There has been a concerted, though very much erroneous, attempt to paint early believers as being, in the least, divided over the issue of the age of the earth, the length of the days in Genesis 1, and whether the seventh day, because of its lack of an “evening and a morning”, eliminated the straightforward understanding of the previous six. The following are excerpts from writings of major early commentators, commentators nominated by Anonymous as intending to support his case for a non-literal take on Genesis 1. As I’ve previously stated on this blog, even the minority of these writers who took an allegorical or figurative view did so by nearly always first acknowledging the reality of a historical 6 days. Some saw, for example, that the first 6 days were symbolic or prefigurements of the ages to come which were measured in 1000’s of years, rather than the mooted millions that the pagans and Sydney Anglican heretics routinely throw around. Even Philo, a well-known Platonist, first discussed the 6 days as though they weren’t figurative, and only then, in a subsequent book, set out his understanding from a platonic perspective. Furthermore, one has to understand his goal for doing so, namely, “to demonstrate the superiority of Jewish philosophy over other philosophical systems current in his day. In his De Opicio Mudi Philo interprets the Creation in Genesis in philosophical terms. It should be read as a brilliant tour de force by which Philo wishes to amaze the gentile reader with the great amount of Hellenistic cosmology and metaphysics which he can read out of, really into, the first three chapters of Genesis…To a large degree Philo was addressing himself with missionary intent to an audience unfamiliar with Judaism.” (Halevy, S.C., Philo’s De Opicio Mundi and the Palestinian Genesis Rabbah) The few that augmented the literal with a purely allegorist or figurative slant, always did it because of considerations outside of the text, and not due to something in it. Principal among these was the strong platonic and Pythagorean interest in numbers. The other unequivocal feature is the ancients’ complete absence of anything like the postmodernal literary theory which has structure superseding content that far too many pseudo-conservatives are presently pushing. Their attempts to pass this off as credible and acceptable remind me of Paul’s words to the Colossians:
“Be careful that nobody spoils your faith through intellectualism or high-sounding nonsense. Such stuff is at best founded on men's ideas of the nature of the world and disregards Christ!”
1. Epistle of Barnabas
Barnabas 15:3 Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; AndGod made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on theseventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.
Barnabas 15:4 Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. Hemeaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring allthings to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years;and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day ofthe Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in sixdays, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.
Barnabas 15:5 And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when His Sonshall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shalljudge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and thestars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.
Barnabas 15:6 Yea and furthermore He saith; Thou shalt hallow it with pure handsand with a pure heart. If therefore a man is able now to hallowthe day which God hallowed, though he be pure in heart, we have goneutterly astray.
Barnabas 15:7 But if after all then and not till then shall we truly rest andhallow it, when we shall ourselves be able to do so after beingjustified and receiving the promise, when iniquity is no more and allthings have been made new by the Lord, we shall be able to hallow itthen, because we ourselves shall have been hallowed first. Barnabas 15:8 Finally He saith to them; Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannotaway with. Ye see what is His meaning ; it is not your presentSabbaths that are acceptable [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I havemade, in the which, when I have set all things at rest, I will makethe beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of anotherworld.
Barnabas 15:9 Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the whichalso Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascendedinto the heavens.
[Note the basis for his typological prophetic understanding is based upon a historical and literal creation week. This was a common enough hermeneutical technique for Jewish and Christian writers of all ages.]
2. THEOPHILUS TO AUTOLYCUS
BOOK II
CHAP. IX.--THE PROPHET'S INSPIRED BY THE HOLY GHOST.
But men of God carrying in them a holy spirit and becoming prophets, being inspired and made wise by God, became God-taught, and holy, and righteous. Wherefore they were also deemed worthy of receiving this reward, that they should become instruments of God, and contain the wisdom that is from Him, through which wisdom they uttered both what regarded the creation of the world and all other things.
CHAP. X.--THE WORLD CREATED BY GOD THROUGH THE WORD.
And first, they taught us with one consent that
God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coeval with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called "governing principle" [arkh], because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things. For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him. Wherefore He speaks thus by the prophet Solomon: "When He prepared the heavens I was there, and when He appointed the foundations of the earth I was by Him as one brought up with Him." And Moses, who lived many years before Solomon, or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument, says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." First he named the "beginning," and "creation," then he thus introduced God; for not lightly and on slight occasion is it right to name God. For the divine wisdom foreknew that some would trifle and name a multitude of gods that do not exist. In order, therefore, that the living God might be known by His works, and that [it might be known that] by His Word God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, he said, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Then having spoken of their creation, he explains to us: "And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved upon the water." This, sacred Scripture teaches at the outset, to show that matter, from which God made and fashioned the world, was in some manner created, being produced by God.
[I’ve quoted these words of Philo for Anonymous and his followers to make sure they’ve understood that this early Christian, an important one, understood that it was God’s Spirit who led men to become instruments of the Creator to report on the Creation’s history. Now of course, with Anon’s novel and esoteric approach to Genesis he may deem himself, like Peter Jensen, an instrument of God and his may be a new revelation from the Lord himself. In that case, I will apologise profusely to him and beg forgiveness for doubting his “Thus saith the Lord.”]
CHAP. XI.--THE SIX DAYS' WORK DESCRIBED.
[Genesis 1-2:3/4, as written]
CHAP. XII.--THE GLORY OF THE SIX DAYS' WORK.
Of this six days' work no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all its parts, not though he had ten thousand tongues and ten thousand mouths; nay, though he were to live ten thousand years, sojourning in this life, not even so could he utter anything worthy of these things, on account of the exceeding greatness and riches of the wisdom of God which there is in the six days' work above narrated. Many writers indeed have imitated [the narration], and essayed to give an explanation of these things; yet, though they thence derived some suggestions, both concerning the creation of the world and the nature of man, they have emitted no slightest spark of truth. And the utterances of the philosophers, and writers, and poets have an appearance of trustworthiness, on account of the beauty of their diction; but their discourse is proved to be foolish and idle, because the multitude of their nonsensical frivolities is very great; and not a stray morsel of truth is found in them. For even if any truth seems to have been uttered by them, it has a mixture of error.
[Hullo, hullo, hullo! What’s this you say dear Theophilus?]
CHAP. XIII.--REMARKS ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.
Moreover, his [Hesiod's] human, and mean, and very weak conception, so far as regards God, is discovered in his beginning to relate the creation of all things from the earthly things here below. For man, being below, begins to build from the earth, and cannot in order make the roof, unless he has first laid the foundation. But the power of God is shown in this, that, first of all, He creates out of nothing, according to His will, the things that are made. "For the things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Wherefore, also, the prophet mentioned that the creation of the heavens first of all took place, as a kind of roof, saying: "At the first God created the heavens"--that is, that by means of the "first" principle the heavens were made, as we have already shown. And by "earth" he means the ground and foundation, as by "the deep" he means the multitude of waters; and "darkness" he speaks of, on account of the heaven which God made coveting the waters and the earth like a lid. And by the Spirit which is borne above the waters, he means that which God gave for animating the creation, as he gave life to man, mixing what is fine with what is fine. For the Spirit is fine, and the water is fine, that the Spirit may nourish the water, and the water penetrating everywhere along with the Spirit, may nourish creation. For the Spirit being one, and holding the place of light, was between the water and the heaven, in order that the darkness might not in any way communicate with the heaven, which was nearer God, before God said, "Let there be light." The heaven, therefore, being like a dome-shaped covering, comprehended matter which was like a clod. And so another prophet, Isaiah by name, spoke in these words: "It is God who made the heavens as a vault, and stretched them as a tent to dwell in." The command, then, of God, that is, His Word, shining as a lamp in an enclosed chamber, lit up all that was under heaven, when He had made light apart from the world. And the light God called Day, and the darkness Night. Since man would not have been able to call the light Day, or the darkness Night, nor, indeed, to have given names to the other things, had not he received the nomenclature from God, who made the things themselves. In the very beginning, therefore, of the history and genesis of the world, the holy Scripture spoke not concerning this firmament [which we see], but concerning another heaven, which is to us invisible, after which this heaven which we see has been called "firmament," and to which half the water was taken up that it might serve for rains, and showers, and dews to mankind. And half the water was left on earth for rivers, and fountains, and seas. The water, then, covering all the earth, and specially its hollow places, God, through His Word, next caused the waters to be collected into one collection, and the dry land to become visible, which formerly had been invisible. The earth thus becoming visible, was yet without form. God therefore formed and adorned it with all kinds of herbs, and seeds and plants.
CHAP. XV.--OF THE FOURTH DAY.
On the fourth day the luminaries were made; because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior. And these contain the pattern and type of a great mystery. For the sun is a type of God, and the moon of man. And as the sun far surpasses the moon in power and glory, so far does God surpass man. And as the sun remains ever full, never becoming less, so does God always abide perfect, being full of all power, and understanding, and wisdom, and immortality, and all good. But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection. In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made. The disposition of the stars, too, contains a type of the arrangement and order of the righteous and pious, and of those who keep the law and commandments of God. For the brilliant and bright stars are an imitation of the prophets, and therefore they remain fixed, not declining, nor passing from place to place. And those which hold the second place in brightness, are types of the people of the righteous. And those, again, which change their position, and flee from place to place, which also are cared planets, they too are a type of the men who have wandered from God, abandoning His law and commandments.
CHAP. XXXIII.--PROFANE HISTORY GIVES NO ACCOUNT OF THESE MATTERS.
Who, then, of those called sages, and poets, and historians, could tell us truly of these things, themselves being much later born, and introducing a multitude of gods, who were born so many years after the cities, and are more modern than kings, and nations, and wars? For they should have made mention of all events, even those which happened before the flood; both of the creation of the world and the formation of man, and the whole succession of events. The Egyptian or Chaldaean prophets, and the other writers, should have been able accurately to tell, if at least they spoke by a divine and pure spirit, and spoke truth in all that was uttered by them; and they should have announced not only things past or present, but also those that were to come upon the world. And therefore it is proved that all others have been in error; and that we Christians alone have possessed the truth, inasmuch as we are taught by the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the holy prophets, and foretold all things.
BOOK III.
CHAP. XVI.--UNCERTAIN CONJECTURES OF THE PHILOSOPHERS.
But I wish now to give you a more accurate demonstration, God helping me, of the historical periods, that you may see that our doctrine is not modern nor fabulous, but more ancient and true than all poets and authors who have written in uncertainty. For some, maintaining that the world was uncreated, went into infinity; and others, asserting that it was created, said that already 153, 075 years had passed. This is stated by Apollonius the Egyptian. And Plato, who is esteemed to have been the wisest of the Greeks, into what nonsense did he run? For in his book entitled The Republic, we find him expressly saying: "For if things had in all time remained in their present arrangement, when ever could any new thing be discovered? For ten thousand times ten thousand years elapsed without record, and one thousand or twice as many years have gone by since some things were discovered by Daedalus, and some by Orpheus, and some by Palamedes." And when he says that these things happened, he implies that ten thousand times ten thousand years elapsed from the flood to Daedalus. And after he has said a great deal about the cities of the world, and the settlements, and the nations, he owns that he has said these things conjecturally. For he says, "If then, my friend, some god should promise us, that if we attempted to make a survey of legislation, the things now said," etc., which shows that he was speaking by guess; and if by guess, then what he says is not true.
[What’s that, dear brother Theophilus? You actually reckon early Genesis is accurate history? It’s the year 2007 and here’s a bunch of Christians who reckon you know nuthin’! What do you make of that?]
CHAP. XVII.--ACCURATE INFORMATION OF THE CHRISTIANS.
It behoved, therefore, that he should the rather become a scholar of God in this matter of legislation, as he himself confessed that in no other way could he gain accurate information than by God's teaching him through the law. And did not the poets Homer and Hesiod and Orpheus profess that they themselves had been instructed by Divine Providence? Moreover, it is said that among your writers there were prophets and prognosticators, and that those wrote accurately: who were informed by them. How much more, then, shall we know the truth who are instructed by the holy prophets, who were possessed by the Holy Spirit of God! On this account all the prophets spoke harmoniously and in agreement with one another, and foretold the things that would come to pass in all the world. For the very accomplishment of predicted and already consummated events should demonstrate to those who are fond of information, yea rather, who are lovers of truth, that those things are really true which they declared concerning the epochs and eras before the deluge: to wit, how the years have run on since the world was created until now, so as to manifest the ridiculous mendacity of your authors, and show that their statements are not true.
CHAP. XVIII.--ERRORS OF THE GREEKS ABOUT THE DELUGE.
For Plato, as we said above, when he had demonstrated that a deluge had happened, said that it extended not over the whole earth, but only over the plains, and that those who fled to the highest hills saved themselves. But others say that there existed Deucalion and Pyrrha, and that they were preserved in a chest; and that Deucalion, after he came out of the chest, flung stones behind him, and that men were produced from the stones; from which circumstance they say that men in the mass are named "people." Others, again, say that Clymenus existed in a second flood. From what has already been said, it is evident that they who wrote such things and philosophized to so little purpose are miserable, and very profane and senseless persons. But Moses, our prophet and the servant of God, in giving an account of the genesis of the world, related in what manner the flood came upon the earth, telling us, besides, how the details of the flood came about, and relating no fable of Pyrrha nor of Deucalion or Clymenus; nor, forsooth, that only the plains were submerged, and that those only who escaped to the mountains were saved.
[A world-wide Flood? Come now dear Theophilus, can’t you read plain Greek/Hebrew? It just does not necessary mean “covered all the world” when it says “covered all the world.” Quite obviously your Greek and Hebrew translating skills are feeble.]
CHAP. XIX.--ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF THE DELUGE.
And neither does he make out that there was a second flood: on the contrary, he said that never again would there be a flood of water on the world; as neither indeed has there been, nor ever shall be. And he says that eight human beings were preserved in the ark, in that which had been prepared by God's direction, not by Deucalion, but by Noah; which Hebrew word means in English "rest," as we have elsewhere shown that Noah, when he announced to the men then alive that there was a flood coming, prophesied to them, saying, Come thither, God calls you to repentance. On this account he was fitly called Deucalion. And this Noah had three sons (as we mentioned in the second book), whose names were Shem, and Ham, and Japhet; and these had three wives, one wife each; each man and his wife. This man some have surnamed Eunuchus. All the eight persons, therefore, who were found in the ark were preserved. And Moses showed that the flood lasted forty days and forty nights, torrents pouring from heaven, and from the fountains of the deep breaking up, so that the water overtopped every high hill 15 cubits. And thus the race of all the men that then was destroyed, and those only who were protected in the ark were saved; and these, we have already said, were eight. And of the ark, the remains are to this day to be seen in the Arabian mountains. This, then, is in sum the history of the deluge.
[Sorry, mate, you’re nothing but a primitive because modern science has proved you wrong!]
CHAP. XXIV.--CHRONOLOGY FROM ADAM.
Adam lived till he begat a son, 230 years. And his son Seth, 205. And his son Enos, 190. And his son Cainan, 170. And his son Mahaleel, 165. And his son Jared, 162. And his son Enoch, 165. And his son Methuselah, 167. And his son Lamech, 188. And Lamech's son was Noah, of whom we have spoken above, who begat Shem when 500 years old. During Noah's life, in his 600th year, the flood came. The total number of years, therefore, till the flood, was 2242.
And immediately after the flood, Shem, who was 100 years old, begat Arphaxad. And Arphaxad, when 135 years old, begat Salah. And Salah begat a son when 130. And his son Eber, when 134. And from him the Hebrews name their race. And his son Phaleg begat a son when 130. And his son Reu, when 132 And his son Serug, when 130. And his son Nahor, when 75. And his son Terah, when 70. And his son Abraham, our patriarch, begat Isaac when he was 100 years old. Until Abraham, therefore, there are 3278 years. The fore-mentioned Isaac lived until he begat a son, 60 years, and begat Jacob. Jacob, till the migration into Egypt, of which we have spoken above, lived 130 years. And the sojourning of the Hebrews in Egypt lasted 430 years; and after their departure from the land of Egypt they spent 40 years in the wilderness, as it is called. All these years, therefore, amount to 3,938. And at that time, Moses having died, Jesus the sun of Nun succeeded to his rule, and governed them 27 years. And after Jesus, when the people had transgressed the commandments of God, they served the king of Mesopotamia, by name Chusarathon, 8 years. Then, on the repentance of the people, they had judges: Gothonoel, 40 years; Eglon, 18 years; Aoth, 8 years. Then having sinned, they were subdued by strangers for 20 years. Then Deborah judged them 40 years. Then they served the Midianites 7 years. Then Gideon judged them 40 years; Abimelech, 3 years; Thola, 22 years; Jair, 22 years. Then the Philistines and Ammonites ruled them 18 years. After that Jephthah judged them 6 years; Esbon, 7 years; Ailon, 10 years; Abdon, 8 years. Then strangers ruled them 40 years. Then Samson judged them 20 years. Then there was peace among them for 40 years. Then Samera judged them one year; Eli, 20 years; Samuel, 12 years.
[Theophilus, you are a churlish child for taking the Bible so literally.]
CHAP. XXVI.--CONTRAST BETWEEN HEBREW AND GREEK WRITINGS.
Hence one can see how our sacred writings are shown to be more ancient and true than those of the Greeks and Egyptians, or any other historians. For Herodotus and Thucydides, as also Xenophon, and most other historians, began their relations from about the reign of Cyrus and Darius, not being able to speak with accuracy of prior and ancient times. For what great matters did they disclose if they spoke of Darius and Cyrus, barbarian kings, or of the Greeks Zopyrus and Hippias, or of the wars of the Athenians and Lacedaemonians, or the deeds of Xerxes or of Pausanias, who ran the risk of starving to death in the temple of Minerva, or the history of Themistocles and the Peloponnesian war, or of Alcibiades and Thrasybulus? For my purpose is not to furnish mere matter of much talk, but to throw light upon the number of years from the foundation of the world, and to condemn the empty labour and trifling of these authors, because there have neither been twenty thousand times ten thousand years from the flood to the present time, as Plato said, affirming that there had been so many years; nor yet 15 times 10,375 years, as we have already mentioned Apollonius the Egyptian gave out; nor is the world uncreated, nor is there a spontaneous production of all things, as Pythagoras and the rest dreamed; but, being indeed created, it is also governed by the providence of God, who made all things; and the whole course of time and the years are made plain to those who wish to obey the truth. Lest, then, I seem to have made things plain up to the time of Cyrus, and to neglect the subsequent periods, as if through inability to exhibit them, I will endeavour, by God's help, to give an account, according to my ability, of the course of the subsequent times.
CHAP. XXVIII.--LEADING CHRONOLOGICAL EPOCHS.
And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned. From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years. And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years. And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days. And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days.
CHAP. XXIX.--ANTIQUITY OF CHRISTIANITY.
These periods, then, and all the above-mentioned facts, being viewed collectively, one can see the antiquity of the prophetical writings and the divinity of our doctrine, that the doctrine is not recent, nor our tenets mythical and false, as some think; but very ancient and true.
[Unlike the recent pseudo-intellectual ravings of the heretics at the Sydney Anglican Diocese.]
CHAP. XXX.
If you please, then, study these things carefully, that you may have a compendium and pledge of the truth.
3a. Philo’s ON THE CREATION (or ‘A Treatise on the Account of the Creation of the World, as Given by Moses.’)I.
(1) Of other lawgivers, some have set forth what they considered to be just and reasonable, in a naked and unadorned manner, while others, investing their ideas with an abundance of amplification, have sought to bewilder the people, by burying the truth under a heap of fabulous inventions. (2) But Moses, rejecting both of these methods, the one as inconsiderate, careless, and unphilosophical, and the other as mendacious and full of trickery, made the beginning of his laws entirely beautiful, and in all respects admirable, neither at once declaring what ought to be done or the contrary, nor (since it was necessary to mould beforehand the dispositions of those who were to use his laws) inventing fables himself or adopting those which had been invented by others. (3) And his exordium, as I have already said, is most admirable; embracing the creation of the world, under the idea that the law corresponds to the world and the world to the law, and that a man who is obedient to the law, being, by so doing, a citizen of the world, arranges his actions with reference to the intention of nature, in harmony with which the whole universal world is regulated. (4) Accordingly no one, whether poet or historian, could ever give expression in an adequate manner to the beauty of his ideas respecting the creation of the world; for they surpass all the power of language, and amaze our hearing, being too great and venerable to be adapted to the sense of any created being.
II. Since, then, this world is visible and the object of our external senses, it follows of necessity that it must have been created; on which account it was not without a wise purpose that he recorded its creation, giving a very venerable account of God.
III. (13) And he says that the world was made in six days, not because the Creator stood in need of a length of time (for it is natural that God should do everything at once, not merely by uttering a command, but by even thinking of it); but because the things created required arrangement; and number is akin to arrangement; and, of all numbers, six is, by the laws of nature, the most productive: for of all the numbers, from the unit upwards, it is the first perfect one, being made equal to its parts, and being made complete by them; the number three being half of it, and the number two a third of it, and the unit a sixth of it, and, so to say, it is formed so as to be both male and female, and is made up of the power of both natures; for in existing things the odd number is the male, and the even number is the female; accordingly, of odd numbers the first is the number three, and of even numbers the first is two, and the two numbers multiplied together make six. (14) It was fitting therefore, that the world, being the most perfect of created things, should be made according to the perfect number, namely, six: and, as it was to have in it the causes of both, which arise from combination, that it should be formed according to a mixed number, the first combination of odd and even numbers, since it was to embrace the character both of the male who sows the seed, and of the female who receives it. (15) And he allotted each of the six days to one of the portions of the whole, taking out the first day, which he does not even call the first day, that it may not be numbered with the others, but entitling it one, he names it rightly, perceiving in it, and ascribing to it the nature and appellation of the limit.
VII. (26) Moses says also; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth:" taking the beginning to be, not as some men think, that which is according to time; for before the world time had no existence, but was created either simultaneously with it, or after it; for since time is the interval of the motion of the heavens, there could not have been any such thing as motion before there was anything which could be moved; but it follows of necessity that it received existence subsequently or simultaneously. It therefore follows also of necessity, that time was created either at the same moment with the world, or later than it--and to venture to assert that it is older than the world is absolutely inconsistent with philosophy. (27) But if the beginning spoken of by Moses is not to be looked upon as spoken of according to time, then it may be natural to suppose that it is the beginning according to number that is indicated; so that, "In the beginning he created," is equivalent to "first of all he created the heaven;" for it is natural in reality that that should have been the first object created, being both the best of all created things, and being also made of the purest substance, because it was destined to be the most holy abode of the visible Gods who are perceptible by the external senses; (28) for if the Creator had made everything at the same moment, still those things which were created in beauty would no less have had a regular arrangement, for there is no such thing as beauty in disorder. But order is a due consequence and connection of things precedent and subsequent, if not in the completion of a work, at all events in the intention of the maker; for it is owing to order that they become accurately defined and stationary, and free from confusion.
IX. 35) But when light came, and darkness retreated and yielded to it, and boundaries were set in the space between the two, namely, evening and morning, then of necessity the measure of time was immediately perfected, which also the Creator called "day." and He called it not "the first day," but "one day;" and it is spoken of thus, on account of the single nature of the world perceptible only by the intellect, which has a single nature.
XIII. (42) But in the first creation of the universe, as I have said already, God produced the whole race of trees out of the earth in full perfection, having their fruit not incomplete but in a state of entire ripeness, to be ready for the immediate and undelayed use and enjoyment of the animals which were about immediately to be born. (43) Accordingly he commanded the earth to produce these things. And the earth, as though it had for a long time been pregnant and travailing, produced every sort of seed, and every sort of tree, and also of fruit, in unspeakable abundance; and not only were these produced fruits to be food for living animals, but enough also to serve as a preparation for the continuous production of similar fruits hereafter; covering substances consisting of seed, in which are the principles of all plants undistinguishable and invisible, but destined hereafter to become manifest and visible in the periodical maturity of the fruit. (44) For God thought fit to endue nature with a long duration, making the races that he was creating immortal, and giving them a participation in eternity. On which account he led on and hastened the beginning towards the end, and caused the end to turn backwards to the beginning: for from plants comes fruit, as the end might come from the beginning; and from the fruit comes the seed, which again contains the plant within itself, so that a fresh beginning may come from the end.
XIV. (45) And on the fourth day, after he had embellished the earth, he diversified and adorned the heaven: not giving the precedence to the inferior nature by arranging the heaven subsequently to the earth, or thinking that which was the more excellent and the more divine worthy only of the second place, but acting thus for the more manifest demonstration of the power of his dominion. For he foreknew with respect to men who were not yet born, what sort of beings they would be as to their opinions, forming conjectures on what was likely and probable, of which the greater part would be reasonable, though falling short of the character of unadulterated truth; and trusting rather to visible phenomena than to God, and admiring sophistry rather than wisdom. And again he knew that surveying the periods of the sun and moon, to which are owing the summers and winters, and the alternations of spring and autumn, they would conceive the revolutions of the stars in heaven to be the causes of all the things which every year should be produced and generated on the earth, accordingly that no one might venture either through shameless impudence or inordinate ignorance to attribute to any created thing the primary causes of things, he said: (46) "Let them run over in their minds the first creation of the universe, when, before the sun or the moon existed, the earth brought forth all kinds of plants and all kinds of fruits: and seeing this in their minds let them hope that it will again also bring forth such, according to the appointment of the Father, when it shall seem good to him, without his having need of the aid of any of the sons of men beneath the heavens, to whom he has given powers, though not absolute ones."
XV. (47) This is the cause why the earth bore fruit and herbs before God proceeded to adorn the heaven. And next the heaven was embellished in the perfect number four, and if any one were to pronounce this number the origin and source of the all-perfect decade he would not err.
XXII. (67) So at last all things were created and existing together.
XXV. (77) And some one may inquire the cause why it was that man was the last work in the creation of the world. For the Creator and Father created him after every thing else as the sacred scriptures inform us. Accordingly, they who have gone most deeply into the laws, and who to the best of their power have investigated everything that is contained in them with all diligence, say that God, when he had given to man to partake of kindred with himself, grudged him neither reason, which is the most excellent of all gifts, nor anything else that is good; but before his creation, provided for him every thing in the world, as for the animal most resembling himself, and dearest to him, being desirous that when he was born, he should be in want of nothing requisite for living, and for living well; the first of which objects is provided for by the abundance of supplies which are furnished to him for his enjoyment, and the other by his power of contemplation of the heavenly bodies, by which the mind is smitten so as to conceive a love and desire for knowledge on those subjects; owing to which desire, philosophy has sprung up, by which, man, though mortal, is made immortal. (78)
XXVI. (79) This is the first reason on account of which it seems that man was created after all other animals. And there is another not altogether unreasonable, which I must mention.
XXVIII. (83) And besides all this, another is also mentioned among the necessary causes. It was necessary that man should be the last of all created beings; in order that being so, and appearing suddenly, he might strike terror into the other animals.
XXX. (89) But after the whole world had been completed according to the perfect nature of the number six, the Father hallowed the day following, the seventh, praising it, and calling it holy. For that day is the festival, not of one city or one country, but of all the earth; a day which alone it is right to call the day of festival for all people, and the birthday of the world. (90)
XLIII. (128) These things, and more still are said in a philosophical spirit about the number seven, on account of which it has received the highest honours, in the highest nature. And it is honoured by those of the highest reputation among both Greeks and barbarians, who devote themselves to mathematical sciences. It was also greatly honoured by Moses, a man much attached to excellence of all sorts, who described its beauty on the most holy pillars of the law, and wrote it in the hearts of all those who were subject to him, commanding them at the end of each period of six days to keep the seventh holy; abstaining from all other works which are done in the seeking after and providing the means of life, devoting that day to the single object of philosophizing with a view to the improvement of their morals, and the examination of their consciences
XLIX. (140) The first man, therefore, appears to me to have been such both in his body and in his soul, being very far superior to all those who live in the present day, and to all those who have gone before us. For our generation has been from men: but he was created by God. And in the same proportion as the one Author of being is superior to the other, so too is the being that is produced. For as that which is in its prime is superior to that the beauty of which is gone by, whether it be an animal, or a plant, or fruit, or anything else whatever of the productions of nature; so also the first man who was ever formed appears to have been the height of perfection of our entire race, and subsequent generations appear never to have reached an equal state of perfection, but to have at all times been inferior both in their appearance and in their power, and to have been constantly degenerating,
LXI. (170) Such is the life of those who originally were men of innocence and simplicity, and also of those who have come to prefer vice to virtue, from whom one ought to keep aloof. And in his before mentioned account of the creation of the world, Moses teaches us also many other things, and especially five most beautiful lessons which are superior to all others. In the first place, for the sake of convicting the atheists, he teaches us that the Deity has a real being and existence. Now, of the atheists, some have only doubted of the existence of God, stating it to be an uncertain thing; but others, who are more audacious, have taken courage, and asserted positively that there is no such thing; but this is affirmed only by men who have darkened the truth with fabulous inventions. (171) In the second place he teaches us that God is one; having reference here to the assertors of the polytheistic doctrine; men who do not blush to transfer that worst of evil constitutions, ochlocracy, from earth to heaven. Thirdly, he teaches, as has been already related, that the world was created; by this lesson refuting those who think that it is uncreated and eternal, and who thus attribute no glory to God. In the fourth place we learn that the world also which was thus created is one, since also the Creator is one, and he, making his creation to resemble himself in its singleness, employed all existing essence in the creation of the universe. For it would not have been complete if it had not been made and composed of all parts which were likewise whole and complete. For there are some persons who believe that there are many worlds, and some who even fancy that they are boundless in extent, being themselves inexperienced and ignorant of the truth of those things of which it is desirable to have a correct knowledge. The fifth lesson that Moses teaches us is, that God exerts his providence for the benefit of the world. (172) For it follows of necessity that the Creator must always care for that which he has created, just as parents do also care for their children. And he who has learnt this not more by hearing it than by his own understanding, and has impressed on his own soul these marvellous facts which are the subject of so much contention namely, that God has a being and existence, and that he who so exists is really one, and that he has created the world, and that he has created it one as has been stated, having made it like to himself in singleness; and that he exercises a continual care for that which he has created will live a happy and blessed life, stamped with the doctrines of piety and holiness.
3b. Philo’s ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION, I (or ‘The First Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, after the Work of the Six Days of Creation.’)
I. (1) "And the heaven and the earth and all their world was Completed."{1}{#ge 2:1.} Having previously related the creation of the mind and of sense, Moses now proceeds to describe the perfection which was brought about by them both. And he says that neither the indivisible mind nor the particular sensations received perfection, but only ideas, one the idea of the mind, the other of sensation. And, speaking symbolically, he calls the mind heaven, since the natures which can only be comprehended by the intellect are in heaven. And sensation he calls earth, because it is sensation which has obtained a corporeal and some what earthy constitution. The ornaments of the mind are all the incorporeal things, which are perceptible only by the intellect. Those of sensation are the corporeal things, and everything in short which is perceptible by the external senses.
II. (2) "And on the sixth day God finished his work which he had made." It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make. But the sun is a portion of heaven, so that one must confess that time is a thing posterior to the world. Therefore it would be correctly said that the world was not created in time, but that time had its existence in consequence of the world. For it is the motion of the heaven that has displayed the nature of time.
(3) When, therefore, Moses says, "God completed his works on the sixth day," we must understand that he is speaking not of a number of days, but that he takes six as a perfect number.
4. Origin de Principiis
Chapter V.—That the World Took Its Beginning in Time.
1. And now, since there is one of the articles of the Church
which is held principally in consequence of our belief in the truth of our sacred history, viz. that this world was created and took its beginning at a certain time, and, in conformity to the cycle of time
decreed to all things, is to be destroyed on account of its corruption, there seems no absurdity in re-discussing a few points connected with this subject. And so far, indeed, as the credibility of Scripture is concerned, the declarations on such a matter seem easy of proof. Even the heretics, although widely opposed on many other things, yet on this appear to be at one, yielding to the authority of Scripture.
Concerning, then, the creation of the world, what portion of Scripture can give us more information regarding it, than the account which Moses has transmitted respecting its origin? And although it comprehends matters of profounder significance than the mere historical narrative appears to indicate, and contains very many things that are to be spiritually understood, and employs the letter, as a kind of veil, in treating of profound and mystical subjects; nevertheless the language of the narrator shows that all visible things were created at a certain time.
3. But this is the objection which they generally raise: they say, “If the world had its beginning in time, what was God doing before the world began? For it is at once impious and absurd to say that the nature of God is inactive and immoveable, or to suppose that goodness at one time did not do good, and omnipotence at one time did not exercise its power.” Such is the objection which they are accustomed to make to our statement that this world had its beginning at a certain time, and that, agreeably to our belief in Scripture, we can calculate the years of its past duration.
[Admittedly, Origen was prone to pushing a platonic line through which Scripture was made to fit.. As J. Lyman writes, “As the core of his pedagogical and theological method, the profound eclecticism of Origen has been at the same time one of his most attractive and repelling aspects. His use of Platonic wineskins for Christian theology has troubled both admirers and critics since his first works in Alexandria…Origen emphasized the pedagogical and apologetic use of philosophy; by means of Greek categories, the full truth of Scripture, in opposition or agreement with philosophy, could be made comprehensible to non-believers or to educated Christians.” (Christology and Cosmology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993, p. 42.)
[I’m ending this thread with a repeat of Josephus’ account as Anonymous did not bother to comment upon this first century author’s take on Genesis, despite his calling for a first century witness for a literal view of the first chapter. This lack of comment, I can only speculate, is because it really does dismantle Anon’s arcane and elitist take on the matter.]
6. Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews Book I, Containing The Interval Of Three Thousand Eight Hundred And Thirty-Three Years. From The Creation To The Death Of IsaacChapter I The Constitution Of The World And The Disposition Of The Elements
1. On the fourth day he adorned the heaven with the sun, the moon, and the other stars, and appointed them their motions and courses, that the vicissitudes of the seasons might be clearly signified. And on the fifth day he produced the living creatures, both those that swim, and those that fly; the former in the sea, the latter in the air: he also sorted them as to society and mixture, for procreation, and that their kinds might increase and multiply. On the sixth day he created the four-footed beasts, and made them male and female: on the same day he also formed man. Accordingly Moses says, That in just six days the world, and all that is therein, was made. And that the seventh day was a rest, and a release from the labor of such operations; whence it is that we Celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it the Sabbath, which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.
Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Episcopalian Declension to Heresy in Sydney, Australia
Evangelicals in the USA have regarded with caution anything Episcopalian because of the serious declension which has occurred in the Episcopalian Church in the USA. Given the parlous state of that denomination in the USA one can only respect the caution.
Perhaps the largest evangelical Episcopalian Diocese in the world, the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church in Australia, if known at all by evangelicals in the USA, has also been looked upon with a little suspicion because .... well, it is Episcopalian. At the very least a 'watch' was put on the Diocese by those who had any interest in goings on here. From the perspective of the Diocese, some twenty years ago or more there were attempts to say to evangelicals in the USA that "we're okay". Evangelical conference attendance in the USA and promotion of the Sydney theological seminary, Moore College, were strategies designed to demonstrate the acceptability of the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese. Leading evangelicals in the USA were invited to speak at conferences here. Underlying everything else the conferences were hoped to achieve was the hope that we could be seen as okay to evangelicals in the USA.
This essay is designed to disprove the notion that all is well in the Episcopalian Church in Sydney, Australia. Things had been better in the past but declension is well under way. The declension has its roots in the teaching of the theological seminary called Moore College over the past twenty to thirty years. In that time a tumour (English spelling) developed and has been left unchecked to this day. Unchecked, it will consume all other doctrines of God which are reformed and evangelical.
The tumour is what is called Theistic Evolution. It is now vigorously defended within the Diocese as a model for the origin of life. The defence goes all the way to the top position of the Diocese and still has refuge within the theological seminary of the Diocese.
Where then is the Episcopalian Church in Sydney, Australia headed? Perhaps a look at the history of the evangelical church in Wales, Great Britain some one hundred years or more ago will provide some insight.
A friend of mine is interested in Revivals. His interest is greater than mine. He recently loaned me a book entitled "The Welsh Revival of 1904" written by Eifion Evans and published by Bryntirion Press. I found it a very sobering summary of the revival which occurred in Wales and to Welsh people in other parts of Great Britain. Of particular interest to my friend was the observation that unlike earlier revivals this revival did not occur with an emphasis on biblical preaching and teaching. It was more a consequence of calling on the Holy Spirit's presence and activity through prayer. The effects of the revival were perhaps not as prolonged or extensive of those that had gone before.
Enough of that, what I want to raise here is the state of the church in Wales prior to and after the revival of 1904.
Eifion Evans observed that, in the years prior to 1904, the emergence of Psychology, Liberalism, Higher Criticism and the influence of Evolutionary Theory affected the doctrine of the churches. Evans writes on page 44, "The sheer intoxication of a new theology which championed so loudly a release from the trammels of traditional orthodoxy blinded many to its utter contingency. Liberal theology was not merely taking away the decorative appurtenances of Christianity, it was demolishing its very foundations." Evans goes on to say "The spiritual bankruptcy of the churches, thus deprived of the very cause and meaning of their existence, was the subject of many complaints before the revival broke out."
Well, the revival occurred and some 59,000 were added to the nonconformist churches in Wales. The Church of England and the Church of Rome figures were unknown. However, of those 59,000 it seems at least 20,000 fell away in later years. It is interesting to then see what Eifion Evans observed in relation to the Calvinistic Methodists after the revival. I will quote Evans from pages 187 to 190 in his sub-heading of Doctrinal Conflict under the chapter headed Militant Aftermath:
"The influence of the 1904 revival was more important in the constitutional history of the Calvinistic Methodists. In the 1920's there was a great deal of discussion within the denomination about the Confession of Faith. The Constitutional Deed of 1826 had been framed to ensure strict adherence to the denomination's doctrinal tenets, and to provide a corresponding legal safeguard for its places of worship. By 1912 there had been an attempt in the courts of the church to secure the framing of a 'Shorter Declaration of Faith', an oblique and indirect criticism of both content and length of the confession being implied. Later the reports of the Reconstruction Commission, which had appeared in the early twenties, strongly urged parliamentary legislation to modify these requirements.
Nantlais Williams, one of the revival's most illustrious converts, was in the vanguard of the opposition to this move. His objections were grounded on the conviction that the advocates of a liberal theology were seeking the legal and doctrinal leverage necessary to take over the denominational machinery and to bring about a radical change in the evangelical nature of its witness.
He maintained that the liberals were agitating for reform purely as a matter of political maneuvre. It was a deceptive strategy on their part to gain power in the courts of the church. They were ecclesiastical cuckoos seeking to gain fraudulent control of the evangelical nest.. Unable to set up their own churches through the impotence of their modernist message, they sought to supplant the churches of the Methodist Fathers, established by evangelical zeal for the 'old' gospel.
Their cry for freedom sounded laudable until Williams observed : 'We are not bound by the law, so much as by the Fathers and their scriptural, evangelical faith.' He exposed their doctrinal dishonesty and moral indifference of their position, for the modernist faith 'did not have enough confidence in itself to venture forth to raise a temple to disseminate it. It must rather endeavour to usurp the right to those buildings put up at the expense of the Confession of Faith ... It will be robbing what rightly belongs to others.'
In the discussion which followed through the columns of the denomination's weekly he further charged the modernists with double-talk, a device which utterly confused the common people. The scriptural and historical content of the most fundamental concepts were being shamelessly debased. There could be no prosperity to the church which thus betrayed the truth. A devaluation of the Christian currency could only lead to disaster. Nor would the ecumenical aspirations which motivated the leaders of the reconstruction movement be best served in an atmosphere of doctrinal fog. The interests of both sides could only benefit by clarity, honesty and charity.
Later, Williams acknowledged that 'it was something received in 1904 which encouraged me to stand so resolutely throughout the debate.' The issue was finally resolved when note was taken of his insistence on the inclusion in the Declaratory Statement of clear affirmations regarding the Deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His atoning death, His literal resurrection on the third day and His second coming. The draft document was modified accordingly, and the 1933 Act of Parliament which remains the law of the church incorporates these determinative truths. In this way the 1904 revival has left an abiding mark on the legal structure of that ecclesiastical body.
In spite of these brave efforts it was a hollow victory for orthodoxy. One result of the reconstruction movement was the drawing up of the long-awaited 'Shorter Declaration of Faith.' In its wake T. Nefyn Williams, a minister who had been disciplined for heterodox views in 1928, was able to seek, and receive, readmission with a clear conscience. In his pamphlet Y Fford yr Edrychaf ar Bethau ( The Way I look at Things), as the title suggests, he rejects the biblical and confessional authority in favour of his own moral consciousness. This subjectivist criterion led him to deny all supernatural elements in the gospel narratives from the virgin birth to the bodily resurrection of Christ. It followed that he ridiculed the biblical concepts of original sin and substitutionary atonement. While his expulsion in in 1928 had been an unavoidable necessity, his restoration in the 1930's - without repentance or retraction - marked the beginning of an epoch.
From being an honest dissenter he became the champion of doctrinal deviationists. They used the 'Shorter Declaration of Faith' to salve their conscience from the demands of the fuller and more explicit confession. If the age of doctrinal confusion had not dawned, when men would use theological terms evacuated of their traditional and biblical meaning, it was enough to take shelter under and all-embracing theological umbrella of general concepts. It was an era of dwindling doctrinal requirements. The disintegration of orthodoxy had become an accomplished fact within at least one of the historic denominations."
Well, the pressures of the world's thinking experienced in the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Church in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had its effect on the doctrine of the church. Of course, similar pressures were experienced and succumbed to around the globe but, as a caution to evangelicals in the USA, I bring to attention the declension to heresy occurring within the Episcopalian Church in Sydney. Evangelicals in the USA beware.
A century ago, modernism was the trojan horse used of the Evil One to gain entry into the Church's thinking and undermine the authority vested in the Word of God. Today it is post-modernism used of the Evil One to undermine the authority vested in the Word of God. The constant in both scenes is the offensive notion that the frustration, suffering, disease and death riddled and dead end laced process of evolution was the means used by God in creation. This, in spite of the clear utterance of God in Exodus 20:11 and supported unreservedly in Genesis 1 and Exodus 31:16-18 to the contrary. The beauty, for the purposes of deception, in the post-modernist approach to Scripture is that it affords a 'legitimacy' to a reader to reinterpret the Word of God to what the reader wants. In this situation the reader simply contends he/she is understanding the mind of the author and the original audience. Ultimately, it is the post-modernist reader who is interpreting the passage to his/her conditioned mind, a mind conditioned by the influences of the world or the Evil One.
Post-Modernist thought is as slippery as the 'theory of evolution' and difficult to tie down. Post-Modernists can accuse their opponents of doing the very thing they, themselves, do with Scripture. This was demonstrated by a recent anonymous correspondent to the comments section of this blogspot.
As regards the Episcopalian Church in Sydney it is evident that graduates of the theological seminary of the Diocese are increasingly unwilling to refute Theistic Evolution and some actually promote this view of origins. Thus the tumour is healthy and growing. Who knows what doctrines of the church will come under assault in the future. Will the long established evangelical 'Articles of Religion' of the Episcopalian Church come to be amended and will the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, Australia play a role in this change? One thing we can be confident of is that declension is occurring concerning belief in the Person of Jesus Christ and His glory in Creation. To the mind of this writer this is a heresy.
Evangelicals in the United States of America beware of what is going on here in Sydney, Australia.
Sam Drucker
Perhaps the largest evangelical Episcopalian Diocese in the world, the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church in Australia, if known at all by evangelicals in the USA, has also been looked upon with a little suspicion because .... well, it is Episcopalian. At the very least a 'watch' was put on the Diocese by those who had any interest in goings on here. From the perspective of the Diocese, some twenty years ago or more there were attempts to say to evangelicals in the USA that "we're okay". Evangelical conference attendance in the USA and promotion of the Sydney theological seminary, Moore College, were strategies designed to demonstrate the acceptability of the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese. Leading evangelicals in the USA were invited to speak at conferences here. Underlying everything else the conferences were hoped to achieve was the hope that we could be seen as okay to evangelicals in the USA.
This essay is designed to disprove the notion that all is well in the Episcopalian Church in Sydney, Australia. Things had been better in the past but declension is well under way. The declension has its roots in the teaching of the theological seminary called Moore College over the past twenty to thirty years. In that time a tumour (English spelling) developed and has been left unchecked to this day. Unchecked, it will consume all other doctrines of God which are reformed and evangelical.
The tumour is what is called Theistic Evolution. It is now vigorously defended within the Diocese as a model for the origin of life. The defence goes all the way to the top position of the Diocese and still has refuge within the theological seminary of the Diocese.
Where then is the Episcopalian Church in Sydney, Australia headed? Perhaps a look at the history of the evangelical church in Wales, Great Britain some one hundred years or more ago will provide some insight.
A friend of mine is interested in Revivals. His interest is greater than mine. He recently loaned me a book entitled "The Welsh Revival of 1904" written by Eifion Evans and published by Bryntirion Press. I found it a very sobering summary of the revival which occurred in Wales and to Welsh people in other parts of Great Britain. Of particular interest to my friend was the observation that unlike earlier revivals this revival did not occur with an emphasis on biblical preaching and teaching. It was more a consequence of calling on the Holy Spirit's presence and activity through prayer. The effects of the revival were perhaps not as prolonged or extensive of those that had gone before.
Enough of that, what I want to raise here is the state of the church in Wales prior to and after the revival of 1904.
Eifion Evans observed that, in the years prior to 1904, the emergence of Psychology, Liberalism, Higher Criticism and the influence of Evolutionary Theory affected the doctrine of the churches. Evans writes on page 44, "The sheer intoxication of a new theology which championed so loudly a release from the trammels of traditional orthodoxy blinded many to its utter contingency. Liberal theology was not merely taking away the decorative appurtenances of Christianity, it was demolishing its very foundations." Evans goes on to say "The spiritual bankruptcy of the churches, thus deprived of the very cause and meaning of their existence, was the subject of many complaints before the revival broke out."
Well, the revival occurred and some 59,000 were added to the nonconformist churches in Wales. The Church of England and the Church of Rome figures were unknown. However, of those 59,000 it seems at least 20,000 fell away in later years. It is interesting to then see what Eifion Evans observed in relation to the Calvinistic Methodists after the revival. I will quote Evans from pages 187 to 190 in his sub-heading of Doctrinal Conflict under the chapter headed Militant Aftermath:
"The influence of the 1904 revival was more important in the constitutional history of the Calvinistic Methodists. In the 1920's there was a great deal of discussion within the denomination about the Confession of Faith. The Constitutional Deed of 1826 had been framed to ensure strict adherence to the denomination's doctrinal tenets, and to provide a corresponding legal safeguard for its places of worship. By 1912 there had been an attempt in the courts of the church to secure the framing of a 'Shorter Declaration of Faith', an oblique and indirect criticism of both content and length of the confession being implied. Later the reports of the Reconstruction Commission, which had appeared in the early twenties, strongly urged parliamentary legislation to modify these requirements.
Nantlais Williams, one of the revival's most illustrious converts, was in the vanguard of the opposition to this move. His objections were grounded on the conviction that the advocates of a liberal theology were seeking the legal and doctrinal leverage necessary to take over the denominational machinery and to bring about a radical change in the evangelical nature of its witness.
He maintained that the liberals were agitating for reform purely as a matter of political maneuvre. It was a deceptive strategy on their part to gain power in the courts of the church. They were ecclesiastical cuckoos seeking to gain fraudulent control of the evangelical nest.. Unable to set up their own churches through the impotence of their modernist message, they sought to supplant the churches of the Methodist Fathers, established by evangelical zeal for the 'old' gospel.
Their cry for freedom sounded laudable until Williams observed : 'We are not bound by the law, so much as by the Fathers and their scriptural, evangelical faith.' He exposed their doctrinal dishonesty and moral indifference of their position, for the modernist faith 'did not have enough confidence in itself to venture forth to raise a temple to disseminate it. It must rather endeavour to usurp the right to those buildings put up at the expense of the Confession of Faith ... It will be robbing what rightly belongs to others.'
In the discussion which followed through the columns of the denomination's weekly he further charged the modernists with double-talk, a device which utterly confused the common people. The scriptural and historical content of the most fundamental concepts were being shamelessly debased. There could be no prosperity to the church which thus betrayed the truth. A devaluation of the Christian currency could only lead to disaster. Nor would the ecumenical aspirations which motivated the leaders of the reconstruction movement be best served in an atmosphere of doctrinal fog. The interests of both sides could only benefit by clarity, honesty and charity.
Later, Williams acknowledged that 'it was something received in 1904 which encouraged me to stand so resolutely throughout the debate.' The issue was finally resolved when note was taken of his insistence on the inclusion in the Declaratory Statement of clear affirmations regarding the Deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His atoning death, His literal resurrection on the third day and His second coming. The draft document was modified accordingly, and the 1933 Act of Parliament which remains the law of the church incorporates these determinative truths. In this way the 1904 revival has left an abiding mark on the legal structure of that ecclesiastical body.
In spite of these brave efforts it was a hollow victory for orthodoxy. One result of the reconstruction movement was the drawing up of the long-awaited 'Shorter Declaration of Faith.' In its wake T. Nefyn Williams, a minister who had been disciplined for heterodox views in 1928, was able to seek, and receive, readmission with a clear conscience. In his pamphlet Y Fford yr Edrychaf ar Bethau ( The Way I look at Things), as the title suggests, he rejects the biblical and confessional authority in favour of his own moral consciousness. This subjectivist criterion led him to deny all supernatural elements in the gospel narratives from the virgin birth to the bodily resurrection of Christ. It followed that he ridiculed the biblical concepts of original sin and substitutionary atonement. While his expulsion in in 1928 had been an unavoidable necessity, his restoration in the 1930's - without repentance or retraction - marked the beginning of an epoch.
From being an honest dissenter he became the champion of doctrinal deviationists. They used the 'Shorter Declaration of Faith' to salve their conscience from the demands of the fuller and more explicit confession. If the age of doctrinal confusion had not dawned, when men would use theological terms evacuated of their traditional and biblical meaning, it was enough to take shelter under and all-embracing theological umbrella of general concepts. It was an era of dwindling doctrinal requirements. The disintegration of orthodoxy had become an accomplished fact within at least one of the historic denominations."
Well, the pressures of the world's thinking experienced in the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Church in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had its effect on the doctrine of the church. Of course, similar pressures were experienced and succumbed to around the globe but, as a caution to evangelicals in the USA, I bring to attention the declension to heresy occurring within the Episcopalian Church in Sydney. Evangelicals in the USA beware.
A century ago, modernism was the trojan horse used of the Evil One to gain entry into the Church's thinking and undermine the authority vested in the Word of God. Today it is post-modernism used of the Evil One to undermine the authority vested in the Word of God. The constant in both scenes is the offensive notion that the frustration, suffering, disease and death riddled and dead end laced process of evolution was the means used by God in creation. This, in spite of the clear utterance of God in Exodus 20:11 and supported unreservedly in Genesis 1 and Exodus 31:16-18 to the contrary. The beauty, for the purposes of deception, in the post-modernist approach to Scripture is that it affords a 'legitimacy' to a reader to reinterpret the Word of God to what the reader wants. In this situation the reader simply contends he/she is understanding the mind of the author and the original audience. Ultimately, it is the post-modernist reader who is interpreting the passage to his/her conditioned mind, a mind conditioned by the influences of the world or the Evil One.
Post-Modernist thought is as slippery as the 'theory of evolution' and difficult to tie down. Post-Modernists can accuse their opponents of doing the very thing they, themselves, do with Scripture. This was demonstrated by a recent anonymous correspondent to the comments section of this blogspot.
As regards the Episcopalian Church in Sydney it is evident that graduates of the theological seminary of the Diocese are increasingly unwilling to refute Theistic Evolution and some actually promote this view of origins. Thus the tumour is healthy and growing. Who knows what doctrines of the church will come under assault in the future. Will the long established evangelical 'Articles of Religion' of the Episcopalian Church come to be amended and will the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, Australia play a role in this change? One thing we can be confident of is that declension is occurring concerning belief in the Person of Jesus Christ and His glory in Creation. To the mind of this writer this is a heresy.
Evangelicals in the United States of America beware of what is going on here in Sydney, Australia.
Sam Drucker
Monday, July 2, 2007
Reviews, Articles in Journal of Creation
Chaps and Chapettes,
In the latest Journal of Creation there are quite a few goodies which may interest bloggers and commenters:
Reviews:
Secular sermons
A review of A Devil’s Chaplin: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins
Book Review by Lael Weinberger
Theistic evolution—a greater fairytale for mankind
A review of Evolution from Creation: Conflict, Conversation, and Convergence by Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett
Book Review by David Stevens
Atheist with a mission
A review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
Book Review by Philip Bell
Good approach misapplied to get ‘analogical days’
A review of Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary by C. John Collins
Book Review by Frank DeRemer
Evolution’s theological underpinnings
A review of Darwin’s Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science by Cornelius Hunter
Book Review by Chase Nelson
and articles:
The meaning of yôm in Genesis 1:1–2:4
Countering the Critics Article by Francis Humphrey
On literary theorists’ approach to Genesis 1: Part 1
Paper by Marc Kay
Both these articles touch on matters raised here: the former by a PhD on the language, the latter on the 'twisting of scripture' to use James Sire's book title.
There's a pile of other good stuff too: as usual.
I've also been reading Living Tradition at: http://www.rtforum.org/lt/index.html which has some interesting articles on origins, theology and Genesis. It is a Roman Catholic journal, but I assume we're all consenting adults here and can read RC material. But, good stuff here on form criticism and Gunkel. What I particularly like is the demand for form critics to supply evidence for their indulgences: I'd like to see some commenters do the same!
In the latest Journal of Creation there are quite a few goodies which may interest bloggers and commenters:
Reviews:
Secular sermons
A review of A Devil’s Chaplin: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins
Book Review by Lael Weinberger
Theistic evolution—a greater fairytale for mankind
A review of Evolution from Creation: Conflict, Conversation, and Convergence by Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett
Book Review by David Stevens
Atheist with a mission
A review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
Book Review by Philip Bell
Good approach misapplied to get ‘analogical days’
A review of Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary by C. John Collins
Book Review by Frank DeRemer
Evolution’s theological underpinnings
A review of Darwin’s Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science by Cornelius Hunter
Book Review by Chase Nelson
and articles:
The meaning of yôm in Genesis 1:1–2:4
Countering the Critics Article by Francis Humphrey
On literary theorists’ approach to Genesis 1: Part 1
Paper by Marc Kay
Both these articles touch on matters raised here: the former by a PhD on the language, the latter on the 'twisting of scripture' to use James Sire's book title.
There's a pile of other good stuff too: as usual.
I've also been reading Living Tradition at: http://www.rtforum.org/lt/index.html which has some interesting articles on origins, theology and Genesis. It is a Roman Catholic journal, but I assume we're all consenting adults here and can read RC material. But, good stuff here on form criticism and Gunkel. What I particularly like is the demand for form critics to supply evidence for their indulgences: I'd like to see some commenters do the same!
For whom the bell does Cheng
Here we have, on the one hand, a worthy of this diocese criticising a brother because he quotes the language used against him (and I know, librarians typically have to put up with this sort of talk), and uses some colourful language of his own, but on the other, not checking for logs closer to home.
Gordon, do you not permit the title ‘Reverend’ in relation to yourself? Despite that only God is to be revered and that in Matthew Jesus tells us not to take honours to ourselves? I’d prefer profanity to blasphemy any day (ref Matt 23:6-10 and an article by Darryl Erkel at http://www.5solas.org “Church Leaders & The Use of Honorific Titles”).
I also know of a clergyman who affects to be repelled by profanity, but was once quite happy to undermine a senior minister’s work by claiming that said senior minister didn’t represent the gospel. Ring any bells Gordon (James 3:8)?
Gordon, do you not permit the title ‘Reverend’ in relation to yourself? Despite that only God is to be revered and that in Matthew Jesus tells us not to take honours to ourselves? I’d prefer profanity to blasphemy any day (ref Matt 23:6-10 and an article by Darryl Erkel at http://www.5solas.org “Church Leaders & The Use of Honorific Titles”).
I also know of a clergyman who affects to be repelled by profanity, but was once quite happy to undermine a senior minister’s work by claiming that said senior minister didn’t represent the gospel. Ring any bells Gordon (James 3:8)?
What is ISCAST, really?
We all know that ISCAST claims to stand for the Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology, but does it? I’m going on behaviour here, as I've attended a number of ISCAST functions over the years, and want to find what it really stands for.
Perhaps it is:
Institute for Sabotaging Christianity by Aquiesing to Scientistic Tergiversation
or it could be:
I Suddenly Cast Away Scriptural Teaching
or maybe:
In here we Secretly Contradict All the Spirit Tells;
or is it:
Insipiently Some Christans Aren’t Sure about Theology: ISCAST members, of course.
If we all work together on this, we might just crack the code.
The best entry goes in the draw for a night at Penrith Panthers (winner must provide own transport).
Perhaps it is:
Institute for Sabotaging Christianity by Aquiesing to Scientistic Tergiversation
or it could be:
I Suddenly Cast Away Scriptural Teaching
or maybe:
In here we Secretly Contradict All the Spirit Tells;
or is it:
Insipiently Some Christans Aren’t Sure about Theology: ISCAST members, of course.
If we all work together on this, we might just crack the code.
The best entry goes in the draw for a night at Penrith Panthers (winner must provide own transport).
Monday, June 11, 2007
Singing Morning Prayer (AAPB)
Yesterday (Sunday) as we were singing Morning Prayer, I was reflecting on the elephant hurled by a commenter on this blog, of ‘genre’ criticism. This has come up a couple of times as though the mere mention of this critical approach will somehow bring to heel the dogs of the literary scallywags who accept the direct meaning of Genesis 1.
Morning Prayer went on, and we got to Psalm 95. This is what we today would call poetry: but a 'song' to the Hebrews. I don’t think the word ‘poetry’ is known in the OT. The genre boosters would have, I think, that as soon as a piece is defined as ‘poetry’, it ceases to make meaningful reference to the real world. If they didn’t then they wouldn’t keep insisting that the identification of genre (‘list’ in the case of Genesis 1, which is a sub genre of ‘narrative’), which they don’t identify when it comes to Genesis 1, despatches the topic of interpretation of the passage.
Of course two things are confused here: what the text says, and what it means. Gunkel, Von Rad, Barr et al insist that the text says that God created in six normal ‘evening and morning’ type (i.e. 24 hour) days. They think it means little outside the tribe, it being, to them, a tribal myth and having little if anything to do with the real world (I’ll leave you, dear reader, to untangle the ontological conundrum this last phrase entails for the Christian). But that’s what the authors meant to communicate. That falls into line with most readers’ views until materialism reared its banal head in the 1800s.
But, let’s look at a couple of what we might call poems, and see what their being poems does for their relation to the real world.
Psalm 95 first. What I’ll do is comment on the factualness or not of each line or idea.
O come, let us sing for joy to the LORD,
FACT: there is a “Lord’ to whom we can sing, and joyfully.
Let us shout joyfully to the rock of our salvation.
FACT: God is our rock (a metaphor for stable one) and the source of our salvation.
Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving
FACT: it is possible to come before his presence with thanksgiving.
Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms.
FACT: what is not factual about this?
For the LORD is a great God And a great King above all gods,
FACT: I think that line is all factual.
In whose hand are the depths of the earth,
FICTION: the depths of the earth are well known to not be in God’s hands. Deep drilling for oil has not detected hands at any depth, let alone the deepest. Alternatively, this might be a metaphor to the factual statement of God’s disposing power over the planet.
The peaks of the mountains are His also.
FACT: If you accept the Bible’s statements about God (including Genesis 1 as being factual) then this is factual. Not only the peaks, mind you, but the slopes, cliffs and ledges too! Of course, if Genesis 1 is not factual, then this is a mistake.
The sea is His, for it was He who made it,
FACT: according to the Bible, God is he who made and therefore owns the sea. If you don’t follow Genesis 1, then this of course is another mistake. Take your pick.
And His hands formed the dry land.
FACT if your beliefs are biblically informed, fiction if they are not. Taking the latter view: it is well known that dry land is formed by the recession of the sea and subsequent drying by solar action and not by hands. Hands big enough have never been seen. It could of course be a metaphor. Metaphors are a well-known means of communicating and most primary school graduates can detect them; indeed, use them.
Come, let us worship and bow down,
Let us kneel before the LORD our Maker.
For He is our God,
FICTION: As this is poetry, I guess we must deduce that the Lord is not our Maker, nor our God and we cannot worship, bow down or kneel before him. However, I have seen people do all of these things on their presumption that God is their maker!
And we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand.
Clearly FICTION. We are not people of pastures and certainly not sheep.
Today, if you would hear His voice,
FICTION: God does not have a normally audible voice. Although Paul the apostle might contest that.
Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah,
As in the day of Massah in the wilderness,
"When your fathers tested Me,
FACT.
They tried Me, though they had seen My work.
FACT
"For forty years I loathed that generation,
And said they are a people who err in their heart,
And they do not know My ways.
"Therefore I swore in My anger,
Truly they shall not enter into My rest."
FACT, fact and more fact.
So, what does the genre of ‘song’ do for the facticity of most of the content of Psalm 95? Not a lot!
We could apply the same to Waltzing Matilda.
What in the following does not have a real world counterpart: billabong, jumbuck, squatter, trooper, waltzing, matildas (a world war 2 small tank), billy, boiling (in most parts of the earth water will be able to be boiled), tree, shade, one, two, three (these are well known natural numbers and occur in many songs, either alone or together), and so on.
So, the genre of Waltzing Matilda (song/poem) does not let us escape that most of it has a real world referent! That is, it is written on a highly factual framework. Indeed, if one were familiar with the 1890’s depression in Australia, the song would be close to a news report in content. Did it really happen? I don’t know, did it?
The thing is, the song doesn’t claim to be reportage. Genesis 1 does (and is treated as such elsewhere in the Bible). But there is nothing in the song, or Psalm 95, for that matter, which is counter-factual.
Now, what would it tell us if Genesis 1 was poetry? It is not, by the way. Its literary structure is list like and nothing like what we like to call ‘poetry’ in the Bible. Compare Ps 95, as a case in point. Compare it on the other hand to the many lists in the Bible! Does it contain other literary devices? Probably. All literature contains literary devices. It is unavoidable: that’s the way of literature. Commit to written words and you would be hard pressed to avoid them. So, it tells us nothing that Genesis 1 has a particular genre, unless that is explicated for our enlightenment. It tells us nothing that Genesis 1 has particular literary devices; especially when it is recognised that before typographic conventions were developed, literary devices substituted to give structure to the text. Today, of course, we’d just select the whole list of days in our word processor and make it a ‘bulleted’ list, as below.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (TITLE)
· <> The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
· <>Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
· <>Then God said, " Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
· <>Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
· <>Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
· <>Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, " Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so. God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Seeing most translators are free and easy with interpretation through typography, perhaps in generations to come we’ll see translations with bulleted lists, numbered lists, and so on . . how kewl would that be?!
What we learn from the vague references to ‘literary devices’ or ‘genre’ is precisely nothing that would detract from the factual content of Genesis 1. Unless we are given precise reasons! You might also note the distinct narrative style that dominates the passage: the recurrent ‘then God said’ is a characteristic of narrative accounts of events. The numbering of days gives precision to the account which is repeated in other numbered passages and use of numbers elsewhere in the Bible and by my accountant; and in a manner atypical of myth, for instance (although the Taxation Commissioner does regard some accounts as largely myth).
________
On a similar theme in the Sydney Morning Herald “Spectrum” section one of the questions this week in ‘Big Questions’ was “who was God talking to when he said ‘let there be light’, and so on.”
Of course, the answer is: he wasn’t ‘talking’ to anyone, but as a simple spiritual being (simple as in having no parts), God’s only mode of action is by will, and is propositional, Therefore he is telling us his method of creation: by speaking. Refer also to Hebrews 11:3. The word for ‘word’ here is “reemati’: his ‘word’ of speaking, not of being. That is, not ‘logos’. The significance is that Hebrews tells us that God’s ‘method’ of creation is speaking. Note the rest of the verse too.
Back to the ‘genre’ idea. The forerunner of ‘genre’ criticism was form criticism. This was introduced to the world by Hermann Gunkel. He was a refreshing break from the source criticism guys (JEDP) whose tedium had dominated then recent scholarship, largely to much heat and little light, and his innovation was the view that the ‘forms’ of the OT were based on long oral traditions, reduced to writing at the time of the exile. Great assumption Hermann!
The genre critics go one better by claiming that the genre, or type of the passage will determine our reading of it (Gunkel said the same thing, but he thought there were only two genres; narrative and poetry). Not bad, as far as it goes, but where it goes when it comes to Genesis 1 (or most other chapters in Genesis) is straight to narrative. I’ve been through that above. There is nothing in the text that should persuade us that it is anything but a straightforward account of actions producing events in real time and space, after time and space were created, of course, in Gen 1:1. It uses a style to delimit a list without using typographical bullets (which hadn’t been invented, because, of course, it was before the time of real bullets); that is, a recurrent termination of each day. It uses consecutive language introducing each day, furthering the delimitation of the list elements, but also ensuring we understand the passing of time and movement of events, and it counts the days, just to make sure we don’t miss the point. Over this it tells us, in the terminal delimiter, that the days are ‘evening and morning’ type days. Its as though the writer has gone over the top to make the point: here is a list of events taking place on 6, six, VI, half a dozen . . days, one after the other.
If you don’t want to accept this, then don’t but please don’t try to pretend that Genesis 1 is anything other than what it is (I refer to Meredith Kline, John Dickson, John Polkinghorne, Philip and Peter Jensen and the entire cast and crew of ISCAST: the “Institute for Sacrificing Christianity by Acquiescing to Social Trends” to name a few).
Morning Prayer went on, and we got to Psalm 95. This is what we today would call poetry: but a 'song' to the Hebrews. I don’t think the word ‘poetry’ is known in the OT. The genre boosters would have, I think, that as soon as a piece is defined as ‘poetry’, it ceases to make meaningful reference to the real world. If they didn’t then they wouldn’t keep insisting that the identification of genre (‘list’ in the case of Genesis 1, which is a sub genre of ‘narrative’), which they don’t identify when it comes to Genesis 1, despatches the topic of interpretation of the passage.
Of course two things are confused here: what the text says, and what it means. Gunkel, Von Rad, Barr et al insist that the text says that God created in six normal ‘evening and morning’ type (i.e. 24 hour) days. They think it means little outside the tribe, it being, to them, a tribal myth and having little if anything to do with the real world (I’ll leave you, dear reader, to untangle the ontological conundrum this last phrase entails for the Christian). But that’s what the authors meant to communicate. That falls into line with most readers’ views until materialism reared its banal head in the 1800s.
But, let’s look at a couple of what we might call poems, and see what their being poems does for their relation to the real world.
Psalm 95 first. What I’ll do is comment on the factualness or not of each line or idea.
O come, let us sing for joy to the LORD,
FACT: there is a “Lord’ to whom we can sing, and joyfully.
Let us shout joyfully to the rock of our salvation.
FACT: God is our rock (a metaphor for stable one) and the source of our salvation.
Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving
FACT: it is possible to come before his presence with thanksgiving.
Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms.
FACT: what is not factual about this?
For the LORD is a great God And a great King above all gods,
FACT: I think that line is all factual.
In whose hand are the depths of the earth,
FICTION: the depths of the earth are well known to not be in God’s hands. Deep drilling for oil has not detected hands at any depth, let alone the deepest. Alternatively, this might be a metaphor to the factual statement of God’s disposing power over the planet.
The peaks of the mountains are His also.
FACT: If you accept the Bible’s statements about God (including Genesis 1 as being factual) then this is factual. Not only the peaks, mind you, but the slopes, cliffs and ledges too! Of course, if Genesis 1 is not factual, then this is a mistake.
The sea is His, for it was He who made it,
FACT: according to the Bible, God is he who made and therefore owns the sea. If you don’t follow Genesis 1, then this of course is another mistake. Take your pick.
And His hands formed the dry land.
FACT if your beliefs are biblically informed, fiction if they are not. Taking the latter view: it is well known that dry land is formed by the recession of the sea and subsequent drying by solar action and not by hands. Hands big enough have never been seen. It could of course be a metaphor. Metaphors are a well-known means of communicating and most primary school graduates can detect them; indeed, use them.
Come, let us worship and bow down,
Let us kneel before the LORD our Maker.
For He is our God,
FICTION: As this is poetry, I guess we must deduce that the Lord is not our Maker, nor our God and we cannot worship, bow down or kneel before him. However, I have seen people do all of these things on their presumption that God is their maker!
And we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand.
Clearly FICTION. We are not people of pastures and certainly not sheep.
Today, if you would hear His voice,
FICTION: God does not have a normally audible voice. Although Paul the apostle might contest that.
Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah,
As in the day of Massah in the wilderness,
"When your fathers tested Me,
FACT.
They tried Me, though they had seen My work.
FACT
"For forty years I loathed that generation,
And said they are a people who err in their heart,
And they do not know My ways.
"Therefore I swore in My anger,
Truly they shall not enter into My rest."
FACT, fact and more fact.
So, what does the genre of ‘song’ do for the facticity of most of the content of Psalm 95? Not a lot!
We could apply the same to Waltzing Matilda.
What in the following does not have a real world counterpart: billabong, jumbuck, squatter, trooper, waltzing, matildas (a world war 2 small tank), billy, boiling (in most parts of the earth water will be able to be boiled), tree, shade, one, two, three (these are well known natural numbers and occur in many songs, either alone or together), and so on.
So, the genre of Waltzing Matilda (song/poem) does not let us escape that most of it has a real world referent! That is, it is written on a highly factual framework. Indeed, if one were familiar with the 1890’s depression in Australia, the song would be close to a news report in content. Did it really happen? I don’t know, did it?
The thing is, the song doesn’t claim to be reportage. Genesis 1 does (and is treated as such elsewhere in the Bible). But there is nothing in the song, or Psalm 95, for that matter, which is counter-factual.
Now, what would it tell us if Genesis 1 was poetry? It is not, by the way. Its literary structure is list like and nothing like what we like to call ‘poetry’ in the Bible. Compare Ps 95, as a case in point. Compare it on the other hand to the many lists in the Bible! Does it contain other literary devices? Probably. All literature contains literary devices. It is unavoidable: that’s the way of literature. Commit to written words and you would be hard pressed to avoid them. So, it tells us nothing that Genesis 1 has a particular genre, unless that is explicated for our enlightenment. It tells us nothing that Genesis 1 has particular literary devices; especially when it is recognised that before typographic conventions were developed, literary devices substituted to give structure to the text. Today, of course, we’d just select the whole list of days in our word processor and make it a ‘bulleted’ list, as below.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (TITLE)
· <> The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
· <>Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
· <>Then God said, " Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
· <>Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
· <>Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
· <>Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, " Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so. God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Seeing most translators are free and easy with interpretation through typography, perhaps in generations to come we’ll see translations with bulleted lists, numbered lists, and so on . . how kewl would that be?!
What we learn from the vague references to ‘literary devices’ or ‘genre’ is precisely nothing that would detract from the factual content of Genesis 1. Unless we are given precise reasons! You might also note the distinct narrative style that dominates the passage: the recurrent ‘then God said’ is a characteristic of narrative accounts of events. The numbering of days gives precision to the account which is repeated in other numbered passages and use of numbers elsewhere in the Bible and by my accountant; and in a manner atypical of myth, for instance (although the Taxation Commissioner does regard some accounts as largely myth).
________
On a similar theme in the Sydney Morning Herald “Spectrum” section one of the questions this week in ‘Big Questions’ was “who was God talking to when he said ‘let there be light’, and so on.”
Of course, the answer is: he wasn’t ‘talking’ to anyone, but as a simple spiritual being (simple as in having no parts), God’s only mode of action is by will, and is propositional, Therefore he is telling us his method of creation: by speaking. Refer also to Hebrews 11:3. The word for ‘word’ here is “reemati’: his ‘word’ of speaking, not of being. That is, not ‘logos’. The significance is that Hebrews tells us that God’s ‘method’ of creation is speaking. Note the rest of the verse too.
Back to the ‘genre’ idea. The forerunner of ‘genre’ criticism was form criticism. This was introduced to the world by Hermann Gunkel. He was a refreshing break from the source criticism guys (JEDP) whose tedium had dominated then recent scholarship, largely to much heat and little light, and his innovation was the view that the ‘forms’ of the OT were based on long oral traditions, reduced to writing at the time of the exile. Great assumption Hermann!
The genre critics go one better by claiming that the genre, or type of the passage will determine our reading of it (Gunkel said the same thing, but he thought there were only two genres; narrative and poetry). Not bad, as far as it goes, but where it goes when it comes to Genesis 1 (or most other chapters in Genesis) is straight to narrative. I’ve been through that above. There is nothing in the text that should persuade us that it is anything but a straightforward account of actions producing events in real time and space, after time and space were created, of course, in Gen 1:1. It uses a style to delimit a list without using typographical bullets (which hadn’t been invented, because, of course, it was before the time of real bullets); that is, a recurrent termination of each day. It uses consecutive language introducing each day, furthering the delimitation of the list elements, but also ensuring we understand the passing of time and movement of events, and it counts the days, just to make sure we don’t miss the point. Over this it tells us, in the terminal delimiter, that the days are ‘evening and morning’ type days. Its as though the writer has gone over the top to make the point: here is a list of events taking place on 6, six, VI, half a dozen . . days, one after the other.
If you don’t want to accept this, then don’t but please don’t try to pretend that Genesis 1 is anything other than what it is (I refer to Meredith Kline, John Dickson, John Polkinghorne, Philip and Peter Jensen and the entire cast and crew of ISCAST: the “Institute for Sacrificing Christianity by Acquiescing to Social Trends” to name a few).
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Always Reforming?
"When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his clothes." (2 Kings 22:11)
King Josiah had made a startling, distressing discovery. Judah had wandered so far from the Lord. The long lost and now found Book of the Law showed quite clearly how far Judah had moved from living the life of faith required as the People of God. What had been intended at the beginning as a pure life of trusting and honouring God had descended into syncretising with the belief systems of the nations around Judah.
The sin was great and the Lord made it clear destruction was coming on Judah. Josiah's distress and repentance was looked upon favourably by the Lord and Josiah was blessed to not see the destruction to come. He quickly instituted reform.
At other times, whether in the Northern Kingdom of Israel or the Southern Kingdom of Judah, periods of syncretism or worse were notable by the Lord raising up kings more righteous than others or sending prophets to call the people back to trusting Him and His Word. There were times of correction under more righteous kings but overall the slide was in one direction. As regarding the prophets, a blessing is not received as a blessing if one is determined to continue in one's ways. For many, the prophets' message was rude and blunt and the life the prophets called the people to was unpalatable compared to the life they were living. Understandably, rejection of the message of the prophets resulted in destruction. The Lord does not withhold justice indefinitely.
The history of the Church established by Jesus Christ is not without similar episodes of 'ebbs and flows'. I turn my attention to one episode which has a clear message for the Church today.
I commend to the reader the late Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones' address entitled "1662-1962 : From Puritanism to Non-conformity" given as the Annual Lecture of the Evangelical Library for 1962. A forty eight page reprinting of the address has been undertaken by the Evangelical Press of Wales in conjunction with the Evangelical Library, London.
Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a great reader and built a solid understanding of developments in the Church from the time of the Reformation up to his own time. In his address at the Annual Lecture of the Evangelical Library for 1962 he goes back to the Reformation to provide a synopsis of one hundred years of activity and individuals leading to the Act of Uniformity in 1662. Dr Lloyd-Jones was drawing from history to caution against the Ecumenical Movement of mid last century.
"1662-1962! There has never been a time, perhaps, since 1662, when conditions, and the whole atmosphere and climate of thought and of opinion, were more inimical to what we are doing to-night than this very period in which we live. We are living in an age which seems to me to be an exact reproduction of what we are told about the children of Israel in Judges 2:10, '....And there arose another generation after them, a generation which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works He had done for Israel.' Now that is a very significant statement. You observe that they not only did not know the Lord, they did not even know their history - they did not really know what the Lord had done for Israel before their time. That is a perfect description of this age. It is an age which does not know the Lord as the fathers knew Him, and the result is that it is not interested in the fathers either; it is not interested in what God has done in past ages and generations. It is an age which is self-centred and very proud of itself, proud of the twentieth century, proud of its knowledge, proud of its learning, and especially proud of its superiority over the preceding age." Dr Lloyd-Jones goes on to apply this scenario to the advocates of "ecumenicity" who, he asserts, pay lip service to the Reformers and Puritans and, of whom, "At the very best they are excused in a patronizing manner. The argument is that we are in such an entirely different position to-day because of our 'advance', and our greatly increased knowledge and understanding as contrasted with the people 300 years ago, that we can no longer possibly hold the views which they held."
"Fast-forwarding to the early part of the twenty-first century, do we not find these words of Dr Lloyd-Jones having resonance with the thinking of today's Church concerning the view and teaching of the Reformers and Puritans on the creation account in Genesis? As if to reinforce the point for today's issue, Dr Lloyd-Jones goes on to cite an advocate of 'ecumenicity', Rev John Huxtable. Note carefully a term used which is applied today to Biblical Creationists.
"Let me give but one illustration of this from a recent address by the present chairman of the Congregational Union of England and Wales. 'Next' he says, 'we must reckon with a different attitude to the Bible. Part of our fathers' security was in the Bible; and here we confront another revolution. They handled the Bible in a way no longer possible. I doubt whether John Calvin was what is now crudely called a Fundamentalist (emphasis mine); but those parts of his writings which have given rise to this modern heresy had great influence over our fathers.' " Dr Lloyd-Jones ponders how advocates of ecumenicity could link the events leading up to and including the Act of Uniformity of 1662 with the ecumenical movement of the twentieth century. He says, "So they find themselves in this curious position of feeling compelled to praise these men, but, at the same time, compelled to indicate quite clearly that their motives and ideas and reasons were altogether wrong, and quite impossible for us with our new and greater understanding of the Scripture."
"The more I read these modern references to 1662 the more I am reminded of what our Lord says in Matthew 23: 29-31 'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.' What is the point of of praising the fathers of 1662 if you say that they were essentially wrong in their teaching and outlook? That is to put yourself into the position of enemies of the men whose glorious memory we are commemorating this evening."
Precisely the same observation can be applied to many in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church when they claim to be 'Reformed' in the tradition of Martin Luther and John Calvin. They praise these men, their colleagues and the Puritans for their doctrine yet they deny the doctrine and teaching of these 'fathers' on the creation account contained in Genesis. The same Sydney Anglicans are witnesses to themselves that they are children of those who were enemies of the Reformers and Puritans.
I might add that I am confident that Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones would share my view here. He had long been opposed to Evolution as a theory on life. He had also been earlier influenced by B. B. Warfield so he quite possibly held to a 'long age' for the earth. However, later in life Dr Lloyd-Jones rejected this view and came to be what is today roughly called a YEC but more appropriately called a Biblical Creationist.
Well, where does this all this lead us? Is there a lesson from the past for the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church? Most certainly! The Ecumenical Movement is not dead but it is probably does not have the momentum today it had fifty years ago.
Yet the issue of what is today defined as Biblical Creationism, the belief of the Reformers and Puritans, is no longer the mainstream teaching of the Church. Instead, a form of syncretism, a merging of the world's view of origins and the Biblical account pervades to the exclusion of pure truth.
How can this now despised teaching of the Reformers and Puritans regain its place in the doctrine of a Church declaring itself to be Reformed?
It will be difficult because the impure abounds with great freedom. It is entrenched! How prophetic was the utterance of Puritan and Martyr, John Hooper, when speaking of the perceived indifference within the Church of England to retaining certain objects of Romanism. He said, "Great shame it is for a noble king, emperor, or magistrate contrary unto God's Word to detain and keep from the devil, or his minister, any of their goods or treasures as candles, vestments, crosses, altars! For if they be kept in the church as things indifferent, at length they will be maintained as things necessary."
In similar vein, propositions such as theistic evolution, gap theory, day age and progressive creation were received into the Church as "just other possibilities" alongside biblical creationism but, as a body of thought opposed to biblical creationism, these intruders are now settled and dictate terms. In the main, to suggest having a biblical creationist speak to a congregation within the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church is to invoke, at the least, avoidance and, at worst, verbal hostility.
How can this sorry situation be redressed.
Well, King Josiah upon recognising how far Judah had departed from the pure Word of God was so grieved as to to rend his clothes and then inquire of the Lord. He later renewed the Covenant with the Lord and then instituted reforms in Judah.
By the inspiration of Holy Spirit, Martin Luther saw how far the Church of Rome had departed from the pure Word of God. By the grace of God he became a key means of reforming the Church.
The Puritans sought to complete the Reformation. Puritanism was defined this way: "It was a purification, an effort, wise or unwise, to rid the Christianity of England from all adhesions foreign to its nature, or obstructive to its power; an endeavour to remove everything in doctrine, discipline, ceremonial, which during the Middle Ages had been added to the Gospel of Christ." Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones adds something to this definition which seems to come through in Puritan writings so I will add it here; "... that Puritanism was not primarily a preference for one form of church government over another; but it was that outlook and teaching which puts its emphasis upon a life of spiritual, personal religion, an intense realization of the presence of God, a devotion of the entire being to Him."
However, the Puritans did not achieve their goal for the Church but their writings were a significant influence others, particularly on later men such as the Wesleys, Whitefield, Rowlands, Edwards and the Erskines who were key figures used of God for the Great Awakening of the eighteenth century. The Great Awakening came at a time (perhaps even to redress) when the Church had absorbed a deistic view of God. Deism arose from a flawed view of the world and its relationship to the Creator.
Several in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church make claim that the church is "always reforming." This couldn't be any further from the truth. In fact, the Sydney Diocese is regressing. Not as fast as the Anglican Church in other parts of Australia or the globe but it is heading in the same undesirable direction due to the diluting of the pure Word of God with the "flesh of man."
What is needed then is a Reformation. This cannot come about by the will of man but by the Will of God. Elements required are an awakening to the parlous state of the Church, an earnest repentance and calling on the Lord God for forgiveness and cleansing. Only then, by the mercy of God, is He likely to act for the revival of His Church. May it be then that all the aforementioned desires of the Puritans are endowed upon the Church.
May it first be that greater numbers in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church see how far the Church has departed from the pure Word of God on origins and the nature of God. In earnest repentance may they call upon the Lord for forgiveness and cleansing and await His most righteous and merciful blessing.
Sam Drucker
King Josiah had made a startling, distressing discovery. Judah had wandered so far from the Lord. The long lost and now found Book of the Law showed quite clearly how far Judah had moved from living the life of faith required as the People of God. What had been intended at the beginning as a pure life of trusting and honouring God had descended into syncretising with the belief systems of the nations around Judah.
The sin was great and the Lord made it clear destruction was coming on Judah. Josiah's distress and repentance was looked upon favourably by the Lord and Josiah was blessed to not see the destruction to come. He quickly instituted reform.
At other times, whether in the Northern Kingdom of Israel or the Southern Kingdom of Judah, periods of syncretism or worse were notable by the Lord raising up kings more righteous than others or sending prophets to call the people back to trusting Him and His Word. There were times of correction under more righteous kings but overall the slide was in one direction. As regarding the prophets, a blessing is not received as a blessing if one is determined to continue in one's ways. For many, the prophets' message was rude and blunt and the life the prophets called the people to was unpalatable compared to the life they were living. Understandably, rejection of the message of the prophets resulted in destruction. The Lord does not withhold justice indefinitely.
The history of the Church established by Jesus Christ is not without similar episodes of 'ebbs and flows'. I turn my attention to one episode which has a clear message for the Church today.
I commend to the reader the late Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones' address entitled "1662-1962 : From Puritanism to Non-conformity" given as the Annual Lecture of the Evangelical Library for 1962. A forty eight page reprinting of the address has been undertaken by the Evangelical Press of Wales in conjunction with the Evangelical Library, London.
Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a great reader and built a solid understanding of developments in the Church from the time of the Reformation up to his own time. In his address at the Annual Lecture of the Evangelical Library for 1962 he goes back to the Reformation to provide a synopsis of one hundred years of activity and individuals leading to the Act of Uniformity in 1662. Dr Lloyd-Jones was drawing from history to caution against the Ecumenical Movement of mid last century.
"1662-1962! There has never been a time, perhaps, since 1662, when conditions, and the whole atmosphere and climate of thought and of opinion, were more inimical to what we are doing to-night than this very period in which we live. We are living in an age which seems to me to be an exact reproduction of what we are told about the children of Israel in Judges 2:10, '....And there arose another generation after them, a generation which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works He had done for Israel.' Now that is a very significant statement. You observe that they not only did not know the Lord, they did not even know their history - they did not really know what the Lord had done for Israel before their time. That is a perfect description of this age. It is an age which does not know the Lord as the fathers knew Him, and the result is that it is not interested in the fathers either; it is not interested in what God has done in past ages and generations. It is an age which is self-centred and very proud of itself, proud of the twentieth century, proud of its knowledge, proud of its learning, and especially proud of its superiority over the preceding age." Dr Lloyd-Jones goes on to apply this scenario to the advocates of "ecumenicity" who, he asserts, pay lip service to the Reformers and Puritans and, of whom, "At the very best they are excused in a patronizing manner. The argument is that we are in such an entirely different position to-day because of our 'advance', and our greatly increased knowledge and understanding as contrasted with the people 300 years ago, that we can no longer possibly hold the views which they held."
"Fast-forwarding to the early part of the twenty-first century, do we not find these words of Dr Lloyd-Jones having resonance with the thinking of today's Church concerning the view and teaching of the Reformers and Puritans on the creation account in Genesis? As if to reinforce the point for today's issue, Dr Lloyd-Jones goes on to cite an advocate of 'ecumenicity', Rev John Huxtable. Note carefully a term used which is applied today to Biblical Creationists.
"Let me give but one illustration of this from a recent address by the present chairman of the Congregational Union of England and Wales. 'Next' he says, 'we must reckon with a different attitude to the Bible. Part of our fathers' security was in the Bible; and here we confront another revolution. They handled the Bible in a way no longer possible. I doubt whether John Calvin was what is now crudely called a Fundamentalist (emphasis mine); but those parts of his writings which have given rise to this modern heresy had great influence over our fathers.' " Dr Lloyd-Jones ponders how advocates of ecumenicity could link the events leading up to and including the Act of Uniformity of 1662 with the ecumenical movement of the twentieth century. He says, "So they find themselves in this curious position of feeling compelled to praise these men, but, at the same time, compelled to indicate quite clearly that their motives and ideas and reasons were altogether wrong, and quite impossible for us with our new and greater understanding of the Scripture."
"The more I read these modern references to 1662 the more I am reminded of what our Lord says in Matthew 23: 29-31 'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.' What is the point of of praising the fathers of 1662 if you say that they were essentially wrong in their teaching and outlook? That is to put yourself into the position of enemies of the men whose glorious memory we are commemorating this evening."
Precisely the same observation can be applied to many in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church when they claim to be 'Reformed' in the tradition of Martin Luther and John Calvin. They praise these men, their colleagues and the Puritans for their doctrine yet they deny the doctrine and teaching of these 'fathers' on the creation account contained in Genesis. The same Sydney Anglicans are witnesses to themselves that they are children of those who were enemies of the Reformers and Puritans.
I might add that I am confident that Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones would share my view here. He had long been opposed to Evolution as a theory on life. He had also been earlier influenced by B. B. Warfield so he quite possibly held to a 'long age' for the earth. However, later in life Dr Lloyd-Jones rejected this view and came to be what is today roughly called a YEC but more appropriately called a Biblical Creationist.
Well, where does this all this lead us? Is there a lesson from the past for the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church? Most certainly! The Ecumenical Movement is not dead but it is probably does not have the momentum today it had fifty years ago.
Yet the issue of what is today defined as Biblical Creationism, the belief of the Reformers and Puritans, is no longer the mainstream teaching of the Church. Instead, a form of syncretism, a merging of the world's view of origins and the Biblical account pervades to the exclusion of pure truth.
How can this now despised teaching of the Reformers and Puritans regain its place in the doctrine of a Church declaring itself to be Reformed?
It will be difficult because the impure abounds with great freedom. It is entrenched! How prophetic was the utterance of Puritan and Martyr, John Hooper, when speaking of the perceived indifference within the Church of England to retaining certain objects of Romanism. He said, "Great shame it is for a noble king, emperor, or magistrate contrary unto God's Word to detain and keep from the devil, or his minister, any of their goods or treasures as candles, vestments, crosses, altars! For if they be kept in the church as things indifferent, at length they will be maintained as things necessary."
In similar vein, propositions such as theistic evolution, gap theory, day age and progressive creation were received into the Church as "just other possibilities" alongside biblical creationism but, as a body of thought opposed to biblical creationism, these intruders are now settled and dictate terms. In the main, to suggest having a biblical creationist speak to a congregation within the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church is to invoke, at the least, avoidance and, at worst, verbal hostility.
How can this sorry situation be redressed.
Well, King Josiah upon recognising how far Judah had departed from the pure Word of God was so grieved as to to rend his clothes and then inquire of the Lord. He later renewed the Covenant with the Lord and then instituted reforms in Judah.
By the inspiration of Holy Spirit, Martin Luther saw how far the Church of Rome had departed from the pure Word of God. By the grace of God he became a key means of reforming the Church.
The Puritans sought to complete the Reformation. Puritanism was defined this way: "It was a purification, an effort, wise or unwise, to rid the Christianity of England from all adhesions foreign to its nature, or obstructive to its power; an endeavour to remove everything in doctrine, discipline, ceremonial, which during the Middle Ages had been added to the Gospel of Christ." Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones adds something to this definition which seems to come through in Puritan writings so I will add it here; "... that Puritanism was not primarily a preference for one form of church government over another; but it was that outlook and teaching which puts its emphasis upon a life of spiritual, personal religion, an intense realization of the presence of God, a devotion of the entire being to Him."
However, the Puritans did not achieve their goal for the Church but their writings were a significant influence others, particularly on later men such as the Wesleys, Whitefield, Rowlands, Edwards and the Erskines who were key figures used of God for the Great Awakening of the eighteenth century. The Great Awakening came at a time (perhaps even to redress) when the Church had absorbed a deistic view of God. Deism arose from a flawed view of the world and its relationship to the Creator.
Several in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church make claim that the church is "always reforming." This couldn't be any further from the truth. In fact, the Sydney Diocese is regressing. Not as fast as the Anglican Church in other parts of Australia or the globe but it is heading in the same undesirable direction due to the diluting of the pure Word of God with the "flesh of man."
What is needed then is a Reformation. This cannot come about by the will of man but by the Will of God. Elements required are an awakening to the parlous state of the Church, an earnest repentance and calling on the Lord God for forgiveness and cleansing. Only then, by the mercy of God, is He likely to act for the revival of His Church. May it be then that all the aforementioned desires of the Puritans are endowed upon the Church.
May it first be that greater numbers in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church see how far the Church has departed from the pure Word of God on origins and the nature of God. In earnest repentance may they call upon the Lord for forgiveness and cleansing and await His most righteous and merciful blessing.
Sam Drucker
Friday, May 18, 2007
“For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.”
Christians can be a smug lot. Hubristically and, might I say, quite sinfully, we often pigeon-hole our atheist “enemies” as being quite incapable of even grasping the most rudimentary truths concerning the world we live in. Tagging along with this is the frequent and, what seems to be, intentional failure of Christians to carry through with the biblically ordained task of seeking rational understanding of the atheist worldview. These are no better abjectly reflected than when Christians adopt the evolutionary story as their own, a Mephistophelean barter implicitly announcing that Christians appreciate the materialist “creation myth of this age”, as Mary Midgely so aptly labelled it, more comprehensively than they.
Of course, passing these mythological elements off as genuine Christian philosophy comes with a monumental price-tag: How does one explain away all those ill-fitting components which just do not square up with the revelation that God himself has spoken to us in the Bible?
Far too many Sydney Anglicans have capitulated to philosophical materialism, adopted its faux scientific offspring, and are thus forced to ignore the internal contradictory clashes that arise when a Christian worldview is tied to a pagan one. When these are pointed out, the best its adherents offer is a stream of irrelevant platitudes that just do not take seriously this metastasis of Christian theodicy and soteriology: “This is not a salvation issue”, “God’s ways are not ours”, “My God is big enough to do it any way he pleases”, “Genesis 1 tells us who and why, but not how”.
In contradistinction to the Anglicans’ lack of comprehension, it is completely refreshing to read an atheist who has intelligently understood the ramifications of this zeitgeist. Mark Rowlands, in his The Philosopher at the end of the Universe: Philosophy Explained through Science Fiction Films, has done just that.
Like the existentialists, he thinks life absurd. Absurdity, he coherently explains, arises because there is a confrontation between how we see ourselves from the inside and the view that we understand about the external world. This philosophical absurdity is fundamentally and rationally linked to the meaning of life:
“The problem is one of explaining our ultimate significance given our place in a universe that does not seem to allow us to have any such significance. The problem derives from the thought that there are two quite different stories we tell…[On the one hand] we matter…We are…a core of significance. On the other hand [there is] our ultimate insignificance. As a species we are finite, partial creatures, inhabiting an unremarkable planet in an unremarkable galaxy. We have been around for an infinitesimally small proportion of the life of the universe, and even the best estimates for our continuation don’t give us too much longer in the cosmic scheme of things. None of us, not even the cleverest, really understands where we came from – the origin of the universe we inhabit is necessarily a mystery to us.” (pp. 4-5)
Rowlands doesn’t just end his pitch there; he goes on to make a quite unexpected and perspicacious confession. His sense of disquiet isn’t cured by invoking some anti-intellectual Hegelian synthesis of the two incompatibilities; rather he admits he has a “hard time seeing how both sorts of stories we tell about ourselves could be true.” (p. 6)
This enigma is returned to again and again with increasing clarity, nuance and despondency: “How can I be a centre of significance and purpose when I am the product of processes and forces that were in place long before I was born, and where my essential nature seems inextricably bound up with these processes and forces?” (p. 14)
And ultimately what fuels his angst, this discontent he experiences when he attempts to grasp the ‘big picture’? The very view that the Sydney Diocese has promoted from its pulpits, college and discussion groups: the evolutionary worldview:
“The philosopher Immanuel Kant once wrote that there were two things that never ceased to fill him with amazement: the starry sky above him and the moral law within him. When I look at the starry sky above me, what fills me with amazement is the idea that there could be a God who created a universe like this. A universe that is designed according to a principle – the Second Law of Thermodynamics – which means that suffering and death are built into it as one of its structural elements. A universe that, after billions and billions of years of travail, eventually produced creatures that were conscious, and then self-conscious. A universe that, through these creatures, became aware of itself, understood itself, marvelled at itself, only to realise that it was doomed; that its fate was heat death, that it was essentially ephemeral, that it was essentially futile. The darkness of unconsciousness eventually, after billions of years of struggle, gave way to the light of consciousness, only for this light to understand its own hopelessness. This is cruelty on a cosmic scale. Perhaps only a God could be capable of such cruelty.” (p. 23)
Creationists, by insisting on a young earth, non-evolutionary, 6 day creation week, are frequently accused by Sydney Anglicans of setting a major stumbling block before those seeking Christ. What is clearly apparent from reading Rowlands’ words is that it’s the Sydney Anglicans’ promulgation of the pagan evolutionary worldview that clearly hinders people opening the door to Christ. As Jesus complained, “Alas for you experts in the Law, for you have taken away the key to knowledge. You have never gone in yourselves and you have hindered everyone else who was at the door!”
Of course, passing these mythological elements off as genuine Christian philosophy comes with a monumental price-tag: How does one explain away all those ill-fitting components which just do not square up with the revelation that God himself has spoken to us in the Bible?
Far too many Sydney Anglicans have capitulated to philosophical materialism, adopted its faux scientific offspring, and are thus forced to ignore the internal contradictory clashes that arise when a Christian worldview is tied to a pagan one. When these are pointed out, the best its adherents offer is a stream of irrelevant platitudes that just do not take seriously this metastasis of Christian theodicy and soteriology: “This is not a salvation issue”, “God’s ways are not ours”, “My God is big enough to do it any way he pleases”, “Genesis 1 tells us who and why, but not how”.
In contradistinction to the Anglicans’ lack of comprehension, it is completely refreshing to read an atheist who has intelligently understood the ramifications of this zeitgeist. Mark Rowlands, in his The Philosopher at the end of the Universe: Philosophy Explained through Science Fiction Films, has done just that.
Like the existentialists, he thinks life absurd. Absurdity, he coherently explains, arises because there is a confrontation between how we see ourselves from the inside and the view that we understand about the external world. This philosophical absurdity is fundamentally and rationally linked to the meaning of life:
“The problem is one of explaining our ultimate significance given our place in a universe that does not seem to allow us to have any such significance. The problem derives from the thought that there are two quite different stories we tell…[On the one hand] we matter…We are…a core of significance. On the other hand [there is] our ultimate insignificance. As a species we are finite, partial creatures, inhabiting an unremarkable planet in an unremarkable galaxy. We have been around for an infinitesimally small proportion of the life of the universe, and even the best estimates for our continuation don’t give us too much longer in the cosmic scheme of things. None of us, not even the cleverest, really understands where we came from – the origin of the universe we inhabit is necessarily a mystery to us.” (pp. 4-5)
Rowlands doesn’t just end his pitch there; he goes on to make a quite unexpected and perspicacious confession. His sense of disquiet isn’t cured by invoking some anti-intellectual Hegelian synthesis of the two incompatibilities; rather he admits he has a “hard time seeing how both sorts of stories we tell about ourselves could be true.” (p. 6)
This enigma is returned to again and again with increasing clarity, nuance and despondency: “How can I be a centre of significance and purpose when I am the product of processes and forces that were in place long before I was born, and where my essential nature seems inextricably bound up with these processes and forces?” (p. 14)
And ultimately what fuels his angst, this discontent he experiences when he attempts to grasp the ‘big picture’? The very view that the Sydney Diocese has promoted from its pulpits, college and discussion groups: the evolutionary worldview:
“The philosopher Immanuel Kant once wrote that there were two things that never ceased to fill him with amazement: the starry sky above him and the moral law within him. When I look at the starry sky above me, what fills me with amazement is the idea that there could be a God who created a universe like this. A universe that is designed according to a principle – the Second Law of Thermodynamics – which means that suffering and death are built into it as one of its structural elements. A universe that, after billions and billions of years of travail, eventually produced creatures that were conscious, and then self-conscious. A universe that, through these creatures, became aware of itself, understood itself, marvelled at itself, only to realise that it was doomed; that its fate was heat death, that it was essentially ephemeral, that it was essentially futile. The darkness of unconsciousness eventually, after billions of years of struggle, gave way to the light of consciousness, only for this light to understand its own hopelessness. This is cruelty on a cosmic scale. Perhaps only a God could be capable of such cruelty.” (p. 23)
Creationists, by insisting on a young earth, non-evolutionary, 6 day creation week, are frequently accused by Sydney Anglicans of setting a major stumbling block before those seeking Christ. What is clearly apparent from reading Rowlands’ words is that it’s the Sydney Anglicans’ promulgation of the pagan evolutionary worldview that clearly hinders people opening the door to Christ. As Jesus complained, “Alas for you experts in the Law, for you have taken away the key to knowledge. You have never gone in yourselves and you have hindered everyone else who was at the door!”
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Michael Jensen misses the mark, once again!
To bring people up to speed.
I enquired in another section of this blog: "Why has your father, Peter Jensen, stated or supported the position in Doctrine 1 that from Moore College's perspective the evolutionary view is the correct view?"
In reply Michael Jensen said, "In Doctrine 1 he said it was 'a' position, not 'the Moore College' one."
My response to this is to quote from Doctrine 1, Moore Theological College Correspondence Course, Unit 7, p. 105...[Are you listening old chap?]
"There is a division of opinion about how God created the world. 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”.
Please note, Michael, the use of the definite article instead of, as you suggested, the indefinite article. There is a world of difference between the two. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I charge $75/hour for grammar lessons, so if you require instruction as to the difference between the two I am for hire.
I enquired in another section of this blog: "Why has your father, Peter Jensen, stated or supported the position in Doctrine 1 that from Moore College's perspective the evolutionary view is the correct view?"
In reply Michael Jensen said, "In Doctrine 1 he said it was 'a' position, not 'the Moore College' one."
My response to this is to quote from Doctrine 1, Moore Theological College Correspondence Course, Unit 7, p. 105...[Are you listening old chap?]
"There is a division of opinion about how God created the world. 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”.
Please note, Michael, the use of the definite article instead of, as you suggested, the indefinite article. There is a world of difference between the two. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I charge $75/hour for grammar lessons, so if you require instruction as to the difference between the two I am for hire.
Monday, May 14, 2007
A Perilous Path
Elsewhere in this blogspot, Neil Moore indicated he would provide the statement made by Perry Wiles concerning the matter of "brains" and belief on origins. Neil and I have consulted and agree that I would provide the information. We also agree that what Perry Wiles said is now a moot point in relation to Michael Jensen's concerns because Michael has since made it clear that his "libellous" intimation had nothing to do with mention of Perry Wiles. Nevertheless, because there is more that I feel needs to be said about Perry Wiles' paper, I cite and expand on the matter herein.
In his paper "Creation vs Evolution?" which was produced by Perry Wiles while on study leave in Illinois, USA, he included the following statement: "What is perhaps more tragic is that faithful Christian people can end up thinking they are doing gospel work by promoting creation science. Whether creation science is valid or not it is not gospel ministry. Gospel ministry is about the Lordship of Jesus Christ and him crucified - not about evolution. Apologetically, because again by forcing the issue of Bible versus evolution it can put obstacles in the way of unbelievers, especially those scientifically minded , and it can leave them with the impression (perhaps the justified impression in this case) that becoming a Christian means kissing your brains goodbye. Not only that, it allows people to use evolution as a smokescreen to avoid the challenge to put their faith in in Christ". (emphasis mine)
That then clarifies what Perry Wiles actually said on the matter of brains and the origins issue. There is so much else said in that paper that deserves attention and correction but space and time limits me to addressing the argument put in the statement quoted.
The argument made by Perry Wiles is, of course, a fallacy. Itself is a smokescreen to avoid leaving off the adornments of the world and a device to avoid scrutinising and exposing the bankruptcy of the evolutionary model of origins. Worse than that, it diminishes the gospel of Jesus Christ and him crucified because it seems to focus solely on the crucifixion of Jesus Christ with vague reference to his Lordship.
In addressing this failing I defer to one who had a much closer walk with the Lord Jesus Christ than myself.
I defer to John Owen (1616-1683), Christian, Puritan, Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell and Dean of Christ Church at the University of Oxford.
In his work, "Apostasy from the Gospel" John Owen addresses the difficult Scripture passage Hebrews 6:4-6. There were many issues confronting the church in Owen's day, the greatest probably being Romanism. The issue of the attack on the book of Genesis is much more an issue today than Romanism. However, the 'dress' of apostasy raised by John Owen can just as much be applied to today's issues as those of Owen's day. I will quote John Owen and you can judge for yourself the relevance.
First, I must make one qualification. John Owen acknowledges the existence of "partial apostasy" ie as I understand it, something along the way toward apostasy but not complete apostasy. I am not aware of anyone who has posted blogs to this blogspot holding a view that certain Sydney Anglicans are apostates. Rather, I gather that the view is held that a heretical interpretation of Genesis, something alien to the straightforward reading of Scripture and alien to the position of the Reformers, has emerged in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church in the latter half of the Twentieth Century. If readers can demonstrate I am in error on this then I am willing to apologise.
I quote from "Apostasy from the Gospel" - John Owen - Puritan Paperbacks published by The Banner of Truth Trust - abridged and made easy to read by R.J.K. Law.
Speaking on the topic of "Darkness and Ignorance a Cause of Apostasy" and with reference to Sceptics on page 66 Owen says "Scripture, the Trinity, Christ and his offices, justification by grace and all the other great truths of the gospel are weighed and examined in the defiled, tottering scales of bold, irreverent sceptical discussions. They may be teachers of religion, but they show their ignorance of the fundamental difference between truth and error. They cannot see the glory, beauty and power of truth, so it is all one to them whether it is truth or whether it is error". The office of Christ as Creator is considered part of the gospel and ought not be subjected to assault just as Christ as Redeemer or other office ought not be subjected to assault.
Speaking on the topic of "Pride, Neglect and Worldliness, Causes of Apostasy" on page 79, Owen says "The corrupt mind exalts its own ideas. It loves, applauds, dotes on and firmly embraces its own ideas and opinions. This is the origin of all heresy" and on page 80 "The corrupt mind exalts itself as the sole and absolute judge of God's Word....... whatever the mind rejects as not in agreement with its own ideas and system of logic is scorned and despised". On the same topic on page 89, Owen says "(2) Secondly, God delivers up willful apostates to false teachers and deceivers. These, deceived and taught by Satan, are used by God to carry out his just displeasure on wicked apostates whom he delivers into their power. The deceived people exalt these false teachers and deceivers into high positions in the church and then submit implicitly to them".
Speaking on the topic of "Apostasy from the Doctrine of the Gospel" on pages 92, Owen says "So none will remain constantly faithful to Christ who is not able to spiritually discern the glory of his person and his offices" and on page 93, "The whole foundation of all gospel faith rests in the glory of Christ's person and offices (Heb. 1:2, 3; Col. 1:15-19)". Note that Owen specifically cites passages of Scripture addressing the creative work of Christ in this assertion.
Speaking on the topic of "Apostasy from the Commands of the Gospel" on page 103, Owen says "By the Word of God and the Spirit of Christ, multitudes have been made holy, and multitudes more are still being called out of this world to holiness of life. These shall never utterly and finally fall away from true holiness, but shall be preserved by the power of God through faith unto salvation. Yet even these may fall away from wholehearted obedience to the holy commands of the gospel and become for a while unfruitful in their lives. In every backsliding there is a partial apostasy, with much dishonour to Christ. Nor does anyone know whether his backsliding will not end in total apostasy".
These and so much more are sober words from John Owen for reflection on all aspects of our life and testimony to Jesus Christ. In connection with the full gospel of Jesus Christ, they have relevance to the glory that is his in his office as Creator and are a caution against diminishing the glory due.
Calvinists should remember that it is not us who convert the unconverted. It is God working through Holy Spirit in the revelation of the person of Jesus Christ and his works. God is able to create out of nothing and is thus able to save through a faulty message but that message more desired and honouring to God is that which is true to his Word.
In closing, I give an example of an apostate who, if he read it, failed to heed the advice of John Owen. His name is mentioned elsewhere on this blogspot. His name was Charles Templeton, now deceased.
Charles Templeton, born 1915, rose to evangelical prominence in the 1940's in the USA and Europe. In 1946 he was listed among those "best used of God" by the National Association of Evangelicals. He was a good friend of contemporary evangelist Billy Graham and spoke to audiences numbering in the thousands. Newspapers reported him wining 150 converts per night. He became a troubled man because he couldn't reconcile the book of Genesis with the world's view of origins and the age of the earth.
Templeton warned Billy Graham that it was "intellectual suicide" to not question the Bible and to go on preaching God's Word as authoritative. He commenced theological studies at Princeton University but received no insights to qualm his doubts in the Bible. Finally, the doubts about everything he stood for became too great and he resigned his ministry.
In his 1996 book "Farewell to God" Templeton listed his reasons for rejecting the Christian faith. Most of these reasons related to his view of the accuracy of the book of Genesis. Sadly, the church of his day did not adequately answer Charles Templeton's questions. Answers are available but even more sadly, many in the church will not trust their own brethren and instead run to those who reinterpret God's Word in Genesis or who reject it altogether.
Upon accepting an evolutionary long age view of origins, Charles Templeton logically perceived "How could a loving and omnipotent God create such horrors as we have been contemplating?"
Charles Templeton died an Atheist. His life portrays the image of an Apostate described by John Owen when addressing Hebrews 6:4-6.
It puzzles this writer how so many in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church can do what Charles Templeton could not logically do ie reconcile a death, disease and frustration riddled means of origins with the Word of God and the glory of Christ contained in Genesis. The charade will be seen through by many of the generation now coming through. A strong stand on the reading of God's Word as it is presented in Genesis and likewise presented in the New Testament accounts of the acts of Jesus Christ is the will of God and returns the church to its former position with the Reformers.
Sam Drucker
In his paper "Creation vs Evolution?" which was produced by Perry Wiles while on study leave in Illinois, USA, he included the following statement: "What is perhaps more tragic is that faithful Christian people can end up thinking they are doing gospel work by promoting creation science. Whether creation science is valid or not it is not gospel ministry. Gospel ministry is about the Lordship of Jesus Christ and him crucified - not about evolution. Apologetically, because again by forcing the issue of Bible versus evolution it can put obstacles in the way of unbelievers, especially those scientifically minded , and it can leave them with the impression (perhaps the justified impression in this case) that becoming a Christian means kissing your brains goodbye. Not only that, it allows people to use evolution as a smokescreen to avoid the challenge to put their faith in in Christ". (emphasis mine)
That then clarifies what Perry Wiles actually said on the matter of brains and the origins issue. There is so much else said in that paper that deserves attention and correction but space and time limits me to addressing the argument put in the statement quoted.
The argument made by Perry Wiles is, of course, a fallacy. Itself is a smokescreen to avoid leaving off the adornments of the world and a device to avoid scrutinising and exposing the bankruptcy of the evolutionary model of origins. Worse than that, it diminishes the gospel of Jesus Christ and him crucified because it seems to focus solely on the crucifixion of Jesus Christ with vague reference to his Lordship.
In addressing this failing I defer to one who had a much closer walk with the Lord Jesus Christ than myself.
I defer to John Owen (1616-1683), Christian, Puritan, Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell and Dean of Christ Church at the University of Oxford.
In his work, "Apostasy from the Gospel" John Owen addresses the difficult Scripture passage Hebrews 6:4-6. There were many issues confronting the church in Owen's day, the greatest probably being Romanism. The issue of the attack on the book of Genesis is much more an issue today than Romanism. However, the 'dress' of apostasy raised by John Owen can just as much be applied to today's issues as those of Owen's day. I will quote John Owen and you can judge for yourself the relevance.
First, I must make one qualification. John Owen acknowledges the existence of "partial apostasy" ie as I understand it, something along the way toward apostasy but not complete apostasy. I am not aware of anyone who has posted blogs to this blogspot holding a view that certain Sydney Anglicans are apostates. Rather, I gather that the view is held that a heretical interpretation of Genesis, something alien to the straightforward reading of Scripture and alien to the position of the Reformers, has emerged in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church in the latter half of the Twentieth Century. If readers can demonstrate I am in error on this then I am willing to apologise.
I quote from "Apostasy from the Gospel" - John Owen - Puritan Paperbacks published by The Banner of Truth Trust - abridged and made easy to read by R.J.K. Law.
Speaking on the topic of "Darkness and Ignorance a Cause of Apostasy" and with reference to Sceptics on page 66 Owen says "Scripture, the Trinity, Christ and his offices, justification by grace and all the other great truths of the gospel are weighed and examined in the defiled, tottering scales of bold, irreverent sceptical discussions. They may be teachers of religion, but they show their ignorance of the fundamental difference between truth and error. They cannot see the glory, beauty and power of truth, so it is all one to them whether it is truth or whether it is error". The office of Christ as Creator is considered part of the gospel and ought not be subjected to assault just as Christ as Redeemer or other office ought not be subjected to assault.
Speaking on the topic of "Pride, Neglect and Worldliness, Causes of Apostasy" on page 79, Owen says "The corrupt mind exalts its own ideas. It loves, applauds, dotes on and firmly embraces its own ideas and opinions. This is the origin of all heresy" and on page 80 "The corrupt mind exalts itself as the sole and absolute judge of God's Word....... whatever the mind rejects as not in agreement with its own ideas and system of logic is scorned and despised". On the same topic on page 89, Owen says "(2) Secondly, God delivers up willful apostates to false teachers and deceivers. These, deceived and taught by Satan, are used by God to carry out his just displeasure on wicked apostates whom he delivers into their power. The deceived people exalt these false teachers and deceivers into high positions in the church and then submit implicitly to them".
Speaking on the topic of "Apostasy from the Doctrine of the Gospel" on pages 92, Owen says "So none will remain constantly faithful to Christ who is not able to spiritually discern the glory of his person and his offices" and on page 93, "The whole foundation of all gospel faith rests in the glory of Christ's person and offices (Heb. 1:2, 3; Col. 1:15-19)". Note that Owen specifically cites passages of Scripture addressing the creative work of Christ in this assertion.
Speaking on the topic of "Apostasy from the Commands of the Gospel" on page 103, Owen says "By the Word of God and the Spirit of Christ, multitudes have been made holy, and multitudes more are still being called out of this world to holiness of life. These shall never utterly and finally fall away from true holiness, but shall be preserved by the power of God through faith unto salvation. Yet even these may fall away from wholehearted obedience to the holy commands of the gospel and become for a while unfruitful in their lives. In every backsliding there is a partial apostasy, with much dishonour to Christ. Nor does anyone know whether his backsliding will not end in total apostasy".
These and so much more are sober words from John Owen for reflection on all aspects of our life and testimony to Jesus Christ. In connection with the full gospel of Jesus Christ, they have relevance to the glory that is his in his office as Creator and are a caution against diminishing the glory due.
Calvinists should remember that it is not us who convert the unconverted. It is God working through Holy Spirit in the revelation of the person of Jesus Christ and his works. God is able to create out of nothing and is thus able to save through a faulty message but that message more desired and honouring to God is that which is true to his Word.
In closing, I give an example of an apostate who, if he read it, failed to heed the advice of John Owen. His name is mentioned elsewhere on this blogspot. His name was Charles Templeton, now deceased.
Charles Templeton, born 1915, rose to evangelical prominence in the 1940's in the USA and Europe. In 1946 he was listed among those "best used of God" by the National Association of Evangelicals. He was a good friend of contemporary evangelist Billy Graham and spoke to audiences numbering in the thousands. Newspapers reported him wining 150 converts per night. He became a troubled man because he couldn't reconcile the book of Genesis with the world's view of origins and the age of the earth.
Templeton warned Billy Graham that it was "intellectual suicide" to not question the Bible and to go on preaching God's Word as authoritative. He commenced theological studies at Princeton University but received no insights to qualm his doubts in the Bible. Finally, the doubts about everything he stood for became too great and he resigned his ministry.
In his 1996 book "Farewell to God" Templeton listed his reasons for rejecting the Christian faith. Most of these reasons related to his view of the accuracy of the book of Genesis. Sadly, the church of his day did not adequately answer Charles Templeton's questions. Answers are available but even more sadly, many in the church will not trust their own brethren and instead run to those who reinterpret God's Word in Genesis or who reject it altogether.
Upon accepting an evolutionary long age view of origins, Charles Templeton logically perceived "How could a loving and omnipotent God create such horrors as we have been contemplating?"
Charles Templeton died an Atheist. His life portrays the image of an Apostate described by John Owen when addressing Hebrews 6:4-6.
It puzzles this writer how so many in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church can do what Charles Templeton could not logically do ie reconcile a death, disease and frustration riddled means of origins with the Word of God and the glory of Christ contained in Genesis. The charade will be seen through by many of the generation now coming through. A strong stand on the reading of God's Word as it is presented in Genesis and likewise presented in the New Testament accounts of the acts of Jesus Christ is the will of God and returns the church to its former position with the Reformers.
Sam Drucker
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Jensen reprise
Mr Jensen's desire to have his posts removed from the blog will be unmet. Two reasons. One, he chose to post, and that is the end of the story: public is public, Michael, secondly your efforts are a great case in point for the heretical teaching and practice that flows through rivers in the Sydney Diocese. Your remarks typify the ecclesiastical fascism which underpins Sydney life.
The case in point is this. Mr Jensen storms around riding on the coat tails of his father's position, when Jesus tells us very clearly that the first will be last and the last first, and that we aren't to go around using 'prestige' position or power as the world uses it. We are in fact bound to treat each other with honesty and respect. I note that Peter Jensen is unable to do this. Like father, like son.
I was reading in the Financial Review on Friday (3 May 07) that Miltion Friedman, the famous Chicago School economist took pains to correspond with everyone who wrote to him, wether economic neophyte, opponent, or not. I contrast this with Peter Jensen, who, if being obedient to the Bible, would place himself as servant of the church, not 'leader' 'head honsho' or 'the big biscuit'. After he lampooned his brothers and sisters who hold to the historic Christian position on the meaning of Genesis 1, who adhere to the Chicago statement on bibilical inerrancy (what does happen in Chicago??), who ascribe to that great statement of faith expressed in the series of books 'the Fundamentals' published as a bulwark against liberalism in the USA in the 1930s (from whence the term, of abuse for some, taken as an honour by others 'fundamentalist'), by calling us 'hillbillies'; and I never fail to remind all that he thus lampoons Broughton Knox, I wrote to him, expressing my anger, dismay and pain at his behaviour. I heard not a word. Here we have it, Milton Freidman, arguaby a 'great' man, is able to correspond with anyone about mere economics, but Peter, the main biscuit in Sydney, is unable to correspond with a brother he has sworn to serve, as part of the limb of the church in which he orbits. Makes me want to vomit from my mouth any Anglican allegience that I might have had. Incidently, it was in evangelical anglican churches that I've experienced the worst treatment, in 'broad', 'high', or 'catholic' that I've experienced the best of fraternal love.
By the way, I hope others read the Fin Review. The Friday 'Review' pages often have great religious articles. Of course, the religion they extol is invariably evolution . . . demonstrating the need to deal with this idea soundly as part of our evangelism (as Paul sets out in Acts 17, for example, an example the Anglicans and evangelicals broadly choose to ignore).
While I'm on the subject of periodicals, There is another stimulating article on Dawkin's 'The God Delusion' in the current Quadrant magazine (Richard Dawkins and the Morality of the Bible by David Hodgson). The author deals with Dawkins philosophical thinness with respect to his arguments for atheism, but also discusses moral issues which surround segments of the Old Testament. I hope to post some thoughts on this in the near future, God willing. Quadrant can be found at, along with its sister publication
I've recently started reading Thucydides' 'The Peloponnesian War', as I've decided to work through the highlights of classical literature. The introduction by M. I. Finley is itself worth a read. A remark about Thucydides' historigraphical approach is germane to this blog. I'll quote:
"The historian's data are individual events and persons; the sum total of their interrelationships is the historical process. Unlike the poet, he must get the events and the relationships right, exactly as they were, and not, in Aristotle's phrase about tragedy, as they might or ought to have been ..."
Considering Genesis 1, one is struck by the care taken by the author (let's say, Moses' because that's what the Holy Spirit tells us) to give the precise order of events, using grammar and selecting words so that alternatives are not possible (I refer to the historical consequentive grammatical structures in Genesis 1, the care to delinate sets of events by dirunal progress, and the description of the type of 'day' meant as 'evening and morning' type days, counted so that it is unavoidable that individual days are identified, described and events ordered).
If the events related are merely what they 'ought to have been', then we have fiction, poetry, as Aristotle might characterise it (entertainment, as we might refer to it today). What if the opening chapters of the Bible were fiction. Not telling us what happened, and not, therefore, locating us in history, in relation to God and in relation to our environment, which itself is not spiritual, not worthy of worship, but material, as from the hand of God? Well, if it was fiction, because this is the bald alternative to history (Aristotle refers, by implication to only the two categories), then it is not connected to history: to events which actually happened, and so, despite the neo-orthodox telling us that it is meant ot convey 'theological' but not 'scientific' truth (as thought truth wears colours like football teams), it tells us nothing, because it is not relating what is real, but imaginary. So a piece of imaginary writing cannot tells us anything real about God's status in realation to the physical universe, or us, as there is no source of information for us to determine the truth content of any utterance. We are left with the arbitrary, not the truth. If we know that something is false, then it cannot tell us anything, particulalry when some claim that Genesis tells us something, but not the things that it tells us. This is the basic logical impasse that the neo-orthodox have backed themselves into. In fact, they have backed off a plank over the side of a ship: they have nowhere to go but oblivioun (episemologically), because they have removed any warrant for the text being connected to the common world. It really is 'blow your brains out' thinking by the neo-orthodox, the sort of thinking that results in existential obliteration of the revelation, as I see it in adolescents, who are completely adrift, believing that they are material jumbles, not image bearers of God.
The case in point is this. Mr Jensen storms around riding on the coat tails of his father's position, when Jesus tells us very clearly that the first will be last and the last first, and that we aren't to go around using 'prestige' position or power as the world uses it. We are in fact bound to treat each other with honesty and respect. I note that Peter Jensen is unable to do this. Like father, like son.
I was reading in the Financial Review on Friday (3 May 07) that Miltion Friedman, the famous Chicago School economist took pains to correspond with everyone who wrote to him, wether economic neophyte, opponent, or not. I contrast this with Peter Jensen, who, if being obedient to the Bible, would place himself as servant of the church, not 'leader' 'head honsho' or 'the big biscuit'. After he lampooned his brothers and sisters who hold to the historic Christian position on the meaning of Genesis 1, who adhere to the Chicago statement on bibilical inerrancy (what does happen in Chicago??), who ascribe to that great statement of faith expressed in the series of books 'the Fundamentals' published as a bulwark against liberalism in the USA in the 1930s (from whence the term, of abuse for some, taken as an honour by others 'fundamentalist'), by calling us 'hillbillies'; and I never fail to remind all that he thus lampoons Broughton Knox, I wrote to him, expressing my anger, dismay and pain at his behaviour. I heard not a word. Here we have it, Milton Freidman, arguaby a 'great' man, is able to correspond with anyone about mere economics, but Peter, the main biscuit in Sydney, is unable to correspond with a brother he has sworn to serve, as part of the limb of the church in which he orbits. Makes me want to vomit from my mouth any Anglican allegience that I might have had. Incidently, it was in evangelical anglican churches that I've experienced the worst treatment, in 'broad', 'high', or 'catholic' that I've experienced the best of fraternal love.
By the way, I hope others read the Fin Review. The Friday 'Review' pages often have great religious articles. Of course, the religion they extol is invariably evolution . . . demonstrating the need to deal with this idea soundly as part of our evangelism (as Paul sets out in Acts 17, for example, an example the Anglicans and evangelicals broadly choose to ignore).
While I'm on the subject of periodicals, There is another stimulating article on Dawkin's 'The God Delusion' in the current Quadrant magazine (Richard Dawkins and the Morality of the Bible by David Hodgson). The author deals with Dawkins philosophical thinness with respect to his arguments for atheism, but also discusses moral issues which surround segments of the Old Testament. I hope to post some thoughts on this in the near future, God willing. Quadrant can be found at
I've recently started reading Thucydides' 'The Peloponnesian War', as I've decided to work through the highlights of classical literature. The introduction by M. I. Finley is itself worth a read. A remark about Thucydides' historigraphical approach is germane to this blog. I'll quote:
"The historian's data are individual events and persons; the sum total of their interrelationships is the historical process. Unlike the poet, he must get the events and the relationships right, exactly as they were, and not, in Aristotle's phrase about tragedy, as they might or ought to have been ..."
Considering Genesis 1, one is struck by the care taken by the author (let's say, Moses' because that's what the Holy Spirit tells us) to give the precise order of events, using grammar and selecting words so that alternatives are not possible (I refer to the historical consequentive grammatical structures in Genesis 1, the care to delinate sets of events by dirunal progress, and the description of the type of 'day' meant as 'evening and morning' type days, counted so that it is unavoidable that individual days are identified, described and events ordered).
If the events related are merely what they 'ought to have been', then we have fiction, poetry, as Aristotle might characterise it (entertainment, as we might refer to it today). What if the opening chapters of the Bible were fiction. Not telling us what happened, and not, therefore, locating us in history, in relation to God and in relation to our environment, which itself is not spiritual, not worthy of worship, but material, as from the hand of God? Well, if it was fiction, because this is the bald alternative to history (Aristotle refers, by implication to only the two categories), then it is not connected to history: to events which actually happened, and so, despite the neo-orthodox telling us that it is meant ot convey 'theological' but not 'scientific' truth (as thought truth wears colours like football teams), it tells us nothing, because it is not relating what is real, but imaginary. So a piece of imaginary writing cannot tells us anything real about God's status in realation to the physical universe, or us, as there is no source of information for us to determine the truth content of any utterance. We are left with the arbitrary, not the truth. If we know that something is false, then it cannot tell us anything, particulalry when some claim that Genesis tells us something, but not the things that it tells us. This is the basic logical impasse that the neo-orthodox have backed themselves into. In fact, they have backed off a plank over the side of a ship: they have nowhere to go but oblivioun (episemologically), because they have removed any warrant for the text being connected to the common world. It really is 'blow your brains out' thinking by the neo-orthodox, the sort of thinking that results in existential obliteration of the revelation, as I see it in adolescents, who are completely adrift, believing that they are material jumbles, not image bearers of God.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Don't you know me, Phillip?
Many thanks to Neil Moore for his helpful insight into the Person of Jesus Christ. It came at a time when I was looking at another manifestation of the Lord Jesus Christ - his glory.
"He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born over all creation. For by him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things and through him all things consist." (Col. 1:15-17)
Only Christ, and no other, was fit to bear and uphold this glory. The glory of his person is such that the blessedness of all creatures depends on their being centred on him in his glorious office as head of the new family in heaven and earth. This then, is the glory which God purposed to give to his only incarnate Son.. Here we have an insight into God's purpose to glorify himself in the incarnation of Christ. God purposed that his eternal, only begotten Son would be made man.
What did God purpose to accomplish by this incomprehensible work of his wisdom, love and power?
By the incarnation of Christ, God intended first of all to redeem the church by the sacrifice of his Son. But there is a greater reason for the incarnation of Christ, one which centres on the glory of God. This was that he might "bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ" (Eph. 1:10). The whole creation, especially that which was to be eternally blessed, was to have a new head given to it. From him all graces were to flow into this new family, and from this new family worship, praise and gratitude would flow back to him. All communication from God to this new family would be channelled through Christ and all worship and gratitude to God from this new family would also be channelled through Christ. Who can describe the divine beauty, order and harmony of all things under its new head, Jesus Christ? The union and communion between angels, men and other created life, the order of the whole family in heaven and earth, the communication of life, grace, power, mercy and comfort to the church and all things being ruled for the glory of God all depend on Jesus Christ. This glory God purposed for his incarnate Son, and it was the greatest, the highest glory that could be given to him.
If we thought more of this glory of Christ, and of the wisdom of God in the restoration of all things in Christ, how much more wise we would be to the realities of life and how full of gratitude we would be for the glorious privilege of being part of this new family!
In particular, the Lord Jesus Christ is glorified in his repairing the violation of the glory of God in creation by sin. How beautifully ordered all things were as they lived and moved in dependence on God. But sin destroyed this order and harmony. But all is restored, repaired and made up in this restoration of all things in our new head, Jesus Christ. Now divine creation is made more beautiful than it was before. So "the whole creation has been groaning" as it longs for this glorious restoration of all things. "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed" (Rom. 8:19).
In this work of restoration, Christ is also glorious because he is appointed as the only way by which all the treasures of the infinite wisdom of God towards his creatures are opened up and revealed. In the first creation, infinite wisdom was the inseparable companion of infinite power. "How many are your works, O Lord! In wisdom you have made them all." (Psalm 104:24) But when the effects of this divine wisdom were defaced by sin, greater treasures of wisdom were required to repair the damage done. And in the restoration of all things in Christ, God showed what he intended to do in dealing with his creatures. By his restoration of all things under one head, the manifold, unsearchable wisdom of God was made known to the angels themselves (as Eph. 3:10 infers). They had no idea previously of what God intended to do after sin had entered the world. They had no idea how God would repair the damage done by sin but by this purpose to gather all things in Christ, the manifold wisdom of God was made known to them. So in Christ "are hidden", and by him are gloriously displayed "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:3) In this he is glorious and will be forever.
The glory of Christ is also seen in the stability and security that is given to the whole new creation. The first creation was glorious but everything depended on God under a covenant of obedience. Everything was brought down by the sin of angels and men. But now everything that belongs to this new creation, including every believer in the world, as well as the angels in heaven, being gathered together under this one head, are all infallibly kept from ever being ruined by sin again. In this new head all is "strong, firm and steadfast" (1 Pet 5:10).
All includes representation from other creatures frustrated by the sin of angels and men. Nothing must be excluded from restoration else God's perfect and glorious plan is incomplete for God's creation was made to give glory to God. "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory, honour and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being" (Rev. 4:11). The intent in creation under heaven was that in man using creation rightly and thanking God for all that he had created for man's use, God was to receive glory from the animate and even the inanimate creation.
Nothing that God intended can be denied him. The effect of sin must be thoroughly reversed in "the renewal of all things when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne" (Matt. 19:28).
Now, consider very carefully the glory that is found in Jesus Christ. The glory in his creative work and the purpose of his creation, the glory of his incarnation, the glory of his triumph over sin and its effects, the glory emanating from the renewed creation under its new head.
It defies all sensibility to apply to Jesus Christ a creative activity riddled with frustrations and mutational errors such as the paradigm of evolution requires. When I say frustrations I mean obstructions. To advocate Theistic Evolution is to say Christ was, in his creative process, willing into his creation obstructions to resist and retard at the very same time he was willing progressions. By all observation, this argues a gross defect of intelligence on the part of the Creator. There is no glory to Christ in such activity. It is, instead, an insult and the insult, by means of evolution's need of time, is an eons long demeaning of the glory of Christ. Only a corrupted mind could conceive of a creative process comprising frustrations, disability, disease, survival of the fittest, death and extinctions as being glorious and giving glory to its Creator. No, such a proposition derives from "the father of lies" who will not give glory to God.
Friends have told me that Dean Phillip Jensen, when Rector at St Matthias Anglican Church, Centennial Park, Sydney, said words to the effect of "whether or not God used evolution in creation is a non-issue." If so, Dean Jensen has most dangerously 'given oxygen' in the church to a notion of creation that steals from the glory that is due Jesus Christ. My experience of Dean Jensen is that he is a fine man who indicates a love for the Lord Jesus Christ. However, his alleged decision to run away from the robbery of Christ's glory is a thorough disappointment. As so often happens, he has taken others with him in his flight. This is evidenced by his spawning of Matthias Media with its resident writers' capitulation to a 'broad' view on origins.
If my advice on the position of Dean Jensen is incorrect then I must withdraw my reference to him in this posting. If it does represent a correct observation of his position then .... The Lord Jesus, in responding to an erroneous request of a disciple replied "Don't you know me, Philip?" (John 14:9) Today, in Sydney, Australia, the question may be altered only so slightly to "Don't you know me, Phillip?"
Sam Drucker
"He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born over all creation. For by him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things and through him all things consist." (Col. 1:15-17)
Only Christ, and no other, was fit to bear and uphold this glory. The glory of his person is such that the blessedness of all creatures depends on their being centred on him in his glorious office as head of the new family in heaven and earth. This then, is the glory which God purposed to give to his only incarnate Son.. Here we have an insight into God's purpose to glorify himself in the incarnation of Christ. God purposed that his eternal, only begotten Son would be made man.
What did God purpose to accomplish by this incomprehensible work of his wisdom, love and power?
By the incarnation of Christ, God intended first of all to redeem the church by the sacrifice of his Son. But there is a greater reason for the incarnation of Christ, one which centres on the glory of God. This was that he might "bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ" (Eph. 1:10). The whole creation, especially that which was to be eternally blessed, was to have a new head given to it. From him all graces were to flow into this new family, and from this new family worship, praise and gratitude would flow back to him. All communication from God to this new family would be channelled through Christ and all worship and gratitude to God from this new family would also be channelled through Christ. Who can describe the divine beauty, order and harmony of all things under its new head, Jesus Christ? The union and communion between angels, men and other created life, the order of the whole family in heaven and earth, the communication of life, grace, power, mercy and comfort to the church and all things being ruled for the glory of God all depend on Jesus Christ. This glory God purposed for his incarnate Son, and it was the greatest, the highest glory that could be given to him.
If we thought more of this glory of Christ, and of the wisdom of God in the restoration of all things in Christ, how much more wise we would be to the realities of life and how full of gratitude we would be for the glorious privilege of being part of this new family!
In particular, the Lord Jesus Christ is glorified in his repairing the violation of the glory of God in creation by sin. How beautifully ordered all things were as they lived and moved in dependence on God. But sin destroyed this order and harmony. But all is restored, repaired and made up in this restoration of all things in our new head, Jesus Christ. Now divine creation is made more beautiful than it was before. So "the whole creation has been groaning" as it longs for this glorious restoration of all things. "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed" (Rom. 8:19).
In this work of restoration, Christ is also glorious because he is appointed as the only way by which all the treasures of the infinite wisdom of God towards his creatures are opened up and revealed. In the first creation, infinite wisdom was the inseparable companion of infinite power. "How many are your works, O Lord! In wisdom you have made them all." (Psalm 104:24) But when the effects of this divine wisdom were defaced by sin, greater treasures of wisdom were required to repair the damage done. And in the restoration of all things in Christ, God showed what he intended to do in dealing with his creatures. By his restoration of all things under one head, the manifold, unsearchable wisdom of God was made known to the angels themselves (as Eph. 3:10 infers). They had no idea previously of what God intended to do after sin had entered the world. They had no idea how God would repair the damage done by sin but by this purpose to gather all things in Christ, the manifold wisdom of God was made known to them. So in Christ "are hidden", and by him are gloriously displayed "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:3) In this he is glorious and will be forever.
The glory of Christ is also seen in the stability and security that is given to the whole new creation. The first creation was glorious but everything depended on God under a covenant of obedience. Everything was brought down by the sin of angels and men. But now everything that belongs to this new creation, including every believer in the world, as well as the angels in heaven, being gathered together under this one head, are all infallibly kept from ever being ruined by sin again. In this new head all is "strong, firm and steadfast" (1 Pet 5:10).
All includes representation from other creatures frustrated by the sin of angels and men. Nothing must be excluded from restoration else God's perfect and glorious plan is incomplete for God's creation was made to give glory to God. "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory, honour and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being" (Rev. 4:11). The intent in creation under heaven was that in man using creation rightly and thanking God for all that he had created for man's use, God was to receive glory from the animate and even the inanimate creation.
Nothing that God intended can be denied him. The effect of sin must be thoroughly reversed in "the renewal of all things when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne" (Matt. 19:28).
Now, consider very carefully the glory that is found in Jesus Christ. The glory in his creative work and the purpose of his creation, the glory of his incarnation, the glory of his triumph over sin and its effects, the glory emanating from the renewed creation under its new head.
It defies all sensibility to apply to Jesus Christ a creative activity riddled with frustrations and mutational errors such as the paradigm of evolution requires. When I say frustrations I mean obstructions. To advocate Theistic Evolution is to say Christ was, in his creative process, willing into his creation obstructions to resist and retard at the very same time he was willing progressions. By all observation, this argues a gross defect of intelligence on the part of the Creator. There is no glory to Christ in such activity. It is, instead, an insult and the insult, by means of evolution's need of time, is an eons long demeaning of the glory of Christ. Only a corrupted mind could conceive of a creative process comprising frustrations, disability, disease, survival of the fittest, death and extinctions as being glorious and giving glory to its Creator. No, such a proposition derives from "the father of lies" who will not give glory to God.
Friends have told me that Dean Phillip Jensen, when Rector at St Matthias Anglican Church, Centennial Park, Sydney, said words to the effect of "whether or not God used evolution in creation is a non-issue." If so, Dean Jensen has most dangerously 'given oxygen' in the church to a notion of creation that steals from the glory that is due Jesus Christ. My experience of Dean Jensen is that he is a fine man who indicates a love for the Lord Jesus Christ. However, his alleged decision to run away from the robbery of Christ's glory is a thorough disappointment. As so often happens, he has taken others with him in his flight. This is evidenced by his spawning of Matthias Media with its resident writers' capitulation to a 'broad' view on origins.
If my advice on the position of Dean Jensen is incorrect then I must withdraw my reference to him in this posting. If it does represent a correct observation of his position then .... The Lord Jesus, in responding to an erroneous request of a disciple replied "Don't you know me, Philip?" (John 14:9) Today, in Sydney, Australia, the question may be altered only so slightly to "Don't you know me, Phillip?"
Sam Drucker
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Descent of the Diocese
Charles Darwin, in his work 'The Origin of the Species' (unabridged version of 'The Origin of the Species' and 'The Descent of Man' published by Random House, page 148) said "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species , it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
This is a perfectly reasonable analysis because the theory presented by Darwin requires a process of death and struggle with the fittest species surviving at the expense of the weakest.
The question to be asked is "Has a case been made to demonstrate the occurrence of a structure formed for the exclusive good of another species?"
In this posting I would like to show that a structure has been located. More than that - a complete species has been observed replete with structures all working for the exclusive good of other species.
The existence of this ..... how shall I call it? .... altruistic species, by Darwin's own test, falsifies and renders invalid his theory on the origin of life.
Some 2000 years ago there appeared, in what we today call the Middle East, a man, "if it be lawful to call him a man" who did such wondrous things as to reveal he represented, in the order of life, the emergence of a species so contrary to experience that a total reappraisal of life and its purpose is demanded. Of course, I speak of Jesus of Nazareth.
He was not of man as we know man for he had capacities no man has been known to have and yet he was fully man.
Consider his activity of instantaneously turning water into wine. Most reasoned arguments hold that the resultant wine was alcoholic. In an instant and seemingly by will alone Jesus of Nazareth did what natural processes aided by the intellect and physical efforts of man takes months or years to do. That the end product was of high quality to impress recipients suggests a lengthy period of time and process were collapsed into a momentary event. Surely, Jesus of Nazareth possessed the authority of one who, from the beginning, was able to determine or alter the physiological order of things in an instant. On display here is the capacity of one who could instantly make, from the dust of the earth, all manner of living things. This is the adding of information to 'raw' substance required for prevailing theories on the formation of life.
The incidents of feeding a multitude from a seemingly impossible supply of bread and fish speak of one able to produce material substance when, according to the laws of nature, there was insurmountable limit.
The calming of the wind and the waves coinciding with the utterance of a few words is an otherwise unheard of event. The utterance of the words must have been for the benefit of the hearers because the oral language of a Middle Eastern people surely have no meaning or bearing on natural elements. The timely utterance of the words helped the people know it was Jesus of Nazareth who was ordering this event. On display here was a will or thought capacity able to order and maintain natural elements otherwise out of the control of man but within the capacity of a Creator.
The healing of a paralytic at the pool of Bethesda is an intriguing event. The man had been paralyzed for 38 years yet just as Jesus of Nazareth tells him to get up, pick up his mat and walk, the man is able to do so. All observation of the natural order tells us that, aside from impediment causing paralysis, this man would not, up to this moment, have the leg muscles to enable him to stand and walk. Unused muscles waste away. Also lost, would have been functioning balance to stand upright and walk. Muscle is material substance whereas balance is non material information operating within material substance. Ordinarily, each is intrinsic to human life but only function with repeated application by the host. Jesus of Nazareth here instantaneously provides functioning material substance where there had previously been limitation but, more than that, he also provides functioning non material information where there previously had been none. Surely this is a demonstration of one who could instantly create living things fully functioning with material substance and non material information. On display here is the one who created fully functioning Adam and other land dwelling creatures on day 6 of creation week.
Consider Lazarus dead 4 days and instantaneously raised to life by Jesus of Nazareth. Immediately upon death, the corpse of Lazarus would have commenced decomposition and would have been in an advanced stage by the time Jesus of Nazareth arrived at the tomb. By the will of Jesus of Nazareth, the lump of decaying non life instantaneously became life with fully functioning material substance and non material information. The process of "ashes to ashes and dust to dust" had been ruptured, even reversed, for a time. This is again reminiscent of, as the Holy Bible instructs, the Creator creating life from "the dust of the earth" albeit, on this occasion, a somewhat advanced composition of the natural elements of the earth.
All these things he did for the good of others. There was nothing to compel him to do these things except the compulsion to be true to his very being. And his being? As I hope to show, it is nothing less than the highest order of altruism.
Finally, Jesus of Nazareth, in his resurrection from the dead did more than he did with Lazarus. He arose with a 'new' body. It had some features identifying with the old (eg marks of crucifixion) but it was an eternal body over which the process of "ashes to ashes and dust to dust" had no hold. There is much more the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth signifies but for brevity and direction it will suffice to say his resurrection body set him over and above the order of this life by transcending laws of nature, as exampled by the manner of his appearances in enclosed spaces after resurrection.
In his deeds, Jesus of Nazareth demonstrated capacities appropriate to the Creator of the universe and all thing in it. Yet he was born into the world as a man with a genealogy dating to the first man, Adam - our ancestor. His conception in the womb differed to us in that it involved Divine activity upon a woman but in all his physicality and emotions he was as much a man as the rest of us. Yet with all this similarity he bore no sin of his own. He was of a type the world had not known.
We can identify with his weeping at the scene of mourning for Lazarus (John 11:35), his anger in the temple court (John 2:15), his disappointment over Jerusalem's failings (Luke 13:34), his tiredness in the boat (Mark 4:38), his temptations and hungering (Matt. 4:1-2), his thirst (John 19:28) and his love for those close to him (John 13:23). These are the ways of man as we observe life but in all this he did not sin.
We can also observe the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth in his complete subjection to the law even though, in his Divine self, he was the full embodiment of the law; his subjection to baptism even though he had nothing to repent of and his sufferings and bearing of sins which were not his own in crucifixion. These are things which bear much contemplation for even the Angels look into these things with wonder. Yet, if nothing else, they are testimony to the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth.
What of the things he said of how a man was to live, a way he lived himself as man. He did not say blessed are the strong, aggressive, cunning, manipulative or adaptive. He said blessed are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the peacemakers and those who are persecuted because of righteousness. He said and lived "do not resist an evil person", "give to the one who asks you", "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".
In the the things he said and lived, Jesus of Nazareth exemplified the mutual grace relationship existing within the Godhead before the creation of the world and maintained during Incarnation except when temporarily fractured on Golgotha.
Mutual grace relationship is 'other person centred.' It is displayed in the Godhead where the Son agreed before the creation of the world to give up his glory and position with the Father to come into the world as a "Lamb" to suffer indignity and separation from the Father and Holy Spirit so that God's love could be bestowed on the world. It is displayed in the Father giving to the Son "all authority in heaven and on earth." It is displayed in Holy Spirit coming at the behest of Father and Son to dwell in us and transform us to the glory of Jesus Christ. It is displayed in the Son giving all the glory of his triumph to Father that God may be all in all. All this other person centredness employed for our benefit that we, the unworthy, might enjoy God and his blessings forever.
Israel, upon agreeing to be the People of God were given the Ten Commandments to aid living as the People of God. Implicit in the Ten Commandments is 'other person centredness.'
Other person centredness (or mutual grace relationship) is diametrically opposed to Darwin's theory on the origin of species through natural selection. Natural selection occurs but it is a consequence of the Fall, not the means of original creation. It is a product of the Curse on all creation after sin. It has no root in God but in the fracturing of other person centredness by participants in the Garden.
Charles Darwin observed natural selection but he had no knowledge of the origin of it. If he had a thorough understanding of the things of God, Charles Darwin would have recognised, in Jesus of Nazareth, all the qualities and characteristics of God. That which Charles Darwin said would destroy his theory was available for him to see in the words and deeds of God in the Old and New Testament and most demonstrably exemplified in Jesus of Nazareth who is rightly called the Christ.
The highest order of altruism is found in the person of Jesus Christ. Had Charles Darwin seen this the world might have been saved from a soul destroying and most costly philosophy on the origin of life. Also, Satan would have been denied a tool for the weakening of Christian faith.
The Church must divest itself of anything of Charles Darwin's theory. It is so far removed from the Person of Jesus Christ as to be a heresy. It is a heresy widely held in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney and is to the ruin of the Diocese.
Neil Moore
This is a perfectly reasonable analysis because the theory presented by Darwin requires a process of death and struggle with the fittest species surviving at the expense of the weakest.
The question to be asked is "Has a case been made to demonstrate the occurrence of a structure formed for the exclusive good of another species?"
In this posting I would like to show that a structure has been located. More than that - a complete species has been observed replete with structures all working for the exclusive good of other species.
The existence of this ..... how shall I call it? .... altruistic species, by Darwin's own test, falsifies and renders invalid his theory on the origin of life.
Some 2000 years ago there appeared, in what we today call the Middle East, a man, "if it be lawful to call him a man" who did such wondrous things as to reveal he represented, in the order of life, the emergence of a species so contrary to experience that a total reappraisal of life and its purpose is demanded. Of course, I speak of Jesus of Nazareth.
He was not of man as we know man for he had capacities no man has been known to have and yet he was fully man.
Consider his activity of instantaneously turning water into wine. Most reasoned arguments hold that the resultant wine was alcoholic. In an instant and seemingly by will alone Jesus of Nazareth did what natural processes aided by the intellect and physical efforts of man takes months or years to do. That the end product was of high quality to impress recipients suggests a lengthy period of time and process were collapsed into a momentary event. Surely, Jesus of Nazareth possessed the authority of one who, from the beginning, was able to determine or alter the physiological order of things in an instant. On display here is the capacity of one who could instantly make, from the dust of the earth, all manner of living things. This is the adding of information to 'raw' substance required for prevailing theories on the formation of life.
The incidents of feeding a multitude from a seemingly impossible supply of bread and fish speak of one able to produce material substance when, according to the laws of nature, there was insurmountable limit.
The calming of the wind and the waves coinciding with the utterance of a few words is an otherwise unheard of event. The utterance of the words must have been for the benefit of the hearers because the oral language of a Middle Eastern people surely have no meaning or bearing on natural elements. The timely utterance of the words helped the people know it was Jesus of Nazareth who was ordering this event. On display here was a will or thought capacity able to order and maintain natural elements otherwise out of the control of man but within the capacity of a Creator.
The healing of a paralytic at the pool of Bethesda is an intriguing event. The man had been paralyzed for 38 years yet just as Jesus of Nazareth tells him to get up, pick up his mat and walk, the man is able to do so. All observation of the natural order tells us that, aside from impediment causing paralysis, this man would not, up to this moment, have the leg muscles to enable him to stand and walk. Unused muscles waste away. Also lost, would have been functioning balance to stand upright and walk. Muscle is material substance whereas balance is non material information operating within material substance. Ordinarily, each is intrinsic to human life but only function with repeated application by the host. Jesus of Nazareth here instantaneously provides functioning material substance where there had previously been limitation but, more than that, he also provides functioning non material information where there previously had been none. Surely this is a demonstration of one who could instantly create living things fully functioning with material substance and non material information. On display here is the one who created fully functioning Adam and other land dwelling creatures on day 6 of creation week.
Consider Lazarus dead 4 days and instantaneously raised to life by Jesus of Nazareth. Immediately upon death, the corpse of Lazarus would have commenced decomposition and would have been in an advanced stage by the time Jesus of Nazareth arrived at the tomb. By the will of Jesus of Nazareth, the lump of decaying non life instantaneously became life with fully functioning material substance and non material information. The process of "ashes to ashes and dust to dust" had been ruptured, even reversed, for a time. This is again reminiscent of, as the Holy Bible instructs, the Creator creating life from "the dust of the earth" albeit, on this occasion, a somewhat advanced composition of the natural elements of the earth.
All these things he did for the good of others. There was nothing to compel him to do these things except the compulsion to be true to his very being. And his being? As I hope to show, it is nothing less than the highest order of altruism.
Finally, Jesus of Nazareth, in his resurrection from the dead did more than he did with Lazarus. He arose with a 'new' body. It had some features identifying with the old (eg marks of crucifixion) but it was an eternal body over which the process of "ashes to ashes and dust to dust" had no hold. There is much more the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth signifies but for brevity and direction it will suffice to say his resurrection body set him over and above the order of this life by transcending laws of nature, as exampled by the manner of his appearances in enclosed spaces after resurrection.
In his deeds, Jesus of Nazareth demonstrated capacities appropriate to the Creator of the universe and all thing in it. Yet he was born into the world as a man with a genealogy dating to the first man, Adam - our ancestor. His conception in the womb differed to us in that it involved Divine activity upon a woman but in all his physicality and emotions he was as much a man as the rest of us. Yet with all this similarity he bore no sin of his own. He was of a type the world had not known.
We can identify with his weeping at the scene of mourning for Lazarus (John 11:35), his anger in the temple court (John 2:15), his disappointment over Jerusalem's failings (Luke 13:34), his tiredness in the boat (Mark 4:38), his temptations and hungering (Matt. 4:1-2), his thirst (John 19:28) and his love for those close to him (John 13:23). These are the ways of man as we observe life but in all this he did not sin.
We can also observe the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth in his complete subjection to the law even though, in his Divine self, he was the full embodiment of the law; his subjection to baptism even though he had nothing to repent of and his sufferings and bearing of sins which were not his own in crucifixion. These are things which bear much contemplation for even the Angels look into these things with wonder. Yet, if nothing else, they are testimony to the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth.
What of the things he said of how a man was to live, a way he lived himself as man. He did not say blessed are the strong, aggressive, cunning, manipulative or adaptive. He said blessed are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the peacemakers and those who are persecuted because of righteousness. He said and lived "do not resist an evil person", "give to the one who asks you", "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".
In the the things he said and lived, Jesus of Nazareth exemplified the mutual grace relationship existing within the Godhead before the creation of the world and maintained during Incarnation except when temporarily fractured on Golgotha.
Mutual grace relationship is 'other person centred.' It is displayed in the Godhead where the Son agreed before the creation of the world to give up his glory and position with the Father to come into the world as a "Lamb" to suffer indignity and separation from the Father and Holy Spirit so that God's love could be bestowed on the world. It is displayed in the Father giving to the Son "all authority in heaven and on earth." It is displayed in Holy Spirit coming at the behest of Father and Son to dwell in us and transform us to the glory of Jesus Christ. It is displayed in the Son giving all the glory of his triumph to Father that God may be all in all. All this other person centredness employed for our benefit that we, the unworthy, might enjoy God and his blessings forever.
Israel, upon agreeing to be the People of God were given the Ten Commandments to aid living as the People of God. Implicit in the Ten Commandments is 'other person centredness.'
Other person centredness (or mutual grace relationship) is diametrically opposed to Darwin's theory on the origin of species through natural selection. Natural selection occurs but it is a consequence of the Fall, not the means of original creation. It is a product of the Curse on all creation after sin. It has no root in God but in the fracturing of other person centredness by participants in the Garden.
Charles Darwin observed natural selection but he had no knowledge of the origin of it. If he had a thorough understanding of the things of God, Charles Darwin would have recognised, in Jesus of Nazareth, all the qualities and characteristics of God. That which Charles Darwin said would destroy his theory was available for him to see in the words and deeds of God in the Old and New Testament and most demonstrably exemplified in Jesus of Nazareth who is rightly called the Christ.
The highest order of altruism is found in the person of Jesus Christ. Had Charles Darwin seen this the world might have been saved from a soul destroying and most costly philosophy on the origin of life. Also, Satan would have been denied a tool for the weakening of Christian faith.
The Church must divest itself of anything of Charles Darwin's theory. It is so far removed from the Person of Jesus Christ as to be a heresy. It is a heresy widely held in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney and is to the ruin of the Diocese.
Neil Moore
Thursday, April 19, 2007
A Dead End
I know this is a bit removed from the theme of previous postings and comments but I wonder if others have noticed what my family have noticed in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney in recent times.
It seems to me like the outworking of what Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones called "Dead Orthodoxy." To clarify this term for those unfamiliar with it I shall say that "Dead Orthodoxy" is the teaching of Scripture so intellectualised that sermons are so dry that the life of the Gospel is drained from it. There is little or no experience of God in it.
The situation is aggravated by the in-flow to the ministry of people from the St Matthias inspired Ministry Training Scheme. Training must involve opportunity to preach (or is it teach?)
from the pulpit. Congregations then, in most situations, receive a structured sermon from young men still learning about life in our time let alone the activity of God in the life of a people he chose some thousands of years ago. The result is a sermon basically sound in its presentation of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Atoning Sacrifice. But is it presented fresh and alive with something for a long term Christian family to go home and feed on for the rest of the week? Or even for a couple of hours.
Don't get me wrong, all Clergy have to start somewhere and allowance has to be made for their infancy in the ministry. But does the training these people receive within the Anglican Diocese of Sydney mean they are only regurgitating a dead intellectualism, perhaps, a little further down the path towards the "Department of Redundant Churches" as exists in England?
That there is a problem within the Diocese must be known because something is being done about it. Recent coverage in the Diocesan journal "Southern Cross" on the issue of music in the Diocese tells us where many Anglicans have unwittingly been looking for a solution to the creeping death of "Dead Orthodoxy."
Some years ago, influentials in St Matthias, Centennial Park, were cautious about the excesses of music pursued by the "Charo's" and "Penties" but today the Anglican Diocese is, in practice, going after them, although, at this stage at a little distance. Read the "Southern Cross' story and readers follow-up comments and you will see how much more influence music has in the conduct of church services today in comparison with forty years ago. Try this measure of influence - compare the ratio of floor space for musicians to the floor space for Bible preaching/teaching/reading and for prayers to God. Perhaps even compare the "Sanctuary" space to the music space.
The growth of music beyond its past influence is a dangerous experiment. It is fed by a desire for something more spiritually satisfying than what is coming out of the pulpit and is aided by new songs/choruses coming out of the various Katoomba Conventions and the array of "Charo" chorus writers from sources elsewhere. And what about the influence of the music making the "charts'" in secular music over the past fifty years? One influence which amuses and disturbs me is secular music's use of the words "Yeah" and "Baby" - perhaps the two most used words in the history of music charts. Well, the word "Yeah" is now creeping into Christian songs and now, as a "Babe", I await with interest, or is it dismay, the word "Baby". Then again, "Baby" is not really singing about God so it shouldn't emerge should it? Or does that really matter nowadays?
The danger of music is that it influences the emotions. Influencing emotions is not a bad thing but, for Christians, the primary influence on emotions ought to be the experience of God. Consider the activity of God in the times of Revival some centuries ago. It was not music that was the primary influence but the experience of God in the preaching of his word. Preaching with life and emotion that touched the heart of the hearer. Preaching that came with power "from on high". Preachers were a variety of skilled and not so skilled orators. You can read some of the sermons and wonder why they might have had effect. But they did! They had to have been accompanied by something not visible in the pages of the written record of them. It had to be the Spirit of God using men who were close to God, who knew something of the character and love of God and who had a burning desire to share this experience of God with hearers.
Learn a lesson from the secular world's interest in music. Its satisfaction level has its limits. First it was alcohol and now it is drugs which are pursued to get more out of music.
Lively preaching of God's word emanating from a deep knowledge and love of God, not music, is the antidote to "Dead Orthodoxy." Music has a place but not not as much as we are giving it and especially not if the lyrics and melody lack substance.
Gwen
It seems to me like the outworking of what Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones called "Dead Orthodoxy." To clarify this term for those unfamiliar with it I shall say that "Dead Orthodoxy" is the teaching of Scripture so intellectualised that sermons are so dry that the life of the Gospel is drained from it. There is little or no experience of God in it.
The situation is aggravated by the in-flow to the ministry of people from the St Matthias inspired Ministry Training Scheme. Training must involve opportunity to preach (or is it teach?)
from the pulpit. Congregations then, in most situations, receive a structured sermon from young men still learning about life in our time let alone the activity of God in the life of a people he chose some thousands of years ago. The result is a sermon basically sound in its presentation of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Atoning Sacrifice. But is it presented fresh and alive with something for a long term Christian family to go home and feed on for the rest of the week? Or even for a couple of hours.
Don't get me wrong, all Clergy have to start somewhere and allowance has to be made for their infancy in the ministry. But does the training these people receive within the Anglican Diocese of Sydney mean they are only regurgitating a dead intellectualism, perhaps, a little further down the path towards the "Department of Redundant Churches" as exists in England?
That there is a problem within the Diocese must be known because something is being done about it. Recent coverage in the Diocesan journal "Southern Cross" on the issue of music in the Diocese tells us where many Anglicans have unwittingly been looking for a solution to the creeping death of "Dead Orthodoxy."
Some years ago, influentials in St Matthias, Centennial Park, were cautious about the excesses of music pursued by the "Charo's" and "Penties" but today the Anglican Diocese is, in practice, going after them, although, at this stage at a little distance. Read the "Southern Cross' story and readers follow-up comments and you will see how much more influence music has in the conduct of church services today in comparison with forty years ago. Try this measure of influence - compare the ratio of floor space for musicians to the floor space for Bible preaching/teaching/reading and for prayers to God. Perhaps even compare the "Sanctuary" space to the music space.
The growth of music beyond its past influence is a dangerous experiment. It is fed by a desire for something more spiritually satisfying than what is coming out of the pulpit and is aided by new songs/choruses coming out of the various Katoomba Conventions and the array of "Charo" chorus writers from sources elsewhere. And what about the influence of the music making the "charts'" in secular music over the past fifty years? One influence which amuses and disturbs me is secular music's use of the words "Yeah" and "Baby" - perhaps the two most used words in the history of music charts. Well, the word "Yeah" is now creeping into Christian songs and now, as a "Babe", I await with interest, or is it dismay, the word "Baby". Then again, "Baby" is not really singing about God so it shouldn't emerge should it? Or does that really matter nowadays?
The danger of music is that it influences the emotions. Influencing emotions is not a bad thing but, for Christians, the primary influence on emotions ought to be the experience of God. Consider the activity of God in the times of Revival some centuries ago. It was not music that was the primary influence but the experience of God in the preaching of his word. Preaching with life and emotion that touched the heart of the hearer. Preaching that came with power "from on high". Preachers were a variety of skilled and not so skilled orators. You can read some of the sermons and wonder why they might have had effect. But they did! They had to have been accompanied by something not visible in the pages of the written record of them. It had to be the Spirit of God using men who were close to God, who knew something of the character and love of God and who had a burning desire to share this experience of God with hearers.
Learn a lesson from the secular world's interest in music. Its satisfaction level has its limits. First it was alcohol and now it is drugs which are pursued to get more out of music.
Lively preaching of God's word emanating from a deep knowledge and love of God, not music, is the antidote to "Dead Orthodoxy." Music has a place but not not as much as we are giving it and especially not if the lyrics and melody lack substance.
Gwen
Friday, April 13, 2007
Sandy does Genesis . . . to a crisp
Text of a letter I sent to a few clergy brothers after Sandy Grant had published his views on the interpretation of Genesis 1 in The Briefing, last year.
Dear brothers,
I was very disturbed to read of an article in The Briefing, which attempts to find a common ground between contemporary belief and the revealed word of God in Genesis 1 (and on).
It is commendable to seek common ground where we can, to enable the clear proclamation of the gospel, but when the exercise of finding common ground means that the word of God is made subservient to the transitory beliefs of a culture which has turned its back on God, it is essential that godly men stand up and name the sin.
I do not doubt Sandy's (the author's) genuine desire to assist in the proclamation of the gospel; but he has done so by firstly denying that Genesis 1 is factual, and secondly, does this to allow the survival of a set of beliefs about the world which are not the result of scientific endeavour, as he describes it, but are the fruits of men who have taken as their basic axiom that the Bible has nothing to say on the matter of God's work in the totality of our world's history. Sandy has confused modern science with modern materialism and *its* axioms which reject most profoundly that our God has anything to do with our lives, if he exists at all.
The witness of the scripture is overturned and our Lord's reliance on it denied in a flourish of post-modern artifice at Sandy's hand. He undoes himself though.
Does he really think that Moses thought he was compiling a passage which didn't actually reflect events which God used to bring about the world? Does he really think that the modern invention of some form of non-historical history will assist us to proclaim the gospel to those who reject the God we worship? Whenever Christians have attempted to render the scriptures compatible with atheistic beliefs, it is not atheists who have become Christians, but Christians who have surrended their faith, and become atheists. I think of prominent men such as Richard Rorty, the philosohper, EO Wilson the evolutionary sociobiologist, Templeton, once a colleague of Billy Graham's who turned from his faith and quenched the Spirit, it would appear. Remarkably, Josef Stalin is another who was bewitched by evolution from his priestly studies to become the leader of the most foul regime of all time.
If we don't stand on the Scripture, we are, finally, undone, and Sandy's approach may represent the threshold of a path which will undo the gospel in Sydney.
Nor does his logic assist us. If Genesis does not really relate what happened, but is a mere figment; which is what it must be if those events did not occur; then God's statement in Ex 20:11 is nonsense. I don't think the sense that Sandy has of the text is one that was abroad much before the 19th Century with the rise of Hegelianism (unless we discount the gnostics of the early centuries of the faith). I am doubly disturbed that he applies a meaning which is contrary to the text and cannot emerge from the text itself. There is nothing in the literature which would indicate it is anything but factual.
Two features which are often cited against this are the use of ordinals to structure events, but in Numbers 7 we have a similar feature, and the use of chiasmis is thought by some to undercut factuality, but most of the Bible features chiasmis from the beginning to the end, and right through the historical books.
But back to his illogic.
If the events of Genesis 1 did not occur, then the only means God has given us to tell us what happened that shows he is our Creator and king cannot in fact show us that as it relies on the actual events! Deny the events, you must deny what only they can imply. If we have no truth about God creating, how do we say he is creator? All we are left with is the godless hopelessness of atheistic materialism. Why, I ask, does Sandy send us here, and not to a stronger proclamation of the gospel from Genesis on, as a prophetic church should be doing, fearlessly exposing the pretensions of men to the criticism of the gospel, firm in our confidence that the Spirit of God will not mislead us, but will vindicate our faith for his glory through the salvation of the lost?
I must also note, as a final remark, that it is where the long ages of earth history and the corollory theory of evolution are challenged by logic, science and the word of God that people are brought to faith. I know of many who come to faith this way; but none by the denial of the veracity of God's word in Genesis.
It is a final irony that Chistians incline their ears to the earth history times given by modern geological conventions, but fail to see that these conventions do not emerge from science or observations, but are the result of a prior commitment to naturalism. That is, the conventions start with the statement that there is no God and reality is finally material, not finally spiritual, and ethics is an emergent phenomenon of material, whereas the Bible tells us that it is basic, because God is love.
Dear brothers,
I was very disturbed to read of an article in The Briefing, which attempts to find a common ground between contemporary belief and the revealed word of God in Genesis 1 (and on).
It is commendable to seek common ground where we can, to enable the clear proclamation of the gospel, but when the exercise of finding common ground means that the word of God is made subservient to the transitory beliefs of a culture which has turned its back on God, it is essential that godly men stand up and name the sin.
I do not doubt Sandy's (the author's) genuine desire to assist in the proclamation of the gospel; but he has done so by firstly denying that Genesis 1 is factual, and secondly, does this to allow the survival of a set of beliefs about the world which are not the result of scientific endeavour, as he describes it, but are the fruits of men who have taken as their basic axiom that the Bible has nothing to say on the matter of God's work in the totality of our world's history. Sandy has confused modern science with modern materialism and *its* axioms which reject most profoundly that our God has anything to do with our lives, if he exists at all.
The witness of the scripture is overturned and our Lord's reliance on it denied in a flourish of post-modern artifice at Sandy's hand. He undoes himself though.
Does he really think that Moses thought he was compiling a passage which didn't actually reflect events which God used to bring about the world? Does he really think that the modern invention of some form of non-historical history will assist us to proclaim the gospel to those who reject the God we worship? Whenever Christians have attempted to render the scriptures compatible with atheistic beliefs, it is not atheists who have become Christians, but Christians who have surrended their faith, and become atheists. I think of prominent men such as Richard Rorty, the philosohper, EO Wilson the evolutionary sociobiologist, Templeton, once a colleague of Billy Graham's who turned from his faith and quenched the Spirit, it would appear. Remarkably, Josef Stalin is another who was bewitched by evolution from his priestly studies to become the leader of the most foul regime of all time.
If we don't stand on the Scripture, we are, finally, undone, and Sandy's approach may represent the threshold of a path which will undo the gospel in Sydney.
Nor does his logic assist us. If Genesis does not really relate what happened, but is a mere figment; which is what it must be if those events did not occur; then God's statement in Ex 20:11 is nonsense. I don't think the sense that Sandy has of the text is one that was abroad much before the 19th Century with the rise of Hegelianism (unless we discount the gnostics of the early centuries of the faith). I am doubly disturbed that he applies a meaning which is contrary to the text and cannot emerge from the text itself. There is nothing in the literature which would indicate it is anything but factual.
Two features which are often cited against this are the use of ordinals to structure events, but in Numbers 7 we have a similar feature, and the use of chiasmis is thought by some to undercut factuality, but most of the Bible features chiasmis from the beginning to the end, and right through the historical books.
But back to his illogic.
If the events of Genesis 1 did not occur, then the only means God has given us to tell us what happened that shows he is our Creator and king cannot in fact show us that as it relies on the actual events! Deny the events, you must deny what only they can imply. If we have no truth about God creating, how do we say he is creator? All we are left with is the godless hopelessness of atheistic materialism. Why, I ask, does Sandy send us here, and not to a stronger proclamation of the gospel from Genesis on, as a prophetic church should be doing, fearlessly exposing the pretensions of men to the criticism of the gospel, firm in our confidence that the Spirit of God will not mislead us, but will vindicate our faith for his glory through the salvation of the lost?
I must also note, as a final remark, that it is where the long ages of earth history and the corollory theory of evolution are challenged by logic, science and the word of God that people are brought to faith. I know of many who come to faith this way; but none by the denial of the veracity of God's word in Genesis.
It is a final irony that Chistians incline their ears to the earth history times given by modern geological conventions, but fail to see that these conventions do not emerge from science or observations, but are the result of a prior commitment to naturalism. That is, the conventions start with the statement that there is no God and reality is finally material, not finally spiritual, and ethics is an emergent phenomenon of material, whereas the Bible tells us that it is basic, because God is love.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Dr on Dawkins
Comments by Dr Frank Stootman on the book “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins. Some minor edits.
[Frank is the host of the Sydney L'Abri Fellowship resource centre, and lectures at Western Sydney University in computer science. His PhD is in physics.]
In his latest best seller, Richard Dawkins is passionately flying the flag of atheist pride, moving beyond naturalistic science into an attack on all religion and particularly Christianity. He sees himself as the spokesperson to rid the world of the scourge that religion has brought to humanity and in his passion to prove his point there is a distinct lack of scholarly balance. To Dawkins, evolutionary development to intelligence is a process in the universe, therefore any God needs to come after, not before. Dawkins discounts revelation from a creator God and thus the idea of self is ultimately a biochemical illusion.
From a Christian perspective the revelation form God resonates so deeply with our humanity. God answers our real human wonder at the universe, making sense of the symmetries, categories and logical laws. The revelation from God addresses our real desire for meaning and values, and deals with our fundamental problem of sin. We learn from his non-exhaustive revelation that God has a solution, in Jesus, to re-establish relationship with himself.
Organised religions and their less than ideal cultural and historical outworkings cause in Dawkins deep disillusionment. I share his frustration at the pain caused by so many believers who act contrary to the Bible. Sin, however, is the common factor in the promotion of self in humankind, whether expressed in religion or atheism. Evolution which requires self-centredness, cannot provide a basis for morality. Only something outside of ourselves: God, satisfies our need for final justice. While followers may be imperfect we should evaluate any ideology, whether religious or atheistic, by examining its founder. Unlike Mohammed or Marx, Jesus cannot be discounted at any level of his being.
Dawkins cannot accept the miraculous in the record of biblical history. Physics without metaphysics precludes such things (1). However, I am prepared to look more carefully at these stories and no not set them aside as fiction even if they seem at odds with the normal form of the universe (2). I live in an open universe as Dr Francis Schaeffer would say, in which God is sovereign and able to do things outside of my normal experience (3).
(copyright not asserted, April 2007)
Comments
1. Physics, like all enquiry of the creation, proceeds on the basis of a metaphysics, indeed, on the basis of axiomatic beliefs. As it happens, Dawkins metaphysics is the fatally flawed positivism admixed with dogmatic naturalism. Together these fail as Frank has sketched, and as further explored in reviews of Dawkins' book by Alvin Plantinga (check the Christianity Today website) and Philip Bell (check the Creationontheweb.org website)
2. Interestingly miracles are in radical contradiction of the fallen universe, they demonstrate God’s being external to the flow of created causality. Similarly, his action to create must be, by definition, external to this flow.
3. Our experience is very limited, of course, and often leads to the use of inductive reasoning. This is hopeless to arrive at real understanding (as Locke says). A lot of evolutionary boosting is pure induction, and induction on the basis of a prior commitment to naturalism, with a failure to meet the challenge of contradicting results except by special pleading. I like Popper's challenge to inductivism with the testing of hypothesis by attempts to fail them.
[Frank is the host of the Sydney L'Abri Fellowship resource centre, and lectures at Western Sydney University in computer science. His PhD is in physics.]
In his latest best seller, Richard Dawkins is passionately flying the flag of atheist pride, moving beyond naturalistic science into an attack on all religion and particularly Christianity. He sees himself as the spokesperson to rid the world of the scourge that religion has brought to humanity and in his passion to prove his point there is a distinct lack of scholarly balance. To Dawkins, evolutionary development to intelligence is a process in the universe, therefore any God needs to come after, not before. Dawkins discounts revelation from a creator God and thus the idea of self is ultimately a biochemical illusion.
From a Christian perspective the revelation form God resonates so deeply with our humanity. God answers our real human wonder at the universe, making sense of the symmetries, categories and logical laws. The revelation from God addresses our real desire for meaning and values, and deals with our fundamental problem of sin. We learn from his non-exhaustive revelation that God has a solution, in Jesus, to re-establish relationship with himself.
Organised religions and their less than ideal cultural and historical outworkings cause in Dawkins deep disillusionment. I share his frustration at the pain caused by so many believers who act contrary to the Bible. Sin, however, is the common factor in the promotion of self in humankind, whether expressed in religion or atheism. Evolution which requires self-centredness, cannot provide a basis for morality. Only something outside of ourselves: God, satisfies our need for final justice. While followers may be imperfect we should evaluate any ideology, whether religious or atheistic, by examining its founder. Unlike Mohammed or Marx, Jesus cannot be discounted at any level of his being.
Dawkins cannot accept the miraculous in the record of biblical history. Physics without metaphysics precludes such things (1). However, I am prepared to look more carefully at these stories and no not set them aside as fiction even if they seem at odds with the normal form of the universe (2). I live in an open universe as Dr Francis Schaeffer would say, in which God is sovereign and able to do things outside of my normal experience (3).
(copyright not asserted, April 2007)
Comments
1. Physics, like all enquiry of the creation, proceeds on the basis of a metaphysics, indeed, on the basis of axiomatic beliefs. As it happens, Dawkins metaphysics is the fatally flawed positivism admixed with dogmatic naturalism. Together these fail as Frank has sketched, and as further explored in reviews of Dawkins' book by Alvin Plantinga (check the Christianity Today website) and Philip Bell (check the Creationontheweb.org website)
2. Interestingly miracles are in radical contradiction of the fallen universe, they demonstrate God’s being external to the flow of created causality. Similarly, his action to create must be, by definition, external to this flow.
3. Our experience is very limited, of course, and often leads to the use of inductive reasoning. This is hopeless to arrive at real understanding (as Locke says). A lot of evolutionary boosting is pure induction, and induction on the basis of a prior commitment to naturalism, with a failure to meet the challenge of contradicting results except by special pleading. I like Popper's challenge to inductivism with the testing of hypothesis by attempts to fail them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
