they accepted (from Paul), "let him be eternally condemned".
If Christ not raised from the dead means it is a different gospel, I would say hey aren't saved, yes.
Geoff wrote: "If Christ not [physically] raised from the dead means it is a different gospel, I would say hey aren't saved, yes."
Forgive me for inserting the word 'physically' but I wanted to emphasise the exact issue we've been discussing i.e. the importance of a physical resurrection in distinction to merely a spiritual resurrection as the JWs believe.
The reason why a physical resurrection is so important is that it shows that Jesus is the creator. If his body couldn't overcome death and be raised physically he has no right to call himself the creator. It's through his physical resurrection that we can be sure that physical death is not natural to the creation. After all, if Christ did not rise physically then he did not overcome death and thus can't be God the creator. Only the creator, incarnated as the perfect man, could prove that the creation did not have physical death as part of the original plan. This Jesus did and we can be sure that the pre-fall period was meant to be death-free.
Now, as you've clearly stated, saying that Jesus did not physically resurrect is a heresy. It's a heresy because it denies Jesus' claim (and the proof of it) to be the Creator.
Christians who, after all argument is exhausted, still maintain that God used death, disease, survival of the fittest, the weak dying off for the strong, who substitute chance- and death-ridden principles of evolution for the glory of a perfect, death-free world, are denying the creative action and role of Christ. The Bible says that Christ created quickly, purposely, directly, instantly, this resulting in a death-free world. They have substituted another principle for Christ. This is heresy.
To say that chance (the Greek god Tykhe), time (the Greek god Kronos)and death (the Greek god Thanatos) are the means by which the world evolved denies the biblical revelation that the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit alone are the creator. Thus, theistic evolutionists, like Peter Jensen and Rob Forsyth, are heretics.
Do you now understand why it's an important issue?
I see it is an important issue, but I disagree with your conclusions that it makes someone a heretic.
I'm Calvinistic in my thinking, but I don't think Arminians are heretics going to hell. I think Arminian theology makes God out to be a bit of a whimp, and is unbiblical, but I don't think it's proponents are trying to make God a whimp or actively denying the bible. I think they are just wrong.
I'm not sure I really follow your conclusions though. This will probably annoy you but I'm really not the one to engage in this discussion. My knowledge on this issue is so terribly low and my articulation and argumentative skills are that of a 2nd Grader. I read over your paragraph and still can't make sense of your conclusions, why a = b.
the physical ressurection for me makes sense because the bible states clearly that it makes our faith and preaching futile. I don't ever see the bible stating we must be 6 day creationists in order to honour the Trinity as Creator. Though I'm not sure where I stand on Genesis and evolution, I don't understand how you reach these conclusions.
With Arminian theology and ignoring the resurection of Christ, these affect how we worship God. I can't see in the Sydney Diocese where an acceptance of evolution affects worship. I've been in fellowship with Creationists and it hasn;t been a problem, but I've been in fellowship with some Arminians and health and wealth gospel preachers, and that REALLY affects things.
I think there is a chance you guys are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What I mean is, although the issue is important to engage with, and does have implications for how we read the bible, I think creationists and theistic evolutionists (and all those in between!) can still worship the same truine God.
Do you guys ever want to get a drink or something? You live in Sydney?
Geoff,
I am about to leave work and will continue this hopefully tonight when I return.
The Bible declares that because Jesus rose he is above all principals and powers. As Paul wrote in Colossians, "And then having drawn the sting of all the powers ranged against us, he exposed them, shattered, empty and defeated, in his final glorious triumphant act!"
If he did not or could not raise himself physically then he can't be have defeated the power of the devil (i.e death) because physical death would rule over him. This is why JW theology is a heresy because physical death still rules over Jesus' physical body i.e. it hasn't resurrected. That is, they deny that Jesus is ultimately creator. If he can't physically resurrect, he just can't be a creator because a real creator has the power above all things, death being the final "hurdle", to paraphrase Paul's point here.
This is a very big problem for theistic evolutionists who believe that ultimately it is not God's Logos (i.e. the very mind and thoughts of God i.e. his wisdom, knowledge and understanding)which is the mechanism for God's creative work in the cosmos but chance, time and death .
So, theistic evolutionists implicitly or overtly deny (i.e. preach from the pulpit, in their writings and also when teach people like yourself) that it is God's direct mind working on matter that creates. They actually say that science so-called has demonstrated that over vast eons of time God brought physical death into the world and that he allowed chance to work upon death, death of the individual and the group, and that it was this that created everything.
I know of at least two very well known Christians who were invited to St Barnabas at Broadway and who preached this. If you believe, as the physicist and Canon(?) Polkinghorn teaches that death is a good in God's creative order, that it was there from the beginning, then you are blaspheming the Holy God.
I suggest that you go home, put these thoughts under your pillow tonight and, as my favourite 3-earned PhD biochemist creationist A.E. Wilder-Smith used to say, sleep on it.
Hi. Sorry I'm a bit late coming to this discussion, I discovered this blog recently after someone pointed out you have name checked my Question Darwin blog here.
I posted on the Finnish Natural Selector killer last year. Interesting discussion.
Some great points made above, I think it is so important that as Christians, Anglican or other, we are charitable when we disagree. I also think we should be so careful not to oversimplify things and get drawn into extreme factionalism. Of course you can be a godly man or woman in Christ whilst holding to incorrect beliefs, or 'not thinking about' things which actually you SHOULD think about, but it may not be helpful.
Re the Finnish natural selector killer, I commend anyone who is interested in the idea of evolutionism turning people into killers to check out Richard Weikart's scholarly book 'From Darwin to Hitler'. Prof Weikart clearly traces important strands of Nazi thought back to Darwin (not least via the atheist fraud Haeckel, the German T E Huxley), but is careful to stress that Darwinism was not the only cause. He knew that he would be pilloried for alegedly claining that Darwinism alone was responsible for the Nazi holocaust, and he was-Darwin defenders are always quick to misrepresent those who question or criticise Darwin. In other words, lets be careful of laying it on too thick for fear of giving ammunition to the opposition.
In the same way, saturating a society with pornography won't turn all men into rapists, but it may make it easier for some to cross that line.
Same with Darwinism and loss of respect for human life-thankfully, as even Huxley and Dawkins have acknowledged, although logically (from the evolutionary persective) altruism makes no sense, its a good thing that most of us seem to be (to some extent) hard wired with it!
May Christ be glorified and all falsehood exposed
Post a Comment