In his blog of 10 December 2007 at reflectionsinexile.blogspot./ the author, Mark Baddeley, offers another disclosure of his view on position of Biblical Creationists.
As with his earlier posts he misrepresents Scripture and Biblical Creationists. He really should leave the subject alone.
His exposition of the words of our Lord (as recorded in Matthew 19:23-24) concerning a camel passing through the eye of a needle is fundamentally flawed. That his sycophantic supporters at his blogspot have not picked him up on this shows they are similarly theologically lame.
Mr Baddeley's suggested interpretation that our Lord might have been referring to a (hitherto undiscovered) real "Needle Gate" is inconsistent with the wording applied to the text by most bible translators. If there was in the mind of our Lord a real "Needle Gate" then 'the' would replace 'a' preceding the word 'needle' in verse 24.
The context of our Lord's words here is the need to address the misconception in the then Jewish culture that wealth is a demonstration of God's blessing and thus being right with God.
Calvinists such as Mr Baddeley (albeit he is part-time) have traditionally accepted that neither rich or poor can enter the Kingdom of God without intervention from God and Calvinists have believed that this is what our Lord is teaching in this incident.
Discard Mr Baddeley's argument on this point and therefore take no notice of his supposition of how Biblical Creationists might apply the reading of our Lord's teaching here.
Next Mr Baddeley asserts Apostle Paul's advice to Timothy (1Timothy 5:23) to "... use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses" is a prescription for Biblical Creationists to "hold that regularly taking a little wine is an important aspect of dealing with frequent ailments." I won't spend much time on this foolishness. The text does not disclose the nature of Timothy's health problems. We must accept that Paul knew more than we know about the complaint. I'll just respond by suggesting that if we found a doctor's script for Joe Bloggs to take aspirin for his throat complaint we wouldn't assume that all throat complaints are to be treated by aspirin. Perhaps Mr Baddeley, the fount of all wisdom, would! It begs belief as to what level of thinking Moore Theological College lets loose on unsuspecting students.
Then Mr Baddeley raises that old chestnut - 'the sun standing still' (Joshua 10:12-14), deemed to be 'a nail in the coffin' of Biblical Creationists. It draws from the geocentric/heliocentric controversy in Galileo Galilei's (1564-1642) time. Skeptics run this argument and compromisers in the church do as well. What these people fail to mention is that, initially, Roman Catholic authorities accepted Galileo's assertions as compatible with the teachings of the Church. However, Jesuit university professors later mounted opposition to Galileo and the momentum went with them.
What doesn't appear to be known by such poorly read people as Mr Baddeley is that Galileo interpreted the account of the miracle of the long day of Joshua 10:12-15 as literal history, though he explained the stationary position in terms of Copernican theory and the language of appearance ie to the eyewitnesses and recorder of the event it appeared as if the sun stood still in the sky. Much has been written about the Galileo affair. I draw from "The Great Turning Point" pages 20 and 21 written by Terry Mortenson, published by Master Books. In the book Terry Mortenson cites several references.
Next Mr Baddeley dangerously uses words of Deborah's song found at Judges 5 to set it against an elsewhere historical record. He forgets that caution needs to be used in the use of poetry to thoroughly understand history. Many compromisers have sought to regard Genesis 1 as poetry so that they can justify not accepting this testimony as describing a historical event. Funny that to dilute the Genesis 1 testimony of its historical worth Mr Baddeley sets poetry up as having equal historical worth.
In closing I would like to comment on the tendency of the world and those in the Church who love the world, to selectively use the writings of influential people of the past. Flimsy citing of a writer presents a flimsy argument. I allude to this concerning abuse of Galileo Galilei. It has been said by me and others elsewhere concerning Martin Luther and John Calvin. I mention it now concerning Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626).
Those within and outside the Church who oppose Biblical Creationists draw from Bacon's work "Novum Organum" (1620) to argue for the separation of the two books - Scripture and Nature. Bacon's earlier work "Advancement of Learning" (1605) is also much drawn upon - indeed the term "the two books" derives from this. Mr Baddeley comes to mind here.
But little attention is given to a section of "Advancement of Learning" p43-44 (Book 1, part VI.9-11) wherein Bacon affirms the merit of Scripture in expounding on issues of health, natural philosophy and history. Earlier in the book (p. 40-42 Book 1, points VI. 2-8) he seems to express his belief a literal six-day creation, after which the creation was complete. He also believed that the Flood and the confusion of the languages at Babel were judgements of God. Some of these beliefs were expressed in more detail in his "Confessions of Faith", first published posthumously in his "Remains" (1648), but written some unknown time before the summer of 1603. This eight page confession reads like a detailed, orthodox creed. Again I draw from "The Great Turning Point" (pages 21-23) for help in addressing this.
I urge those who purport to represent God to trust God. Greats of philosophy, science and theology such as Bacon, Galileo, Luther and Calvin made statements in the past which today are applied against their faith in the Word of God and on interpreting (thus believing) Genesis 1 teaching God created the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them in six days around 4,000 years BC. Mark Baddeley is a serial offender here. He abuses the mind of those of the past.
We have a principle applying in life. It was affirmed by our Lord Jesus Christ and it is this - If a person says something but acts in a different way then that person is a hypocrite.
God is the author of Scripture. God is the author of Nature. If you like - two books. Whatever God says in Scripture must be consistent with what God has done in Nature and vice versa. Christians do not believe God is a hypocrite. The hypocrite must then be the person who applies the two books differently.
Neil Moore
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
57 comments:
Neil, thank you for your piece.
I never fail to be amazed by the truly pathetic arguments skeptics & their friends the compromisers bring up against the plain reading of Scripture, and it's historical truth.
The sun standing still is a good example. This nonsense has been answered conclusively over & over but still the knockers cite it.
Interestingly they have no problem referring to sun-rise which never happens. I don't them referring to earth-turn, which is the reality. Bu this they give tacit support to the fact that we people describe things as we see them.
Those with Joshua would have seeen the sun stand still, and quite correctly so described it.
The classic comment by one compromiser was that God is not powerful enough to stop the earth spinning. This only shows me more conclusively where theistic-evolution/ long-ages compromise belief leads; to a God who takes billions of years to create & can't stop the earth, a feeble God inconsistent with the God Almighty of Scripture. 'Behold, I am the Lord, is anything too difficult for me?' Apparently yes if you are one of these compromisers.
Please accept my apologies regarding the typos in my comments. I think I am being baddeley attacked as I am convinced I have written carefully & correctly then the dastardly point mutations creep in.
Warwick
It is patently obvious Mark Baddeley has done little research on the subject. He fudges Scripture to fit his argument. With all this he gets plaudits from likeminded compromisers on his blogspot.
This is testament to the sorry state of The Sydney Anglican Diocese. It is in decay and pride prevents the compromisers from seeing the state of things. This is just the repetition of Israel gone wrong in the past.
It is the repetition of the sorry death throws of the Anglican Church in England. It had such blessing from the Lord in centuries past. Life, health and vigour although there times of ebbs and flows. Now look at it. What went wrong? Compromise with the world at the cost of faith in the Word of God.
Some Sydney Anglicans can't see beyond their pride. They can't see how they have shifted from the faith of the fathers. Unless God raises up a new generation faithful to Him then there is only one sorry outcome.
Neil Moore
Thanks, Neil, for dealing with, as arranged, the other aspects of the latest Baddeley blog.
I am trying to get time to post a blog on another topic.
Sam
Since Baddeley is trotting out the tired old Galileo canard, he should read the real history, e.g. The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?:
Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.
And if he wants to ridicule the Joshua language, then he should also ridicule the term "sunset", as Warwick pointed out. And he should not refer driving to 60 km/hr either, because this likewise uses the earth as a reference frame. Misotheists and compromisers are so inconsistent in their attacks.
I feel I must praise the "Sydney Anglican Heretics" for maintaining a blog for almost a year - the average lifespan of a blog is only 3 months.
Well done.
Maintain the rage.
May your typeface never go out of style.
Stephen
Why thank you Stephen, that's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to us!
Sam
I just read about the Episcopalian Rev Anne Holmes Redding who claims she is both Christian & Muslim! To me this exposes a fractured mind somewhat akin to Gary X who once claimed he was both human & dog.
The rev's comment would once have shocked me but these days we have all been softened up by crazy ministers of numerous denominations riding roughshod over the truth of God's Word all the while holding out their hands for the paypacket & pension. Hypoctites!
This madness isn't the sole domain of the Anglicans however they seem to be leaders in the field. When was it the English bishop denied the existence of God only to have his cathedral destroyed that day, by lightning?
Then in today's SMH there is the story of English Archbishop Rowan Williams who doubts the story of the star guiding the three wise men... Stars simply don't behave like that he apparently told the BBC. To me that's akin to the skeptic who says God could not have stopped the earth spinning so the sun appeared to stand still in the sky- as recorded in Joshua.
The stunning arrogance of these people never fails to amaze me. Here we are mere ants who last 80 years if fortunate, know almost nothing when compared to what there is to know, but chirp up telling God what He can & can't do.
Our Bible is Jesus' Word, the same Jesus who said- if you don't trust me about earthly things how can you trust me about heavenly things? How indeed.
That brings me to our Sydney Anglican brothers who appear hell-bent on catching up with their Anglo/Episcipo mates who are so far down the path of radical liberalism that the truth of the Bible is lost to them, behind them, over numerous horizons.
Don't they read, can't they see their anti-Biblical stance upon Genesis is what these liberals assumed ages ago, where their fall began? Or are they unwittingly being led by those who wish to destroy Christian faith?
Guys, I appreciate your right to disagree in the strongest terms with Mark Baddeley et al. If you are correct in your arguments, and he is wrong, then you are discharging your responsibility as Christians to critique error. However, could I ask, as a brother in the faith, that you tone down your rhetoric at little.
Mocking language ("the fount of all wisdom" - I don't believe he has described himself this way either explicitly or otherwise) and the use of heavily loaded words and phrases like "pathetic" and "poorly read" is just not not when talking about a fellow believer.
If your intent is to make this blog about in-house back-scratching, then this language is unnecessary. You believe Mark (and most Sydney Anglicans) to be wrong, and believe you have some strong arguments. Well, then, let those arguments speak for themselves! There is no need to call a brother, 'fool' (let the reader understand).
if you intention is, on the other hand, to persuade, I'm afraid that those whom you are trying to reach - you are in theological difference with you, and therefore need as much bridging work as possible - are likely to be driven away. They may even end up associating biblical creationism with a lack of charity and love, and be led to think it must therefore be sub-Christian by association - which I think would be a great tragedy.
Grace and peace be with you all.
Ah, sorry, I mean 'who are in theological...'
I withdraw the phrase "fount of all wisdom" because it is not necessary for the point I was making.
This site has been a centre for robust discussion from the outset. It is unlikely to change.
As I recall, Michael, there were gentle speaking Biblical Creationists making their case on the Anglican Forum twelve months ago but they only received ridicule and derision. It doesn't matter then whether a Biblical Creationist is gentle or robust - the result is the same it seems.
Neil Moore
Michael,
Are we allowed to call them "hypocrites", "vipers", "white-washed tombs" "fools" etc?
What gets my goat is when people like yourself actually think that some sort of midle-class niceness is appropriate when discussing the dishonest heretics like those we've written about on this blog.
I haven't met one Anglo heretic who's actually read any of the latest research in creation science. I wonder how many even bother to read the links KT continually provides.
These men are so dishonest that they do not even know now that they are playing foot loose and fancy free with God's word. Take for example my most recent favourite heretic, Mark Badboy. He admits that he believes the earth is old, that life was created at particular moments separated by long periods of time, and a day can't be a day. He's so dishonest to himself now that he invents irrelevant reasons for this non-traditional reading but can't admit that the only raeson why he pushes it is because the latest pagan "science" says the earth is old. Is there actually anything in the text that screams millions and billions of years? If there is, how come it escaped their attention of the early Christians and other major players throughout the history of the Church, Peter Jensen being the exception of course!
He's also so dishonest to us and himself that when we pointed out that early Christians left a written record arguing against his heretical beliefs he said he would research them but then had a dummy spit and stormed off. (I suspect he may have checked them out, discovered that he was wrong, and then decided to expiate his sin by writing tomes on his own blog about.....nothing. I mean, the poor lad can't even work out that a day is a day even. Kiddies' stuff!)
So, Michael, if you can't take the heat in the kitchen...tell your mates to stop the heresy!)
Thanks for the withdrawal, Neil.
Neil/John - I wouldn't for a moment ask you to stop robust discussion. And I thoroughly sympathise with your experience on the SydAng website. I think it's fair to say that the fighting mentality of conservative evangelism can produce rough edges in dialogue. I can't speak for your specific experience, but I've felt the end of that stick once or twice myself. I've also gently rebuked people on occasion. I have recently reviewed the comments on the relevant website, and I agree that the language was occasionally insensitive and uncaring.
However, if Christians always adopted the mannerisms of the interlocutors, where would we be? Each of us has the call of God upon him to behave appropriately in discussion irrespective of the behaviour of those with whom we speak.
John , that means not characterising Mark's actions as a dummy spit or, especially, as dishonest. If you cannot engage with his arguments without sinning in this way, for the glory of God, don't engage at all. I know that there are some people with him I simply cannot speak at length because of the anger I feel at their error. I just have to leave it.
As to the model of Jesus' engagement with the Pharisees - unless you believe Mark is also a 'son of hell' who makes other 'sons of hell' - then I'm not sure that language is godly when speaking of a brother. Yeah?
I would like to see both sides of this discussion up the tone. But I take it that the nature of grace means that each of you has the responsibility of initiating the rapprochement.
Michael, I have followed and contributed to this blog for months and consider the language used here to be quite temperate when judged by the language Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Apostles used in describing those who opposed the work of God. And when considered in the light of what is at stake here.
From long experience I believe this Anglican clique with whom writers here have entered into spirited combat, are enemies of the Gospel quite prepared to re-interpret Scripture to fit in with an ever-changing human anti-Biblical philosophy.
For one example Peter Jensen is very open in saying he is a theistic-evolutionist. Reading what has been written here, and elsewhere, demonstrates that he and others of the clique approach Scripture filtering it through this evolutionary philosophy. A philosophy which is not supported by Scripture, in fact is contradictory to Scripture.
I have met Peter Jensen, eaten with him & he appears a very pleasant and sincere man. However pleasantness & sincerity fade into meaningless when judged by God's Word. We are saved by grace, not pleasantness or sincerity. It is only when we fully understand how lost in sin we are that we can accept this extraordinary, freely offered gift of redemption.
Christian history shows that undermining the historical truth of Genesis leads to further rejection of Scripture leading to liberalism & the very rejection of the Biblical Gospel. Even to the rejection of God! If Genesis, the historical foundation for sin, the reason Jesus came, isn't historical reality as written then why should anyone trust the physical reality of Christ given salvation? Jesus himself said- if you don't believe me about worldly things then why should you believe me about heavenly things? In effect he is saying if you don’t believe what I say about Genesis (He said it was literal fact) then why should you believe in forgiveness & eternal life?
I therefore make no apology in bluntly and strongly opposing those who work to destroy faith in the absolute historical truth of God's Word.
Wow, Warwick. Thanks for the response - but, wow! I'm just sitting back in my chair for a moment. Really, genuinely, stunned. You just called Peter Jensen an enemy of the gospel - that is, a tool of Satan. I take it you are also happy, therefore, to call him a 'son of hell', in response to my earlier question?
I had read some earlier posts, and thought that you folks believed that the SydAngs you were critiquing were heretics, but possibly believers. I guess I now know what you really think. Is it correct to say that you believe that theistic evolutionists are destroyers of faith, enemies of the gospel, and therefore utterly outside Christ? For it is clear that Jesus associates enmity to the gospel and evil, unsaved opposition to God (e.g. Matt 23).
In which case, does this mean that you believe that confession of 'biblical creationism' is necessary for salvation? In which case, again, 'wow!'
Aren't you just a little worried about what John says happens to those who add to the gospel? (I'm not presuming that you are adding, but it seems that we are getting awful close here.)
Would love to hear your thoughts.
Grace and peace.
For my two cents worth, I think, Michael, you are putting words into Warwick's mouth but I will leave that for Warwick to indicate his position.
Neil Moore
Wow indeed! Fortunately I have a computer upon which to express my thoughts, otherwise I would be mute, mouth stuffed full by Michael. Putting words into my mouth just doesn’t come close Neil.
Michael,
BTW you say ‘you folks’ as though I am part of some team when in fact I am an individual and what I write are my thoughts. I am not a member, founder, or part of this site. I just write here, like you.
I will be happy to answer your email but first I request you answer a few simple questions;
1)I have made my identity known on this site to the extent that one of the AngloNasties contacted my Pastor & denominational leaders in an endeavour to discredit me. It failed dismally. So Michael who are you exactly- full name please. I won’t write anyone about you.
2)Please define your view of Genesis 1-3:
•Is it a true & accurate account of history?
•Does it tell us God created all there is by His spoken Word, over a period of six days, as we currently live them?
•The events described therein- are they what brought sin, the fall,& physical death into the world?
3) ‘Enemy of the Gospel’- does this refer only to a person wittingly working against God for the destruction of Christian faith?
OR
Can it refer to a person, a‘sincere’ person who is unwittingly promoting ideas which undermine the Gospel?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Michael,
I believe I can speak for all of us who have taken a stand against the Anglo heretics on this blog and say that it is our experience that when pressed to explain how God can use evolution, these people stall or shrug their shoulders. Yet, they maintain, God did use evolution to create.
We ask them how is it possible that God would choose such a method, given that the standard definition of evolution involves chance mutations, the majority of which are harmful, appearing over billions of years. After all, evolution need lots of time and errors to "accomplish" its "end" products, all of which are washed in an ocean of death and misery. How does this square up against the bible saying that God is wise, clever, miraculous, and love? I think the two are irreconcilable. Even arch-atheist Dawkins can see the difference!
So when someone like Peter Jensen comes along and says "from the perspective of Moore College we believe the best understanding of Genesis 1 is an evolutionary one", can you blame us for saying that he's a heretic.
Let me be even more outlandish. Throw evolution into the theological ring, and you've destroyed the Gospel and the Trinity in one go.
Can we be any more clear than that?
Warwick, thanks for the response. Let me begin by apologising - I really didn't mean to put words in anyone's mouth. I didn't mean to misconstrue what you were saying. I'm not a scholar - just a Bible-believing Christian.
Let me explain why I thought you must think Peter Jensen is a 'son of hell.' A number of times on this site, different people have defended what seems to me unloving - and therefore, probably ungodly - language (ad hominem stuff, mockery and so on) by Jesus' example. They (and you) have pointed out that Jesus calls the Pharisees names and is really quite harsh.
However, Mt 23, the longest treat of Jesus' woe pronouncements, makes very clear that Jesus considers the Pharisees and teachers of the law to be children of hell. So it seems pretty clear to me that unless you consider Peter Jensen or Mark Baddeley (neither of whom I have any particular interest in writing to defend) to be children of hell, then you have no basis in using Jesus' 'woe' statements as a basis for your language. a child of hell is a substantially stronger label than 'heretic', which you have used so far. Heretics can still be believers, albeit with their salvation at risk. A child of hell is no child of God at all.
So, either be upfront, and let us know that you really think these guys are unsaved, or publicly repent of your language. I'm happy to make the same challenge on your.sydangs if you can point me to where they treated biblical creationists, too. If you don't acknowledge some error on this one, how will people be persuaded you believe the Bible, and follow Jesus' teaching? Or if you think they are unsaved, be upfront and let ordinary Christians like me know why you think belief in biblical creationism is necessary for creation.
On the 'you folks' comment - no, I understand that you are not a team. However, you are a bunch of people with a pretty specific agenda of posing a challenge to a very specific theology for a specific bunch of Christian brothers and sisters. That's not an illegitimate goal, of course. But it does mean that I tend to think of you as a group as well as individuals. Of course, since you post anonymously, I don't know who I'm really speaking to - whether it is one or many. And while I just came by and read some stuff on the site, you post here, so I have to assume that you are representative in some way.
As for questions:
1 If your blog's goal is to persuade ordinary Christians like me, why do you need to know my full identity before you answer a genuine question? I'd love to have some lunch with you one day to hear your story face-to-face - but since I'm an Anglican churchgoer, as long as you use labels like 'AngloNasties', I'm not really inclined to divulge all my details. It's your site - show some biblical hospitality and be more welcoming! I haven't and will not search all through your blog history to work out who you are. So as far as I can tell, you and all the others are posters. You have no right to ask anything more of your readers. I feel this really quite strongly, and am a little disappointed that you would ask this.
2. Why do you need me to define my view of Gen 1-3 to answer a question about Peter's status before God? If I agree with you, I assume you'll answer. If my question is genuine, though, yet I don't agree with you yet, surely you'll answer me then especially. I imagine that your blog must have in mind persuasion, for it to be Christianly motivated.
3. Again, not a scholar, but I guess 'enemy of the Gospel' could be used of either deliberate or unwitting opposition. However, in neither case could they be Christian - which is the question I asked earlier. Surely, you cannot be an enemy of the gospel and not God's enemy at the same time.
As Paul says to Elymas in Acts 13, “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind for a time, not even able to see the light of the sun.”
I'm sorry I didn't answer some of your questions. I really will if I get any sense you guys take seriously a fellow-Christian's concerns about your language. What with some of the harshness you have used, and the anonymous posting, I hope you'll understand if I just hang back a bit at the moment until you persuade me in.
Grace and peace.
John, I don't blame you for anything (except as noted above, some intemperate language).
I get that the people you are debating with hold a view you can't reconcile with respect for the Bible. I probably wouldn't use the 'heretic' word in a situation like this, because that tends to be reserved in history for the key, central doctrines of God. I know that you see a clear implication of their teaching for the doctrine of God, but that isn't quite the same. They feel they have good arguments why the wonderful, sovereign power of God is not irreconcilable with old-earth theology. They may be wrong - but I'm not sure the heretic label belongs.
I also know you guys feel roughed up by the you.sydangs site. I'm not a regular on that site, but I know that, yes, they too need to settle down sometimes, and because there are more against than more biblical creationism among SydAngs, they can be a little careless with their dominant voice.
And, yes, I think you've made an outlandish claim about evolution, Gospel and the Trinity! But I'm willing to be persuaded, which I assume is the purpose of the bait you threw out. Can you flesh out the claim?
Grace and peace.
Michael the style and tone of your response is a familiar one on these pages, leading me to the conclusion you are not genuine. I believe your reaction to my term ‘AngloNasties’ is one thing which gives you away. I have always used it to describe those, and only those within the Angliican community who have behaved in a nasty manner.
I coined the term, and others, as succinct descriptions of certain behaviour. None the less those to whom AngloNasties etc was specifically directed insisted it was a criticism of all Anglicans. Rot! So far you have done nothing to cause me to so describe you.
I have never hidden the fact that my name is Warwick Armstrong, nor hidden which church I attend and it was this openness which provided AngloNasty Craig somebody to contact my denomination in an attempt to do me harm. He failed, his attempt being seen as somewhat pathetic and humorous. AngloNasty is as AngloNasty does!
So back to you:
1) Michael who are you? Full name please.
2) Please define your view of Genesis 1-3:
• Is it a true & accurate account of history?
• Does it tell us God created all there is by His spoken Word, over a period of six days, as we currently live them?
• The events described therein- are they what brought sin,the fall,& physical death into the world?
When I receive a complete answer to these questions I will happily answer yours.
Merry Christmas to everyone.
I have been watching the dialogue here with interest but not getting involved because I am working on a blog.
Michael, you have enough on your plate communicating with Warwick, John and Neil.
I don't want to burden you further but you raised a question as to weight of the matter warranting use of the term heretic.
I post here because I believe the matter is as serious as that. I believe Theistic Evolution is an attack on the Person of Jesus Christ. When you have some time, later I expect, you might have a look at an earlier blog of mine called "A Perilous Path". It contains, in greater detail, why I believe the matter is so serious.
Sam
1. Michael wrote: "[SydAnglos]feel they have good arguments why the wonderful, sovereign power of God is not irreconcilable with old-earth theology."
I've never heard any, and I know of no creationist who has either. What the ALWAYS present are the faulty scientific data as reason to argue that 6 days can't mean 6 days.
Or, they say - taking my lead from your premiss - that because God is sovereign/omnipotent he can do anything, including taking 6 billion years to make the earth despite his saying to Moses and the Israelites that he created it in 6 days. The Janus-face god of the Sydney Anglican heretics!
2. Michael said: "And, yes, I think you've made an outlandish claim about evolution, Gospel and the Trinity! But I'm willing to be persuaded, which I assume is the purpose of the bait you threw out. Can you flesh out the claim?"
I've written more extensively elsewhere on this but briefly...Evolution says death and chance rule. The Bible says there was no death and chance operating (he spoke things into existence!) in the beginning because God used wisdom, knowledge and understanding to create. The bible says that these are the means by which he creates, not non-wisdom. The Bible says that Jesus is the very wisdom of God. The Bible says that the attributes of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, knowledge and understanding. The bible says that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created. Evolution says just chance, time and death worked matter, the old pagan mythological trinity. Accept evolution and you MUST jettison wisdom, understanding and knowledge in order to retain what evolution is.
Of course the Anglos have painted themselves into a corner and claim, "Oh, our God can do anything, including contradicting what he himself said in the Bible. So of course he can use evolution. But of course it's important to remember the Bible does not tell you how, that's science's job."
Warwick, I'm unsure why I should respond to someone who begins by describing me as 'not genuine.' I'm not sure what 'not genuine' means. Not a genuine Christian; not genuine in my desire to see rapprochement; not genuine in my engagement?
Regardless of what you meant, why, for the love of Christian charity, would you make such a strong call this early in our discussion? Don't you understand the effect this will have on others who read your blog?
My name is Mike Paget. I'll remember to change my log-in so it shows this, rather than Michael, on my posts - I don't believe anonymous blogging has ever furthered the kingdom or the glory of God.
As for question two, again: I'm going to answer in good faith that you won't use this as a reason not to answer my question.
My question is: are you prepared to repent of your language? Do you still justify that language on the basis of Jesus' rebuke of wicked unbelievers?
My answer: No, at the moment I don't believe that Genesis 1-3 is to be heard as a literal 6-day period. But yes, it does speak authoritatively of the entrance of sin, the fall and human death.
Just as you and others on this blog are unconvinced with the arguments the theistic evolutionists have raised, so I'm not convinced of yours. However, I'm still open to persuasion. Which is one of the reasons why I would be delighted to see your tone improve; that, and the fact I would love to see more internet dialogue honouring God.
Let's see if this works for the username appearing properly.
BTW, I'm still after an answer to that question from earlier:
So, either be upfront, and let us know that you really think these guys are unsaved, or publicly repent of your language.
I hope you don't mind me pressing for it - it's just that it would be really helpful for readers of your blog to know whether you justify your language on the basis that you believe theistic evolutionists, like the Pharisees ('you brood of vipers'), must be unsaved. And therefore that belief in biblical creationism is necessary for, or basic evidence of, salvation.
Michael over the months this blog has run, a few have written very much in your style. When questioned they reacted similarly to you. They claimed to be open minded wanting to better understand the view of bloggers here. Eventually their real position was made obvious-they were not genuine, but plants.
I wrote ‘Michael the style and tone of your response is a familiar one on these pages, leading me to the conclusion you are not genuine.’ That’s what I discerned and that’s what I wrote. Your last blog leads me to believe you are genuine. But time will tell.
You have asked:
‘So, either be upfront, and let us know that you really think these guys are unsaved, or publicly repent of your language.’
I have referred to ‘these guys’, those who compromise the Word of God, as brothers. Therefore I do not see them as unsaved. I do believe their views on Genesis to be contrary to Scripture, man-centred, and in nature undermining of the Gospel.
I do hope & pray they repent of their heresy and return to an orthodox view of Genesis, as it is the historical foundation of the one and only Gospel. Others before them (including myself) have done so and I wonder if it is only pride and fear of man which holds them from also doing so.
I do believe they are enemies of the Gospel as they are heading away from an orthodox view of the historical foundation of the Gospel,and leading others astray.
I prefer to believe they unwittingly do so, but once again time will tell. One thing which condemns some of them is the rude and mocking way they write about their brothers who hold to the orthodox view. We have been described as morons, and worse.
I have always been clear in stating my belief that salvation is attainable only through our faith in the grace of God, via Jesus' substitutionary death upon the cross, and his resurrection. However this said I do believe the events of Genesis 1-3 are to be taken at face value, as the historical foundation of the Gospel. Those who endeavour to separate the real events of Christ death and resurrection from its historical foundation, the only reason for His coming, are not following God's word and preach a different Gospel.
I see nothing to apologize for or to repent of in what I have written.
I trust this helps you to understand my view.
My answer: No, at the moment I don't believe that Genesis 1-3 is to be heard as a literal 6-day period.
So where do you get this from the text. I.e. forget about the long-age "science", and tell us what the actual text says. Can you find even the slightest hint of millions of years, goo-to-you evolution or a local flood there?
This is what is meant by compromise. Moore does NOT stick to the text, but adds millions of years from outside the Bible to the text.
"But yes, it does speak authoritatively of the entrance of sin, the fall and human death."
But even human death is a problem, because fossils of undoubted Homo sapiens are "dated" well before Adam's Fall even on the most optimistic stretching of the genealogies beyond all recognition (not that I think they should be stretched at all: see Biblical chronogenealogies and The Genesis 5 and 11 fluidity question. And many of these fossils show evidence of disease as well. See The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe> and Pre-Adamic man: were there human beings on Earth before Adam?
Warwick, thanks for your response. I want to apologise - I'm going to try to respond to both you and Ktisophilos in one post. Let me begin though by saying that I would want the SydAngs to hold to the same standards which I'm asking of you. If they have called you 'morons', then it is to their shame, and they ought to be rebuked. I'd ask that you not tar some of us by association, though, as I share your disappointment with that language.
I guess I'm just confused. You compare your language to the "language Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Apostles used in describing those who opposed the work of God." As far as I can tell every case you are referring to, with the possible exception of Jesus saying 'Get behind me Satan' (and the referent of that address is not clearly Peter, as Jesus may in fact have been addressing the Accuser himself) is an address of clearly unsaved unbelievers who are servants of Satan and opposed to God.
You go on to describe these SydAngs as "enemies of the Gospel quite prepared to re-interpret Scripture to fit in with an ever-changing human anti-Biblical philosophy." Can you actually be an enemy of the gospel and a friend of God? Surely not! Scripture is plain that opposition to the gospel, the message of the Lordship of Christ, is rejection of God; and confession of the gospel is a mark of salvation: 1Cor. 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
When you speak of Peter Jensen, saying "We are saved by grace, not pleasantness or sincerity" it comes across very much as if you are saying he isn't saved because of his contrary belief in young-earth creation.
At the moment, I'm not addressing who is right or wrong. What I'm very concerned about is Christians speaking about each other in language which implies they are out of fellowship with God.
And Warwick, you'll have to substantiate what seems to me a ridiculous claim that non-young-earth theologians are preaching a different gospel. Do we proclaim the utter lordship of Christ over creation? Yes. Do we agree that nothing exists apart from his will, and everything holds together in him? Yes. Do we believe that nothing happens apart from his sovereign will? Yes. Do we believe that God made the world 'good', and that sin entered the world only because of human rebellion? Do we believe that the Son of God took on flesh to pay for the sins of the world on the cross, and was raised on the third day? Yes.
You may feel that holding to a different reading of Genesis leads to bad teaching on a number of issues, but that would constitute a threat to the long-term proclamation of the gospel (if it were a valid accusation), not a false gospel itself. The number of days which it took God to create the world is nowhere intrinsic to the gospel. Nor, to point to another ongoing argument in Sydney, is the ordination of women. They are important teachings for the life of the Christian, and they may even sometimes be important for establishing openings to the unsaved (though I doubt this, and I'd be willing to compare evangelistic success stories). What they are not, is the the gospel itself. Surely you agree?
Michael you said,
…. Let me begin though by saying that I would want the SydAngs to hold to the same standards which I'm asking of you. If they have called you 'morons', then it is to their shame, and they ought to be rebuked. I'd ask that you not tar some of us by association, though, as I share your disappointment with that language.
Michael I ‘m not interested in-they started it- thinking. I simply think it curious that some SydAngs who have used insulting language should turn around and complain saying they find the language used here to be rude.
__________________________________
You said:
You compare your language to the "language Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Apostles used in describing those who opposed the work of God." As far as I can tell every case you are referring to, with the possible exception of Jesus saying 'Get behind me Satan' (and the referent of that address is not clearly Peter, as Jesus may in fact have been addressing the Accuser himself) is an address of clearly unsaved unbelievers who are servants of Satan and opposed to God.
Michael any language I have used has been mild when compared to that used by Jesus, John the Baptist & the Apostles. I used their example to illustrate they were blunt & definitely insulting to those whom they saw as opponents.
Remember the way Paul wrote of the Judaisers- blunt, hard language which was certainly insulting to those Christians who wanted to hang onto Judaism as well. I don’t remember using any language harsh as this to describe any brother.
___________________________________
You said
You go on to describe these SydAngs as "enemies of the Gospel quite prepared to re-interpret Scripture to fit in with an ever-changing human anti-Biblical philosophy." Can you actually be an enemy of the gospel and a friend of God? Surely not! Scripture is plain that opposition to the gospel, the message of the Lordship of Christ, is rejection of God; and confession of the gospel is a mark of salvation: 1Cor. 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
Michael I have met people within the church (various denominations) whom I believe are what Scripture describes as –wolves within the fold. These are people who-though having a form of Godliness deny its power. These are now, right now, very dangerous people, destroying the faith of others. They deserve our condemnation as I am convinced they are not Christian & fully aware of what they are doing.
Also there are Christians who are introducing teachings into the church, teachings which will ultimately undermine the Gospel.
In reading what some have written here & elsewhere I think some are well down the path to liberalism. Surely you must know that sections of the Anglican Church & other denominations are so far gone in liberalism as to no longer be reachable. Still Christian? Still brothers?
I’m sure they were not one day Bible believers & the next liberal.
Rust in a car body begins out of sight but once going is impossible to stop. My reading shows that Biblical 'rust’ began with the reinterpretation of Genesis because it is Genesis which stands so plainly against the humanistic evolutionary view. Those I oppose have re-written Genesis (because of mans changing views) & now are well into re-writing more & more of the OT. They must do so as their non-Biblical foundation forces them in this direction.
___________________________________
You said:
When you speak of Peter Jensen, saying "We are saved by grace, not pleasantness or sincerity" it comes across very much as if you are saying he isn't saved because of his contrary belief in young-earth creation.
Michael this is not the point I was making. This is one thing which caused me to doubt your sincerity, causing me to believe you were another ‘plant.’ The reason being the apparent inability to understand what is painstakingly, clearly written, or rather drawing things from what was written, which are simply not there. Some of the ‘plants’ have demonstrated an amazing ability to missunderstand.
I thought I had made it clear I describe those Anglicans whom I have met, and with whom I disagree, as ‘brothers.’ In error when judged by God’s Word, but nonetheless brothers.
___________________________________
You wrote:
And Warwick, you'll have to substantiate what seems to me a ridiculous claim that non-young-earth theologians are preaching a different gospel.
Michael the Gospel is based on a straight-forward reading of Genesis 1-3. Jesus & the apostles quoted from Genesis many many times, & always as historical fact. You will search in vain for a text which shows otherwise.
Paul writes much about the Gospel, always linking Jesus’ historical physical death & resurrection to the physical, historical events of Genesis.
Paul says sin & death entered creation because of Adam’s sin. In contradiction the theistic evolutionary (T/E) view has death (animal & human) existing for eons before sin. Scripture describes death as an ‘enemy’ & God describes His creation as ‘good’ while T/E has God using this 'enemy'as His creative force. Eons passed while animals & man killed & died, & suffered from all sorts of terrible disease (as shown by the fossil record) & God called this ‘good.’ What a monster this God is!
This must be a different Gospel as it has a totally different foundation. Have a look at - www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1749/ - an article written by Dr Werner Gitt called 10 dangers of theistic evolution
___________________________________
You said:
You may feel that holding to a different reading of Genesis leads to bad teaching on a number of issues, but that would constitute a threat to the long-term proclamation of the gospel (if it were a valid accusation), not a false gospel itself.
Michael See above.
I believe T/E quite quickly leads to a watered down Gospel which ultimately becomes no Gospel at all. I have noticed many T/E’s hold an increasingly anti-supernatural attitude towards the Bible. This is no wonder as the T/E view guts Genesis of the Almighty supernatural power of God as shown by a six-day creation, replacing it with a god who cannot perform so mightily, taking billions of years to get it all done. But then this god having taken eons, carefully defines the meaning of the word day (as in first day, second day etc) claiming this is the time-span over which He did it. But if T/E’s are correct, he didn’t! Was He unable to explain what actually happened?
Can you find any Scripture which supports this T/E view?
__________________________________
You said:
The number of days which it took God to create the world is nowhere intrinsic to the gospel. Nor, to point to another ongoing argument in Sydney, is the ordination of women.
Michael to equate the truth of Genesis–the foundation of the Gospel-with the ordination of women is quite a stretch!
If God said the Israelites were to work six days & rest on the seventh day because he created in six of these days & rested on the seventh, setting a pattern, who are we to reject this plain meaning? Are you saying we can reinterpret the Word of God, especially in such foundational chapters, with impunity? If we can do this what else can we reinterpret about Genesis 1-3? Maybe we should reinterpret what sin actually is? Just as some consistent liberals do already, apparently believing it’s left-over animal behaviour.
No we are children of faith, faith in the Word of God, as the whole Chapter 11 of Hebrews explains. No one would come up with the T/E view from Scripture, it just isn’t there & further is contradicted by what is there. This is no position of faith, just the opposite.
___________________________________
You said:
They are important teachings for the life of the Christian, and they may even sometimes be important for establishing openings to the unsaved (though I doubt this, and I'd be willing to compare evangelistic success stories). What they are not, is the gospel itself. Surely you agree?
Michael the Sydney Anglican Church which has for years pushed the T/E view, is in serious numerical decline. This is no recommendation for the T/E compromise view. It doesn’t appear to be working. I have no desire to turn evangelism into a sport, comparing runs on the board. Nonetheless over a 13 year professional career using Creation Evangelism,I saw many converted & met with countless others who told me that it was Creation Evangelism which broke through their educated-in evolutionary thinking, leading them to faith in Jesus. Rejecting the truth of evolution, they were now able to see Scripture anew. I followed many of these for years seeing them become very active Christians, of unshakeable faith. Know the truth & the truth will set you free.
Please excuse my lengthy reply however I’m trying to make my meaning clear as what you have written shows you have not understood my points.
Michael,
I can’t see that you are actually engaging with us. That is to say, you aren’t trying to understand the points we’ve made. I feel that we are going around in circles. Rather than respond to the question we’ve asked you reinvent it and respond by questioning its importance. It seems to me that you should first seek the truth instead of first attempting to search out the importance of the truth before you know what the truth is. It is commonly experienced among the people who reject Genesis 1 as history that they will not pay their theological opponents even a small amount of respect by actually studying the arguments their opponents put forward. For example, you’ve yet to answer Kt’s question, namely,
“So where do you get this from the text. I.e. forget about the long-age "science", and tell us what the actual text says. Can you find even the slightest hint of millions of years, goo-to-you evolution or a local flood there?”
Some more points:
1. Michael said: “And Warwick, you'll have to substantiate what seems to me a ridiculous claim that non-young-earth theologians are preaching a different gospel. Do we proclaim the utter lordship of Christ over creation?”
If you proclaim that your Jesus is an evolutionist, as Peter Jensen does, then Jesus isn’t Lord over creation. If your Jesus is an evolutionist, then you’ve just reinvented Christianity and you are now worshipping a false god. It’s a very simple equation.
2. Michael said: “You may feel that holding to a different reading of Genesis leads to bad teaching on a number of issues, but that would constitute a threat to the long-term proclamation of the gospel (if it were a valid accusation), not a false gospel itself.”
Michael, Michael, Michael. Where have you been living? No pagan wants to worship a Jesus who creates by death and suffering (i.e. the evolutionary God). It's a doctrine of demons.
Think through the problem, man! Think about what you are proposing!
Have you actually bothered to spend 5 minutes reading what evolution actually proposes? Have you ever sat down and bothered to try and reconcile the character of Christ with the character of evolution?
3. As a Christian I am neither a Sabbatarian nor under the Jewish law. To compare, as equals, the ordination of women and the 6 day creation is a bit odd. Michael, can you point to any law proscribing the ordination of women that drew capital punishment?
Warwick, cut to the chase - is Peter a 'brother' or a wolf who you are convinced is not Christian? I'm not sure which you believe, since you seem to put your 'opponents' in both camps.
Secondly, I'm not sure that disagreeing with young earth creationism is the same as de-throning Jesus. I believe Jesus is sovereign over all, and the earth has been around for much longer than you. So it's a bit simplistic of you to say that the one must always lead to the other. Certainly, you would have to prove that the path you follow from one to the other is the only path, and I've found your arguments much less persuasive and biblically literate than Mark's so far.
Thirdly, sure, Sydney Anglicanism has experienced a decline relative to the the growth of Sydney. But, then again, so have most groups or denominations, including those which espouse young earth theology. Much of this is the decline of nominal Christianity, which I see as a good thing. In fact, Sydney Anglicanism is growing relative to many smaller groups which have fundamentalist roots. So I'd be careful pointing to your theology as a barrier to our growth.
The fact that you use the phrase 'creation evangelism' is, to me, a great source of concern. Nowhere do I find Paul or Peter using creation theology as a basis for a gospel presentation. I can only conclude that you are, in fact, presenting another gospel, analogous to the Galatians requiring circumcision.
Mike,
I see you're just another snake coming over to play games. It's now obvious you had made your mind up a long time ago. Just another typical cultist whose lost their honesty and ability to reason along the way.
What I love about you guys is that you come along full of your own self-righteousness, claiming we've acted unrighteously when in fact it's you guys who are the dishonest ones. What you can't stand are people like us who just don't respect you guys because we think you are full of yourselves. You guys are just a bunch of theological bullyboys. But we love to stand up to bullies and call their bluff.
Quite frankly, you bore us. Why do you think that we should explain ourselves to you. Such arrogance! It's you guys who are the heretics with your historically unorthodox views and that you can't even admit (because you lie to yourselves continually!) that your old age views don't come from the Bible but from a real dodgy pagan belief about the world.
Go away and continue worshipping another god - there are plenty of pagans who want to hear about the real Creator God and the real Gospel.
Now, John, what happened to the 'ad hominem' grass?
You're quite wrong on a whole bunch of counts.
It's not true that I can't stand you. I appreciate some of what you're trying to do; I think that there is a real weight to a number of your arguments; and I respect your unwillingness to follow what you perceive to be worldliness in theology. I want you to be heard; not dismissed because of your style of rhetoric.
Secondly, I haven't been dishonest, and its immensely uncharitable of you to accuse me of this. Here's a challenge: let me buy you lunch. We'll talk privately and face-to-face away from the anonymity of the web. You can confront me as a Christian brother.
Finally, you said: "go away and continue worshipping another god - there are plenty of pagans who want to hear about the real Creator God and the real Gospel." Brother - you'll notice that for all our disagreements, I continue to extend to you the hand of fellowship - are you aware of the seriousness of this charge? You have declared me to be outside Christ on the basis of my disagreement with 'biblical creationism'. Very few even of YECs would condone that step, because you would then have made young earth creationism the test of salvation. I'd ask for you to reconsider for your own sake. If you don't, you'll rightly be excluded from the broader Christian discourse as a crank and a schismatic, and that needn't happen.
Warwich/Ktisophilos, I just want to say that I appreciate that John's anger has led him to say some things that he shouldn't have, and which haven't been representative of the generally gracious way you have engaged with me on the site. I'm not condemning you by association.
Michael, I don’t think this is going anywhere. I believe you to be firmly entrenched in an extra-Biblical philosophy of origins.
You have been asked to provide any Biblical support for this view but have not done so. No engagement, as someone said.
As to who is or isn’t a Christian that’s a difficult question. I don’t know if you are! I thought I had made it clear I believe Peter Jensen to be a Christian, in error, on a wrong path, but none the less a Christian. But is he a Christian? That’s between him and God.
What I have said is that a wrong view of Genesis has consequences. History shows those who commenced on this path before the SydAngs are now in various states of denial of the truth of most of Scripture. Do you get the point Michael, T/E is nothing new, just an old non-Biblical view? A view of those who feel the need to reinterpret Scripture to conform to what they see as scientifically proven ideas of an old earth & evolution. Most of those who write show precious little knowledge of the proposed mechanisms of evolution.
There is no Bible in evolution and no evolution in the Bible.
BTW did you read the Dr Gitt article about the 10 problems of theistic evolution? Answer please.
The difference between my view and Mark’s is I approach Scripture considering it to be the Word of God, the ultimate authority, not to be filtered through the ever-changing philosophies of man.
The philosophies of man concept is obviously more appealing to you. None the less it is not consistent with God’s Word.
His(and others)extra-Biblical philosophy appears to have led them to the point where words no longer have any meaning. I write of Jesus’ words regarding the ‘beginning’ and he says something to the meaning of- does ‘the beginning’ mean the beginning? i write of the word ‘day’ in the context of the third day of the week and the comments is something like–I don’t feel the need to accept that third day means third day! Get a grip Michael this is sophistry. If he and others are correct then language has no solid meaning so neither you nor I can have any certainty of what the other means. Maybe this is why you don’t seem to understand plain writing?
As regards evangelism let us contrast the methods of Peter to those of Paul:
A) Peter
At Jerusalem (Acts Ch.2) Peter is talking to Jews well versed in God’s Word & their history. He has no need to establish that God is creator, as they already know this. He basically says God sent His Messiah & you killed Him. They were ‘cut to the heart’ and said ‘what shall we do.’ Peter said they needed to repent and be baptized and about three thousand were.
B) Paul
As recorded in Acts Ch. 17 Paul preached ‘the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.’ They laughed at him because unlike the Jews they had no foundation, no knowledge upon which to understand what he was saying. He sounded like an idiot, a ‘babbler.’
He was then invited to speak at the Areopagus and spoke about God (not like one of their many gods) but The God,The Creator whom they knew as the unknown God. In verse 24 he says ‘The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth…..’ He continued saying‘From one man he made every nation of men …..’
Michael he started with creation- creation evangelism- because he needed to set God apart from their many gods and logically did this by talking of God the creator –from Genesis! It is being the Creator which sets God apart from gods!
Consider Australia:
In the 1950’s Billy Graham came giving a message along Peter’s lines (I was there) and more than a hundred thousand were saved.
There were more such crusades over following decades but the numbers saved dropped off.
Why was he so successful in the 50’s? Because my age group and those older were not indoctrinated in evolutionary thinking. It was not pounded into society then as it later was via school, university, the media, TV and the movies. Today it has become the prevailing mind-set.When was the last time you saw a documentary on TV which explained the Biblical view of creation?
Creation Evangelism is evangelism aimed at pagans like the Athenians (and modern Westerners) who had no foundation, as compared to the Billy Graham style which worked when society had a Biblical foundation.
You compare putting God in context (as the creator of all) with the Galatians promoting circumcision. This is foolish Michael,there is not other way of saying it.
I would like to think you will return to Scripture and judge the philosophies of man via it, rather than the other way around.
God bless.
Michael,
You wrote: "I haven't been dishonest, and its immensely uncharitable of you to accuse me of this. Here's a challenge: let me buy you lunch. We'll talk privately and face-to-face away from the anonymity of the web. You can confront me as a Christian brother."
Here's what I'll do. I will retract the accusation of your dishonesty if you do the following:
1. Answer Kt's original question of where in the Bible you obtained long ages.
2. Provide a detailed list of what you call a "real weight" to the creationist arguments".
3. Read Gitt's site that Warwick recommended and tell us your objections.
4. Tell me what buying me lunch would accomplish that can't be accomplished on this site.
Any objections?
I tried submitting a comment a moment ago, but must have hit a wrong button - so I'll have to try again, and if there ends up being two comments, I apologise.
John: I'm afraid I'm not interested in jumping through your hoops just to be treated with a modicum of Christian decency. Courtesy is a basis for dialogue. You slur my character with allegations of dishonesty, then ask me to read an article and answer some questions before you apologise? Since the article and my honesty (or otherwise) are not directly associated, that's called 'false witness'. Mate, if you were one of my children, I'd send you to the corner for a bit of time-out. Until you withdraw the dishonesty charge, I'm going to ignore you for the sake of some reasonable dialogue with Kt. & Warwick.
Warwick: you're right, it doesn't feel as if we are making a lot of progress. It may just be that the kind of progress we might make will not be immediately of the 'persuade-the-other-that-they're-wrong' kind. After all, it's not the 'firmly entrenched' (I think when you used that of me you meant it negatively, yes?) that is the problem, is it? We both believe in the importance of being rooted in the truth, steadfast, not blowing in the wind. The problem is not that either of us is convinced of a position. I would call you, too, 'firmly entrenched', and I think you'd probably agree, wouldn't you? The problem we face is that we disagree about an important element of that truth.
You fear that I am sinfully wrong, that my beliefs will inevitably slide into liberalism, and that the gospel is weakened in the meantime by withdrawing an important component of God's message. I fear, too, that you are sinfully wrong, that your beliefs will express themselves in legalism and schism (a la John), and that the gospel is weakened by burdening it with something not part of God's message.
Re: Peter Jensen. Thanks for the response. I agree, it is a hard call to discern who is and who isn't a Christian. My confusion arose from the fact that you were pretty clear that you held many SydAngs you'd dialogued to be outside Christ, and the only basis I recall you raising for that was their stance on creation. Maybe there was more to your thinking that I didn't pick up?
Re: Gitt. Yep, read the article. I thought he made a couple of strong points, but mostly misrepresented theistic evolution. Straw man and all that. If you'd like, I'm happy to go through my concerns in another post. I'm sure there are better critiques of theistic evolution out there, though.
Re: Mark's approach to the Bible. I'm pretty sure he'd argue that he too approaches 'Scripture considering it to be the Word of God, the ultimate authority, not to be filtered through the ever-changing philosophies of man'. He just thinks it says something different to you.
Re Acts 17. It's a great text, isn't it! But I think argument is not as stongly supported in the Greek. for example, in v.24, the first phrase is not 'God made the world' as if this were the point under contention. Rather, he begins, 'the God who made the world' - as if presupposing common knowledge, which makes sense of what we know of early Greek cosmogony - and continues, 'he, being Lord of heaven and earth does not live in temples made by human hands.
In other words, he appears to be moving from an easily accepted, possibly common point - 'God made everything' - to his main argument - 'stop worshipping these dumb idols!'.
Notice that what he doesn't enter into is an argument about the length of time this creative exercise took, or a defence of the historicity of Gen 1-3. Of course, he may have, but Luke didn't mention it. But if such a defence were an important part of his gospel presentation, you'd think Luke would have made sure to include it, wouldn't you?
As for calling what Paul does, 'creation evangelism', well, that makes it sound as if its something new and peculiar to YECs. Have you ever seen a '2 ways 2 Live' gospel outline. 2W2L has been one of the foundational gospel tools in Sydney for a long time now. Or should I say, 'in Sydney Anglicanism'. How does it begin?
Rev. 4:11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being.”
As for the Galatians issue, I'm not sure I agree with you about the comparison being foolish. I don't believe YEC is necessary to God being viewed in his rightful place as Creator. I affirm absolutely that he is the sole creator ex nihilo, and to whom belongs the glory. I am concerned, however, that making YEC a salvation issue, as I thought you might be doing, and it appears John has done with respect to me, that you run the risk of becoming like the Judaizers. They were wrong in their doctrine, believing circumcision necessary for salvation, presumably from a misunderstanding of the gospel message, the Word of God. At the moment I, too, believe you are wrong in your doctrine; if you were making this part of the gospel, belief in which is necessary for salvation, then, that would be very much like the Galatian situation, I'd think. I'm happy to hear, though, that YEC is not part of the gospel, but something without which you believe we will drift away from the gospel
Oops, nearly forgot:
Merry Christmas, grace and peace, guys, and may God bless you richly in this coming year.
Mike said: "I'm afraid I'm not interested in jumping through your hoops just to be treated with a modicum of Christian decency. Courtesy is a basis for dialogue."
No, Michael, it isn't. Honesty is. Where I come from a man who isn't honest ain't worth spittin' on. Show me a man who is coarse in tongue but honest, and I'd say here's a real man. Show me a man who is overly polite but dishonest and I'll show you a prig.
Once again you, like your colleagues, have confused your Moore College environment with the real world.
In any case, I was just calling a spade, a spade. By not being honest (i.e. telling us where in the Bible you get long ages), you've shown yourself to be discourteous because you haven't paid us the respect of actually meeting us in genuine dialogue. You're not unique in this because it's a signal for Moore College people. I guess it's something to do with their limited worldly experience (in addition to the Moore culture itself).
Mike said: "You slur my character with allegations of dishonesty, then ask me to read an article and answer some questions before you apologise?"
Not willing to go that extra mile??In any case, you omit the full set of my quite reasonable requests, the most important being 'Where in the Bible do you pull out long ages?' Of course, by now, everyone knows that you're avoiding it because, well, as we all know, there's nothing in the Bible which can remotely be twisted to your heretical ends.
Mike said: "Since the article and my honesty (or otherwise) are not directly associated, that's called 'false witness'."
Actually, I believe it is. If someone recommends something which may help your error - and you are in error - and you ignore them, while still maintaining your belief system, then that is dishonesty. It is also pride by the truck full.
And re my putative false witness. What about yours and Moore's against God? Fancy teaching that God used death, disease, mutations and time to "purposely" create life when the Bible says he didn't. That's not just false witness, that's blasphemy. You've just called God a bumbling idiot. What's ironic is that even the atheists understand that you've made God out to be a cruel, incompetent despot. Out goes any meaning to ethics, a robust theodicy, etc etc. And you hypocrite, you take a moral highground against me. You're a queer sort of chap, Mike!
Mike said: "Mate, if you were one of my children, I'd send you to the corner for a bit of time-out."
Mike, if you spoke to someone like that out where I grew up you wouldn't get time-out, you'd get punched out. Who the heck do you think you are? Oh, of course, I forgot, you're a Moore College graduate, (well, almost) and you believe you can speak down to anyone you flamin' well like. Get a load of yourself, man! And you're going to be shepherd to all those Asians down at UTS providing them with the only correct form of Christianity. Can't wait to hear your first sermon on Genesis 1 to, say, a Chinese Indonesian who has probably escaped the heresy of evolution and long ages and wants you to explain how days can mean billions of years. But then again, you don't actually tell them that, do you Mike. You just give them a whole bunch of heretical emptiness about this passage telling us who and why but now how. (Yawn)
And what about the lad from China proper who has had evolution stuffed down his throat as a part of his atheist communist upbringing, and then hears the same nonsense from the West. What's he going to make of it?
BTW, Mike, how many Asian languages do you speak?
Mike said: "Until you withdraw the dishonesty charge, I'm going to ignore you for the sake of some reasonable dialogue with Kt. & Warwick."
Ohh, threaten me will ya! Golly gosh. I don't know how I'm going to stand your silence toward me. What will I do? Mike's not going to talk to me unless I submit to his authority (and, boy, does he have authority, he's almost a Moore College graduate and we all know that they are seriously closer to God than we and understand far more about God because they do a 4 year course and doing 4 year courses at Moore must make you a better Christian. Well, doesn't it?)
Is there anyone out there who is willing to speak to me? I'm over here with my face in the corner because big daddy Mike, who is almost a Moore College graduate, sent me there. OOhh, big daddy Mike is one to fear. Watch out, it's big daddy Mike, he's comin' and he's armed with his 4 year Boore College degree. OOOOHHH, scary...
"I fear, too, that you are sinfully wrong, that your beliefs will express themselves in legalism and schism (a la John), and that the gospel is weakened by burdening it with something not part of God's message."
Schism? Schism? Wait a second, did I miss something? Didn't the church as a matter of bedrock belief hold to a young world in opposition to the pagans around them who believed that the world was ancient? And now Mike here wants us believe that Moore College's professed belief in long ages and evolution isn't the schismatic issue. Talk about calling evil good!
Well, I guess you won't be buying me a steak too soon.
Mike,
There's a load more.
a. Theophilus wrote concerning the foolishness of those who ascribe long ages to the world and who want to introduce ridiculous modern concepts to the truth (like Moore College people)
“But I wish now to give you a more accurate demonstration, God helping me, of the historical periods, that you may see that our doctrine is not modern nor fabulous, but more ancient and true than all poets and authors who have written in uncertainty. For some, maintaining that the world was uncreated, went into infinity; and others, asserting that it was created, said that already 153, 075 years had passed. This is stated by Apollonius the Egyptian. And Plato, who is esteemed to have been the wisest of the Greeks, into what nonsense did he run? For in his book entitled The Republic, we find him expressly saying: "For if things had in all time remained in their present arrangement, when ever could any new thing be discovered? For ten thousand times ten thousand years elapsed without record, and one thousand or twice as many years have gone by since some things were discovered by Daedalus, and some by Orpheus, and some by Palamedes."
“And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned. From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years. And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years. And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days. And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days.”
"All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’ day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . [I]f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books" (To Autolycus,)
b. Lactantius: "Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete.
Michael the root of the problem lies in the fact that I expound Scripture, drawing my understanding from what it says. Others conversely force meanings upon the text which are not there in the plain meaning. The nonsense with the meaning of ‘the beginning’and the word ‘day’ as in the context of day one day two etc, show this conclusively.
Further you have been asked and asked to provide Biblical evidence for your long-ages evolutionary view. You have proffered nothing, not one thing. Conversely all I others have explained has been directly from Scripture, and backed by Scripture.
My experience is that when both sides of the story are explained, by far the majority of Christians accept what you refer to as the YEC view. The minority who disagree rarely quote Scripture to back up their view. When they do quote Scripture it is clear they haven’t thought it through, just accepted what some compromiser has told them. The classic is 2 Peter 3:8,which some tender as proof that the days of Genesis are a thousand years each. What amazes me is that they haven’t read the chapter or they would see that Peter calls those who think this way ‘scoffers’,those ‘last days’ scoffers who would deny the truth of Scripture.
Even if the days were a thousand years each this gives no assistance to the long-age view.
Werner Gitt is a long-time friend of mine.I recently spent time with him and his delightful wife Marion in Paris where we were the invited speakers at two creation/ evolution conferences. I know him to be a genuine Christian and a scientist of high repute in the information technology field. I truly doubt that he either wittingly or unwittingly ‘mostly misrepresented theistic evolution’ as you claim. Please explain in detail!
By Mark I assumed you have referred to Mark Baddeley. I disagree, convinced the meanings he and others draw from Scripture do not come from Scripture itself.
I have debated this issue with many of his mind-set and they all have, either initially or ultimately admitted their ‘filter’ is the long-ages evolutionary view.
I remember one such private debate I had with a young Anglican at Sydney University some years ago. A third man listened to our argument for quite some time then spoke up. He said he was an atheist and therefore rejected my view but said my arguments were consistent with the Bible, a book he claimed to have carefully read. He then turned to the Anglican and said-‘you are full of b**l s**t, you don’t know what you believe. He then walked off and I asked the Anglican-If you or I were to meet that man again who do you think would have a chance of reaching him, me(consistent)or you full of bs? He had no answer.
It appears you missed the point of the Acts 2/17 evangelism, as applied to Billy graham and today. Australians were once easy to reach with the Gospel as they had not been educated into an anti-Biblical mind-set.Today when we preach the Gospel in western nations the vast majority have no interest because they have little if any Biblical foundation (as the Jews of Acts 2 had)and‘know’the Bible is wrong. I have met many students who said their teacher/ lecturer went out of their way to ridicule Christianity and to show how evolution proves it wrong.
The idea of creation evangelism is to reach people at their world-view, attempting to engage with them so as to show this is God’s created world, that Christianity is not another religion but the ultimate reality of the one and only creator God: this creator became Emmanuel,took upon himself the sin of the world, died and rose again that we who accept our sinfulness and that this was washed away by his act are truly forgiven.
What intrinsic difference does Christianity have over Hinduism or Buddhism etc? Just as Paul explained-all other gods are duds, man made, my God made the very stone from which they were created. This message reached them, and it was Paul who brought about the Christian revolution among the pagans.
Genesis 1-3 is the foundation of the need of the Gospel. Reinterpreting parts of this, claiming it is not historical reality as Jesus and the Apostles believed,undermines the very real basis of our very real need of salvation.
The idea that death, disease and misery reigned in the world for eons before sin is directly contrary to Scripture (OT and NT) and makes God out to be a deceitful monster. And you equate this with circumcision. Bizarre!
I agree with John’s comments about truthful blunt speaking as opposed to gentlemanly deceit. I spend a few months in France each year and have often puzzled about the disdain the French generally hold for the English. This year I made a breakthrough, coming to understand they find the English to be often obscure in their meaning, hiding their true feelings. As a rule the French prefer the outspokenness ‘calling a spade a spade’ of Australians. Sadly I think there is good evidence that some in our Anglican community have a very English language culture. Quite likely this culture is behind the shock horror attitude shown towards some of what John has written.
I think it better to speak the plain truth.
Warwick, I've noticed that one of your argumentative strategies is to draw a really strong line between you and those with whom you disagree.
You 'expound Scripture, drawing [your] understanding from what it says', others 'force meanings upon the text which are not there in the plain meaning'. According to you, non-YECers rarely advance Scripture; if they do, you say they haven't thought it through! Or you say you are convinced that the meanings they draw from Scripture don't come from Scripture itself! Sure, that's an opinion - but don't claim they haven't thought it through, and don't claim that they aren't at least trying to work through the Bible. They, too, are convinced you are reading an agenda into Scripture which isn't present there.
Now, I believe that you and others have advanced some arguments which need to be thoughtfully heard. I think that anyone who believes Ex 20:11 is not a validation of 6-day creation needs to work very hard. But I'm surprised that you haven't acknowledged that the long-creation view has some strengths to it as well. Not once have you acknowledged that some faithful Christians might, after prayerful hearing of Scripture, come to a different conclusion to you on this point.
Instead, every Scriptural and theological argument that is raised has been dismissed as foolishness. This is why I haven't bothered raising my opinions - I agree with what has already been argued on this site, and I've seen how you respond to that. Not once have you said, 'Yes, that's a strong point, but here's why I think my reading of Scripture is truer to the text.' You seem to have confused bluntness with rudeness. To call people 'compromisers' with 'truly pathetic arguments' is either just rude, or betrays a basic anxiety that the weakness of your own position may be betrayed unless you raise the rhetorical volume.
It's interesting - another YEC commentator introduced the writings of Theophilus and Lactantius. Now, anyone who knows anything about church history knows Lactantius was a B-grade public debater whose extant writings are about as useful for determining early church thought as my quiet time notes would be for understanding early 21st century eccesiology.
But Theophilus is a dude, if you'll forgive the non-technical approbation. He writes some great stuff. And it has been pointed out that Theophilus was one of a number of the early church fathers who thought that a plain reading of the Bible supported YEC. That's very helpful. There is only one problem. One of the repeated arguments on this site has been that some texts (such of those who describe a flat-earth cosmology with a dome of water above) are metaphorical statements. Unfortunately, you've got a problem here. Theophilus is one of a number of significant figures who would have seen you as a lily-livered compromiser arbitrarily avoiding the clear teaching of Scripture.
In his letter to Autolycus, ii.32, Theophilus makes quite clear that those who believe that the world is round do so by compromising Scripture and listening to the current philosophy of the Greeks: 'And the writers, not knowing these things, are forward to maintain that the world is shaped like a sphere, and to compare it to a cube. But how can they say what is true regarding these things, when they do not know about the creation of the world and its population?'
This seems to be the general case with the early church. If they regarded the text as a literal historical chronology, they had no other tools at hand to render some cosmological statements metaphorical. To them, the sky, truly was as dome. The earth really was flat. The only way we can recognise these statements as metaphorical is by the benefit of modern science. Which means that what you claim to be the 'plain' reading of Scripture is a narrow, modern, Western reading.
Unless, of course, you go with other parts of the early church which recognised from the start the literary nature of the text. Augustine, for example. Now, you can just call him a heretic at this point, if you want, and John can strip his name from the Book of Life, but given our biblical heritage of the doctrine of original sin largely stems from his writings, you'll find some other problems along the way.
In other words, the early church went in two directions: everything literal, or everything theological. This doesn't, of course, prove anything - except that it isn't modern science that has caused the problem. Christians throughout the centuries have accused other Christians of compromising with contemporary philosophies. However, while they have often been right, time and time again they have been shown to be wrong in what they thought was the plain teaching of Scripture.
In response to this, you might say: well, they were clearly wrong, and clearly didn't listen to the full witness of the Bible. But that would seem to me to be a pretty snotty call from a bunch of bloggers on a site so minor it is directed at one diocese of one denomination in one point of time on a one issue basis, about a bunch of early Christians who could theologically eat both of us for breakfast and still have room for the Reformers, and whose writings you are still referring to two millennia later.
OK, as for Werner Gitt - well, I don't doubt for a moment that he and Marion love Jesus. He may be a leader in information technology. He may even be an extremely precise biblical expositor. But the article does not demonstrate expertise in the relevant fields of science nor rigor in either his depiction of his opponents, or of the logic of his arguments. I could write out my objections, but they'd fill the comments. So here's a site whose criticism I mostly agree with. It's got some flaws (not least that it's ugly) but you get my drift. We can then deal with points one at a time if you'd like.
It's funny. I came to Christ as a late teenager. I didn't need to be persuaded about YEC. I didn't then, and don't now, agree with your arguments. It was the historicity of Jesus' resurrection from the dead that got me. At my church we have baptised now 7 - or is it 8 - newly converted Asian migrants and students this year from non-English-speaking-backgrounds (our International service is only a recent endeavour, so is still only fairly small - but you've got to rejoice with us about seeing these folks come to love Jesus!). Many of them come from China, which as you know teaches evolution as the defeat of theism. None of them needed to be taught YEC to come to see and acknowledge God's absolute sovereignty. I've debated Muslims on campus. One of their main barriers to faith is a literal reading of Gen 1-3.
Now, that's not to say that a literal reading is therefore wrong - I'd say an acceptance of our own sinfulness is a barrier to faith for most of us, too. However, it is interesting that I've had quite different experiences than you of the importance of YEC for conversion.
Oh, and Warwick, I'm still keen to have lunch with you and any of the other contributors to the site. I think there's a real benefit to being confronted with the other person as a person, not just a bunch of ideas on a page. I'm also hoping that some of your posters have the courage to say stuff face-to-face, rather than cowardly hiding behind an anonymous name on a website. You know: being a 'real man'. So: how about it? Lunch in the city? or somewhere else?
BTW, I think some of your folks may also have me confused with someone else. I'm not currently a student of Moore College (and when I was there, I certainly wasn't taught a particular take on the age of creation). I grew up on army bases; was brought up in Asia; have worked in coal mines and internationally in the corporate world. For all intents and purposes, I've led a normal working life as a regular Joe, and now work fulltime telling people about Jesus.
I'm keen to do the best job possible at that under God, which is why I'm here talking to you folks, in the hope we both might gain something from the experience.
Mike I think it obvious you are here endeavouring to disuade others from taking God at His Word. Do you imagine people who write here are scientifically or theologically ignorant, and therefore so easily persuaded by error?
As I see it we will only gain from conversation when our starting point is the suppremacy of Gods Word. You have been asked repeatedly to supply Scriptural backing for your long-ages/evolutionary view but nary a squeak from you. I know & others know why. Simply because there is none, your philosophy being extra-Biblical, not found in Scripture and contrary to Scripture, both OT and NT.
As to having lunch, I don't see the point. Do you imagine I haven't sat face to face with many others of your belief? I have and find similarities with the JW's who once frequently visited my home. Nothing from Scripture moved them one millimetre from their non-Biblical position. Nothing challenged them, in fact I don't think it even registered upon them how Scripture directly and repeatedly discredits their position. They had upon them the full armour of darkness.
BTW before you get your knickers in a twist I am not equating T/E's with JW's(they being non-Christian)but commenting, from experience, that their attitude to selected parts of Scripture is the same. Different sections of Scripture but the same attitude.
Conversely I have met many over the years, when preaching in churches, who held the T/E view and found most of them very open to reconsidering the evidence. Most of them reconsidered and admitted the error of their previous position. They saw that it wasn't Biblical.
I have not found this among those indoctrinated by Moore College et al. They like the JW's have been indoctrinated into a thought pattern and are no longer able to see the obvious. I am friendly with a few Anglican ministers who have survived Moore and agree about the indoctrination. One was told he would not pass unless he gave up his young-earth view. What a disgraceful thing for any supposed Christian to do, to descend to such an evil threat.
If he was to enter into the debate here would you be surprized if he felt the need to use another name?
Mike you have been repeatedly challenged and your view found wanting. Unless you respond to the numerous requests for Scriptures which back up your position I have no interest in further conversation.
I need to get back to preaching another Gospel, creating schisms and being legalistic. I shall ponder all which has beeen written with a glass or two of Rutherglen Durif 1997. In vino veritas!
Woops, I forgot to reference the critique of Gitt's article: http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/10dangers.htm.
Did I mention that I was never taught a particular view about creation at Moore? This may have happened in the past, but to say I've been indoctrinated is just ridiculous!
Warwick, Mark et al. have already advanced some biblical arguments for an old earth (not evolutionary) view. You haven't like them. Fine. I suspect that there simply aren't the kind of Scriptural sources available that would persuade you of your view, because of the exegetical technique that you have adopted.
But, then again, where do you base your understanding that the world is round, and orbits the sun? Can you find this in the Bible? There are some Christians who believe, based on exactly the same exegetical techniques ((http://www.sonlight.com/young_or_old_earth.html)) you use, that the universe is geocentric. In fact, even skeptical atheists recognise that a consistent application of your method must lead to geocentricism (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=61).
What's really cracks me up is the similarities between YECs and geocentrists go deeper still. You keep on telling me that when confused/errant Christians look into creationism, most of them (except for the arrogant and rebellious ones, of course) abandon their old earth ideas. Gerardus Bouw, an ardent geocentrist, claimed "Invariably, those [creationists] who do take more than a cursory look [at geocentricity] become geocentrists." Maybe you've only taken a cursory look at geocentricism, Warwick, and if you stopped letting science (and photos from space) lead you into sin, you too would believe the world was flat!
Now, I know as well as you that the YEC crowd has written some stinging rebuttals of geocentricism. I read quite a good effort here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp). The only problem is that the techniques used are the same old earth creationists use to debate YEC. I quote, "There are few Biblical texts that in any way even remotely address the heliocentric/geocentric question. In each instance there is considerable doubt as to whether cosmology is the issue." Substitute 'young earth' for 'heliocentric/geocentric' and you've got the idea. Some pretty fancy grammatico-historical work is required, not to mention the introduction of a completely anachronistic 'reference frame' idea.
Hence my comparison of Theophilus and Augustine earlier. Doesn't it concern you just a little that Theophilus (and others) used (and use) the same lines of argument to move from Bible to flat earth as from Bible to 6-days?
I am just about to go out so if Mike replies soon I won't be able repond for a few hours.
Mike you said "I think that anyone who believes Ex 20:11 is not a validation of 6-day creation needs to work very hard."
I doubt that you meant this but it needs to be clarified for other readers that 'working hard' to escape the convictive of a text of Scripture does not validate the outcome.
That said, since you have a regard for the integrity of the utterance of God as recorded at Exodus 20:11 would you indicate how that statement of God can be correct if created matter of the cosmos including the once living things -but now fossils on earth were created some age prior to the six days of the Creation Week?
Neil Moore
Sorry, Neil, I think I may get what you're asking but am not sure. Could you rephrase both of your questions and I'll have a shot? Cheers.
MikePaget: you still haven't provided the slightest evidence for long creation days. Hugh Ross is the leading defender of this compromise and he has been splattered by books like Refuting Compromise.
That Sonlight rubbish about geocentrism that you salivate about is the usual physics-illiterate ignorance that all motion must be described relative to a reference frame—see also Hold on, Mr Holzmann: Leading homeschool supplier misleads about biblical creationist exegesis. So the biblical language was perfectly correct. There is nothing "anachrononistic" about the reference frame argument, since this was merely a technical way of describing how the writers were describing motion relative to the earth. Haven't you ever used the word "sunset" or described driving at 100 km/h? If we can do that, why can't the biblical writers? There is simply no comparison between absolute geocentrism and YEC, despite your scientifically ignorant smears and blind trust of biblically illiterate misotheistic gutter sites.
It is most unlikely that Theophilus held a flat earth view. This charge against the Church was thoroughly refuted by the historian Prof. Jeffrey Burton Russell, author of the book Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians (see summary).
Mike, there was only one question. I think what you thought was a question was actually a statement - that it is not appropriate for Christians to "work hard' at avoiding from what Scripture says.
I thought the question was straight-forward but I'll go about it a different way - in stages. You have indicated that you hold to an old earth view. Would you kindly inform me whether the long ages you hold to occurred prior to Creation Week, during Creation Week or after Creation Week?
Neil Moore
Sorry, a typo has occurred.
Delete "from" from "avoiding from what" in my immediately preceding post. Too many froms ... ahhh forget it!
Neil Moore
Hellooooooh, Mike! are you going to reply to my inquiry?
Neil Moore
Ah, sorry Neil, that was a bit rude of me - I have been neglecting my blogging duties to finish up some outstanding pieces of work before I head off with the family to the Church Missionary Society summer school for a heretics' reunion. John Woodhouse is teaching on 1 Sam 9-15. He probably won't mention 6-day creation once, so I don't know what edification we'll get out of it.... :-) Then I'm afraid I'll be away on holiday for a couple of weeks (celebrating the rest of the Lord in that ongoing 7th day we all love).
Just being a tease.
You're right, of course. It is entirely improper for Christians to '"work hard' at avoiding what Scripture says.' Of course, even if I was the kind of person whose raison d'etre was to distort the very words of God, then I'd hardly admit it on this website, would I?
So, of course, when I talk about 'working hard' with Ex 20:11 I'm going to be talking about working hard to understand it appropriately within the full scope of biblical revelation. You really are a naughty, naughty blogger, Neil, re-quoting me like that. Still, I can take a stir as well as the next person. And if my exegetical method were flawed (but we've discussed this, and know that this is a basic and so far un-resolved disagreement) then, yes, you'd be right to pull me up. So I respect that within your YEC framework, that was a moderately fair call; in what I would consider a biblical framework, it wasn't, but I don't expect we resolve that until we stand side by side sharing empanadas in the new creation.
BTW, did you folks hear about the terrible case of an evolution vs creation debate degenerating into a stabbing (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22924256-12377,00.html). Maybe the internet DOES have something going for it. :-) But my offer of lunch for anyone on this site with the spine to accept stands. You'll look silly to your readers if you refuse.....
Neil, in answer to your question, I guess that since I see the creation 'Week' as a symbolic and theological representation of the ease and orderedness of God's creative efforts, your question does not make so much sense within what I understand to be the biblical framework. Do you want me to expand?
Grace and peace to y'all. If I can hit an internet cafe up in Katoomba, I'll respond, but otherwise, see you in Feb. Can't wait.
I thought the question was straight-forward but I'll go about it a different way - in stages. You have indicated that you hold to an old earth view. Would you kindly inform me whether the long ages you hold to occurred prior to Creation Week, during Creation Week or after Creation Week?
Ktisophilos - a little more sophia and a little less ktisis, please.
Seasoned debaters know that the moment you appear in text using words like 'splattered', 'rubbish', 'illiterate', 'salivate' and 'misotheistic gutter sites' you're just trying to trowel smear and dirt over the top of a frightened little argument. Have a Bex and a nice lie down, and get back to the site when you have a point. You remember those, yes - from the days when you used to hear - even listen - to opposing viewpoints?
I think Warwick and I have already pretty well established that the details of the arguments of each side have been pretty much addressed here (especially in his interaction with Mark Baddeley); and both parties have agreed they find the other side awfully unconvincing. So if you are going to have your ear to the door and leap in with comments part way through, try to follow the whole process, huh?
Now, to your points, therefore. You say Hugh Ross has been splattered. I say that your arguments haven't touched him, and look biblically incomplete alongside his. Well, that's an assertion matched with another assertion, and yet we haven't really got anywhere, have we?
And don't call me physics-illiterate. It makes you look silly (again). Last time I unrolled my transcript I discovered I have a degree in physics and maths from a reputable Australian university. Neat, huh? But Theophilus didn't. I've got a lot of respect for Russell. He doesn't need to have his spleen between his teeth when he writes. But Russell acknowledges that some church fathers did believe in a flat earth. You guys brought up Theophilus as a YECer - I merely point out that the same exegetical method made him a flat-earther. And that since he was a significant dude in the early church, his contribution is not trivial.
Finally, I have read Sarfati's article. It just runs through the arguments already dealt with already. On the reference frame argument: guys like Theophilus demonstrate the fairly obvious point that without the scientific cues of relative motion, the early readers of Scripture used what is for us metaphorical and figurative language in a strictly literal sense. Where the theory of a spherical earth survived in the Christian community, it did so as a legacy of early Greek philosophical influence as Russell himself points out, and against the criticism of those like Theophilus who said it replaced the bible with science.
Gee. Sounds familiar.
Woops, Neil, in my response I accidentally left a quote from you at the very bottom. Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Mike, when responding to your statement about "work hard" I said I didn't believe you meant that people should work hard to escape the convictive of Scripture. So I was not correcting you, just clarifying for other readers. No dramas here so far as I am concerned.
However, your response to my question about where you believe the 'long ages' occurred leaves me even more puzzled than before and obliged to ask the same question again but, again, in a slightly different and enlarged form.
Was there an actual Creation Week?
If so, where did the long ages you believe in occur in relation to the Creation Week ie before, during, after or a combination of one or more?
Providing a quote from someone before responding to it has been the standard fare of people who have entered this site from the beginning. I don't think it is "naughty" just helpful for readers to know what is being addressed in response. I don't think anyone has meant offence by this practice and I certainly haven't.
I hope you can respond to my question before departing for Katoomba because I doubt that you will be able to get away from the CMS campsite due to being enamored by John's talks and the vibrant singing and arm waving. Just kidding about the arm waving, people will probably only be moving their arms to grab a cup of tea and a biscuit.
Neil Moore
Fair request, Neil.
I guess my understanding of the mechanism or physical process of creation is quite shaped by contemporary science. A lot of that is obviously highly provisional and still in debate, but I'm happy with current proposals, for example, of lengths of time. Jury is still out for me on evolution - but we can discuss that at another time.
I would characterise Gen 1-3 as a kind of impressionistic portrayal of the truly important aspects of that creation, drawing attention to it as something genuinely creative, in a language accessible to believers throughout history. These aspects which have been highlighted are almost entirely theological rather than, for example, methodological.
However, I'd want to insert an uncertainty clause here - the Hebrew tells us that unless Genesis 1:1 is the a summary of the ensuing process, following in v.2 by the epexegesis of this summary, then Genesis is not addressing explicitly creation ex nihilo, as opposed to an ordering of an existing chaos. The Bible certainly does affirm this important doctrine, but it isn't the specific concern of Moses at this point. I'm not sure exactly where this leaves us chronologically.
I've no doubt you've heard this line before, though.
Oh, and Neil, I wish. I sometimes (no, often) think us Anglicans could do a lot worse than run some solvent between hands and body and get those hands in the air. If nothing else, it'd give the armpits a breather. 'Course, I'd have to lead the charge...
Sorry, Mike, but is that the same John Woodhouse who [reluctantly i.e. scared he'd wouldn't be able to competently defend!] debated Carl Wieland of the then AIG some 10 years or so ago at Christ Church St Ives? I can recall it as though it were yesterday. Poor John got theologically battered that day and got his butt smacked by a much cleverer and knowledgeable Christian?
I guess that's the reason why the heretics don't like debating us orthodox Christians anymore because it's awfully difficult to defend ol' Nick's lies.
Post a Comment