A test for orthodoxy?

Occasionally there’s a Jehovah’s Witness outside Central Station spruiking her heterodox, Arian-resurrected theology. As she’s a true believer, I’ve given up talking to this woman but the other day she was there discussing matters with a man that I’d not seen before. I just had to insert myself into the conversation.

Although not a JW, the man was clearly an Arian. I asked him if Jesus was the Creator. He replied that he wasn’t, that the Father, or as they claim, Jehovah God, is the sole creator. I then cited Colossians and John 1 where Paul and John state that through, for and by Christ everything has come into existence. The man then said that Christ was creator by virtue of the Father handing that responsibility to him. I expressed how queer that was, that someone is called a creator, the Father, yet does not create. I argued that it would be like my hiring someone to design a house but calling myself the architect. He tried to extricate himself from this impasse by claiming that no matter who the Father gives it to, he still remains the creator. Of course this is pure evasion and intellectually dishonest to boot.

Thinking about it later I could see similarities with Peter Jensen’s position. Peter, as has long been known, is an evolutionist*. Quite naturally Peter, along with all theistic evolutionists, has to play some irrational semantic games and alter the meaning of words in order to mould Scripture to fit a pagan worldview. Somehow – the details, scientifically or theologically, never exactly laid out – God is able to allow chance to create while never surrendering his office of creator. At this point I tend to think that Peter and the others are trying to turn a circle into a square but still have it called a circle. Beats me!

Anyway, the point I want to make is that Peter’s allegiance to evolution puts him outside of Christian orthodoxy, by a theological mile. If a metaphysical principle is creating the enormous amounts of novel biological information that life requires, then it isn’t our Lord doing it. New biological information is the product of thought, of teleonomic conception, not the randomisation processes being acted upon by natural selection that evolution posits as being its source (This is superbly argued in the triple-PhD Wilder-Smith’s book, God: To be or not to be?). Peter can’t have his square and circle be the one object: Either Christ, acting through will and thought, brings forth biological information, and thus life, or it’s chance randomisation of matter, the metaphysical principle of materialism. The two are incompatible and irreconcilable.

* Lest it be said that we are misrepresenting Peter’s views, the following is a quote from Doctrine 1 while he was principal at Moore College: “There is a division of opinion about how God created the world [Actually, there isn’t, Peter. The difference lies between those that truly believe the Bible is God’s unchanging revelation to mankind and those, like yourself, that believe it can change as science, so-called, “proves” God has less and less to do with. Just ask Jack Spong.]. From the standpoint of these notes the ‘theistic evolution’ account offers the best understanding….By ‘theistic evolution’ we mean that God created the world through the process of evolution [there’s that square-circle again folks!].” Doctrine 1, Unit 7, p. 105.

Chaser chases Peter

I saw an old Chaser (Chaser's war on everything, an ABC TV show) where one of the chasers was doing just that: chasing...Peter Jensen.

The object of the chase was asking Peter to explain his response to Leviticus 20:13.

Peter grinned and walked on.

What a great way (NOT) to deal with an evangelical opportunity on national TV...so is Peter really evangelical...is he ready to represent the faith?

So, what could he have said that would have had evangelical intent.

Here's a thought:

"If you were an ancient Jew, it would be worth talking about that quote, but you're not are you?"

"I'd be more concerned that you find the God who wants to put our selfishness to one side so we can be with him forever in real love, not the hot panting of males missing the point."

In Defence of Natural Theology

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring'." (Acts 17:24-28)

It was Neil Moore who a while back posted a blog linking wisdom with science. That set me thinking and I picked up something while recently reading the gospel according to Matthew. But first I need to set the scene with some comments about Paul in Athens.

Several Christian writers have used Acts 17 to encourage Christians to engage in evangelism. For brevity I have not quoted the entire chapter. I leave it to readers to do that. If they do, and do so without scales on their eyes they will see what Biblical Creationists have seen for some time. There are many people in the world for whom the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is nothing more than babbling. They are not ready to receive the message. Further preparation of the 'soil' is required. The Apostle Paul quickly realised this in Athens and amended his preaching to what is today called Natural Theology and then Paul brought into his conversation the resurrection of Christ. This approach attracted some sneering but others said "We want to hear you again on this subject." (Acts 17:32) - a marked improvement on the prior condition.

Perhaps about a millennium prior to that scene in Athens there was, ruling in Israel, King Solomon who possessed a knowledge of the creation which set him over and above everyone else in the world. News of him spread far and wide. The Queen of Sheba heard the reports and went to Jerusalem to test Solomon with some hard questions. What she heard and saw overwhelmed her. She remarked "Praise be to the LORD your God, who has delighted in you and placed you on the throne of Israel. Because of the LORD's eternal love for Israel, he has made you king, to maintain justice and righteousness." (1 Kings 10:9)

Don't miss the point here! The Queen of Sheba, along with observing how God had blessed Solomon with wealth, found Solomon to have an understanding of what is today called science which was far superior to anything or anyone she had known. She tested it against her own understanding and, we ought expect, in its outworking in the world around her. It proved right and played a major part in her praising God. Here was so-called Natural Theology as an instrument in the salvation of the Queen of Sheba.

Salvation of the Queen of Sheba?

What else can one conclude if our Lord Jesus Christ, when speaking of the wicked and adulterous generation of Pharisees and teachers of the law, says "The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here." (Matthew 12:42) Who else is appointed to judge and condemn the world but Jesus Christ and those who are adopted into Him through repentance and faith. (1Cor. 6:2-3)

Note also the distinction our Lord makes between the people of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom (Matt. 11:21-24) and the men of Ninevah at the time of Jonah's preaching and the Queen of the South. (Matt. 12:41-42) The former group are said to be under judgment (albeit a degree better off than Korazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum) whereas the latter are said to perform a role as judges. At one particular moment the citizens in the capital city of one the cruelest nations on earth (Assyria) were recipients of the mercy of God through the preaching of the word of God and their response of repentance. Also, the Queen of Sheba, outside the covenant of God with Israel, hears reports of the wonders of a man (Solomon) blessed of God and she goes to test the veracity of the reports. R. D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, commenting on the reaction of the Queen of Sheba in being "overwhelmed" after testing Solomon, say "This last is literally 'there was no more spirit left in her,' which indicates extremely strong emotion." It presents to me that this spiritual state of the Queen of Sheba is like that of conversion experience. This view is reinforced by our Lord Jesus' words when, at Matt. 5:3, he says "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Where then does this all lead us?

Clearly, the maligning of Natural Theology within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney is misplaced. There always has been and always will be a place for rightly explaining the Creator God and the order of creation. Obviously we are today under a covenant ushered in by Jesus Christ and being brought into that covenant relationship involves explanation of and reception of the redeeming work of Christ. However, the covenant relationship offered by God today, through Christ Jesus, is not so restricted by explanation as to leave out the creating work of God through Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That the order of creation is lightly regarded in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney is indicative of a workman who has no confidence in certain tools of his trade. Those not understood or less regarded will not be employed. Further, holding to a Theistic Evolution view of the order of creation leaves the advocate with an explanation overloaded with words such as "maybe", "possibly", "mystery" and "uncertain." In such circumstance you would be reluctant to employ it or, as hearer, receive it.

Solomon's understanding of the order of creation was an instrument in the salvation of the "Queen of the South" and the Apostle Paul's successful resort to the order of creation when his message of the resurrection was confused by the Athenians are sufficient cause to reject the unhelpful notions of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney toward Natural Theology.

To rely on Natural Theology (or order of creation) alone today is an incomplete theology just as much as not including it. A caution exists. In employing Natural Theology you are only offering empty rhetoric if what you present is not in accord with the clear word of God.

Sam Drucker

"God is Not Your Dog"

Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, in the Feb 2010 edition of Southern Cross, wrote an article entitled "God is not your Dog."

The thrust of his article was a tendency for people to domesticate God as they would a pet dog.

His motivation for this article seems to have been summer vacation reading, with one author doubting the trustworthiness of the Bible because he, the author, found it difficult to accept that God would direct ancient Israel to destroy the Canaanites. To quote the Archbishop "The God this author believes in could not possibly order the destruction of a civiliation with all its people. Naturally I agree that this is a particularly confronting part of the biblical record."

In dealing with how people wrestle with the charge God gave Israel with respect to the Canaanites, Archbishop Jensen offers some helpful comments. He then writes "What we can say is that God has his own good and righteous reasons for what happens and what he brings to pass. The destruction of the Canaanites is a revelation to us of the reality and awesomeness of the day of judgement which lies before us all. It also throws light on the cross and the suffering the Son of God underwent as he bore the penalty of our sins. When we flinch from the story of the Canaanites and refuse to accept it, we are declaring that God will not judge the world and that there is no hell. We prefer to back our own sentimental notions about God and the world rather than the truth. We domesticate God."

Archbishop Jensen then declares the wonder of God drawing near to sinners through his Son and Spirit and establishing a relationship that we may call him Father. He concludes with, "We will always presume on this as part of our attempt to bring God to heel, unless we listen carefully to all he tells us about himself in the Scriptures. When we realise how great he is and how demanding is his righteousness, we will appreciate his grace and mercy. But the way forward is not to deny Scripture and make it conform to the idolatrous dog/god which we would prefer to construct."

Regular readers of this blogspot will know where I am going to take this. It is only right that I do so.

How can it be that the Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney makes such an astute assessment and criticism of the author of the Archbishop's summer reading on one direct utterance of God i.e. concerning the Canaanites, and yet, when it comes to the direct utterance of God on Creation, the Archbishop commits the very same offence of his targeted author?

It is astounding how hypocritical all this looks and how much ammunition it gives enemies of the Gospel. Archbishop, please, consider what you are saying and what you are doing. There must be consistency.

God is consistent. In Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17, God gives a seamless instruction as to the creation process. In no credible way do these utterances of God allow for the imposition of "Theistic Evolution," "Day Age," Gap Theory" or "Progressive Creation" views of Creation.

Archbishop Jensen believes his author 'friend' domesticates God through sentimental notions about God yet, in holding to a Theistic Evolution view of origins, the Archbishop domesticates God in the same way a suburban resident domesticates the family dog to fit in, to give less offence to community expectations.

Our great, awesome and loving God is not to be reduced to the notions of "this age" concerning the origin of life. Creation was an event God alone instigated and he alone is to be trusted on its particulars.

Archbishop Jensen and others, God is not your dog!

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 26C verse 1

Now is this first verse a heading or a title? By no means; for how could the second verse attach itself to a heading by an "and"? Or is this first verse a summary statement akin to a title, after the Hebrew manner of narrative which likes to present a summary account like a newspaper heading, giving the gist of the entire event? Again, no. For if creation began with light and then with the organizing of existing material, the question would crowd persistently to the forefront: but how did this original material come into being? for v. 1 could not be a record of its origin, because it would be counted as a summary account of the things unfolded throughout the rest of the chapter. Verse one is the record of the first part of the work brought into being on the first day: first the heavens and the earth in a basic form as to their material, then light. These two things constitute what God created on the first day. The Hebrew style of narrative just referred to may or may not be employed on occasion, depending on the author's choice. Here it does not happen to be used.

Here also the statement may be disposed of which says: The initial creation was a chaos. Such an assertion is misleading. It may be meant in a way which Would be entirely wrong. If it implies that as the record stands v. 1-2 show an unsatisfactory state of achievement, it is all wrong. However, if the disorganized state of the first steps of creation is called "chaos," with the reservation that this implies no criticism but is necessarily only the first and unavoidable step from lower to higher forms, then the statement may be used. Or if it is only intended as a statement which covers what v. 2 covers with other terms, it cannot be said to be wrong.

Knocked out, dazed, but blithely unaware

A couple of items in the press recently present a nice line up of the irrationality of the SADs.

1. One Bruce Haddon is at logger heads with the rector of his parish, Dominic Steele (ex 2GB journo from mem'ry) is concerned by, it would appear, Mr Haddon's disbelief in the virgin birth. The Herald reports this.

2. Atheism's true belivers gather together. In this Herald article we are told that atheists are really opposed to "the denial of the theory of evolution".

Now, if atheists are really opposed to something, you'd think it was because it stymied atheism. On the other hand the SADs, who don't think the notion of organic evolution is opposed to biblical theism, are worried because one man has taken that view to its logical conclusion: only things that science permits can occur!

I'll leave the reader to judge who is reaping what they sow.

Oops! There Goes Another 'Proof' For Evolution.

'Interesting to note the undoing of the case for the alleged missing link "Tiktaalik" through the finding of tetrapod footprints dated some '18 million years'* prior to the alleged existence of "Tiktaalik ." See http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/archives/193

This undoing has received nothing near the publicity of the orchestrated announcement of the discovery of the "Tiktaalik" fossil. Why?

May I suggest that it makes many proponents of the paradigm of evolution somewhat red-faced. One notable atheist, Richard Dawkins, went so far as to include "Tiktaalik" in his recent book "The Greatest Show on Earth" with the comment "the perfect missing link—perfect, because it almost exactly splits the difference between fish and amphibian, and perfect because it is missing no longer."

Once again, Richard Dawkins has been left exposed as lacking evidence for his views on the origin of life. No wonder the atheists conducting a conference in Melbourne, Australia in March, this year, are fearful of a debate between a Biblical Creationist and their 'great high priest.'

This sort of information is seldom known by Sydney Episcopalians who have adopted Theistic Evolution as their defence position. They only read the announcements promoting the original 'find' which they believe affirms their (false) doctrine. They thus know nothing of the later unravelling of the alleged 'find.' In doing this they show their preparedness to "run with the hounds" instead of the Word of God.

* We do not accept as reliable the assumptions which undergird the dating of rocks in much of science today. We would therefore dispute the dates assigned to the alleged "missing link" and the "earlier" tetrapod footprints. What we note here is the undoing of the original claims about "Tiktaalik" through the proponents own dating method.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 26B verse 1

A thought by Procksch should be noted here: "It so happens very appropriately that the first named subject of Genesis as well as of the Bible is `God'."

The verb describing God's initial work is "created" (bara'). This verb is correctly defined as expressing the origination of something great, new and "epoch-making," as only God can do it, whether it be in the realm of the physical or of the spiritual. The verb bara' does not of itself and absolutely preclude the use Of existing material; cf. Isa. 65:18b: "Behold I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy." Also note v. 27 of this chapter. However, when no existing material is mentioned as to be worked over, no such material is implied. Consequently, this passage teaches creatio ex nihilo, "creation out of nothing," a doctrine otherwise also clearly taught by the Scriptures; (Ro 4:17; Heb 11:3); cf. also (Ps 33:6, 9; Am 4:13). The verb is never used of other than DIVINE activity.

The bero', which Kit proposes in the margin in conformity with the claims of many, for bara', i.e. the infinitive for the finite verb, and which yields the translation, "in the beginning of God's creating," etc., is not only entirely unnecessary but unfortunately, leads to an involved and confused sentence structure in place of a simple and a clear one. Besides, such a change is born entirely out of the desire to make room for a particular interpretation, viz. the interpretation that claims long ages of the earth's existence prior to the creative work here to be described. To use this change of vowels is the equivalent of substituting a confused road for a straight and a simple one.

The object of God's creation was "the heavens and the earth." We should have said, He created: "the universe." Since the Hebrew has no word for the universe and can at best say: "the all" cf. (Jer 10:16; Isa 44:24; Ps 103:19; 119:91; Ec 11:5), certainly the far more colourful "heavens and earth" is to be preferred. Besides, there is a deeper truth involved. In reality the world is bipartite; it is not a unit as far as we are concerned. The two parts constituting the world or the universe were originally in perfect harmony with one another. Now there exists a deep breach between the two. The term shamssyim signifies the "upper regions" (K. W.) and is a plural form, a plural of intensity (K. C.), pointing to the heavenly spheres or regions which rise one above the other. This explanation is to be preferred to the other (e. g. K. S.) which makes this a dual in reference to the two halves of the heavens which stretch each from the zenith to the horizon. The word for "earth," 'erets, bears a meaning which may be "that which is lower," des Niedere.

Over against the claim that "the heavens and the earth" may well be the equivalent of "the universe" it is contended that "heavens" here can only mean the "firmament," as in v. 8, and "earth" can only refer to the "dry land," as in v. 10. But then the very proper question arises: why single out "heaven and earth" in this sense at all and mention their creation in v. 17 Besides, in this creation account another word is used in a broader and in a narrower sense; cf. "day" in 5a with "day" in 5b with "day" in 2:4--actually three meanings.

Smart

From time to time, I've heard people quibble at Adam naming all the kinds of animals in an afternoon.

Well, consider the following links to articles about so-called 'savants'. People of seemingly extraordinary mental powers, who also appear to have a level of intellectual disability. This is not to say anything but the human mind can exercise vast capability.

If Adam was without the limitations of the fall that we have inhereted, I see no difficulty with him doing as the scripture indicates.

Mathematical and language genius

Musical genius

'Savant' profiles.

Just so

In a review of the book "Catching the Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" (oh yeah, another meaningless effort to credit everything to 'evolution'), the reviewer, Simon Ings makes the following perceptive remark:

Good big ideas about evolution are rare. Often they're merely "just so" stories, stringing specious skeins of cause and effect over a much more complicated intellectual landscape. At first glance Wrangham's argument seems to have been fished from that dodgy pot.

Just so.

Then another review, on the same page, credits not cooking, but alcohol with making us who we are (I know, for some people, that is the case). More meaningless twaddle. At least the SADs might go along with this one: perhaps it gives a point to communion wine!

Both reviews in Spectrum, the Sydney Morning Herald's attempted literary weekend supplement.

Leupold Genesis part 26A verse 1

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The phrase "in the beginning" (bereshith) refers to the absolute beginning of created things, to the Uranfang. This fact is supported by the following arguments in the face of many and strong claims to the contrary. 1. The corresponding phrase in Greek, en arch, which the Septuagint translators used here and which appears at the beginning of John's Gospel, is plainly a reference to the absolute beginning. 2. The noun reshith appears without the article, appearing in use practically as a proper noun, Absolute Beginning (K. S. 294g). The Greek Hexapla of Orion supports this, for its transliteration with few exceptions gives bohsin, seldom baohshn. 3. The rendering which takes the expression as referring to the absolute beginning of things makes for a simple, natural progression of thought and avoids that peculiar periodic sentence structure, which shall presently be discussed as highly unnatural.

Because this noun bereshith is without the article, that does not allow for its being taken as a genitive or construct case, viz. "in the beginning of God's creating," etc., for with that rendering attention is at once centred on the second verse and no reason appears for mentioning "the beginning" at all.

Here, then, at the opening statement of sacred Scripture we are taken back to that point to which the human mind naturally will revert and in reference to which it asks: "What was the beginning of things?" This solemn and pithy statement gives man the information: the beginning was made by God in His creation of heaven and earth. As far as this world is concerned, it simply had no existence before this time.

He that did the creative work is said to be God, 'elohim. This Hebrew name is to be derived from a root found in the Arabic meaning "to fear" or "to reverence." It, therefore, conceives of God as the one who by His nature .and His works rouses man's fear and reverence. It is used 2,570 times (KTAT-(K) p. 144). This name is not a characteristic mark of a particular source as E, or in a measure also P, as Old Testament criticism is in the habit of claiming. It is used by Moses in accordance with its meaning. The work recorded in chapter one in a very outstanding way sets forth God's mighty works of power and majesty. God's omnipotence outshines all other attributes in this account. Omnipotence rouses man's reverence and holy fear rather than his love. In other words, it brings the Creator to man's notice rather as 'Elohim than from any other point of view. In stressing this we are not blind to the fact that this chapter also shows forth God as Yahweh, the faithful, merciful one. The claim, however, , that Yahweh might just as Well be employed as 'Elohim, if the meaning of these names is to be considered, really ignores the facts we have just emphasized above --facts which criticism, by the way, gives heed to far less carefully than conservative writers give attention to the arguments in favour of the various sources, E, J, P, D, etc.

Does Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney Know Jesus Christ?

The Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney is proud of its evangelical tradition. It talks much of trusting Scripture and regarding it as authority for understanding the mind of God. More than that it trusts Scripture for understanding life. Its theological seminary, Moore Theological College, is held as the bastion of truth on theological matters and the hope for training men an women to go, principally, into the Diocese but generally into the world in the name of Jesus Christ. Where the Church globally is succumbing to the world the Diocese looks to itself and its evangelical tradition to draw courage to continue the fight.

But how goes it beneath the surface, beyond all the bluster?

Recently I read a few words from the late Bishop J.C. Ryle on "Reality." Both Neil Moore and I have previously quoted Bishop Ryle. He still has relevance and I sense he has something to say to all of us who regard ourselves as a) evangelical and, b) having it altogether concerning our faith.

Bishop Ryle said "How much evangelical religion is completely unreal? You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. The will talk loudly of soundness in the faith, and have a keen nose for heresy. They will run eagerly after popular preachers, applaud Protestant speakers at public meetings to the very echo. They are familiar with all the phrases of evangelical religion, and converse fluently about its leading doctrines. To see their faces at public meetings, or in church, you would think them eminently godly. And yet these people in private will sometimes do things of which even some heathen would be ashamed. They are neither truthful, nor straightforward, nor honest, nor manly, nor just, nor good-tempered, nor unselfish, nor merciful, nor humble, nor kind. And is such Christianity as this real? It is not. It is a miserable imposture, a base cheat and caricature."

Such words as these ought to make us all stop and consider our ways. Are our ways consistent with the faith we profess?

Mindful of the purpose of this sydneyanglicanheretics site to expose the descent of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney into heresy via heterodoxical belief on the creation of the world, I was struck by Bishop Ryle's early statements: "... You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. They will talk loudly of soundness in the faith ..." Is this not a fair synopsis of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney?

A fair criticism of the Diocese would be to say the overwhelming rhetoric both orally and in print coming from the Diocese is that the gospel is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying for our sins and being resurrected that we might live. Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes but then cause for criticism kicks in. The Diocese is unfit to explain the nature of who it was who was crucified and resurrected. More precisely, the Diocese will be inconsistent in explaining his nature and thus unable to explain his nature.

Commencing with Archbishop Peter Jensen and the tergiversating doctrine of Moore Theological College on Creation, an influence exists within the Diocese which inhibits an inquirer's capacity to identify Jesus Christ with the Creator. That which is espoused by those sources leads the inquirer to formulate a nature of a Creator who scratched out a creation red with tooth and claw while formulating a nature of Jesus Christ who was meek and caring, healing the sufferings of the helpless and dying for our sins. The two characters are miles apart in nature. The latter is attested in the Bible and is real but the former is alien to the Bible and untrue. But errant influences within the Diocese urge an inquirer to marry the two natures. As such, a great injury has been inflicted on the gospel, on Jesus Christ himself.

Several New Testament passages make it clear that Creation occurred through and by Jesus Christ (eg John 1 and Colossians 1) but I draw attention to Hebrews 1:1-3b:

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person ..." (NKJV)

Jesus Christ is the express image of God's person (some translations have nature). If you want an idea of the manner in which God created, you only need look to Jesus Christ. Did the Creator use a slow, death, disease, suffering and dead end riddled process? Look to Jesus Christ and you will see one who wept over suffering; healed suffering and disease with quickness; where there was non-life he made life and did it expediently; he altered the chemical structure of water to turn it into high quality wine - all this and much more with just a thought or a word.

More than that he who has all authority in heaven and on earth demonstrated himself to be the antithesis of "survival of the fittest" by suffering death on the cross so that those who could not, by their own efforts, see and enjoy God.

Further, a day has been appointed, at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, when all those who left this world in right relationship with God, will be raised up instantly, though their body long before having been obliterated, and on that day they shall be given a body which never decays. Again, I say, instantly.

All these expressions of will display a nature of Jesus Christ completely in contrast to a nature which is cruel, incompetent and likely to engender a death, disease, suffering and dead-end riddled process of creation. Remember who it was who said:

³ “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:3-10, NKJV)

Is the one who delivers on those promises one who kills and maims to make a world? Is he who is light also darkness? Is he who is life also death?

It is time for those within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney who hold to Theistic Evolution and those within its theological seminary who allow Theistic Evolution to be believed within the Diocese, it is time for them to recognize the damage they do to the nature of Jesus Christ and the damage they do to his church.

These of whom I speak declare loudly a faith in Jesus Christ but they corrupt his nature. They defile his office as Creator. They present, in nature, two contrary Sons of God to the world.

I call on these people to forsake their pride and repent of their sin. I appeal to them - is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost to Christ in future years because they are presented with two Sons of God and will end up throwing off both? Come back to the Bible in your belief and trust the one who was there at the creation of the world. Know Jesus Christ as he is revealed there from the beginning, as he appeared Incarnate and as he is upon return.

The deception is exposed. You can no longer thow this issue off as not being a gospel issue. It is a gospel issue because the nature of Jesus Christ is assaulted. Repent!

I ask again, is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost because of the low view of Christ you present to the world?

Sam Drucker

Re-paganising the church

John posted this comment to the post on paganising the church. It was so interesting I've taken the liberty posting it here, with my own comment appended to the post. Hope you don't mind, John.

Perhaps what disturbs me most of all from the mouth of these men who espouse this other Gospel is that they have imposed something other than Christ between the creation and God.

Paul and John are adamant that it is THROUGH and BY Christ that everything HAS ALREADY come into existence. If evolution, another principle, is the basis by which everything IS BEING brought into existence, then it's no longer Christ.

Atheists have asked me on many occasions, if evolution isn't true, then how did God bring the cosmos into existence. They are looking for a mechanical, material and/or reductionist process. And that's the difference: God doesn't require a process as he just thinks it into being, and it is so, whole and complete. It's an entirely different ballgame and the Christian doesn't need to allow the atheist to set the rules of the game.

Logically, there is nothing irrational in a Creator having no need of secondary principles to create by. It's not like I can't imagine another world scenario in which the Creator says something and that immediately comes into existence. It's certainly not like thinking of a world where there are bachelors with wives.

Yet, the Sydney Anglicans, philosophically supported by their atheist-inspired theology, must have something other than Christ being the Creator. They have to have a process doing God's work. This is nothing but a return to paganism. Jensen, within a single generation, has repaganised the Church.

And I added:

John's comment has touched something very interesting, I think.

If a 'principle' comes between God and his creation that is not Christ, then something other than God is basic to creation. That is, there is something else that is self-, or at least pre-existent apart from God.

If it is pre-existent to the creation, then God created before he created (or did some creating that we don't know of; maybe when he created the spirit world, but that's speculation). It seems that the cosmos of our experience is that which is created in its entirety, and no principles can be interposed between God's speaking and result in Genesis 1. The other scripture that can be brought to this theme would support this, I think (subject of a future post).

To suppose the contrary is to disregard the scripture, or to have a basic belief structure that is pagan, if not materialist, rather than Christian theist; If PJ is a theistic evolutionist, then he courts a very much anti-biblical position, to my mind.

Buffet Badge

In the Financial Review column "Pierpont's Dubious Distinction Awards" the Anglican diocese of Sydney gets a gong:

Buffet Badge for Investor of the Year

To the Anglican church for dropping $160 million on its share portfolio. Which proves that even with God on your side you couldn't beat the market in 2008-09.

Goes to suggest that perhaps it wasn't on God's side! Just like Connect09: a work of man and not of God?

Creation in Anglican newspaper

This letter on creation and the Bible's historicity popped up recently on another website (one we watch). Its worth keeping track of.

What happened?

In response to this comment
to a blog on Goldsworthy:

Nice outline.

Of course, the bible gave a lot of detailed history for that vague “creation to Abraham” part of the bible, but for some reason, nobody wants to take it seriously.

Just sayin’.

I replied:

Of course the Bible gives detailed history (events that can have time and space coordinates), odd how most people drift off from the historical backbone when it gets beyond Abraham. But this is the very point, one would think; of showing in terms of the space-time domination of our lives how we, as image bearing creatures are connected in terms of the real world we are in to the wilful creator who authored us, gave the 'image' and made the real world as the setting of our image-bearing. I know some hold that God did create us, but not in a way that is depicted in the Bible. One wonders whence such information, of course, and the value of a creation that cannot be represented in language that conveys meaning.

This summary of the Bible by Goldsworthy is also worth a look, IMO.

Leupold Genesis part 25 overview of structure

But quite apart from such attempts to fit the whole creation into a pattern of our own devising it is immediately apparent that the account as a whole proceeds from the lower to the higher, providing first the basic essentials for existence as well as for plant and for animal life, then running to a climax in the creation of man for whose well-being and well-ordered existence all previous steps in creation provide the adequate setting. So the account abundantly displays that God is a God of order. The very general formula devised by Driver (quoted by Skinner) is as satisfactory as any: "The first three days are days of preparation, the next three are days of accomplishment."

Looking back on Connect '09

So 09, and its 'connect' draws to a close.

Let's see: what has been achieved?

It is time for the 'told you sos' from all and sundry.

Now, I hope that people have repented at a greater rate than without Connecting '09, but I haven't seen much evidence.

I hope that churches are now connecting to their communities more than they did. But where I live, I don't see it...same old same old. But I hope that I'm wrong, and not seeing much that is happening.

I guess the test is; what are the headlines now saying about the Anglican church...let me check recent papers.

Here we are; in the Herald's business section a few days ago; the Anglican Diocese of Sydney memorialised as the crowd that gambled over a hundred million...and lost! That's the connection: the SAD connected with debt; foolishness; arguably greed; and connected with trust in mammon over God! Great record Peter. In politics even the NSW ALP would resign government under such a performance, what do archbishops do?

I guess its a case of 'do it again in two thousand and ten!'

Dealing with mess

Hop over to Post Darwinist (one of the blogs we watch) for this article on information and life.

Sydney Anglicans Airing Ignorance to the World

As we approach Christmas 2009 it seemed reasonable for The Sydney Daily Telegraph to seek a statement from religious leaders in which they were to testify to the existence of God.

In a preview of this exercise The Daily Telegraph journalist said both the Roman Catholic Cardinal Pell and Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen believed in Theistic Evolution.

However, when it came time for Archbishop Jensen's statement to appear on 23 December 2009 there was no mention of Theistic Evolution. Perhaps it is something he prefers to conceal from general understanding or maybe it was edited out by newspaper.

One thing published that I found quite disturbing was "Furthermore, he [God] delights in his creation. He calls it very good."

How could the former Principal of Moore Theological College and now Archbishop of Sydney make such a faulty statement. Yes, God did say His creation was very good but that was the creation that is no more. That utterance of God was before His creation rebelled against Him, thus introducing death, suffering and continued acts of rebellion against Him. It was also before sin had become so great that God destroyed that world with a global flood.

Nowhere in Scripture does God call post Fall and Flood creation "very good". Even after the Flood, sin and death has continued unabated. You just can't call that creation "very good". Indeed when someone spoke to the Lord Jesus with the opening "Good teacher" our Lord corrected the man with the words "No man is good but God alone". Now, you just cannot deduce from that reply that a creation populated by men who are not "good", is a "very good" creation.

Archbishop Jensen went on to say "He [God] can be relied upon to speak the truth, to always do what is right, to be consistent."

Well now Archbishop, why don't you believe that God was speaking the truth when he said "for in six days I created the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them" (Exodus 20:11). There is no possible way in which such a statement of God accommodates a Theistic Evolution view of creation. At this point then, being a Theistic Evolutionist, the Archbishop must believe that God is not speaking the truth or, for that matter, nor is God being consistent. But, God is being consistent here with his record of creation in Genesis 1 and in Exodus 31:17.

One can only stand back and wonder what a tangled web compromisers spin for themselves when they start pushing their ideas onto the clear Word of God.

Surely Archbishop Jensen stands on shifting sand and is vulnerable to Atheist argument when he mishandles Scripture as he does in his statement to The Daily Telegraph.

Neil

Leupold Genesis part 24 the six days

Taking this creation account as a whole, how shall we arrange the work of the six days? Is there any possibility of grouping within the six days? Most schemes that are advanced are not entirely perfect, but they may yet contain a generous element of truth. It seems as though the best pattern or the categories that man employs are not of a big enough mould to serve for the creation as God brings it about. Let a few of these subdivisions be submitted. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), mentioned by Strack, suggested two triads of days, the first three concerned with works of division, the second three with works of embellishment. Yet the third day's work in its second half certainly comes under the head of embellishment. A second suggestion notices the manifest parallel between the two triads of days, pointing to the fact that both the first and the fourth days are concerned with a work that begins on high with light (or light bearers). Then in the work of the second and the fifth days the work drops to a lower level, namely, to the firmament and to the birds of the air. Lastly, on the third and the sixth days the creative work moves on the level of the earth and accomplishes a double objective, namely on the third, separation of dry land and water and the production of green things, whereas on the sixth day comes the creation of land animals and man. The correspondence of the two triads from this point of view cannot be denied, but to try to imagine it as entirely adequate would overlook the work of the fifth day, which is double in character and drops not only to the level of the creation of the birds of the air but also, unfortunately, to the submarine level of the creation of fishes of the sea. More satisfactory is Koenig's arrangement which sees four deficiencies or four instances of relative incompleteness listed in a definite order and sees the successive creative acts as removing these four in inverse order, as we shall presently demonstrate.

Darwin and Wallace

John, thanks for the link across to Nagel's award to Meyer's book.

A piece from the post on Science and Values deserves to be surfaced here:

Michael A. Flannery, in his book ‘Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace's World of Life Challenged Darwinism’, shows that Darwin's exclusion of God from any involvement in the development of life was well entrenched in his mind long before he wrote ‘Origin of Species’. In other words, his belief that evolution could happen all by itself was not a product of his science but his philosophical position.
After many years of research, Wallace, second only to Charles Darwin as the 19th century's most noted English naturalist, came to the conclusion that evolution could not have happened without being guided by a higher intelligence, whereas Darwin held to the concept of randomness in evolution.
Writing in Forbes magazine, Flannery explained: "Darwin's own theory could hardly be called objectively scientific. Early influences on Darwin's youth established his predisposition to materialism and a dogmatic methodological naturalism [the exclusion of supernatural explanations] long before his voyage on the Beagle.
"In short, Darwin's metaphysic compelled his science. Wallace, on the other hand, was a tireless investigator who increasingly discerned design in nature. Unlike Darwin, Wallace's science compelled his metaphysics."

A useful statement to bear in mind when we hear the usual doffing of hat and tugging of forelock in the direction of Darwin by our pals in the SAD, who are, of course, functioning at the intellectual level of gnats when it comes to creation and evolution.

And while we're on intellectual performance, have a look at the quote on Behe's blog from Joseph Thornton who has a very confused take on probabilistic calculus. On his line of argument, the probability of any event, or chain of events is so vanishingly small that nothing could have acutally happened. But we know that things do happen. Thornton I think takes actual events as inhabiting a probability density function, which in fact exists theoretically and prospectively. What actually happens is a different thing. So could we argue this way for evolution? Well, see below, but also we know the mechanism by which baseball teams win games. There is as yet no mechanism for 'grand scale' evolution, let alone the origin of life materialistically.

By way of contrast, have a look at On Probability and Systematics: Possibility, Probability, and Phylogenetic Inference Matthew H. Haber in Systematic Biology 2005 54(5):831-841

Great news for Christians, a sad day for Dawkins!

The atheist Thomas Nagel has just voted an ID book The Times book of the year. How extraordinary!

The Battle for the Truth

There's just no let up is there? Scientists who are Biblical Creationists are continually excluded from having research published in major scientific journals then confronted with charges of not having research peer reviewed; often denied data by their opponents; accused of taking their opponents' research or statements out of context or, when flaws in their opponents' research are exposed, cover-ups are employed to guard the primary axiom of Evolution against criticism.

The battle for the truth on Origins is fought with many tactics and strategies. Biblical Creationists are even, at times, likened to "Holocaust Deniers" so as to put them 'way out there' in their belief.

The tactics have all been on display in recent days commencing last Sunday on a Sydney radio program. Comments along the lines of the following were aired:

"Scientists had their research published but leading scientists of the opposing view contacted the publisher, ridiculed their work and had them dropped from the science magazine."

"The scientists are dismissed as having no credibility because their work is not peer reviewed."

"Exposed mistakes of their opponents are covered up."

"Their opponents' work had data cut off when it showed a contrary view to that which they wanted known."

"Freedom of Information requests for their opponents' data were denied and email requests were destroyed."

"The leaking of emails revealing all these tactics resulted in a response from their opponents' to the effect that the emails were taken out of context."

So what's new? Well, in this instance the subject was not Creation/Evolution Debate but Climate Change and the battle for the truth between advocates of human induced Climate Change and those labelled as Climate Change Skeptics.

"The George & Paul Show" on Sydney Radio Station 2UE last Sunday afternoon interviewed Melbourne journalist Andrew Bolt who is a critic of human induced Climate Change. The discussion centred on the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and the tactics employed by advocates of human induced Climate Change against critics within the scientific community.

Biblical Creationists will chuckle at the 'goings-on' because they are quite familiar with the tactics employed.

However, human induced Climate Change Skeptics are outraged. Sydney Daily Telegraph journalist, Piers Akerman, entered the fray yesterday. I provide an extract of his column:

"Excerpts of the emails detailing deception practised by the scientists, the methods they used to ensure no voices other than theirs were heard, that only those who agreed with their theories would be included in peer reviews, are circulating widely on the internet.

They illustrate a contempt for science or at least an abuse of practice.

They are the work of true deniers. They are the work of vandals. They are like indelible graffiti left by idiots.

They betray the work of the Renaissance. They undermine the Enlightenment.

A disgusting venality is also revealed in the emails, a vile spirit of hatred for those who hold the truth to be dear."

Welcome, Piers Akerman, George & Paul and Andrew Bolt to much of what passes for science today. The truth is not pursued with rigor or is not received with objectivity if it does not conform to the Primary Axiom.

Be prepared for a long fight and for many and varied insults cast your way. Be prepared for people to give you 'short shift' as you attempt to present your argument. You may even, as recently occurred in Australian Federal Parliament, be referred to as "Holocaust Deniers".

Biblical Creationists are battle hardened, fit for their long fight and will prevail because the "truth will out". It remains to be seen whether there is as much fight in Skeptics of human induced Climate Change.

Just as an aside, I wonder what's going on in the minds of those groups in many nations who formed themselves into associations many years ago and called themselves "Skeptics" (or "Sceptics") and focused their attention on denying the supernatural. Right now, in Australia at least, the term "Skeptic" is the subject of much ridicule and scorn.

Sam Drucker

Question Darwin: should Christians embrace evolution?

An interesting blog over at Question Darwin: worth a look for the worthies at SAD.
Question Darwin: should Christians embrace evolution?

Dissenter's comments are worthwhile, but I don't think that they start to plumb the theological depths of dancing with death (courting theistic evolution). I've touched on a few in recent comments, IMO, (see this post, for example) but I'm sure that there is much more to say.