Richard Baxter, Christian, Puritan, said "The Word of God is our doctrine, but our mode of dispensing it is human; and there is scarcely anything we have the handling of, but we leave on it the prints of our fingers."
Crystal glass is smudged the moment we pick it up in our bare hands and so it is that the Word of God can be smudged in human hands.
There are those who take the Word of God and handle it in a way they think is pure, palatable and all part of the masterpiece to be dispensed to the masses. They are dumb to the smudges they have applied to work of the Divine Artist and ignorant of the damage they do to the advancement of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I was reminded of this when reading of the revival blessing from God in America involving Asahel Nettleton in the early part of the 19th Century. A ministry reliant on devoted prayer to God, faithful and short preaching of the Word of God and simple despatching of the audience with a request for them to go quietly and retire to their home and pray to God was the means for so many conversions it has been seen as a revival. Yet, as with other like revivals of times past, Satan works through the weaknesses of men. There arose in Charles Finney and his supporters a "New Measure", a means of working up revival and urging of hearers to respond to the preaching by identification and immediate reception into the Kingdom.
The work wrought at Finney's hands was seen to be damaging to the existing revival and believed to produce stony ground within which 'conversions' wilted overnight. Asahel Nettleton, at the urging of others in America, England and Scotland, attempted to convince Finney and his supporters of the errors of their way. It fell on deaf ears.
The 20th and 21st Century each bear testimony of the smudging of the pure Word of God in Genesis as so called evangelicals handle and present it in a manner which grubbily negates the simplicity and truth contained therein. Just as Finney worked on the worldly senses of his audience to receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ the so called evangelical today seeks to appease the worldly senses of the audience to receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Today's world view on Origins is allowed to smudge the reading of Genesis 1.
In both Finney and so called evangelicals of today the Holy Spirit of God is quenched of Divine will to work a conviction in the heart of man to trust with simplicity and sincerity the Word of God to salvation in Jesus Christ.
Sam Drucker
Monday, February 27, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
When Theologians Go Feral!
Our ongoing contention has been the declension of the evangelical church, post Darwin, with particular emphasis on the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney which prides itself on being a haven, even a light to the world, for trust in the Word of God yet bears all the symptoms of those it criticizes.
Recent reading brought home to me some more sense of the pain and warnings experienced within the evangelical church over forty years ago. Provided herewith is an extract of an address given by Frederick S. Leahy, Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics when giving the opening lecture in the Theological Hall of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland on 17 October 1968:
"Inscribed on many pulpits in Germany is the text [Gottes Wort bleibt ewig], 'God's Word stands forever.' Yet a young German pastor remarked recently: 'During our theological training our professors plucked the Bible to pieces - no one can put it together again for us. We ourselves can no longer believe in the Bible as the Word of God; so how can we bring its message home to others ?' A professor of secular history recently said to a professor of theology, 'If we treated our historical sources as you theologians treat your Biblical sources, there would be no history at all - for there is far less evidence for our sources than for yours.'" [E. H. Robertson in The Bible in Outline, p 39].
The theological institution of the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and some of its graduates now given a platform to speak and influence the Diocese bear striking resemblance to European theologians some forty or more years ago in their approach to the early chapters of Genesis. They lay the groundwork today for others to attack the remainder of the Word of God tomorrow.
Sam Drucker
Our ongoing contention has been the declension of the evangelical church, post Darwin, with particular emphasis on the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney which prides itself on being a haven, even a light to the world, for trust in the Word of God yet bears all the symptoms of those it criticizes.
Recent reading brought home to me some more sense of the pain and warnings experienced within the evangelical church over forty years ago. Provided herewith is an extract of an address given by Frederick S. Leahy, Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics when giving the opening lecture in the Theological Hall of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland on 17 October 1968:
"Inscribed on many pulpits in Germany is the text [Gottes Wort bleibt ewig], 'God's Word stands forever.' Yet a young German pastor remarked recently: 'During our theological training our professors plucked the Bible to pieces - no one can put it together again for us. We ourselves can no longer believe in the Bible as the Word of God; so how can we bring its message home to others ?' A professor of secular history recently said to a professor of theology, 'If we treated our historical sources as you theologians treat your Biblical sources, there would be no history at all - for there is far less evidence for our sources than for yours.'" [E. H. Robertson in The Bible in Outline, p 39].
The theological institution of the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and some of its graduates now given a platform to speak and influence the Diocese bear striking resemblance to European theologians some forty or more years ago in their approach to the early chapters of Genesis. They lay the groundwork today for others to attack the remainder of the Word of God tomorrow.
Sam Drucker
Thursday, February 16, 2012
"Good Without God"?
While it may have seemed to Sydney Atheists a profound promotional strategy to adopt the catchphrase "Good Without God" a few years ago it brought a silent chuckle to my heart - for I know the heart of man.
No doubt there were those Sydney Atheists subsequently delighted with the rise to the highest political position in Australia of a person declaring her preferred belief system or religion being Atheism. In Julia Gillard were the hopes of Atheists for a demonstration to the nation (and to the world) that Atheism offers the moral and intellectual capacity to guide the world to better times and lifestyle. "Good without God", this was to be the new way, the new philosophy, the new ethic.
Well, we have been patient but it is time to call the exercise a complete failure.
The unravelling was there to be seen in the process of Julia Gillard's elevation to the position of Prime Minister but most of us were inclined at the time to assign it all to the toughness of politics.
However, the most obvious sign of deficient morality was the betrayal of voters in saying only days out from the 2010 election "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" and then announcing after the election that there will be a carbon tax introduced by her government.
Added to this was the post election cutting of a deal with Independent, Andrew Wilkie - essential for the formation of a minority government - that she would legislate for stringent poker machine reform. Earlier this year she walked away from the deal.
Then came the riot in Canberra on Australia Day which arose from a misconstruing of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's words on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy - and all of which had its roots in a telephone call from the Prime Minister's office to a Union official at the Tent Embassy. Subsequent intimation that more than one person in the Prime Minister's office was involved has met with 'stone-walling' by the Prime Minister and the four or more versions of events given by the Union official (the most palatable affirmed by the Prime Minister) but now undone by revelation of a recording of the actual words uttered by the Union official to the holder of the microphone at the Tent rally all smacks of deception and ill practice from within the Prime Minister's office.
The ABC's Four Corners television programme this week unveiled a woman repeatedly avoiding the question of her knowledge of preparations in her office in year 2010 for the axing of then Prime Minister Rudd and replacement by Julia Gillard. Add to that her "I don't recall" response yesterday to questions about her dissemination of private polling in the weeks prior to the axing - polling designed to show her suitability over Kevin Rudd to lead the Labor Party all compound the deception.
You can throw in her earlier denials, but since proven otherwise, of a key role in a Socialist group during and post university times and a lame attempt to explain away an errant message sent Tony Abbott when he was in government and Health Minister but which was intended for a colleague to declare her failure to grasp health issues.
Deception, cover-up and deception are the marks of the political life of Julia Gillard, Atheist.
"Good Without God"? The poster girl of Atheism in Australia has demonstrated something quite the contrary. She is no recommendation of Atheism.
Jesus Christ has made it quite clear: "No-one is good, but God." A person can only be seen as good in God's eyes, or should I say righteous in God's sight, if they put on the righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is done only by one recognising that one is not righteous, repent of sin and earnestly ask Jesus Christ to be Lord of one's life.
Sam Drucker
No doubt there were those Sydney Atheists subsequently delighted with the rise to the highest political position in Australia of a person declaring her preferred belief system or religion being Atheism. In Julia Gillard were the hopes of Atheists for a demonstration to the nation (and to the world) that Atheism offers the moral and intellectual capacity to guide the world to better times and lifestyle. "Good without God", this was to be the new way, the new philosophy, the new ethic.
Well, we have been patient but it is time to call the exercise a complete failure.
The unravelling was there to be seen in the process of Julia Gillard's elevation to the position of Prime Minister but most of us were inclined at the time to assign it all to the toughness of politics.
However, the most obvious sign of deficient morality was the betrayal of voters in saying only days out from the 2010 election "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" and then announcing after the election that there will be a carbon tax introduced by her government.
Added to this was the post election cutting of a deal with Independent, Andrew Wilkie - essential for the formation of a minority government - that she would legislate for stringent poker machine reform. Earlier this year she walked away from the deal.
Then came the riot in Canberra on Australia Day which arose from a misconstruing of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's words on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy - and all of which had its roots in a telephone call from the Prime Minister's office to a Union official at the Tent Embassy. Subsequent intimation that more than one person in the Prime Minister's office was involved has met with 'stone-walling' by the Prime Minister and the four or more versions of events given by the Union official (the most palatable affirmed by the Prime Minister) but now undone by revelation of a recording of the actual words uttered by the Union official to the holder of the microphone at the Tent rally all smacks of deception and ill practice from within the Prime Minister's office.
The ABC's Four Corners television programme this week unveiled a woman repeatedly avoiding the question of her knowledge of preparations in her office in year 2010 for the axing of then Prime Minister Rudd and replacement by Julia Gillard. Add to that her "I don't recall" response yesterday to questions about her dissemination of private polling in the weeks prior to the axing - polling designed to show her suitability over Kevin Rudd to lead the Labor Party all compound the deception.
You can throw in her earlier denials, but since proven otherwise, of a key role in a Socialist group during and post university times and a lame attempt to explain away an errant message sent Tony Abbott when he was in government and Health Minister but which was intended for a colleague to declare her failure to grasp health issues.
Deception, cover-up and deception are the marks of the political life of Julia Gillard, Atheist.
"Good Without God"? The poster girl of Atheism in Australia has demonstrated something quite the contrary. She is no recommendation of Atheism.
Jesus Christ has made it quite clear: "No-one is good, but God." A person can only be seen as good in God's eyes, or should I say righteous in God's sight, if they put on the righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is done only by one recognising that one is not righteous, repent of sin and earnestly ask Jesus Christ to be Lord of one's life.
Sam Drucker
Friday, February 10, 2012
The wisdom of atheists
Speaking to Phillip Adams, Richard Dawkins says this about the Sydney Anglican Heretics: “Yes, in its most naive form you will get these Sydney Anglicans who say that the story of Genesis, that the creation took 6 days to accomplish, you simply have to read each of those days as, whatever it is, 100 million years or a thousand million years, you get the right answer. I mean that's very, very naive, of course. You are absolutely right that there is this tendency to resort to metaphor. Which maddens me because I suspect that the original authors of, for example, the book of Genesis, in no sense thought of it as a metaphor. I suggest that they thought that they were probably writing down folk-tales that had been handed down by word of mouth. But they believed them to be factually true, and the vast majority of people in history have believed them to be factually true. So I think that to reinterpret them as metaphor is a kind of evasion.”
Richard Kilty, another atheist, writing in one of the atheist journals, first asks if evolution and religion are reconcilable, complementary or both. He answers by expressing that, “We are not dealing on this amorphous level, instead we want to know about the antithesis of man in evolution and man in Christianity. And we do have an anti-thesis: Acceptance of evolution precludes the fundamentals of Christianity, to wit, Garden, Adam and Eve, Fall, Redeemer, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension. Acceptance of evolution requires the concatenation: fish-amphibians-reptiles-mammals-apeman-man with all transformations occurring naturally. This dichotomy is irreconcilable.”
Kilty goes on to ruminate with acute insight that the two are not reconcilable; that a child taught evolutionary concepts (including long ages), will have his belief in God disturbed: “How subversive is evolutionary theory to Church dogma.”
In another section of the newsletter one writer looks at the long ages supposedly expressed in the fossil record, and concludes, quite logically, that as this indicates death on a high order, a loving God cannot exist: “We astute rationalists have no qualms regards the predation of primeval organisms as having commenced as dire necessity well over one billion years ago or more under the most inhospitable of prevailing conditions...The fossil record bares no record of lenity throughout the bulk of an estimated 70 kilometres(sic) deep accumulation of sediments in the whole of the visible fossils geological sequence...benevolence has no place in the realms of reality or survival of the fittest.”
Richard Kilty, another atheist, writing in one of the atheist journals, first asks if evolution and religion are reconcilable, complementary or both. He answers by expressing that, “We are not dealing on this amorphous level, instead we want to know about the antithesis of man in evolution and man in Christianity. And we do have an anti-thesis: Acceptance of evolution precludes the fundamentals of Christianity, to wit, Garden, Adam and Eve, Fall, Redeemer, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension. Acceptance of evolution requires the concatenation: fish-amphibians-reptiles-mammals-apeman-man with all transformations occurring naturally. This dichotomy is irreconcilable.”
Kilty goes on to ruminate with acute insight that the two are not reconcilable; that a child taught evolutionary concepts (including long ages), will have his belief in God disturbed: “How subversive is evolutionary theory to Church dogma.”
In another section of the newsletter one writer looks at the long ages supposedly expressed in the fossil record, and concludes, quite logically, that as this indicates death on a high order, a loving God cannot exist: “We astute rationalists have no qualms regards the predation of primeval organisms as having commenced as dire necessity well over one billion years ago or more under the most inhospitable of prevailing conditions...The fossil record bares no record of lenity throughout the bulk of an estimated 70 kilometres(sic) deep accumulation of sediments in the whole of the visible fossils geological sequence...benevolence has no place in the realms of reality or survival of the fittest.”
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
"Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave ...."
Theistic Evolutionists such as the Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney, some of his Bishops, perhaps even his son and several on the Standing Committee of the Diocese (the 'engine room') must be perplexed by the dilemma presented by scientists through their assertion of a fossil find indicating the first animal emerged on earth up to 760 million years ago.
The problem for the alleged evangelicals cum Theistic Evolutionists of the Diocese is that they hold in one hand their favoured theory on Origins declaring man did not evolve for some time after the emergence of the first animal(s) yet that book they loosely hold in their other hand called the Bible says that man and animals (terrestrial animals) were created on the same day of Creation Week (day six). The disparity now contended is nearer to a billion years than anything comfortable for the alleged evangelicals and much more difficult to explain away.
What to do in such a circumstance? "After all," says the Theistic Evolutionists, "we pay homage to scientists ahead of the Word of God!"
"I know!" they say, "We'll just obfuscate if questioned and bluff our way out of it saying that Genesis does not talk about the 'how' but the 'who' of creation."
That response, often used as it is, may satisfy the unthinking objector but it bears no weight with the true evangelical. The latter will probe the logic of the response only to be met with "This is not an issue for causing division in the church for it is the gospel which matters." Or that part of the gospel they are prepared for the moment to declare to the world!
Such an incomplete theology is the threadbare dress of many leaders of the church today.
Sam Drucker
The problem for the alleged evangelicals cum Theistic Evolutionists of the Diocese is that they hold in one hand their favoured theory on Origins declaring man did not evolve for some time after the emergence of the first animal(s) yet that book they loosely hold in their other hand called the Bible says that man and animals (terrestrial animals) were created on the same day of Creation Week (day six). The disparity now contended is nearer to a billion years than anything comfortable for the alleged evangelicals and much more difficult to explain away.
What to do in such a circumstance? "After all," says the Theistic Evolutionists, "we pay homage to scientists ahead of the Word of God!"
"I know!" they say, "We'll just obfuscate if questioned and bluff our way out of it saying that Genesis does not talk about the 'how' but the 'who' of creation."
That response, often used as it is, may satisfy the unthinking objector but it bears no weight with the true evangelical. The latter will probe the logic of the response only to be met with "This is not an issue for causing division in the church for it is the gospel which matters." Or that part of the gospel they are prepared for the moment to declare to the world!
Such an incomplete theology is the threadbare dress of many leaders of the church today.
Sam Drucker
Monday, February 6, 2012
CMS Summer School, 2012, and its Snare.
It was disappointing to hear of the Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, speaking at the Church Missionary Society Summer School, Katoomba in January 2012 and leaving the audience with an erroneous theology of Jesus Christ as Creator. Long known for his Theistic Evolution standpoint on Origins, Archbishop Jensen could only justify his position by lamely declaring he is "not a scientist." In saying this after having resorted to the Theistic Evolution position he is effectively saying he accepts the word of man over the Word of God. The qualification the world bestows upon man is sufficient to guide the Archbishop.
From this position it is the Word of God which has to be stripped of its authority by immediate reinterpretation when it comes into conflict with the views of men on events of the past.
For the Archbishop, it is men who were not there being allowed to dictate to Jesus Christ (The Word) who was there, as to just what occurred at the beginning of life.
I just hope there were sufficient people present in the large audience who detected and dismissed this act of obeisance to man over Jesus Christ on the part of the Archbishop.
These are indeed times of trial for the Church and it is the faithful, in love, who will be the "trees who bear fruit to eternal life".
Sam Drucker
From this position it is the Word of God which has to be stripped of its authority by immediate reinterpretation when it comes into conflict with the views of men on events of the past.
For the Archbishop, it is men who were not there being allowed to dictate to Jesus Christ (The Word) who was there, as to just what occurred at the beginning of life.
I just hope there were sufficient people present in the large audience who detected and dismissed this act of obeisance to man over Jesus Christ on the part of the Archbishop.
These are indeed times of trial for the Church and it is the faithful, in love, who will be the "trees who bear fruit to eternal life".
Sam Drucker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
