Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Elements of Down-Grade in Sydney Episcopalian Church (Part 2)
I think it necessary to provide a little more on the correspondence emanating from the camp of Charles Haddon Spurgeon on the issue known as the "Down-Grade Controversy" of the late 19th Century before I apply it to the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney.
In the March 1887 there appeared the first of two articles written by Robert Shindler, close associate of Charles Spurgeon and fellow Baptist Pastor, in the Sword and Trowel under the heading of the "The Down Grade". I provide extracts herewith:
"The Presbyterians were the first to get on the down line," said Shindler. "They paid more attention to classical attainments and other branches of learning. . . . It [became] an easy step in the wrong direction to pay increased attention to academical attainments in their ministers, and less to spiritual qualifications; and to set a higher value on scholarship and oratory, than on evangelical zeal and ability to rightly divide the word of truth."
Shindler took aim at the leadership of the Nonconformist church because of the degree of secrecy in which they gave over to doubt about Reformation principles and belief, saying:
"These men deepened their own condemnation, and promoted the everlasting ruin of many of their followers by their hypocrisy and deceit; professing to be the ambassadors of Christ, and the heralds of his glorious gospel, their aim was to ignore his claims, deny him his rights, lower his character, rend the glorious vesture of his salvation, and trample his crown in the dust."
He concluded the article with: "These facts furnish a lesson for the present times, when, as in some cases, it is all too plainly apparent men are willing to forego the old for the sake of the new. But commonly it is found in theology that that which is true is not new, and that which is new is not true."
The April, 1887 edition of Sword and Trowel provided the second instalment and reemphasized the failure of the Nonconformist church to deal with those in the pulpit espousing doctrine contrary to that of the Reformation. I provide herewith some quotes:
[The] "tadpole of Darwinism was hatched. . . [in a pew] of the old chapel in High Street, Shrewsbury," where Charles Darwin had first been exposed to scepticism by a pastor who was full on with Socinianism.
"In the case of every errant course there is always a first wrong step. If we can trace that wrong step, we may be able to avoid it and its results. Where, then, is the point of divergence from the "King's highway of truth"? What is the first step astray? Is it doubting this doctrine, or questioning that sentiment, or being sceptical as to the other article of orthodox belief? We think not. These doubts and this scepticism are the outcome of something going before.
The first step astray is a want of adequate faith in the divine inspiration of the sacred Scriptures. All the while a man bows to the authority of God's Word, he will not entertain any sentiment contrary to its teaching. 'To the law and to the testimony,' is his appeal concerning every doctrine. He esteems that holy Book, concerning all things, to be right, and therefore he hates every false way. But let a man question, or entertain low views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and he is without chart to guide him, and without anchor to hold him." and
"In looking carefully over the history of the times, and the movement of the times, of which we have written briefly, this fact is apparent: that where ministers and Christian churches have held fast to the truth that the Holy Scriptures have been given by God as an authoritative and infallible rule of faith and practice, they have never wandered very seriously out of the right way. But when, on the other hand, reason has been exalted above revelation, and made the exponent of revelation, all kinds of errors and mischiefs have been the result."
I will conclude with the final instalment in a few days.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Elements of Down-Grade in Sydney Episcopalian Church
Readers may or may not be familiar with the late 19th Century "Down-Grade Controversy" of the English Nonconformist church with Charles Haddon Spurgeon at the forefront of the battle to defend the Word of God in the life and practice of the church. Provided hereunder is an extract of an article dealing with the background to the Down-Grade Controversy written by Michael Boland for the February 1968 issue of The Banner of Truth Journal.
"The story of the progress of the critical view of the Bible among Nonconformist denominations has been well told from the point of view of one who sympathises with the movement, in Evangelical Nonconformists and Higher Criticism in the Nineteenth Century by Dr Willis B. Glover. Glover concedes that the abandonment of the traditional attitude towards the Bible was not necessarily the result of objective scientific discoveries, so much as of the spirit of the age [p 71]. According to his account, the take-over process was certainly rapid. Higher criticism did not get a foothold in England until after 1880 [p 36]. Yet by the mid I890's 'the new approach to the Bible had been accepted by the overwhelming majority of Nonconformist leaders and was taught in all the leading Nonconformist colleges.' [p 213], although 'there remained large numbers of laymen and some ministers who never accepted the new criticism even in principle.' Nonconformist leaders had, in fact, rejected the doctrine of inerrancy before 1880. In 1868, Alexander Raleigh declared in his Chairman's address to the Congregational Union that there were errors and mistakes in the Bible, and R. W. Dale, who succeeded him, took the same position the following year.
The path of higher criticism was smoothed by several factors. For one thing, Glover shows how it attained respectability through being adopted, or at least tolerated, by men whose orthodoxy or piety was unchallenged. 'The men who led England into a critical view of the Bible were men known for theological orthodoxy', men like William Robertson Nicoll, Editor of the British Weekly, and regarded as an evangelical, who could uphold the doctrine of eternal punishment in his columns and at the same time give a hearing to Higher Criticism. Alexander MacLaren, bar Spurgeon the great Baptist preacher of his day, was classed among the conservatives at the time of the Down-Grade controversy. Yet of him Glover writes, 'The example of so great a preacher who was tolerant of higher criticism and who even entertained the possibility that the story of the fall was mythical could not have been without effect.' [p 139]. Glover also shows how 'the experiential emphasis of the evangelicals could relegate the whole problem of criticism to insignificance.' [p137]. 'Evangelicals would tolerate almost any divergence in doctrine provided the individual concerned was known to have a fervent evangelical experience, and above all if his ministry awakened the same experience in others.' [p 93]. An example of this was when Robert F. Horton advocated critical views in Inspiration and the Bible. This aroused strong criticism, which was, however, blunted by the fact that 'the Biblical critic was also a prominent missioner.'
One remarkable feature of the introduction to Nonconformist churches of critical views of the Bible pointed out by Glover, was their 'gradual acceptance without serious and church-splitting controversy.' This was, as we have just seen, partly because Nonconformity's trusted leaders accepted them, either positively or by default. Another reason was the policy of stealth adopted by some who had embraced higher criticism. Glover speaks of 'the tendency of some who were in advance of the general movement of opinion to hide their more unorthodox ideas from the public' 'This', he claims, 'was unquestionably an instance of sound political sense.' Others may agree with Spurgeon's view that it was more like dishonesty. In the event, however, these men were successful in keeping their churches, and preserving their denominations from splits, which presumably was the reward they were seeking.
In a sense, then, when Spurgeon wrote his Down-Grade articles, English Nonconformity was in the thick of a conflict over the Bible, as to whether it could any longer be accepted as an infallible rule for doctrine and practice. In another sense, however, the battle was already over and lost. Conservative scholars, Glover argues, were accepting the presuppositions of the critics. When Alfred Cave tried to answer the critics on the Old Testament, he sought to establish the authority of the Bible on a critical and historical basis. Glover points out that while Cave claimed that what was involved was a battle of standpoints, he himself seemed to have accepted the standpoint of higher criticism, [p 193]. Thus the English conservative scholars fought the battle on points of detail, rather than by challenging the over-all approach of the critics, as did the American Princeton school of Greene and Warfield, whom Robertson Nicoll claimed were 'the only respectable defenders of verbal inspiration.' Spurgeon, who was not primarily a theologian though by no means a theological ignoramus, was one of the few who had not yielded the battle, and he rejected the Higher Critical approach root and branch [although one review did appear in the Sword and Trowel of a book by C. A. Briggs expressing 'our unqualified approval and our lively admiration of this entire work,' being subsequently repudiated when the British Weekly drew Spurgeon's attention to the character of the book, 'a somewhat advanced and superficial product of the critical school.']
On Spurgeon's attitude to Higher Criticism, Willis B. Glover concludes, 'Spurgeon was so far behind the general movement of opinion that his own more logical judgment was scarcely understood.' This is at least a tribute to his consistency."
Later this week I intend applying some principles and observations derived from that article to the present Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney.
Sam Drucker
"The story of the progress of the critical view of the Bible among Nonconformist denominations has been well told from the point of view of one who sympathises with the movement, in Evangelical Nonconformists and Higher Criticism in the Nineteenth Century by Dr Willis B. Glover. Glover concedes that the abandonment of the traditional attitude towards the Bible was not necessarily the result of objective scientific discoveries, so much as of the spirit of the age [p 71]. According to his account, the take-over process was certainly rapid. Higher criticism did not get a foothold in England until after 1880 [p 36]. Yet by the mid I890's 'the new approach to the Bible had been accepted by the overwhelming majority of Nonconformist leaders and was taught in all the leading Nonconformist colleges.' [p 213], although 'there remained large numbers of laymen and some ministers who never accepted the new criticism even in principle.' Nonconformist leaders had, in fact, rejected the doctrine of inerrancy before 1880. In 1868, Alexander Raleigh declared in his Chairman's address to the Congregational Union that there were errors and mistakes in the Bible, and R. W. Dale, who succeeded him, took the same position the following year.
The path of higher criticism was smoothed by several factors. For one thing, Glover shows how it attained respectability through being adopted, or at least tolerated, by men whose orthodoxy or piety was unchallenged. 'The men who led England into a critical view of the Bible were men known for theological orthodoxy', men like William Robertson Nicoll, Editor of the British Weekly, and regarded as an evangelical, who could uphold the doctrine of eternal punishment in his columns and at the same time give a hearing to Higher Criticism. Alexander MacLaren, bar Spurgeon the great Baptist preacher of his day, was classed among the conservatives at the time of the Down-Grade controversy. Yet of him Glover writes, 'The example of so great a preacher who was tolerant of higher criticism and who even entertained the possibility that the story of the fall was mythical could not have been without effect.' [p 139]. Glover also shows how 'the experiential emphasis of the evangelicals could relegate the whole problem of criticism to insignificance.' [p137]. 'Evangelicals would tolerate almost any divergence in doctrine provided the individual concerned was known to have a fervent evangelical experience, and above all if his ministry awakened the same experience in others.' [p 93]. An example of this was when Robert F. Horton advocated critical views in Inspiration and the Bible. This aroused strong criticism, which was, however, blunted by the fact that 'the Biblical critic was also a prominent missioner.'
One remarkable feature of the introduction to Nonconformist churches of critical views of the Bible pointed out by Glover, was their 'gradual acceptance without serious and church-splitting controversy.' This was, as we have just seen, partly because Nonconformity's trusted leaders accepted them, either positively or by default. Another reason was the policy of stealth adopted by some who had embraced higher criticism. Glover speaks of 'the tendency of some who were in advance of the general movement of opinion to hide their more unorthodox ideas from the public' 'This', he claims, 'was unquestionably an instance of sound political sense.' Others may agree with Spurgeon's view that it was more like dishonesty. In the event, however, these men were successful in keeping their churches, and preserving their denominations from splits, which presumably was the reward they were seeking.
In a sense, then, when Spurgeon wrote his Down-Grade articles, English Nonconformity was in the thick of a conflict over the Bible, as to whether it could any longer be accepted as an infallible rule for doctrine and practice. In another sense, however, the battle was already over and lost. Conservative scholars, Glover argues, were accepting the presuppositions of the critics. When Alfred Cave tried to answer the critics on the Old Testament, he sought to establish the authority of the Bible on a critical and historical basis. Glover points out that while Cave claimed that what was involved was a battle of standpoints, he himself seemed to have accepted the standpoint of higher criticism, [p 193]. Thus the English conservative scholars fought the battle on points of detail, rather than by challenging the over-all approach of the critics, as did the American Princeton school of Greene and Warfield, whom Robertson Nicoll claimed were 'the only respectable defenders of verbal inspiration.' Spurgeon, who was not primarily a theologian though by no means a theological ignoramus, was one of the few who had not yielded the battle, and he rejected the Higher Critical approach root and branch [although one review did appear in the Sword and Trowel of a book by C. A. Briggs expressing 'our unqualified approval and our lively admiration of this entire work,' being subsequently repudiated when the British Weekly drew Spurgeon's attention to the character of the book, 'a somewhat advanced and superficial product of the critical school.']
On Spurgeon's attitude to Higher Criticism, Willis B. Glover concludes, 'Spurgeon was so far behind the general movement of opinion that his own more logical judgment was scarcely understood.' This is at least a tribute to his consistency."
Later this week I intend applying some principles and observations derived from that article to the present Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney.
Sam Drucker
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
"Science" that kills
That great reptilian from outer space, Richard Dawkins, is in town. His pseudo and anti-science circus is on its way to Melbourne for a week-long gab fest about how mad and bad Christians and wicked creationists are. Dawkins, in case you don't recognise him, will be the guy with his back, always, to the clock. After the very late pullout of his mate Chris Hitchens, Richard has been assiduously and, rumour has it, quite superstitiously avoiding allowing any timepiece to relay to him just how many minutes, hours, days and, as he secretly hopes, years, left for his purely atomistic body to, well, implode. Poor chap, only looks half the man he was a few years back.
Anyway, Richard's doing a double act with Lawrence Krauss, a bloke from Arizona State University. Lawrence Krauss has recently written a book titled A Universe from Nothing. Of course, if you believe, in agreement with African Voodoo witchdoctors and New Age Raelian crystal worshippers, that life can just arise from non-life by some magical incantation or aliens, as Richard is now apparently firmly supporting, then you have no problem, apart from a few untidy and intransigent mathematical equations that refuse to make zero=everything, with whole universes being able[Cue in the sound of a scientist's fillip] to pop out of, well, NO THING.
Lawrence got a few hundred words in the Herald last week. His attempt to make out that it was science vs religion and science wins, always, failed miserably. Read a friend’s letter which pointed out a few uncomfortable scientific facts Lawrence didn’t know about. Quite a comic Lawrence is. Hope he’s also got a sense of humour.
Dear Lawrence,
In your Saturday’s Herald piece you posed to the reader what ostensibly appeared as a Hobson’s choice between science and religion. You implied that a person would only be rational if they elected to use the Heimlich Manoeuvre on someone in the throes of choking rather than praying over them. Of course, truly rational and scientific people, like myself, would only give each of those roughly a 50:50 chance of working at best. Your quite decidedly irrational faith that the Heimlich actually works would have been exposed if you’d left the ivory tower and undertaken a first aid course. The first thing the instructor tells you is that the Heimlich is actually dangerous and can injure you. Pressing hard and fast on unprotected organs, as this manoeuvre requires, can injure severely the person and may not in fact work, notwithstanding the TV sit-coms you’ve obviously obtained your pseudo-scientific first aid knowledge from.
Furthermore, your unfortunate choice of the Heimlich to express the superiority of your materialist philosophy is doubly ironic. Heimlich’s wife authored books on homoeopathy and other “cures”, while according to his son Peter, he was a complete fraud. Heimlich himself has also tossed up his own brand of quackery: advocating the use of malaria to cure HIV.
Well, Lawrence, I really shouldn’t be surprised that you entertain such poor standards of rationality and instead opt for the unscientific religious; after all, every first-year philosophy undergrad knows that ex nihilo nihil fit rules, OK!
Kind regards
Anyway, Richard's doing a double act with Lawrence Krauss, a bloke from Arizona State University. Lawrence Krauss has recently written a book titled A Universe from Nothing. Of course, if you believe, in agreement with African Voodoo witchdoctors and New Age Raelian crystal worshippers, that life can just arise from non-life by some magical incantation or aliens, as Richard is now apparently firmly supporting, then you have no problem, apart from a few untidy and intransigent mathematical equations that refuse to make zero=everything, with whole universes being able[Cue in the sound of a scientist's fillip] to pop out of, well, NO THING.
Lawrence got a few hundred words in the Herald last week. His attempt to make out that it was science vs religion and science wins, always, failed miserably. Read a friend’s letter which pointed out a few uncomfortable scientific facts Lawrence didn’t know about. Quite a comic Lawrence is. Hope he’s also got a sense of humour.
Dear Lawrence,
In your Saturday’s Herald piece you posed to the reader what ostensibly appeared as a Hobson’s choice between science and religion. You implied that a person would only be rational if they elected to use the Heimlich Manoeuvre on someone in the throes of choking rather than praying over them. Of course, truly rational and scientific people, like myself, would only give each of those roughly a 50:50 chance of working at best. Your quite decidedly irrational faith that the Heimlich actually works would have been exposed if you’d left the ivory tower and undertaken a first aid course. The first thing the instructor tells you is that the Heimlich is actually dangerous and can injure you. Pressing hard and fast on unprotected organs, as this manoeuvre requires, can injure severely the person and may not in fact work, notwithstanding the TV sit-coms you’ve obviously obtained your pseudo-scientific first aid knowledge from.
Furthermore, your unfortunate choice of the Heimlich to express the superiority of your materialist philosophy is doubly ironic. Heimlich’s wife authored books on homoeopathy and other “cures”, while according to his son Peter, he was a complete fraud. Heimlich himself has also tossed up his own brand of quackery: advocating the use of malaria to cure HIV.
Well, Lawrence, I really shouldn’t be surprised that you entertain such poor standards of rationality and instead opt for the unscientific religious; after all, every first-year philosophy undergrad knows that ex nihilo nihil fit rules, OK!
Kind regards
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Is Evangelicalism Just a Cult?
Readers may wonder why I am inclined to republish writings of the past. The intent is to look back and see the position from where evangelicalism has shifted. The way to see if a stick is straight is to hold it against a stick proven in the past to be straight.
There are many dangers for Christendom and the penalties for straying are severe.
In this spirit I provide an article written by Paul Helm in the January 1968 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal.
"IS EVANGELICALISM JUST A CULT?
What is a cult ? Most of us have a rough idea; a tightly-knit, rather rootless religious group claiming to have 'the truth', but in fact catering for the religious needs of a particular group - the mystical, the heavily eschatological, those who crave certainty above truth, those distrustful of 'modern thought' - the misfits of our society.
We do not include ourselves - the evangelicals - in our list of cults. Why not? There is not a shadow of a doubt that in the minds of many we are lumped together with the Witnesses, the Mormons and the rest. To them we are 'religious', having a language, friends, activities and values of our own; yet often aggressively confident that we have the truth; another, rather faded, 'special offer' in the religious bargain-basement.
Why are people wrong to think this way about the evangehcal faith? Why must they be wrong ? The crucial difference, the one we have for too long forgotten [to our peril] is that a true evangelicalism is only meaningful set in the midst of human life, with its endeavours and initiatives, its suffering and its folly, and its sin. The evangelical faith is credible when set in the context of creation, of life, and of human history. By 'credible' here is not meant 'is more easily accepted' but that the unique claims made by the biblical gospel will only be seen for what they are when set in such a context. The gospel gets its edge when this background is understood, and the 'christian life' becomes meaningful when Christians see that it consists in thinking-out and living-out the implications of such a gospel; implications that are understood not only in general spiritual terms but in the concrete demands of human life-work, the family, leisure, politics, the arts.
The cults do not think like this at all. They are self-contained sub-cultures catering for specific needs. They do not have any doctrine of creation, or of human life; or if they have they only pay lip-service to it; and they do not in general expect to have any non-religious consequences flowing from their beliefs. They are 'separatistic' in the worst sense of that word; not concerned only with their doctrinal purity but with cutting themselves off as much as possible from everyday life. It is in this crucial respect that the evangelical faith differs in character from the cults.
CULTURAL CONTRACTION
This is likely to provoke two comments. First, that contemporary evangelicalism is not recognisably like this; it is individualistic, lives on religious sensations, has little interest in doctrine or in human life. Indeed it would not be an exaggeration to say that many evangelicals are embarrassed by the very existence of the world. The answer to this is that to our shame all this [and a lot more like it] is true, but that evangelicals who behave in this way do not do justice to the logic of their faith. They are living below par; for a faith that has a doctrine of creation and of human nature will have implications for the quality of human life. If these implications are not seen, and no concern is expressed about them, this does not mean that the implications do not exist.
The second comment is likely to be this. You say that the faith has implications for the whole of life and that the gospel is best understood when this point is firmly grasped. But what are these implications ? What follows for us in 1968 ? This is a good question, and I do not want to dodge it. But the answer is painful. For a hundred years or so in this country few have paid the slightest attention to studying these questions. In a cultural situation that has changed out of all recognition the evangelical world-view of a century ago [with all its faults] has become fragmented. There are many causes of this - the inroads made into biblical authority by higher criticism, into the doctrine of creation by Darwin, into the biblical view of God and the world by philosophical idealism, and so on. The result is that while life has gone on around us the thinking of Christian people has stopped. Evangelicals - due no doubt to a praiseworthy concern to defend the essence of the gospel message - have in the meantime become culturally contracted. So the painful answer is that, having stopped thinking, we have little to say about the implications of the faith for today's or tomorrow's world. We are to think, and we are to expect answers to our probings, for we are God's creatures and this is God's world. But evangelicals have long since stopped thinking, and have paid
the price; we cannot appraise or influence affairs as we should, we cannot counsel our young people or channel their energies constructively. We have stagnated, and many of us have become proud of it.
THE REFORMED FAITH
In this difficult situation the Reformed faith has a unique contribution to make to a return to a living evangelicalism. Let me try and make good this claim by relating certain features of the Reformed faith - in a very sketchy way - to the needs of our situation outlined above.
British evangelicalism, as we have seen, values the quick return, the tangible, the personal, the sensational. The Reformed faith, following Scripture, places emphasis not on these things but on the divine decree and control and purpose. Fundamental to Scripture and to Reformed thinking is the fact that God has a plan. How does this help ? By giving to the people of God a calmness of spirit and serenity of mind; by enabling them to take a long-term view and encouraging them to put their minds to work in the fulfilling of God's purposes for His creation.
Consider, secondly, the link between creation and redemption. Redemption, the Reformers constantly show us, can only be understood if we grasp that it is man made in God's image [but fallen] who is redeemed and restored into fellowship with his Maker by the gospel. Redemption is not to be seen primarily as an experience [though it involves experiences] but a gracious restoration. This means that human life for the Christian is not a search for an endless succession of religious feelings, but the life of a restored human being.
Third, there is the Reformed teaching about the world. For the Reformers 'the world' was not taboo, a place to be shunned, but a battle field. It is God's created order, and it is the Christian's place under God to seek the full restoration of God's image in man by living creatively according to the Word of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Christian man will strive for the replenishment and exercise of his gifts,becoming again, as the newly-created Adam was, a divine workman.
FULFILLING OUR CALLINGS
It is in these ways, and others not indicated, that the Reformers show us that the biblical faith cannot be divorced from thought or from life, but has implications for both which it is the Christian's divinely appointed task to work out. There is no recipe here for quick and easy solutions to life's many problems but a mandate for creative [or re-creative] Christian thinking.
Is evangelicalism a cult? Not when it is seen to be true to itself and to the logic of its belief. Unhappily this is not the case at present; evangelicals have become side-tracked. We must take up again the foundational principles of our faith and trace out then: implications for our lives. It is in this way that under God we fulfil our callings as Christian men and women and display the gospel in its many-sidedness."
Few would call the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, an evangelical and he certainly demonstrated he wasn't by his performance in debate with Atheist, Richard Dawkins, on ABC Television's Q & A program last Monday night. The Archbishop has a pitiful doctrine on Creation - assigning Adam and Eve to mythology - and the rest of his doctrine, consequently, slides into nothingness.
Sydney Episcopalians should note the course they are directing hearers and readers to as they present a flaky doctrine of Creation today.
Sam Drucker
There are many dangers for Christendom and the penalties for straying are severe.
In this spirit I provide an article written by Paul Helm in the January 1968 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal.
"IS EVANGELICALISM JUST A CULT?
What is a cult ? Most of us have a rough idea; a tightly-knit, rather rootless religious group claiming to have 'the truth', but in fact catering for the religious needs of a particular group - the mystical, the heavily eschatological, those who crave certainty above truth, those distrustful of 'modern thought' - the misfits of our society.
We do not include ourselves - the evangelicals - in our list of cults. Why not? There is not a shadow of a doubt that in the minds of many we are lumped together with the Witnesses, the Mormons and the rest. To them we are 'religious', having a language, friends, activities and values of our own; yet often aggressively confident that we have the truth; another, rather faded, 'special offer' in the religious bargain-basement.
Why are people wrong to think this way about the evangehcal faith? Why must they be wrong ? The crucial difference, the one we have for too long forgotten [to our peril] is that a true evangelicalism is only meaningful set in the midst of human life, with its endeavours and initiatives, its suffering and its folly, and its sin. The evangelical faith is credible when set in the context of creation, of life, and of human history. By 'credible' here is not meant 'is more easily accepted' but that the unique claims made by the biblical gospel will only be seen for what they are when set in such a context. The gospel gets its edge when this background is understood, and the 'christian life' becomes meaningful when Christians see that it consists in thinking-out and living-out the implications of such a gospel; implications that are understood not only in general spiritual terms but in the concrete demands of human life-work, the family, leisure, politics, the arts.
The cults do not think like this at all. They are self-contained sub-cultures catering for specific needs. They do not have any doctrine of creation, or of human life; or if they have they only pay lip-service to it; and they do not in general expect to have any non-religious consequences flowing from their beliefs. They are 'separatistic' in the worst sense of that word; not concerned only with their doctrinal purity but with cutting themselves off as much as possible from everyday life. It is in this crucial respect that the evangelical faith differs in character from the cults.
CULTURAL CONTRACTION
This is likely to provoke two comments. First, that contemporary evangelicalism is not recognisably like this; it is individualistic, lives on religious sensations, has little interest in doctrine or in human life. Indeed it would not be an exaggeration to say that many evangelicals are embarrassed by the very existence of the world. The answer to this is that to our shame all this [and a lot more like it] is true, but that evangelicals who behave in this way do not do justice to the logic of their faith. They are living below par; for a faith that has a doctrine of creation and of human nature will have implications for the quality of human life. If these implications are not seen, and no concern is expressed about them, this does not mean that the implications do not exist.
The second comment is likely to be this. You say that the faith has implications for the whole of life and that the gospel is best understood when this point is firmly grasped. But what are these implications ? What follows for us in 1968 ? This is a good question, and I do not want to dodge it. But the answer is painful. For a hundred years or so in this country few have paid the slightest attention to studying these questions. In a cultural situation that has changed out of all recognition the evangelical world-view of a century ago [with all its faults] has become fragmented. There are many causes of this - the inroads made into biblical authority by higher criticism, into the doctrine of creation by Darwin, into the biblical view of God and the world by philosophical idealism, and so on. The result is that while life has gone on around us the thinking of Christian people has stopped. Evangelicals - due no doubt to a praiseworthy concern to defend the essence of the gospel message - have in the meantime become culturally contracted. So the painful answer is that, having stopped thinking, we have little to say about the implications of the faith for today's or tomorrow's world. We are to think, and we are to expect answers to our probings, for we are God's creatures and this is God's world. But evangelicals have long since stopped thinking, and have paid
the price; we cannot appraise or influence affairs as we should, we cannot counsel our young people or channel their energies constructively. We have stagnated, and many of us have become proud of it.
THE REFORMED FAITH
In this difficult situation the Reformed faith has a unique contribution to make to a return to a living evangelicalism. Let me try and make good this claim by relating certain features of the Reformed faith - in a very sketchy way - to the needs of our situation outlined above.
British evangelicalism, as we have seen, values the quick return, the tangible, the personal, the sensational. The Reformed faith, following Scripture, places emphasis not on these things but on the divine decree and control and purpose. Fundamental to Scripture and to Reformed thinking is the fact that God has a plan. How does this help ? By giving to the people of God a calmness of spirit and serenity of mind; by enabling them to take a long-term view and encouraging them to put their minds to work in the fulfilling of God's purposes for His creation.
Consider, secondly, the link between creation and redemption. Redemption, the Reformers constantly show us, can only be understood if we grasp that it is man made in God's image [but fallen] who is redeemed and restored into fellowship with his Maker by the gospel. Redemption is not to be seen primarily as an experience [though it involves experiences] but a gracious restoration. This means that human life for the Christian is not a search for an endless succession of religious feelings, but the life of a restored human being.
Third, there is the Reformed teaching about the world. For the Reformers 'the world' was not taboo, a place to be shunned, but a battle field. It is God's created order, and it is the Christian's place under God to seek the full restoration of God's image in man by living creatively according to the Word of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Christian man will strive for the replenishment and exercise of his gifts,becoming again, as the newly-created Adam was, a divine workman.
FULFILLING OUR CALLINGS
It is in these ways, and others not indicated, that the Reformers show us that the biblical faith cannot be divorced from thought or from life, but has implications for both which it is the Christian's divinely appointed task to work out. There is no recipe here for quick and easy solutions to life's many problems but a mandate for creative [or re-creative] Christian thinking.
Is evangelicalism a cult? Not when it is seen to be true to itself and to the logic of its belief. Unhappily this is not the case at present; evangelicals have become side-tracked. We must take up again the foundational principles of our faith and trace out then: implications for our lives. It is in this way that under God we fulfil our callings as Christian men and women and display the gospel in its many-sidedness."
Few would call the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, an evangelical and he certainly demonstrated he wasn't by his performance in debate with Atheist, Richard Dawkins, on ABC Television's Q & A program last Monday night. The Archbishop has a pitiful doctrine on Creation - assigning Adam and Eve to mythology - and the rest of his doctrine, consequently, slides into nothingness.
Sydney Episcopalians should note the course they are directing hearers and readers to as they present a flaky doctrine of Creation today.
Sam Drucker
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
A Plea to Undergraduates of Moore Theological College.
I was reassured by recent reading of an article titled "The Right of Private Judgement" by Paul Helm in the December 1972 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal.
The article had its emphasis on the roots of the Reformation and the error of church traditions at cost to the Word of God. However, there were some statements by Helm, some forty years ago, which have relevance for Christians today within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, particularly those who are submitting themselves to lecturers of Moore Theological College.
Helm, at one point, had this to say:
"For the Reformers faith is faith in Christ, and in the Word of Christ. They were not haunted by the thought, as much of modern Protestantism is, that the Bible may obscure Christ's Word, or that a man may mistake trust in his Bible for trust in Christ. Scripture is Christ's Word and there Christ is faithfully pictured. 'Faith in Christ', 'faith in Scripture, the Word of Christ' - for the Reformers these expressions came to much the same thing.
The Reformers view of Scripture as sufficient and clear must be borne in mind. Its essential meaning is plain to all. It does not contain any 'small print'. It cannot be added to, or subtracted from. By contrast, faith in Christ's Church (given the Roman view of the Church) must be implicit. For faith is faith in whatever the Church might at any time be disposed to teach. Trusting the Church involves signing an intellectual blank cheque."
A new year is under way and new students have entered Moore Theological College in the belief they are Protestant and Reformed. If they are inclined to believe that the theological institution they have entered is fully trustworthy they may very well just absorb and regurgitate errors of the day. In this they expose themselves to being caught in a drift to worldliness something akin to the errors of Rome.
On the matter of Origins I urge students to be constantly looking to their Lord Jesus Christ Incarnate - the things He said, the things He did. The more they gaze upon Him the more they will see in Him confirmation of Him who created all things in the beginning in six days. A plain view of the Son of God affirms a plain reading of the Word written in Genesis 1. When hearing of things contrary to this revelation of Him, question it, weigh it, ask yourself, "Is this the Jesus Christ recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?" Surely, you will find that on the basis of all they saw and heard these writers would fall under the category today called Biblical Creationist.
How else could you account for John's experience recorded at John 20:8 and for him to later write the words of John 1:1-3?
Please, please, don't succumb to the undermining of confidence in the Word written as the Church, via its lecturers at Moore Theological College, is disposed at this time to teach.
Sam Drucker
The article had its emphasis on the roots of the Reformation and the error of church traditions at cost to the Word of God. However, there were some statements by Helm, some forty years ago, which have relevance for Christians today within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, particularly those who are submitting themselves to lecturers of Moore Theological College.
Helm, at one point, had this to say:
"For the Reformers faith is faith in Christ, and in the Word of Christ. They were not haunted by the thought, as much of modern Protestantism is, that the Bible may obscure Christ's Word, or that a man may mistake trust in his Bible for trust in Christ. Scripture is Christ's Word and there Christ is faithfully pictured. 'Faith in Christ', 'faith in Scripture, the Word of Christ' - for the Reformers these expressions came to much the same thing.
The Reformers view of Scripture as sufficient and clear must be borne in mind. Its essential meaning is plain to all. It does not contain any 'small print'. It cannot be added to, or subtracted from. By contrast, faith in Christ's Church (given the Roman view of the Church) must be implicit. For faith is faith in whatever the Church might at any time be disposed to teach. Trusting the Church involves signing an intellectual blank cheque."
A new year is under way and new students have entered Moore Theological College in the belief they are Protestant and Reformed. If they are inclined to believe that the theological institution they have entered is fully trustworthy they may very well just absorb and regurgitate errors of the day. In this they expose themselves to being caught in a drift to worldliness something akin to the errors of Rome.
On the matter of Origins I urge students to be constantly looking to their Lord Jesus Christ Incarnate - the things He said, the things He did. The more they gaze upon Him the more they will see in Him confirmation of Him who created all things in the beginning in six days. A plain view of the Son of God affirms a plain reading of the Word written in Genesis 1. When hearing of things contrary to this revelation of Him, question it, weigh it, ask yourself, "Is this the Jesus Christ recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?" Surely, you will find that on the basis of all they saw and heard these writers would fall under the category today called Biblical Creationist.
How else could you account for John's experience recorded at John 20:8 and for him to later write the words of John 1:1-3?
Please, please, don't succumb to the undermining of confidence in the Word written as the Church, via its lecturers at Moore Theological College, is disposed at this time to teach.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Contending With the Spirit of the Age.
Many have written about authors of significant influence on Western Culture in the late Nineteenth Century. These works maintain influence today. These are the authors of novels (fiction) whose world view they impressed either discretely or overtly upon their works and came to change the moral standard of Great Britain and, ultimately, Western Culture. Surely, the 'spirit of the age' alone would guide such a purposeful and collective outcome.
Some key influences were Robert Louis Stevenson, Thomas Hardy, H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, Lytton Strachey, Virginia Woolf and others such as Leonard Woolf, Leslie Stephen and Edmund Gosse.
It is amazing to observe the close Christian influence several of these people had yet it was to no avail in preventing them pursuing a path of unbelief - Leslie Stephen, father of Virginia Woolf, had been an ordained Clergyman before renouncing Holy Orders; R L Stevenson's father was a pious Christian man who constantly appealed to his son for change; Hardy's parents were regular church attenders and Hardy spent many years under the influence of Henry Moule, Vicar of Fordington when, in 1875, an 'Awakening' broke out in the parish; contrary to what Gosse wrote about his father in Father and Son there is credible evidence elsewhere to show his father was a pious and gentle Christian man. Weeds arise in the best kept gardens as unbelief arises amid the best of opportunities.
Dr Wilbur Smith, speaking at Westminster Chapel in 1952, said:
"A few months ago, the New York Times issued a fifty-page brochure, four columns to a page, entitled 'A Century of Books', in which the editors gathered together reviews, appearing in this distinguished paper from 1851 to 1951, of one hundred and thirteen notable books, some of which continue to have world-wide influence, and a few, influence over millions. In carefully studying these pages, I am again impressed with the antichristian or non-christian position of the majority of these authors, in fact, apart from Hawthorne, I could not recognize one writer, man or woman, who could be called a believing Christian; and not one book among all those referred to here was written to extol Christian virtues, to honour the Lord Jesus, or to expound the Word of God. What can be the result of allowing these volumes to determine one's values but a hardening of the hearts of men against the Christian faith."
Writing some years earlier in A Study of Religious Thought in England" (1933) Clement C. J. Webb said:
"The true enemy of religion in the modern world is not philosophy or science; it is purely the secular habit of mind."
Such views need to be borne in mind when Biblical Creationists present the Acts 17 approach to evangelism. Yes, there are plenty of instances of the presentation of the Creator and consequent argument against evolution which has paved the way to presenting, and a person receiving, Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. But be prepared. There are many non-believers for whom the argument for evolution is just part of their defence for unbelief. The root cause is a secular habit of mind and no matter the strength of the case for a Creator these people will not believe. In each instance of you demolishing a particular aspect of their argument from science they sidestep to another aspect and on it goes. Their secular habit of mind is the driving force and this itself under influence of the spirit of the age.
This is not meant to discourage what some call "Creation Evangelism" for, as I have said, it does bear fruit. I simply want Biblical Creationists to be mindful it is not a 'cure all' and to be mindful of what is in play.
Sam Drucker
Some key influences were Robert Louis Stevenson, Thomas Hardy, H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, Lytton Strachey, Virginia Woolf and others such as Leonard Woolf, Leslie Stephen and Edmund Gosse.
It is amazing to observe the close Christian influence several of these people had yet it was to no avail in preventing them pursuing a path of unbelief - Leslie Stephen, father of Virginia Woolf, had been an ordained Clergyman before renouncing Holy Orders; R L Stevenson's father was a pious Christian man who constantly appealed to his son for change; Hardy's parents were regular church attenders and Hardy spent many years under the influence of Henry Moule, Vicar of Fordington when, in 1875, an 'Awakening' broke out in the parish; contrary to what Gosse wrote about his father in Father and Son there is credible evidence elsewhere to show his father was a pious and gentle Christian man. Weeds arise in the best kept gardens as unbelief arises amid the best of opportunities.
Dr Wilbur Smith, speaking at Westminster Chapel in 1952, said:
"A few months ago, the New York Times issued a fifty-page brochure, four columns to a page, entitled 'A Century of Books', in which the editors gathered together reviews, appearing in this distinguished paper from 1851 to 1951, of one hundred and thirteen notable books, some of which continue to have world-wide influence, and a few, influence over millions. In carefully studying these pages, I am again impressed with the antichristian or non-christian position of the majority of these authors, in fact, apart from Hawthorne, I could not recognize one writer, man or woman, who could be called a believing Christian; and not one book among all those referred to here was written to extol Christian virtues, to honour the Lord Jesus, or to expound the Word of God. What can be the result of allowing these volumes to determine one's values but a hardening of the hearts of men against the Christian faith."
Writing some years earlier in A Study of Religious Thought in England" (1933) Clement C. J. Webb said:
"The true enemy of religion in the modern world is not philosophy or science; it is purely the secular habit of mind."
Such views need to be borne in mind when Biblical Creationists present the Acts 17 approach to evangelism. Yes, there are plenty of instances of the presentation of the Creator and consequent argument against evolution which has paved the way to presenting, and a person receiving, Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. But be prepared. There are many non-believers for whom the argument for evolution is just part of their defence for unbelief. The root cause is a secular habit of mind and no matter the strength of the case for a Creator these people will not believe. In each instance of you demolishing a particular aspect of their argument from science they sidestep to another aspect and on it goes. Their secular habit of mind is the driving force and this itself under influence of the spirit of the age.
This is not meant to discourage what some call "Creation Evangelism" for, as I have said, it does bear fruit. I simply want Biblical Creationists to be mindful it is not a 'cure all' and to be mindful of what is in play.
Sam Drucker
Thursday, April 5, 2012
An Honest Woman
I heard a story tonight arising from Biblical Creationist ministry at Penrith Anglican Church a couple of weeks ago.
A woman went to one of the morning services of firm mind that Biblical Creationists had it all wrong. She sat stoicly through the service and was later heard to say that she accepted a lot of what the speaker said but could not accept the six day creation.
She returned to a later service in the day, sat through it and went up to the speaker afterward and apologised to him for going to the services determined not to believe what the speaker had to say. She said she had just completed her Doctorate in Education, was convinced of the argument for evolution and had also been criticising her Niece who was home-schooling children and teaching them Biblical Creationism. The woman was now trying to work out how to apologise to her Niece.
It says a lot about the impressive character of the woman that, on the day, she was willing and able to evaluate the case for Biblical Creationism and see the frailty of the evolution argument. What a wonderful woman! What an honest woman! A Berean, for sure!
I wish her well in her relations with her Niece and her growth as a Christian, trusting implicitly in the Word of God.
Sam Drucker
A woman went to one of the morning services of firm mind that Biblical Creationists had it all wrong. She sat stoicly through the service and was later heard to say that she accepted a lot of what the speaker said but could not accept the six day creation.
She returned to a later service in the day, sat through it and went up to the speaker afterward and apologised to him for going to the services determined not to believe what the speaker had to say. She said she had just completed her Doctorate in Education, was convinced of the argument for evolution and had also been criticising her Niece who was home-schooling children and teaching them Biblical Creationism. The woman was now trying to work out how to apologise to her Niece.
It says a lot about the impressive character of the woman that, on the day, she was willing and able to evaluate the case for Biblical Creationism and see the frailty of the evolution argument. What a wonderful woman! What an honest woman! A Berean, for sure!
I wish her well in her relations with her Niece and her growth as a Christian, trusting implicitly in the Word of God.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Every Thing Old is New Again.
Both six-day creationists and scientific materialists approach Genesis 1 as if the original author had intended to narrate the mechanics of creation in historical prose. I believe this is a mistaken, literalistic reading. For over a century now, a great many biblical historians have detected in the Bible’s opening words a style other than simple prose and a purpose other than to explain how the universe was made. These two issues, genre and purpose, are critical for understanding this foundational portion of the Jewish and Christian Bible. In what follows, then, I want to unpack what many modern scholars are saying about these issues and demonstrate that, properly understood, Genesis 1 teaches nothing scientifically problematic for the modern enquirer. I emphasize the adverb ‘scientifically’, since there is plenty in Genesis 1 that is theologically and existentially confronting. That is the aim of the text, as I understand it.
Such is extract of a writer's opening words in his publication "The Genesis of Everything" posted to the ISCAST website in 2008.
I couldn't help but be reminded of that demolition job on evangelical Christianity's position on Origins when recently reading part of the writings of William Henry Green, a contemporary of Charles and A. A. Hodge on the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary in the late Nineteenth Century. The highly respected Theologian, E. J. Young, said the following of Green - "Green's learned works, without doubt, constitute the most thorough and convincing refutation of the development hypothesis. The Church of God may ever be grateful that He has given to her such an apologete!"
I provide herewith some extracts from William Henry Green's work "The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch" (1896):
"The study of the Bible on its purely literary side has many and strong attractions for men of letters. But, with all the admiration that was bestowed upon it [The Bible], the unique character of its claims was lost sight of. Its inspiration and divine authority did not enter into the account. The immediate voice and hand of God, which rule in the whole, were overlooked.
[Yet] There are three evident indications of God's immediate presence, which pervade the Scriptures from beginning to end, and are inwrought into its entire structure, and with which they must reckon who recognize in its contents merely that which is natural and human. These are miracle, prophecy, and revealed truth.
Three different methods have been devised for getting rid of these troublesome factors. One is that of a scoffing deism, which sets aside the supernatural by imputing it to deception and priestcraft. It is all held to be traceable to impositions practised upon the credulity of the uninstructed vulgar in order to exalt the ministers of religion in their eyes, perhaps for the promotion of selfish ends, perhaps with the worthier motive of obtaining sanction for useful institutions or gaining credence for valuable teachings, which they could not otherwise have been induced so easily to receive.
A second mode of dealing with the supernatural, without admitting its reality, is that of the old rationalistic exegesis. This regards it simply as oriental exaggeration. It is looked upon as the habit of the period to think and speak in superlatives, and to employ grandiloquent figures and forms of expression. In order to ascertain the actual meaning of the writer these must be reduced to the proportion of ordinary events. Thus Eichhorn, the father of the higher criticism, had no difficulty in accepting the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and defending its credibility, while at the same time he discarded the miraculous. This work, he contended, must be interpreted in accordance with the spirit of the age to which it belonged. Its poetic embellishments must not be mistaken for plain prose, and its bold figures must not be converted into literal statements. When the oriental imagery is duly estimated, and the elaborate drapery in which the imaginative writer has dressed his thought is stripped off, it will be found that his real meaning does not transcend what is purely natural. There was nothing miraculous about the plagues of Egypt; it was only an annus mirabilis, a year of extraordinary occurrences, remarkable in their number and severity, but wholly traceable to natural causes. There was nothing miraculous in the passage of the Red Sea, or the events at Sinai, or in what took place during the forty years in the desert. The apparently miraculous features belong merely to the style of description, not to the facts described. There was in this no intentional falsehood, no attempt to deceive. It was the well-understood way of writing and speaking in that age. And thus the supernatural is evaporated by hermeneutical rules. But this un-natural style of interpretation could not long maintain itself. The attempt to reduce heathen myths to intelligible history, and to bring down the miracles of the Bible to the level of ordinary occurrences, proved alike abortive. The hypothesis of rhetorical exaggeration, fashionable as it was at one time, was accordingly abandoned. The rule of common-sense must be applied to Scripture as to any other book, that the writer must be understood to mean what he says, not what some interpreter may fancy that he ought to have said.
The third mode of banishing the supernatural from the Bible is by subjecting it to the processes of the higher criticism. This is the most plausible as well as the most effective method of accomplishing this result. It is the most plausible because the animus of the movement is concealed, and the desired end is reached not by aiming at it directly and avowedly but as the apparently incidental consequence of investigations pursued professedly for a different purpose. And it is the most effective because it supplies a complete antidote for the supernatural in each of its forms. Every reported miracle is met by the allegation that the record dates centuries after its supposed occurrence, leaving ample time for the legendary amplification of natural events. Every prediction which has been so accurately fulfilled that it cannot be explained away as a vague anticipation, shrewd conjecture, or fortunate coincidence, is met by the allegation that it was not committed to writing till after the event. Revelations of truth in advance of what the unaided faculties of men could be supposed to have attained to must be reconstructed into accordance with the requirements of a gradual scheme of development. The stupendous miracles of the Mosaic period, the far-reaching predictions of the Pentateuch, and its minute and varied legislation are all provided
for by the critical analysis, which parts it into separate documents and assigns these documents severally to six, eight, and ten centuries after the exodus from Egypt.
These critical results are based professedly on purely literary grounds, on diction and style and correspondence with historical surroundings. And yet he who traces the progress of critical opinion will discover that these are invariably subordinated to the end of neutralizing the supernatural, and that they are so managed as to lead up to this conclusion.
They are in acknowledged variance with the historical truth of much of the Bible, and require, as is freely confessed, the complete reconstruction of the sacred history. They require us to suppose that the course of events and the progress of divine revelation must throughout have been very different from the representations of the Bible.
Within a very few years professedly evangelical men have ventured upon the hazardous experiment of attempting a compromise in this matter. They propose to accept these hypotheses in spite of their antibiblical character, in spite of their incompatibility with the historical truth of the grave questions which they raise respecting the fallibility of our Lord own teaching; and they expect to retain their Christian faith with on such modifications as these newly adopted hypotheses may require. They are now puzzling themselves over the problem of harmonizing Christ's sanction given to false views respecting the Old Testament with implicit faith in him as a divine teacher. And some of them in their perplexity over this enigma come perilously near impairing the truth of his claims. Would it not be wiser for them to revise their own ill-judged alliance with the enemies of evangelical truth, and inquire whether Christ's view of the Old Testament may not, after all, be the true view?"
Perhaps with only the exception of the third method of diluting the Bible of its historical truth, the author of The Genesis of Everything, takes a similar route to the proponents of Higher Criticism more than a century ago. But then even the third method is not without some relevance because the device of timeliness is again used to undermine the historical narrative of Scripture, albeit in the subject author's case the expiration of time since the Creation event and the influence of the current world's view on the reading of Genesis. For that author (and many who endorse his paper) literary devices, alleged contemporary Middle Eastern writings as well as early Christian and non-Christian writers strongly influenced by an allegorical approach to Scripture are cause to apply a higher critical hermeneutic to the Creation account.
Upon entering the Twenty-First Century we find Higher Criticism as healthy as ever and making another assault on the evangelical church.
I write this in the spirit of 2 Timothy 2:25-26.
Sam Drucker
Such is extract of a writer's opening words in his publication "The Genesis of Everything" posted to the ISCAST website in 2008.
I couldn't help but be reminded of that demolition job on evangelical Christianity's position on Origins when recently reading part of the writings of William Henry Green, a contemporary of Charles and A. A. Hodge on the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary in the late Nineteenth Century. The highly respected Theologian, E. J. Young, said the following of Green - "Green's learned works, without doubt, constitute the most thorough and convincing refutation of the development hypothesis. The Church of God may ever be grateful that He has given to her such an apologete!"
I provide herewith some extracts from William Henry Green's work "The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch" (1896):
"The study of the Bible on its purely literary side has many and strong attractions for men of letters. But, with all the admiration that was bestowed upon it [The Bible], the unique character of its claims was lost sight of. Its inspiration and divine authority did not enter into the account. The immediate voice and hand of God, which rule in the whole, were overlooked.
[Yet] There are three evident indications of God's immediate presence, which pervade the Scriptures from beginning to end, and are inwrought into its entire structure, and with which they must reckon who recognize in its contents merely that which is natural and human. These are miracle, prophecy, and revealed truth.
Three different methods have been devised for getting rid of these troublesome factors. One is that of a scoffing deism, which sets aside the supernatural by imputing it to deception and priestcraft. It is all held to be traceable to impositions practised upon the credulity of the uninstructed vulgar in order to exalt the ministers of religion in their eyes, perhaps for the promotion of selfish ends, perhaps with the worthier motive of obtaining sanction for useful institutions or gaining credence for valuable teachings, which they could not otherwise have been induced so easily to receive.
A second mode of dealing with the supernatural, without admitting its reality, is that of the old rationalistic exegesis. This regards it simply as oriental exaggeration. It is looked upon as the habit of the period to think and speak in superlatives, and to employ grandiloquent figures and forms of expression. In order to ascertain the actual meaning of the writer these must be reduced to the proportion of ordinary events. Thus Eichhorn, the father of the higher criticism, had no difficulty in accepting the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and defending its credibility, while at the same time he discarded the miraculous. This work, he contended, must be interpreted in accordance with the spirit of the age to which it belonged. Its poetic embellishments must not be mistaken for plain prose, and its bold figures must not be converted into literal statements. When the oriental imagery is duly estimated, and the elaborate drapery in which the imaginative writer has dressed his thought is stripped off, it will be found that his real meaning does not transcend what is purely natural. There was nothing miraculous about the plagues of Egypt; it was only an annus mirabilis, a year of extraordinary occurrences, remarkable in their number and severity, but wholly traceable to natural causes. There was nothing miraculous in the passage of the Red Sea, or the events at Sinai, or in what took place during the forty years in the desert. The apparently miraculous features belong merely to the style of description, not to the facts described. There was in this no intentional falsehood, no attempt to deceive. It was the well-understood way of writing and speaking in that age. And thus the supernatural is evaporated by hermeneutical rules. But this un-natural style of interpretation could not long maintain itself. The attempt to reduce heathen myths to intelligible history, and to bring down the miracles of the Bible to the level of ordinary occurrences, proved alike abortive. The hypothesis of rhetorical exaggeration, fashionable as it was at one time, was accordingly abandoned. The rule of common-sense must be applied to Scripture as to any other book, that the writer must be understood to mean what he says, not what some interpreter may fancy that he ought to have said.
The third mode of banishing the supernatural from the Bible is by subjecting it to the processes of the higher criticism. This is the most plausible as well as the most effective method of accomplishing this result. It is the most plausible because the animus of the movement is concealed, and the desired end is reached not by aiming at it directly and avowedly but as the apparently incidental consequence of investigations pursued professedly for a different purpose. And it is the most effective because it supplies a complete antidote for the supernatural in each of its forms. Every reported miracle is met by the allegation that the record dates centuries after its supposed occurrence, leaving ample time for the legendary amplification of natural events. Every prediction which has been so accurately fulfilled that it cannot be explained away as a vague anticipation, shrewd conjecture, or fortunate coincidence, is met by the allegation that it was not committed to writing till after the event. Revelations of truth in advance of what the unaided faculties of men could be supposed to have attained to must be reconstructed into accordance with the requirements of a gradual scheme of development. The stupendous miracles of the Mosaic period, the far-reaching predictions of the Pentateuch, and its minute and varied legislation are all provided
for by the critical analysis, which parts it into separate documents and assigns these documents severally to six, eight, and ten centuries after the exodus from Egypt.
These critical results are based professedly on purely literary grounds, on diction and style and correspondence with historical surroundings. And yet he who traces the progress of critical opinion will discover that these are invariably subordinated to the end of neutralizing the supernatural, and that they are so managed as to lead up to this conclusion.
They are in acknowledged variance with the historical truth of much of the Bible, and require, as is freely confessed, the complete reconstruction of the sacred history. They require us to suppose that the course of events and the progress of divine revelation must throughout have been very different from the representations of the Bible.
Within a very few years professedly evangelical men have ventured upon the hazardous experiment of attempting a compromise in this matter. They propose to accept these hypotheses in spite of their antibiblical character, in spite of their incompatibility with the historical truth of the grave questions which they raise respecting the fallibility of our Lord own teaching; and they expect to retain their Christian faith with on such modifications as these newly adopted hypotheses may require. They are now puzzling themselves over the problem of harmonizing Christ's sanction given to false views respecting the Old Testament with implicit faith in him as a divine teacher. And some of them in their perplexity over this enigma come perilously near impairing the truth of his claims. Would it not be wiser for them to revise their own ill-judged alliance with the enemies of evangelical truth, and inquire whether Christ's view of the Old Testament may not, after all, be the true view?"
Perhaps with only the exception of the third method of diluting the Bible of its historical truth, the author of The Genesis of Everything, takes a similar route to the proponents of Higher Criticism more than a century ago. But then even the third method is not without some relevance because the device of timeliness is again used to undermine the historical narrative of Scripture, albeit in the subject author's case the expiration of time since the Creation event and the influence of the current world's view on the reading of Genesis. For that author (and many who endorse his paper) literary devices, alleged contemporary Middle Eastern writings as well as early Christian and non-Christian writers strongly influenced by an allegorical approach to Scripture are cause to apply a higher critical hermeneutic to the Creation account.
Upon entering the Twenty-First Century we find Higher Criticism as healthy as ever and making another assault on the evangelical church.
I write this in the spirit of 2 Timothy 2:25-26.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, March 25, 2012
A Light for Our Time
Three cheers for Penrith Episcopalian Church (Sydney Diocese) who I understand hosted Biblical Creationist ministry today.
Word has reached me to say the good folk up there dedicated the five services normally held on Sundays to hearing the message of how the Word of God can be trusted entirely and, specifically for today, the Word of God recorded in Genesis Chs. 1-11. Such an uncommon event for Episcopalian churches. Well blow me down!
I have to go on second hand reporting but I understand the message was well received with no dissensions, the resident priest fully on side, helpful questions in Q&A (one saying "I had these questions all my Christian life which no-one could answer but they have been answered today!") and much interest in resources available to help Christians defend the faith in which they believe.
This all presents as a blessing. May it be that seeds were sown for Biblical Creationist ministry to come to the aid of believers in other Sydney Episcopalian Churches in Sydney Diocese.
Sam Drucker
Word has reached me to say the good folk up there dedicated the five services normally held on Sundays to hearing the message of how the Word of God can be trusted entirely and, specifically for today, the Word of God recorded in Genesis Chs. 1-11. Such an uncommon event for Episcopalian churches. Well blow me down!
I have to go on second hand reporting but I understand the message was well received with no dissensions, the resident priest fully on side, helpful questions in Q&A (one saying "I had these questions all my Christian life which no-one could answer but they have been answered today!") and much interest in resources available to help Christians defend the faith in which they believe.
This all presents as a blessing. May it be that seeds were sown for Biblical Creationist ministry to come to the aid of believers in other Sydney Episcopalian Churches in Sydney Diocese.
Sam Drucker
Monday, March 19, 2012
Apostasy From The Gospel
Had occasion on Saturday to attend a 'Truth of the Gospel' Conference at St John's Park Baptist Church. Keynote speakers were Iain Murray, Editorial Director, Banner of Truth Trust, and Mike Trollope, Sovereign Grace Baptist Church. Much to encourage the soul, not the least being the hymn singing in resounding voice.
I thought I would share headline points and a few anecdotes of Iain Murray's talk on Apostasy:
Signs of Apostasy
Self Confidence of a Wrong Kind
Widespread Worldiness in the Church
* Satan seeks to blur the distinction between the world and the church
* Luther said the Flood came not so much because of world corruption but because of compromise of Seth's righteous line with ungodly line of Cain
Poor Church Attendance
* If morning service is excellent people will desire to return for evening or other service
* Horatius Bonar said "Old Rome died mad with music"
The Church Forgets the God of its Fathers
Causes of Apostasy
In Every Body of Christians there are those Unrenewed
The appeal for Success
Unbelief is Present in Every Christian
* The distinction is that a Christian is aware of the danger of unbelief and opposes it.
Conscience
* Conscience is God's watchman
* Apostasy arises when conscience is abused
When Satan Seduces
* Try the Spirits
Judgement of God
* Without the Holy Spirit Orthodoxy Dies
Our Duty in Times of Apostasy
Be Aware of Erroneous Teaching
Need to Emphasize Progress in a Christian's Holiness and Godliness
Uphold Brotherly Love Toward Those With Whom We Disagree
I hope I have done justice to the recording of Iain Murray's discourse.
The last point is one requiring more attention on this blogspot and I seek to bring myself under that injunction. Readers will see signs of Apostasy in faux Evangelicals of the present age. Certainly, one or two of the signs mentioned have been observed by this writer in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney.
Sam Drucker
I thought I would share headline points and a few anecdotes of Iain Murray's talk on Apostasy:
Signs of Apostasy
Self Confidence of a Wrong Kind
Widespread Worldiness in the Church
* Satan seeks to blur the distinction between the world and the church
* Luther said the Flood came not so much because of world corruption but because of compromise of Seth's righteous line with ungodly line of Cain
Poor Church Attendance
* If morning service is excellent people will desire to return for evening or other service
* Horatius Bonar said "Old Rome died mad with music"
The Church Forgets the God of its Fathers
Causes of Apostasy
In Every Body of Christians there are those Unrenewed
The appeal for Success
Unbelief is Present in Every Christian
* The distinction is that a Christian is aware of the danger of unbelief and opposes it.
Conscience
* Conscience is God's watchman
* Apostasy arises when conscience is abused
When Satan Seduces
* Try the Spirits
Judgement of God
* Without the Holy Spirit Orthodoxy Dies
Our Duty in Times of Apostasy
Be Aware of Erroneous Teaching
Need to Emphasize Progress in a Christian's Holiness and Godliness
Uphold Brotherly Love Toward Those With Whom We Disagree
I hope I have done justice to the recording of Iain Murray's discourse.
The last point is one requiring more attention on this blogspot and I seek to bring myself under that injunction. Readers will see signs of Apostasy in faux Evangelicals of the present age. Certainly, one or two of the signs mentioned have been observed by this writer in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney.
Sam Drucker
Friday, March 16, 2012
How do you spot a liberal wolf in conservative clothing?
You ask them something pertaining to the historicity of the first 12 chapters of Genesis.
Here's an excerpt from a thread on the real Sydney Anglican Heretic Blog over yonder at the SAD. For the full comedic story, see here
Andrew: “Does a literal reading of Genesis 5:29-32 interpret Noah as being a real, historical man who lived on the earth?
Michael Jensen: “ It might do. It would depend what kind of literature we were talking about and what kind of relationship the ancient people understood to pertain between their texts and history.”
Andrew: “Michael, in reference to your comment at #5, the kind of literature I'm talking about is the book of Genesis in the Bible. I'm interested in your response to the following question:
Does a literal reading of Genesis 5:29-32 interpret Noah as being a real, historical man who lived on the earth?
Your response of, "it might do", is, in my opinion, a non-response.”
Michael Jensen: “It isn't a non-answer. It's a refusal to be drawn into a rather petty either-or. And a refusal to avoid the actual work of listening to the text itself. That isn't the end point of hermeneutics mind you; there's still more to do to put the text in the context of the whole Bible, too.
Andrew: “Either Genesis 5:29-32 is indicating that Noah was a real person like you or I, or it's indicating that he wasn't a real person like you or I. Or are there other options that I've overlooked on account of my lack of sophistication? I don't take you seriously, Michael.”
Michael: “As you wish Andrew. But this is indicative of precisely the problem of the literalist.
Genesis may be indicating the Noah was a real person, but that not be the main point of the text.
Job is perhaps a better example. I think a good case can be made for the claim that the plain reading of the book of Job is that he is a literary figure rather than a 'historical' one. Even if he was a historical figure, his historical existence is not really the point of the story. Saying 'There was a man named Job' is neither a claim to his existence (it could hardly be a claim for his non-existence) nor is not such a claim.”
Michael: “Well there's no 'one-size-fits-all' answer. Rather, to change the metaphor: you have to play each ball on its merits.
The person saying that about the Devil is making a theological mistake about accountability as much as a textual mistake. It seems to me that the Scriptural testimony over a number of books in different contexts about Satan is that he does exist.”
Andrew: “This article and this thread absolutely encapsulates why I left the Anglican church twelve years ago. One weekend, I realised that I couldn't listen to another academic sermon painted in different shades of grey. Alot of Anglican ministers preach with no power because half of you don't even believe what the Bible says.
Michael, I couldn't be bothered pitching any more questions to you. Your answers are equivocating and ridiculous.
On the positive side, this thread has exposed the foundational problem with the Sydney Anglican church (which has to do with the interpretation of the Bible) and I can guarantee you guys that until you fix this problem, your church is going nowhere. Certainly I won't join the Anglican church again until you guys fix this problem.”
Michael: “Thanks for Andrew.”
Andrew: “You guys want to invite people to church and tell them the gospel. Then, when they start to grow in their faith and start asking questions about the Bible, such as, "Did God speak to Moses in an audible voice?", "Was Noah a real person?", "Was there a real flood?", "Was Adam a real person?", you leave them hanging out to dry. It's a tragedy.
The Anglican church left me hanging out to dry but I was right and the Anglican church was and is WRONG. It's time to fix the problem so that you're not in this same position ANOTHER twenty years from now.”
Michael: “ I never said Noah wasn't a historical figure. What I am trying to do is to ask us to think about the nature of the text so we can read it better. That is: more 'literally' in the strict sense!
[And] Andrew - do you always shout louder when you don't like what you are hearing? I don't like have guns pointed at my head.”
And now we pause to meditate upon the inner, abstruse meaning of an interjection (and general suck up to the heir apparent) from our old-time SAD favourite, Intergalactic mutational gamma ray Dave Lankshear: “ [Hey] Andrew, sadly I think it is meaningless. Taunting someone as not believing the bible because you cannot comprehend their interpretation of it is meaningless: you are attacking something that may not exist, a shallow straw-man of your own construction. Slow down, breathe a little, and try and think about what Michael is actually saying.”
Michael: “The statement that Moore lecturers think Genesis is poetry (as opposed to describing in literary form events that actually took place) is not correct.”
Roll forward a year or so and here we have an example of Michael's evolution: "This meshes with the idea I have had for a project on theological anthropology which would engage with the great literary genres as alterative or overlapping mythoi in comparison and contrast to the Biblical mythos."
Got that guys? I know I haven't. And I guess, even if I could understand what he's saying, will it help me evangelise?
Here's an excerpt from a thread on the real Sydney Anglican Heretic Blog over yonder at the SAD. For the full comedic story, see here
Andrew: “Does a literal reading of Genesis 5:29-32 interpret Noah as being a real, historical man who lived on the earth?
Michael Jensen: “ It might do. It would depend what kind of literature we were talking about and what kind of relationship the ancient people understood to pertain between their texts and history.”
Andrew: “Michael, in reference to your comment at #5, the kind of literature I'm talking about is the book of Genesis in the Bible. I'm interested in your response to the following question:
Does a literal reading of Genesis 5:29-32 interpret Noah as being a real, historical man who lived on the earth?
Your response of, "it might do", is, in my opinion, a non-response.”
Michael Jensen: “It isn't a non-answer. It's a refusal to be drawn into a rather petty either-or. And a refusal to avoid the actual work of listening to the text itself. That isn't the end point of hermeneutics mind you; there's still more to do to put the text in the context of the whole Bible, too.
Andrew: “Either Genesis 5:29-32 is indicating that Noah was a real person like you or I, or it's indicating that he wasn't a real person like you or I. Or are there other options that I've overlooked on account of my lack of sophistication? I don't take you seriously, Michael.”
Michael: “As you wish Andrew. But this is indicative of precisely the problem of the literalist.
Genesis may be indicating the Noah was a real person, but that not be the main point of the text.
Job is perhaps a better example. I think a good case can be made for the claim that the plain reading of the book of Job is that he is a literary figure rather than a 'historical' one. Even if he was a historical figure, his historical existence is not really the point of the story. Saying 'There was a man named Job' is neither a claim to his existence (it could hardly be a claim for his non-existence) nor is not such a claim.”
Michael: “Well there's no 'one-size-fits-all' answer. Rather, to change the metaphor: you have to play each ball on its merits.
The person saying that about the Devil is making a theological mistake about accountability as much as a textual mistake. It seems to me that the Scriptural testimony over a number of books in different contexts about Satan is that he does exist.”
Andrew: “This article and this thread absolutely encapsulates why I left the Anglican church twelve years ago. One weekend, I realised that I couldn't listen to another academic sermon painted in different shades of grey. Alot of Anglican ministers preach with no power because half of you don't even believe what the Bible says.
Michael, I couldn't be bothered pitching any more questions to you. Your answers are equivocating and ridiculous.
On the positive side, this thread has exposed the foundational problem with the Sydney Anglican church (which has to do with the interpretation of the Bible) and I can guarantee you guys that until you fix this problem, your church is going nowhere. Certainly I won't join the Anglican church again until you guys fix this problem.”
Michael: “Thanks for Andrew.”
Andrew: “You guys want to invite people to church and tell them the gospel. Then, when they start to grow in their faith and start asking questions about the Bible, such as, "Did God speak to Moses in an audible voice?", "Was Noah a real person?", "Was there a real flood?", "Was Adam a real person?", you leave them hanging out to dry. It's a tragedy.
The Anglican church left me hanging out to dry but I was right and the Anglican church was and is WRONG. It's time to fix the problem so that you're not in this same position ANOTHER twenty years from now.”
Michael: “ I never said Noah wasn't a historical figure. What I am trying to do is to ask us to think about the nature of the text so we can read it better. That is: more 'literally' in the strict sense!
[And] Andrew - do you always shout louder when you don't like what you are hearing? I don't like have guns pointed at my head.”
And now we pause to meditate upon the inner, abstruse meaning of an interjection (and general suck up to the heir apparent) from our old-time SAD favourite, Intergalactic mutational gamma ray Dave Lankshear: “ [Hey] Andrew, sadly I think it is meaningless. Taunting someone as not believing the bible because you cannot comprehend their interpretation of it is meaningless: you are attacking something that may not exist, a shallow straw-man of your own construction. Slow down, breathe a little, and try and think about what Michael is actually saying.”
Michael: “The statement that Moore lecturers think Genesis is poetry (as opposed to describing in literary form events that actually took place) is not correct.”
Roll forward a year or so and here we have an example of Michael's evolution: "This meshes with the idea I have had for a project on theological anthropology which would engage with the great literary genres as alterative or overlapping mythoi in comparison and contrast to the Biblical mythos."
Got that guys? I know I haven't. And I guess, even if I could understand what he's saying, will it help me evangelise?
Sunday, March 11, 2012
"Skid Row"
Those who declare themselves Evangelical but are, in fact, faux Evangelicals because of their trust in the world ahead of the Word of God on Origins delude themselves into believing all is well. They need to get their bearings by comparing the position they take and that of those who have gone before them.
An article which appeared in Torch and Trumpet in October, 1970 describes the experience of a young man in Germany at that time and gives clear insight into the church's march into declension. We take up his story after he has set the scene of his attendance at Kirchentag, a huge church convention attended by some 20,000 over a period of four days and by special request the Confessional Movement included the topic 'Streit um Jesus:
"This was meant to allow the discussion in depth of the newer theological approaches to Jesus, the denial of his divinity, the question of the reliability of the gospel accounts regarding him, and other matters. A panel of three proponents and three opponents of the new theology presented their viewpoints and engaged in debate. The Confessional Movement, by the way, had consented to be present at the convention only if opportunity for this kind of discussion would be provided. They had boycotted the meetings held two years previously when it was detected that modernist tendencies were in control.
As it turned out, the topic as indicated drew the largest crowds. No less than 8000 people braved the heat of these summer days and attended the discussions pertaining to the Person and Office of Christ. One of the first church papers the present writer ran across in Germany, called Church and Man, August 1969, commented rather sourly on this achievement. They called this whole discussion a question of Rechthaberei [I am right and you are wrong], and changed the title of the topic from Streit um Jesus [Struggle About Jesus] to Streitereien um Jesus [Petty Quarrels About Jesus]. This is a rather clear indication of how this discussion struck the editors of Church and Man. After all, were there no more important questions to discuss than the divinity of the Saviour and his atoning work?
The above reaction to the discussion of such a vital subject as the Person and Work of Christ is typical of the conflict situation in which the German Protestant church, and not only that church, finds itself. Another vivid indication of this conflict is a full page ad which the Confessional Movement published in many daily and weekly papers during the 1970 passion season. The tone of this moving manifesto is robust and prophetic. It decries first of all what the document calls the 'breach of the dam', namely the despising of the moral order, the rejection of authority and the loss of norm-consciousness which characterizes our times. The document deplores the fact that governing church bodies do not wish to utter an unambiguous 'no' to the disturbing tendencies of our day. By refusing to do so, thus the document maintains, the church has lost its credibility in this world.
The manifesto furthermore points an accusing finger at the widespread use of historical-critical methods in the interpretation of the Bible methods which, so it is pointed out, are often based on philosophical rather than Biblical presuppositions. This method has been guilty of proposing hypotheses as scientific facts and has thus reduced the Biblical tradition to a mere heap of ruins. Other parts of this courageous document speak of the decline in ecclesiastical journalism. There has been a surrender to the 'both-and' spirit. Error and truth are printed side by side. The document also refers to many future ministers who appear no longer to have a living personal relationship to the Bible as God's Word but consider the Bible to be nothing more than a discussion partner. These same aspirant ministers, so the document charges, are out to restructure the church, which will result in its destruction."
With such a threat to the survival of the Church in Germany one is left to wonder what would be the outcome there and the rest of Europe? Fast forward to 2011 and eavesdrop on a conversations between so-called Dutch Christians and a BBC journalist here and you will get a devastating perception of the state of mainstream church in The Netherlands and potentially much of Europe.
The first successful insurgency for the historical-critical attack on the Word of God well more than a century ago was the Old Testament, particularly Genesis, but you see that this 'Cancer' will not contain itself to the Old Testament. It is the entire Word of God it seeks to destroy and Christianity with it. Faux Evangelicals today who have capitulated to the world on Genesis have set the foundation for a later generation to reach the state of disbelief described here in Germany forty years ago and in The Netherlands today.
Sam Drucker
An article which appeared in Torch and Trumpet in October, 1970 describes the experience of a young man in Germany at that time and gives clear insight into the church's march into declension. We take up his story after he has set the scene of his attendance at Kirchentag, a huge church convention attended by some 20,000 over a period of four days and by special request the Confessional Movement included the topic 'Streit um Jesus:
"This was meant to allow the discussion in depth of the newer theological approaches to Jesus, the denial of his divinity, the question of the reliability of the gospel accounts regarding him, and other matters. A panel of three proponents and three opponents of the new theology presented their viewpoints and engaged in debate. The Confessional Movement, by the way, had consented to be present at the convention only if opportunity for this kind of discussion would be provided. They had boycotted the meetings held two years previously when it was detected that modernist tendencies were in control.
As it turned out, the topic as indicated drew the largest crowds. No less than 8000 people braved the heat of these summer days and attended the discussions pertaining to the Person and Office of Christ. One of the first church papers the present writer ran across in Germany, called Church and Man, August 1969, commented rather sourly on this achievement. They called this whole discussion a question of Rechthaberei [I am right and you are wrong], and changed the title of the topic from Streit um Jesus [Struggle About Jesus] to Streitereien um Jesus [Petty Quarrels About Jesus]. This is a rather clear indication of how this discussion struck the editors of Church and Man. After all, were there no more important questions to discuss than the divinity of the Saviour and his atoning work?
The above reaction to the discussion of such a vital subject as the Person and Work of Christ is typical of the conflict situation in which the German Protestant church, and not only that church, finds itself. Another vivid indication of this conflict is a full page ad which the Confessional Movement published in many daily and weekly papers during the 1970 passion season. The tone of this moving manifesto is robust and prophetic. It decries first of all what the document calls the 'breach of the dam', namely the despising of the moral order, the rejection of authority and the loss of norm-consciousness which characterizes our times. The document deplores the fact that governing church bodies do not wish to utter an unambiguous 'no' to the disturbing tendencies of our day. By refusing to do so, thus the document maintains, the church has lost its credibility in this world.
The manifesto furthermore points an accusing finger at the widespread use of historical-critical methods in the interpretation of the Bible methods which, so it is pointed out, are often based on philosophical rather than Biblical presuppositions. This method has been guilty of proposing hypotheses as scientific facts and has thus reduced the Biblical tradition to a mere heap of ruins. Other parts of this courageous document speak of the decline in ecclesiastical journalism. There has been a surrender to the 'both-and' spirit. Error and truth are printed side by side. The document also refers to many future ministers who appear no longer to have a living personal relationship to the Bible as God's Word but consider the Bible to be nothing more than a discussion partner. These same aspirant ministers, so the document charges, are out to restructure the church, which will result in its destruction."
With such a threat to the survival of the Church in Germany one is left to wonder what would be the outcome there and the rest of Europe? Fast forward to 2011 and eavesdrop on a conversations between so-called Dutch Christians and a BBC journalist here and you will get a devastating perception of the state of mainstream church in The Netherlands and potentially much of Europe.
The first successful insurgency for the historical-critical attack on the Word of God well more than a century ago was the Old Testament, particularly Genesis, but you see that this 'Cancer' will not contain itself to the Old Testament. It is the entire Word of God it seeks to destroy and Christianity with it. Faux Evangelicals today who have capitulated to the world on Genesis have set the foundation for a later generation to reach the state of disbelief described here in Germany forty years ago and in The Netherlands today.
Sam Drucker
Friday, March 9, 2012
An Eventful Encounter
I heard an interesting testimony on Wednesday. Some years ago a man, who was not a Christian, was walking along a street and saw a banner on a building saying there was to be speaker at the premises speaking to the issue of Creation vs Evolution. The man thought it might be interesting so he went in.
He was so impressed by the argument presented by the speaker in favour of the universe and all in it being created in six days about six thousand years ago that it was influential in him recognizing the Creator, his own parlous condition before the Creator and ultimately receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
After many years the man is now Pastor of a Congregational Church.
So much for those within the Church who say this is just a side issue.
Sam Drucker
He was so impressed by the argument presented by the speaker in favour of the universe and all in it being created in six days about six thousand years ago that it was influential in him recognizing the Creator, his own parlous condition before the Creator and ultimately receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
After many years the man is now Pastor of a Congregational Church.
So much for those within the Church who say this is just a side issue.
Sam Drucker
Monday, March 5, 2012
"I am Not a Scientist"
"I am not a scientist!" said a notable of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney when very briefly addressing the debate over Origins at the CMS Summer Camp at Katoomba this year. Putting it simply, there is no change in his acquiescing to the worldly view on Origins and massaging the Creator into that picture. He admits of his lack of scientific qualification and defers to the majority who have such qualification and who theorize to the negation of the Word of God.
All that I have seen and heard from the many in the Diocese is that one's position on the subject is simply a matter of conscience and that we all should respect each others position and let it rest at that. Yet it appears to me that errant decisions of conscience in the history of the Church have been abused to the extent they have become the order for faith and practice.
Regardless of what denomination of Christianity a person may participate, the Christian ought to be able to say Amen to these words of the Westminster Confession [Chapter XX, 2]: "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship."
Looking back at something dealing with matters of conscience I found an essay by Donald MacLeod, former Associate Editor of Banner of Truth Journal. The essay appeared in the July-August 1971 edition. Having informed his readers of two of three theological grounds for the liberty of conscience the Christian has through Jesus Christ (the first being our sonship in Jesus Christ and second being that God alone is Lord of the conscience) MacLeod moves on to the third ground and says:
"Thirdly, and above all, Christian liberty is based upon the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture as the only rule of faith and life. It is here that the heavenly Father reveals His will and that the Lord of conscience expresses His authority. All that is revealed in Scripture is mandatory. We must believe and obey. Our consciences are bound. But nothing that is contrary to Scripture can bind us; and where Church or State violate this principle the Christian believer has no choice but to state emphatically, 'I must obey God rather than men.' But we must go even further. The Christian is free not only from precepts contrary to Scripture but also from precepts which are beside it in matters of faith and worship. This is the so-called Puritan principle. Certainly it was the kernal [sic] of Puritanism, which was primarily not a theological or doctrinal tendency but a very definite ecclesiological stand-point. The Church must have positive Biblical warrant for all that it prescribes in the realm of faith and worship. It cannot bind the consciences of its members by saying, You must do this because it is not forbidden by Scripture. It must be able to say, You have to do this because it is commanded in Scripture."
To quote MacLeod further: "There is no need to linger over the practical outworking of this principle. It applies, first of all, in the realm of doctrine. The Church cannot impose as an article of faith anything contrary to the Word of God or anything not revealed in the Word of God."
Despite the wisdom espoused by MacLeod the Church has not been listening. One recent example of a matter initiating as a matter of conscience but later taking on the order for church life has been that of ordination of women as priests in the Church of England. The ordination of practicing homosexuals is to play out the same. To hold a contrary position on the basis of the Word of God will not suffice.
All the signs exist for the Biblical Creationist position on Origins, as held by Luther and Calvin, to be so estranged from accepted doctrine that proponents will be exorcised from the church. No longer will the position taken on Origins be a matter of conscience but only that which incorporates much of the worldly view will be acceptable.
I have to rely on the word of someone who was there but I understand that when discussion occurred in recent years at the Synod of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney on criteria for appointment of the next Archbishop, one influential person - a Theistic Evolutionist - said what candidates believed on Creation ought to be considered. I am sure other readers can cite further examples of the cramping to the later extent of exclusion of Biblical Creationists from the established church - Episcopalian or other.
I remind all concerned that God is the Lord of conscience and one risks censure from God for any breach of conscience from the express Word of God.
Sam Drucker
All that I have seen and heard from the many in the Diocese is that one's position on the subject is simply a matter of conscience and that we all should respect each others position and let it rest at that. Yet it appears to me that errant decisions of conscience in the history of the Church have been abused to the extent they have become the order for faith and practice.
Regardless of what denomination of Christianity a person may participate, the Christian ought to be able to say Amen to these words of the Westminster Confession [Chapter XX, 2]: "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship."
Looking back at something dealing with matters of conscience I found an essay by Donald MacLeod, former Associate Editor of Banner of Truth Journal. The essay appeared in the July-August 1971 edition. Having informed his readers of two of three theological grounds for the liberty of conscience the Christian has through Jesus Christ (the first being our sonship in Jesus Christ and second being that God alone is Lord of the conscience) MacLeod moves on to the third ground and says:
"Thirdly, and above all, Christian liberty is based upon the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture as the only rule of faith and life. It is here that the heavenly Father reveals His will and that the Lord of conscience expresses His authority. All that is revealed in Scripture is mandatory. We must believe and obey. Our consciences are bound. But nothing that is contrary to Scripture can bind us; and where Church or State violate this principle the Christian believer has no choice but to state emphatically, 'I must obey God rather than men.' But we must go even further. The Christian is free not only from precepts contrary to Scripture but also from precepts which are beside it in matters of faith and worship. This is the so-called Puritan principle. Certainly it was the kernal [sic] of Puritanism, which was primarily not a theological or doctrinal tendency but a very definite ecclesiological stand-point. The Church must have positive Biblical warrant for all that it prescribes in the realm of faith and worship. It cannot bind the consciences of its members by saying, You must do this because it is not forbidden by Scripture. It must be able to say, You have to do this because it is commanded in Scripture."
To quote MacLeod further: "There is no need to linger over the practical outworking of this principle. It applies, first of all, in the realm of doctrine. The Church cannot impose as an article of faith anything contrary to the Word of God or anything not revealed in the Word of God."
Despite the wisdom espoused by MacLeod the Church has not been listening. One recent example of a matter initiating as a matter of conscience but later taking on the order for church life has been that of ordination of women as priests in the Church of England. The ordination of practicing homosexuals is to play out the same. To hold a contrary position on the basis of the Word of God will not suffice.
All the signs exist for the Biblical Creationist position on Origins, as held by Luther and Calvin, to be so estranged from accepted doctrine that proponents will be exorcised from the church. No longer will the position taken on Origins be a matter of conscience but only that which incorporates much of the worldly view will be acceptable.
I have to rely on the word of someone who was there but I understand that when discussion occurred in recent years at the Synod of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney on criteria for appointment of the next Archbishop, one influential person - a Theistic Evolutionist - said what candidates believed on Creation ought to be considered. I am sure other readers can cite further examples of the cramping to the later extent of exclusion of Biblical Creationists from the established church - Episcopalian or other.
I remind all concerned that God is the Lord of conscience and one risks censure from God for any breach of conscience from the express Word of God.
Sam Drucker
Monday, February 27, 2012
MANHANDLING THE DOCTRINE OF GOD.
Richard Baxter, Christian, Puritan, said "The Word of God is our doctrine, but our mode of dispensing it is human; and there is scarcely anything we have the handling of, but we leave on it the prints of our fingers."
Crystal glass is smudged the moment we pick it up in our bare hands and so it is that the Word of God can be smudged in human hands.
There are those who take the Word of God and handle it in a way they think is pure, palatable and all part of the masterpiece to be dispensed to the masses. They are dumb to the smudges they have applied to work of the Divine Artist and ignorant of the damage they do to the advancement of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I was reminded of this when reading of the revival blessing from God in America involving Asahel Nettleton in the early part of the 19th Century. A ministry reliant on devoted prayer to God, faithful and short preaching of the Word of God and simple despatching of the audience with a request for them to go quietly and retire to their home and pray to God was the means for so many conversions it has been seen as a revival. Yet, as with other like revivals of times past, Satan works through the weaknesses of men. There arose in Charles Finney and his supporters a "New Measure", a means of working up revival and urging of hearers to respond to the preaching by identification and immediate reception into the Kingdom.
The work wrought at Finney's hands was seen to be damaging to the existing revival and believed to produce stony ground within which 'conversions' wilted overnight. Asahel Nettleton, at the urging of others in America, England and Scotland, attempted to convince Finney and his supporters of the errors of their way. It fell on deaf ears.
The 20th and 21st Century each bear testimony of the smudging of the pure Word of God in Genesis as so called evangelicals handle and present it in a manner which grubbily negates the simplicity and truth contained therein. Just as Finney worked on the worldly senses of his audience to receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ the so called evangelical today seeks to appease the worldly senses of the audience to receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Today's world view on Origins is allowed to smudge the reading of Genesis 1.
In both Finney and so called evangelicals of today the Holy Spirit of God is quenched of Divine will to work a conviction in the heart of man to trust with simplicity and sincerity the Word of God to salvation in Jesus Christ.
Sam Drucker
Crystal glass is smudged the moment we pick it up in our bare hands and so it is that the Word of God can be smudged in human hands.
There are those who take the Word of God and handle it in a way they think is pure, palatable and all part of the masterpiece to be dispensed to the masses. They are dumb to the smudges they have applied to work of the Divine Artist and ignorant of the damage they do to the advancement of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I was reminded of this when reading of the revival blessing from God in America involving Asahel Nettleton in the early part of the 19th Century. A ministry reliant on devoted prayer to God, faithful and short preaching of the Word of God and simple despatching of the audience with a request for them to go quietly and retire to their home and pray to God was the means for so many conversions it has been seen as a revival. Yet, as with other like revivals of times past, Satan works through the weaknesses of men. There arose in Charles Finney and his supporters a "New Measure", a means of working up revival and urging of hearers to respond to the preaching by identification and immediate reception into the Kingdom.
The work wrought at Finney's hands was seen to be damaging to the existing revival and believed to produce stony ground within which 'conversions' wilted overnight. Asahel Nettleton, at the urging of others in America, England and Scotland, attempted to convince Finney and his supporters of the errors of their way. It fell on deaf ears.
The 20th and 21st Century each bear testimony of the smudging of the pure Word of God in Genesis as so called evangelicals handle and present it in a manner which grubbily negates the simplicity and truth contained therein. Just as Finney worked on the worldly senses of his audience to receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ the so called evangelical today seeks to appease the worldly senses of the audience to receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Today's world view on Origins is allowed to smudge the reading of Genesis 1.
In both Finney and so called evangelicals of today the Holy Spirit of God is quenched of Divine will to work a conviction in the heart of man to trust with simplicity and sincerity the Word of God to salvation in Jesus Christ.
Sam Drucker
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
When Theologians Go Feral!
Our ongoing contention has been the declension of the evangelical church, post Darwin, with particular emphasis on the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney which prides itself on being a haven, even a light to the world, for trust in the Word of God yet bears all the symptoms of those it criticizes.
Recent reading brought home to me some more sense of the pain and warnings experienced within the evangelical church over forty years ago. Provided herewith is an extract of an address given by Frederick S. Leahy, Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics when giving the opening lecture in the Theological Hall of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland on 17 October 1968:
"Inscribed on many pulpits in Germany is the text [Gottes Wort bleibt ewig], 'God's Word stands forever.' Yet a young German pastor remarked recently: 'During our theological training our professors plucked the Bible to pieces - no one can put it together again for us. We ourselves can no longer believe in the Bible as the Word of God; so how can we bring its message home to others ?' A professor of secular history recently said to a professor of theology, 'If we treated our historical sources as you theologians treat your Biblical sources, there would be no history at all - for there is far less evidence for our sources than for yours.'" [E. H. Robertson in The Bible in Outline, p 39].
The theological institution of the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and some of its graduates now given a platform to speak and influence the Diocese bear striking resemblance to European theologians some forty or more years ago in their approach to the early chapters of Genesis. They lay the groundwork today for others to attack the remainder of the Word of God tomorrow.
Sam Drucker
Our ongoing contention has been the declension of the evangelical church, post Darwin, with particular emphasis on the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney which prides itself on being a haven, even a light to the world, for trust in the Word of God yet bears all the symptoms of those it criticizes.
Recent reading brought home to me some more sense of the pain and warnings experienced within the evangelical church over forty years ago. Provided herewith is an extract of an address given by Frederick S. Leahy, Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics when giving the opening lecture in the Theological Hall of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland on 17 October 1968:
"Inscribed on many pulpits in Germany is the text [Gottes Wort bleibt ewig], 'God's Word stands forever.' Yet a young German pastor remarked recently: 'During our theological training our professors plucked the Bible to pieces - no one can put it together again for us. We ourselves can no longer believe in the Bible as the Word of God; so how can we bring its message home to others ?' A professor of secular history recently said to a professor of theology, 'If we treated our historical sources as you theologians treat your Biblical sources, there would be no history at all - for there is far less evidence for our sources than for yours.'" [E. H. Robertson in The Bible in Outline, p 39].
The theological institution of the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and some of its graduates now given a platform to speak and influence the Diocese bear striking resemblance to European theologians some forty or more years ago in their approach to the early chapters of Genesis. They lay the groundwork today for others to attack the remainder of the Word of God tomorrow.
Sam Drucker
Thursday, February 16, 2012
"Good Without God"?
While it may have seemed to Sydney Atheists a profound promotional strategy to adopt the catchphrase "Good Without God" a few years ago it brought a silent chuckle to my heart - for I know the heart of man.
No doubt there were those Sydney Atheists subsequently delighted with the rise to the highest political position in Australia of a person declaring her preferred belief system or religion being Atheism. In Julia Gillard were the hopes of Atheists for a demonstration to the nation (and to the world) that Atheism offers the moral and intellectual capacity to guide the world to better times and lifestyle. "Good without God", this was to be the new way, the new philosophy, the new ethic.
Well, we have been patient but it is time to call the exercise a complete failure.
The unravelling was there to be seen in the process of Julia Gillard's elevation to the position of Prime Minister but most of us were inclined at the time to assign it all to the toughness of politics.
However, the most obvious sign of deficient morality was the betrayal of voters in saying only days out from the 2010 election "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" and then announcing after the election that there will be a carbon tax introduced by her government.
Added to this was the post election cutting of a deal with Independent, Andrew Wilkie - essential for the formation of a minority government - that she would legislate for stringent poker machine reform. Earlier this year she walked away from the deal.
Then came the riot in Canberra on Australia Day which arose from a misconstruing of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's words on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy - and all of which had its roots in a telephone call from the Prime Minister's office to a Union official at the Tent Embassy. Subsequent intimation that more than one person in the Prime Minister's office was involved has met with 'stone-walling' by the Prime Minister and the four or more versions of events given by the Union official (the most palatable affirmed by the Prime Minister) but now undone by revelation of a recording of the actual words uttered by the Union official to the holder of the microphone at the Tent rally all smacks of deception and ill practice from within the Prime Minister's office.
The ABC's Four Corners television programme this week unveiled a woman repeatedly avoiding the question of her knowledge of preparations in her office in year 2010 for the axing of then Prime Minister Rudd and replacement by Julia Gillard. Add to that her "I don't recall" response yesterday to questions about her dissemination of private polling in the weeks prior to the axing - polling designed to show her suitability over Kevin Rudd to lead the Labor Party all compound the deception.
You can throw in her earlier denials, but since proven otherwise, of a key role in a Socialist group during and post university times and a lame attempt to explain away an errant message sent Tony Abbott when he was in government and Health Minister but which was intended for a colleague to declare her failure to grasp health issues.
Deception, cover-up and deception are the marks of the political life of Julia Gillard, Atheist.
"Good Without God"? The poster girl of Atheism in Australia has demonstrated something quite the contrary. She is no recommendation of Atheism.
Jesus Christ has made it quite clear: "No-one is good, but God." A person can only be seen as good in God's eyes, or should I say righteous in God's sight, if they put on the righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is done only by one recognising that one is not righteous, repent of sin and earnestly ask Jesus Christ to be Lord of one's life.
Sam Drucker
No doubt there were those Sydney Atheists subsequently delighted with the rise to the highest political position in Australia of a person declaring her preferred belief system or religion being Atheism. In Julia Gillard were the hopes of Atheists for a demonstration to the nation (and to the world) that Atheism offers the moral and intellectual capacity to guide the world to better times and lifestyle. "Good without God", this was to be the new way, the new philosophy, the new ethic.
Well, we have been patient but it is time to call the exercise a complete failure.
The unravelling was there to be seen in the process of Julia Gillard's elevation to the position of Prime Minister but most of us were inclined at the time to assign it all to the toughness of politics.
However, the most obvious sign of deficient morality was the betrayal of voters in saying only days out from the 2010 election "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" and then announcing after the election that there will be a carbon tax introduced by her government.
Added to this was the post election cutting of a deal with Independent, Andrew Wilkie - essential for the formation of a minority government - that she would legislate for stringent poker machine reform. Earlier this year she walked away from the deal.
Then came the riot in Canberra on Australia Day which arose from a misconstruing of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's words on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy - and all of which had its roots in a telephone call from the Prime Minister's office to a Union official at the Tent Embassy. Subsequent intimation that more than one person in the Prime Minister's office was involved has met with 'stone-walling' by the Prime Minister and the four or more versions of events given by the Union official (the most palatable affirmed by the Prime Minister) but now undone by revelation of a recording of the actual words uttered by the Union official to the holder of the microphone at the Tent rally all smacks of deception and ill practice from within the Prime Minister's office.
The ABC's Four Corners television programme this week unveiled a woman repeatedly avoiding the question of her knowledge of preparations in her office in year 2010 for the axing of then Prime Minister Rudd and replacement by Julia Gillard. Add to that her "I don't recall" response yesterday to questions about her dissemination of private polling in the weeks prior to the axing - polling designed to show her suitability over Kevin Rudd to lead the Labor Party all compound the deception.
You can throw in her earlier denials, but since proven otherwise, of a key role in a Socialist group during and post university times and a lame attempt to explain away an errant message sent Tony Abbott when he was in government and Health Minister but which was intended for a colleague to declare her failure to grasp health issues.
Deception, cover-up and deception are the marks of the political life of Julia Gillard, Atheist.
"Good Without God"? The poster girl of Atheism in Australia has demonstrated something quite the contrary. She is no recommendation of Atheism.
Jesus Christ has made it quite clear: "No-one is good, but God." A person can only be seen as good in God's eyes, or should I say righteous in God's sight, if they put on the righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is done only by one recognising that one is not righteous, repent of sin and earnestly ask Jesus Christ to be Lord of one's life.
Sam Drucker
Friday, February 10, 2012
The wisdom of atheists
Speaking to Phillip Adams, Richard Dawkins says this about the Sydney Anglican Heretics: “Yes, in its most naive form you will get these Sydney Anglicans who say that the story of Genesis, that the creation took 6 days to accomplish, you simply have to read each of those days as, whatever it is, 100 million years or a thousand million years, you get the right answer. I mean that's very, very naive, of course. You are absolutely right that there is this tendency to resort to metaphor. Which maddens me because I suspect that the original authors of, for example, the book of Genesis, in no sense thought of it as a metaphor. I suggest that they thought that they were probably writing down folk-tales that had been handed down by word of mouth. But they believed them to be factually true, and the vast majority of people in history have believed them to be factually true. So I think that to reinterpret them as metaphor is a kind of evasion.”
Richard Kilty, another atheist, writing in one of the atheist journals, first asks if evolution and religion are reconcilable, complementary or both. He answers by expressing that, “We are not dealing on this amorphous level, instead we want to know about the antithesis of man in evolution and man in Christianity. And we do have an anti-thesis: Acceptance of evolution precludes the fundamentals of Christianity, to wit, Garden, Adam and Eve, Fall, Redeemer, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension. Acceptance of evolution requires the concatenation: fish-amphibians-reptiles-mammals-apeman-man with all transformations occurring naturally. This dichotomy is irreconcilable.”
Kilty goes on to ruminate with acute insight that the two are not reconcilable; that a child taught evolutionary concepts (including long ages), will have his belief in God disturbed: “How subversive is evolutionary theory to Church dogma.”
In another section of the newsletter one writer looks at the long ages supposedly expressed in the fossil record, and concludes, quite logically, that as this indicates death on a high order, a loving God cannot exist: “We astute rationalists have no qualms regards the predation of primeval organisms as having commenced as dire necessity well over one billion years ago or more under the most inhospitable of prevailing conditions...The fossil record bares no record of lenity throughout the bulk of an estimated 70 kilometres(sic) deep accumulation of sediments in the whole of the visible fossils geological sequence...benevolence has no place in the realms of reality or survival of the fittest.”
Richard Kilty, another atheist, writing in one of the atheist journals, first asks if evolution and religion are reconcilable, complementary or both. He answers by expressing that, “We are not dealing on this amorphous level, instead we want to know about the antithesis of man in evolution and man in Christianity. And we do have an anti-thesis: Acceptance of evolution precludes the fundamentals of Christianity, to wit, Garden, Adam and Eve, Fall, Redeemer, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension. Acceptance of evolution requires the concatenation: fish-amphibians-reptiles-mammals-apeman-man with all transformations occurring naturally. This dichotomy is irreconcilable.”
Kilty goes on to ruminate with acute insight that the two are not reconcilable; that a child taught evolutionary concepts (including long ages), will have his belief in God disturbed: “How subversive is evolutionary theory to Church dogma.”
In another section of the newsletter one writer looks at the long ages supposedly expressed in the fossil record, and concludes, quite logically, that as this indicates death on a high order, a loving God cannot exist: “We astute rationalists have no qualms regards the predation of primeval organisms as having commenced as dire necessity well over one billion years ago or more under the most inhospitable of prevailing conditions...The fossil record bares no record of lenity throughout the bulk of an estimated 70 kilometres(sic) deep accumulation of sediments in the whole of the visible fossils geological sequence...benevolence has no place in the realms of reality or survival of the fittest.”
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
"Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave ...."
Theistic Evolutionists such as the Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney, some of his Bishops, perhaps even his son and several on the Standing Committee of the Diocese (the 'engine room') must be perplexed by the dilemma presented by scientists through their assertion of a fossil find indicating the first animal emerged on earth up to 760 million years ago.
The problem for the alleged evangelicals cum Theistic Evolutionists of the Diocese is that they hold in one hand their favoured theory on Origins declaring man did not evolve for some time after the emergence of the first animal(s) yet that book they loosely hold in their other hand called the Bible says that man and animals (terrestrial animals) were created on the same day of Creation Week (day six). The disparity now contended is nearer to a billion years than anything comfortable for the alleged evangelicals and much more difficult to explain away.
What to do in such a circumstance? "After all," says the Theistic Evolutionists, "we pay homage to scientists ahead of the Word of God!"
"I know!" they say, "We'll just obfuscate if questioned and bluff our way out of it saying that Genesis does not talk about the 'how' but the 'who' of creation."
That response, often used as it is, may satisfy the unthinking objector but it bears no weight with the true evangelical. The latter will probe the logic of the response only to be met with "This is not an issue for causing division in the church for it is the gospel which matters." Or that part of the gospel they are prepared for the moment to declare to the world!
Such an incomplete theology is the threadbare dress of many leaders of the church today.
Sam Drucker
The problem for the alleged evangelicals cum Theistic Evolutionists of the Diocese is that they hold in one hand their favoured theory on Origins declaring man did not evolve for some time after the emergence of the first animal(s) yet that book they loosely hold in their other hand called the Bible says that man and animals (terrestrial animals) were created on the same day of Creation Week (day six). The disparity now contended is nearer to a billion years than anything comfortable for the alleged evangelicals and much more difficult to explain away.
What to do in such a circumstance? "After all," says the Theistic Evolutionists, "we pay homage to scientists ahead of the Word of God!"
"I know!" they say, "We'll just obfuscate if questioned and bluff our way out of it saying that Genesis does not talk about the 'how' but the 'who' of creation."
That response, often used as it is, may satisfy the unthinking objector but it bears no weight with the true evangelical. The latter will probe the logic of the response only to be met with "This is not an issue for causing division in the church for it is the gospel which matters." Or that part of the gospel they are prepared for the moment to declare to the world!
Such an incomplete theology is the threadbare dress of many leaders of the church today.
Sam Drucker
Monday, February 6, 2012
CMS Summer School, 2012, and its Snare.
It was disappointing to hear of the Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, speaking at the Church Missionary Society Summer School, Katoomba in January 2012 and leaving the audience with an erroneous theology of Jesus Christ as Creator. Long known for his Theistic Evolution standpoint on Origins, Archbishop Jensen could only justify his position by lamely declaring he is "not a scientist." In saying this after having resorted to the Theistic Evolution position he is effectively saying he accepts the word of man over the Word of God. The qualification the world bestows upon man is sufficient to guide the Archbishop.
From this position it is the Word of God which has to be stripped of its authority by immediate reinterpretation when it comes into conflict with the views of men on events of the past.
For the Archbishop, it is men who were not there being allowed to dictate to Jesus Christ (The Word) who was there, as to just what occurred at the beginning of life.
I just hope there were sufficient people present in the large audience who detected and dismissed this act of obeisance to man over Jesus Christ on the part of the Archbishop.
These are indeed times of trial for the Church and it is the faithful, in love, who will be the "trees who bear fruit to eternal life".
Sam Drucker
From this position it is the Word of God which has to be stripped of its authority by immediate reinterpretation when it comes into conflict with the views of men on events of the past.
For the Archbishop, it is men who were not there being allowed to dictate to Jesus Christ (The Word) who was there, as to just what occurred at the beginning of life.
I just hope there were sufficient people present in the large audience who detected and dismissed this act of obeisance to man over Jesus Christ on the part of the Archbishop.
These are indeed times of trial for the Church and it is the faithful, in love, who will be the "trees who bear fruit to eternal life".
Sam Drucker
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Satan's Advantages From Christians' Infirmities (Part 2)
This blog completes reproduction of the essay of Maurice Roberts in the May 1991 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal.
"As if to intensify our awareness to the fact that spiritual harm may spring up to the followers of Christ where least expected, God ordained and fore-warned that the traitor who should betray the Lord Jesus Christ was none other than one of his chosen apostles. This came as a surprise to the twelve when they first heard it and it is entirely understandable that they would proceed to enquire, 'Lord, is it I?' (Matt. 26:22). We are certainly not less gullible today than they were in their day and therefore we too have to take account of the possibility that those most closely associated with the work of Christ's gospel may become the betrayers of it before their course is fully run. From this possibility no one is exempt. 'Watch and pray' is our only antidote. Even then we need further to examine ourselves, to search our motives and to lay bare our hearts before the scrutiny of Almighty God.
It is awesome to see how, in the course of church history, Satan has taken advantage of the flaws in understanding or practice which God's eminent servants have had. From the brilliant Origen came the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. From the courageous Athanasius, with his respect for Antony and the life of solitude, came the ideal of a monastic Christianity. From the inexactitudes of the toweringly-great Augustine emanated the mediaeval theory of sacramentalism. From the organising zeal of Cyprian and Ambrose developed the later hierarchical structures of the papal church. The devil has proved masterful in the way he has exploited the excesses or shortcomings, the over-enthusiasm or thoughtless incaution of eminent preachers and churchmen in the past. No doubt they aimed at perfection in all things. But in that they missed the mark they gave occasion to Satan to push their errors to undreamed of lengths. This he has done contrary to their intentions at the time, but by a skilful use of their respected names and using their authority among all the lovers of orthodoxy.
Let no man think that this aspect of the devil's duplicity ended with the Church Fathers. It has gone on ever since and remains one of the most successful weapons against the church. Hence we must not only watch our weaknesses, but our strengths as well. The vices of our virtues are more generally harmful to the cause of Christ than our observed vices. It happens in all kinds of ways.
One man, let us say, becomes an internationally-important evangelist. He quite naturally and rightly seeks to bring his influence to bear on the largest possible number of people. He is sound in the basic elements of gospel truth, a Bible-lover and a man of God. He is zealous to win as many souls to Christ as he can. But a dilemma faces him. His conservative theology is resented by Liberals and Catholics. What is he to do?
The confrontational approach will result in smaller crowds at his meetings. Is it not right in the interests of reaching these very persons, to give them some say in the conduct and order of the religious services? At the very least, can some pleasant and softening speeches not be made to win their attachment to the campaigns? If the evangelist of our illustration does so (and let us believe the best of his motives) he is guilty of taking a false step and of committing grave error. By this one false move he now wields all his considerable influence and prestige in the direction of blurring the lines between truth and falsehood. But he may live and die without realising what he has done. The devil, meanwhile, is not slow to draw the threads of falsehood all the more firmly around the minds of those many thousands who, quite understandably, lionised the evangelist.
The above is only one example out of many of the way in which Satan exploits the infirmities of believers. There are applications to every congregation, every denomination, every pulpit and every pew. We might suffer this patiently without additional comment except that in certain cases the advantage gained by Satan becomes so great that it cries out for the utmost attention before it carries everything before it.
Such a situation was reached in the last century with the rise of the Higher Critical theory. It may well be that some of those who joined in the stampede for a critical approach to the text of holy Scripture were men with grace and good intention. If so, they were tragically misled, as the sequel has proved. But we know ourselves too well to forget that we all go astray 'like sheep' (Isa. 53:6). That is to say, we all incline too much towards following others. We love a leader who will do our thinking for us and go over the new ground before us. The price we pay is that we occasionally follow our leaders even over the enchanted ground, and we may have gone some way before we realise our danger and are able with pain and humiliation, to find our way back to the path.
There is one supremely important practical lesson to be learnt from the way Satan takes advantage of the infirmities of Christians. It is that we should seek always to attach the blame for the mischief which occurs rather to him than to them. Satan is expert at starting fires with other men's matches and leaving them to get the blame for it. If our gifted leaders get us into some troubles on occasion, we must have the grace to give them the benefit of acting on good motives. That their over- emphasis or excess of zeal or want of forethought led them into making impudent decisions or to cracking the nut with a sledge-hammer, we must not forget that the mischief which ensued was far more Satan's work than theirs.
It goes without saying also that wise leadership should always regard itself as capable of carrying a good thing too far and giving a handle unwittingly to the common adversary of our souls. Our universal folly as sinners is to become too much like ourselves, to the point where we love ourselves even for our own extremes. But this is an infirmity, and one which Satan will assuredly exploit to hurt the general cause of Christ. A paraffin lamp gives a tolerably good light if the wick is adjusted correctly. But if the wick is turned up too far it sends forth only smoke. Even so do our strong points help our brethren greatly. But, if strained and stretched too far, our helpful emphases only darken the fellowship and offend the brethren. Happy are we if we distrust our own hearts enough to accept correction from those who love us in the Lord."
This essay by Maurice Roberts has lessons for many. For us here at the Sydney Anglican Heretics blogspot we must examine the effect of our zeal for upholding the truth of God's Word, the Nature of Christ and the Glory of God and be careful not to be "starting fires with other men's matches." We must be careful to attribute blame more to Satan than to those who, as weak clay vessels, unwittingly do the work of the arch enemy of Christ's church.
At the same time, those we have spoken out against, must examine themselves to see whether, as we have asserted, they have become agents for Satan in undermining the faith once lost but rediscovered by the Reformers and professed but not entirely affirmed in the 'evangelical' church today. High position affords great opportunity to influence others and when regular pronouncements are cloaked in evangelical 'speak' and a declared intention to uphold the Word of God there are many in the church who place esteem in the man acting as such. However, chinks in the armour are detectable to the astute even if the trimmings of the world camouflage and deceive many.
The 'gloss' of man is dimmed against the Glory of God and the church which survives is that church which trusts implicitly in the Word of God against the seeming strength of argument from the world or those who have compromised with the world.
Biblical history is well supplied with those who have done the bidding of Satan and the history of the church since the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ bears the same sad story. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear look and listen.
Sam Drucker
"As if to intensify our awareness to the fact that spiritual harm may spring up to the followers of Christ where least expected, God ordained and fore-warned that the traitor who should betray the Lord Jesus Christ was none other than one of his chosen apostles. This came as a surprise to the twelve when they first heard it and it is entirely understandable that they would proceed to enquire, 'Lord, is it I?' (Matt. 26:22). We are certainly not less gullible today than they were in their day and therefore we too have to take account of the possibility that those most closely associated with the work of Christ's gospel may become the betrayers of it before their course is fully run. From this possibility no one is exempt. 'Watch and pray' is our only antidote. Even then we need further to examine ourselves, to search our motives and to lay bare our hearts before the scrutiny of Almighty God.
It is awesome to see how, in the course of church history, Satan has taken advantage of the flaws in understanding or practice which God's eminent servants have had. From the brilliant Origen came the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. From the courageous Athanasius, with his respect for Antony and the life of solitude, came the ideal of a monastic Christianity. From the inexactitudes of the toweringly-great Augustine emanated the mediaeval theory of sacramentalism. From the organising zeal of Cyprian and Ambrose developed the later hierarchical structures of the papal church. The devil has proved masterful in the way he has exploited the excesses or shortcomings, the over-enthusiasm or thoughtless incaution of eminent preachers and churchmen in the past. No doubt they aimed at perfection in all things. But in that they missed the mark they gave occasion to Satan to push their errors to undreamed of lengths. This he has done contrary to their intentions at the time, but by a skilful use of their respected names and using their authority among all the lovers of orthodoxy.
Let no man think that this aspect of the devil's duplicity ended with the Church Fathers. It has gone on ever since and remains one of the most successful weapons against the church. Hence we must not only watch our weaknesses, but our strengths as well. The vices of our virtues are more generally harmful to the cause of Christ than our observed vices. It happens in all kinds of ways.
One man, let us say, becomes an internationally-important evangelist. He quite naturally and rightly seeks to bring his influence to bear on the largest possible number of people. He is sound in the basic elements of gospel truth, a Bible-lover and a man of God. He is zealous to win as many souls to Christ as he can. But a dilemma faces him. His conservative theology is resented by Liberals and Catholics. What is he to do?
The confrontational approach will result in smaller crowds at his meetings. Is it not right in the interests of reaching these very persons, to give them some say in the conduct and order of the religious services? At the very least, can some pleasant and softening speeches not be made to win their attachment to the campaigns? If the evangelist of our illustration does so (and let us believe the best of his motives) he is guilty of taking a false step and of committing grave error. By this one false move he now wields all his considerable influence and prestige in the direction of blurring the lines between truth and falsehood. But he may live and die without realising what he has done. The devil, meanwhile, is not slow to draw the threads of falsehood all the more firmly around the minds of those many thousands who, quite understandably, lionised the evangelist.
The above is only one example out of many of the way in which Satan exploits the infirmities of believers. There are applications to every congregation, every denomination, every pulpit and every pew. We might suffer this patiently without additional comment except that in certain cases the advantage gained by Satan becomes so great that it cries out for the utmost attention before it carries everything before it.
Such a situation was reached in the last century with the rise of the Higher Critical theory. It may well be that some of those who joined in the stampede for a critical approach to the text of holy Scripture were men with grace and good intention. If so, they were tragically misled, as the sequel has proved. But we know ourselves too well to forget that we all go astray 'like sheep' (Isa. 53:6). That is to say, we all incline too much towards following others. We love a leader who will do our thinking for us and go over the new ground before us. The price we pay is that we occasionally follow our leaders even over the enchanted ground, and we may have gone some way before we realise our danger and are able with pain and humiliation, to find our way back to the path.
There is one supremely important practical lesson to be learnt from the way Satan takes advantage of the infirmities of Christians. It is that we should seek always to attach the blame for the mischief which occurs rather to him than to them. Satan is expert at starting fires with other men's matches and leaving them to get the blame for it. If our gifted leaders get us into some troubles on occasion, we must have the grace to give them the benefit of acting on good motives. That their over- emphasis or excess of zeal or want of forethought led them into making impudent decisions or to cracking the nut with a sledge-hammer, we must not forget that the mischief which ensued was far more Satan's work than theirs.
It goes without saying also that wise leadership should always regard itself as capable of carrying a good thing too far and giving a handle unwittingly to the common adversary of our souls. Our universal folly as sinners is to become too much like ourselves, to the point where we love ourselves even for our own extremes. But this is an infirmity, and one which Satan will assuredly exploit to hurt the general cause of Christ. A paraffin lamp gives a tolerably good light if the wick is adjusted correctly. But if the wick is turned up too far it sends forth only smoke. Even so do our strong points help our brethren greatly. But, if strained and stretched too far, our helpful emphases only darken the fellowship and offend the brethren. Happy are we if we distrust our own hearts enough to accept correction from those who love us in the Lord."
This essay by Maurice Roberts has lessons for many. For us here at the Sydney Anglican Heretics blogspot we must examine the effect of our zeal for upholding the truth of God's Word, the Nature of Christ and the Glory of God and be careful not to be "starting fires with other men's matches." We must be careful to attribute blame more to Satan than to those who, as weak clay vessels, unwittingly do the work of the arch enemy of Christ's church.
At the same time, those we have spoken out against, must examine themselves to see whether, as we have asserted, they have become agents for Satan in undermining the faith once lost but rediscovered by the Reformers and professed but not entirely affirmed in the 'evangelical' church today. High position affords great opportunity to influence others and when regular pronouncements are cloaked in evangelical 'speak' and a declared intention to uphold the Word of God there are many in the church who place esteem in the man acting as such. However, chinks in the armour are detectable to the astute even if the trimmings of the world camouflage and deceive many.
The 'gloss' of man is dimmed against the Glory of God and the church which survives is that church which trusts implicitly in the Word of God against the seeming strength of argument from the world or those who have compromised with the world.
Biblical history is well supplied with those who have done the bidding of Satan and the history of the church since the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ bears the same sad story. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear look and listen.
Sam Drucker
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Satan's Advantages From Christians' Infirmities (Part 1)
In two instalments I propose to repeat a well written article, under the same title of this blog, by Maurice Roberts in the May 1991 issue of The Banner of Truth Journal. I shall make my own concluding comments in Part 2.
"There must be something approaching to joy among the devils in hell just as there is joy among evil men in this world. The joy of angels and Christian persons arises from their receiving news of sinners repenting and turning to God. The joy (if we may call it by that name) of devils springs from their witnessing anything which appears to damage the cause of God or to wound and weaken the witness of his people upon earth.
We suppose that the devil and his angels find satisfaction through the triumphing of evil in the measure in which such evil is promoted by godly men. That evil should be advanced by faithless and ungodly men of this world, therefore, must afford to demons a satisfaction at the lower end of the scale. But when, through infirmity or prejudice, godly persons do Satan's work for him - this we may reasonably suppose - is the pinnacle and summit of Satan's joy.
There can be no doubt that Satan employs immense resources of time, skill and effort to win over persons with influence in God's kingdom to do him service. There is more evidence in the Bible for this than one might at first suppose. The general rule of operation used by Satan, it would appear, is the obvious one of striking against God by means of His closest friends and most honoured servants. In this way Satan endeavours to inflict as great a blow against heaven as possible and to
injure God's work from the least-expected quarter.
In all this, let it be said, we do not forget that God's purpose is eternal and inviolable. But we draw attention to the love of cunning and 'subtlety' (Gen. 3:1), the serpentine and crooked (Isa. 27:1) way in which Satan is fond of working. It is this 'cunning craftiness' (Eph. 4:14) which is the distinctive hallmark of all his age-old industry of duplicity against the people of God. Satan's joy, to put it plainly, is most seen in his using God's best instruments against Himself
The above observations are surely borne out by the evidence. When Satan would murder mankind at a stroke he employed as his best ally the wife of Adam, our covenant-head. Here was the world's first and purest lady and the mother of mankind. We all fell in Adam. But it was through the woman given to be his greatest earthly blessing that Adam was induced to murder all his posterity. What satisfaction it must have been to the tempter that he got 'the mother of all living' to be the first instrument in their death! No mother's love was so perfect as hers - and no temptation so deadly as hers.
We see the same dark hand at work as soon as God had formed Israel into a covenanted people to himself. Even while Moses is still on Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments, Satan is busy fostering apostasy among the people. This he does, not by means of some outsider, but by the hand of Aaron, Moses' brother, on whose authority the golden calf is made. Could any craft have been more crafty or could any mischief have been more mischievous? While the one brother serves God on the holy mount, the other serves Satan beneath its shadow. Even as the finger of God graves the second commandment in letters of stone, the very brother of Moses himself is at work graving an idol to cause the people to break it! The subtlety is too great to emanate from any other mind than that of Satan. The irony in wickedness is stamped all over with the serpent's image.
The same pattern is visible in the career of Saul, the first king. Here is a man who receives his kingship very definitely from God himself (1 Sam. 10:lf). If any man in history could claim to sit on a throne by 'divine right' (to use a phrase much loved by Stuart Kings), it was Saul the son of Kish. How ironical then that such a king should be a disaster both to himself and to the people of God! What a joy there was in hell when Saul, the anointed of the Lord, consulted with the witch of Endor and, next day, died ignominiously on the field of battle! 'Tell it not in Gath' was David's mournful reaction. It was too tragic not to be one of Satan's special strategems.
We may well suppose that the crucifixion of Christ at the hands of his Jewish countrymen is the supreme irony ever fostered by the devil. It is history's perfect masterpiece of hellish subterfuge because it is history's greatest crime and it was committed - alas! alas! - by the most devout and religious people history had ever known up to that time That some hidden, and lurking power of spiritual wickedness lay behind the frenzied hatred of the Jews is plain to every reader of the Scriptures: 'This is your hour and the power of darkness' (Luke 22:53). Our instinctive love for the Jews as a people only imensifies our sadness, when we reflect on the awful fact that 'he came unto his own and his own received him not' (John 1:11). In Christian compassion we long for the day when their insensate cry of 'His blood be on us and on our children!' will cease to call down judgment upon them and they as a people will receive the 'Spirit of grace and supplications' and so will 'look on him whom they have pierced' (Zech. 12:10) in repentance and faith.
That Peter did the devil's work handsomely on one occasion is further evidence that Satan always seeks to use the friends closest to God to do his work for him. The lessons which flow to us from the words of Christ on the occasion in question are full of solemn instruction and warning to every minister, elder, church and Christian. Christ's 'Get thee behind me, Satan' (Matt. 16:23) leaves us in no doubt that the best of Christians, the best of preachers, the holiest of saints and the most intimate of Christ's friends may, all unwittingly, do the devil's work for him on occasion. That they do it unconsciously and with the purest of motives goes far to excuse them in our eyes. But this very sincerity makes their influence all the more likely to do harm where they are most convinced they are doing only good."
Final instalment in a few days.
Sam Drucker
"There must be something approaching to joy among the devils in hell just as there is joy among evil men in this world. The joy of angels and Christian persons arises from their receiving news of sinners repenting and turning to God. The joy (if we may call it by that name) of devils springs from their witnessing anything which appears to damage the cause of God or to wound and weaken the witness of his people upon earth.
We suppose that the devil and his angels find satisfaction through the triumphing of evil in the measure in which such evil is promoted by godly men. That evil should be advanced by faithless and ungodly men of this world, therefore, must afford to demons a satisfaction at the lower end of the scale. But when, through infirmity or prejudice, godly persons do Satan's work for him - this we may reasonably suppose - is the pinnacle and summit of Satan's joy.
There can be no doubt that Satan employs immense resources of time, skill and effort to win over persons with influence in God's kingdom to do him service. There is more evidence in the Bible for this than one might at first suppose. The general rule of operation used by Satan, it would appear, is the obvious one of striking against God by means of His closest friends and most honoured servants. In this way Satan endeavours to inflict as great a blow against heaven as possible and to
injure God's work from the least-expected quarter.
In all this, let it be said, we do not forget that God's purpose is eternal and inviolable. But we draw attention to the love of cunning and 'subtlety' (Gen. 3:1), the serpentine and crooked (Isa. 27:1) way in which Satan is fond of working. It is this 'cunning craftiness' (Eph. 4:14) which is the distinctive hallmark of all his age-old industry of duplicity against the people of God. Satan's joy, to put it plainly, is most seen in his using God's best instruments against Himself
The above observations are surely borne out by the evidence. When Satan would murder mankind at a stroke he employed as his best ally the wife of Adam, our covenant-head. Here was the world's first and purest lady and the mother of mankind. We all fell in Adam. But it was through the woman given to be his greatest earthly blessing that Adam was induced to murder all his posterity. What satisfaction it must have been to the tempter that he got 'the mother of all living' to be the first instrument in their death! No mother's love was so perfect as hers - and no temptation so deadly as hers.
We see the same dark hand at work as soon as God had formed Israel into a covenanted people to himself. Even while Moses is still on Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments, Satan is busy fostering apostasy among the people. This he does, not by means of some outsider, but by the hand of Aaron, Moses' brother, on whose authority the golden calf is made. Could any craft have been more crafty or could any mischief have been more mischievous? While the one brother serves God on the holy mount, the other serves Satan beneath its shadow. Even as the finger of God graves the second commandment in letters of stone, the very brother of Moses himself is at work graving an idol to cause the people to break it! The subtlety is too great to emanate from any other mind than that of Satan. The irony in wickedness is stamped all over with the serpent's image.
The same pattern is visible in the career of Saul, the first king. Here is a man who receives his kingship very definitely from God himself (1 Sam. 10:lf). If any man in history could claim to sit on a throne by 'divine right' (to use a phrase much loved by Stuart Kings), it was Saul the son of Kish. How ironical then that such a king should be a disaster both to himself and to the people of God! What a joy there was in hell when Saul, the anointed of the Lord, consulted with the witch of Endor and, next day, died ignominiously on the field of battle! 'Tell it not in Gath' was David's mournful reaction. It was too tragic not to be one of Satan's special strategems.
We may well suppose that the crucifixion of Christ at the hands of his Jewish countrymen is the supreme irony ever fostered by the devil. It is history's perfect masterpiece of hellish subterfuge because it is history's greatest crime and it was committed - alas! alas! - by the most devout and religious people history had ever known up to that time That some hidden, and lurking power of spiritual wickedness lay behind the frenzied hatred of the Jews is plain to every reader of the Scriptures: 'This is your hour and the power of darkness' (Luke 22:53). Our instinctive love for the Jews as a people only imensifies our sadness, when we reflect on the awful fact that 'he came unto his own and his own received him not' (John 1:11). In Christian compassion we long for the day when their insensate cry of 'His blood be on us and on our children!' will cease to call down judgment upon them and they as a people will receive the 'Spirit of grace and supplications' and so will 'look on him whom they have pierced' (Zech. 12:10) in repentance and faith.
That Peter did the devil's work handsomely on one occasion is further evidence that Satan always seeks to use the friends closest to God to do his work for him. The lessons which flow to us from the words of Christ on the occasion in question are full of solemn instruction and warning to every minister, elder, church and Christian. Christ's 'Get thee behind me, Satan' (Matt. 16:23) leaves us in no doubt that the best of Christians, the best of preachers, the holiest of saints and the most intimate of Christ's friends may, all unwittingly, do the devil's work for him on occasion. That they do it unconsciously and with the purest of motives goes far to excuse them in our eyes. But this very sincerity makes their influence all the more likely to do harm where they are most convinced they are doing only good."
Final instalment in a few days.
Sam Drucker
Saturday, January 21, 2012
There's no more room in the inn, John Dickson
We're all, by now, quite familiar at this blog with John's own take on Genesis 1. The gist of it is that the chapter is so chock-a-block full of literary devices that it just can't be an historical list. There's no proof attached to this, just a wild assertion that his word is true. As others have pointed out, it's all very circular: anything with lots of literary devices can't be history, Genesis 1 has lots, so therefore Genesis 1 isn't history.
Such logical parsimony grates like one of those common enough modern peaches that lures you to buying it: Looks beautiful in the store but take it home and it tastes like leather, and just as insipid.
Anyway, now another has come along and taken poor SAD apostle John to task over his underwhelming “scholarship”. See here
Such logical parsimony grates like one of those common enough modern peaches that lures you to buying it: Looks beautiful in the store but take it home and it tastes like leather, and just as insipid.
Anyway, now another has come along and taken poor SAD apostle John to task over his underwhelming “scholarship”. See here
Monday, January 16, 2012
Sydney Episcopalian Mission Impossible
The cruise liner Costa Concordia running aground in the past couple of days brings to mind a recurring feature of ships sinking - there is a lot of movement on deck.
Depending on the urgency of the situation the pace of movement varies but there is always movement as passengers and crew seek a place offering the best opportunity for preservation of life.
That scene has its parallel in the Church and never was it more evident in the so-called evangelical church in the latter half of the 20th Century and into the 21st Century. Traditional denominational barriers have collapsed in that period as Christians seek safe haven from the onset of liberalism and consequent departure from recognising Scripture as the inspired Word of God.
While churches which brought on the slide bemoan their falling numbers and rising financial concerns those churches which gained from the transfer growth have been prone to erroneously believing they "have it all together".
Just as a sinking ship has no place affording long term survival so a church compromising at one level or another on the Word of God can offer no long term benefit to Christians.
Deuteronomy 32:36 has application here:
"The Lord will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left, slave or free."
As suggested in recent days by John in his blog, much of the evangelical church, including the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, espouses faith in and upholding of the Word of God but, in reality, they do not trust the Word implicitly. Their failing is at one or more points but it can all be put down to two key themes - they have diluted the Gospel by turning it into a man-centred message and they have ceased to make the Word of God the rule of all practice.
With respect to many co-called evangelical churches and most of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney the thoughts of man override all past interpretation of Genesis 1 to the extent of ruling out having the Word of God the rule of practice. It is no longer what Scripture clearly says but what man says it ought to be saying.
This is a recipe for failure and it is being worked out in practice. The mission of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney to get 10% of the population of Sydney into Bible based churches by this year (although former Bishop Piper said it was to be year 2010) shows no valid sign of being fulfilled. Part of the strategy - Connect '09 - could not possibly be seen as giving the impetus for mission success. The smoothing words and celebrated 'pockets' of encouragement are a long way from the fervent activity one would expect to be seeing if the mission was on track.
Further, the Archbishop's production of figures suggesting a 5% increase in Sydney Episcopalian church attendance for year 2010 fails to identify transfer growth from denominations which have have made greater steps of departure from the Word of God than the Sydney Diocese. Transfer growth as part of only a 5% increase in Episcopalian pewsitting is a far cry from 10% of the population of Sydney being in Bible based churches.
Sydney Diocese, if you persist in trusting the word of man over the Word of God and acting in your own strength instead of God's strength you will run head first into the conviction of Deuteronomy 32:36.
Sam Drucker
Depending on the urgency of the situation the pace of movement varies but there is always movement as passengers and crew seek a place offering the best opportunity for preservation of life.
That scene has its parallel in the Church and never was it more evident in the so-called evangelical church in the latter half of the 20th Century and into the 21st Century. Traditional denominational barriers have collapsed in that period as Christians seek safe haven from the onset of liberalism and consequent departure from recognising Scripture as the inspired Word of God.
While churches which brought on the slide bemoan their falling numbers and rising financial concerns those churches which gained from the transfer growth have been prone to erroneously believing they "have it all together".
Just as a sinking ship has no place affording long term survival so a church compromising at one level or another on the Word of God can offer no long term benefit to Christians.
Deuteronomy 32:36 has application here:
"The Lord will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left, slave or free."
As suggested in recent days by John in his blog, much of the evangelical church, including the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, espouses faith in and upholding of the Word of God but, in reality, they do not trust the Word implicitly. Their failing is at one or more points but it can all be put down to two key themes - they have diluted the Gospel by turning it into a man-centred message and they have ceased to make the Word of God the rule of all practice.
With respect to many co-called evangelical churches and most of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney the thoughts of man override all past interpretation of Genesis 1 to the extent of ruling out having the Word of God the rule of practice. It is no longer what Scripture clearly says but what man says it ought to be saying.
This is a recipe for failure and it is being worked out in practice. The mission of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney to get 10% of the population of Sydney into Bible based churches by this year (although former Bishop Piper said it was to be year 2010) shows no valid sign of being fulfilled. Part of the strategy - Connect '09 - could not possibly be seen as giving the impetus for mission success. The smoothing words and celebrated 'pockets' of encouragement are a long way from the fervent activity one would expect to be seeing if the mission was on track.
Further, the Archbishop's production of figures suggesting a 5% increase in Sydney Episcopalian church attendance for year 2010 fails to identify transfer growth from denominations which have have made greater steps of departure from the Word of God than the Sydney Diocese. Transfer growth as part of only a 5% increase in Episcopalian pewsitting is a far cry from 10% of the population of Sydney being in Bible based churches.
Sydney Diocese, if you persist in trusting the word of man over the Word of God and acting in your own strength instead of God's strength you will run head first into the conviction of Deuteronomy 32:36.
Sam Drucker
Friday, January 13, 2012
Rob Forsyth, you've done it again!
In the Herald this morning there was a small column about the squabbles over in Manifest Destiny land between various factions in the Episcopalian Church. It concerned the issue of who owned church property when there is break-up, in this case, over the ordination of homosexuals. The piece ended with a few well-chosen comments by our old mate Rob Forsyth.
Rob was quick to point out that the Sydney Anglican Episcopalian Diocese stood back-to-back with their less liberal brothers on the matter. After all, he underscored, faithfulness to Christ was paramount and “at the end of the day, Christians must put honouring and following Christ ahead of everything, including their buildings.”
Sounds great: it's just what you'd expect a bishop to say. But don't forget this is the same guy who erases the immediate hand of Christ at every opportunity presented to him. Take for example his comments about the miracle of the Red Sea parting: "The same can be said of other genuine miracles. By miracle here I am talking not about events in which the remarkable timing of a natural event has significance, like possibly the wind blowing back the Red Sea in Exodus 15."
And: "One point of clarification. I do not think Exodus 14.21 is a miracle as such, but I do believe that the Lord did bring it about that the sea was turned into dry land, by providential use of so called 'natural' means." It sounds so nice, so,ahhh, pious, that you allow God some input at this point.
Let's see what else Rob shies away from:
(i) He has problems with the Virgin Birth.
(ii) Denies Adam and Eve were real people
(iii) He doesn’t believe that Jesus miraculously created the heavens and the earth
(iv) He believes that Jesus used secondary principles to create and not through himself.
(v) He believes that death is natural
(vi) He believes that death is Jesus' preferred method of creation
(vii) He believes that time and chance are the means by which things happen in nature
(viii) He doesn’t believe that God used wisdom in the creation
(ix) He believes that God incorporated errors into the creation from the beginning
(x) He believes that secular science should interpret the Bible
(xi) He doesn’t really take God at his word and prefers to make his own story up about how God did it, even mocking those who trust God and take his word as it is.
(xii) Rob parts company with all theologians prior to Darwin on origins, including Paul and the earliest of Christians, preferring to align himself with men like Spong and Dawkins.
But my favourite of favourite quotes is the following “[I]f, in fact, the earth was not old and life did not gradually develop, it would be a catastrophic blow to the [scientific] disciplines themselves. Quite a cost….One of the key assumptions in my approach…is that God does not teach what is false, and therefore the Bible, as the word of God, will not teach what is false. I think we can be certain that if the most basic observation tools or the most well-supported conclusions of science say that…[the earth] is very old and that life forms appeared gradually over a great deal of time, where the Bible appears to teach otherwise or to suggest otherwise, this cannot be what God is teaching. We have to change our interpretation of what God is saying to us in Scripture…It is much more certain that our interpretation of Scripture is open to question than the whole foundations of the entire discipline of modern science are faulty.” Says it all, doesn't it!
No, Rob. You're not changing our interpretation of Scripture – you're changing what Scripture clearly says. In fact, you're changing Jesus' own words : 'And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying....''for in six days I, the LORD, made the heavens and the earth.'' (Exodus 31:12,17). Let me think through this problem: the creator Jesus and his claim that he did it in 6 days Vs a 43 year old geologist, his expertise and his laboratory chock full of tools that are never-ever wrong and are so accurate they can take us back in time and know exactly how much K-40 and Ar-40 there originally was and if something, anything, happened along that putative 4.5 billion year journey that would alter the decay rate? Man, that is such a difficult problem. I guess I'll have to put all my faith in the guy with the white coat!
For the earlier thread on Rob see here.
Rob was quick to point out that the Sydney Anglican Episcopalian Diocese stood back-to-back with their less liberal brothers on the matter. After all, he underscored, faithfulness to Christ was paramount and “at the end of the day, Christians must put honouring and following Christ ahead of everything, including their buildings.”
Sounds great: it's just what you'd expect a bishop to say. But don't forget this is the same guy who erases the immediate hand of Christ at every opportunity presented to him. Take for example his comments about the miracle of the Red Sea parting: "The same can be said of other genuine miracles. By miracle here I am talking not about events in which the remarkable timing of a natural event has significance, like possibly the wind blowing back the Red Sea in Exodus 15."
And: "One point of clarification. I do not think Exodus 14.21 is a miracle as such, but I do believe that the Lord did bring it about that the sea was turned into dry land, by providential use of so called 'natural' means." It sounds so nice, so,ahhh, pious, that you allow God some input at this point.
Let's see what else Rob shies away from:
(i) He has problems with the Virgin Birth.
(ii) Denies Adam and Eve were real people
(iii) He doesn’t believe that Jesus miraculously created the heavens and the earth
(iv) He believes that Jesus used secondary principles to create and not through himself.
(v) He believes that death is natural
(vi) He believes that death is Jesus' preferred method of creation
(vii) He believes that time and chance are the means by which things happen in nature
(viii) He doesn’t believe that God used wisdom in the creation
(ix) He believes that God incorporated errors into the creation from the beginning
(x) He believes that secular science should interpret the Bible
(xi) He doesn’t really take God at his word and prefers to make his own story up about how God did it, even mocking those who trust God and take his word as it is.
(xii) Rob parts company with all theologians prior to Darwin on origins, including Paul and the earliest of Christians, preferring to align himself with men like Spong and Dawkins.
But my favourite of favourite quotes is the following “[I]f, in fact, the earth was not old and life did not gradually develop, it would be a catastrophic blow to the [scientific] disciplines themselves. Quite a cost….One of the key assumptions in my approach…is that God does not teach what is false, and therefore the Bible, as the word of God, will not teach what is false. I think we can be certain that if the most basic observation tools or the most well-supported conclusions of science say that…[the earth] is very old and that life forms appeared gradually over a great deal of time, where the Bible appears to teach otherwise or to suggest otherwise, this cannot be what God is teaching. We have to change our interpretation of what God is saying to us in Scripture…It is much more certain that our interpretation of Scripture is open to question than the whole foundations of the entire discipline of modern science are faulty.” Says it all, doesn't it!
No, Rob. You're not changing our interpretation of Scripture – you're changing what Scripture clearly says. In fact, you're changing Jesus' own words : 'And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying....''for in six days I, the LORD, made the heavens and the earth.'' (Exodus 31:12,17). Let me think through this problem: the creator Jesus and his claim that he did it in 6 days Vs a 43 year old geologist, his expertise and his laboratory chock full of tools that are never-ever wrong and are so accurate they can take us back in time and know exactly how much K-40 and Ar-40 there originally was and if something, anything, happened along that putative 4.5 billion year journey that would alter the decay rate? Man, that is such a difficult problem. I guess I'll have to put all my faith in the guy with the white coat!
For the earlier thread on Rob see here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
