Odd day yesterday. Called into my union office to drop off some papers for an upcoming court case against my employer and then rode past the Town Hall and saw some people handing our pamphlets to the lunch-time crowd outside that building next door. At first I wasn’t going to stop but the subject matter drew my attention: human rights for children. Something wasn’t right and I smelt Scientology at work.
I began my discussion by asking affable Nigel on what basis children should have rights. It was fairly promptly brought to my attention that they were indeed scientologists. This inevitably and quickly led to a discussion of comparing, I mean, contrasting, L. Ron Hubbard with Jesus. As it turned out Nigel was an ex-Anglican and was quite familiar with Jesus’ character and perfect nature. We talked for about 40 minutes and at our conversation's conclusion I encouraged him to take up C.S. Lewis’ challenge of liar, lunatic or Lord.
The glaring surreal irony of it all. Here I was, blogmaster for Sydney Anglican Heretics, standing outside St Andrew’s Cathedral and St Andrew’s House, the powerhouse of planning for Connect 09, evangelising an ex-Anglican and not a SADist in sight conversing with these poaching Scientologists or the lunch-time crowd.
Connect 2009? Yeh, right!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
42 comments:
John, it is really, really sad that the Diocese has set itself on a course it is just not ready for.
You would think the Diocese would be trying things now to assess what will work with Connect'09. But no, they are locking themselves away in meetings theorising about what to do.
Here you were, outside one of those meeting places doing the very thing they should have been doing.
Maybe 3009, as you suggest, might be a better target year. Better still, to reflect their inferior impression of God's creative activity they should choose year15,000,000,009 to allow for the billions and billions upon billions of errors, frustrations and dead-ends they need to perfect the right entity.
Sam
In cathedrals I've wandered into around the world, I've often mused at the great witness such an astonishing edifice could be a base for: but I've never seen it. Perhaps I've missed what is done, but if a visitor in a strange city, I should be in the 'target range' of Christian witness and should have detected it.
Look at St Andrew's cathedral in Sydney: interesting enough architecturally, prominent on George St. but an edifice of silence. Not even the lunch time out door question and answer sessions that a previous Dean held are done any more.
All is silent, and as thousands walk past every day, it is Mormons, Scientologists and the newspaper seller who take advantage of the stamp of respectibility of the Cathedral to peddle their wares: peddling to perdition (except for the newspaper seller, of course, who sells endless warnings about the state of this world).
Critias,
You're right about the Mormons. A few years back I was passing by St Andrew's Cathedral and there, right in front, were two Mormon Elders having a go at converting. Need I say any more?
Critias I agree. I spend a few months travelling around La France each year and make a point of spending time in Cathedrals, and churches. Some are absolutely amazing, massive places, obviously designed by people of great intellect plus builders of incomparable skill. Most buildings today are poor cousins in comparison. I believe these men designed and built them to serve and worshoip God. Sadly Roman Catholicism got in the way.
I never fail to be unmoved by their spiritual splendour and like you am convinced they could be places of great Christian impact on the unsaved who visit.
I have long thought the Sydney Anglican church could likewise be such a power for conversion but sadly they have been diverted, their fervour watered down by their marriage of convenience with man-made speculations.
Dear friends
It is unfortunate that this forum has continued to bring down the name of Christ by repeated slander of other Christians.
My experience on the Sydney Anglican Forum is that of a freedom to express and debate the issues of Creation verses evolutionary alternatives in a passionate yet loving way.
This forum however has caused me to withdraw my financial support of CMI and dissacociate myself from people such as yourselves.
I proudly support and defend the 'no death before fall' doctrine, but it seems the people involved in this sight are more interested in attacking the character of other Christians than defending scripture and leading others into repentance.
Please repent and demonstrate some fruit of the Spirit by seeking unity in love.
Marantha
Craig <><
Well, Craig, seeing as that I am neither an employee of CMI nor represent them, why would your bizarre and silly little man's threat of withdrawing "support" for CMI mean anything?
I suppose what it does demonstrate, however, is the intellectual and ethical poverty of your position.
Your statement illustrates what we have been saying all along - let's not play the issue but the man. You have got to get a life, man!
There are others on here that are ex employees of CMI and which is why I have withdrawn support when this blog sight came up over a year ago. Unfortunately this fourm is based on hatred with no attemp to glorify Jesus, I do not see any of the fruit of the Spirit here; no love, no joy, no peace, no patience, no kindness, no goodness, no faithfulness, no gentleness, and no selfcontrol.
How glorious it would be for the contributers here to seek peace rather than breed hatred through personal attacks.
As James says What good is it my brothers if someone has faith (in Genesis 1-3) but has not works? Can that faith save him?
Craig wrote: "Unfortunately this fourm is based on hatred with no attemp to glorify Jesus, I do not see any of the fruit of the Spirit here; no love, no joy, no peace, no patience, no kindness, no goodness, no faithfulness, no gentleness, and no selfcontrol."
No, son, what you are in fact is a sanctimonious hyprocrite. You quote Paul's words only to prop up your own self-righteousness, just like the Pharisees. You are clearly not interested in truth because even if it were true we'd stepped over the edge, your mates like Gordon Cheng and Peter Jensen etc have done the same by calling us all sorts of opprobrious names.
Craig wrote: "How glorious it would be for the contributers here to seek peace rather than breed hatred through personal attacks."
Don't be a naive fool, son. Peace at any cost i.e. at the expense of truth, is not peace. We attack people when they are dishonest, lie to us and, worst of all, to themselves, and then point down to us from their own self-erected moral highground, just like you're doing. We attack their pseudo-Christian ideas with gusto when they turn God into a pagan god and introduce alien and destructive ideas in to the Church, like the Sydney Anglican Diocese continually does when they nonsensically attribute evolution to God's creative purpose. We attack men like Gordon Cheng when they blaspheme Jesus by making out that his creation was flawed from the start (e.g. the koala's pouch was poorly designed). We attack men who, like Mark Baddeley, argue that the early Church Fathers did not believe in a young world and who, when it is clearly shown that they did, turn the discussion around and make it an issue about whether we are behaving righteously and thereby prserving their own high-standing to themselves and to their own crowd. This is exactly what children do, not adults: they can't stand to be wrong. Admitting being wrong is an awfully hard exercise in humility (I say, "Tell me about it!") but it seems to be an impossibly difficult task for SADists because they are never wrong because they have all truth.
Craig, we are not polite people when supposed Christians traduce God and are proud of it and then mock those who take up the challenge to put things right.
Craig, you're no different from the others because you stand not on Christ's righteouseness but your own.
"As James says What good is it my brothers if someone has faith (in Genesis 1-3) but has not works? Can that faith save him?"
That's right, slip in a relevant bible quote. What is your ultimate point in quoting scripture? Does ya feel all pious, son? Does ya feel closer to God than we?
I'd rather be seen as coarse than be a part of the righteous ones to which you've aligned yourself.
One more thing...not that I care..but it's your logic, or more correctly, your belief that you are acting rationally.
You withdraw your support for CMI because one person here is supposed to be an ex-employee. You believe this person has acted sinfully, I presume, and thus this is justification for your action. So, when a paedophile pastoral minister gets caught out did you then withdraw support for the Church? Or, how about a light-fingered teller at the Commonwealth leads you to withdrawing you stash from that bank? What about a retired cop who gets drunk and smashes his car? Do you suddenly conclude that the NSW Police are a bunch of criminals?
Yes, yes, with such impeccable logic no wonder you guys can't get the biblical picture even remotely correct.
Actually many of us Sydney Anglicans are YEC and do have a consistant theology, from start to finish. And yet when we disagree with the catholics, Mormons, JWs and pentacostals; the godly ones don't attack the people involved we gently try to lead them to Christ through the scriptures.
When Gordon Cheng called me all sorts of ungracious names for defending the doctrine of creation, I told him it was unacceptable and that he needed to repent and demonstrate some fruit of the Spirit. He quickly appologised, sort forgivness and reconcilation. Gordon has many flaws but the Spirit of God is working through him to convict him of sin.
However John I still pray to see that same Spirit at work in you.
Jesus said that in every Christian is the Spirit of Christ, and when one Christian attacks another they are attacking Christ himself.
Please vigorously defend srcipture, but do not attack Christ.
I have now been called more unholy names by you John than even by Gordon, yet I don't seek an appology for me but rather you should appologise to Gordon, the Jensens and others that you are continually attacking for planning to reach Sydney with the Gospel of salvation. Connect 09 is a godly endeavour and should be commended by those interested in seeing souls saved.
This is my third request to repent, I will request no more. Thank you for the interaction and allowing me to contribute on this forum.
May Christ dwell in you richly.
Marantha
Craig <><
Craig, it is yet to be seen whether Connect 09 is of God or of man. I am sure we all desire to see God's Church healthy and triumphant in his Name. However, like others who contribute to this site, I have reservations when his people go out in their own strength rather than trusting in God's' Word.
My observation is that some who contribute to this site are so frustrated by the 'we have it all' attitude prevailing within the Diocese which doesn't accept criticism at all well. The response of some here is to go hard.
The result is borderline personal criticism but more precisely strongly attacking the position of the other.
It would be better to have point by point engagement and a willingness to set aside the prevailing 'we have it all' attitude. The latter is a huge wall that has to be breached with some force.
Neil Moore
Craig X, in dealing with SydAngs I have found quite a few to be plainly deceitful,and some very rude and arrogant. I have spoken in many Anglican churches on creation/evolution and in a very few, have been sworn at, called a fool and liar by compromizing cowards who would not debate me on these issues in front of the same group. Is it rude to call them cowards Craig?
I have also been a spectator in other Anglican churches where other creation speakers have been defamed. And you object to the robust, but much kinder language used here!
As you may or may not know one fellow, whose name eludes me, wrote (to my pastor & denominational head) a rather petty and pathetic letter apparently aimed at causing me grief! How sad. We had a chuckle about it. I mention it, not because I was in anyway offended by it, but to illustrate the low standards of one SydAng, better called an AngloNasty. Should I cease my support for the Anglican Church because of this unpleasant man?
You say you have withdrawn financial support from CMI because of the behaviour of some here. To the best of my knowledge I am the only person who writes here who once worked for CMI, or more accurately AiG as it was then called. I have not worked there for years and do not speak on their behalf, nor they on mine. I trust that is clear?
Therefore I consider your withdrawal of support to be petty and pointless, akin to stomping off home and taking your bat.
There is no doubt that discussion here has sometimes been robust, but truth is more important than middle-class concepts of niceness. Our Lord spoke harshly, very harshly, against those who opposed God's will. He even whipped money-changers from the temple and insulted the religious leaders of the day, to their faces, in public!
From what I have read the writers have been much more gentle than out Lord! Remember we are to value Truth above all else,to tell the truth in love, not to be 'loving' while papering over error. We are to tell the truth in love but must contradict those who promote anti-Biblical and dangerous (to faith) philosophies of men.
Craig if you are upset with what I have written then face me about it. Don't take it out on a Christian Ministry which is not involved.
Craig wrote: "Jesus said that in every Christian is the Spirit of Christ, and when one Christian attacks another they are attacking Christ himself.
Please vigorously defend srcipture, but do not attack Christ.
I have now been called more unholy names by you John than even by Gordon, yet I don't seek an appology for me but rather you should appologise to Gordon, the Jensens and others that you are continually attacking for planning to reach Sydney with the Gospel of salvation. Connect 09 is a godly endeavour and should be commended by those interested in seeing souls saved.
This is my third request to repent, I will request no more."
1. You seem to equate the Anglican Church as though it is Christ.
2. Scripture can't be wrong but Gordon Cheng, Peter Jensen can be, and are. Therefore I am obliged to point out their deviation from truth. These men are heretics and blasphmeme God with their ideas.
3. Paul, John, Peter gave many examples of men in the early Church who perverted Scripture and the Lord's teaching. Peter Jensen, Gordon Cheng do the same now. You're asking that I ignore their deceit and attack on the Creator. Peter Jensen teaches that Christ used evolution (i.e. death, time, disease and chance) to bring his creation into existence. Why should I treat him as anything but a heretic? Moore College teaches that the Creator is some sort of knucklehead. You're asking that I should be ashamed of my words? Talk about having things around the wrong way! Craig, take a reality pill!
3. I read your words to mean that I should submit to your authority and to the Anglican Church's authority. I don't recognise either because you have none over me. Craig, it's you who have erred. Your words reveal your own righteousness not the Lord's.
I have not supported CMI before but on the basis of Craig's decision to withdraw support I shall now, this year, commence support for CMI.
I just can't see the commonsense in Craig's decision. It has some semblance to terrorists who have no difficulty in making decisions to blow up innocent bystanders to achieve their aim.
Gwen
Good one Gwen.
In reality I have no confidence Craig X is a real person, let alone a CMI supporter. I cannot imagine any rational person taking support from such an excellent ministry as CMI because of a perception that someone here (who allegedly wrote mean 'n nasty things) once worked for CMI. Hey long ago I worked for Dow Corning so I suppose he will stop buying their products. Oh I also worked for Scotts Detergents and....
Gwen the economic fallout from this could devestate the Australian economy even more than the best attempts of the current government, so I had best stop mentioning places I worked!
Best stop mentioning them Warwick. One can go mad trying to exrapolate the the thoughts of the irrational.
Perhaps Craig is that Swartzy person who I once saw comments here. Perhaps he posted again here for some converation due to the lack of conversation on his site. I haven't looked there for some months but if the past is the guide then he is now desperate for conversation.
Gwen
Gwen, my lips are sealed.
Yes, it had occurred to me that Craig X was indeed Craig S the kung-foo kid. Who knows.
Interestingly, and I may have mentioned this before, on a US site there has been discussion about the truth. It was quite confusing until I considered that Alan was English an possibly Anglican as he was using the word 'truth' in an unusual way. To most people truth is fact, it actually happened but to some of the AngloMindset 'truth' simply means that something has value. To describe an actual historical event they use 'true truth.' What nonsense.
As soon as I understood this I asked Alan to define truth but he won't.
Isn't this use of 'truth' devious Gwen.
Such diluted application of truth is annoying. You just don't know where you are going in the conversation. You are making your point and the other person seems to be acknowledging agreeement but in reality you are both at odds.
Confusion is decline and that seems to rule in Christian circles today.
Gwen
My name is Craig Thacker.
Warwick you were my Answers in Genesis contact when I was living in Ryde, and we have had a few face to face conversations, and you have even called me on the phone a number of times in relation to my participation on the Anglican Media Forum.
Friends, because primarily of the actions of the people on this sight, the subject of creation and evolution can no longer be engaged on the Sydney Anglican Forum. This means we can no longer use that opportunity to challenge the thinking of Sydney clergy and others on the doctrine of creation.
The actions of those here has therefore meant Sydney Anglicans are reluctant to investigate the claims of YECs for fear of being lumped in with the likes of yourselves.
If this was the aim, it was very successful. If not then you need to make a mends.
Our sermon last Sunday was on James chapter 5.
Verse 5 says; "Don't grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The judge is standing at the door."
And Verse 20 "Remember this:Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his ways will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins."
The reason I started writing on this forum, is because after a year I visited to still find grumbling against your brothers. To start I thought it was just letting off steam, but it seems to be a deep seated hatred. So I am calling you to repent and avoid the judgment spoken of by James. Then I ask to to engage the Sydney Anglicans in a way that opens up a dialog instead of name calling which shuts down all comunication.
The proverb I keep up above my desk says; Proverbs 12:1
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid.
My initial attraction to the YECs movement is because it seems to belong to people that love knowledge and are willing to have their doctrine corrected from the wicked teaching of godless evolution. Please recomfirm my initial susposition and receive my correction of your practice with good will.
I am not saying to seek peace at the cost of faithfullness to scripture. I am saying you need to seek peace so you can teach faithfulness to scripture.
Also it was mentioned that they have been harsh and rude so therefore we are justified in our actions. This is the opposite to scripture Matthew 5:38-42, this passage says that the godly person will accept harsh treatment and return it with gentleness and respect.
My withdrawral of support of CMI is an object lesson. To Sydney Anglicans this sight represents all YECs. They will not support Creation ministries if this is the fruit that is bore. My finacial support was not great, only subscription to the Creation magazine and buying resources for outreach. But I hope you get the point, that others are doing the same but making it public.
Marantha,
Craig Thacker <><
Craig,no matter how you dress it up you are (in a small way) punishing an innocent Christian ministry because you perceive some here have written in an improper manner!
Craig, having spoken with you,I am disappointed you would do such a petty thing, as to punish a party not involved. Sincerely I say, shame on you. Your actions show you are acting emotionally, not rationally. I cannot and do not speak for CMI but wonder if they are not better off without 'supporters' who would behave in such a way.
Jesus described the errant religious leaders of His day as a Synagogue of Satan. I have seen nothing anywhere as cutting and offensive written here.
I have written what I know to be the truth, that elements within Sydney Anglicanism are leading the church to destruction, rapidly following others, now entirely liberal. Others far more knowledgeable than I have tried to engage with these leaders but to no effect.
I remember one significant SydAng minister who could not have a CMI speaker, as members of his congregation threatened his position should he do so. And you are offended by what you perceive as unloving language!
You wrote 'My withdrawral of support of CMI is an object lesson. To Sydney Anglicans this sight represents all YECs.' Then more fool them. CMI has its own excellent website, periodicals and publications and does not publish here, nor have input. If people are so thick as not to understand this then they will most likely miss your point.
Craig one more comment:
You wrote 'My withdrawral of support of CMI is an object lesson. To Sydney Anglicans this sight represents all YECs.'
Craig on the official Anglican site some there crudely belittle and ridicule YEC's and others. If what you wrote above is correct do you allow that people may see these comments represent all Anglicans?
If so should I and others remove our financial support for the Anglican Church because of this? I would like to know.
I wrote:
To Sydney Anglicans this sight represents all YECs.'
Warwicks reply is; "Then more fool them."
Why write this Warwick? Surely Christians reading this sight should get a good representation of the godliness beheld by those profoundly influenced by the doctrine of Creation.
Why is someone a fool to consider Christians that hold to the doctrine of creation are any different to the ones here.
Would the people at CMI be happy to recommend this sight to demonstrate the behaviour of fellow creationists? If not, then something needs to change.
I know CMI is as godly an institution as you will find anywhere. Why not follow there example?
Warwick you said:"Sincerely I say, shame on you."
I have no shame for calling the people here to repent, I have no shame for taking actions that have lead you and others take notice.
However I can see that my correction is not welcome and that the hatred shall carry on. However I pray the creationists will be proven the more accurate representation of Christ on Earth and not the evolutionists.
Warwick wrote another comment that I have now pondered a bit so I'll reply;
"Craig on the official Anglican site some there crudely belittle and ridicule YEC's and others. If what you wrote above is correct do you allow that people may see these comments represent all Anglicans?"
I think that those claiming to be Anglicans can be seen as a fair representation of the Anglican church (some on there are not Sydney Anglicans, so they would not be a fair representation).
I the reason I think they are a good representation is because even though Anglicans disagree with each other over some doctrines they still apologise when they sin.
I personally received written apologies from Gordon Cheng, Dave L and Owen Atkins that were published on the forum.
These men are passionate, yet the Spirit of God works in them to seek peace not hostility. It might be slow coming but it came.
I expect no less from godly men and women that are creationists.
Craig, settle down and think of what you are saying. In one post you imply the motivation of this site "seems to be a deep seated hatred" and then in a later post that seemed hatred has become fact. This escalation of perception from one post to the next is symptomatic of heightened emotions. A cool head is required.
Let me first say that I have spoken offline with various contributors to this blogspot over the life of the blog. I have not detected any hatred at all. I have detected varying degrees of frustration, determination to correct perceived wrongs and unwillingness to accept compromise but hatred? As I said, not at all!
I agreed to join this blogspot because, after having been directed to the debate on the Anglican forum, I saw insults being dropped into responses to YEC's there. Whatever commonsense and gentleness was being displayed by YEC's it was treated with contempt. I am completely poles apart from you in your belief that debate on Creationism on the Anglican forum was going to achieve anything positive. The record is there to be examined. Test me and see whether any progress was made. It was the same contributors coming back time and time again with the same contemptuous attitude.
For myself and others it became necessary to contribute to a blogspot which would be robust and a means to take on the mockers toe-to-toe in debate.
As it happens there was some instances of engagement by some, futility and time wasting by others but, at last, they all just went away in a huff. Something akin but nowhere near as insulting as the record of some of them on the Anglican forum was unacceptable to them. And you know what? I think it bothered them more that attribution of heresy within the Diocese was publicised. I can understand that it is a sizable charge but I think it was more pride at stake than examination of correctness of doctrine which motivated many reactions.
Craig, be fair dinkum. You are like us in this - haven't you many times over attempted to have Biblical Creationism discussed and a speaker enagaged only to encounter avoidance in an attempt to maintain peace within the church. How long is the Lord going to put up with this? Biblical Creationists are kept aside.
By title, this blogspot cannot be the means for gentle engagement with the Diocese but someone has to do something. Set some site up and running for Sydney Anglicans to discuss Biblical Creationism. Disassociate yourself from this blogspot. That's fine because this site has a limited role. We can be regarded as a stench in the nostrils. That will not deter us from our message that a heresy is entrenched in the highest order of the Diocese and the heresy will consume like a cancer. As with advanced cancer, serious measures have to be taken and they are being taken here. There ought to be a venue for a gentler approach for the willing inquirer and that venue can be your ministry.
In closing, oblige me. Outside of John's tougher then all approach who else has insulted here and what have they said that is deemed to be the great offence that you think is an indication of hatred?
Neil Moore
Brother Craig, I am of the same mind as Neil. I saw nothing producttive in the Anglican forum discussing origins. It was going nowhere.
I appreciate your trust in the Word of God. I wish it was widespread.
Also like Neil I have met with avoidance when raising the subject of Young Earth Creationism in my church. It is now the way that I feel reluctant to raise it because I fear being labelled a trouble maker.
SydneyAnglicanHeretics is not the problem. It is now a weak excuse used by evolutionists and 'long agers' within the Diocese to continue pushing the issue aside and continuing in errant belief.
Sam
Dear Sam and Neil
Thanks for your contribution. I can see there is wide variety of person here and it is unfair to lump them all together.
My concern is that engagment with Anglicans should be the aim in order to transform lives. Parhaps you are right Neil, another way forward is required to open the avenues of discussion.
Unfortunately the name of this sight will not attrack Anglican clergy or lay people into a discussion as it seems there is an unwillingness to admit to being wrong.
An area needs to be set up where people can dscuss these issues with the understanding that people on both sides are willing to examine their position in light of others views of scripture.
That was occuring on the Sydney Anglican Media forum but is now lost. Even though nobody shifted from their position the exercise was not wasted because hundreds of people were reading the discussion without contributing.
What I have found over the last 3-4 years of discussing it at the AMS sight is that my Creation position is not as solidly founded in scripture as for example my doctrine of grace alone for salvation is founded in scripture. This is why the debate raged on longer than any other discussion they have had there.
Personally I want to work out an argument that shows the historicity of the resurrection as being equally important as the historicity of the fall. But as yet I have not had time to develop that argument.
Craig, thank you for your willingness to continue conversation.
However I must say that your claim of "a deep seated hatred", expressed upon these pages,is hard to swallow. I think it reasonable you illustrate what you see as such hatred on this site. Otherwise I think an apology is in order.
I also agree with others that the Anglican forum was going nowhere. I was invited to contribute but couldn't see the point.
I look forward to reading your reply.
Craig, I see both the the Fall, as recorded in Gen. 3, and the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ as important components of the Gospel but not the only parts.
Our Lord spoke of the renewal (or regeneration, KJV) of all things, Matt. 19:28. What is being made new? All that has been corrupted. The original creation made new again or as it was prior to the Fall. This has been won through the Resurrection of our Lord but it comes under that oft used phrase "now but not yet".
That is the way I read it but I am not sure whether that is what you are looking for.
Sam
Hi Sam
The reason I'm keen to pursue the idea of a historical Fall as being a crucial part of the Gospel is that if the Fall is Historical, then it is an event that happened in a real place, in a real time to real people. This would stop the claim that Genesis 1 to 3 was just a mythical event.
My thinking goes a little like this;
Why does Paul so vigoursly defend the resurrection as being a historical event? I think because the Fall of mankind lead to physical death being introduced into the creation for the very first time. And this physical death was defeated by Jesus in the resurrection. If the Fall was a myth or just a spiritual event (as proposed by those in favour of Human evolution, where humans evolved to a point where they became spiritual beings) then the physicsl resurrection of Christ would not be important, but as it is; without the physical resurrection our faith is futile and we are still in our sins.(1 Corinthians 15).
Anyhow it is a work in progress.
Warwick
I am hesitant to point out the examples you ask for but since you think they are necessary for my point to recognised I'll select a few.
The discussion on Connect 3009 grabbed my attention, that is why I started replying on this post.
John attacks Sydney Anglicans because some Scientologists are spreading their heresy outside of Town Hall (Sydney's most popular meeting spot). Just because cults like that spot to work does not mean Sydney Anglicans can never plan how to minister to greater Sydney.
In reply Sam thought it sad that our church is working together to spread the Gospel and proclaim Christ, "it is really, really sad that the Diocese has set itself on a course it is just not ready for".
Eric wrote on Jensen at Abbotsleigh, and complained it was "True to the Anglican obsession with privilege, wealth and elitism".
Actually the Anglican School system caters to all socio-economic groups and the actual schools reflect the community than are in rather than setting themselves apart. Why was the comment made at all? I suspect hatred that is encouraged here.
Even the wording above the reply spot encourages hatred; "Unlike the official Sydney Anglican blog, which loves to throw people off. Let 'er rip, is all we can say."
What does it mean to let 'er rip?
To be honest a lot of the fire has gone out of me. Personally I am a full time lay minister in the Anglican Church and I happen to love the people I work with and for. I have never met a person that I totally agreed with all their doctrine (except my wife, because we shaped our doctrine together) yet I want to make every effort to build the body of Christ, and as Proverbs 27 suggests that comes from sharpening each other. To be heard a person must let there be the opportunity that they are themselves in need of correction. If the other person has to make all the concessions they will not listen. Christ and his word is the standard that all of us must use. So work at explaining the doctrines of Scripture in a way that leaves no alternate interpretation as valid.
Craig I think it interesting that of those who write here the only one(as far as I know)who worked for the now CMI is me but you have not shown any hatred in what I have written. Nonetheless you say you have stopped your financial support for CMI- a non sequitur?
I really don't think CMI will miss your support so I don't pursue this on their account but because I have a desire for justice, and to illustrate that your attitude is neither just nor logical.
Maybe there are budget Anglican schools but as far as I know the 'run of the mill' Anglican schools charge from $12,000-$20,000 pa plus extras. Hardly as you say catering to all socio-economic groups.
Personally as to hatred I do detest certain philosophies because of their destructive consequences for life on earth and eternal life. I confess I hold a particular disgust for Christians who preach compromise with the world, leading others astray. But do I hate them personally? Don't think so. As they say Jesus hates the sin, but loves the sinner-I would like to think I aim towards this.
One long-term friend of mine is a dogged God-hating atheist. He gets drunk and writes offensive things to me, about me and My Lord, and gets very angry because I will not step away for my conviction of the absolute truth of God's Word. He is a consistent, faithful, atheist and I respect him(and pray for him)but I have little respect for those who parade as Bible believing Christians, while openly undermining Scripture. Craig if you see this as hatred, then so be it.
Craig wrote: "John attacks Sydney Anglicans because some Scientologists are spreading their heresy outside of Town Hall (Sydney's most popular meeting spot). Just because cults like that spot to work does not mean Sydney Anglicans can never plan how to minister to greater Sydney."
Brother, you seem to have missed the humour of the whole incident I experienced.
One well-known Sydney Anglican minister I know did see the irony of it all.
You mention that the St Andrew's Square is "Sydney's most popular meeting spot". When have you ever seen Sydney Anglicans making use of this free space to evangelise and if they do, how often (i.e. how many times during the day and year)?
Your words tell it as it is: the cults work their stuff there but the Sydney Anglicans don't. Can't you see how weird that is? The Anglicans make plans but the cults get out and just do it (outside of the Anglican headquarters)!
Come on Craig, lighten up. You're far too serious.
Craig, what you are pursuing is correct and, as I recall, is really just what has been consistently taught as to why our Lord had to come as a man as well as God. He had to be the last Adam to reverse all that went wrong through the rebellion of the first Adam. I am sure you know this anyway!
The problem we encounter is that many Theistic Evolutionists say that death existed in the animals before Adam sinned so Rom. 5:12 only has reference to man. They give inadequate response to our reference to Rom. 8:18-25. This latter passage contains much which will help your pursuit.
Sam
Craig,
I've recently come to the conclusion that unless a person is seeking truth they will never understand that the creation is a young one and that life did not evolve. It's interesting to watch young (and much older) Anglicans who have not been infected by the yeast from Moore College and see how their understanding becomes illuminated when they objectively engage with our arguments. One of the ways I continually see this is the total absence of all the regurgitated catchwords and pseudo-arguments that identifies a person as a Sydney Anglican non-creationist. I have in mind items like "it's poetry" [oddly, when you ask them to define Hebrew poetry they can't!], "the literary features tell you it's not literal" [that one owes its existence to John Dickson - a recent paper by Kay completely debunked Dickson's disingenuous ideas], "it's not the Gospel and that is the most important thing, not how old the earth is", or the best, "I have no problem if God did it in 7 days or billions of years" [these guys usually get the number of days incorrect!].
Craig, the purpose of this blog was not to argue about the scientific data regarding a young earth. I believe there are hundreds, if not thousands, of websites already attempting this. We wanted to specifically draw people's attention to the nature of the Sydney Anglican's dangerously awry theology and how it is dishonest in its approach to creationists.
You have your [gentle] way but we hold that Jesus was no respecter of persons and was scathing when the powerful tried to mislead the common folk. The Sydney Diocese mislead people into heresy. The time now is for tough talk. I know that 1:1 away from this site the contributors speak rationally, politely and free of ad hominem if given a chance. On this site we make no apologies and take no prisoners: the Sydney Anglican Diocese is in full heretical swing. The early fathers also spoke with harsh words against the heretics so we are in good company.
sam drucker said...
"The problem we encounter is that many Theistic Evolutionists say that death existed in the animals before Adam sinned so Rom. 5:12 only has reference to man."
I think it does, but that by itself is a huge problem for the SAH compromise. There are plenty of human fossils that are "dated" by methods they accept to be 195,000 years old. Yet there is no way to stretch the genealogies to put Adam back that far. Indeed, they have a problem trying to fit in allegedly 50,000yo Australian Aborigines with the biblical truth that they must be descendants of Noah. See also The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe.
O.K. I'll get off my high horse. Woah it's a long way down ;-)
Marantha
Craig T <><
Ktisophilos said "I think it does, but that by itself is a huge problem for the SAH compromise."
Ktisophilos, I am not grasping what you are saying. Are you saying that you believe the Rom. 5:12 passage only refers to death coming to man and not to animals? I understand the other points you make but I just what clarification (or expansion) on the aforesaid point.
Sam
Craig, it is good that we are on friendly terms.
So how do you see planning for Connect 09? Writers on this site have expressed doubts and 'reading between the lines' there are others in the Diocese who are doubting the planning effort.
It is a worthy goal to bring a multitude to our Lord but, then again, our Lord spoke about Jews being out proselytizing people to an idnetification of God that was not how he had revealed himself in Jesus Christ - Creator, Lord and Saviour. For me, I wonder whether the Diocese will be blessed if it brings people to a corrupted identification of Jesus Christ as Creator.
Time will tell!
Sam
Sam
Yes, I see only human death in view in Romans 5:12 ff. But the AngloCompromisers don't realize that this alone is fatal to their long-age view.
But Romans 8 is essential to understand how the non-human part of creation was also cursed because of Adam's sin. Even the commentaries recommended by Moore make this connection. See also
"Cosmic and universal death from Adam’s fall: an exegesis of Romans 8:19–23a" by Henry Smith, Journal of Creation 21(1):75–85, 2007
Hmm, Ktisophilos, I have tended to regard the message of Paul's letter to the Church in Rome as a whole and that with the added comment of Rom. 8 the comment in Rom. 5:12 is to be read as implying death came into the world through the sin event involving Adam.
Will consider your point and look at the article you recommend.
Sam
Craig might like the Creation Supercamp in Jan 2009 at Phillip Island. Seems far more useful to the Gospel than some Anglomoore thing. This camp looks like having a number of high class real scientists speaking who accept the Bible's authority unequivocally, rather than theologians jumping on a "consensus" science viewpoint that decides a priori to dismiss a Creator.
The camp at Phillip Island looks good and worth speading word about.
Neil Moore
Post a Comment