Long term readers will recall my posts citing evangelicals of the 19th and 20th Centuries who were concerned about the decline in evangelicalism - the introduction of arts into the church service, the ecumenical movement embraced by leading evangelicals and so on.
In more than one post I identified the concerns of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones about the direction of the Lausanne Conference. I also commented on the dangers of the latter day Lausanne ie the Cape Town conference.
Just released is the Cape Town Commitment and it can be found at lausanne
There is much to be concerned about. Critics I referred to previously would be grieved at the state of evangelicalism today and some extracts of commitments I provide hereunder:
We long to see the Church in all cultures energetically engaging the arts as a context for mission by:
1.Bringing the arts back into the life of the faith community as a valid and valuable component of our call to discipleship;
2.Supporting those with artistic gifts, especially sisters and brothers in Christ, so that they may flourish in their work;
3.Letting the arts serve as an hospitable environment in which we can acknowledge and come to know the neighbour and the stranger;
4.Respecting cultural differences and celebrating indigenous artistic expression.
When earnest and lively preaching in the Spirit of God is beyond so-called evangelical churches here is the recommended recourse. Don't expect multitudes to turn to the Lord. Don't even expect the church to survive.
Also, notice the subtle reversal of the traditional rendering of "brothers and sisters" when referring to both sexes. Why should there be any separation anyway? Why not just use the term "Christians" unless there is an agenda?
We lament over the widespread abuse and destruction of the earth’s resources, including its bio-diversity. Probably the most serious and urgent challenge faced by the physical world now is the threat of climate change. This will disproportionately affect those in poorer countries, for it is there that climate extremes will be most severe and where there is little capability to adapt to them. World poverty and climate change need to be addressed together and with equal urgency.
Here is the highly dubious socialist agenda being adopted by the so-called evangelical church without question.
A divided Church has no message for a divided world. Our failure to live in reconciled unity is a major obstacle to authenticity and effectiveness in mission.
A) We lament the dividedness and divisiveness of our churches and organizations. We deeply and urgently long for Christians to cultivate a spirit of grace and to be obedient to Paul’s command to ‘make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
B) While we recognize that our deepest unity is spiritual, we long for greater recognition of the missional power of visible, practical, earthly unity. So we urge Christian sisters and brothers worldwide, for the sake of our common witness and mission, to resist the temptation to split the body of Christ, and to seek the paths of reconciliation and restored unity wherever possible.
The broad sentiment here expressed is also a precursor for what follows:
A) We stand together as church and mission leaders in all parts of the world, called to recognize and accept one another, with equality of opportunities to contribute together to world mission. Let us, in submission to Christ, lay aside suspicion, competition and pride and be willing to learn from those whom God is using, even when they are not from our continent, nor of our particular theology, nor of our organization, nor of our circle of friends.
B) Partnership is about more than money, and unwise injection of money frequently corrupts and divides the Church. Let us finally prove that the Church does not operate on the principle that those who have the most money have all the decision-making power. Let us no longer impose our own preferred names, slogans, programmes, systems and methods on other parts of the Church. Let us instead work for true mutuality of North and South, East and West, for interdependence in giving and receiving, for the respect and dignity that characterizes genuine friends and true partners in mission.
Here is a foundation statement of discouragement of evangelical churches from drawing people out of the darkness of Roman Catholicism. It would go even further to discourage the drawing of people out from the errors of so-called evangelical denominations/churches.
All of us, women and men, married and single, are responsible to employ God’s gifts for the benefit of others, as stewards of God’s grace, and for the praise and glory of Christ. All of us, therefore, are also responsible to enable all God’s people to exercise all the gifts that God has given for all the areas of service to which God calls the Church. We should not quench the Spirit by despising the ministry of any. Further, we are determined to see ministry within the body of Christ as a gifting and responsibility in which we are called to serve, and not as a status and right that we demand.
A) We uphold Lausanne’s historic position: ‘We affirm that the gifts of the Spirit are distributed to all God's people, women and men, and that their partnership in evangelization must be welcomed for the common good.’ We acknowledge the enormous and sacrificial contribution that women have made to world mission, ministering to both men and women, from biblical times to the present.
B) We recognize that there are different views sincerely held by those who seek to be faithful and obedient to Scripture. Some interpret apostolic teaching to imply that women should not teach or preach, or that they may do so but not in sole authority over men. Others interpret the spiritual equality of women, the exercise of the edifying gift of prophecy by women in the New Testament church, and their hosting of churches in their homes, as implying that the spiritual gifts of leading and teaching may be received and exercised in ministry by both women and men. We call upon those on different sides of the argument to:
1.Accept one another without condemnation in relation to matters of dispute, for while we may disagree, we have no grounds for division, destructive speaking, or ungodly hostility towards one another;
2.Study Scripture carefully together, with due regard for the context and culture of the original authors and contemporary readers;
3.Recognize that where there is genuine pain we must show compassion; where there is injustice and lack of integrity we must stand against them; and where there is resistance to the manifest work of the Holy Spirit in any sister or brother we must repent;
4.Commit ourselves to a pattern of ministry, male and female, that reflects the servanthood of Jesus Christ, not worldly striving for power and status.
C) We encourage churches to acknowledge godly women who teach and model what is good, as Paul commanded, and to open wider doors of opportunity for women in education, service, and leadership, particularly in contexts where the gospel challenges unjust cultural traditions. We long that women should not be hindered from exercising God’s gifts or following God’s call on their lives.
So-called evangelicals who emphasise the authority of Scripture and who declare themselves to be Apostolic are here urged to abandon their stance on the role of women in the church.
This places many, especially the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, in a very awkward position should they attempt to honour the Cape Town Commitment. They have already abandoned the authority of Scripture on Creation thus betraying hypocrisy in holding out against the role of women over men in the church. In time they will wilt. They must submit to the worldly agenda on the role of women in the church as they have done with interpretation of Scripture on Creation.
Thus is the degeneration of evangelicalism in the past three centuries to gather pace unless the Lord intervenes. It is not within the capacity of men to reverse it. It will be something akin to Josiah's reading of the Book of the Law or Luther's finding a Bible and reading what had not been taught him - all at the inspiration of God's Spirit to bring about great change.
Sam Drucker
Monday, January 31, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
"I Will Send Them Prophets and Apostles, Some of Whom They Will Kill and Others They Will Persecute."
Oh Dear, Oh Dear, just where does it end?
On his Blogging Parson website, Michael Jensen had conversation going within a narrow framework which he was prepared to operate. Someone who demonstrated a clear faith in the opinions of men over the Word of God was unchallenged by Michael.
I gently rebuked Michael and pointed out the man's need. Michael did not respond but Mike Russell did. Two separate comments were posted by Mike Russell. The latter comment sought a debate, effectively on the subject of Origins. I responded with gentle respect to matters raised by Mike Russell and invited him to discussion on the subject at this blogspot.
Obviously, Mike's comments and my reply were posted to Michael Jensen's site before Michael Jensen saw them. Since then, Michael has seen them and wiped them completely from his site.
What sort of person is this man? I can only conclude he hates very well and he is unprepared to entertain discussion with Biblical Creationists - the people who trust God's Word on Creation.
Oh dear, Oh dear, Anglican Diocese of Sydney, you get what you deserve.
Mike Russell, if you read this blog, I am happy to discuss the subject with you here.
Neil
On his Blogging Parson website, Michael Jensen had conversation going within a narrow framework which he was prepared to operate. Someone who demonstrated a clear faith in the opinions of men over the Word of God was unchallenged by Michael.
I gently rebuked Michael and pointed out the man's need. Michael did not respond but Mike Russell did. Two separate comments were posted by Mike Russell. The latter comment sought a debate, effectively on the subject of Origins. I responded with gentle respect to matters raised by Mike Russell and invited him to discussion on the subject at this blogspot.
Obviously, Mike's comments and my reply were posted to Michael Jensen's site before Michael Jensen saw them. Since then, Michael has seen them and wiped them completely from his site.
What sort of person is this man? I can only conclude he hates very well and he is unprepared to entertain discussion with Biblical Creationists - the people who trust God's Word on Creation.
Oh dear, Oh dear, Anglican Diocese of Sydney, you get what you deserve.
Mike Russell, if you read this blog, I am happy to discuss the subject with you here.
Neil
Friday, January 21, 2011
Paganism Dressed in Robes of Scholarship
In 338AD Emperor Constantine died and was succeeded by Julian as ruler of the Roman Empire. Julian was commonly called Julian the Apostate. For some time prior he had professed himself a zealous Christian, was ordained and read the Scriptures before the congregation. By the year 361AD Julian commenced to openly restore Paganism to the Empire.
His strategy was cunning and wide reaching, too wide reaching to mention here but some aspects drawn from his Epistles deserve mention.
A lesson for Atheists who accuse Christianity of being of no good to the world is that of Julian's attempt to copy Christian activity. He "designed and endeavoured to introduce schools for the education of youth in every city, lectures both of moral and speculative divinity, stated times of prayer, alms-houses and hospitals for the poor and cripple, and reception of strangers; and what he most admired, commendatory ecclesiastic epistles, or letters testimonial, from the governors of the church, whereby persons travelling from one country to another, were upon producing these letters sure to meet with a kind entertainment. All which he commends in his letter to Arsacius."
As if to pioneer the practice of many latter day Atheists and several who call themselves Christians "He took all occasions of exposing Christians, and their religion, to ridicule. He was a man of sarcastic wit, and principally turned it that way. When he read the Scriptures, if he met with a seeming contradiction, he made it real, if with an hyperbolical expression, he improved it to blasphemy. He scorned at the simplicity of the apostles and prophets, whom he represented as ignorant and illiterate fellows."
Surreptitiously, (yet unwittingly mimicked in variant form by many Sydney Anglicans today) "In his pictures and statues he represented Jupiter near him, coming down from heaven, and delivering to him the crown and the purple, and Mars and Mercury giving him skill in war. His design in this was, that when his officers paid their respect to the Imperial statue, they might at the same time worship idols, or that he might have the better occasion to punish their pretended contempt." Do not Theistic Evolutionists within the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, in their attempt to accommodate Evolution within Christianity, impose a Pagan image upon the background of biblical representation of the One who alone is to be worshiped?
Paganism is never far from the Church.
Quotes are from John Gillies - "Historical Collections of Accounts of Revival" (1745) page 18 wherein he cites from Julian's Epistles.
Neil
His strategy was cunning and wide reaching, too wide reaching to mention here but some aspects drawn from his Epistles deserve mention.
A lesson for Atheists who accuse Christianity of being of no good to the world is that of Julian's attempt to copy Christian activity. He "designed and endeavoured to introduce schools for the education of youth in every city, lectures both of moral and speculative divinity, stated times of prayer, alms-houses and hospitals for the poor and cripple, and reception of strangers; and what he most admired, commendatory ecclesiastic epistles, or letters testimonial, from the governors of the church, whereby persons travelling from one country to another, were upon producing these letters sure to meet with a kind entertainment. All which he commends in his letter to Arsacius."
As if to pioneer the practice of many latter day Atheists and several who call themselves Christians "He took all occasions of exposing Christians, and their religion, to ridicule. He was a man of sarcastic wit, and principally turned it that way. When he read the Scriptures, if he met with a seeming contradiction, he made it real, if with an hyperbolical expression, he improved it to blasphemy. He scorned at the simplicity of the apostles and prophets, whom he represented as ignorant and illiterate fellows."
Surreptitiously, (yet unwittingly mimicked in variant form by many Sydney Anglicans today) "In his pictures and statues he represented Jupiter near him, coming down from heaven, and delivering to him the crown and the purple, and Mars and Mercury giving him skill in war. His design in this was, that when his officers paid their respect to the Imperial statue, they might at the same time worship idols, or that he might have the better occasion to punish their pretended contempt." Do not Theistic Evolutionists within the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, in their attempt to accommodate Evolution within Christianity, impose a Pagan image upon the background of biblical representation of the One who alone is to be worshiped?
Paganism is never far from the Church.
Quotes are from John Gillies - "Historical Collections of Accounts of Revival" (1745) page 18 wherein he cites from Julian's Epistles.
Neil
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Leupold Genesis part 49 verse 18
Verse 18, in stating again what v. 14 said, "to separate the light from the darkness," prefixes the supplementary statement, "to rule over the day and over the night." This allows for that control of day and of night which expresses itself in their varying length as indicated and regulated by the sun and the moon.
This work also is so excellent (tobh) as to merit divine approval.
This work also is so excellent (tobh) as to merit divine approval.
Leupold Genesis part 48 verse 17, 18
17; 18. And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth and to rule over the day and over the night and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Lest anyone be inclined to attribute any other or further purpose to these luminaries, v. 17 reasserts what was stated v. 15b, they are in the expanse of the heavens "to give light upon the earth." It would be a crude interpretation of the opening verb "and he put," if this were understood to mean that God first fashioned the luminaries in one place and then took them and set or suspended them in the firmament. For a literal translation of wayyitten is "and He gave" in the sense of "appointed." Yet the original idea of "to give" is also very appropriate here inasmuch as the luminaries are one of God's good gifts to mankind.
Lest anyone be inclined to attribute any other or further purpose to these luminaries, v. 17 reasserts what was stated v. 15b, they are in the expanse of the heavens "to give light upon the earth." It would be a crude interpretation of the opening verb "and he put," if this were understood to mean that God first fashioned the luminaries in one place and then took them and set or suspended them in the firmament. For a literal translation of wayyitten is "and He gave" in the sense of "appointed." Yet the original idea of "to give" is also very appropriate here inasmuch as the luminaries are one of God's good gifts to mankind.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Face it Michael, such stuff is literalistic nonsense
On a recent piece of tortured, evasive prose by the Archbishop's son, the chief whip for the SADs, wrote, “The word ‘literal’ refers to the Protestant preference for a way of reading the texts of Scripture on their own terms. The ‘literal’ - or better ‘plain’ - reading is an attempt to read the text in terms of its original context and genre and so on, and by recognising metaphor, symbolism and other literary devices in the text. For the literal or plain reader, a text may describe historical events in a variety of ways and still be validly historical. It is not interested in pursuing the kind of allegorical readings that were popular in the Middle Ages.
"Put simply: a literal reading of a metaphor reads it as a metaphor.
"On the hand, a ‘literalistic’ reader reads without (or with a deficient) awareness of metaphor, symbolism, genre, literary style, inexact numbers, and so on, and in fact may deny the presence of these things entirely. The literalistic reader sees the relation of the text to historical events as necessarily very exact."
One reader, Andrew Mackinnon, quite rightly asks, “Does a literal reading of Genesis 5:29-32 interpret Noah as being a real, historical man who lived on the earth?”
The Son of the Archbishop responds in his inimitable manner, one characteristic of a cerebrally extended personality, “It might do. It would depend what kind of literature we were talking about and what kind of relationship the ancient people understood to pertain between their texts and history.”
Andrew, seeking clarification from such noble blood as the Archbishop's son, reiterates his sensible question, “Michael, in reference to your comment, the kind of literature I'm talking about is the book of Genesis in the Bible. I'm interested in your response to the following question:
"Does a literal reading of Genesis 5:29-32 interpret Noah as being a real, historical man who lived on the earth?
"Your response of, "it might do", is, in my opinion, a non-response.”
HRH Jensen, son of, replies with ever-expanding perspicuity: “it isn't a non-answer. It's a refusal to be drawn into a rather petty either-or. And a refusal to avoid the actual work of listening to the text itself. That isn't the end point of hermeneutics mind you; there's still more to do to put the text in the context of the whole Bible, too.”
Get that folks: It isn't a non-answer when you refuse to be drawn into self-assessed pettiness and simultaneously throw an implicit ad hominem at your inquirer by claiming that he's refused to examine the text the way that Moore academics properly and responsibly examine it. Holy deja vu: the priestly caste doing their Gnostic thing once again i.e. Maybe we understand, maybe we don't - but we aren't going to tell you in any case. How unevangelical! How Romanist!
Luke Stevens, in an ephemeral moment of self-parody, experiences a flash of enlightenment by sensing the transparent vacuity of the SADs' attempt to extricate themselves from their pseudo-intellectualism (“highsounding nonsense”, as Paul labels it!): “Ah, the old literal-but-not-literalistic chestnut...it is a bit ironic that we try and redefine "literal" to say "We don't mean 'literal' (in a popular sense)"! Only Sydney Anglicanism could use a non-literal meaning of 'literal' to mean 'not literal'...Nevertheless, I guess the device is useful to describe a difference between more fundamentalist readings, but it does seem a bit self-serving. 'We read it in the correct sense, yay for us...', as though avoiding fundamentalism and basic errors of comprehension deserves a gold star. This is unfortunate as it masks the big problems with how we read the bible.”
I think I got that, mate. However, sorry to be a pedant Luke, but the problem lies with you guys, and you guys alone...as well as your bedfellow Spong and his gang of liberals
For the whole useless navel-gazing flakery see
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/culture/literal_or_literalistic_whats_the_difference/
Yep, see all the familiar faces: Dave in all his inter-galatic cosmic rayness, Martin Shields, who can't even begin to see the forest for the trees (or maybe because of his alter-ego Enkidu can't even see the trees for the Mesopotamian forest) and a reference to a thread by Mark "Badass" Badeley who presents a straw man regarding the creationist position on death before the fall.
My last words on Noah and Flood are these: “Jesus began his ministry at about 30 years of age being....the son of Shem, the son of Noah...the son of Adam, the son of God.” (Luke 3); and “People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17:27) [Is that literal-but-not-literalistic drink and food Michael?]; and “For God spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly.” (2 Peter 2:5); and lastly “Beloved... that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts... For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.” (2 Peter 3)
"Put simply: a literal reading of a metaphor reads it as a metaphor.
"On the hand, a ‘literalistic’ reader reads without (or with a deficient) awareness of metaphor, symbolism, genre, literary style, inexact numbers, and so on, and in fact may deny the presence of these things entirely. The literalistic reader sees the relation of the text to historical events as necessarily very exact."
One reader, Andrew Mackinnon, quite rightly asks, “Does a literal reading of Genesis 5:29-32 interpret Noah as being a real, historical man who lived on the earth?”
The Son of the Archbishop responds in his inimitable manner, one characteristic of a cerebrally extended personality, “It might do. It would depend what kind of literature we were talking about and what kind of relationship the ancient people understood to pertain between their texts and history.”
Andrew, seeking clarification from such noble blood as the Archbishop's son, reiterates his sensible question, “Michael, in reference to your comment, the kind of literature I'm talking about is the book of Genesis in the Bible. I'm interested in your response to the following question:
"Does a literal reading of Genesis 5:29-32 interpret Noah as being a real, historical man who lived on the earth?
"Your response of, "it might do", is, in my opinion, a non-response.”
HRH Jensen, son of, replies with ever-expanding perspicuity: “it isn't a non-answer. It's a refusal to be drawn into a rather petty either-or. And a refusal to avoid the actual work of listening to the text itself. That isn't the end point of hermeneutics mind you; there's still more to do to put the text in the context of the whole Bible, too.”
Get that folks: It isn't a non-answer when you refuse to be drawn into self-assessed pettiness and simultaneously throw an implicit ad hominem at your inquirer by claiming that he's refused to examine the text the way that Moore academics properly and responsibly examine it. Holy deja vu: the priestly caste doing their Gnostic thing once again i.e. Maybe we understand, maybe we don't - but we aren't going to tell you in any case. How unevangelical! How Romanist!
Luke Stevens, in an ephemeral moment of self-parody, experiences a flash of enlightenment by sensing the transparent vacuity of the SADs' attempt to extricate themselves from their pseudo-intellectualism (“highsounding nonsense”, as Paul labels it!): “Ah, the old literal-but-not-literalistic chestnut...it is a bit ironic that we try and redefine "literal" to say "We don't mean 'literal' (in a popular sense)"! Only Sydney Anglicanism could use a non-literal meaning of 'literal' to mean 'not literal'...Nevertheless, I guess the device is useful to describe a difference between more fundamentalist readings, but it does seem a bit self-serving. 'We read it in the correct sense, yay for us...', as though avoiding fundamentalism and basic errors of comprehension deserves a gold star. This is unfortunate as it masks the big problems with how we read the bible.”
I think I got that, mate. However, sorry to be a pedant Luke, but the problem lies with you guys, and you guys alone...as well as your bedfellow Spong and his gang of liberals
For the whole useless navel-gazing flakery see
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/culture/literal_or_literalistic_whats_the_difference/
Yep, see all the familiar faces: Dave in all his inter-galatic cosmic rayness, Martin Shields, who can't even begin to see the forest for the trees (or maybe because of his alter-ego Enkidu can't even see the trees for the Mesopotamian forest) and a reference to a thread by Mark "Badass" Badeley who presents a straw man regarding the creationist position on death before the fall.
My last words on Noah and Flood are these: “Jesus began his ministry at about 30 years of age being....the son of Shem, the son of Noah...the son of Adam, the son of God.” (Luke 3); and “People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17:27) [Is that literal-but-not-literalistic drink and food Michael?]; and “For God spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly.” (2 Peter 2:5); and lastly “Beloved... that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts... For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.” (2 Peter 3)
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Smiling Assassins of Dialogue
It is so sad, it is just so sad. More than that is is also frustrating in the extreme.
Time and time again, any attempt to engage in conversation, to open dialogue with Sydney Episcopalians on their reading of the biblical creation account ends in early closure - a prompt shut-down of the subject.
More than that, they shut you down with a cool, precise, we-are-nicer-than-you way but the effect is still the same slamming of the door in you face as if they had raged at you before doing so.
This barrier to engagement and the veneer of niceness has an ill effect on those who attempt to redress the error pervading the Episcopalian Diocese on the subject of origins.
It draws serious rebuke as occurred in comments of the topic "Evangelical Courage" of 14 Nov at www.markdthompson.blogspot.com/
This is all unhelpful.
For the record, Dr Thompson did not post my reponse to his irrelevant questions so I provide what I said now:
Mark, I was walking but you called to me. I will respond.
Nowhere did I say that you had denied the office of Jesus Christ as Creator nor had I said you failed to attribute to him the glory that is his due as the one for whom and by whom the universe was created.
I don't believe you have asked the appropriate question(s).
You shut down the conversation before I could make a thorough examination of your position.
Off to the CMS Summer Camp, I suppose?
Sam Drucker
Time and time again, any attempt to engage in conversation, to open dialogue with Sydney Episcopalians on their reading of the biblical creation account ends in early closure - a prompt shut-down of the subject.
More than that, they shut you down with a cool, precise, we-are-nicer-than-you way but the effect is still the same slamming of the door in you face as if they had raged at you before doing so.
This barrier to engagement and the veneer of niceness has an ill effect on those who attempt to redress the error pervading the Episcopalian Diocese on the subject of origins.
It draws serious rebuke as occurred in comments of the topic "Evangelical Courage" of 14 Nov at www.markdthompson.blogspot.com/
This is all unhelpful.
For the record, Dr Thompson did not post my reponse to his irrelevant questions so I provide what I said now:
Mark, I was walking but you called to me. I will respond.
Nowhere did I say that you had denied the office of Jesus Christ as Creator nor had I said you failed to attribute to him the glory that is his due as the one for whom and by whom the universe was created.
I don't believe you have asked the appropriate question(s).
You shut down the conversation before I could make a thorough examination of your position.
Off to the CMS Summer Camp, I suppose?
Sam Drucker
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Engaging With Eyes Closed
I now bring to a close excerpts from Iain Murray's helpful biography on Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones - The Fight of Faith 1939-1981 with the following excerpt from pages 715 & 716:
"Yet, saying nothing of his condition, ML-J reappeared in his usual chairman's seat at the Westminster Fellowship on July 2 and, though looking pale and aged, he led a valuable discussion on homosexuality which extended over the morning and afternoon sessions. It was typical of the freshness of his mind that on what he called 'the approach to the question' he differed from all the early contributors to the discussion who believed that the Scriptures had to be the starting point for what was now being so frequently debated in public. ML-J surprised everyone by arguing that in the wider, public discussion we would get nowhere if we began by denouncing homosexuality from Scripture. The majority of people already rejected the Bible and, if they were to be won, a different starting point was necessary. Preparatory to introducing the Bible he advocated an appeal to 'nature' ('Doth not even nature itself teach you . . . ?) (1 Cor. 11:14), that is to say, to the physical and psychological evidence that male and female are essentially different. That female attracts male and that the production of families is dependent upon that attraction are facts of nature. Homosexual practice is patently abnormal and unnatural. This is not to deny that there are biological variations — there are 'masculine' women and 'effeminate' men—but these variations no more justify the practice of sin in an individual with homosexual tendencies than they do in the case of those whose physical constitution inclines them to be highly sexed or hot tempered. Biological factors do not put the homosexual in a special category with a peculiar problem. 'The practising of homosexuality is sin, in exactly the same way as any other sin is sin.'"
How perceptive of the good doctor. When many of his well meaning colleagues sought to respond to quote Scripture against the push in the 1970s for acceptance of homosexual practice he recognised the changed world view and unlikelihood that people would accept simple quoting of Scripture as valid argument.
It seems that little has be learned in the broader evangelical circle some thirty years later. A world some further three decades indoctrinated in the theory of the evolution of the species is less likely to regard any quotes from a book allegedly invalidated on origins by the theory of evolution.
The Church needs to take the doctor's prescription and demolish the theory of evolution through presentation of the real observations of nature and the better interpretation of those observations which the Bible offers. At that point is the "soil" better prepared for evangelical harvest.
Sam Drucker
"Yet, saying nothing of his condition, ML-J reappeared in his usual chairman's seat at the Westminster Fellowship on July 2 and, though looking pale and aged, he led a valuable discussion on homosexuality which extended over the morning and afternoon sessions. It was typical of the freshness of his mind that on what he called 'the approach to the question' he differed from all the early contributors to the discussion who believed that the Scriptures had to be the starting point for what was now being so frequently debated in public. ML-J surprised everyone by arguing that in the wider, public discussion we would get nowhere if we began by denouncing homosexuality from Scripture. The majority of people already rejected the Bible and, if they were to be won, a different starting point was necessary. Preparatory to introducing the Bible he advocated an appeal to 'nature' ('Doth not even nature itself teach you . . . ?) (1 Cor. 11:14), that is to say, to the physical and psychological evidence that male and female are essentially different. That female attracts male and that the production of families is dependent upon that attraction are facts of nature. Homosexual practice is patently abnormal and unnatural. This is not to deny that there are biological variations — there are 'masculine' women and 'effeminate' men—but these variations no more justify the practice of sin in an individual with homosexual tendencies than they do in the case of those whose physical constitution inclines them to be highly sexed or hot tempered. Biological factors do not put the homosexual in a special category with a peculiar problem. 'The practising of homosexuality is sin, in exactly the same way as any other sin is sin.'"
How perceptive of the good doctor. When many of his well meaning colleagues sought to respond to quote Scripture against the push in the 1970s for acceptance of homosexual practice he recognised the changed world view and unlikelihood that people would accept simple quoting of Scripture as valid argument.
It seems that little has be learned in the broader evangelical circle some thirty years later. A world some further three decades indoctrinated in the theory of the evolution of the species is less likely to regard any quotes from a book allegedly invalidated on origins by the theory of evolution.
The Church needs to take the doctor's prescription and demolish the theory of evolution through presentation of the real observations of nature and the better interpretation of those observations which the Bible offers. At that point is the "soil" better prepared for evangelical harvest.
Sam Drucker
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Leupold Genesis part 47 verse 16
16. And God made the two great luminaries, the greater luminary to rule the day and the lesser luminary to rule the night--and also the stars.
The previous verse closes the initial command of the work to be done on the fourth day with the customary notice that "it was so," that is, what God commanded came into being. According to the almost invariable rule of this chapter we should now expect an account in detail as to how God actually wrought what He had ordained, beginning like all the others with either wayyss'as, "and He made," or with wayyibhra', "and He created." This is just what we have with the usual situation that the account of how the original order was carried out affords sufficient variety of form to serve as a commentary upon the first statement of v. 14, 15. Stereotyped repetition would be both mechanical and wearisome. However, critics fail to see this clear situation in a number of instances. Skinner brings an indictment against the account: "The laboured explanation of the purposes of the heavenly bodies is confused, and suggests overworking (the difficult 14b and 15a a). The functions are stated with perfect clearness in v. 16-18." Yet we have found both v. 14 and 15 perfectly simple and plain. The only difference between the initial command v. 14, 15 and the account of its being done v. 16-18 is that of the supplementary but entirely harmonious statements of purpose, the first gives greater prominence to the secondary purpose of serving for "signs, seasons," etc.; the second stresses particularly the primary function of controlling day and night and giving light.
So v. 16 is supplementary in mentioning for the first time the chief luminaries--"chief" as far as the earth is concerned. They are "the two great luminaries, in reference to the earth and also in view of how they appear to man. Naturally, a simple account such as this will not attempt to give to man the useless information as to which of the heavenly bodies are the largest in the absolute sense. Besides, in the very nature of the case the expression, "the great luminary," must be understood as a comparative, "the greater." Likewise "the small" (haqqaton) means the smaller (K. S. 308 a). Because the definite and very specific use of "the stars" in reference to the earth is very much inferior to that of sun and moon, they may well be added as a kind of afterthought, "and also the stars." Now man at least knows how important they are and how they originated--a type of account which is the complete negative of all astrological conceptions. So as a whole v. 16 is seen to be a very helpful commentary upon what preceded.
The previous verse closes the initial command of the work to be done on the fourth day with the customary notice that "it was so," that is, what God commanded came into being. According to the almost invariable rule of this chapter we should now expect an account in detail as to how God actually wrought what He had ordained, beginning like all the others with either wayyss'as, "and He made," or with wayyibhra', "and He created." This is just what we have with the usual situation that the account of how the original order was carried out affords sufficient variety of form to serve as a commentary upon the first statement of v. 14, 15. Stereotyped repetition would be both mechanical and wearisome. However, critics fail to see this clear situation in a number of instances. Skinner brings an indictment against the account: "The laboured explanation of the purposes of the heavenly bodies is confused, and suggests overworking (the difficult 14b and 15a a). The functions are stated with perfect clearness in v. 16-18." Yet we have found both v. 14 and 15 perfectly simple and plain. The only difference between the initial command v. 14, 15 and the account of its being done v. 16-18 is that of the supplementary but entirely harmonious statements of purpose, the first gives greater prominence to the secondary purpose of serving for "signs, seasons," etc.; the second stresses particularly the primary function of controlling day and night and giving light.
So v. 16 is supplementary in mentioning for the first time the chief luminaries--"chief" as far as the earth is concerned. They are "the two great luminaries, in reference to the earth and also in view of how they appear to man. Naturally, a simple account such as this will not attempt to give to man the useless information as to which of the heavenly bodies are the largest in the absolute sense. Besides, in the very nature of the case the expression, "the great luminary," must be understood as a comparative, "the greater." Likewise "the small" (haqqaton) means the smaller (K. S. 308 a). Because the definite and very specific use of "the stars" in reference to the earth is very much inferior to that of sun and moon, they may well be added as a kind of afterthought, "and also the stars." Now man at least knows how important they are and how they originated--a type of account which is the complete negative of all astrological conceptions. So as a whole v. 16 is seen to be a very helpful commentary upon what preceded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
