Cults are exclusive. Cults using the Bible as their authority selectively use Scripture for their end. Cults tend to almost, if not completely, deify their earthly leader.
In my view there is something cultish about on Mark Baddeley's http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com/
Only allowing certain commentators to comment on his blogs. Selective use of Scripture to the exclusion of that which undermines his point. His almost worship of the present Archbishop of Sydney.
He extends himself to protect the Diocese and its Archbishop from criticism. He will not have mention of sydneyanglicanheretics.blogspot.com/ on his blogspot. You will note I have no difficulty mentioning his blogspot. We have no fear of people going and seeing what he writes. Our case will always stand on its merits. It is not really a case we can claim of our own. It is the case of Luther and Calvin and other faithful Christians of the past.
For many years the Diocese has been cautious of anyone not trained at Moore Theological College. This can be a sign of a problem within the Diocese if it thinks that all truth resides in the Diocese.
Mark Baddeley's attempts to theologise against Creation Scientists will I suspect be dealt with here in coming weeks. Funny how he calls us Creation Scientists. I am not a scientist nor are one or two others I know who contribute to sydneyanglicanheretics blogspot. Mr Baddeley falters at the very beginning by applying an incorrect label to those he criticises.
What is more disturbing is Mr Baddeley's elevation of the man, Peter Jensen over other men. It is almost cultish!
A lesson from history is needed here to help the reader understand what is going on in the Sydney Anglican Diocese.
Some, perhaps only a few, who read this will have encountered a man in Sydney called Mark Kay. He seems to be everywhere, especially around universities in Sydney. I have seen him at the University of Sydney. I got into a conversation with him one day. He informed me of an incident once when he was in conversation with two young women who were members of Evangelical Union (an Anglican inspired outreach on campus). Mark Kay told me the topic got onto the belief of Peter Jensen in a Theistic Evolution. As is reasonable, Mark Kay was critical of Peter Jensen on this matter. The reaction of these young women to any notion of criticism of Peter Jensen was astounding. There were no raised voices but criticism of Peter Jensen reduced one young woman to tears - to tears! There is something very wrong here. It was almost as if Mark Kay was destroying her Christian faith by pointing out a doctrinal fault held by Peter Jensen. I may be wrong on the following point but, as I recall the story, I think following the incident another Evangelical Union person tried to have Mark Kay banned from the University of Sydney even though he was a registered student there.
This is worrying but it sheds light on something working itself out within the Diocese and thus the motivation driving Mark Baddeley's baseless interpretation of Scripture to defend a) the position of his Archbishop on origins and b) the (proud) name of Anglican Diocese of Sydney.
It is almost cultish.
Just a quick word about one of Mark Baddeley's blogs, the one about 'death and suffering as a good' (part ii) in his musings.
One must remind oneself that the multitude of words contained therein are the thoughts of Mark Baddeley laid over the word of God. Also, I say "The multitude of words smothers wisdom."
Let a few words of Scripture suffice as reply - "When Jesus saw their weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 'Where have you laid him?' he asked. 'Come and see, Lord.' they replied. Jesus wept." John 11:33-35.
Neil Moore
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
For sure, a key mark of a cult is extra-biblical authority. Theistic evolution and long ages may not have other cultic patterns, but they certainly invoke extra-biblical authority that in practice nullifies the Word of God.
I too intend discussing aspects of Mark Baddeley's blogs. There is so much waffle it will take time. I see he gets gets feedback on his site like a mother gets when she keeps giving her children sugar laced food instead of food of substance. The children demand the sweet taste without regard for their health and longevity. Sadly, the negligent mother keeps giving them what is no good for them.
Neil, you comment about Mark's tendency toward selective use of bible texts. I agree but observe he goes further. He selectively cites John Calvin and Martin Luther - using them when they seem (to him) to support an argument he is mounting but rejecting them when they speak against his argument. Let me explain.
Mark interprets part of Martin Luther's writings to argue against Natural Theology. He cites John Calvin as a reference for definition of what is a Heretic. However, he rejects them out of hand as being correct in their interpretation of the bible saying that the world was created in six days about 6,000 years ago. Such selective treatment of Calvin and Luther leaves Mark without credibility.
I am disgusted at his treatment of Genesis 1:29-30. In a deceptive sleight of hand he sets it up against Genesis 9:3 and, to the inattentive reader, he nullifies the effect of Genesis 1:29-30. This is bad exegesis, if not dishonest. Genesis 1:29-30 stands on its own. It is not diminished by any other passage of the bible. Clearly, mankind and the animals were meant to eat vegetation as food and we must accept that they did in the beginning. God authorised mankind to eat meat after the flood. Neither Genesis 9:3 or any other passage of the bible tells us when animals commenced eating meat. It could have been after the Fall or it could have been after the Flood. If after the Fall it may initially have only been partial (mixed diet) for those animals which are today thorough meat eaters. The case for non or partial (or should I say ambivalent) is supported by Genesis 6:21 and 8:13-14 which indicate Noah had to provide food to sustain the animals for 12 months while on the ark. I am inclined to think that vegetation would keep better for 12 months than meat.
Whatever suppositions one likes to make, Genesis 9:3 informs us that God allowed Noah and his family to eat meat after the Flood. This passage is silent on when animals commenced eating meat. Despite Mark Baddeley's ploy to have readers doubt the veracity of Genesis 1:29-30 the truth is there for bible believers to see - it was God's intention that animals as well as mankind were not to kill one another for food at the beginning of creation. This then sets up potential for there to be no death or suffering in the world prior to the Fall.
Sam
It should be mentioned - for the sake of balance - that Mark Kay is a mature-aged student and a man of some size and stature.
In conversation he can be strident, dogged, trenchant, repetitive and slippery. He is not above using his physical presence to tower over people when making his point. He is not so much interested in debate or sharing of ideas as he is in making sure that everyone is very sure that his opinion is right. Surfice it to say encounters with Mark can be intense.
His choice of two young undergrad women on which to unleash his opinion on some obscure point of theology is characteristic.
I recall that the attempt to remove him from campus was on the grounds of the manner of the delivery of his opinion and the fact that he would not stop - even when the girls tried to walk away - not his thoughts on Peter Jensen.
Murphy's understanding of the incident is contrary to how it was explained to me. I wasn't there but it was a sedate telling of the incident by Mark Kay so I am inclined to his view.
Onto the subject at hand.
Mark Baddeley seems to me to be worshipping a different God to God revealed in Jesus Christ. Mark Baddeley in one of his blogs said "If God can rule over a world in which suffering and death exist and be good (and most Christians would argue against atheists that he can) then it is not immediately obvious that God couldn’t make a world in which suffering and death exist and still be good."
I believe also that Mark Baddeley preaches a false Gospel.What does Romans 5:12-15 mean if, according to Mark Baddeley, death was part of God's creative activity and thus not the product of Adam's sin? I cannot see anything else arising but the title heretic! The more Mark Baddeley writes the bigger the hole he digs for himself, a hole that others will fall into.
Neil Moore
He hasn't grasped Mutual Grace Relationship existing within the Godhead and reflected in the pre-Fall creation. Mutual Grace Relationship or 'Other Person Centred' is also reflected in the Decalogue as the way Israel was to live as the People of God.
How is it possible for God to be true to himself if, as the author of life, he instituted and willed his creation to be denying life? No! Sin came into the world only through an act of rebellion by the created.
Perhaps Mr Baddeley should have listened more to Michael Hill. Perhaps too Mr Baddeley might do better teaching Yin and Yang.
Sam
Baddeley is being silly with Genesis. Genesis 9:3 says:
‘Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.’
This makes no sense if Noah were already eating meat. This supports reading Gen. 1:29 as teaching that man's original diet was vegetarian. And since the next verse says just the same thing for the animals, it shows that they were originally created vegetarian as well. But while obedient humans became vegetarian after the Flood, Gen. 9 says nothing about when animals started eating meat.
BTW, for the Ark food, Woodmorappe's book Noah's Ark: a Feasibility Study suggests dried meat that could be reconsitituted with water, and fodder turtles. After the Flood, the Ark carnivores could have survived by eating exhumed carrion (plenty of it!) and fish trapped in pools left behind by retreating Flood waters.
For more information, see How did bad things come about? [including carnivores and pathogens] and The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe: Hugh Ross’s blunders on plant death in the Bible.
Thanks for the tip Ktisophilos.
Sam
You're welcome, Sam.
Despite what the Moorites et al. claim about the novelty of the YEC claims, in reality they have been the historic view of the church. this includes original vegetarianism in humans and animals. E.g. Basil the Great in the 4th century said (on the Origin of Man 2:6–7):
‘We see, however, many wild animals which do not eat fruits. What fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with? Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of nature, were nourished by fruits. … [But now] the lion is a carnivore, since then also vultures watch for carrion. For the vultures were not yet looking over the earth at the very moment when the animals were born; in fact, nothing of what had received designation or existence had yet died so that the vultures might eat them. Nature had not yet divided, for it was all in its freshness: hunters did not capture, for such was not yet the practice of men; the beasts, for their part, did not yet tear their prey, for they were not carnivores.’
In a closed system order will go to disorder ( a rough translation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics).
When God is silent the church will go to disorder.
Such is the debased theology we are exposed to today of which Mark Baddeley is a proponent.
Sam
The problem I have with Mark Badderley & others of his ilk stems from the fact I come from a long line of engineers. Engineering is a precise science where those involved are not given to flights of fancy or esoteric language but function (hopefully)in testable, repeatable observable reality. There are tables which give for example the maximum spans for metallic supports. When a building is designed & constructed these tables need to be adhered to, not reinterpreted. History has shown what occurs when people re-interpret these clear words. Crunch!
In Scripture God has given us his history from 'in the beginning' to 'Amen.' We all know what happened to the Israelites when they did it their way, rejecting God's Word. Crunch.
Surely we should give to God that He has the ability to make His meaning just as clear as any engineer?
Many like Badderley have taken on board a carefully crafted but fluffy pseudo-academic approach to Scripture not taking it at face value(unless it suits them) reinterpreting it to fit with extra-Biblical views. Despite various claims they don't do such a thing it is the only interpretation of their actions which makes sense. They clearly do not take God at His Word but dance lightly around even the words of Christ. Apparently Christ's words that man was made at the beginning of creation don't mean -at the beginning of creation! It is obvious that the straight forward meaning of His words is this but not to persons with an extra-Biblical starting point.
Some write as if their musings are original thought when in reality they are just age old liberal ideas. What a mess- did God really say... as Satan asked?
Earlier this year I met up with some Moore students at an Anglican function to which I was invited and it was revealing to see their thinking & their lack of knowledge about what those who accept Biblical creation believe. They are obviously being sold a story involving numerous 'straw men.' More on that later, maybe.
I remember when Mark Kay spoke to the two girls, and that they were left in tears after he yelled and ranted at them.
Post a Comment