In recent blogs at his site (in exile,) Mark Baddeley continues his muddying of the waters on Scriptural interpretation to enable lovers of the world to keep a foot in both camps viz the Kingdom of God and the world. The Moore Theological College of today might be proud of him but those true to the Word of God past and present would rebuke him.
Again he selectively uses Martin Luther to mount an argument against Luther's position on the interpretation of Genesis 1. Just quickly, to dismiss some irrelevant arguments made by Mark Baddeley against a straightforward reading of Genesis 1, I cite him and respond hereunder. Mark Baddeley says:
"1. The deep waters of verse 2 existing before God says anything in verse 3.
2. The fact that in verse 2 ‘darkness’ exists before God says anything in verse 3 to create anything which could be dark. (After all, you can’t have darkness without space, and space—physical dimensions—is one of those things that is created in verses 3 and following).
3. The firmament separating the waters above from the waters below in verses 6, which is an expanse in which floodgates are opened in 7:11 to bring about the Flood.
4. The fact that all celestial objects only exist to give light and regulate human time in verses 14-18.
5. The fact that the seventh day doesn’t end. It’s quite noticeable, if you have your eyes open. Every day has the same refrain:
And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
And there was evening and there was morning, the seventh day.
No wait. My mistake. Scratch the last one. The refrain is not repeated on the seventh day, the day when God rests from his labours of creating. It is repeated six times and then missed out on the seventh day."
In response, I say:
1. So what! There is no problem here unless you are mischievously trying to invent one. If you can accept that verse 1 is a summary statement (as Bill Dumbrell, a once favoured lecturer at Moore College allows) and verse 2 identifies a stage of the creation as God begins to fill the earth then verse 3 and following is the account of God speaking to fill the earth and make it a habitation for man and creature.
2. Same again! As a sign of Mark Baddeley's inattentiveness he makes no mention that in verse 2 the earth, water and hovering of the Spirit of God suggest space as well.
Nothing in my aforesaid two points should be seen to deny (and certainly Scripture does not deny it) that verse 2 identifies a circumstance occurring on the first day of creation week. Hebrews 11:3 and 2 Peter 3:5 are certainly not against it.
3. Not an issue. Biblical Creationists have differing views as to whether verses 6-8 refer to a water canopy within or beyond earth atmosphere or whether the verses refer to cloud cover or whatever. Little is known about the physicality of the present universe let alone being precise about the universe at the end of creation week. Does much hang on this?
4. Like other issues raised, this is making a mountain out of molehill. There is no reason why the seasonal and time functions of the celestial bodies couldn't be principal functions with other intended functions not identified in verses 14-18. On the other hand we are, today, experiencing a world somewhat different to that which was first created and later altered due to the Fall and subsequently destroyed in the time of Noah. Proponents of the canopy theory might argue that the warming effect of the sun's rays would have been less demonstrable on earth prior to the Flood.
5. Another instance of majoring on the minor or making a mountain out of a molehill. As if the description of events on the seventh day deny the unity and veracity of events described on the previous SIX days? Biblical Creationists have only ever argued (from Scripture) that God created the heavens, the earth and the sea and all that is in them in six days - not seven days. Extrapolating Mark Baddeley's (and others) argument, is it contended that there was no eighth or ninth day after God commenced creating? Are we, today, in no point of time since God created the world?
Greater Hebrew scholars (both evangelical and liberal) than Mark Baddeley have no problem believing the author of Genesis intended the reader to understand God created in six days as we experience the duration of a day eg Luther, Calvin, Archer, Waltke, Sailhamer, Hamilton, Barr, Leupold, Wenham, Kidner, Arnold, Speiser, Young and Davis. The scientist Sir Isaac Newton, regarded roundly as the greatest scientist to have ever lived, had no problem believing the world was created in six days as we experience them.
People such as Mark Baddeley really tie themselves into knots when they try to reinterpret Scripture to 'run with the hounds' ie to suck up to the world. He makes the claim "First and foremost we need to grasp that the word of God is self-interpreting." However, he denies this principle time and time again. Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:15-18 give unequivocal endorsement to Genesis 1. How foolish one can make oneself out to be when they setting oneself up against God and those God has used to give life and vigour to the church such as Luther and Calvin.
He has his devotees, however, those who love this world. They go on his blogspot urging him on and in this they act like Saul of Tarsus holding the cloaks of those who would put down those holding to the truth. Their own capacity to see the truth is blinded by their hatred of us. We are not of this world as they are. They hate us for this and they hate us for speaking out strongly against them. Some of them forget that the Sydney Anglican Heretics blogspot only arose after they insulted and derided gentle Biblical Creationists on the Sydney Anglican Forum - 'Peace With Evolution'. This site then is only a product of their making. With some petulance they criticise commentators here for getting tough with their deceptive ways. Yet one of them, Gordon Cheng, said on one of their own supporter's blogspot that there must be some scope for Christians to go so far as Apostle Paul and say such strong words as "I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves." Strong words indeed. Okay for Apostle Paul, something of the like okay for Gordon Cheng but lesser words by commentators here deemed vile. Hypocrites!
They hate better than they love.
Sam
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I recently endeavoured to post a reply on Mark Badderley's site however it appeared to be blocked. Therefore I posted it on the thread below as I felt it should be seen. It eventually appeared on his blogspot.
Just now I have attempted to have a further say & it did not appear on his site. Therefore once again I am posting here. All very interesting.
___________________________
Mark, I reject your baseless accusation that I have entered into mud-slinging. A little research shows the term refers to making slanderous or false claims to discredit others. Slander is defined as ‘false report maliciously uttered to person’s injury.’ Considering what ‘mud-slinging’ actually means it is clear that it is in fact you who is mud-slinging, falsely accusing me.
What I said regarding the meeting at Moore is fact. The man referred to (and another not mentioned) was evasive to the point of attempted deceit, when questioned. I have today spoken with two of the eye-witnesses, asking them to recall the event, & that which was said. Though there is differing memory of detail (as is normal with human memory) both agree these men were less than honest in their answers that day.
The reason I mentioned this incident, (the context in which it arose) was to illustrate that those you and others may hold in the highest awe, who you may describe as men great in the kingdom of God are mere mortals, fallible like the rest of us. Not hero’s to be followed-none of us are.
Am I saying that this man referred to, and others previously mentioned elsewhere, are especially deceitful persons whom we should abhor? Far from it as they are just (like the rest of us) fallible sinful men, brothers to be appreciated & prayed for. But not revered.
You wrote ‘… then I think you are biting at the heels of men who are far, far greater in the kingdom of God than yourselves.’ I would be surprised if these men or other true servants of God would be comfortable being so described. I am not offended by your attempted slur as I have never sought a high position-too far to fall.
I do not see you or others of like mind as my enemies but simply as errant brothers, and it is the responsibility of every Christian to oppose error. I am sure you sincerely believe in the truth of what you write & teach however I see your views on Genesis (as shared by many others in the Christian community) as man-centered, contrary to the plain meaning of Scripture and a step away from traditional Biblical belief. In other words, dangerous. I do oppose them and will continue to do so, wherever and whenever I see fit.
Mark Baddeley has apparently rejected my last comments refusing to post them on his site. Apparently I’m not playing cricket. See his comments below.
I read the robust comment & argument in the NT where Jesus & the apostles told it like it was & therefore appreciate the similar robust argument & comment which is allowed here. Be like Jesus & the apostles & tell it like it is.
I have spent considerable time in France & finally have come to understand why the French have disdain for the English. The French appreciate frankness (no pun intended) & consequently find it difficult to like the English who as a group seem to hide their true feelings, especially upon weighty subjects. Wasn’t it from our English heritage we got the idea we shouldn't discuss religion, sex or politics over dinner! What else is there?
The French find it difficult to understand what the English are thinking, especially the upper middle-class English. I see evidence in the writing of some in the local Anglican community that they also think this English upper middle-class way. It occurs to me that (along with their extra-Biblical starting point of course) this mind-set provides them with a secondary reason to reject the plain meaning of Scripture. They often seem to be straining to find meaning other than that which would be gained from a straight-forward reading. You see evidence of this (for example) in how they approach Jesus’ words- ‘He who made them at the beginning of creation.’ They don’t seem to be able to accept the Creators Words at face value always looking for a hidden or alternative meaning.
Interesting!
_____________________
Baddeley says:
Warwick,
This is the third time you've slung the same mud. You've made it clear that you're not here to engage with the arguments but to attack people to justify yourself for not engaging with the arguments.
The information people need to evaluate your accusation against me is on this comment thread so they can check it for themselves, given that you're not even prepared to try and justify an accusation that can be verified within the limits of this comment thread.
No further comments by you will be allowed unless they are interactions with the arguments and only about the arguments.
08 December 2007 03:00
_________________________
Can anyone help me? What is he on about? What have I supposed to have 'attacked' him about?
Please read what I have written & tell me who is actually the mud-slinger.
Like many in the Sydney Anglican Diocese, Mark Baddeley wants to control everything. They errantly believe they are the source of all understanding on the knowledge of God.
If you don't fit their mould you are excluded, isolated, branded.
This is why some of us dare not give our identity. We will be hounded until the day of the Reformation of the Sydney Anglican Diocese.
At present it is very cultish, if you ask me.
Neil Moore
Neil,
Dealing with some Anglicans is to say the least interesting.
Baddeley like others wants to engage in what I have described as a dance. It is a rigid dance with steps well choreographed. I have seen over the months that no matter what Scriprure is used to defend a straight-forward view of Genesis they have at least one alternative view-the side step.
Days don't mean days even when defined as light/dark cycle days just as we live them. Beginning doesn't mean beginning.
Consider the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20)where God says He created in 6 days & rested the 7th,then warning of the consequences of working on the 7th day. This is a clear link between God's 6-day creative activity and the Sabbath. Surely the same God who says He created in six earth-rotation days is here repeating this as a foundation for the Sabbath.
If we cannot know exactly what day is the 7th then how can a just God threaten death for working upon this day. But one or more of these men rubbished this obvious connection.
This step apparently doesn't fit with their dance steps so has to be brushed aside. In a way they remind me of discussions with Jehovah Witnessses who deny the deity of Jesus despite the overwhelming Scriptural evidence that He is indeed God. Both camps are forced to bend Scripture out of shape as both have a non-Biblical foundation for their beliefs.
Likewise the Anglodance through Scripture is well thought out, but just as wrong.
Did you also notice the arrogance of Baddeley when he described us as mere heel snappers, at the heels of men far, far greater than us in the Kingdom! It amazes me that anyone would so expose their arrogance.
Warwick,
It is a good point you make about the problem with a non-finite seventh day. God would hardly punish Sabbath breakers under the old covenant if there was an unending seventh day. Instead God made it quite clear by directly saying to Moses that he created all things in six days. He then wrote it in stone.
Guys like Mark Baddeley remind me of the Commander of the Assyrian army when assembled outside Jerusalem in the time of King Hezekiah. The commander spoke for the king of Assyria who had misapplied the will of God, even the words of God. The king was later referred to by God as a blasphemer.
It is a very dangerous course taken by Mark Baddeley.
Neil Moore
Against my better judgement I sneaked a peek at another of Baddeley's threads. There's no doubt these guys write some strange things, products of their need to make Genesis say other than it plainly does.
While there I noticed something revealing which Michael Jensen wrote. He claims Genesis 1-11 is different because it is not an eye-witness acount! What isn't all Scripture equally God breathed therfore being the ultimate eye-witness account. He apparently considers that written by human witnesses to be superior to that inspired by God alone! Police tell me that human eye-witness accounts are unreliable & further that memory changes very quickly.
Surely the reason we trust Scripture is that it is the testimony of God, via the Holy Spirit to man. The same perfect eye-witness who inspired Genesis 1-11 etc.
None the less Adam was there well able to be an eye-witness from day 6. Is he saying Noah wasn't an eye witness?
To me Jensen's comments are just further evidence this clique are man centered.
People such as Michael Jensen and Mark Baddeley are hastening the Sydney Anglican Diocese into oblivion.
Warwick, for those guys only a testimony with the stamp - New Testament - has any merit.
Neil
Post a Comment