Mark Baddeley, on staff at Moore Theological College in Sydney, Australia, demonstrates a low standard of theological scholarship required these days at that institution. Episcopalians around the world should note what damage awaits if they are entertaining thoughts of their son or daughter enrolling at Moore College.
Neil Moore in a recent blog identified one characteristic of a cult as being that of taking bible texts out of context. Mark Baddeley grossly commits that offence in a blog at http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com/ when quoting Romans 8:28-30 and 35-37as making the case for suffering being part of God's creation prior to the Fall.
The Apostle Paul's letter to the church in Rome is almost entirely about the i) corrupted creation after the Fall of Adam, ii) God's gracious reconciliation through Jesus Christ and iii) life thereafter for those receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Only Romans 1:20 makes any direct reference to a pre-Fall situation (note this also has application post-Fall). The suffering referred to by Paul in Romans 8 is therefore within the context of the fallen world not the pre-fallen world. As shown throughout the bible and therefore in earth history God works out his plan of salvation using consequences of the Fall eg suffering and death.
Hebrews 2:5-18 further explains well enough that consequences of the fallen state of man viz lost place, suffering and death are reversed by Jesus Christ in his office as Saviour. Pre-fallen creation was not in need of a Saviour because there was no sin, no suffering, no death. Adam, the son of God and the rest of creation were in their odered place (Hebrews 2:8a,b). Only after the Fall did the circumstance of Hebrews 2:8c arise.
A potential world-wide audience is not the place for Mark Baddeley to air his ignorance and expose Moore Theological College to criticism.
Sam
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
The CMI book 15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History points out:
Romans 8:18–25 affirms that the whole creation (not just people) has been ‘subjected to futility’ and is now ‘groaning’ and in ‘bondage to decay’, waiting for its redemption. Leading commentators on Romans such as F.F. Bruce, C.E.B. Cranfield and James Dunn agree that Paul is referring to the Fall. This is consistent with the real history of Gen. 3, where the creation, not just the people, was cursed because of the man’s sin.
Leaving aside all the theological considerations for a moment, having animal death in a perfect world just doesn't sit right with me.
One of the reasons why I haven't had a pet in decades is that I can still remember the real pain I experienced when eventually they all died. I decided some time ago that on this side of eternity I do not want to go through that inevitable horrible experience again when your animals die.
Occasionally I've seen a bird sitting by its mate who has been squashed on the road. Obviously their sense of death is not as complex as ours but I would expect that they do experience a sense of loss. Even the non-human part of the creation senses something wrong.
I haven't read Lewis' book 'The problem of pain' for many years now but I do recall a chapter devoted to animal death. I also seem to remember that he was speculating that the animals "experience" God through their relationship with us. If God gives eternal life, then why should it not be to all life.
I decided to reply to some of Mark Badderley's comments (to me)on his blogspot. However they bounced. Not being paranoid I tried again-bounced once moore. Perchance I have been banned. I waited some hours to see if my comments were just slow in making the trip. Alas nothing. So not being one to waste anything I have decided to post them here. See below:
Mark speculation is fun but not to be relied upon. In reality I was invited to the meeting at Moore. At this time I knew precious little about the college or what it taught. The person who posed the question did so as to ascertain (from the horse’s mouth so to speak) what was actually taught there. Better to go to source than listen to gossip. As I have previously said the first answer was evasive. The second question was asked to as to be sure what was being said. The second answer was without any doubt that the 6-day creation view was not taught there.
As you were not there your view has no weight & therefore there is no need to consider it. Eye witness account trumps idle speculation. I am not a liar and am well able to hear what a person says even if I should have an opposite view. You have no point.
I have done no mud-slinging just told the verifiable truth.
The reason I am invited to speak at such conferences is because I trust the Word of God, having no extra-Biblical bias, therefore having no need to reinterpret Scripture to fit in with man’s changing views. Christian faith is a serious commitment & people want & need the assurance that it is the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth. Christians world-wide die for their faith in large numbers each year. We need to know whether this thing called Christianity, this person called Christ is worth dying for if necessary.
Christians read that Jesus said- I am the way the truth & the life, there is no way to the father except through me and wonder is this 100% true, Can I base my life upon this? If you & your fellow compromisers are correct then they can’t. I & others find the compromiser dance to be truly sadly fascinating where some sober Biblical writings are held to with vigor & ardour ( & I commend that) while other sober writings are massaged beyond all recognition. Jesus says that man was made at the beginning of creation & you ask what did he mean by the beginning of creation? It means man was made at the beginning of creation not almost at the end as in the compromisers long-age view. If Jesus meant the end when he said the beginning then language has no meaning. I speak a few languages reasonably well & I find that no matter where I go or in what language I speak beginning means at the beginning & six days always means six days as we live them.
As I have said before your compromising views are nothing new as other denominations, now destroyed, set off along this path well before you.
I have considered your view, & the views of others, have judged them by God’s Word & found them wanting. There is no food for the soul there.
As regards accusations I make none only state the obvious. Your very tone of we lesser mortals snapping at the heels of great men says it all. As Scripture says- let God be true & every man a liar. We are to follow Christ alone & His Word not Popes, prelates & preachers.
I was interested to see on either Mark's blog, or maybe it was Craig's (two of the protagonists on this blog), that commenters here are accused of imprecision in quoting. However, I note that Sam has given proper detail to understand his criticisms.
What more could he have said?
The article But from the beginning of … the institution of marriage? by Terry Mortenson demonstrates from the Greek that Mark 10:6 ff. can only refer to the beginning of creation.
And the chart shows the significance: if man came along on Day, he is right there at the beginning of the timeline to within0.0004%. But if we swung down from the trees when the evolutionists claim, it's more like the end of creation. Evolutionists claim that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and if this were scaled to one hour, then humans appeared only in the last 100th of a second according to the history Moore accepts.
Warwick, your experience at Mark Baddeley's blogspot is really only strong support for what Neil Moore suggested about the exclusivity of some Sydney Episcopalians.
Sam
Post a Comment