Luke?...maybe...

Michael Jensen, singing, perhaps "maybe" at Christmas Carols service at St Andrew's Cathedral: Christ came for us...maybe?

REPLACEMENT ISRAEL HAS ITS OWN DAGON!

"Then the Philistines took the ark of God and brought it from Ebenezer to Ashdod. When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon and set it by Dagon. (1 Sam. 5:1-2)

[And it came to pass that the Israelites considered why they had failed to triumph against the Philistines even though the ark of God had been taken with the Israelites into battle. Eventually, many said it was because Dagon, the god of the Philistines, had much to say about how the world was made and how the world functioned. They said that Dagon should be honoured alongside the God of their fathers. Others cried that this was wrong and that Israel should hold only to the God of their fathers. However, these were few in number and the supporters of Dagon in the camp of the Israelites prevailed. It followed that Israel worshiped a new god, a god who had something of the God of their fathers and something the god of Philistines - Dagon.

In the years hence Israel became more and more like the surrounding nations though it seemed to Israel that it was successful in proselytizing some citizens of those nations. All the while, however, Israel was becoming less distinctive. The gods of the other nations were also seen to be as impressive as the god who was a mix of Dagon and the God of their fathers. So much was this so that these gods too were absorbed into the faith of Israel while the proselytes simply brought to Israel a faith in a god who was amenable to what they wanted to believe and how they wanted to live. As such, the proselytes were of no benefit to Israel.

The day came when a distant nation grew in power. Its people worshiped another god. It was the plan of the priests of this nation that their people should infiltrate all the nations of the world and establish the faith of their god so that their god would rule the world. These people were most prolific in producing sons and daughters within the nations of the world. Some priests of Israel saw the danger and urged the people of Israel to pray to their god. Yet the god they now worshiped was deaf, mute and without capacity to help Israel whatsoever. And so it was that the distant nation overcame the nations of the world including that once great nation Israel. Only a remnant remained in the world whose trust was in the God of the fathers of Israel. This remnant were persecuted with many afflictions but their hope remained in the one true God of their fathers. Their hope was not in vain for the God of their fathers had not forgotten them. He took them out of the world, destroyed the world and made a new Creation where there was no suffering or death, only everlasting joy in the presence of their fathers and suffuse with the glory of their God.]

Well might that have been the story but the time was not right for the God of Israel. The right number from all over the earth had not yet come in for establishment of His kingdom. The scenario described in parenthesis had a time for fulfilment sometime later.

What actually occurred in the temple of Dagon was as follows:

"And when the people of Ashdod arose early in the morning, there was Dagon, fallen on its face to the earth before the ark of the Lord. So they took Dagon and set it in its place again. And when they arose early the next morning, there was Dagon, fallen on its face to the ground before the ark of the Lord. The head of Dagon and both the palms of its hands were broken off on the threshold; only Dagon’s torso was left of it. Therefore neither the priests of Dagon nor any who come into Dagon’s house tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod to this day." (1 Sam. 5:3-5)

Nevertheless, the alternative scenario is in progress today.

Sam Drucker

Those oh so hip Sydney Anglicans

I've just flicked through the latest edition of Southern Cross and was quite surprised to learn that Peter Jensen is now an avid supporter of creationism, well at least of one of its main historical planks. Peter says in his Christmas piece that "The coming of Jesus at the end of history will be sudden. It will catch people unprepared. Just as the people in the days of Noah scoffed and refused to heed his warnings"

Apparently, unlike his uber-postmodernal heir, Peter maybe, just maybe, believes that Noah was a real historical flesh and blood man, like he and I, and not some composite of far too many literary devices to number fashioned along a similar line to John Dickson's spineless, pseudo-academic and ultimately vacuous theory of Genesis 1 being neither history nor non-history because....hang on...wait...wait..wait...while John confirms this by way of his hotline to Moses, the one none of us has except him and all the other liberals...yes, yes, yes, thanks John for your well-connected transcendent insight...yes I can say on John's authority that Jesus didn't really mean Noah was an historical figure so it still leaves open the possibility that Peter may still believe in a literary Noah who, literally, I mean, literalistically, through repetition, chiasm, parallelism and rhyme, wrote that the world, all the world was not actually totally destroyed, despite Noah writing 12 times or so that it was.

If you're confused, Merry Christmas!

By the way Peter, I notice in your Christmas message there's not a single instance that you mention that God loves us. Some gospel you preach, Archbishop of death.

So what message of life did Southern Cross feel the need to impress upon the reader and the lost world? Hey, it's the Halloween message. Yes, dear Christians, the Sydney Anglicans believe that they are called by God to get...let the Holy Spirit inspired preacher of God's Good news and the rag's reporter tell it as it was:

'Jason Partridge, the assistant minister at St Mary's [says] "If the community does something for Halloween, it suggests there are [people who are interested in the spirit world. We've got a lot to say about death – [and here comes their dutiful “Christian” one liner] we've got the truth on death through Jesus Christ, so let's talk about that."

Have you Jason? No, really, have you really got the truth about Jesus? I doubt it, mate, I really can't see it anywhere. I digress..

'The evening congregation at St Mary's embraced the Halloween service positively by decorating the church, creating special Halloween snacks for supper and coming in costume. "We saw a range of dress-ups, from vampires to Supergirl to cats – and someone even came as Michael Jackson," Mr Partridge says.'

What a great time you apparently had Jason. I'm really sad I missed out. You know what, here's a suggestion. You do remember from your time at Moore that parable Jesus said about going out and searching the countryside for wedding guests to come to the celebration because the elect couldn't be bothered. Well, around about March next year why don't you go down to Oxford St, in drag of course, and invite all the gays and lesbians to come back to St Mary's to your Mardi Gras mass. And don't forget to send me an invitation and I'll do my best Divine impersonation, but I'll leave the pooch at home if that's alright with you.

Sydney Anglicans (Episcopalians) and Their Failing Hope.

"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed - in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself the the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true:

'Death has been swallowed up in victory

Where, O death, is your victory?

Where, O death, is your sting?'

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law." (1Cor. 15:50-56)

God's act of Glorification of the saints on the final day cannot be the subject of a well thought out theology by Theistic Evolutionists. We have demonstrated here previously how defective is the Theistic Evolutionist's theology of origins. The defect is magnified when one considers future Glorification of the saints.

Theistic Evolutionists 'shuffle their feet' a bit and each gives a slightly different answer when you ask them to explain just what God did in creating man through an evolutionary process. However, their case generally involves God creating through 'simple' life forms to animals/primates to man with man being instilled with special features over the animals eg a soul and being created in the image of God.

A thinking person, knowing God as revealed in Jesus Christ, would wonder why God would use such a cumbersome procedure but space must be left to conclude that the god of the Theistic Evolutionist lacks the capacity to create, instantaneously, each life form as Scripture depicts in the six days of the Creation event.

As suggested already, to skip over to the New Testament and consider the various passages of Scripture dealing with the Resurrection of the dead and the Glorification of the saints - we have chosen Apostle Paul's first epistle to the saints in Corinth - one is confronted by the enormity of the task awaiting the god of the Theistic Evolutionist.

Glorification will involve considerable change. This change will be the greatest since the days of Creation and it will be more momentous in many ways even than Creation itself.

The act of Glorification cannot be viewed as entirely simple but must be recognised as complex. The circumstances in which the saints will find themselves when it occurs require that this should be so. For one thing, the disintegrated bodies of the saints who died long before will each require to be reassembled and reorganised. Their souls, which have for so long been in the glory of the Intermediate State, will need to be reunited with their bodies. They will then no longer be 'unclothed' but 'clothed upon' (2 Cor. 5:4). In the case of those believers who died, the act of Glorification will involve an operation of God's capacities upon an element of dead or non-existent material and, at the same time, upon the living soul. The soul will be ever after relocated in its house of clay, now glorified beyond all our powers of imagination in the resurrected body.

Surely, this is all beyond the capacity of the god of the Theistic Evolutionist to do instantaneously because that same god had to work over such a long period of time to create man in the first place using, ostensibly, pre-existing and 'live' material instilled with a soul? Can you see the difference in complexity between the first Creation and the later New Creation inhabited by Glorified man?

Theistic Evolution fails as an explanation for the Nature and Work of God in all respects.

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

Sam Drucker

Sydney Anglicans (Episcopalians) and Which Christ?

But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.

'Which of the two do you want me to release to you?' asked the governor. 'Barabbas,' they answered.

'What shall I do then, with Jesus who is called Christ?' Pilate asked.

They all answered 'Crucify him!'

'Why, what crime has has he committed?' asked Pilate.

But they shouted all the louder, 'Crucify him!' (Matt. 27:20-23)

It takes only a moment's thought to realize that many in the crowd calling for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ were people who had called out "Hosanna to the Son of David" at the triumphal entry of Jesus of Nazareth to Jerusalem not long before. At the very least, a sizable proportion would have looked on at the clamour surrounding the triumphal entry and wondered with elevated spirit "Could this be the Christ?".

Clearly, their heart had turned for there is no record of a voice speaking for the Christ, bar Pilate, when the later crowd howled for his crucifixion.

How could such numbers with great joy and expectation one day, later call for the crucifixion of the Son of David or, at the least, how could they not speak on his behalf before his accusers if there had not been some turning of heart away from him following his arrest?

To put it simply, their expectation of the long awaited Christ did not fit a man who, to their mind, weakly submitted to capture and to the authorities, who obviously couldn't be a warrior Christ (or king). Barabbas had more qualification for what they sought of the Christ than did Jesus of Nazareth.

Though they knew enough of the Word of God to expect the Christ, their evaluation of his nature was too worldly. Their evaluation was so much shaped by the nature of their earlier warrior king David and the nature of past great leaders of nations around them that they could not countenance a weak, (by worldly standards) suffering Christ.

Their narrow, worldly view caused them to overlook those important parts of the Word of God which describe a much different Christ whose strength and victory was exemplified in suffering. Their resultant actions prompted Simon Peter to later declare "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36)

The error of past Israel should be a lesson to today's evangelicals, including those who claim to be evangelicals of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, to not formulate a nature of Christ based on worldly views. Accepting so much of the nature of Christ contained in the Word of God but leaving out the rest opens the door to grave error.

To ascribe to Christ a nature which willfully uses an horrific and frustration-riddled process of Creation, such as Theistic Evolution proposes, is to impose on Christ a nature which is so counter to his nature attested by the Word of God that it falls firmly in the ground of heresy.

The horrors of suffering and death, along with the futility of a troubled Creation are the product of man's sin (Rom. 8:19-22) not the product of the nature of Christ the Creator.

Yet, this false view of the nature of Christ was promoted by former Principal of Moore Theological College, Rev Peter Jensen, several years ago in the Moore College PTC Notes and is tacitly endorsed in the later (2002) Doctrine 2 Notes jointly edited by the same Peter Jensen and John Woodhouse, present Principal.

Just as the the chief priests and elders in Jerusalem, some 2,000 years ago, persuaded a crowd of seeming believers in Christ to formulate an alternative and false view of the Christ - with serious consequences - so today, leaders in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and other evangelical circles, are persuading believers and potential believers to formulate a false view of the nature of Christ, bringing with it dangerous consequences.

Sam Drucker

Providence in/as History

Just some quick words as follow-up to the two instalments of an article by Maurice Roberts in the August-September, 1989 issue of the Banner of Truth Journal under the title of "The Interpretation of Providence in History."

How many Christians today would agree with Roberts when he said "It is the duty of the church to interpret history."? I suspect the percentage would be less today than when Roberts made that statement and much less than would have been the case a couple of centuries ago. The majority of those reading this blog would also question the point of my continually making reference to the articles of people twenty to fifty years ago. It is all connected!

Our Lord Jesus Christ reprimanded the Pharisees and Sadducees for not interpreting the signs of the times (Matt. 16:1-3) and also cautioned His disciples to look for the signs of the times (Matt. 24). Interpreting the events of past and present is the duty of Christians and, in this regard, it is helpful for me to bring to readers' attention the issues writers of some decades or more ago were wrestling with so that we can relate them to our present circumstance.

Roberts rightly contends that "A man's theology always determines his view of providence." Events of the past two centuries have seen the church, by majority, giving over to the interpretation of our world and the events if history to secular reasoners. This has fed a foe weak at first but now monstrously strong. So much is this so that one is ridiculed if an attempt is made to present an interpretation of our world and its events from a theological perspective. Today you are seen as a religious extremist if you put a biblical perspective on any of the earth sciences, history, medical science (including psychology), politics etc. This scene is far removed from times long past.

In the face of such ridicule or potential ridicule many Christians and those who errantly purport to be Christian cower and retreat into a compromise with the weapons of choice of the secular foe eg anti-biblical interpretation of history, dating of early historical events, anti-biblical interpretation of earth sciences and deference to anti-theist intellectuals.

This brings to mind Roberts' citation of the contention between Elijah and King Ahab (1 Kings 18). The incident described in that passage of Scripture, an event of history, has similarity with the present situation of compromising Christians and purported Christians dealings' with Christians who remain faithful to God's Word on the matter of Origins (Biblical Creationists). The former grouping and the latter group see each other as the "troubler of Israel" (the Church). The former grouping regard Biblical Creationists as an embarrassment to the Church, the cause of division within the Church and a stumbling-block to people coming to Jesus Christ. The latter group regard the former as being encouragers of compromise and a hindrance to the Church by bringing judgement from God for unfaithfulness to His Word.

Looking to Roberts again, he said "A man's theology always determines his view of providence" and a reverse principle also applies viz. "The way a man interprets providence proves his real theology". To demonstrate this principle Roberts cites a book by Alan P. F. Sell titled "Defending and Declaring the Faith" which by title purports to defend and uphold the Christian faith practiced (in Scotland). However, the content of the book indicates the author admires and praises some men who, in earlier times, were disciplined for heretical views on Scripture.

Commencing in the earlier part of the Nineteenth Century and continuing with pace through the Twentieth and into the present Century, the providence of God in Creation is being interpreted by the majority in the Church in a way contrary to and, it is reasonable to presume heretically, by the Reformers and Puritans. Concerns such as reassigning the génre of Genesis 1, the non straight-forward reading of the passage, death in the world before the Fall and the consequent question mark over the meaning of Christ's death on the cross, the nature of Christ in Creation and Incarnate and the nature of the New Creation all arise from the way Scripture is being interpreted by the majority in the Church today. The stated concerns are riddled with heretical cancers.

Maurice Roberts, when writing more than twenty years ago, brought out some helpful points in interpreting the times for his readers then and for us today. The issue of concern over Roman Catholicism has waned in today's climate but Roberts' mention of the theological liberal's disdain for "Antediluvian confessionalism" seems to have gained greater weight of carriage today through "Antediluvian confessionalism" being subjected to disdain from so-called evangelicals.

Yes indeed, it is our duty to interpret history and to interpret the signs of the times. Declension has characterised the life of the Church in Western Society for at least a Century and this has coincided with the rise of heretical interpretation of Genesis 1 and a disjointed and exceedingly heretical understanding of the Nature of Jesus Christ in Creation and Incarnate.

A Reformation in the manner of that some 500 years ago can reverse the declension. Let's pray for that very thing, that God will be glorified, His Name lifted up and the doubters and compromisers brought to repentance.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 69 (final) recap on facticity

Before leaving this initial account we must yet take definite issue with one problem involved in the account as a whole. On the one hand, is this a strictly factual account, reporting what actually transpired in the manner in which it transpired? Or have we here a picture devised by human ingenuity, which picture seeks to convey truth by its general outlines or by the basic thoughts which are here expressed in terms highly figurative? Though this latter view has come to be held almost universally, it is still by no means true. We have not in this chapter a marvellous product of the religious creative genius of Israel. Such efforts would merely have produced just one more trivial and entirely worthless cosmogony. The account as it stands expects the impartial reader to accept it as entirely literal and historical. The use made of it in the rest of Sacred Scriptures treats every part referred to as sober fact, not as a fancy-picture. Compare on this chapter the dozens of marginal reference passages found in almost any Bible.

By answering this question we have answered a second one: Does the value of this account lie "in the broad basic truths it embodies" (K. C.), or in the details by which these truths are conveyed? The form of this question is unfortunate. It should not postulate an "either-- or," but a "both--and." The details are truthful, exact and essential, being in all their parts truth itself. Only since this is the case, are the broad, basic truths conveyed by the account also of infinite moment and in themselves divinely revealed truth. Faith in inspiration, as taught by the Scriptures, allows for no other possibility.