Most writers and readers of this site will be familiar with a man called Mike Paget. He reasonably represents Sydney Anglican attitude which really needs a clean out from the Diocese. I had great disappointment with him about this time last year, principally because he told me an untruth. He said he would return from the CMS Summer Camp and resume dialogue on a matter of importance to me. He did not honour his word, he did not return, he did not give any reason.
Mike Paget also defends the unbiblical position taken by the Sydney Anglican Diocese on the Creation account and will not entertain criticism of what some writers here regard as a proud or elevated view many Sydney Anglicans have of their Diocese and its institutions.
This sydneyanglicanheretics blogspot is an anathema to them. We have the 'hide' to criticise their way and, in retaliation, it means little for them to misrepresent us to others.
It has been pointed out to me that Mike Paget recently went onto a blogger site run by atheists in Sydney and said the following: "BTW, I've met Sydney Anglican Heretics crew online, and it was a most unpleasant experience. I can assure you that they're not so much rattled as gleeful that you had a bigger presence at the Festival than Anglican Christians."
This is in response to Sam Drucker's blog here concerning his observation of no presence of Diocesan representatives at Newtown Festival. Sam's blog was apparently noticed by the atheists. Mike Paget's comments are a misrepresentation of our position. We are not gleeful at the sorry state of evangelism in the Sydney Anglican Diocese. We are instead grieved. A few of us are Sydney Anglicans and are grieved at how the Diocese has stepped away from God and toward man. This will have disastrous consequences and we see elements of this in the lacklustre commitment to evangelism within the Diocese on the eve of Connect 09. This is not a matter for glee! Atheists 'outevangelising' Christians is cause for concern.
Instead of acknowledging and acting positively on our 'wake up call' the Diocese has chosen, like Israel did with Jeremiah, to disdain and ignore the messenger. I wonder whether they might even attempt some form of 'doing away' with the messenger.
Such actions only demonstrate some parallels with the history of Israel.
Take your medicine Mike Paget & Co. Repent and believe on the Word of God and don't go running off to form some form of allegiance with atheists against us.
Neil
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Blog news
I've just added the Anglican Origins blog to our list of blogs...it seems to be along our lines and otherwise pretty innocuous(just what you'd expect from the North Shore, where it appears to be based) and low volume (pity), but if it is a trick from Moore College, it's out!
Monday, December 15, 2008
Leupold Genesis part 6 historical character
5. Historical Character of the Record
The issue involved briefly stated is: Have we history or legend in Genesis? A notable array of famous scholars can be cited in support of what the great majority of writers on the subject in our day regard as the only tenable view, namely Genesis is legend. From Wellhausen down outstanding names are Gunkel, Jeremias, Driver, Skinner, Procksch, etc., etc. However, we are not impressed by this array of learning, which we must without reservation class as pseudo-science on matters of this sort. Strong dogmatic presuppositions are too definitely displayed by these scholars: miracles are considered as practically impossible; so is plenary inspiration; Israel's history can rise to no higher levels than the Babylonian or the Egyptian; an arbitrary evolutionary standard is to be employed in measuring historical evidence. Besides, the following facts of Israel's history are overlooked:
a) the utter dissimilarity of the Genesis record and the legends of the nations (the sober common sense of average Christians has always been able to detect this difference much more clearly than the overtrained scholar, who often loses entirely his sense of perspective);
b) the clear distinction preserved by Israel's sacred records of the successive stages of revelation (4:26; 17:22-27; Exod. 6:3; Exod. 20; Deut. 18:15,19; I Sam. 3:1, etc.);
c) the accuracy of Israel's historical tradition (13:10; chapter 14; 20:20-24; chapter 25; 26:1; cf. also chapter 5 and chapter 10);
d) distinct efforts by the patriarchs to perpetuate the remembrance of events of outstanding religious importance (12:7; 13:18; 21:33; 33:20);
e) the sober tone displayed in recording the most exalted revelation (we refer to the following chapters 12, 15, 18, 22, and 32:23-32); f the utter impartiality displayed in recording the history of those who are the patriarchs and the fathers of tribes (12:10 fi; 20:1-18; 26:1-17; 30:1-43; chapter 34; chapter 38). Koenig's Commentary (p. 80 ff.) gives additional material on this score.
The issue involved briefly stated is: Have we history or legend in Genesis? A notable array of famous scholars can be cited in support of what the great majority of writers on the subject in our day regard as the only tenable view, namely Genesis is legend. From Wellhausen down outstanding names are Gunkel, Jeremias, Driver, Skinner, Procksch, etc., etc. However, we are not impressed by this array of learning, which we must without reservation class as pseudo-science on matters of this sort. Strong dogmatic presuppositions are too definitely displayed by these scholars: miracles are considered as practically impossible; so is plenary inspiration; Israel's history can rise to no higher levels than the Babylonian or the Egyptian; an arbitrary evolutionary standard is to be employed in measuring historical evidence. Besides, the following facts of Israel's history are overlooked:
a) the utter dissimilarity of the Genesis record and the legends of the nations (the sober common sense of average Christians has always been able to detect this difference much more clearly than the overtrained scholar, who often loses entirely his sense of perspective);
b) the clear distinction preserved by Israel's sacred records of the successive stages of revelation (4:26; 17:22-27; Exod. 6:3; Exod. 20; Deut. 18:15,19; I Sam. 3:1, etc.);
c) the accuracy of Israel's historical tradition (13:10; chapter 14; 20:20-24; chapter 25; 26:1; cf. also chapter 5 and chapter 10);
d) distinct efforts by the patriarchs to perpetuate the remembrance of events of outstanding religious importance (12:7; 13:18; 21:33; 33:20);
e) the sober tone displayed in recording the most exalted revelation (we refer to the following chapters 12, 15, 18, 22, and 32:23-32); f the utter impartiality displayed in recording the history of those who are the patriarchs and the fathers of tribes (12:10 fi; 20:1-18; 26:1-17; 30:1-43; chapter 34; chapter 38). Koenig's Commentary (p. 80 ff.) gives additional material on this score.
Ralph Vaughan Williams
Heard on ABC FM Sunday 14 Dec 08:
Ralph Vaughan Williams great uncle was Charles Darwin. Ralph was young at the time of the controversies surrounding Darwin’s famous works, but was aware of them. He is reported to have asked his mother what the fuss was about. She replied along the lines of: “The Bible tells us that God made the world in 6 days. Uncle Charles thinks it took a little longer. But it doesn’t matter, either way, it’s quite marvelous.”
I also note that the theme of the New Year’s fireworks in Sydney this year is ‘creation’. In an article about that the designer remarked that ‘creation puts us in touch with nature’…it used to put us in touch with God, of course, but a century and a half of evolutionary fiction has made the disjunct between the creation and its creator…just as Paul observed in Romans 1.
Ralph Vaughan Williams great uncle was Charles Darwin. Ralph was young at the time of the controversies surrounding Darwin’s famous works, but was aware of them. He is reported to have asked his mother what the fuss was about. She replied along the lines of: “The Bible tells us that God made the world in 6 days. Uncle Charles thinks it took a little longer. But it doesn’t matter, either way, it’s quite marvelous.”
I also note that the theme of the New Year’s fireworks in Sydney this year is ‘creation’. In an article about that the designer remarked that ‘creation puts us in touch with nature’…it used to put us in touch with God, of course, but a century and a half of evolutionary fiction has made the disjunct between the creation and its creator…just as Paul observed in Romans 1.
Ralph Vaughan Williams
Heard on ABC FM Sunday 14 Dec 08:
Ralph Vaughan Williams great uncle was Charles Darwin. Ralph was young at the time of the controversies surrounding Darwin’s famous works, but was aware of them. He is reported to have asked his mother what the fuss was about. She replied along the lines of: “The Bible tells us that God made the world in 6 days. Uncle Charles thinks it took a little longer. But it doesn’t matter, either way, it’s quite marvelous.”
I also note that the theme of the New Year’s fireworks in Sydney this year is ‘creation’. In an article about that the designer remarked that ‘creation puts us in touch with nature’…it used to put us in touch with God, of course, but a century and a half of evolutionary fiction has made the disjunct between the creation and its creator…just as Paul observed in Romans 1.
Ralph Vaughan Williams great uncle was Charles Darwin. Ralph was young at the time of the controversies surrounding Darwin’s famous works, but was aware of them. He is reported to have asked his mother what the fuss was about. She replied along the lines of: “The Bible tells us that God made the world in 6 days. Uncle Charles thinks it took a little longer. But it doesn’t matter, either way, it’s quite marvelous.”
I also note that the theme of the New Year’s fireworks in Sydney this year is ‘creation’. In an article about that the designer remarked that ‘creation puts us in touch with nature’…it used to put us in touch with God, of course, but a century and a half of evolutionary fiction has made the disjunct between the creation and its creator…just as Paul observed in Romans 1.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Ebbs and Flows
"There's no proof, it's just projections, and if you look at the models people such as [evolutionary scientists] use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs. To date, the way the so-called [academia] and the BBC, and Royal Society and even political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst."
One of the defences used against the arguments of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' by Atheists, Skeptics and even the compromising Church is to cite the absence of published research of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' in "reputable" scientific journals. To reply saying that secular journals refuse to publish work of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' just doesn't cut it with accusers. Either the accusers believe that 'reputable' journals are thoroughly objective or accusers just want reasons for sticking with the world view.
The aforesaid quote may well have been made by numerous 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' because it reflects what they have encountered when attempting to have their work published in scientific journals of international reputation. However, the quote, except for my insertions, were those of David Bellamy, Botanist, author of 35 books and presenter of 400 television programs and the topic under discussion was Global Warming. Instead of saying evolutionary scientists Bellamy said "Gore" [Al] and instead of saying academia Bellamy said "Greens".
David Bellamy was lamenting that he no longer gets television work after having criticised the case for Global Warming. He said "When I first stuck my head up above the parapet to say I didn't believe what we were being told about global warming, I had no idea what the consequences would be. I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science, but when I see the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions."
He went on to say "It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on children's program Blue Peter, and also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock. The truth is, I didn't think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy, so I said so. Back then, at the BBC, you had to toe the line, and I wasn't doing that."
"At that point, I was still making loads of TV programs and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren't getting taken up. I've asked around about why I've been ignored, but I found that people didn't get back to me" Bellamy said. See http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_en___AU209&q=david+bellamy+global+warming+australian
Such is the penalty for swimming against the tide. You may be 100% correct in your assertions but if you aren't in with the flow you are an outcast and given no recognition at all. This has been going on almost since the dawn of time. Noah was mocked for building an ark for refuge from a forthcoming event - the concept of which was outside the world view, then and now. I can write pages of examples from history of those who spoke against a particular world view, who suffered abuse for it but were later proven correct. Even then, in spite of the later acknowledged merit of a work or assertions one can still receive scorn or abuse because of being "not one of us."
An example is that of Mary Schweitzer, Paleontologist, who found T rex dinosaur bone only partially fossilised and containing what she observed to be Red Blood Cells, bearing soft tissue and having a cadaverous odour. Such a find fits well with a 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationist' view of Origins and poses problems for the world view that has dinosaurs dying out 65 million years ago. Schweitzer remains convinced that the current world view is valid in spite of her find yet she has lamented her difficulty in getting her worked published in 'reputable' journals because of the perceived difficulties her find presents for the current world view. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5363/
Take the case of Richard Damadian, key scientist in the development of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanning machine. This machine has been of enormous benefit in the detection of cancers and other disorders within the human body. Such has been the perceived benefit to humanity that a Nobel Peace Prize for Physiology and Medicine ensued. However, the award did not go to Damadian but to his lesser assistants in the development of the MRI scanner. Why? Why would such an anomaly and injustice occur? Simply because Richard Damadian is on record for having declared his agreement to the 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationist' position on Origins. It was an embarrassment to Damadian's colleagues who received the award and it brought disgrace to the whole process of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4705/
You might bestow on the world the greatest benefit the world has ever seen but if you are not in with the flow you will suffer for it. Jesus of Nazareth is a prime example.
David Bellamy would do well to utilise his most recent experience as impetus for reviewing how the world treats those who "buck the system" and he ought apply a more objective test to what dissidents are producing in the way of research which speaks against the evolutionary model for the origin of life and how long ago it was that life emerged on earth.
As for Episcopalians of the Sydney Diocese take this advice. Stop running with those ravenous, wild dogs who think nothing of devouring lone Sheep. Trust the Word of God for it will be proven right.
Sam Drucker
One of the defences used against the arguments of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' by Atheists, Skeptics and even the compromising Church is to cite the absence of published research of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' in "reputable" scientific journals. To reply saying that secular journals refuse to publish work of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' just doesn't cut it with accusers. Either the accusers believe that 'reputable' journals are thoroughly objective or accusers just want reasons for sticking with the world view.
The aforesaid quote may well have been made by numerous 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' because it reflects what they have encountered when attempting to have their work published in scientific journals of international reputation. However, the quote, except for my insertions, were those of David Bellamy, Botanist, author of 35 books and presenter of 400 television programs and the topic under discussion was Global Warming. Instead of saying evolutionary scientists Bellamy said "Gore" [Al] and instead of saying academia Bellamy said "Greens".
David Bellamy was lamenting that he no longer gets television work after having criticised the case for Global Warming. He said "When I first stuck my head up above the parapet to say I didn't believe what we were being told about global warming, I had no idea what the consequences would be. I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science, but when I see the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions."
He went on to say "It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on children's program Blue Peter, and also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock. The truth is, I didn't think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy, so I said so. Back then, at the BBC, you had to toe the line, and I wasn't doing that."
"At that point, I was still making loads of TV programs and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren't getting taken up. I've asked around about why I've been ignored, but I found that people didn't get back to me" Bellamy said. See http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_en___AU209&q=david+bellamy+global+warming+australian
Such is the penalty for swimming against the tide. You may be 100% correct in your assertions but if you aren't in with the flow you are an outcast and given no recognition at all. This has been going on almost since the dawn of time. Noah was mocked for building an ark for refuge from a forthcoming event - the concept of which was outside the world view, then and now. I can write pages of examples from history of those who spoke against a particular world view, who suffered abuse for it but were later proven correct. Even then, in spite of the later acknowledged merit of a work or assertions one can still receive scorn or abuse because of being "not one of us."
An example is that of Mary Schweitzer, Paleontologist, who found T rex dinosaur bone only partially fossilised and containing what she observed to be Red Blood Cells, bearing soft tissue and having a cadaverous odour. Such a find fits well with a 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationist' view of Origins and poses problems for the world view that has dinosaurs dying out 65 million years ago. Schweitzer remains convinced that the current world view is valid in spite of her find yet she has lamented her difficulty in getting her worked published in 'reputable' journals because of the perceived difficulties her find presents for the current world view. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5363/
Take the case of Richard Damadian, key scientist in the development of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanning machine. This machine has been of enormous benefit in the detection of cancers and other disorders within the human body. Such has been the perceived benefit to humanity that a Nobel Peace Prize for Physiology and Medicine ensued. However, the award did not go to Damadian but to his lesser assistants in the development of the MRI scanner. Why? Why would such an anomaly and injustice occur? Simply because Richard Damadian is on record for having declared his agreement to the 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationist' position on Origins. It was an embarrassment to Damadian's colleagues who received the award and it brought disgrace to the whole process of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4705/
You might bestow on the world the greatest benefit the world has ever seen but if you are not in with the flow you will suffer for it. Jesus of Nazareth is a prime example.
David Bellamy would do well to utilise his most recent experience as impetus for reviewing how the world treats those who "buck the system" and he ought apply a more objective test to what dissidents are producing in the way of research which speaks against the evolutionary model for the origin of life and how long ago it was that life emerged on earth.
As for Episcopalians of the Sydney Diocese take this advice. Stop running with those ravenous, wild dogs who think nothing of devouring lone Sheep. Trust the Word of God for it will be proven right.
Sam Drucker
Monday, December 1, 2008
Leupold Genesis part 5 purpose and text
3. Purpose
The purpose of Genesis may be formulated thus: the book aims to relate how Israel was selected from among the `nations of the world and became God's chosen people. Since, however, this choice was not made because of the merit or the excellence of Israel's ancestors but wholly because of God's unmerited and unmeritable mercy, the book may also be said to be the story of God's free grace in establishing Israel for Himself as His people.
4. Text
Two major considerations deserve attention under this head. First, the matter of the state of the purity or the integrity of the Hebrew text. No one in our day errs in the direction of the one possible extreme, namely of venturing to claim that the Hebrew text is in a state of virgin purity, exactly as it appeared in the original manuscripts. But many err in the opposite extreme of considering the Hebrew text to be utterly unreliable and in need of continual correction. Such an attitude is dangerous and ungrounded. Occasional errors may be detected, a few may be surmised. The Jewish marginal corrections, the Keris, may occasionally prove suggestive. But on the whole we have a text which is quite pure and satisfactory. It is not to be tampered with or modified according to the far less reliable Septuagint, the Targums, the Peshitto, or the Samaritan Pentateuch, though occasionally these versions (or transliterations) may contribute a bit of material valuable from the standpoint of textual criticism. The text is, furthermore, not to be modified according to subjective principles, such as critical theories or clever conjectures, which are anything but scientific. Modern critical editions of the Hebrew text, such as Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart, (1929), contain much misleading material and must apart from the Masoretic text be used with great caution. The traditional Masoretic text is in a good state of preservation and deserves far more confidence than is usually accorded to it. In our Hebrew Bibles we have a very good Hebrew text.
The other matter that may be considered in this connection is the question whether Genesis is a poem and therefore to be considered as Hebrew verse. On the question, which are the poetical books in the Canon, the Jews have always had a very reliable tradition. It would be strange if they themselves should have lost sight of the poetic character of the first one of their sacred writings if it had actually been poetic. The method by which outstanding exponents of this unusual hypothesis, like Sievers, arrived at their conclusions is enough to make anyone suspicious of the idea. This method involves abandoning the first principle of Hebrew poetry (parallelism); it necessitates changes or substitution of the divine name; it includes occasional textual alterations merely for the sake of securing the desired meter; and even then the type of meter which seemingly was discovered is not in evidence as clearly as we are led to believe. Neither the present text nor the original sources, as others claim, were ever cast in verse form, with the exception of such minor portions that bear the earmarks of poetry (4:23, 24; 9:25-27; 49:2-27). But we are perfectly ready to admit that Genesis has many portions of very fine rhythmical prose that rise almost to the level of exalted strains of poetry (cf. 1:27-28; 12:1-3, and many other passages).
The purpose of Genesis may be formulated thus: the book aims to relate how Israel was selected from among the `nations of the world and became God's chosen people. Since, however, this choice was not made because of the merit or the excellence of Israel's ancestors but wholly because of God's unmerited and unmeritable mercy, the book may also be said to be the story of God's free grace in establishing Israel for Himself as His people.
4. Text
Two major considerations deserve attention under this head. First, the matter of the state of the purity or the integrity of the Hebrew text. No one in our day errs in the direction of the one possible extreme, namely of venturing to claim that the Hebrew text is in a state of virgin purity, exactly as it appeared in the original manuscripts. But many err in the opposite extreme of considering the Hebrew text to be utterly unreliable and in need of continual correction. Such an attitude is dangerous and ungrounded. Occasional errors may be detected, a few may be surmised. The Jewish marginal corrections, the Keris, may occasionally prove suggestive. But on the whole we have a text which is quite pure and satisfactory. It is not to be tampered with or modified according to the far less reliable Septuagint, the Targums, the Peshitto, or the Samaritan Pentateuch, though occasionally these versions (or transliterations) may contribute a bit of material valuable from the standpoint of textual criticism. The text is, furthermore, not to be modified according to subjective principles, such as critical theories or clever conjectures, which are anything but scientific. Modern critical editions of the Hebrew text, such as Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart, (1929), contain much misleading material and must apart from the Masoretic text be used with great caution. The traditional Masoretic text is in a good state of preservation and deserves far more confidence than is usually accorded to it. In our Hebrew Bibles we have a very good Hebrew text.
The other matter that may be considered in this connection is the question whether Genesis is a poem and therefore to be considered as Hebrew verse. On the question, which are the poetical books in the Canon, the Jews have always had a very reliable tradition. It would be strange if they themselves should have lost sight of the poetic character of the first one of their sacred writings if it had actually been poetic. The method by which outstanding exponents of this unusual hypothesis, like Sievers, arrived at their conclusions is enough to make anyone suspicious of the idea. This method involves abandoning the first principle of Hebrew poetry (parallelism); it necessitates changes or substitution of the divine name; it includes occasional textual alterations merely for the sake of securing the desired meter; and even then the type of meter which seemingly was discovered is not in evidence as clearly as we are led to believe. Neither the present text nor the original sources, as others claim, were ever cast in verse form, with the exception of such minor portions that bear the earmarks of poetry (4:23, 24; 9:25-27; 49:2-27). But we are perfectly ready to admit that Genesis has many portions of very fine rhythmical prose that rise almost to the level of exalted strains of poetry (cf. 1:27-28; 12:1-3, and many other passages).
What were they thinking of?
Two articles I’ve seen recently allow an interesting, but unsurprising conclusion when juxtaposed.
First Article
In the Sydney Morning Herald’s Spectrum for 29November 08 the following answers were given to the popular “Big Question:” “Is the idea of God the biggest idea of all?”
A 1: No. The idea of God springs from our huge egos and the resulting notion that a ‘creator’ must be huge-er. It’s an in-built survival technique because 99% of people reach middle age bitterly disappointed with their lives and need a crutch to get through the last years.
A 2: Struth, no. Why do you think we called our city Darwin?
Second Article
Then in the latest edition of Creation magazine from an interview with the president of the Ezra Institute of Contemporary Christianity in Toronto:
Q: Some Christians say the subject of origins is a side issue. From someone who’s been out there among the people for a long time, what is your opinion?
A: Suggesting this is a ‘side issue’ not only reveals a lack of exposure to sceptics and seekers in our time, but profound ignorance of the Bible and the elementary questions of philosophy. Can you imagine, Moses, Jesus, Paul, Copernicus, Galileo or even Darwin, Marx and Freud referring to the question of origins as a ‘side issue’?
I believe many Christians feel ill equipped to deal with the subject, as it is almost never preached about. However, the church will continue to be irrelevant to our time, if we persist in such thoughtless evasions.
The Conclusion
The writers in Article 1 are in complete agreement with the views expressed in Article 2, that origins is critical. Note, the writers in Article 1 are probably not Christians. They are certainly not SAD boys, because they see the issue with a clarity that escapes the SAD and it frantic ‘connect09’ farce.
I hope for the sake of the lost that C09 does good. I just don’t think that it will.
First Article
In the Sydney Morning Herald’s Spectrum for 29November 08 the following answers were given to the popular “Big Question:” “Is the idea of God the biggest idea of all?”
A 1: No. The idea of God springs from our huge egos and the resulting notion that a ‘creator’ must be huge-er. It’s an in-built survival technique because 99% of people reach middle age bitterly disappointed with their lives and need a crutch to get through the last years.
A 2: Struth, no. Why do you think we called our city Darwin?
Second Article
Then in the latest edition of Creation magazine from an interview with the president of the Ezra Institute of Contemporary Christianity in Toronto:
Q: Some Christians say the subject of origins is a side issue. From someone who’s been out there among the people for a long time, what is your opinion?
A: Suggesting this is a ‘side issue’ not only reveals a lack of exposure to sceptics and seekers in our time, but profound ignorance of the Bible and the elementary questions of philosophy. Can you imagine, Moses, Jesus, Paul, Copernicus, Galileo or even Darwin, Marx and Freud referring to the question of origins as a ‘side issue’?
I believe many Christians feel ill equipped to deal with the subject, as it is almost never preached about. However, the church will continue to be irrelevant to our time, if we persist in such thoughtless evasions.
The Conclusion
The writers in Article 1 are in complete agreement with the views expressed in Article 2, that origins is critical. Note, the writers in Article 1 are probably not Christians. They are certainly not SAD boys, because they see the issue with a clarity that escapes the SAD and it frantic ‘connect09’ farce.
I hope for the sake of the lost that C09 does good. I just don’t think that it will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
