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
Showing posts with label Moore College. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Moore College. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Maintaining the Faith Involves Identifying the Enemy.
As the church slides deeper into declension one looks for and, at times, finds outposts which stand resistant to the slide. The Banner of Truth Trust has been one such outpost although I am not close enough to know how it stands today. At least up to June 1990 it stood firm. I suspect it still does with Iain Murray continuing as Editorial Director.
The following is an extract of an article in the June 1990 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal by Geoffrey Thomas concerning Stuart Olyott, Missionary to Switzerland:
"There are two services on the Lord's Day. First there is the Reformed Baptist church of 80 folk in their own building up on the third floor of an apartment and office block. From that French service Stuart and Doris drive off quickly to Lausanne's English congregation which meets in the building of an Open Plymouth Brethren Assembly after their morning service has ended (Doris says, 'His brain just switches from one language to another'). One of the officers takes the first part of the service and then Stuart preaches. He was continuing a series on 'What is a Christian?' on the Sunday we were there. In all his work. and with these many doors of service opening, like every real missionary, he is creating more and more opportunities and is crying out for help.
Stuart Olyott's present concern is with the direction of Reformed ministers on the Continent, seeing a trend which appears to be taking the Bible out of the hands of the ordinary believer and limiting understanding of its message to the technical scholar. Understanding the opening chapters of Genesis is the focus of this issue. 'What was the intention of the author?' men ask, for if he intended not to speak historically but theologically then what is found in Genesis 1-3, if read as theology, offers no problems. Ultimately, this method of interpretation is trying to distinguish between the concepts of the biblical writers and the concepts of God himself (contextualisation). Stuart Olyott accepts E. J. Young's conclusion, that 'Genesis [chapter] one is not poetry or saga or myth, but straightforward, trustworthy history, and, inasmuch as it is a divine revelation, accurately records those matters of which it speaks. That Genesis one is historical may be seen from these considerations: (1) It sustains an intimate relationship with the remainder of the book. The remainder of the book (i.e., The Generations) presupposes the Creation Account, and the Creation Account prepares for what follows. The two portions of Genesis are integral parts of the book and complement one another. (2) The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking. There are poetic accounts of the creation and these form a striking contrast to Genesis one. (3) The New Testament regards certain events mentioned in Genesis one as actually having taken place. We may safely allow the New Testament to be our interpreter of this mighty first chapter of the Bible' (Studies in Genesis One, p. 105).
Men like E. J. Young and John Murray stood firmly on such principles as that there is one meaning of biblical texts, that that meaning is the divine thought, that that meaning is discernible to men, and that meaning is inseparably tied to the jot and tittle of biblical revelation. But today there are Reformed scholars and preachers who, in the name of hermeneutics, are studiously using almost every kind of unbelieving radical criticism, albeit in small doses. As a result, the meaning of Scripture is devalued and so is the seriousness with which the Reformed confessions are held. The purpose of Christian scholarship should be to clarify and explain divine revelation and not to confuse the church. Evidently considerable confusion is now issuing from certain distinguished seminary professors on the Continent.
The central question as Stuart Olyott sees it is, What is the meaning of the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1-3? The evident complexities offered by current teachers have several threatening dangers, chief among which is that it puts Scripture outside the reach of the child of God who has no formal training in rabbinic literature, middle-eastern culture or its literary genres. It would seem that really to understand the first chapters of the Bible one must be an expert in all kinds of esoteric subjects. And if one does not have the scholarship credentials that the learned national leaders possess, too bad for such a man! He cannot really know what the Bible teaches. Effectively the Scriptures are taken from God's people and are made the exclusive property of learned men.
That Mr Olyott has raised matters like this in France and Switzerland as a foreign missionary has not commended him to certain national pastors and teachers. But for him the issue is one of faithfulness to Jesus Christ. The Lord taught that God's infinite word is in its jot and tittle. The specific words of Genesis 1-3 are God's thoughts and word [Matt. 5:18]. This means the Scripture is clearly understandable to men and should be taught in its exact language and meaning to men. They should keep even the very least of its commandments and teach them to others. Jesus clearly teaches that Genesis 1-3 is not a mere sign pointing to the meaning in God's mind. It is exactly what God wants to say to us. All the finery of contemporary scholarship is not needed in order to understand the message of God. It is 'near' us and 'in our mouth'."
Pity Moore Theological College doesn't take the stance advocated by the article.
Sam Drucker
The following is an extract of an article in the June 1990 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal by Geoffrey Thomas concerning Stuart Olyott, Missionary to Switzerland:
"There are two services on the Lord's Day. First there is the Reformed Baptist church of 80 folk in their own building up on the third floor of an apartment and office block. From that French service Stuart and Doris drive off quickly to Lausanne's English congregation which meets in the building of an Open Plymouth Brethren Assembly after their morning service has ended (Doris says, 'His brain just switches from one language to another'). One of the officers takes the first part of the service and then Stuart preaches. He was continuing a series on 'What is a Christian?' on the Sunday we were there. In all his work. and with these many doors of service opening, like every real missionary, he is creating more and more opportunities and is crying out for help.
Stuart Olyott's present concern is with the direction of Reformed ministers on the Continent, seeing a trend which appears to be taking the Bible out of the hands of the ordinary believer and limiting understanding of its message to the technical scholar. Understanding the opening chapters of Genesis is the focus of this issue. 'What was the intention of the author?' men ask, for if he intended not to speak historically but theologically then what is found in Genesis 1-3, if read as theology, offers no problems. Ultimately, this method of interpretation is trying to distinguish between the concepts of the biblical writers and the concepts of God himself (contextualisation). Stuart Olyott accepts E. J. Young's conclusion, that 'Genesis [chapter] one is not poetry or saga or myth, but straightforward, trustworthy history, and, inasmuch as it is a divine revelation, accurately records those matters of which it speaks. That Genesis one is historical may be seen from these considerations: (1) It sustains an intimate relationship with the remainder of the book. The remainder of the book (i.e., The Generations) presupposes the Creation Account, and the Creation Account prepares for what follows. The two portions of Genesis are integral parts of the book and complement one another. (2) The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking. There are poetic accounts of the creation and these form a striking contrast to Genesis one. (3) The New Testament regards certain events mentioned in Genesis one as actually having taken place. We may safely allow the New Testament to be our interpreter of this mighty first chapter of the Bible' (Studies in Genesis One, p. 105).
Men like E. J. Young and John Murray stood firmly on such principles as that there is one meaning of biblical texts, that that meaning is the divine thought, that that meaning is discernible to men, and that meaning is inseparably tied to the jot and tittle of biblical revelation. But today there are Reformed scholars and preachers who, in the name of hermeneutics, are studiously using almost every kind of unbelieving radical criticism, albeit in small doses. As a result, the meaning of Scripture is devalued and so is the seriousness with which the Reformed confessions are held. The purpose of Christian scholarship should be to clarify and explain divine revelation and not to confuse the church. Evidently considerable confusion is now issuing from certain distinguished seminary professors on the Continent.
The central question as Stuart Olyott sees it is, What is the meaning of the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1-3? The evident complexities offered by current teachers have several threatening dangers, chief among which is that it puts Scripture outside the reach of the child of God who has no formal training in rabbinic literature, middle-eastern culture or its literary genres. It would seem that really to understand the first chapters of the Bible one must be an expert in all kinds of esoteric subjects. And if one does not have the scholarship credentials that the learned national leaders possess, too bad for such a man! He cannot really know what the Bible teaches. Effectively the Scriptures are taken from God's people and are made the exclusive property of learned men.
That Mr Olyott has raised matters like this in France and Switzerland as a foreign missionary has not commended him to certain national pastors and teachers. But for him the issue is one of faithfulness to Jesus Christ. The Lord taught that God's infinite word is in its jot and tittle. The specific words of Genesis 1-3 are God's thoughts and word [Matt. 5:18]. This means the Scripture is clearly understandable to men and should be taught in its exact language and meaning to men. They should keep even the very least of its commandments and teach them to others. Jesus clearly teaches that Genesis 1-3 is not a mere sign pointing to the meaning in God's mind. It is exactly what God wants to say to us. All the finery of contemporary scholarship is not needed in order to understand the message of God. It is 'near' us and 'in our mouth'."
Pity Moore Theological College doesn't take the stance advocated by the article.
Sam Drucker
Monday, December 12, 2011
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
'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
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Moore College Slumbers in Sleep to Death.
Our Lord spoke sharply to wake the sleeping church of Sardis (Rev. 3:1-6). "Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God. Remember, therefore what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you."
Such a warning is not out of place with the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and its theological seminary, Moore College.
I have been passed a copy of the Moore College Annual Report 2011. In the report the Principal intimates the theological seminary is at the forefront of upholding and encouraging students in the Word of God.
I restate some of the Principal's words here:
"We are here to serve God who wills to be known and honoured by all people everywhere. Our chief focus is knowing God who has spoken to the whole world by his Son through his word (the Bible). Hence we seek to prepare pastoral-hearted preachers equipped to proclaim the good news in any setting, gospel servants fit for service and mission wherever God might use them to build his church. We aim to equip graduates with a clear understanding of how the whole Bible and all of its parts bear witness to Christ so that they can faithfully teach and defend the evangelical and reformed Christian faith.
So that God's word can comprehensively renew their thinking (about everything!) we are serious about learning well and thoroughly."
Readers of this blogspot will know that that is just not true with respect to our Lord Jesus' Office of Creator. The teaching of Moore College on Origins destabilizes faith in our Lord as Creator. As much as the church in Sardis was failing to hold to the Word of Christ so Moore College fails to hold to the Word of Christ i.e. Christ in Word Written and Incarnate. Whatever "renew[ing of} their thinking (about everything!)" is experienced by students cum graduates of Moore College it can be certain that on the matter of Christ's Office as Creator it is to the demeaning of faith by constraining faith to only part of the gospel. In this, Moore College has departed from "the evangelical and reformed Christian faith."
Surely, something along the lines of "writing on the wall" had been afforded the faculty of Moore College when the man appointed some years ago to instruct students in Theistic Evolution was later exposed to an experience which prompted him to take the serious step of relinquishing Holy Orders? But no, this was all missed.
Notwithstanding that, some later words by the Principal in the Moore College Annual Report 2011 shed light on why the College will have great difficulty returning to the evangelical and reformed Christian faith. Note the following:
In response to our changing world new and exciting patterns of evangelism, church and ministry are emerging. There are some who call for radically different patterns of theological education. At the same time as hostility to Christianity seems to be on the increase, government policies have made theological education accessible to more people than ever (through FEE-HELP and other assistance). This has come at the cost of much greater external regulation of the College's operation. These and other challenges are outlined more fully later in this report."
In its push to get as many people as possible through its doors Moore College has negotiated to put students on the "government welfare teat". Gone is faith in God for discernment as to suitable candidates, reliance on God for sustaining students through seminary and into ministry. Now it is faith in the government and the comfort that affords. Irrespective of the shift in to whom faith rests for needs, the "sting in the tail" is that government regulations are likely to influence what may be taught. When government requires the teaching of evolution in other levels of education it can be expected that funding of students through FEE-HELP will bring pressure against teaching a world view which excludes evolution.
Some key evangelicals in Great Britain last century warned against theological seminaries seeking accreditation with secular institutions. They were right and the church there and here is the worse for not heeding the warning. Moore College has bound itself and its students to compromise. It is faith that will suffer first followed by the death of the church here in Sydney.
What is needed is a reformation - a waking up to sweep through Moore College and the Diocese bringing with it faith in all the Word of God and a reliance on God to bring forward the right candidates for ministry and meet the needs of those students in training and later ministry.
Sam Drucker
Such a warning is not out of place with the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and its theological seminary, Moore College.
I have been passed a copy of the Moore College Annual Report 2011. In the report the Principal intimates the theological seminary is at the forefront of upholding and encouraging students in the Word of God.
I restate some of the Principal's words here:
"We are here to serve God who wills to be known and honoured by all people everywhere. Our chief focus is knowing God who has spoken to the whole world by his Son through his word (the Bible). Hence we seek to prepare pastoral-hearted preachers equipped to proclaim the good news in any setting, gospel servants fit for service and mission wherever God might use them to build his church. We aim to equip graduates with a clear understanding of how the whole Bible and all of its parts bear witness to Christ so that they can faithfully teach and defend the evangelical and reformed Christian faith.
So that God's word can comprehensively renew their thinking (about everything!) we are serious about learning well and thoroughly."
Readers of this blogspot will know that that is just not true with respect to our Lord Jesus' Office of Creator. The teaching of Moore College on Origins destabilizes faith in our Lord as Creator. As much as the church in Sardis was failing to hold to the Word of Christ so Moore College fails to hold to the Word of Christ i.e. Christ in Word Written and Incarnate. Whatever "renew[ing of} their thinking (about everything!)" is experienced by students cum graduates of Moore College it can be certain that on the matter of Christ's Office as Creator it is to the demeaning of faith by constraining faith to only part of the gospel. In this, Moore College has departed from "the evangelical and reformed Christian faith."
Surely, something along the lines of "writing on the wall" had been afforded the faculty of Moore College when the man appointed some years ago to instruct students in Theistic Evolution was later exposed to an experience which prompted him to take the serious step of relinquishing Holy Orders? But no, this was all missed.
Notwithstanding that, some later words by the Principal in the Moore College Annual Report 2011 shed light on why the College will have great difficulty returning to the evangelical and reformed Christian faith. Note the following:
In response to our changing world new and exciting patterns of evangelism, church and ministry are emerging. There are some who call for radically different patterns of theological education. At the same time as hostility to Christianity seems to be on the increase, government policies have made theological education accessible to more people than ever (through FEE-HELP and other assistance). This has come at the cost of much greater external regulation of the College's operation. These and other challenges are outlined more fully later in this report."
In its push to get as many people as possible through its doors Moore College has negotiated to put students on the "government welfare teat". Gone is faith in God for discernment as to suitable candidates, reliance on God for sustaining students through seminary and into ministry. Now it is faith in the government and the comfort that affords. Irrespective of the shift in to whom faith rests for needs, the "sting in the tail" is that government regulations are likely to influence what may be taught. When government requires the teaching of evolution in other levels of education it can be expected that funding of students through FEE-HELP will bring pressure against teaching a world view which excludes evolution.
Some key evangelicals in Great Britain last century warned against theological seminaries seeking accreditation with secular institutions. They were right and the church there and here is the worse for not heeding the warning. Moore College has bound itself and its students to compromise. It is faith that will suffer first followed by the death of the church here in Sydney.
What is needed is a reformation - a waking up to sweep through Moore College and the Diocese bringing with it faith in all the Word of God and a reliance on God to bring forward the right candidates for ministry and meet the needs of those students in training and later ministry.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, September 25, 2011
An Element in Spiritual Declension of Sydney Episcopalian Diocese
Christians, over the generations, have had various passages of Scripture to wrestle with to understand the mind and intent of God. Understanding the mind of God through the writing of Apostle Paul at Romans 11:26 has been one such passage.
Maurice Roberts, Editor of the Banner of Truth Trust, wrote an essay in Issue 304 of Banner of Truth Journal, January 1989, titled "The Mystery Concerning Israel". In his essay, Roberts said:
There are three principles of interpretation which need to be applied to Romans 11:26, as to any other hard passage of Scripture:
(1) terms are to be taken in their plain and obvious sense unless there is good reason to believe the plain sense to be inappropriate;
(2) the immediate context in which words are found will normally determine the sense in which they are used;
(3) every particular passage is to be compared with similar passages of Scripture. The rule of comparing Scripture with Scripture is one of the most fundamental safeguards we have when searching for the meaning of hard passages.
Roberts ultimately concludes that the Romans 11:26 passage indicated a future time when Jews 'come in'[my term]. His first of four concluding points warrants mention here:
First, we may be compelled to break the mould of our conception of the dealings of God with mankind. We all tend habitually to fall into a two-fold conception of the world's history: Old Testament and New Testament. This is natural enough because that is the form in which God has given his Word to us. But it appears from Paul's manner of arguing in Romans 11 that God in fact is purposing to bless the world by what may be termed a three-fold progression: first Jews, then Gentiles, then both together. Not till the Spirit is poured out on Israel in the future will the high-water mark of God's purposes be reached in his gracious dealings with fallen mankind.
Writers on this site have noted advocates of Theistic Evolution in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney also advocate something of a replacement theology whereby the Israel of promise post Resurrection is Christians of Pentecost and beyond.
Theistic Evolutionists thereby demonstrate their failure to apply a formula for interpreting Scripture tried and proven for understanding the mind of God. Further, it exposes how they have fallen into the pit of ignorance which has brought them to their parlous synchretism of the world and God and resultant Cosmogony.
If Moore Theological College had been able to instruct them in the importance of applying all three principles of application to Scripture, as identified by Maurice Roberts and many before him, the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney would not be in the state of declension currently experienced.
Sam Drucker
Maurice Roberts, Editor of the Banner of Truth Trust, wrote an essay in Issue 304 of Banner of Truth Journal, January 1989, titled "The Mystery Concerning Israel". In his essay, Roberts said:
There are three principles of interpretation which need to be applied to Romans 11:26, as to any other hard passage of Scripture:
(1) terms are to be taken in their plain and obvious sense unless there is good reason to believe the plain sense to be inappropriate;
(2) the immediate context in which words are found will normally determine the sense in which they are used;
(3) every particular passage is to be compared with similar passages of Scripture. The rule of comparing Scripture with Scripture is one of the most fundamental safeguards we have when searching for the meaning of hard passages.
Roberts ultimately concludes that the Romans 11:26 passage indicated a future time when Jews 'come in'[my term]. His first of four concluding points warrants mention here:
First, we may be compelled to break the mould of our conception of the dealings of God with mankind. We all tend habitually to fall into a two-fold conception of the world's history: Old Testament and New Testament. This is natural enough because that is the form in which God has given his Word to us. But it appears from Paul's manner of arguing in Romans 11 that God in fact is purposing to bless the world by what may be termed a three-fold progression: first Jews, then Gentiles, then both together. Not till the Spirit is poured out on Israel in the future will the high-water mark of God's purposes be reached in his gracious dealings with fallen mankind.
Writers on this site have noted advocates of Theistic Evolution in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney also advocate something of a replacement theology whereby the Israel of promise post Resurrection is Christians of Pentecost and beyond.
Theistic Evolutionists thereby demonstrate their failure to apply a formula for interpreting Scripture tried and proven for understanding the mind of God. Further, it exposes how they have fallen into the pit of ignorance which has brought them to their parlous synchretism of the world and God and resultant Cosmogony.
If Moore Theological College had been able to instruct them in the importance of applying all three principles of application to Scripture, as identified by Maurice Roberts and many before him, the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney would not be in the state of declension currently experienced.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, April 17, 2011
A Clarion Call From Scotland to the Episcopalian Church of Sydney (Part 2)
This is Part 2 of a blog based upon an article written by R. A. Finlayson in the September 1976 issue of The Banner of Truth Journal. The article was titled: HOW LIBERAL THEOLOGY INFECTED SCOTLAND.
Finlayson completes his article here following and I will make a closing comment:
THE INFECTION SPREADS
The disease spread rapidly through the ministry of the Free Church, as could be expected with A. B. Bruce in the Glasgow College, A. B. Davidson in the Hebrew Chair and Marcus Dods in the New Testament Chair in the New College, Edinburgh, and Robertson Smith's successors in Aberdeen. The present Century opened with the blare of trumpets sounding the victory of Liberalism, and the complete rout of 'Traditionalism'. Prof George Adam Smith, in Glasgow, himself in the front rank of destructive critics, declared confidently that the battle was over and there remained but the fixing of the indemnity. The Rationalism that had entered so stealthily into the Colleges had by 1900 captured most of the pulpits of the Disruption Free Church, and not a few in the State Church and the United Presbyterian Church, and when the Union of the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church was consummated in 1900 on a basis of theological indifferentism, a remnant of the Free Church - 27 in number - decided to abide by the evangelical traditions of the Free Church at its inception, and on that foundation it exists to this day.
HESITANT SUPPORTERS
True, there were lone voices in the unbroken Free Church that, for some years, pled for sanity and for the retention of the foundation truths of Christianity. But even they were heavily committed to the new order, and for the most part they had a foot in both camps. Their case is sad indeed to relate, and it can be done only to sound a note of warning to the present day. Dr James Denney, who was at heart an evangelical, came, as B. B. Warfield observes, 'under the narrowing and clogging influence of the Apologetic School which Dr Bruce unfortunately founded in Glasgow', so much so that when his valuable work on The Death of Christ came to be reissued by The Tyndale Press, it had to be edited in considerable part and some of its statements excised. Of some others in the forefront of the movement, it can only be said that there was a breakdown in character as well as in faith, over which the veil of charity must be drawn. As sad a case as any was, perhaps, that of A. B. Bruce, because of the early promise of his work on the teaching of Christ; and yet at the end of the day one of his closest friends commented sorrowfully: 'Sandy Bruce died without a single Christian conviction.' It is true that some of the Higher Critics adopted a plan of spiritual survival by developing a dual standard, of piety for their private lives, and of destructive criticism for their professional work. Wellhausen, for example, had a Pietist background and upbringing, and it is said that he retained this pietism in his private life, while he was at the same time making havoc of the Faith in his teaching. How often have we been told of some prominent critic: 'You should hear Prof. . . . conducting a Communion Service, then you could see the real man.' Of Prof William Barclay, lately retired from the Glasgow College, it can be said that he paid exquisite attention, and employed great teaching skill, embellishing the superstructure of Christianity after he had removed the foundations. It is surely a schizophrenic character who can reconcile such contradictions, and indulge in such self-deception!
But it sounds a note of caution to us who profess, and seek to defend the evangelical Faith. There are ominous signs that history, even ecclesiastical history, teaches nothing, except that it teaches nothing! And yet there is a monotonous sameness about the enemy strategy: 'Yea, has God said ?' There is the wisdom of much sore experience, doubtless, in the Apostolic injunction: 'Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, AND HAVING DONE ALL TO STAND.'
Well, R.A. Finlayson provides a helpful analysis of the cancer that entered the Free Church of Scotland more than a century ago. But what does all that mean for the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and its theological seminary - Moore College?
The answer is "It's on!"
The slithering approach of Scottish academics to conceal their abandonment of trust in the Word of God was effective. Just as a snake moves slowly and concealed toward its prey so the Scottish academics, except for one or two overanxious, introduced their new approach to the Word of God with stealth. Students and congregations, save a few alert, were inwittingly seduced into abandoning their evangelical heritage.
It all starts in the Old Testament and spreads to the New Testament.
This is happening in Moore College where the approach of Luther, Calvin, Puritans and the majority of Church Fathers (who commented on the subject) to Genesis 1 is no longer applied. Instead, a student is carefully led to consider the employment of literary devices and other creation narratives.
The fruit of this is ordained ministers rejecting the traditional evangelical acceptance of Genesis 1 as historical narrative or prose and consequent avoidance of the convictive of the passage. This then is passed on to congregations and the cancer is well and truly established.
There are many examples but I will cite just two. The author of one blogspot was recently asked by an inquirer whether he thought the mention of Noah in the genealogy contained in Genesis 5 meant that Noah was a real person, the author replied something to the effect of "We can't be certain." Hullo! What is a genealogy for?
Another, when asked to explain why he held to Exodus 20:11 being only figurative language, his reply was something to the effect of "Whatever God was saying there I will not accept that the world is 6,000 years old." Sad, God cannot tell him only the world can!
These two incidents are sufficient to grasp that the rot is on and that there will be many more within the Diocese who are or will be like minded. And, just as with the calamity within the Scottish Free Church, the cancer can be dressed in a cloak of piety so that it will be difficult to assess just who the Christians are, even for the one committing the offence.
I ask all to trust God. Come out of error. Consider seriously John 17:17.
Sam Drucker
Finlayson completes his article here following and I will make a closing comment:
THE INFECTION SPREADS
The disease spread rapidly through the ministry of the Free Church, as could be expected with A. B. Bruce in the Glasgow College, A. B. Davidson in the Hebrew Chair and Marcus Dods in the New Testament Chair in the New College, Edinburgh, and Robertson Smith's successors in Aberdeen. The present Century opened with the blare of trumpets sounding the victory of Liberalism, and the complete rout of 'Traditionalism'. Prof George Adam Smith, in Glasgow, himself in the front rank of destructive critics, declared confidently that the battle was over and there remained but the fixing of the indemnity. The Rationalism that had entered so stealthily into the Colleges had by 1900 captured most of the pulpits of the Disruption Free Church, and not a few in the State Church and the United Presbyterian Church, and when the Union of the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church was consummated in 1900 on a basis of theological indifferentism, a remnant of the Free Church - 27 in number - decided to abide by the evangelical traditions of the Free Church at its inception, and on that foundation it exists to this day.
HESITANT SUPPORTERS
True, there were lone voices in the unbroken Free Church that, for some years, pled for sanity and for the retention of the foundation truths of Christianity. But even they were heavily committed to the new order, and for the most part they had a foot in both camps. Their case is sad indeed to relate, and it can be done only to sound a note of warning to the present day. Dr James Denney, who was at heart an evangelical, came, as B. B. Warfield observes, 'under the narrowing and clogging influence of the Apologetic School which Dr Bruce unfortunately founded in Glasgow', so much so that when his valuable work on The Death of Christ came to be reissued by The Tyndale Press, it had to be edited in considerable part and some of its statements excised. Of some others in the forefront of the movement, it can only be said that there was a breakdown in character as well as in faith, over which the veil of charity must be drawn. As sad a case as any was, perhaps, that of A. B. Bruce, because of the early promise of his work on the teaching of Christ; and yet at the end of the day one of his closest friends commented sorrowfully: 'Sandy Bruce died without a single Christian conviction.' It is true that some of the Higher Critics adopted a plan of spiritual survival by developing a dual standard, of piety for their private lives, and of destructive criticism for their professional work. Wellhausen, for example, had a Pietist background and upbringing, and it is said that he retained this pietism in his private life, while he was at the same time making havoc of the Faith in his teaching. How often have we been told of some prominent critic: 'You should hear Prof. . . . conducting a Communion Service, then you could see the real man.' Of Prof William Barclay, lately retired from the Glasgow College, it can be said that he paid exquisite attention, and employed great teaching skill, embellishing the superstructure of Christianity after he had removed the foundations. It is surely a schizophrenic character who can reconcile such contradictions, and indulge in such self-deception!
But it sounds a note of caution to us who profess, and seek to defend the evangelical Faith. There are ominous signs that history, even ecclesiastical history, teaches nothing, except that it teaches nothing! And yet there is a monotonous sameness about the enemy strategy: 'Yea, has God said ?' There is the wisdom of much sore experience, doubtless, in the Apostolic injunction: 'Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, AND HAVING DONE ALL TO STAND.'
Well, R.A. Finlayson provides a helpful analysis of the cancer that entered the Free Church of Scotland more than a century ago. But what does all that mean for the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and its theological seminary - Moore College?
The answer is "It's on!"
The slithering approach of Scottish academics to conceal their abandonment of trust in the Word of God was effective. Just as a snake moves slowly and concealed toward its prey so the Scottish academics, except for one or two overanxious, introduced their new approach to the Word of God with stealth. Students and congregations, save a few alert, were inwittingly seduced into abandoning their evangelical heritage.
It all starts in the Old Testament and spreads to the New Testament.
This is happening in Moore College where the approach of Luther, Calvin, Puritans and the majority of Church Fathers (who commented on the subject) to Genesis 1 is no longer applied. Instead, a student is carefully led to consider the employment of literary devices and other creation narratives.
The fruit of this is ordained ministers rejecting the traditional evangelical acceptance of Genesis 1 as historical narrative or prose and consequent avoidance of the convictive of the passage. This then is passed on to congregations and the cancer is well and truly established.
There are many examples but I will cite just two. The author of one blogspot was recently asked by an inquirer whether he thought the mention of Noah in the genealogy contained in Genesis 5 meant that Noah was a real person, the author replied something to the effect of "We can't be certain." Hullo! What is a genealogy for?
Another, when asked to explain why he held to Exodus 20:11 being only figurative language, his reply was something to the effect of "Whatever God was saying there I will not accept that the world is 6,000 years old." Sad, God cannot tell him only the world can!
These two incidents are sufficient to grasp that the rot is on and that there will be many more within the Diocese who are or will be like minded. And, just as with the calamity within the Scottish Free Church, the cancer can be dressed in a cloak of piety so that it will be difficult to assess just who the Christians are, even for the one committing the offence.
I ask all to trust God. Come out of error. Consider seriously John 17:17.
Sam Drucker
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Sydney Episcopalians Evade Blessing and Honour
"Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. 'Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?' they asked. 'Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?' And they took offence at him. But Jesus said to them, 'Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor.' And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith." Matthew 13:54-58
"Familiarity breeds contempt" or so the saying goes. This is clearly demonstrated some 2,000 years ago when Jesus of Nazareth returned to his hometown and, despite their knowledge of him performing miracles post commencement of his ministry, his former neighbours could not believe he was of God, neither would they listen to his teaching. According to Matthew, their lack of faith prevented them benefiting from miracles of healing at the hand of God.
Apparently, that Jesus came from a family who were all known to them, that they had seen Jesus and his brothers and sisters grow up in the house of the town carpenter and that this family were seen to be "as common as mud" was sufficient barrier to prevent the people of Nazareth experiencing one of the greatest privileges any town, in the history of the world, could enjoy. Here among them was the Son of God - God in the person of the Son but they would not know it. As theologian D.A. Carson put it "Obviously some of the questioners' motivation springs less from a serious desire to know whence Jesus derives his authority than from personal pique that a hometown boy has outstripped them." This is sad story. No doubt there was an expectation of Messiah but Messiah did not come to them in the form they expected so the people of Nazareth missed blessing and honour.
The negating of blessing and honour experienced in Nazareth may well be occurring in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney today. In one sense it may be worse in Sydney. Though the people of Nazareth did not heed what he said at least they allowed Jesus to teach in their synagogue. Were it that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, walked the Diocese of Sydney today it is distinctly possible that few Clergy would let him into their pulpit. Why? Because he hasn't come from the desired sources.
Similarly, few Clergy in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney will allow Biblical Creationists into their pulpit. By my raising it here they will be less likely to do it but that is just their sin having its way. Because I donated a small sum to the ministry of Creation Ministries International, the major Biblical Creationist organization in Australia, I receive their ministry diary. It disappoints me to consistently see so few ministry events appear in Episcopalian Churches in Sydney Diocese. As has been said several times on this blogspot, the Biblical Creationist of today is in agreement with Martin Luther, John Calvin, Puritan writers and Sir Isaac Newton (the greatest scientist in the world according to most scientists) on the doctrine of Creation. Why then is an organization like Creation Ministries International so despised in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney? Because its speakers are not in accord with the doctrine of Creation taught nowadays in Moore Theological College, the Diocesan theological institution.
Biblical Creationists trust the word of God in Genesis chapter 1. Moore Theological College does not. Oh, the latter say they do and they say that all views are presented but the "proof is in the eating." Why is it that most graduates of that institution today advocate a departure from a historical prose reading of Genesis chapter 1? Why do they see devices within the passage which lead them to believe the Holy Spirit is concealing truth in Genesis chapter 1? For the graduate today there is something hidden or mystical because of the structure and content of the passage. Further, why do graduates of Moore Theological College, when in ministry, deny the pulpit to those who, like Luther, Calvin, the Puritans and Jesus Christ (Mark 10:6) regard Genesis chapter 1 as historical?
Sadly, most Clergy in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney commit a similar offence as the people of Nazareth by setting up a barrier to those they scorn as being not of their expectation, not of their class. Their means of discernment is built on shifting sand. They deny those who come in the name of the Lord and they deny the congregation under their pastoral care blessing and honour.
Sam Drucker
"Familiarity breeds contempt" or so the saying goes. This is clearly demonstrated some 2,000 years ago when Jesus of Nazareth returned to his hometown and, despite their knowledge of him performing miracles post commencement of his ministry, his former neighbours could not believe he was of God, neither would they listen to his teaching. According to Matthew, their lack of faith prevented them benefiting from miracles of healing at the hand of God.
Apparently, that Jesus came from a family who were all known to them, that they had seen Jesus and his brothers and sisters grow up in the house of the town carpenter and that this family were seen to be "as common as mud" was sufficient barrier to prevent the people of Nazareth experiencing one of the greatest privileges any town, in the history of the world, could enjoy. Here among them was the Son of God - God in the person of the Son but they would not know it. As theologian D.A. Carson put it "Obviously some of the questioners' motivation springs less from a serious desire to know whence Jesus derives his authority than from personal pique that a hometown boy has outstripped them." This is sad story. No doubt there was an expectation of Messiah but Messiah did not come to them in the form they expected so the people of Nazareth missed blessing and honour.
The negating of blessing and honour experienced in Nazareth may well be occurring in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney today. In one sense it may be worse in Sydney. Though the people of Nazareth did not heed what he said at least they allowed Jesus to teach in their synagogue. Were it that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, walked the Diocese of Sydney today it is distinctly possible that few Clergy would let him into their pulpit. Why? Because he hasn't come from the desired sources.
Similarly, few Clergy in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney will allow Biblical Creationists into their pulpit. By my raising it here they will be less likely to do it but that is just their sin having its way. Because I donated a small sum to the ministry of Creation Ministries International, the major Biblical Creationist organization in Australia, I receive their ministry diary. It disappoints me to consistently see so few ministry events appear in Episcopalian Churches in Sydney Diocese. As has been said several times on this blogspot, the Biblical Creationist of today is in agreement with Martin Luther, John Calvin, Puritan writers and Sir Isaac Newton (the greatest scientist in the world according to most scientists) on the doctrine of Creation. Why then is an organization like Creation Ministries International so despised in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney? Because its speakers are not in accord with the doctrine of Creation taught nowadays in Moore Theological College, the Diocesan theological institution.
Biblical Creationists trust the word of God in Genesis chapter 1. Moore Theological College does not. Oh, the latter say they do and they say that all views are presented but the "proof is in the eating." Why is it that most graduates of that institution today advocate a departure from a historical prose reading of Genesis chapter 1? Why do they see devices within the passage which lead them to believe the Holy Spirit is concealing truth in Genesis chapter 1? For the graduate today there is something hidden or mystical because of the structure and content of the passage. Further, why do graduates of Moore Theological College, when in ministry, deny the pulpit to those who, like Luther, Calvin, the Puritans and Jesus Christ (Mark 10:6) regard Genesis chapter 1 as historical?
Sadly, most Clergy in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney commit a similar offence as the people of Nazareth by setting up a barrier to those they scorn as being not of their expectation, not of their class. Their means of discernment is built on shifting sand. They deny those who come in the name of the Lord and they deny the congregation under their pastoral care blessing and honour.
Sam Drucker
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
"Hey ... Teacher ... Leave Those Kids Alone!"
"Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.' When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there."
Matthew 19:13-15
As most Christians know and as Theologian Don Carson agrees, "Jesus does not want the little children prevented from coming to him (v. 14), not because the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, but because the kingdom of heaven belongs to those like them (so also Mark and Luke, stressing childlike faith): Jesus receives them because they are an excellent object lesson in the kind of humility and faith he finds acceptable."
Sadly, certain Sydney Episcopalians fail to demonstrate the humility and faith our Lord finds acceptable because of their treatment of the word of God in Genesis 1. Worse still, they discourage and isolate those who bring humility and childlike faith to understanding Genesis 1. Like the misguided disciples exposed in the incident described by Matthew, Mark and Luke, certain Sydney Episcopalians would sooner put away those who have the humility and faith our Lord finds acceptable.
It's as if they have marched in unison out of their oh so precious Moore Theological College to put obstacles in the way of faith. Instead of reading and understanding Genesis 1 as it reads the children of faith are urged by these men and women to look elsewhere for understanding. The children of faith are urged to seek a hidden message invoked by rhythm, parallelism, repetition, chiasmus, number symbolism. Further, Genesis 1 is to be stood alongside the pagan myth "Enuma Elish" and interpreted in the light of the 'wisdom' emitted by the latter.
Little children don't be deterred by these troublers. Blessing from our Lord awaits. Hold firm in your humility and faith. Our Lord is true. His word endures forever against all assaults of his enemies. Trust his word as it reads in Genesis 1.
Sam Drucker
Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.' When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there."
Matthew 19:13-15
As most Christians know and as Theologian Don Carson agrees, "Jesus does not want the little children prevented from coming to him (v. 14), not because the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, but because the kingdom of heaven belongs to those like them (so also Mark and Luke, stressing childlike faith): Jesus receives them because they are an excellent object lesson in the kind of humility and faith he finds acceptable."
Sadly, certain Sydney Episcopalians fail to demonstrate the humility and faith our Lord finds acceptable because of their treatment of the word of God in Genesis 1. Worse still, they discourage and isolate those who bring humility and childlike faith to understanding Genesis 1. Like the misguided disciples exposed in the incident described by Matthew, Mark and Luke, certain Sydney Episcopalians would sooner put away those who have the humility and faith our Lord finds acceptable.
It's as if they have marched in unison out of their oh so precious Moore Theological College to put obstacles in the way of faith. Instead of reading and understanding Genesis 1 as it reads the children of faith are urged by these men and women to look elsewhere for understanding. The children of faith are urged to seek a hidden message invoked by rhythm, parallelism, repetition, chiasmus, number symbolism. Further, Genesis 1 is to be stood alongside the pagan myth "Enuma Elish" and interpreted in the light of the 'wisdom' emitted by the latter.
Little children don't be deterred by these troublers. Blessing from our Lord awaits. Hold firm in your humility and faith. Our Lord is true. His word endures forever against all assaults of his enemies. Trust his word as it reads in Genesis 1.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, February 28, 2010
A test for orthodoxy?
Occasionally there’s a Jehovah’s Witness outside Central Station spruiking her heterodox, Arian-resurrected theology. As she’s a true believer, I’ve given up talking to this woman but the other day she was there discussing matters with a man that I’d not seen before. I just had to insert myself into the conversation.
Although not a JW, the man was clearly an Arian. I asked him if Jesus was the Creator. He replied that he wasn’t, that the Father, or as they claim, Jehovah God, is the sole creator. I then cited Colossians and John 1 where Paul and John state that through, for and by Christ everything has come into existence. The man then said that Christ was creator by virtue of the Father handing that responsibility to him. I expressed how queer that was, that someone is called a creator, the Father, yet does not create. I argued that it would be like my hiring someone to design a house but calling myself the architect. He tried to extricate himself from this impasse by claiming that no matter who the Father gives it to, he still remains the creator. Of course this is pure evasion and intellectually dishonest to boot.
Thinking about it later I could see similarities with Peter Jensen’s position. Peter, as has long been known, is an evolutionist*. Quite naturally Peter, along with all theistic evolutionists, has to play some irrational semantic games and alter the meaning of words in order to mould Scripture to fit a pagan worldview. Somehow – the details, scientifically or theologically, never exactly laid out – God is able to allow chance to create while never surrendering his office of creator. At this point I tend to think that Peter and the others are trying to turn a circle into a square but still have it called a circle. Beats me!
Anyway, the point I want to make is that Peter’s allegiance to evolution puts him outside of Christian orthodoxy, by a theological mile. If a metaphysical principle is creating the enormous amounts of novel biological information that life requires, then it isn’t our Lord doing it. New biological information is the product of thought, of teleonomic conception, not the randomisation processes being acted upon by natural selection that evolution posits as being its source (This is superbly argued in the triple-PhD Wilder-Smith’s book, God: To be or not to be?). Peter can’t have his square and circle be the one object: Either Christ, acting through will and thought, brings forth biological information, and thus life, or it’s chance randomisation of matter, the metaphysical principle of materialism. The two are incompatible and irreconcilable.
* Lest it be said that we are misrepresenting Peter’s views, the following is a quote from Doctrine 1 while he was principal at Moore College: “There is a division of opinion about how God created the world [Actually, there isn’t, Peter. The difference lies between those that truly believe the Bible is God’s unchanging revelation to mankind and those, like yourself, that believe it can change as science, so-called, “proves” God has less and less to do with. Just ask Jack Spong.]. From the standpoint of these notes the ‘theistic evolution’ account offers the best understanding….By ‘theistic evolution’ we mean that God created the world through the process of evolution [there’s that square-circle again folks!].” Doctrine 1, Unit 7, p. 105.
Although not a JW, the man was clearly an Arian. I asked him if Jesus was the Creator. He replied that he wasn’t, that the Father, or as they claim, Jehovah God, is the sole creator. I then cited Colossians and John 1 where Paul and John state that through, for and by Christ everything has come into existence. The man then said that Christ was creator by virtue of the Father handing that responsibility to him. I expressed how queer that was, that someone is called a creator, the Father, yet does not create. I argued that it would be like my hiring someone to design a house but calling myself the architect. He tried to extricate himself from this impasse by claiming that no matter who the Father gives it to, he still remains the creator. Of course this is pure evasion and intellectually dishonest to boot.
Thinking about it later I could see similarities with Peter Jensen’s position. Peter, as has long been known, is an evolutionist*. Quite naturally Peter, along with all theistic evolutionists, has to play some irrational semantic games and alter the meaning of words in order to mould Scripture to fit a pagan worldview. Somehow – the details, scientifically or theologically, never exactly laid out – God is able to allow chance to create while never surrendering his office of creator. At this point I tend to think that Peter and the others are trying to turn a circle into a square but still have it called a circle. Beats me!
Anyway, the point I want to make is that Peter’s allegiance to evolution puts him outside of Christian orthodoxy, by a theological mile. If a metaphysical principle is creating the enormous amounts of novel biological information that life requires, then it isn’t our Lord doing it. New biological information is the product of thought, of teleonomic conception, not the randomisation processes being acted upon by natural selection that evolution posits as being its source (This is superbly argued in the triple-PhD Wilder-Smith’s book, God: To be or not to be?). Peter can’t have his square and circle be the one object: Either Christ, acting through will and thought, brings forth biological information, and thus life, or it’s chance randomisation of matter, the metaphysical principle of materialism. The two are incompatible and irreconcilable.
* Lest it be said that we are misrepresenting Peter’s views, the following is a quote from Doctrine 1 while he was principal at Moore College: “There is a division of opinion about how God created the world [Actually, there isn’t, Peter. The difference lies between those that truly believe the Bible is God’s unchanging revelation to mankind and those, like yourself, that believe it can change as science, so-called, “proves” God has less and less to do with. Just ask Jack Spong.]. From the standpoint of these notes the ‘theistic evolution’ account offers the best understanding….By ‘theistic evolution’ we mean that God created the world through the process of evolution [there’s that square-circle again folks!].” Doctrine 1, Unit 7, p. 105.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Does Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney Know Jesus Christ?
The Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney is proud of its evangelical tradition. It talks much of trusting Scripture and regarding it as authority for understanding the mind of God. More than that it trusts Scripture for understanding life. Its theological seminary, Moore Theological College, is held as the bastion of truth on theological matters and the hope for training men an women to go, principally, into the Diocese but generally into the world in the name of Jesus Christ. Where the Church globally is succumbing to the world the Diocese looks to itself and its evangelical tradition to draw courage to continue the fight.
But how goes it beneath the surface, beyond all the bluster?
Recently I read a few words from the late Bishop J.C. Ryle on "Reality." Both Neil Moore and I have previously quoted Bishop Ryle. He still has relevance and I sense he has something to say to all of us who regard ourselves as a) evangelical and, b) having it altogether concerning our faith.
Bishop Ryle said "How much evangelical religion is completely unreal? You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. The will talk loudly of soundness in the faith, and have a keen nose for heresy. They will run eagerly after popular preachers, applaud Protestant speakers at public meetings to the very echo. They are familiar with all the phrases of evangelical religion, and converse fluently about its leading doctrines. To see their faces at public meetings, or in church, you would think them eminently godly. And yet these people in private will sometimes do things of which even some heathen would be ashamed. They are neither truthful, nor straightforward, nor honest, nor manly, nor just, nor good-tempered, nor unselfish, nor merciful, nor humble, nor kind. And is such Christianity as this real? It is not. It is a miserable imposture, a base cheat and caricature."
Such words as these ought to make us all stop and consider our ways. Are our ways consistent with the faith we profess?
Mindful of the purpose of this sydneyanglicanheretics site to expose the descent of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney into heresy via heterodoxical belief on the creation of the world, I was struck by Bishop Ryle's early statements: "... You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. They will talk loudly of soundness in the faith ..." Is this not a fair synopsis of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney?
A fair criticism of the Diocese would be to say the overwhelming rhetoric both orally and in print coming from the Diocese is that the gospel is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying for our sins and being resurrected that we might live. Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes but then cause for criticism kicks in. The Diocese is unfit to explain the nature of who it was who was crucified and resurrected. More precisely, the Diocese will be inconsistent in explaining his nature and thus unable to explain his nature.
Commencing with Archbishop Peter Jensen and the tergiversating doctrine of Moore Theological College on Creation, an influence exists within the Diocese which inhibits an inquirer's capacity to identify Jesus Christ with the Creator. That which is espoused by those sources leads the inquirer to formulate a nature of a Creator who scratched out a creation red with tooth and claw while formulating a nature of Jesus Christ who was meek and caring, healing the sufferings of the helpless and dying for our sins. The two characters are miles apart in nature. The latter is attested in the Bible and is real but the former is alien to the Bible and untrue. But errant influences within the Diocese urge an inquirer to marry the two natures. As such, a great injury has been inflicted on the gospel, on Jesus Christ himself.
Several New Testament passages make it clear that Creation occurred through and by Jesus Christ (eg John 1 and Colossians 1) but I draw attention to Hebrews 1:1-3b:
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person ..." (NKJV)
Jesus Christ is the express image of God's person (some translations have nature). If you want an idea of the manner in which God created, you only need look to Jesus Christ. Did the Creator use a slow, death, disease, suffering and dead end riddled process? Look to Jesus Christ and you will see one who wept over suffering; healed suffering and disease with quickness; where there was non-life he made life and did it expediently; he altered the chemical structure of water to turn it into high quality wine - all this and much more with just a thought or a word.
More than that he who has all authority in heaven and on earth demonstrated himself to be the antithesis of "survival of the fittest" by suffering death on the cross so that those who could not, by their own efforts, see and enjoy God.
Further, a day has been appointed, at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, when all those who left this world in right relationship with God, will be raised up instantly, though their body long before having been obliterated, and on that day they shall be given a body which never decays. Again, I say, instantly.
All these expressions of will display a nature of Jesus Christ completely in contrast to a nature which is cruel, incompetent and likely to engender a death, disease, suffering and dead-end riddled process of creation. Remember who it was who said:
³ “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:3-10, NKJV)
Is the one who delivers on those promises one who kills and maims to make a world? Is he who is light also darkness? Is he who is life also death?
It is time for those within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney who hold to Theistic Evolution and those within its theological seminary who allow Theistic Evolution to be believed within the Diocese, it is time for them to recognize the damage they do to the nature of Jesus Christ and the damage they do to his church.
These of whom I speak declare loudly a faith in Jesus Christ but they corrupt his nature. They defile his office as Creator. They present, in nature, two contrary Sons of God to the world.
I call on these people to forsake their pride and repent of their sin. I appeal to them - is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost to Christ in future years because they are presented with two Sons of God and will end up throwing off both? Come back to the Bible in your belief and trust the one who was there at the creation of the world. Know Jesus Christ as he is revealed there from the beginning, as he appeared Incarnate and as he is upon return.
The deception is exposed. You can no longer thow this issue off as not being a gospel issue. It is a gospel issue because the nature of Jesus Christ is assaulted. Repent!
I ask again, is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost because of the low view of Christ you present to the world?
Sam Drucker
But how goes it beneath the surface, beyond all the bluster?
Recently I read a few words from the late Bishop J.C. Ryle on "Reality." Both Neil Moore and I have previously quoted Bishop Ryle. He still has relevance and I sense he has something to say to all of us who regard ourselves as a) evangelical and, b) having it altogether concerning our faith.
Bishop Ryle said "How much evangelical religion is completely unreal? You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. The will talk loudly of soundness in the faith, and have a keen nose for heresy. They will run eagerly after popular preachers, applaud Protestant speakers at public meetings to the very echo. They are familiar with all the phrases of evangelical religion, and converse fluently about its leading doctrines. To see their faces at public meetings, or in church, you would think them eminently godly. And yet these people in private will sometimes do things of which even some heathen would be ashamed. They are neither truthful, nor straightforward, nor honest, nor manly, nor just, nor good-tempered, nor unselfish, nor merciful, nor humble, nor kind. And is such Christianity as this real? It is not. It is a miserable imposture, a base cheat and caricature."
Such words as these ought to make us all stop and consider our ways. Are our ways consistent with the faith we profess?
Mindful of the purpose of this sydneyanglicanheretics site to expose the descent of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney into heresy via heterodoxical belief on the creation of the world, I was struck by Bishop Ryle's early statements: "... You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. They will talk loudly of soundness in the faith ..." Is this not a fair synopsis of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney?
A fair criticism of the Diocese would be to say the overwhelming rhetoric both orally and in print coming from the Diocese is that the gospel is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying for our sins and being resurrected that we might live. Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes but then cause for criticism kicks in. The Diocese is unfit to explain the nature of who it was who was crucified and resurrected. More precisely, the Diocese will be inconsistent in explaining his nature and thus unable to explain his nature.
Commencing with Archbishop Peter Jensen and the tergiversating doctrine of Moore Theological College on Creation, an influence exists within the Diocese which inhibits an inquirer's capacity to identify Jesus Christ with the Creator. That which is espoused by those sources leads the inquirer to formulate a nature of a Creator who scratched out a creation red with tooth and claw while formulating a nature of Jesus Christ who was meek and caring, healing the sufferings of the helpless and dying for our sins. The two characters are miles apart in nature. The latter is attested in the Bible and is real but the former is alien to the Bible and untrue. But errant influences within the Diocese urge an inquirer to marry the two natures. As such, a great injury has been inflicted on the gospel, on Jesus Christ himself.
Several New Testament passages make it clear that Creation occurred through and by Jesus Christ (eg John 1 and Colossians 1) but I draw attention to Hebrews 1:1-3b:
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person ..." (NKJV)
Jesus Christ is the express image of God's person (some translations have nature). If you want an idea of the manner in which God created, you only need look to Jesus Christ. Did the Creator use a slow, death, disease, suffering and dead end riddled process? Look to Jesus Christ and you will see one who wept over suffering; healed suffering and disease with quickness; where there was non-life he made life and did it expediently; he altered the chemical structure of water to turn it into high quality wine - all this and much more with just a thought or a word.
More than that he who has all authority in heaven and on earth demonstrated himself to be the antithesis of "survival of the fittest" by suffering death on the cross so that those who could not, by their own efforts, see and enjoy God.
Further, a day has been appointed, at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, when all those who left this world in right relationship with God, will be raised up instantly, though their body long before having been obliterated, and on that day they shall be given a body which never decays. Again, I say, instantly.
All these expressions of will display a nature of Jesus Christ completely in contrast to a nature which is cruel, incompetent and likely to engender a death, disease, suffering and dead-end riddled process of creation. Remember who it was who said:
³ “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:3-10, NKJV)
Is the one who delivers on those promises one who kills and maims to make a world? Is he who is light also darkness? Is he who is life also death?
It is time for those within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney who hold to Theistic Evolution and those within its theological seminary who allow Theistic Evolution to be believed within the Diocese, it is time for them to recognize the damage they do to the nature of Jesus Christ and the damage they do to his church.
These of whom I speak declare loudly a faith in Jesus Christ but they corrupt his nature. They defile his office as Creator. They present, in nature, two contrary Sons of God to the world.
I call on these people to forsake their pride and repent of their sin. I appeal to them - is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost to Christ in future years because they are presented with two Sons of God and will end up throwing off both? Come back to the Bible in your belief and trust the one who was there at the creation of the world. Know Jesus Christ as he is revealed there from the beginning, as he appeared Incarnate and as he is upon return.
The deception is exposed. You can no longer thow this issue off as not being a gospel issue. It is a gospel issue because the nature of Jesus Christ is assaulted. Repent!
I ask again, is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost because of the low view of Christ you present to the world?
Sam Drucker
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Sydney Anglican Diocese - A State of Unbelief
How can it be? The largest conservative Diocese of the Anglican Church in the world, the Sydney Anglican Diocese, launches a huge initiative to connect with the unchurched (Connect 09) as part of an even greater plan to get 10% of the population within the diocesan boundary into bible believing churches. But, on the eve of Connect 09 there is a global financial crisis which, as the year 2009 unfolds, has a devastating effect on Diocesan investments. Severe cutbacks are anticipated, with Southern Cross, the Diocesan newspaper announcing a 50% reduction in staff and reducing by about half the pages of the August 2009 edition. Ministry in many areas will experience cutbacks.
Attempts to connect with the unchurched via Connect 09 produce no reports of substantial increase in church numbers let alone the vital cause of regeneration in Jesus Christ.
All this is not what the Diocese would have hoped for when first contemplating the Archbishop's charge to the Diocese to reach people in the Name of Jesus Christ some years ago.
Well, in this writer's view the problem can be found at the top and in many avenues flowing out from there. Archbishop Peter Jensen has made it known in the past that he is sympathetic to a Theistic Evolution view of the origin of life. In his time as Principal of Moore Theological College there would have been many graduates of the College who entered ministry, are now 'at the coal-face' and hold to Theistic Evolution as an explanation of the origin of life.
Theistic Evolution is untenable with the nature of God Incarnate and His written Word expressed.
In such a circumstance what does the Lord God do? How does He respond to the many prayers for involvement and blessing upon Connect 09?
By events thus far observed are we seeing how God has responded?
Perhaps we gain further insight through the musings of Anglican Bishop J. C. Ryle in the 19th Century when he considered the gospel writer Luke's account of the angelic announcement of a son for aged Zechariah and his barren wife, Elizabeth. (Luke 1:5-25)
"What a striking example we have here of the power of unbelief in a good man! Righteous and holy as Zacharias was, the announcement of the angel appears to him incredible.
A well-instructed Jew, like Zacharias, ought not to have raised this question. No doubt he was well acquainted with the Old Testament. He ought to have remembered the wonderful births recorded there (Gen. 18:11-14; Judg. 13:2-3, 1 Sam. 1:5,19) and that what God has done once He can do again. With Him nothing is impossible. But he forgot all this. He thought of nothing but the arguments of mere human reason and sense. And it often happens in religious matters that, where reason begins, faith ends.
How exceeding sinful the sin of unbelief is in the sight of God! (v.20) The doubts and questionings of Zacharias brought down upon him the heavy chastisement peculiarly suited to the offence. The tongue that was not ready to speak the the language of believing praise was struck dumb. For nine long months at least, Zacharias was condemned to silence, and was daily reminded that by unbelief he had offended God.
Few sins appear to be so peculiarly provoking to God as the sin of unbelief. It is a practical denial of God's almighty power to doubt whether He can do a thing when He undertakes to do it. It is giving the lie to God to doubt whether He means to do a thing when He has plainly promised it shall be done.
Let us watch and pray daily against this soul-ruining sin. Concessions to it rob believers of their inward peace, weaken their hands in the day of battle, bring clouds over their hopes. Unbelief is the true cause of a thousand spiritual diseases. In all that respects the pardon of our sins and the acceptance of our souls, the duties and trials of our daily lives, let it be a settled maxim in our religion, to trust every word of God implicitly, and to beware of unbelief."
How more simply could God have rendered His account of the creation of the world and everything in it? (Gen. 1) How more clearly could He have substantiated that account as He did? (Ex. 20:11 and 31:17-18) How more demonstrably could He affirm His nature and capacity to create in past, present and future than He did Incarnate?
To reject injunction such as this is no different to Zechariah's unbelief in the message of God delivered through the angel. As such, the 'mouths' that attempt to deliver the initiative of Connect 09 will seem, for a time at least, as 'dumb' to the intended audience.
Neil
Attempts to connect with the unchurched via Connect 09 produce no reports of substantial increase in church numbers let alone the vital cause of regeneration in Jesus Christ.
All this is not what the Diocese would have hoped for when first contemplating the Archbishop's charge to the Diocese to reach people in the Name of Jesus Christ some years ago.
Well, in this writer's view the problem can be found at the top and in many avenues flowing out from there. Archbishop Peter Jensen has made it known in the past that he is sympathetic to a Theistic Evolution view of the origin of life. In his time as Principal of Moore Theological College there would have been many graduates of the College who entered ministry, are now 'at the coal-face' and hold to Theistic Evolution as an explanation of the origin of life.
Theistic Evolution is untenable with the nature of God Incarnate and His written Word expressed.
In such a circumstance what does the Lord God do? How does He respond to the many prayers for involvement and blessing upon Connect 09?
By events thus far observed are we seeing how God has responded?
Perhaps we gain further insight through the musings of Anglican Bishop J. C. Ryle in the 19th Century when he considered the gospel writer Luke's account of the angelic announcement of a son for aged Zechariah and his barren wife, Elizabeth. (Luke 1:5-25)
"What a striking example we have here of the power of unbelief in a good man! Righteous and holy as Zacharias was, the announcement of the angel appears to him incredible.
A well-instructed Jew, like Zacharias, ought not to have raised this question. No doubt he was well acquainted with the Old Testament. He ought to have remembered the wonderful births recorded there (Gen. 18:11-14; Judg. 13:2-3, 1 Sam. 1:5,19) and that what God has done once He can do again. With Him nothing is impossible. But he forgot all this. He thought of nothing but the arguments of mere human reason and sense. And it often happens in religious matters that, where reason begins, faith ends.
How exceeding sinful the sin of unbelief is in the sight of God! (v.20) The doubts and questionings of Zacharias brought down upon him the heavy chastisement peculiarly suited to the offence. The tongue that was not ready to speak the the language of believing praise was struck dumb. For nine long months at least, Zacharias was condemned to silence, and was daily reminded that by unbelief he had offended God.
Few sins appear to be so peculiarly provoking to God as the sin of unbelief. It is a practical denial of God's almighty power to doubt whether He can do a thing when He undertakes to do it. It is giving the lie to God to doubt whether He means to do a thing when He has plainly promised it shall be done.
Let us watch and pray daily against this soul-ruining sin. Concessions to it rob believers of their inward peace, weaken their hands in the day of battle, bring clouds over their hopes. Unbelief is the true cause of a thousand spiritual diseases. In all that respects the pardon of our sins and the acceptance of our souls, the duties and trials of our daily lives, let it be a settled maxim in our religion, to trust every word of God implicitly, and to beware of unbelief."
How more simply could God have rendered His account of the creation of the world and everything in it? (Gen. 1) How more clearly could He have substantiated that account as He did? (Ex. 20:11 and 31:17-18) How more demonstrably could He affirm His nature and capacity to create in past, present and future than He did Incarnate?
To reject injunction such as this is no different to Zechariah's unbelief in the message of God delivered through the angel. As such, the 'mouths' that attempt to deliver the initiative of Connect 09 will seem, for a time at least, as 'dumb' to the intended audience.
Neil
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Moore Theological College - Warning - Code: Red
Sad that I should have to write this but the truth must come out.
In the August, 2009 edition of Southern Cross, the Sydney Anglican newspaper, the Principal, Dr John Woodhouse, was given a double page opportunity to promote the Diocesan theological institution, Moore College.
No problem with that but some things said by John Woodhouse are frightfully wrong. Amid the spruiking of an alleged world wide fame and distinctiveness for Moore College are comments like the following:
"At Moore College the curriculum is not only permeated through and through by the Bible (it is that!), but God's written word is honoured by being firmly believed, and properly understood in relation to its climactic centre: Christ Jesus the Lord. The teaching at Moore is thoroughly 'biblical' in this important sense: each part of the Bible is understood in the context of the whole Bible."
In all frankness this is false. God's written word is not honoured because a student is not encouraged to trust God's word written and uttered in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11 respectively. On last report, a student could leave Moore College believing anything but the creation of all things by and through the Word in six days as we understand a day. More so they would be discouraged from accepting the biblical chronology which points to the creation event occurring something around 6,000 years ago.
What a student is more likely to be left with after time at Moore College is an adulterated perception of the glory of Christ which attributes to him a death, dead-end, disease and suffering riddled creative process and, if students thought hard enough, a question as to why it was necessary for the Word to become flesh to die on the cross if death was the instrument of His creative process.
Dr Woodhouse goes on:
"Furthermore Moore College is known around the world for standing firm, faithfully teaching and defending the evangelical and reformed Christian faith."
Either a serious error or a lie! Moore College has separated itself from the position of Luther, Calvin and the other Reformers on the doctrine of origins viz six day, young earth belief. I am not aware of one Reformer who would agree with what is presented to students at Moore College on this subject.
Moore College has cowered in the face of the world and left the Reformers to their own. So much for standing firm.
My last quote from Dr Woodhouse is:
"While students come to Moore from a wide range of educational backgrounds and academic abilities we are serious about learning well and thoroughly. Faithful servants of the gospel must have their thinking (about everything!) comprehensively renewed by God's word. We do not hide from hard questions and dodge difficult data. We must learn openly and honestly, humbly confident that faith and truth are friends, not enemies."
My challenge to Dr Woodhouse or his appointed representative is this:
Please come onto this site and dialogue with civility (it is our promise to respond likewise) and explain how it is that a student entering Moore College with an evolutionary long age view of origins does not graduate from Moore College with a six day, young earth view of origins?
Further, please explain why Moore College students are not encouraged to hold to the Reformers belief in a six day, young earth (ie approx., 6,000 years)?
Finally, please explain your basis for shifting Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:16-18 from their traditional genre of historical narrative?
Without these matters being clarified here let the world understand that Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia, is a dangerous place for faith in the Word of God.
Neil
In the August, 2009 edition of Southern Cross, the Sydney Anglican newspaper, the Principal, Dr John Woodhouse, was given a double page opportunity to promote the Diocesan theological institution, Moore College.
No problem with that but some things said by John Woodhouse are frightfully wrong. Amid the spruiking of an alleged world wide fame and distinctiveness for Moore College are comments like the following:
"At Moore College the curriculum is not only permeated through and through by the Bible (it is that!), but God's written word is honoured by being firmly believed, and properly understood in relation to its climactic centre: Christ Jesus the Lord. The teaching at Moore is thoroughly 'biblical' in this important sense: each part of the Bible is understood in the context of the whole Bible."
In all frankness this is false. God's written word is not honoured because a student is not encouraged to trust God's word written and uttered in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11 respectively. On last report, a student could leave Moore College believing anything but the creation of all things by and through the Word in six days as we understand a day. More so they would be discouraged from accepting the biblical chronology which points to the creation event occurring something around 6,000 years ago.
What a student is more likely to be left with after time at Moore College is an adulterated perception of the glory of Christ which attributes to him a death, dead-end, disease and suffering riddled creative process and, if students thought hard enough, a question as to why it was necessary for the Word to become flesh to die on the cross if death was the instrument of His creative process.
Dr Woodhouse goes on:
"Furthermore Moore College is known around the world for standing firm, faithfully teaching and defending the evangelical and reformed Christian faith."
Either a serious error or a lie! Moore College has separated itself from the position of Luther, Calvin and the other Reformers on the doctrine of origins viz six day, young earth belief. I am not aware of one Reformer who would agree with what is presented to students at Moore College on this subject.
Moore College has cowered in the face of the world and left the Reformers to their own. So much for standing firm.
My last quote from Dr Woodhouse is:
"While students come to Moore from a wide range of educational backgrounds and academic abilities we are serious about learning well and thoroughly. Faithful servants of the gospel must have their thinking (about everything!) comprehensively renewed by God's word. We do not hide from hard questions and dodge difficult data. We must learn openly and honestly, humbly confident that faith and truth are friends, not enemies."
My challenge to Dr Woodhouse or his appointed representative is this:
Please come onto this site and dialogue with civility (it is our promise to respond likewise) and explain how it is that a student entering Moore College with an evolutionary long age view of origins does not graduate from Moore College with a six day, young earth view of origins?
Further, please explain why Moore College students are not encouraged to hold to the Reformers belief in a six day, young earth (ie approx., 6,000 years)?
Finally, please explain your basis for shifting Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:16-18 from their traditional genre of historical narrative?
Without these matters being clarified here let the world understand that Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia, is a dangerous place for faith in the Word of God.
Neil
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Down Among The Dead Men.
Moore Theological College is the driving force behind the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney for it is from this institution that Clergy are trained who go out to be the "Cure of Souls" and fulfil the Divine Mission in the Diocese. Indeed, it is the desire of many within the Diocese that graduates of Moore Theological College engage in church planting outside the Diocesan boundary.
More than that, some seek to have Moore graduates installed into theological institutions around the globe (doesn't that strike you as odd - a Diocese failing to achieve church growth within itself except, as some have reported here, without transfer growth from declining denominations, having the audacity to inflict its inadequacies on another Diocese which may already be experiencing what Sydney Diocese cannot achieve - church growth!). Consider the recent comments of Robert Doyle in the recent 'Moore Matters" publication where he says "Moore College has considerable experience preparing people for missionary service. ... When you take into account our networking with institutions other than Anglican, the list, is of course longer [he had earlier named some non Episcopalian theological colleges]. In a hostile world, and too often in the context of deeply unfaithful Christian denominations, we need to support each other. Several of these colleges have our graduates on faculty; many others have a history of contact, support and service. The abundant gifts and resources that God has blessed us with at Moore and amongst our constituency, and the law of the nearest neighbour, make it imperative that as far as God continues to give us opportunity, we need to produce more theological educators, and work outside our comfort zones."
Yeah! that'd be right! A Diocese in an African country has been blessed with a large congregation of believers who accept God at his word in Genesis and its reward is to be inflicted with the Moore collage of possible beliefs on origins none of which involves taking God at his word.
I wonder whether it ever enters the head of Moore 'Collage' (for that may be the more apt title) graduates that they might be more a hindrance to church growth than a help? A Diocese so reliant on what comes out of its theological institution for the growth of the Diocese ought easily be able to assess the health of its theological institution by the church growth seen shouldn't it? Of course! Well how does it look? Not good at all when you remove the "smoke and mirrors" of transfer growth from denominations experiencing advanced theological decline.
Perhaps you might hold out hope for the future because of the Diocesan Missionary Statement and the much anticipated (or is it feared?) Connect 09? Well, let me inform you of an incident giving clear insight into the future for the Diocese, its Mission and its worth to the church abroad. Remember, Moore Theological 'Collage' is the engine room for mission flowing from the Diocese.
I heard last Saturday morning on the radio three people speaking of the Newtown Festival proposed for the following day (Sunday 9th Nov). It was said that it was a wonderful festival and the previous year it had attracted 80,000 people. Now that is an impressive figure of attendance and certainly worth a look. So off I went the next day and in my journey there I noticed how remarkably close the festival site was to Moore 'Collage', only a few hundred metres from the institution. Upon entry to the site I was overwhelmed by the number of stalls and the multitude of people just browsing around, most of whom I suspect are "dead in their sins". Surely, you would think, there would be at least one church making the most of the opportunity (you know what Robert Doyle said - "as far as God continues to give us opportunity") especially Moore 'Collage' students, but no, my walk around the site failed to identify any stall there representing Moore 'Collage' or a church. What a lost opportunity! A crowd of over 80,000 people ignored by the alleged missionary college to the world and by local churches. I did see one fellow ambling through the milling crowd wearing a name tag with "St Stephens, Newtown" on it but for all it was worth he might have just stumbled out of nearby St Stephens Church, Newtown, having mistaken the festival crowd for the crowd around the church morning-tea urn.
What I did see, however, was group with a stall who were keenly proselytizing the passing crowd. It was a group calling themselves Sydney Atheists. So consider the scene. Here we are on the eve of Connect 09. Within a few hundred metres of the the engine room for mission within the Diocese is a crowd of over 80,000 people just browsing around and who is there to reach them? The Atheists!
My friends, I cannot help but have seen a vision of the effectiveness of Connect 09. In year 2010, when measuring the effectiveness of Connect 09, remember Newtown Festival 2008 ... Atheists 1 vs Moore 'Collage' 0.
Sam Drucker
More than that, some seek to have Moore graduates installed into theological institutions around the globe (doesn't that strike you as odd - a Diocese failing to achieve church growth within itself except, as some have reported here, without transfer growth from declining denominations, having the audacity to inflict its inadequacies on another Diocese which may already be experiencing what Sydney Diocese cannot achieve - church growth!). Consider the recent comments of Robert Doyle in the recent 'Moore Matters" publication where he says "Moore College has considerable experience preparing people for missionary service. ... When you take into account our networking with institutions other than Anglican, the list, is of course longer [he had earlier named some non Episcopalian theological colleges]. In a hostile world, and too often in the context of deeply unfaithful Christian denominations, we need to support each other. Several of these colleges have our graduates on faculty; many others have a history of contact, support and service. The abundant gifts and resources that God has blessed us with at Moore and amongst our constituency, and the law of the nearest neighbour, make it imperative that as far as God continues to give us opportunity, we need to produce more theological educators, and work outside our comfort zones."
Yeah! that'd be right! A Diocese in an African country has been blessed with a large congregation of believers who accept God at his word in Genesis and its reward is to be inflicted with the Moore collage of possible beliefs on origins none of which involves taking God at his word.
I wonder whether it ever enters the head of Moore 'Collage' (for that may be the more apt title) graduates that they might be more a hindrance to church growth than a help? A Diocese so reliant on what comes out of its theological institution for the growth of the Diocese ought easily be able to assess the health of its theological institution by the church growth seen shouldn't it? Of course! Well how does it look? Not good at all when you remove the "smoke and mirrors" of transfer growth from denominations experiencing advanced theological decline.
Perhaps you might hold out hope for the future because of the Diocesan Missionary Statement and the much anticipated (or is it feared?) Connect 09? Well, let me inform you of an incident giving clear insight into the future for the Diocese, its Mission and its worth to the church abroad. Remember, Moore Theological 'Collage' is the engine room for mission flowing from the Diocese.
I heard last Saturday morning on the radio three people speaking of the Newtown Festival proposed for the following day (Sunday 9th Nov). It was said that it was a wonderful festival and the previous year it had attracted 80,000 people. Now that is an impressive figure of attendance and certainly worth a look. So off I went the next day and in my journey there I noticed how remarkably close the festival site was to Moore 'Collage', only a few hundred metres from the institution. Upon entry to the site I was overwhelmed by the number of stalls and the multitude of people just browsing around, most of whom I suspect are "dead in their sins". Surely, you would think, there would be at least one church making the most of the opportunity (you know what Robert Doyle said - "as far as God continues to give us opportunity") especially Moore 'Collage' students, but no, my walk around the site failed to identify any stall there representing Moore 'Collage' or a church. What a lost opportunity! A crowd of over 80,000 people ignored by the alleged missionary college to the world and by local churches. I did see one fellow ambling through the milling crowd wearing a name tag with "St Stephens, Newtown" on it but for all it was worth he might have just stumbled out of nearby St Stephens Church, Newtown, having mistaken the festival crowd for the crowd around the church morning-tea urn.
What I did see, however, was group with a stall who were keenly proselytizing the passing crowd. It was a group calling themselves Sydney Atheists. So consider the scene. Here we are on the eve of Connect 09. Within a few hundred metres of the the engine room for mission within the Diocese is a crowd of over 80,000 people just browsing around and who is there to reach them? The Atheists!
My friends, I cannot help but have seen a vision of the effectiveness of Connect 09. In year 2010, when measuring the effectiveness of Connect 09, remember Newtown Festival 2008 ... Atheists 1 vs Moore 'Collage' 0.
Sam Drucker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
