This is my sixth and final instalment of "History a Warning to Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney". All quotes (except for the Australian political quote) can be found in and referenced in the first five parts.
R. J. Sheehan provided a helpful analysis of the slide that occurred within the evangelical church in England in the Nineteenth Century. Sheehan drew encouragement from a steadying he saw in the 1980's but I doubt he would be content with the present situation.
Concerning the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney I and many others observe distinct and troubling parallels destroying evangelicalism within what has been termed the largest evangelical Episcopalian Diocese in the world.
To parody the words of an Australian politician who recently and ruthlessly deposed her leader and attempted to justify the action - "A good government had lost its way."
An Episcopalian Diocese which, for approximately two centuries, had seemingly resisted Higher Criticism, Liberal Theology and Anglo-Catholicism proudly presents itself as a bastion of evangelical conservatism. Indeed it would declare itself to be one with evangelicals of early Nineteenth Century England of whom W.R Glover said "The inerrancy of the Bible was so intimate a part of their religious thought and life that a denial of it seemed to threaten the destruction of the faith itself. "
But as R. J. Sheehan observed in England after the attack of Higher Criticism, and objective observers note of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, the rhetoric has failed to match the actions. Old Testament history has been stripped of much of its authority. Concepts and themes prevail over historical events and their timing in earth history. The latter are "questioned, contradicted and reconstructed."
It was too much for Higher Criticism to assault the New Testament first. That had to come later - once the Old Testament battle had been won. Anyone who "preached the Gospel" was a potential prisoner if only their foundation in the inerrancy of Old Testament Scripture was first undermined. The theology of the Old Testament without the "facts" had to be maintained and as Sheehan also observed - "Thus the history of the Bible could supposedly be understood in terms of the theory of evolution and the Book's basic central message remain unchanged."
Just as theological seminaries of Nineteenth Century England became off limits to any Old Testament scholar who didn't espouse the Higher Criticism method so has become the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney's theological seminary, Moore Theological College, off limits to Biblical Creationist scholars. Indeed, students espousing the Biblical Creationist position have been cautioned with serious sanction. I am happy to be corrected on this. Would any reader confirm the presence on faculty of any Old Testament scholar in the past twenty years who has held to the Biblical Creationist position i.e. six twenty-four hour days of creation approximately six thousand years ago?
Just as Higher Criticism conquered evangelicalism in England in the late Nineteenth Century via submission of allegedly evangelical clergy it has likewise triumphed in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. They all declare and "preach the Gospel" but they have already questioned, contradicted and reconstructed to the point of dismissing the foundation of Old Testament history in Creation. External influences opposed to biblical history are given authority to dictate the timing of subsequent Old Testament events and the consequence is a confused and destabilized reading of Scripture.
Not that you would think anything wrong if you read the statements emanating from leaders within the Diocese. "Peace", "Peace" for your evangelical conscience is what you are to receive with utterances such as "And yet this trustworthy, powerful word of God has been entrusted to us, with the responsibility to guard it, to hold firmly to it, to rightly handle it. I can think of no greater human responsibility than to hold firmly to the trustworthy and faithful word of God, taught as a good deposit entrusted to us by the Holy Spirit. Only then will we be able to exhort, to comfort with sound, healthy teaching." and "We are going to beware of intellectual fads." delivered by Dr John Woodhouse, Principal, Moore Theological College in his recent Eternity article.
One could imagine Dr Woodhouse is speaking only of the New Testament because, according to previous statements and actions, he, at best, entertains all views on the matter of the Creation account in Genesis. You see, Dr Woodhouse is firmly in the camp of the "mixed multitude who would not side with either the old evangelical view of Scripture or with the new view of Scripture, who held the key to the decline [in the Nineteenth Century]. They would not discipline error and so they were overwhelmed by it. The consequence of their indecision and cowardice was that whereas, 'The early nineteenth century saw a quickening of religious life all over Europe . . . when the nineteenth century closed Christianity was at a low ebb'."
With influences such as Karl Barth, the "wolf in sheep's clothing", so widely admired within the Diocese, the battleground is about to shift from the Old to the New Testament. The one thing readers can confidently take from Dr Woodhouse's Eternity article is "History suggests what is taken for granted by believers today may be forgotten by the next generation of believers, and denied by the one after that." The rot is well set within. Cowardice has brought the allegedly evangelical Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney to the point reached by the Evangelical Church in England in the late Nineteenth Century.
R.J. Sheehan observed that Calvinism had been something of a stay against the decline in evangelicalism in England in the Nineteenth Century. In the end it did not prevent the decline in England nor has it prevented the decline in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. Unbelief is unbelief no matter what the doctrine.
The "death throws" of evangelicalism within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney are real. New life through the Holy Spirit is the only remedy. Let us pray for such an activity of God's Holy Spirit with urgency. Who knows, maybe some of the alleged evangelicals of the Diocese will stop, look back and see where their cowardice has taken them. Maybe they will repent, believe and be instruments in God's hands for good.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
History a Warning to Sydney Episcopalian Diocese (Part 5)
In my earlier blogs I cited the shift which occurred in traditional evangelicalism in England in the Nineteenth Century as observed by R. J. Sheehan in Banner of Truth journal, Issue 278, November 1986. I then, in my blog (Part 4), introduced extracts of an article found in the July 2010 issue of Eternity by Dr John Woodhouse, Principal, Moore Theological College, Sydney, to show a comparison between the compromising evangelicals of England in the Nineteenth Century and the evangelicals of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney today.
There is a very real similarity and, sadly, it is rife in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. How did it get here? Who was the host who slipped upon our shores unnoticed as the carrier of a theological 'virus' destined to destroy traditional evangelicalism or almost all of it within the Diocese. To achieve this outcome so quietly yet effectively the carrier had to present as healthy and the resort to shape evangelical thinking from the Twentieth Century to the present.
It was Karl Barth, a revered critic of Liberal Theology but within his 'baggage' of thought there lay the seeds of destruction for traditional evangelicalism. It is notable to hear and read of theological influences within the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney who declare their admiration for the work of Karl Barth. One current Bishop within the Diocese puts the works of Karl Barth at the top of his favoured reading. Indeed, this same Bishop unwittingly disclosed his Barthian condition by declaring on this blogspot and elsewhere his doubts about the supernatural miracle of the parting of the Red Sea and, in a less public discussion, questions about the Virgin Birth of Christ Jesus.
Well, what is it that Barth has put upon evangelicalism? I shall defer to Terry A. Chrisope's March 1991 review (Banner of Truth journal) of a paper written by J. Gresham Machen in April 1928. It is repeated here:
Among the papers of J. Gresham Machen (housed at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia) there is a manuscript of unusual interest for the student of Machen's life and work. Running to nineteen pages of typescript, the manuscript bears the title, Karl Barth and 'the Theology of Crisis' A note at the foot of the first page indicates that the paper was 'read to a small group of ministers in Philadelphia, April 23, 1928'
What is so intriguing about the above paper is that J. Gresham Machen is commonly known as the leading evangelical critic not of Barthianism but of theological liberalism during the 1920s in America. Machen had thrown himself into an intense struggle on behalf of biblical Christianity and against the dilution of biblical teaching which he believed was inherent in theological liberalism. He was embroiled in this struggle, both within his own Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and on a broader front as well, throughout the entire decade of the 1920s. As the manuscript under consideration makes clear, however, Machen was keeping abreast of theological developments in Europe and had become aware of a relatively recent protest against liberalism led by the Swiss theologian Karl Barth. That Machen, as an American evangelical, should take cognisance of this movement and publicly comment on it as early as 1928 bears testimony not only to his awareness of the European theological scene but also to his concern for the health and well-being of historic Christianity. Machen at that time was engaged in a severe personal struggle, both academic and ecclesiastical in nature, yet his range of vision was not limited to any narrow personal concerns; he addressed broader issues as he saw the need. In the light of attempts in our own day to promote the theology of Karl Barth among evangelicals, Machen's analysis of Barthianism (even in the latter's incomplete form of 1928) may be something to which contemporary evangelicals would to well to give he heed.
Machen began his treatment of Barthianism with a description of the man and the teaching behind the movement. A near contemporary of Machen, Karl Barth, was born in 1886 (Machen was born in 1881) and was educated in German universities before serving in pastorates in Switzerland. Barth eventually revolted against the socialism and liberalism to which he had formerly adhered, and he formed a school of thought which included such men as Eduard Thurneyson, Freidrich Gogarten, and Emil Brunner (though, Machen notes, there were some differences among the views of these men). The literary organ of the school was the journal Zwischen den Zeiten (Between the Times), from which Machen must have derived a good deal of his knowledge of its teaching and direction. With characteristic modesty, Machen in inserted a disclaimer at this point in his treatment, taking note of the difficulty of understanding Barthian teaching, alleging his own incompetence as a critic, and professing the incompleteness of his knowledge of the school. He then proceeded with a description of the Barthian teaching as he understood it.
Several elements of Barthianism emerge from Machen's treatment. First, at the root of the Barthian view was a conviction of 'the awful transcendence of God' (p. 2). This conviction demanded rejection of all forms of liberal theology with its nearly exclusive emphasis on the immanence of God. A second component of this theology was a new found stress on sin and the cosmic effects which sin had wrought, particularly the moral estrangement of the world from God. This estrangement resulted in a gulf between man and God, a gulf that man himself could not bridge; it was merely sinful pride that led man to imagine that he could do so. Thirdly, in the darkness and helplessness of this situation, God himself has bridged the chasm. God has come to man in the revelation of his Word, a word both of wrath and of grace. Fourthly, that Word of the grace of God has come supremely in the person of Jesus Christ. The incarnation, the coming of God in the flesh, must be received by faith; and only God by his Spirit produces faith in the human heart as the proper response to the incarnation (Machen observed at this point that Barth taught the doctrine of the Trinity, but one that is 'hardly the doctrine that has been held by the historic Church', p. 7). In the fifth place, the coming of the Word of God places man at the point of decision: How will he respond to God and his Word? With obedience or with rebellion? For God or for the world? It is this crisis of decision that gives the 'theology of crisis' its distinctive character and name. Sixthly, the Christian life continues as a life of faith. Christians do not yet live by sight, so Christian theology must be expressed in a series of questions, antinomies or paradoxes. This is what Machen called 'the strange "dialect" of Karl Barth' (p. 7); he confessed his inability to understand it. And yet, according to Barth, the church does have a positive message, a message derived from the Old and New Testament scriptures (which contain the Word of God) and centring on Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
What, Machen asked, are we to make of all this? It all sounds so orthodox, so like the evangelical Christianity of Calvin or Bunyan or the Shorter Catechism. Indeed, Barth claimed to be a follower of Calvin and of Paul, and, Machen noted, the Barthians had been attacked with the ignominious accusation that their teaching was nothing other than 'orthodoxy' after all. This charge the Barthians had indignantly denied. How then did they differ from historic Christianity? Machen found the difference in two central questions (ignoring for the moment other details of disagreement): 'they differ in the epistemology, and they differ in their attitude toward the plain historical information that the Bible contains' (p. 9).
With regard to the first point, the question of epistemology, Machen expressed uncertainty respecting the true nature of the Barthian position. He suspected that there was 'a large measure of agreement between the orthodox and the Barthians regarding the knowledge that is at the basis of Christianity' (p. 9). In particular, he appreciated their restoration of theology to a place of importance and dignity (in contrast to the centrality of religious experience in liberal thought). He also applauded Brunner's and Barth's serious attitude toward doctrinal differences among professing Christians, especially in the light of liberalism's theological tolerance.
And yet, despite Machen's appreciation of the Barthian reaction against modern theological anti-intellectualism, he questioned whether the knowledge of God contained in 'this new teaching' was 'real knowledge at all' (p. 11). Machen was particularly concerned about the claim that faith must be held distinct from all reasoning, that argumentation and apologetics are unnecessary. While he was more than willing to agree that 'argument alone never made a man a Christian' (p. 11), he was unwilling to concede that argument was therefore superfluous. The Spirit of God operates precisely upon human reason in order to overcome the effects of sin and enable men to grasp the truth. Machen's central concern here was with the objectivity of truth and he confessed to having an 'uneasy feeling' (p. 12) regarding the Barthian epistemology on this score. He was not quite certain that Barth's position did not incorporate a subjectivism which undermined the objectivity of truth by making Christian doctrines true only to the person who accepted them by faith. This, Machen believed, would constitute an 'epistemological abyss' (p. 12), and served to mask, behind Barth's seemingly traditional terminololgy, a profound difference with historic Christianity.
The second of Machen's reservations regarding Barthian teaching was related to the attitude entertained by that school toward the historical information contained in the Bible. In particular, he saw the Barthians as attempting 'to make the Christian faith quite independent of the findings of scientific history with regard to the life of Christ' (p. 13). (As witness to this tendency, Machen drew attention to the inclusion in Zwischen den Zeiten of the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who believed that it was impossible to know with certainty anything about the person of Jesus.) This position, Machen feared, did not mean merely that historical science, conducted on naturalistic principles, could not establish the essential facts upon which Christianity is founded, but rather meant that 'we can hear the Word of God in the New Testament, as addressed to our own soul, no matter what the facts about Jesus of Nazareth were' (p. 14). He thus understood the Barthian position (Brunner excepted, to some extent) as tending toward a sharp division between faith and the facts of history. This, of course, allowed the Barthians to accept the findings of negative historical criticism of the Bible while at the same time maintaining faith intact. But a biblical Christian faith, Machen held, cannot be indifferent to history or to the findings of historical criticism, for the New Testament bears witness to events that purportedly occurred in history.
The problem with the position of Barth and Brunner was not that it was too radical, but that it was not radical enough. Machen applauded their rejection of the 'immanence philosophy' (p. 15) which was at the root of theological liberalism, but he believed that they must go further. They also must attack the immanence philosophy as it was applied to historical criticism of the New Testament, and the particular point of attack must be the presuppositions that underlay modern criticism. 'Modern skepticism is, indeed, imposing, as it is applied to the New Testament field. But it may fall away like a house of cards if once its presuppositions are attacked' (p. 15). Machen was presumably referring to the naturalistic assumptions undergirding much negative criticism of the New Testament. Correct presuppositions, those of biblical supernaturalism, must replace false ones, thus allowing the message of the New Testament to be received at face value. But it was just at this point that the Barthians were silent. Here, then, in 'the attitude of Barth and his associates toward historical criticism', was 'a deadly weakness of the school' (p. 16).
Intimately related to this question was the attitude of the Barthians toward the deeds and words of Jesus as contained in the Gospel accounts. Machen thought he perceived (he expressed himself very carefully here) a tendency in the direction of indifference toward the historical acts and teachings of Jesus. While he again praised the renewed emphasis on the redeeming work of Christ, his death and resurrection, which he observed among the Barthians (though, significantly, he confessed uncertainty as to exactly what they meant by resurrection'), Machen was nevertheless uneasy about how little remained of a positive portrait of Jesus in Barthian hands. 'One has the disturbing feeling that Barth and his associates are depriving the church of one of its most precious possessions, the concrete picture of Jesus of Nazareth as he walked and talked upon this earth' (p. 17. The logic of their position, it seemed to Machen, fostered indifference regarding the question of the kind of person Jesus was during his earthly life. This was something in which he perceived danger. 'In their effort to avoid a clash with naturalistic criticism, these teachers must not be allowed to deprive us of the Jesus whom we love, the Jesus of the Gospels, the Jesus who spake words such as never man spake, the Jesus who went about doing good' (p. 18). For Machen, it was by just such a Jesus that modern people are confronted with terrible immediacy through the message of the Gospel and thus are brought to the crisis of decision. For all Machen's hesitation regarding the teaching of Karl Barth, he was thankful for Barth's reminder of that crisis. He was simply concerned that it be the full biblical Jesus with which modern people are confronted.
Much could be made of Machen's perceptiveness in treating Karl Barth as a major theological figure in 1928, his acuteness of judgment in suggesting that the Barthian movement may have inaugurated 'a new era in the history of the Church' (p. 15), and his initiative in offering an evangelical critique of Barthianism at a time when few other American evangelicals had taken note of the movement. Machen's response to Barth was timely indeed. And yet it may prove just as timely and relevant in our own day. Observers of contemporary evangelicalism have recently noted a slide away from former stoutly-held positions (see, e.g., 'Evangelical Megashift', Christianity Today, Feb. 19, 1990, pp. 12-17). And calls have issued from some quarters for evangelicals to use Barth's methodology as a paradigm for evangelical theology in the present (see Bernard Ramm's After Fundamentalism, 1983). In the face of such trends, evangelicals may do well to listen once again to the voice of J. Gresham Machen.
Another long post so I must end here without further comment, except to say I will pull it all together in my next and, hopefully, my final blog on the decline of evangelicalism within the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney.
Sam Drucker
There is a very real similarity and, sadly, it is rife in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. How did it get here? Who was the host who slipped upon our shores unnoticed as the carrier of a theological 'virus' destined to destroy traditional evangelicalism or almost all of it within the Diocese. To achieve this outcome so quietly yet effectively the carrier had to present as healthy and the resort to shape evangelical thinking from the Twentieth Century to the present.
It was Karl Barth, a revered critic of Liberal Theology but within his 'baggage' of thought there lay the seeds of destruction for traditional evangelicalism. It is notable to hear and read of theological influences within the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney who declare their admiration for the work of Karl Barth. One current Bishop within the Diocese puts the works of Karl Barth at the top of his favoured reading. Indeed, this same Bishop unwittingly disclosed his Barthian condition by declaring on this blogspot and elsewhere his doubts about the supernatural miracle of the parting of the Red Sea and, in a less public discussion, questions about the Virgin Birth of Christ Jesus.
Well, what is it that Barth has put upon evangelicalism? I shall defer to Terry A. Chrisope's March 1991 review (Banner of Truth journal) of a paper written by J. Gresham Machen in April 1928. It is repeated here:
Among the papers of J. Gresham Machen (housed at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia) there is a manuscript of unusual interest for the student of Machen's life and work. Running to nineteen pages of typescript, the manuscript bears the title, Karl Barth and 'the Theology of Crisis' A note at the foot of the first page indicates that the paper was 'read to a small group of ministers in Philadelphia, April 23, 1928'
What is so intriguing about the above paper is that J. Gresham Machen is commonly known as the leading evangelical critic not of Barthianism but of theological liberalism during the 1920s in America. Machen had thrown himself into an intense struggle on behalf of biblical Christianity and against the dilution of biblical teaching which he believed was inherent in theological liberalism. He was embroiled in this struggle, both within his own Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and on a broader front as well, throughout the entire decade of the 1920s. As the manuscript under consideration makes clear, however, Machen was keeping abreast of theological developments in Europe and had become aware of a relatively recent protest against liberalism led by the Swiss theologian Karl Barth. That Machen, as an American evangelical, should take cognisance of this movement and publicly comment on it as early as 1928 bears testimony not only to his awareness of the European theological scene but also to his concern for the health and well-being of historic Christianity. Machen at that time was engaged in a severe personal struggle, both academic and ecclesiastical in nature, yet his range of vision was not limited to any narrow personal concerns; he addressed broader issues as he saw the need. In the light of attempts in our own day to promote the theology of Karl Barth among evangelicals, Machen's analysis of Barthianism (even in the latter's incomplete form of 1928) may be something to which contemporary evangelicals would to well to give he heed.
Machen began his treatment of Barthianism with a description of the man and the teaching behind the movement. A near contemporary of Machen, Karl Barth, was born in 1886 (Machen was born in 1881) and was educated in German universities before serving in pastorates in Switzerland. Barth eventually revolted against the socialism and liberalism to which he had formerly adhered, and he formed a school of thought which included such men as Eduard Thurneyson, Freidrich Gogarten, and Emil Brunner (though, Machen notes, there were some differences among the views of these men). The literary organ of the school was the journal Zwischen den Zeiten (Between the Times), from which Machen must have derived a good deal of his knowledge of its teaching and direction. With characteristic modesty, Machen in inserted a disclaimer at this point in his treatment, taking note of the difficulty of understanding Barthian teaching, alleging his own incompetence as a critic, and professing the incompleteness of his knowledge of the school. He then proceeded with a description of the Barthian teaching as he understood it.
Several elements of Barthianism emerge from Machen's treatment. First, at the root of the Barthian view was a conviction of 'the awful transcendence of God' (p. 2). This conviction demanded rejection of all forms of liberal theology with its nearly exclusive emphasis on the immanence of God. A second component of this theology was a new found stress on sin and the cosmic effects which sin had wrought, particularly the moral estrangement of the world from God. This estrangement resulted in a gulf between man and God, a gulf that man himself could not bridge; it was merely sinful pride that led man to imagine that he could do so. Thirdly, in the darkness and helplessness of this situation, God himself has bridged the chasm. God has come to man in the revelation of his Word, a word both of wrath and of grace. Fourthly, that Word of the grace of God has come supremely in the person of Jesus Christ. The incarnation, the coming of God in the flesh, must be received by faith; and only God by his Spirit produces faith in the human heart as the proper response to the incarnation (Machen observed at this point that Barth taught the doctrine of the Trinity, but one that is 'hardly the doctrine that has been held by the historic Church', p. 7). In the fifth place, the coming of the Word of God places man at the point of decision: How will he respond to God and his Word? With obedience or with rebellion? For God or for the world? It is this crisis of decision that gives the 'theology of crisis' its distinctive character and name. Sixthly, the Christian life continues as a life of faith. Christians do not yet live by sight, so Christian theology must be expressed in a series of questions, antinomies or paradoxes. This is what Machen called 'the strange "dialect" of Karl Barth' (p. 7); he confessed his inability to understand it. And yet, according to Barth, the church does have a positive message, a message derived from the Old and New Testament scriptures (which contain the Word of God) and centring on Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
What, Machen asked, are we to make of all this? It all sounds so orthodox, so like the evangelical Christianity of Calvin or Bunyan or the Shorter Catechism. Indeed, Barth claimed to be a follower of Calvin and of Paul, and, Machen noted, the Barthians had been attacked with the ignominious accusation that their teaching was nothing other than 'orthodoxy' after all. This charge the Barthians had indignantly denied. How then did they differ from historic Christianity? Machen found the difference in two central questions (ignoring for the moment other details of disagreement): 'they differ in the epistemology, and they differ in their attitude toward the plain historical information that the Bible contains' (p. 9).
With regard to the first point, the question of epistemology, Machen expressed uncertainty respecting the true nature of the Barthian position. He suspected that there was 'a large measure of agreement between the orthodox and the Barthians regarding the knowledge that is at the basis of Christianity' (p. 9). In particular, he appreciated their restoration of theology to a place of importance and dignity (in contrast to the centrality of religious experience in liberal thought). He also applauded Brunner's and Barth's serious attitude toward doctrinal differences among professing Christians, especially in the light of liberalism's theological tolerance.
And yet, despite Machen's appreciation of the Barthian reaction against modern theological anti-intellectualism, he questioned whether the knowledge of God contained in 'this new teaching' was 'real knowledge at all' (p. 11). Machen was particularly concerned about the claim that faith must be held distinct from all reasoning, that argumentation and apologetics are unnecessary. While he was more than willing to agree that 'argument alone never made a man a Christian' (p. 11), he was unwilling to concede that argument was therefore superfluous. The Spirit of God operates precisely upon human reason in order to overcome the effects of sin and enable men to grasp the truth. Machen's central concern here was with the objectivity of truth and he confessed to having an 'uneasy feeling' (p. 12) regarding the Barthian epistemology on this score. He was not quite certain that Barth's position did not incorporate a subjectivism which undermined the objectivity of truth by making Christian doctrines true only to the person who accepted them by faith. This, Machen believed, would constitute an 'epistemological abyss' (p. 12), and served to mask, behind Barth's seemingly traditional terminololgy, a profound difference with historic Christianity.
The second of Machen's reservations regarding Barthian teaching was related to the attitude entertained by that school toward the historical information contained in the Bible. In particular, he saw the Barthians as attempting 'to make the Christian faith quite independent of the findings of scientific history with regard to the life of Christ' (p. 13). (As witness to this tendency, Machen drew attention to the inclusion in Zwischen den Zeiten of the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who believed that it was impossible to know with certainty anything about the person of Jesus.) This position, Machen feared, did not mean merely that historical science, conducted on naturalistic principles, could not establish the essential facts upon which Christianity is founded, but rather meant that 'we can hear the Word of God in the New Testament, as addressed to our own soul, no matter what the facts about Jesus of Nazareth were' (p. 14). He thus understood the Barthian position (Brunner excepted, to some extent) as tending toward a sharp division between faith and the facts of history. This, of course, allowed the Barthians to accept the findings of negative historical criticism of the Bible while at the same time maintaining faith intact. But a biblical Christian faith, Machen held, cannot be indifferent to history or to the findings of historical criticism, for the New Testament bears witness to events that purportedly occurred in history.
The problem with the position of Barth and Brunner was not that it was too radical, but that it was not radical enough. Machen applauded their rejection of the 'immanence philosophy' (p. 15) which was at the root of theological liberalism, but he believed that they must go further. They also must attack the immanence philosophy as it was applied to historical criticism of the New Testament, and the particular point of attack must be the presuppositions that underlay modern criticism. 'Modern skepticism is, indeed, imposing, as it is applied to the New Testament field. But it may fall away like a house of cards if once its presuppositions are attacked' (p. 15). Machen was presumably referring to the naturalistic assumptions undergirding much negative criticism of the New Testament. Correct presuppositions, those of biblical supernaturalism, must replace false ones, thus allowing the message of the New Testament to be received at face value. But it was just at this point that the Barthians were silent. Here, then, in 'the attitude of Barth and his associates toward historical criticism', was 'a deadly weakness of the school' (p. 16).
Intimately related to this question was the attitude of the Barthians toward the deeds and words of Jesus as contained in the Gospel accounts. Machen thought he perceived (he expressed himself very carefully here) a tendency in the direction of indifference toward the historical acts and teachings of Jesus. While he again praised the renewed emphasis on the redeeming work of Christ, his death and resurrection, which he observed among the Barthians (though, significantly, he confessed uncertainty as to exactly what they meant by resurrection'), Machen was nevertheless uneasy about how little remained of a positive portrait of Jesus in Barthian hands. 'One has the disturbing feeling that Barth and his associates are depriving the church of one of its most precious possessions, the concrete picture of Jesus of Nazareth as he walked and talked upon this earth' (p. 17. The logic of their position, it seemed to Machen, fostered indifference regarding the question of the kind of person Jesus was during his earthly life. This was something in which he perceived danger. 'In their effort to avoid a clash with naturalistic criticism, these teachers must not be allowed to deprive us of the Jesus whom we love, the Jesus of the Gospels, the Jesus who spake words such as never man spake, the Jesus who went about doing good' (p. 18). For Machen, it was by just such a Jesus that modern people are confronted with terrible immediacy through the message of the Gospel and thus are brought to the crisis of decision. For all Machen's hesitation regarding the teaching of Karl Barth, he was thankful for Barth's reminder of that crisis. He was simply concerned that it be the full biblical Jesus with which modern people are confronted.
Much could be made of Machen's perceptiveness in treating Karl Barth as a major theological figure in 1928, his acuteness of judgment in suggesting that the Barthian movement may have inaugurated 'a new era in the history of the Church' (p. 15), and his initiative in offering an evangelical critique of Barthianism at a time when few other American evangelicals had taken note of the movement. Machen's response to Barth was timely indeed. And yet it may prove just as timely and relevant in our own day. Observers of contemporary evangelicalism have recently noted a slide away from former stoutly-held positions (see, e.g., 'Evangelical Megashift', Christianity Today, Feb. 19, 1990, pp. 12-17). And calls have issued from some quarters for evangelicals to use Barth's methodology as a paradigm for evangelical theology in the present (see Bernard Ramm's After Fundamentalism, 1983). In the face of such trends, evangelicals may do well to listen once again to the voice of J. Gresham Machen.
Another long post so I must end here without further comment, except to say I will pull it all together in my next and, hopefully, my final blog on the decline of evangelicalism within the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney.
Sam Drucker
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
History a Warning to Sydney Episcopalian Church (Part 4)
"The word of God is lively and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit; joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. (Heb. 4:12)
Having followed R.J. Sheehan's overview of "The Decline of Evangelicalism in Nineteenth-Century England" by R. J. Sheehan in Issue 278, November 1986, of "The Banner of Truth" in Parts 1-3 even a casual observer would have noted that those in the nineteenth century England who claimed to be evangelical, who would have avowed unity with their more illustrious evangelical forebears, limply relinquished their blessing without realising what they had done.
Does what Sheehan observed in England have any application in Australia? Is the 'bastion' of evangelical conservatism, the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, going the same way as ninteetenth century evangelicalism in England? Does its staunch Calvinism shield it from decline? So, how goes it?
Let me provide extracts of a statement made by Rev Dr John Woodhouse, Principal, Moore Theological in an article titled "So what are we doing At Bible College?" in the July 2010 edition of Eternity, a Diocesan based newspaper.
Under the heading of "We are a community of scholars" Dr Woodhouse said
"But since the knowledge of God involves the use of our mind; we [Moore College] also gather as a community of scholars. When Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders as overseers in the towns of Crete, he said of such persons that 'he must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it' (Titus 1: 9).
Again we find a paradox. God works by his word. God's word is trustworthy. This word, which is folly to those who are perishing, is the power of God to us who are being saved (1 Cor. l:18). And yet this trustworthy, powerful word of God has been entrusted to us, with the responsibility to guard it, to hold firmly to it, to rightly handle it. I can think of no greater human responsibility than to hold firmly to the trustworthy and faithful word of God, taught as a good deposit entrusted to us by the Holy Spirit. Only then will we be able to exhort, to comfort with sound, healthy teaching.
The distortion and perversion of the word of God, the teaching of error as though it were truth, is what the human mind tends to do naturally And what the New Testament sometimes calls 'false teaching' is not neutral. It is a disease, it destroys, and it causes harm. And mere 'scholarship' is no guarantee against it. Humble learning before God, which is faithful to the good deposit entrusted to us by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim.1:14), is the antidote. History suggests what is taken for granted by believers today may be forgotten by the next generation of believers, and denied by the one after that.
We are going to beware of intellectual fads. You encounter authors who are stimulating and challenging, open up fresh [an]d new ways of seeing all kinds of things. You should read them; you should understand what they are saying; you should not close your mind down. Yet your task will be to discern when stimulating writers are not holding firm to the trustworthy word—just as it is to discern when some well-known or well-liked author is failing in the same way. So we are an unusual community of scholars. There is not a lot of scholarship for its own sake here."
Fine words! However, I sincerely believe evangelicals in England during the nineteenth century who were surrendering their evangelical birthright would have responded in like manner if questioned on where they stood on Scripture.
It is remarkably telling that Dr Woodhouse quotes Titus 1:9 but can't see the contrast between what Apostle Paul is urging upon Titus and what Moore Theological College practices today. Apostle Paul requires of elders that they hold to the trustworthy word as taught - and this, I conclude is that trustworthy word originally taught by the Church. Moore Theological College differs from Apostle Paul's mandate inasmuch as, in regard to Genesis Ch 1, Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17, Moore Theological College has departed from the evangelical Church of earlier years.
The word which Moore Theological College has lost confidence in is folly to those who are perishing but is the power of God to us who are being saved. (1 Cor. 1:18) Again, Dr Woodhouse misses the obvious here. For fear of ridicule from the world, Moore Theological College has compromised on the word of God on Origins. To do this backpedaling yet achieve some means of respectability within the Church the "scholars" at Moore Theological College have had to introduce a cloud of opinions and devices which dilute the conviction of the word of God, that same conviction which compelled early evangelicals to believe and teach a six days, 'young' earth creation.
In this parlous state the "scholars" at Moore Theological College "teach error as though it were truth."
More will be said on the contradictions inherent in Dr Woodhouse's assessment and what is actually being done at Moore Theological College. Before that I must address a significant influence which has opened the door to the error on Origins and which, like a cancer, will run through the body of believers we call the Church assembling as the Episcopalian Church of Sydney.
That influence will be the subject of my next blog.
Sam Drucker
Having followed R.J. Sheehan's overview of "The Decline of Evangelicalism in Nineteenth-Century England" by R. J. Sheehan in Issue 278, November 1986, of "The Banner of Truth" in Parts 1-3 even a casual observer would have noted that those in the nineteenth century England who claimed to be evangelical, who would have avowed unity with their more illustrious evangelical forebears, limply relinquished their blessing without realising what they had done.
Does what Sheehan observed in England have any application in Australia? Is the 'bastion' of evangelical conservatism, the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, going the same way as ninteetenth century evangelicalism in England? Does its staunch Calvinism shield it from decline? So, how goes it?
Let me provide extracts of a statement made by Rev Dr John Woodhouse, Principal, Moore Theological in an article titled "So what are we doing At Bible College?" in the July 2010 edition of Eternity, a Diocesan based newspaper.
Under the heading of "We are a community of scholars" Dr Woodhouse said
"But since the knowledge of God involves the use of our mind; we [Moore College] also gather as a community of scholars. When Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders as overseers in the towns of Crete, he said of such persons that 'he must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it' (Titus 1: 9).
Again we find a paradox. God works by his word. God's word is trustworthy. This word, which is folly to those who are perishing, is the power of God to us who are being saved (1 Cor. l:18). And yet this trustworthy, powerful word of God has been entrusted to us, with the responsibility to guard it, to hold firmly to it, to rightly handle it. I can think of no greater human responsibility than to hold firmly to the trustworthy and faithful word of God, taught as a good deposit entrusted to us by the Holy Spirit. Only then will we be able to exhort, to comfort with sound, healthy teaching.
The distortion and perversion of the word of God, the teaching of error as though it were truth, is what the human mind tends to do naturally And what the New Testament sometimes calls 'false teaching' is not neutral. It is a disease, it destroys, and it causes harm. And mere 'scholarship' is no guarantee against it. Humble learning before God, which is faithful to the good deposit entrusted to us by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim.1:14), is the antidote. History suggests what is taken for granted by believers today may be forgotten by the next generation of believers, and denied by the one after that.
We are going to beware of intellectual fads. You encounter authors who are stimulating and challenging, open up fresh [an]d new ways of seeing all kinds of things. You should read them; you should understand what they are saying; you should not close your mind down. Yet your task will be to discern when stimulating writers are not holding firm to the trustworthy word—just as it is to discern when some well-known or well-liked author is failing in the same way. So we are an unusual community of scholars. There is not a lot of scholarship for its own sake here."
Fine words! However, I sincerely believe evangelicals in England during the nineteenth century who were surrendering their evangelical birthright would have responded in like manner if questioned on where they stood on Scripture.
It is remarkably telling that Dr Woodhouse quotes Titus 1:9 but can't see the contrast between what Apostle Paul is urging upon Titus and what Moore Theological College practices today. Apostle Paul requires of elders that they hold to the trustworthy word as taught - and this, I conclude is that trustworthy word originally taught by the Church. Moore Theological College differs from Apostle Paul's mandate inasmuch as, in regard to Genesis Ch 1, Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17, Moore Theological College has departed from the evangelical Church of earlier years.
The word which Moore Theological College has lost confidence in is folly to those who are perishing but is the power of God to us who are being saved. (1 Cor. 1:18) Again, Dr Woodhouse misses the obvious here. For fear of ridicule from the world, Moore Theological College has compromised on the word of God on Origins. To do this backpedaling yet achieve some means of respectability within the Church the "scholars" at Moore Theological College have had to introduce a cloud of opinions and devices which dilute the conviction of the word of God, that same conviction which compelled early evangelicals to believe and teach a six days, 'young' earth creation.
In this parlous state the "scholars" at Moore Theological College "teach error as though it were truth."
More will be said on the contradictions inherent in Dr Woodhouse's assessment and what is actually being done at Moore Theological College. Before that I must address a significant influence which has opened the door to the error on Origins and which, like a cancer, will run through the body of believers we call the Church assembling as the Episcopalian Church of Sydney.
That influence will be the subject of my next blog.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Leupold Genesis part 38 verse 8
8. And God called the firmament heavens; and came evening, and came morning--second day.
Again, the giving of the name to the object just created is more than an outward thing. What the term "heavens" implies, that is what the new arrangement will serve to be for man. All this, especially the term "heavens," gives us warrant for describing this creative work as we did in connection with v. 6.
Our rendering, as in v. 5, "then came evening" is not as exact from one point of view as it might be. Wayhi is not the verb "come," but is from hayah, "to be," or even better "to become." This latter idea to show the progression of time we felt could well be marked by the English idiom, "then came evening," etc. The word for "evening," 'erebh, is commonly derived from the corresponding Hebrew root whose Arabic parallel means "to enter," "to go in." So, apparently, a poetic thought is involved in that the sun is thought of as going into its chamber, a thought found also in Ps. 19:5.
After "one" the ordinals are used, "day the second" (K. S. 315 n).
There follows in v. 9-13 the double work of the third day.
Again, the giving of the name to the object just created is more than an outward thing. What the term "heavens" implies, that is what the new arrangement will serve to be for man. All this, especially the term "heavens," gives us warrant for describing this creative work as we did in connection with v. 6.
Our rendering, as in v. 5, "then came evening" is not as exact from one point of view as it might be. Wayhi is not the verb "come," but is from hayah, "to be," or even better "to become." This latter idea to show the progression of time we felt could well be marked by the English idiom, "then came evening," etc. The word for "evening," 'erebh, is commonly derived from the corresponding Hebrew root whose Arabic parallel means "to enter," "to go in." So, apparently, a poetic thought is involved in that the sun is thought of as going into its chamber, a thought found also in Ps. 19:5.
After "one" the ordinals are used, "day the second" (K. S. 315 n).
There follows in v. 9-13 the double work of the third day.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
History a Warning to the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney (Part 3)
Herewith, the final instalment of the article "The Decline of Evangelicalism in Nineteenth-Century England" by R. J. Sheehan in Issue 278, November 1986, of "The Banner of Truth". Reference notations continue in sequence from the previous blogs:
"THE BLUNDERS OF THE CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALS
With hindsight, it is possible to see that the conservative evangelicals made two major mistakes in their opposition to the higher critical movement. Firstly, they paid so much attention to declaring their opposition to it, especially in the earlier part of the nineteenth century, that, 'the orthodox attacks on the critics. . . were one of the chief means by which a knowledge of higher criticism was disseminated in England'.20
Closely related was the second mistake. The conservatives did not take the higher critics seriously enough. 'In 1880 it was still possible for orthodox Bible scholars in England to consider higher criticism as the temporary form taken by infidelity and Germany and confidently to predict the scholarly victory of tradition'.21 C. H. Spurgeon dismissed the teachings of Julius Wellhausen as, 'calculated only to befool those who are ignorant',22 as late as 1887!
The consequence of this under-estimation of the higher critical movement, until it was too late to reverse the trends, was that some of the opposition to the higher critics rose little above anti-German rhetoric and little real attempt was made to answer the critics at a theological level. W. B. Glover recognized the lack amongst the English conservatives of an equivalent to the Princeton theologians to defend their cause.23 The conservative attack was led by comparatively untrained pastors and in the eyes of many, as in the eighteenth-century Deist controversy, 'more attention was paid to learning, scholarship and oratory than to godliness, orthodoxy and evangelical zeal'.24 So the higher critics won the day.
6. THE BLUNDERS OF THE EVANGELICALS IN GENERAL
The less conservative evangelical leaders must bear the weight of the blame for the victory of higher criticism. It is clear that many of them put more value on maintaining unity and harmony than on the truth. They sold their heritage for a reputation of big-heartedness. C. H. Spurgeon warned them to no avail. 'On all hands we hear cries for unity in this and unity in that... It is easy to cry, "A confederacy" but that union which is not based on the truth of God is rather a conspiracy than a communion'.25
Many of the evangelicals showed a sad lack of discernment. They saw an acceptance of higher criticism as a means to further their scholarly reputations. In this way the Baptist John Clifford won an accolade for his, 'broad interpretation of Evangelicalism, his appreciation of the work of Biblical scholarship, his resolute opposition to blind conservatism, his repudiation of the antagonism between Religion and Science so often proclaimed by some in our church'.26 However, he was also responsible for opposing the stand of C. H. Spurgeon and enabling the higher critical takeover of the Baptist Denomination. Men praised him for his modernity but history condemns it as compromise.
In fact, while full weight must be given to the failure of many to see the real danger of higher criticism and its detrimental effects on evangelicalism, it must sadly be said that a charge of cowardice has to be levelled against many of the evangelicals of the nineteenth century. The nineteenth century saw three groups within the evangelical churches: the conservative evangelicals: the higher critics, and 'a great mixed multitude who from various causes decline to be ranked with either of them'.27 It was this 'mixed multitude' who would not side with either the old
evangelical view of Scripture or with the new view of Scripture, who held the key to the decline. They would not discipline error and so they were overwhelmed by it. The consequence of their indecision and cowardice was that whereas, 'The early nineteenth century saw a quickening of religious life all over Europe . . . when the nineteenth century closed Christianity was at a low ebb'.28
Most nineteenth-century evangelicals had a view of love to others that meant the abandonment of or compromise on truth. But as C. H. Spurgeon correctly observed, 'To part with truth to show charity is to betray our Lord with a kiss'.29
SOME CONCLUSIONS
1. That 'The first step astray is a want of adequate faith in the divine inspiration of the sacred Scriptures . . . 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 seriously out of the 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'.30 Our doctrine of scripture is, therefore, not a matter of minor importance.
2. That Calvinists have historically left the doctrine of Scripture le[a]st of all of those who have departed from it. Therefore, Calvinism is an important safeguard against heresy.
3. That the basis of unity cannot be merely a shared spiritual experience or shared evangelistic zeal. A man who is converted and is a means of conversion to others can be more dangerous to the health of the churches than an outright heretic if he mixes his zeal for the gospel with defective views of Scripture and half-heartedness about other major doctrines.
4. That a false sense of Christian love can lead people to a total lack of discernment in which they treat wolves like sheep and maintain alliances with those who are enemies of the gospel. This is to the inevitable detriment of the churches.
5. That worldliness and looseness are inevitably companions of theological disinterest and looseness
6. That evangelicals have to take their opposition seriously at a theological level and not merely respond by abuse. The absence of a theological answer to the higher critics gave the evangelicals the appearance of theological ignorance.
7. That the ministers often become corrupt before the people. 'As a general rule laymen were slower in accepting higher criticism than the ministers'.31 Even as late as the 1890's, 'there remained large numbers of laymen and some ministers who never accepted the new criticism even in principle'. 32 But, with the pulpits of their churches hijacked, the people were left to rot, with blind guides leading them to nowhere worth going.
8. That the dismal history of English evangelicals from 1900 to 1950 cannot be understood apart from this background of nineteenth-century compromise and failure. The present, comparatively healthier state of evangelicalism is closely connected to the 'revival' of Calvinism. All the present gains, however, could be rapidly lost if the lessons of the past are not remembered."
Thus ends R.J. Sheehan's helpful insight of the decline of evangelicalism in England in the nineteenth century. In the next instalment of "History a Warning to the Episcopalian Church of Sydney" I will attempt to observe the state of things today.
Sam Drucker
References:
20. Glover op. cit. p4L
21. ibid p. 36. 22.
22. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, August 1887, p 430.
23. Glover op. cit. pp 219-221.
24. Summary of Shindler, R. The Sword and Trowel, March 1887, p 122.
25. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, April 1887, pp 195-196.
26. Blomfeld, W. E. cited in Underwood, A. C. A History of English Baptists, 1947, Kingsgate Press, p 226.
27. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, December 1888, p 619.
28. Glover op. cit. .p 11.
29. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, February 1887, p 91.
30. Shindler, R. The Sword and Trowel, April 1887, p 170.
31. Glover op. cit. p 199.
32. ibid. p 217.
"THE BLUNDERS OF THE CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALS
With hindsight, it is possible to see that the conservative evangelicals made two major mistakes in their opposition to the higher critical movement. Firstly, they paid so much attention to declaring their opposition to it, especially in the earlier part of the nineteenth century, that, 'the orthodox attacks on the critics. . . were one of the chief means by which a knowledge of higher criticism was disseminated in England'.20
Closely related was the second mistake. The conservatives did not take the higher critics seriously enough. 'In 1880 it was still possible for orthodox Bible scholars in England to consider higher criticism as the temporary form taken by infidelity and Germany and confidently to predict the scholarly victory of tradition'.21 C. H. Spurgeon dismissed the teachings of Julius Wellhausen as, 'calculated only to befool those who are ignorant',22 as late as 1887!
The consequence of this under-estimation of the higher critical movement, until it was too late to reverse the trends, was that some of the opposition to the higher critics rose little above anti-German rhetoric and little real attempt was made to answer the critics at a theological level. W. B. Glover recognized the lack amongst the English conservatives of an equivalent to the Princeton theologians to defend their cause.23 The conservative attack was led by comparatively untrained pastors and in the eyes of many, as in the eighteenth-century Deist controversy, 'more attention was paid to learning, scholarship and oratory than to godliness, orthodoxy and evangelical zeal'.24 So the higher critics won the day.
6. THE BLUNDERS OF THE EVANGELICALS IN GENERAL
The less conservative evangelical leaders must bear the weight of the blame for the victory of higher criticism. It is clear that many of them put more value on maintaining unity and harmony than on the truth. They sold their heritage for a reputation of big-heartedness. C. H. Spurgeon warned them to no avail. 'On all hands we hear cries for unity in this and unity in that... It is easy to cry, "A confederacy" but that union which is not based on the truth of God is rather a conspiracy than a communion'.25
Many of the evangelicals showed a sad lack of discernment. They saw an acceptance of higher criticism as a means to further their scholarly reputations. In this way the Baptist John Clifford won an accolade for his, 'broad interpretation of Evangelicalism, his appreciation of the work of Biblical scholarship, his resolute opposition to blind conservatism, his repudiation of the antagonism between Religion and Science so often proclaimed by some in our church'.26 However, he was also responsible for opposing the stand of C. H. Spurgeon and enabling the higher critical takeover of the Baptist Denomination. Men praised him for his modernity but history condemns it as compromise.
In fact, while full weight must be given to the failure of many to see the real danger of higher criticism and its detrimental effects on evangelicalism, it must sadly be said that a charge of cowardice has to be levelled against many of the evangelicals of the nineteenth century. The nineteenth century saw three groups within the evangelical churches: the conservative evangelicals: the higher critics, and 'a great mixed multitude who from various causes decline to be ranked with either of them'.27 It was this 'mixed multitude' who would not side with either the old
evangelical view of Scripture or with the new view of Scripture, who held the key to the decline. They would not discipline error and so they were overwhelmed by it. The consequence of their indecision and cowardice was that whereas, 'The early nineteenth century saw a quickening of religious life all over Europe . . . when the nineteenth century closed Christianity was at a low ebb'.28
Most nineteenth-century evangelicals had a view of love to others that meant the abandonment of or compromise on truth. But as C. H. Spurgeon correctly observed, 'To part with truth to show charity is to betray our Lord with a kiss'.29
SOME CONCLUSIONS
1. That 'The first step astray is a want of adequate faith in the divine inspiration of the sacred Scriptures . . . 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 seriously out of the 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'.30 Our doctrine of scripture is, therefore, not a matter of minor importance.
2. That Calvinists have historically left the doctrine of Scripture le[a]st of all of those who have departed from it. Therefore, Calvinism is an important safeguard against heresy.
3. That the basis of unity cannot be merely a shared spiritual experience or shared evangelistic zeal. A man who is converted and is a means of conversion to others can be more dangerous to the health of the churches than an outright heretic if he mixes his zeal for the gospel with defective views of Scripture and half-heartedness about other major doctrines.
4. That a false sense of Christian love can lead people to a total lack of discernment in which they treat wolves like sheep and maintain alliances with those who are enemies of the gospel. This is to the inevitable detriment of the churches.
5. That worldliness and looseness are inevitably companions of theological disinterest and looseness
6. That evangelicals have to take their opposition seriously at a theological level and not merely respond by abuse. The absence of a theological answer to the higher critics gave the evangelicals the appearance of theological ignorance.
7. That the ministers often become corrupt before the people. 'As a general rule laymen were slower in accepting higher criticism than the ministers'.31 Even as late as the 1890's, 'there remained large numbers of laymen and some ministers who never accepted the new criticism even in principle'. 32 But, with the pulpits of their churches hijacked, the people were left to rot, with blind guides leading them to nowhere worth going.
8. That the dismal history of English evangelicals from 1900 to 1950 cannot be understood apart from this background of nineteenth-century compromise and failure. The present, comparatively healthier state of evangelicalism is closely connected to the 'revival' of Calvinism. All the present gains, however, could be rapidly lost if the lessons of the past are not remembered."
Thus ends R.J. Sheehan's helpful insight of the decline of evangelicalism in England in the nineteenth century. In the next instalment of "History a Warning to the Episcopalian Church of Sydney" I will attempt to observe the state of things today.
Sam Drucker
References:
20. Glover op. cit. p4L
21. ibid p. 36. 22.
22. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, August 1887, p 430.
23. Glover op. cit. pp 219-221.
24. Summary of Shindler, R. The Sword and Trowel, March 1887, p 122.
25. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, April 1887, pp 195-196.
26. Blomfeld, W. E. cited in Underwood, A. C. A History of English Baptists, 1947, Kingsgate Press, p 226.
27. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, December 1888, p 619.
28. Glover op. cit. .p 11.
29. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, February 1887, p 91.
30. Shindler, R. The Sword and Trowel, April 1887, p 170.
31. Glover op. cit. p 199.
32. ibid. p 217.
Friday, August 6, 2010
History a Warning to the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney (Part 2)
Herewith instalment 2 of the article by R. J. Sheehan in Issue 278, November 1986, of 'The Banner of Truth". Reference notations continue in sequence from the previous blog.
"2. THE REVIVAL EMPHASIS ON EXPERIENCE
One of the effects of the eighteenth-century revivals was to turn men from mere head-knowledge of Scripture and the creeds to a heart-knowledge of the God revealed therein. The preaching of the utter necessity of rebirth focused attention on religious experience. In the years following the revivals the tendency was to put emphasis upon a person's religious experience rather than his belief.
Experience-conscious evangelicals had little time for creeds. Their emphasis had not originated in a conscious desire for a creedless Christianity but this was its tendency. It was precisely that danger which had opened the door to Deism in the early eighteenth century and had enabled it to gain victories. At the end of the last century Robert Shindler warned evangelicals of the lessons from history,7 and C. H. Spurgeon pleaded for a creed distinctive enough to exclude the rationalists from non-conformist denominations, but failed to get a hearing in the anticipated creedal atmosphere of his day. 'The pietistic quality of the revival put primary emphasis on individual Christian experience and valued correct doctrine only as a means to the creation of such experience. As a result 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'. Evangelicals had a 'general lack of interest... in theology'.8
C. H. spurgeon noted the tendency to accept any doctrinal statement as long as the person who made it was, 'a clever man and a good-natured brother'.9
The nineteenth-century evangelicals argued against creeds and for a 'freer' view of Scripture on the grounds of freedom of conscience and the Protestant rule of the right of private interpretation. By rejecting creeds altogether - or accepting only such creeds as were sufficiently vague to mean little - the advocates of the higher-critical view of the Bible ousted the evangelicals from their dominant position in the denominations with hardly a fight.
3. THE REVIVAL EMPHASIS ON UNITY
One of the consequences of the eighteenth-century revivals was to unite evangelicals in a common faith and in a mutual desire to work together in missionary and evangelistic activity as well as in theological education. The desire for unity had not always been able to be realized during the revivals because of the contentions between the evangelists over the doctrines of grace. The eighteenth-century preachers had not been able to resolve this question. The nineteenth-century evangelicals generally gained unity by abandoning or modifying their Calvinism.
A study of the eighteenth-century advance of Deism makes it clear that it made least advance where Calvinism was strongly maintained.10 C. H. Spurgeon stated, 'We believe that Calvinism has in it a conservative force which holds men to vital truth'.11 In reviewing the nineteenth century, the neo-orthodox writer W. B. Glover acknowledged, 'Where Calvinism had been supreme, its decline left a theological vacuum'.12
Not only did the decline of Calvinism with its high view of scriptural authority make the higher critical view more easily accepted, but other doctrines began to be debased also. 'The awful sternness of the Calvinistic God gave place to milder ideas which may be summed up in the popular phrase 'the Fatherhood of God'. The emphasis on God's love and mercy went so far as to call in question the time honoured doctrine of eternal punishment'.13
The friends of higher criticism soon understood the antipathy towards Calvinism amongst many nineteenth-century evangelicals. Consequently when conservative evangelicals attacked the higher critics, they retorted by accusing them of Calvinism, and the general evangelical public accepted the charge. Constantly C. H. Spurgeon had to protest against this diverting ploy. 'The present struggle is not a debate upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men'.14
It is, however, undoubtedly true that if the Calvinists had maintained their strength within evangelicalism in the nineteenth century the higher critics would have had a more difficult task capturing evangelicalism. As it was, 'the theological uncertainty that accompanied the dissolution of Calvinism made the non-conformists less able and less anxious to defend traditional views from new views'.15
4. THE SUBTLETY OF THE ATTACK
The Christian church has often been able to defend itself much more easily from attacks from outside its ranks than from within its own number. Attacks from apparent friends are always less expected and more difficult both to detect and oppose. We have already noted that many of the leading advocates and friends of higher criticism had a reputation for gospel preaching.
The friends of higher criticism were often very cunning. They described their theology as, 'broad and full'16 rather than 'narrow and limited' like that of the Calvinists. James Dann attacked ministers who were unorthodox in doctrine but stayed in the churches to undermine the faith.17 That this happened is beyond dispute. W. B. Glover approved of this subversion. He wrote of, 'the tendency of some who were in advance of the general movement of opinion to hide their more unorthodox views from the public. This was unquestionably an instance of sound political sense.18 This ethically questionable procedure undoubtedly was successful in fooling the evangelicals in general.
The cunning of the higher critics was also seen in their concentration on the Old Testament. It was far easier to question the historicity and accuracy of Jonah than of our Lord. (Evangelicals still sometimes put the words of Jesus in red and the rest in black!). A full frontal attack on the gospels had to follow the undermining of the Old Testament, not precede it.
The decline of Calvinism also led to the promotion of worldliness. C. H. Spurgeon commented, 'The fact is that many would like to unite church and stage, cards and prayer, dancing and sacraments'.'' In this atmosphere of 'freer' life-style, conservatism in theology was not likely to prosper. Loose living and loose theology were not unconnected. To accept higher criticism was to be in fashion. To maintain the old evangelical doctrine of Scripture was to be an anachronism."
Instalment 3 to follow in a few days. Bear with me, this is all going somewhere.
Sam Drucker
7. Shindler, R. The Sword and Trowel, March 1887, p/) 122-126.
8. Glover op. cit. pp 93-4.
9. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, August 1887, p 400.
10. Shindler, R. The Sword and Trowel, April 1887, pp 170-171.
11. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, April 1887, pp 195-196.
12. Glover op. cit .p93.
13. ibid.p92.
14. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, April 1887, pp 195-196.
15. Glover op. cit. p 205.
16. J. B. Brown cited in Spurgeon, The Early Years, 1962, Banner of Truth, p 494.
17. Dann, J. The Sword and Trowel, April 1887, pp 172-174.
18. Glover op. cit. p 41.
19. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, August 1887, p 398.
"2. THE REVIVAL EMPHASIS ON EXPERIENCE
One of the effects of the eighteenth-century revivals was to turn men from mere head-knowledge of Scripture and the creeds to a heart-knowledge of the God revealed therein. The preaching of the utter necessity of rebirth focused attention on religious experience. In the years following the revivals the tendency was to put emphasis upon a person's religious experience rather than his belief.
Experience-conscious evangelicals had little time for creeds. Their emphasis had not originated in a conscious desire for a creedless Christianity but this was its tendency. It was precisely that danger which had opened the door to Deism in the early eighteenth century and had enabled it to gain victories. At the end of the last century Robert Shindler warned evangelicals of the lessons from history,7 and C. H. Spurgeon pleaded for a creed distinctive enough to exclude the rationalists from non-conformist denominations, but failed to get a hearing in the anticipated creedal atmosphere of his day. 'The pietistic quality of the revival put primary emphasis on individual Christian experience and valued correct doctrine only as a means to the creation of such experience. As a result 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'. Evangelicals had a 'general lack of interest... in theology'.8
C. H. spurgeon noted the tendency to accept any doctrinal statement as long as the person who made it was, 'a clever man and a good-natured brother'.9
The nineteenth-century evangelicals argued against creeds and for a 'freer' view of Scripture on the grounds of freedom of conscience and the Protestant rule of the right of private interpretation. By rejecting creeds altogether - or accepting only such creeds as were sufficiently vague to mean little - the advocates of the higher-critical view of the Bible ousted the evangelicals from their dominant position in the denominations with hardly a fight.
3. THE REVIVAL EMPHASIS ON UNITY
One of the consequences of the eighteenth-century revivals was to unite evangelicals in a common faith and in a mutual desire to work together in missionary and evangelistic activity as well as in theological education. The desire for unity had not always been able to be realized during the revivals because of the contentions between the evangelists over the doctrines of grace. The eighteenth-century preachers had not been able to resolve this question. The nineteenth-century evangelicals generally gained unity by abandoning or modifying their Calvinism.
A study of the eighteenth-century advance of Deism makes it clear that it made least advance where Calvinism was strongly maintained.10 C. H. Spurgeon stated, 'We believe that Calvinism has in it a conservative force which holds men to vital truth'.11 In reviewing the nineteenth century, the neo-orthodox writer W. B. Glover acknowledged, 'Where Calvinism had been supreme, its decline left a theological vacuum'.12
Not only did the decline of Calvinism with its high view of scriptural authority make the higher critical view more easily accepted, but other doctrines began to be debased also. 'The awful sternness of the Calvinistic God gave place to milder ideas which may be summed up in the popular phrase 'the Fatherhood of God'. The emphasis on God's love and mercy went so far as to call in question the time honoured doctrine of eternal punishment'.13
The friends of higher criticism soon understood the antipathy towards Calvinism amongst many nineteenth-century evangelicals. Consequently when conservative evangelicals attacked the higher critics, they retorted by accusing them of Calvinism, and the general evangelical public accepted the charge. Constantly C. H. Spurgeon had to protest against this diverting ploy. 'The present struggle is not a debate upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men'.14
It is, however, undoubtedly true that if the Calvinists had maintained their strength within evangelicalism in the nineteenth century the higher critics would have had a more difficult task capturing evangelicalism. As it was, 'the theological uncertainty that accompanied the dissolution of Calvinism made the non-conformists less able and less anxious to defend traditional views from new views'.15
4. THE SUBTLETY OF THE ATTACK
The Christian church has often been able to defend itself much more easily from attacks from outside its ranks than from within its own number. Attacks from apparent friends are always less expected and more difficult both to detect and oppose. We have already noted that many of the leading advocates and friends of higher criticism had a reputation for gospel preaching.
The friends of higher criticism were often very cunning. They described their theology as, 'broad and full'16 rather than 'narrow and limited' like that of the Calvinists. James Dann attacked ministers who were unorthodox in doctrine but stayed in the churches to undermine the faith.17 That this happened is beyond dispute. W. B. Glover approved of this subversion. He wrote of, 'the tendency of some who were in advance of the general movement of opinion to hide their more unorthodox views from the public. This was unquestionably an instance of sound political sense.18 This ethically questionable procedure undoubtedly was successful in fooling the evangelicals in general.
The cunning of the higher critics was also seen in their concentration on the Old Testament. It was far easier to question the historicity and accuracy of Jonah than of our Lord. (Evangelicals still sometimes put the words of Jesus in red and the rest in black!). A full frontal attack on the gospels had to follow the undermining of the Old Testament, not precede it.
The decline of Calvinism also led to the promotion of worldliness. C. H. Spurgeon commented, 'The fact is that many would like to unite church and stage, cards and prayer, dancing and sacraments'.'' In this atmosphere of 'freer' life-style, conservatism in theology was not likely to prosper. Loose living and loose theology were not unconnected. To accept higher criticism was to be in fashion. To maintain the old evangelical doctrine of Scripture was to be an anachronism."
Instalment 3 to follow in a few days. Bear with me, this is all going somewhere.
Sam Drucker
7. Shindler, R. The Sword and Trowel, March 1887, p/) 122-126.
8. Glover op. cit. pp 93-4.
9. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, August 1887, p 400.
10. Shindler, R. The Sword and Trowel, April 1887, pp 170-171.
11. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, April 1887, pp 195-196.
12. Glover op. cit .p93.
13. ibid.p92.
14. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, April 1887, pp 195-196.
15. Glover op. cit. p 205.
16. J. B. Brown cited in Spurgeon, The Early Years, 1962, Banner of Truth, p 494.
17. Dann, J. The Sword and Trowel, April 1887, pp 172-174.
18. Glover op. cit. p 41.
19. Spurgeon, C. H. The Sword and Trowel, August 1887, p 398.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
History a Warning to the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney (Part 1)
There are numerous papers on the the erosion of faith in the Word of God within the Evangelical Church in the past 150 years. Today I have chosen one by R. J. Sheehan in Issue 278, November 1986, of 'The Banner of Truth". What will be provided will be sufficient to give readers insight into a sorry movement within the Evangelical Church universal and resident in the Episcopalian Church of Sydney, Australia.
"The winds of rationalism swept through Europe in the eighteenth century's 'age of enlightenment' chilling the souls of men and giving birth to atheism, scepticism and Deism. But in England and Wales, through the mercy of God, light and warmth returned to the hearts of many in the Spirit-empowered 'Methodist' revivals, and faith seemed again to be 'on the march'.
The prospects for religious growth and progress as the nineteenth century dawned seemed very encouraging. The revivals of the eighteenth century had given evangelicals a sense of the reality and power of God. Most of the denominations were dominated by evangelicals. These evangelicals were largely, although not entirely, inclined away from hyper-Calvinism and desirous of making great advances in missionary work overseas and gospel ministry at home. Evangelicalism seemed strong and its future looked glorious.
Whatever divisions there were among the evangelicals over Calvinism, baptism, eschatology, etc., the evangelicals were easily distinguished by their common religious experience and their view of Scripture. 'Bound up inextricably with every phase of the religious experience of evangelicals, an experience that touched their lives at every significant point, was the Bible - a Bible that was not merely a source book for the early history of their religion, but a Bible that was the authoritative and infallible Word of God. Faith in the Bible was to the early evangelicals as fundamental as faith in God, and they made little distinction between the two. The inerrancy of the Bible was so intimate a part of their religious thought and life that a denial of it seemed to threaten the destruction of the faith itself.'1
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, therefore, English evangelicalism looked to be an inevitable enemy for the theological rationalism of the Higher Critical movement that was beginning to sweep through the German universities and churches.
It did not seem possible that the rationalistic view of the Scriptures as an ordinary book that could be questioned, contradicted and reconstructed could ever find acceptance with those who identified Scripture as the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of the living God. Yet by the mid-1890's, 'all of the major non-conformist bodies had survived the shock of higher criticism without schism. The new approach to the Bible had been accepted by the overwhelming majority of non-conformist leaders'.2
Not only had the non-conformist leaders capitulated but virtually all the theological institutions. By 1891, 'a close if unofficial surveillance was imposed upon potential candidates for positions in the Old Testament field in British Universities, and only those who displayed proper respect for the canons of critical orthodoxy were appointed to academic posts'.3
Outside of the universities, 'the new approach to the Bible . . . was taught in all the leading non-conformist colleges. Any Old Testament teacher who repudiated the new criticism was nothing more than an anachronism by 1895'.4 This process continued in the twentieth century, so that by 1932 a modernist 'gloried in the fact that there were no colleges left adhering to the position of the old evangelical confessions'.5
The question that we must ask is: how did the Higher Critical view of the Bible manage to overcome the evangelical view in such a short time and in such a powerful way?"
Sheehan goes on to provide six contributory factors to that outcome.
i) The Legacy of the 'Age of Enlightenment'
ii) The Revival Emphasis on Experience
iii) The Revival Emphasis on Unity
iv) The Subtlety of the Attack
v) The Blunders of the Conservative Evangelicals
vi) The Blunders of the Evangelicals in General
i) The Legacy of the 'Age of Enlightenment'
"Whereas it might have seemed to the evangelical world that the eighteenth-century revivals had swept away the infidelity of the rationalism of the earlier part of the eighteenth century, the rationalistic principle had simply been suppressed and not destroyed.
Rationalism had sought to remove mystery, miracle and antinomy from religion and to set fact and reason over against feeling and faith. It was accepted that the Bible contained some facts but that much of it had to be accepted only by faith. Pure rationalism accepted 'the facts' only and rejected 'the beliefs'. In its religious form this rationalistic approach meant the making of a distinction between the beliefs of the Bible which a person might desire to believe without proof and the statements of the Bible which had to be supported by evidence or else be rejected. The seeds of the dichotomy between 'the Christ of faith' and 'the Jesus of history' were beginning to enter religious consciousness based on the claim that the Bible contains two differing kinds of materials, namely, the historical record and the theological interpretations.
Some of the evangelicals of the nineteenth century began to maintain 'the theology of the Bible' with great tenacity whilst accepting that the history, geography and science of the Bible could be mistaken. The Bible, they believed, was infallible in theology but errant in fact. The higher critical method could, therefore, be applied to the Scriptures and a reconstruction of 'the facts' could be legitimately attempted. Thus the history of the Bible could supposedly be understood in terms of the theory of evolution and the Book's basic central message remain unchanged.
The evangelical public learned higher criticism not from atheists and sceptics but from men who upheld the basic theology of the Bible but not its factual inerrancy. 'The men who led England into a critical view of the Bible were men known for their theological orthodoxy'.6 As long as a man preached the 'gospel' he could find acceptance in evangelicalism. Many people found relief in being able to keep the great truths of the gospel whilst having to make no defence of the passages in the Bible that are difficult to harmonize or explain."
Some attempt must be made to keep blogs shorter so I will close this instalment here. There will likely be at least two more instalments in coming days.
Sam Drucker
References
1. Glover, W, R. Evangelical Non-conformity and Higher Criticism in the nineteenth century, 1954, Independent Press Ltd,/) 16.
2. ibid.p 213.
3. Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament, 1970, Tyndale Press, p 28.
4. Glover op. cit.p 213.
5. Murray, I. The Forgotten Spurgeon, 1966, Banner of Truth, p 163.
6. Glover op. cit. p213.
"The winds of rationalism swept through Europe in the eighteenth century's 'age of enlightenment' chilling the souls of men and giving birth to atheism, scepticism and Deism. But in England and Wales, through the mercy of God, light and warmth returned to the hearts of many in the Spirit-empowered 'Methodist' revivals, and faith seemed again to be 'on the march'.
The prospects for religious growth and progress as the nineteenth century dawned seemed very encouraging. The revivals of the eighteenth century had given evangelicals a sense of the reality and power of God. Most of the denominations were dominated by evangelicals. These evangelicals were largely, although not entirely, inclined away from hyper-Calvinism and desirous of making great advances in missionary work overseas and gospel ministry at home. Evangelicalism seemed strong and its future looked glorious.
Whatever divisions there were among the evangelicals over Calvinism, baptism, eschatology, etc., the evangelicals were easily distinguished by their common religious experience and their view of Scripture. 'Bound up inextricably with every phase of the religious experience of evangelicals, an experience that touched their lives at every significant point, was the Bible - a Bible that was not merely a source book for the early history of their religion, but a Bible that was the authoritative and infallible Word of God. Faith in the Bible was to the early evangelicals as fundamental as faith in God, and they made little distinction between the two. The inerrancy of the Bible was so intimate a part of their religious thought and life that a denial of it seemed to threaten the destruction of the faith itself.'1
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, therefore, English evangelicalism looked to be an inevitable enemy for the theological rationalism of the Higher Critical movement that was beginning to sweep through the German universities and churches.
It did not seem possible that the rationalistic view of the Scriptures as an ordinary book that could be questioned, contradicted and reconstructed could ever find acceptance with those who identified Scripture as the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of the living God. Yet by the mid-1890's, 'all of the major non-conformist bodies had survived the shock of higher criticism without schism. The new approach to the Bible had been accepted by the overwhelming majority of non-conformist leaders'.2
Not only had the non-conformist leaders capitulated but virtually all the theological institutions. By 1891, 'a close if unofficial surveillance was imposed upon potential candidates for positions in the Old Testament field in British Universities, and only those who displayed proper respect for the canons of critical orthodoxy were appointed to academic posts'.3
Outside of the universities, 'the new approach to the Bible . . . was taught in all the leading non-conformist colleges. Any Old Testament teacher who repudiated the new criticism was nothing more than an anachronism by 1895'.4 This process continued in the twentieth century, so that by 1932 a modernist 'gloried in the fact that there were no colleges left adhering to the position of the old evangelical confessions'.5
The question that we must ask is: how did the Higher Critical view of the Bible manage to overcome the evangelical view in such a short time and in such a powerful way?"
Sheehan goes on to provide six contributory factors to that outcome.
i) The Legacy of the 'Age of Enlightenment'
ii) The Revival Emphasis on Experience
iii) The Revival Emphasis on Unity
iv) The Subtlety of the Attack
v) The Blunders of the Conservative Evangelicals
vi) The Blunders of the Evangelicals in General
i) The Legacy of the 'Age of Enlightenment'
"Whereas it might have seemed to the evangelical world that the eighteenth-century revivals had swept away the infidelity of the rationalism of the earlier part of the eighteenth century, the rationalistic principle had simply been suppressed and not destroyed.
Rationalism had sought to remove mystery, miracle and antinomy from religion and to set fact and reason over against feeling and faith. It was accepted that the Bible contained some facts but that much of it had to be accepted only by faith. Pure rationalism accepted 'the facts' only and rejected 'the beliefs'. In its religious form this rationalistic approach meant the making of a distinction between the beliefs of the Bible which a person might desire to believe without proof and the statements of the Bible which had to be supported by evidence or else be rejected. The seeds of the dichotomy between 'the Christ of faith' and 'the Jesus of history' were beginning to enter religious consciousness based on the claim that the Bible contains two differing kinds of materials, namely, the historical record and the theological interpretations.
Some of the evangelicals of the nineteenth century began to maintain 'the theology of the Bible' with great tenacity whilst accepting that the history, geography and science of the Bible could be mistaken. The Bible, they believed, was infallible in theology but errant in fact. The higher critical method could, therefore, be applied to the Scriptures and a reconstruction of 'the facts' could be legitimately attempted. Thus the history of the Bible could supposedly be understood in terms of the theory of evolution and the Book's basic central message remain unchanged.
The evangelical public learned higher criticism not from atheists and sceptics but from men who upheld the basic theology of the Bible but not its factual inerrancy. 'The men who led England into a critical view of the Bible were men known for their theological orthodoxy'.6 As long as a man preached the 'gospel' he could find acceptance in evangelicalism. Many people found relief in being able to keep the great truths of the gospel whilst having to make no defence of the passages in the Bible that are difficult to harmonize or explain."
Some attempt must be made to keep blogs shorter so I will close this instalment here. There will likely be at least two more instalments in coming days.
Sam Drucker
References
1. Glover, W, R. Evangelical Non-conformity and Higher Criticism in the nineteenth century, 1954, Independent Press Ltd,/) 16.
2. ibid.p 213.
3. Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament, 1970, Tyndale Press, p 28.
4. Glover op. cit.p 213.
5. Murray, I. The Forgotten Spurgeon, 1966, Banner of Truth, p 163.
6. Glover op. cit. p213.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Leupold Genesis part 37 verse 7
7. And God made the firmament and He caused a division between the waters under the firmament and the waters above the firmament: and it was so.
With a certain measure of circumstantiality the author reports in detail that God actually made those things-that He had bidden come into being. This now does not imply that the initial word (v. 6), "Let there be a firmament," was inadequate to cause it to come into being, and so God actually had to "make" ('asah) it. This mode of statement of v. 7 merely unfolds in greater detail that the initial command to come into being involved, the full exercise of God's creative power, which continued operative after the word had been spoken until the work was brought to completion. For "he made" ('asah) dare not be construed, as involving a mode of operation radically different from creating (bara'), for a comparison of the use of the two verbs in v. 21 and in v. 25 shows that they may be used interchangeably. From one point of view one and the same task is created, i. e. is one of those marvellous, epoch-making achievements characteristic of God; from another point of view this task is made, i. e. God-employs His almighty power and energy to carry it through till it is completed.
A textual problem needs to be considered here. Kit. in the margin suggests removing the "and it was so" (wayhi khen) from the end of v. 7 and appending it to the end of v. 6 after the example of the Septuagint translators and after the analogy of v. 9, 11, 15, 24, 30, where it is inserted before the actual carrying out of the thing ordained is reported. However, though a certain quite stereotyped pattern is followed by the author throughout the account in recounting the work of the individual days, the adherence to fixed forms need not be so rigid as to preclude the slightest departure from them. The situation at the close of v. 26 is the same as that of our verse. There the Greek translators did not insert the wayhi khen, proving themselves inconsistent in their corrective endeavours. The text here needs no improvement.
No effort should be made to render literally the compound preposition mittsschath le, "from under to." Mittsschat alone means only "under." Compound prepositions are wont to be followed by le (K. S. 281 p, and G. K. 119 c2).
With a certain measure of circumstantiality the author reports in detail that God actually made those things-that He had bidden come into being. This now does not imply that the initial word (v. 6), "Let there be a firmament," was inadequate to cause it to come into being, and so God actually had to "make" ('asah) it. This mode of statement of v. 7 merely unfolds in greater detail that the initial command to come into being involved, the full exercise of God's creative power, which continued operative after the word had been spoken until the work was brought to completion. For "he made" ('asah) dare not be construed, as involving a mode of operation radically different from creating (bara'), for a comparison of the use of the two verbs in v. 21 and in v. 25 shows that they may be used interchangeably. From one point of view one and the same task is created, i. e. is one of those marvellous, epoch-making achievements characteristic of God; from another point of view this task is made, i. e. God-employs His almighty power and energy to carry it through till it is completed.
A textual problem needs to be considered here. Kit. in the margin suggests removing the "and it was so" (wayhi khen) from the end of v. 7 and appending it to the end of v. 6 after the example of the Septuagint translators and after the analogy of v. 9, 11, 15, 24, 30, where it is inserted before the actual carrying out of the thing ordained is reported. However, though a certain quite stereotyped pattern is followed by the author throughout the account in recounting the work of the individual days, the adherence to fixed forms need not be so rigid as to preclude the slightest departure from them. The situation at the close of v. 26 is the same as that of our verse. There the Greek translators did not insert the wayhi khen, proving themselves inconsistent in their corrective endeavours. The text here needs no improvement.
No effort should be made to render literally the compound preposition mittsschath le, "from under to." Mittsschat alone means only "under." Compound prepositions are wont to be followed by le (K. S. 281 p, and G. K. 119 c2).
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
How Religions Relate
The article by Ian Mcfadyen is a couple of years old but still very much relevant. Note the many parallels with the religion of Darwinism and its influence on the thinking and actions of the world.
Sam Drucker
Sam Drucker
Thursday, July 22, 2010
When 'Black' is 'White'
The surprise birth of a 'fair coloured' child to 'black coloured' parents announced in the UK this week presents no problems for the Biblical Creationist position but presents problems for elements of Darwinism nowadays 'swept under the carpet.'
Assuming no infidelity on the part of the mother, Geneticists were left to declare that a mutant gene was at work to produce a child with 'fair coloured' skin to parents of 'black coloured' skin.
Let us be clear, there is only one skin colour - the pigment called melanin - and there is only one human race. If the first humans had a content of melanin giving the appearance of 'mid brown colour', potential then existed to produce apparent 'skin colour' in descendants extending from 'mid brown' to 'black' in one direction to 'albino' in the other direction. This, then, gives scope to produce a genetic recession to a 'fair colour' in the child reported this week in the UK.
One of the sad chapters of Darwinism is (and perhaps remains with some Darwinists today) the belief that 'fair coloured' humans were more advanced or evolved than 'black coloured' humans. This led to racism and abuses of 'blacks.' Sadly, some Christians fell for this erroneous world view and were as guilty as secular proponents of racism.
It was ironic to hear the Geneticist, commenting on the recent incident reported in the UK, say that the 'fair coloured' child was, in effect, a mutation. This, in its way, is a reversal of the past perception of 'fair coloured' people.
Neil
Assuming no infidelity on the part of the mother, Geneticists were left to declare that a mutant gene was at work to produce a child with 'fair coloured' skin to parents of 'black coloured' skin.
Let us be clear, there is only one skin colour - the pigment called melanin - and there is only one human race. If the first humans had a content of melanin giving the appearance of 'mid brown colour', potential then existed to produce apparent 'skin colour' in descendants extending from 'mid brown' to 'black' in one direction to 'albino' in the other direction. This, then, gives scope to produce a genetic recession to a 'fair colour' in the child reported this week in the UK.
One of the sad chapters of Darwinism is (and perhaps remains with some Darwinists today) the belief that 'fair coloured' humans were more advanced or evolved than 'black coloured' humans. This led to racism and abuses of 'blacks.' Sadly, some Christians fell for this erroneous world view and were as guilty as secular proponents of racism.
It was ironic to hear the Geneticist, commenting on the recent incident reported in the UK, say that the 'fair coloured' child was, in effect, a mutation. This, in its way, is a reversal of the past perception of 'fair coloured' people.
Neil
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Sydney Episcopalians - "Take Courage! It is I. Don't Be Afraid."
"Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray.
When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw him and were terrified.
Immediately he spoke to them and said, 'Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid.' Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened." (Mark 6:45-52)
Mark records this incident immediately after recording the incident of the "Feeding of the Five Thousand" and it is clear to him that there is a connection. The connection is just who it was in the midst of the disciples and the disciples' failure to recognize him.
The feeding of the five thousand was instructive yet the disciples failed to grasp the significance. To draw from Temple, "Every Evangelist supposed our Lord to have wrought a creative act; and for myself, I have no doubt that this is what occurred. This, however, is credible only if St. John is right in his doctrine of the Lord's Person. If the Lord was indeed God incarnate, the story presents no insuperable difficulties." (W. Temple, Readings in St. John's Gospel [London: Macmillan, 1940], p. 75).
According to John, the five loaves were barley bread (John 6:9). The general view is that barley loaves were not like the sizable loaves of bread seen today but were small and flat. Consequently, a more than plentiful supply was necessary from the hand of our Lord to sate the appetite of each present and to have loaves and fishes left over.
Grasp what had occurred here. It was not the practice of Jews to eat raw fish and the bread eaten in daily life was the result of blending raw ingredients of grain, olive oil, water or milk, usually then flattened and subsequently baked. Before the eyes of the disciples and the crowd our Lord instantaneously recreated and even multiplied finite objects without need of time consuming processes of preparation and cooking. Here, in their presence, stood the Sovereign Lord of the universe, the Creator of all things, yet they grasped it not.
Here was an act, among other purposes, intended to convince the audience that the One who created all things instantaneously "In the Beginning" was in their presence. Matter i.e. material substance was no barrier to His will. No, it was subject to His will, even a product of His will.
The subsequent incident recorded by Mark of our Lord walking on water exposed the failure of the disciples to recognize who it was among them for they were, at first, terrified then completely amazed when he got into the boat. They should have known after the feeding of the five thousand but they didn't. Their hearts were hardened. As such, they were no better off as to faith as were the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law. Mark purposely makes this point.
There is a substantial lesson to be learned here for those Sydney Episcopalians who are Theistic Evolutionists and, thus, whose limited faith causes them not to recognise the Lord's Person and Will mirror imaged in the account of Creation and incidents such as the feeding of the five thousand and walking on water. Hardened hearts prevent reception of full revelation of the Lord of the universe and are injurious to the need of lost.
Sam Drucker
When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw him and were terrified.
Immediately he spoke to them and said, 'Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid.' Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened." (Mark 6:45-52)
Mark records this incident immediately after recording the incident of the "Feeding of the Five Thousand" and it is clear to him that there is a connection. The connection is just who it was in the midst of the disciples and the disciples' failure to recognize him.
The feeding of the five thousand was instructive yet the disciples failed to grasp the significance. To draw from Temple, "Every Evangelist supposed our Lord to have wrought a creative act; and for myself, I have no doubt that this is what occurred. This, however, is credible only if St. John is right in his doctrine of the Lord's Person. If the Lord was indeed God incarnate, the story presents no insuperable difficulties." (W. Temple, Readings in St. John's Gospel [London: Macmillan, 1940], p. 75).
According to John, the five loaves were barley bread (John 6:9). The general view is that barley loaves were not like the sizable loaves of bread seen today but were small and flat. Consequently, a more than plentiful supply was necessary from the hand of our Lord to sate the appetite of each present and to have loaves and fishes left over.
Grasp what had occurred here. It was not the practice of Jews to eat raw fish and the bread eaten in daily life was the result of blending raw ingredients of grain, olive oil, water or milk, usually then flattened and subsequently baked. Before the eyes of the disciples and the crowd our Lord instantaneously recreated and even multiplied finite objects without need of time consuming processes of preparation and cooking. Here, in their presence, stood the Sovereign Lord of the universe, the Creator of all things, yet they grasped it not.
Here was an act, among other purposes, intended to convince the audience that the One who created all things instantaneously "In the Beginning" was in their presence. Matter i.e. material substance was no barrier to His will. No, it was subject to His will, even a product of His will.
The subsequent incident recorded by Mark of our Lord walking on water exposed the failure of the disciples to recognize who it was among them for they were, at first, terrified then completely amazed when he got into the boat. They should have known after the feeding of the five thousand but they didn't. Their hearts were hardened. As such, they were no better off as to faith as were the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law. Mark purposely makes this point.
There is a substantial lesson to be learned here for those Sydney Episcopalians who are Theistic Evolutionists and, thus, whose limited faith causes them not to recognise the Lord's Person and Will mirror imaged in the account of Creation and incidents such as the feeding of the five thousand and walking on water. Hardened hearts prevent reception of full revelation of the Lord of the universe and are injurious to the need of lost.
Sam Drucker
Friday, July 16, 2010
Finding of Science Once Again Affirms Bible
The discovery announced by British Scientists yesterday that the "Chicken came before the Egg" will come as no surprise to Biblical Creationists.
Had the scientists come and asked Biblical Creationists some time ago a lot of money and time would have been saved because advice given would have enabled scientists to direct money and time on researching the chicken for the answer while discarding the egg as the origin source.
The Bible says that the creatures were made as they were with capacity to reproduce after their kind. Obviously, the chicken came before the egg. We knew all that!
Neil
Had the scientists come and asked Biblical Creationists some time ago a lot of money and time would have been saved because advice given would have enabled scientists to direct money and time on researching the chicken for the answer while discarding the egg as the origin source.
The Bible says that the creatures were made as they were with capacity to reproduce after their kind. Obviously, the chicken came before the egg. We knew all that!
Neil
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Leupold Genesis part 36 verse 6 Day 2
Now follows in v. 6-8 the creative work of the second day, the creation of the firmament or the lower heavens (Erdhimmel).
6. And God said: Let there be a firmament in middle of the waters, and let it be causing a division between waters and waters.
Again a creative word having the same power as the one of the first day, in reference to which Luther said: "God does not speak grammatical words but real things that actually exist." The "firmament" that results is called raqia'. It comes from the root meaning "to hammer" or "to spread out." Therefore, by some the word is rendered "expanse." Our "firmament" is from the translation of the Vulgate, firmamentum, which involves the idea of something that firmly put in place. The Greek sterewma conveys same idea. Yet the raqia' is the vault or dome of the heavens, or "that immense gaseous ocean, called the atmosphere, by which the earth is encircled" (Whitelaw). That so widely differing definitions as "dome" and "gaseous ocean" can be given in one breath is due to the fact, that whole set of physical laws is involved which makes the lower heavens possible: an air space encircling the earth, evaporation of waters, rising of gaseous vapours, etc. For the purpose of the firmament is declared to be that it be "in the middle of the waters" and "causing a division between waters and waters." Apparently, before this firmament existed, the earth waters on the surface of the earth and the cloud waters as we now know them were contiguous without an intervening clear air space. It was a situation like a dense fog upon the surface of the waters. Clear vision of all except the very nearest objects must have been impossible. Free activity unhampered by the fog blanket would have been impossible. Man would not have had an appropriate sphere for activity, nor could sunlight have penetrated freely to do its beneficent and cheering work. Now the physical laws that cause clouds and keep them suspended go into operation. These clouds constitute the upper waters. The solid masses of water collected upon earth constitute the lower waters. He who has observed that the heavens may pour down unbelievable quantities of waters will not hesitate to call these upper lighter cloud masses "waters" also. The languages familiar to us have the same viewpoint as v. 8, which calls this firmament "heavens." The cloud heaven is the one we mean. The English word "heaven" is from the root "to heave" or "lift up."
Very queer constructions have been put upon this raqia'. A. Jeremias wrapped up in his speculations on Babylonian mythology and the great importance the signs of the zodiac played in Babylonian thought, identifies the raqia' with the zodiac (Tierkreis). A sober reading of the definition v. 6-8 gives of the "firmament" ought to make such an attempt impossible. Far more common is that view which imputes singular crudities to the Biblical narrative at this point. Let Dillmann furnish the picture: The raqia'" was in olden times conceived of as made out of more or less solid matter, firm as a mirror of glass, ... supported by the highest mountains as by pillars ... having openings," namely the windows of heaven through which rain might be dropped upon the earth. But in spite of passages like (Re 4:6; 15:2; 22:1) there is no doctrine of the Scriptures to the effect that there were "ethereal waters," and though the "windows of heaven" are referred to (Ge 7:11; Ps 78:23; 2Ki 7:2; Isa 24:18), these purely figurative expressions (also e. g. (Job 26:11)) are such as we can still use with perfect propriety, and yet to impute to us notions of a crude view of supernal waters stored in heavenly reservoirs would be as unjust at it is to impute such opinions to the writers of the Biblical books, The holy writers deserve at least the benefit of the doubt, especially when poetic passages are involved. Again: the view expressed in this verse is not crude, absurd, or in any wise deficient. Its simple meaning has been shown above.
The expression wihi mabhdil, "and let it be causing a division," presents a very strong case where the participle is used to express duration or permanence of a certain relationship (K. S. 239 b; G. K. 116 r). Yehi is repeated to make the separate parts of the process stand out more distinctly (K. S. 370 s).
6. And God said: Let there be a firmament in middle of the waters, and let it be causing a division between waters and waters.
Again a creative word having the same power as the one of the first day, in reference to which Luther said: "God does not speak grammatical words but real things that actually exist." The "firmament" that results is called raqia'. It comes from the root meaning "to hammer" or "to spread out." Therefore, by some the word is rendered "expanse." Our "firmament" is from the translation of the Vulgate, firmamentum, which involves the idea of something that firmly put in place. The Greek sterewma conveys same idea. Yet the raqia' is the vault or dome of the heavens, or "that immense gaseous ocean, called the atmosphere, by which the earth is encircled" (Whitelaw). That so widely differing definitions as "dome" and "gaseous ocean" can be given in one breath is due to the fact, that whole set of physical laws is involved which makes the lower heavens possible: an air space encircling the earth, evaporation of waters, rising of gaseous vapours, etc. For the purpose of the firmament is declared to be that it be "in the middle of the waters" and "causing a division between waters and waters." Apparently, before this firmament existed, the earth waters on the surface of the earth and the cloud waters as we now know them were contiguous without an intervening clear air space. It was a situation like a dense fog upon the surface of the waters. Clear vision of all except the very nearest objects must have been impossible. Free activity unhampered by the fog blanket would have been impossible. Man would not have had an appropriate sphere for activity, nor could sunlight have penetrated freely to do its beneficent and cheering work. Now the physical laws that cause clouds and keep them suspended go into operation. These clouds constitute the upper waters. The solid masses of water collected upon earth constitute the lower waters. He who has observed that the heavens may pour down unbelievable quantities of waters will not hesitate to call these upper lighter cloud masses "waters" also. The languages familiar to us have the same viewpoint as v. 8, which calls this firmament "heavens." The cloud heaven is the one we mean. The English word "heaven" is from the root "to heave" or "lift up."
Very queer constructions have been put upon this raqia'. A. Jeremias wrapped up in his speculations on Babylonian mythology and the great importance the signs of the zodiac played in Babylonian thought, identifies the raqia' with the zodiac (Tierkreis). A sober reading of the definition v. 6-8 gives of the "firmament" ought to make such an attempt impossible. Far more common is that view which imputes singular crudities to the Biblical narrative at this point. Let Dillmann furnish the picture: The raqia'" was in olden times conceived of as made out of more or less solid matter, firm as a mirror of glass, ... supported by the highest mountains as by pillars ... having openings," namely the windows of heaven through which rain might be dropped upon the earth. But in spite of passages like (Re 4:6; 15:2; 22:1) there is no doctrine of the Scriptures to the effect that there were "ethereal waters," and though the "windows of heaven" are referred to (Ge 7:11; Ps 78:23; 2Ki 7:2; Isa 24:18), these purely figurative expressions (also e. g. (Job 26:11)) are such as we can still use with perfect propriety, and yet to impute to us notions of a crude view of supernal waters stored in heavenly reservoirs would be as unjust at it is to impute such opinions to the writers of the Biblical books, The holy writers deserve at least the benefit of the doubt, especially when poetic passages are involved. Again: the view expressed in this verse is not crude, absurd, or in any wise deficient. Its simple meaning has been shown above.
The expression wihi mabhdil, "and let it be causing a division," presents a very strong case where the participle is used to express duration or permanence of a certain relationship (K. S. 239 b; G. K. 116 r). Yehi is repeated to make the separate parts of the process stand out more distinctly (K. S. 370 s).
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Sydney Episcopalians Throwing Calvin at Natural Theology
Our Lord told a crowd the Parable of the Sower (or Soils). Later, his disciples came to him and asked him about the parable as follows:
When he was alone, the twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' " Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?" (Mark 4:10-13)
A constant expression of alarm is raised by graduates of Moore Theological College (the theological seminary of choice for Sydney Episcopalians) when Christians affirm evangelising the lost by means of Natural Theology. Any reference to Romans 1:20 (For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse) as sufficient recourse for such evangelism is countered with John Calvin who said: "Wherefore, the apostle, in the very place where he says that the worlds are images of invisible things, adds that it is by faith we understand that they were framed by the word of God (Heb. 11:3); thereby intimating that the invisible Godhead is indeed represented by such displays, but that we have no eyes to perceive it until they are enlightened through faith by internal revelation from God. When Paul says that that which may be known of God is manifested by the creation of the world, he does not mean such a manifestation as may be comprehended by the wit of man (Rom. 1:19); on the contrary, he shows that it has no further effect than to render us inexcusable (Acts 17:27). (Calvin's Institutes Ch 5)
Oh! How they pick and choose from Calvin's doctrine. Remember how they reject Calvin's acceptance of six days of twenty four hours duration for the Creation event and his acceptance of it occurring some six thousand years ago? They play fast and loose with Calvin yet declare themselves to be Calvinist in doctrine.
Well, for the exercise, let me test their credibility a little further.
Accepting Calvin's proposition that, in effect, man is so far fallen he is unable to discern God from observing the creation without the light of faith from God where then does that leave man when attempting to discern God from Scripture without light from God? In my opinion he is in the very same position. Without being enlightened through faith by internal revelation from God man is as much able to come under conviction of the reality of God through Scripture as a dog is able to discern the nutritional value of a can of dog food by looking at the list of contents on the label.
Consider our Lord Jesus' disciples of whom "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given." You would think that such an affirmation of their privileged position would have them well placed to understand the parables. But, no, they were no better in understanding than unbelievers, no better in understanding than those who sought death for our Lord. It required the light of explanation from our Lord for understanding. It later required light from the Holy Spirit to teach them all things and remind them of everything he said to them.
The thoroughgoing Calvinist must accept we are all so far fallen that, without the light of faith from God, there is no way we would receive the gospel of Jesus Christ with the conviction it requires.
This then poses a question for Christians engaging in evangelism. What message is God prepared to use to enlighten through faith by internal revelation?
In Athens, through the Apostle Paul, it was not immediately the message of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead but more immediately something akin to Natural Theology through explanation of a Creator of all things. Only this message, followed by the message of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, provoked some hearers to inquire further. The rest of the audience, in ignorance, sneered.
Consider, Sydney Episcopalians, the parables of our Lord Jesus Christ which you have used in evangelism. Are not many of his parables drawn from the natural order of life? The parable of the sower, the growing seed, the mustard seed, the yeast, the lost sheep and others involving man made objects and human relations are drawn from the natural order of life. Our Lord was not averse to evangelising with deference to Natural Theology so why do you criticise those who are likewise inclined?
You are in error to criticise your brethren who use Natural Theology and you are inconsistent. Criticism is only due if Natural Theology is confined only to that and has no intention to inflame a spark of interest by expounding all of Christ Jesus. For some hearers, only so much will be taken in one sitting and, though willing to say more, we must be wise to the situation. It is for God to use the means to enlighten through faith by internal revelation and we must leave to God that which is his.
Before closing I want to suggest a reason why many Sydney Episcopalians recoil at Natural Theology. Discussion with several reveals a lack of confidence in understanding the natural world and its relationship with God. This follows from their adoption of the chaotic proposition of Darwinism and trying to fit that with a God of order. Most will honestly admit difficulties they have in accommodating their view of the natural world and the revelation of God in Scripture. This is all a product of their making.
Sydney Episcopalians, your approach to evangelism and your understanding of the Creator God is confused and because of this you resort to a narrow revelation of God in Jesus Christ. In such a sorry state you ought not impose your limitations on your brethren nor on the will of God.
Sam Drucker
When he was alone, the twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' " Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?" (Mark 4:10-13)
A constant expression of alarm is raised by graduates of Moore Theological College (the theological seminary of choice for Sydney Episcopalians) when Christians affirm evangelising the lost by means of Natural Theology. Any reference to Romans 1:20 (For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse) as sufficient recourse for such evangelism is countered with John Calvin who said: "Wherefore, the apostle, in the very place where he says that the worlds are images of invisible things, adds that it is by faith we understand that they were framed by the word of God (Heb. 11:3); thereby intimating that the invisible Godhead is indeed represented by such displays, but that we have no eyes to perceive it until they are enlightened through faith by internal revelation from God. When Paul says that that which may be known of God is manifested by the creation of the world, he does not mean such a manifestation as may be comprehended by the wit of man (Rom. 1:19); on the contrary, he shows that it has no further effect than to render us inexcusable (Acts 17:27). (Calvin's Institutes Ch 5)
Oh! How they pick and choose from Calvin's doctrine. Remember how they reject Calvin's acceptance of six days of twenty four hours duration for the Creation event and his acceptance of it occurring some six thousand years ago? They play fast and loose with Calvin yet declare themselves to be Calvinist in doctrine.
Well, for the exercise, let me test their credibility a little further.
Accepting Calvin's proposition that, in effect, man is so far fallen he is unable to discern God from observing the creation without the light of faith from God where then does that leave man when attempting to discern God from Scripture without light from God? In my opinion he is in the very same position. Without being enlightened through faith by internal revelation from God man is as much able to come under conviction of the reality of God through Scripture as a dog is able to discern the nutritional value of a can of dog food by looking at the list of contents on the label.
Consider our Lord Jesus' disciples of whom "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given." You would think that such an affirmation of their privileged position would have them well placed to understand the parables. But, no, they were no better in understanding than unbelievers, no better in understanding than those who sought death for our Lord. It required the light of explanation from our Lord for understanding. It later required light from the Holy Spirit to teach them all things and remind them of everything he said to them.
The thoroughgoing Calvinist must accept we are all so far fallen that, without the light of faith from God, there is no way we would receive the gospel of Jesus Christ with the conviction it requires.
This then poses a question for Christians engaging in evangelism. What message is God prepared to use to enlighten through faith by internal revelation?
In Athens, through the Apostle Paul, it was not immediately the message of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead but more immediately something akin to Natural Theology through explanation of a Creator of all things. Only this message, followed by the message of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, provoked some hearers to inquire further. The rest of the audience, in ignorance, sneered.
Consider, Sydney Episcopalians, the parables of our Lord Jesus Christ which you have used in evangelism. Are not many of his parables drawn from the natural order of life? The parable of the sower, the growing seed, the mustard seed, the yeast, the lost sheep and others involving man made objects and human relations are drawn from the natural order of life. Our Lord was not averse to evangelising with deference to Natural Theology so why do you criticise those who are likewise inclined?
You are in error to criticise your brethren who use Natural Theology and you are inconsistent. Criticism is only due if Natural Theology is confined only to that and has no intention to inflame a spark of interest by expounding all of Christ Jesus. For some hearers, only so much will be taken in one sitting and, though willing to say more, we must be wise to the situation. It is for God to use the means to enlighten through faith by internal revelation and we must leave to God that which is his.
Before closing I want to suggest a reason why many Sydney Episcopalians recoil at Natural Theology. Discussion with several reveals a lack of confidence in understanding the natural world and its relationship with God. This follows from their adoption of the chaotic proposition of Darwinism and trying to fit that with a God of order. Most will honestly admit difficulties they have in accommodating their view of the natural world and the revelation of God in Scripture. This is all a product of their making.
Sydney Episcopalians, your approach to evangelism and your understanding of the Creator God is confused and because of this you resort to a narrow revelation of God in Jesus Christ. In such a sorry state you ought not impose your limitations on your brethren nor on the will of God.
Sam Drucker
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Leupold Genesis part 35 verse 5 'yom' and 'period'
There ought to be no need of refuting the idea that yom means period. Reputable dictionaries like Buhl, B D B or K. W. know nothing of this notion. Hebrew dictionaries are our primary source of reliable information concerning Hebrew words. Commentators with critical leanings utter statements that are very decided in this instance. Says Skinner: "The interpretation of yom as aeon, a favourite resource of harmonists of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain sense of the passage and has no warrant in Hebrew usage." Dillmann remarks: "The reasons advanced by ancient and modern writers for construing these days to be longer periods of time are inadequate." There is one other meaning of the word "day" which some misapprehend by failing to think through its exact bearing: yom may mean "time" in a very general way, as in 2:4 beyom, or Isa. 11:16; cf. B D B, p. 399, No. 6, for. numerous illustrations. But that use-cannot substantiate so utterly different an idea as "period." These two conceptions lie far apart. References to expressions like "the day of the Lord" fail to invalidate our contentions above. For "the day of the Lord." as B D B rightly defines, p. 399, No. 3, is regarded "chiefly as the time of His coming in judgment, involving often blessedness for the righteous."
Other arguments to the contrary carry very little weight. If it be claimed that some works can with difficulty be compressed within twenty-four hours, like those of the third day or the sixth, that claim may well be described as a purely subjective opinion. He that desires to reason it out as possible can assemble fully as many arguments as he who holds the opposite opinion. Or if it be claimed that "the duration of the seventh day determines the rest," let it be noted that nothing is stated about the duration of the seventh. This happens to be an argument from silence, and therefore it is exceptionally weak. Or again, if it be claimed that "the argument of the fourth (our third) commandment confirms this probability," we find in this commandment even stronger confirmation of our contention: six twenty-four hour days followed by one such day of rest alone can furnish a proper analogy for our labouring six days and resting on the seventh day; periods furnish a poor analogy for days. Finally, the contention that our conception "contradicts geology" is inaccurate. It merely contradicts one school of thought in the field of geology, a school of thought of which we are convinced that it is hopelessly entangled in misconceptions which grow out of attempts to co-ordinate the actual findings of geology with an evolutionistic conception of what geology should be, and so is for the present thrown into a complete misreading of the available evidence, even as history, anthropology, Old Testament studies and many other sciences have been derailed and mired by the same attempt. We believe that writers on the subject like Price and Nelson deserve far more consideration than is being accorded them.
Other arguments to the contrary carry very little weight. If it be claimed that some works can with difficulty be compressed within twenty-four hours, like those of the third day or the sixth, that claim may well be described as a purely subjective opinion. He that desires to reason it out as possible can assemble fully as many arguments as he who holds the opposite opinion. Or if it be claimed that "the duration of the seventh day determines the rest," let it be noted that nothing is stated about the duration of the seventh. This happens to be an argument from silence, and therefore it is exceptionally weak. Or again, if it be claimed that "the argument of the fourth (our third) commandment confirms this probability," we find in this commandment even stronger confirmation of our contention: six twenty-four hour days followed by one such day of rest alone can furnish a proper analogy for our labouring six days and resting on the seventh day; periods furnish a poor analogy for days. Finally, the contention that our conception "contradicts geology" is inaccurate. It merely contradicts one school of thought in the field of geology, a school of thought of which we are convinced that it is hopelessly entangled in misconceptions which grow out of attempts to co-ordinate the actual findings of geology with an evolutionistic conception of what geology should be, and so is for the present thrown into a complete misreading of the available evidence, even as history, anthropology, Old Testament studies and many other sciences have been derailed and mired by the same attempt. We believe that writers on the subject like Price and Nelson deserve far more consideration than is being accorded them.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Jehovah Jireh
It's been a while since I posted here but couldn't help thinking when reading the following words in Deuteronomy 6:10 to12:
When the Lord your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you—a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant—then when you eat and are satisfied, be careful that you do not forget the Lord, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
Everything was provided by God for Israel complete, intact, functioning when entering and commencing life in the Promised Land. Reminds me about the Creation where everything was provided by God for man complete, intact, functioning at the commencement of life on earth.
Gwen
When the Lord your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you—a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant—then when you eat and are satisfied, be careful that you do not forget the Lord, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
Everything was provided by God for Israel complete, intact, functioning when entering and commencing life in the Promised Land. Reminds me about the Creation where everything was provided by God for man complete, intact, functioning at the commencement of life on earth.
Gwen
Monday, June 21, 2010
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
The question that we have before us today is, Is Greg Clarke really an idiot?
In order to answer this we must set aside, for the moment, our limiting pre-postmodernal preconceptions that would entail taking these words at face value and concluding that the author is literally claiming that Greg Clarke is actually an idiot. What we must do is to examine the evidence, not on a literal level, but a literalistic one. Hence, let us deconstruct the message by taking the priority of form over content. In other words, to garner support from Marshall McLuhan’s famous maxim we can claim that the medium is truly the message.
First, note the repetition. The writer, by claiming seven times that Greg is an idiot, is underscoring a claim of perfection, not Greg’s perfection, of course, but perfection of the message.
Further, each instantiation of ‘Greg Clarke is an idiot’ contains seven syllables, making 7 x 7 or 49 interconnected modules. We can recall from the Old Testament that 49 was traditionally the number used when one wanted to signify divine completion over an extended period of time. Thus, the author of this message is clearly emphasising divine sanction of Greg Clarke being an idiot.
One could go on and on about this pithy declaration, its internal structure and whether or not Greg Clarke is a literal or literalistic idiot. Possibly some background detail may assist our endeavour.
This month in the Christian newspaper Eternity Greg Clarke claimed that young earth creationists, apropos science and the Bible, are not realists but are “head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears-idiots”. Now, try as I might, I found it impossible to uncover any literary devices in his statement so I was forced to take it straightforwardly and conclude that Greg Clarke really meant that I and others were genuine, unadulterated 100% idiots because we hold that God created everything in 6 days. That is, I, my friends, men like Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Theophilus, Lactantius, Paul, Jesus, the Disciples, the majority of the Church and extremely clever boffins, like the triple-earned biochemistry PhD A.E. Wilder-Smith, are literal idiots for believing that God was speaking without literary devices when he declared to Moses that,
“Then the LORD said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.
" 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.' "
When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.’ (Exodus 31)
Unlike Greg Clarke, whose doctorate is in English literature, I have real faith that God is the first and only Person to be trusted with regard to ultimate things, such as origins, not the speculations of sinful men. Greg Clarke prefers to believe that the mutable philosophies of post-structuralism and the like, wedded to the contemporary creation myth of evolution, are a surer interpretive tool than God’s plain revelation.
Is Greg Clarke an idiot? Good question and one deserving an answer!
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
The question that we have before us today is, Is Greg Clarke really an idiot?
In order to answer this we must set aside, for the moment, our limiting pre-postmodernal preconceptions that would entail taking these words at face value and concluding that the author is literally claiming that Greg Clarke is actually an idiot. What we must do is to examine the evidence, not on a literal level, but a literalistic one. Hence, let us deconstruct the message by taking the priority of form over content. In other words, to garner support from Marshall McLuhan’s famous maxim we can claim that the medium is truly the message.
First, note the repetition. The writer, by claiming seven times that Greg is an idiot, is underscoring a claim of perfection, not Greg’s perfection, of course, but perfection of the message.
Further, each instantiation of ‘Greg Clarke is an idiot’ contains seven syllables, making 7 x 7 or 49 interconnected modules. We can recall from the Old Testament that 49 was traditionally the number used when one wanted to signify divine completion over an extended period of time. Thus, the author of this message is clearly emphasising divine sanction of Greg Clarke being an idiot.
One could go on and on about this pithy declaration, its internal structure and whether or not Greg Clarke is a literal or literalistic idiot. Possibly some background detail may assist our endeavour.
This month in the Christian newspaper Eternity Greg Clarke claimed that young earth creationists, apropos science and the Bible, are not realists but are “head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears-idiots”. Now, try as I might, I found it impossible to uncover any literary devices in his statement so I was forced to take it straightforwardly and conclude that Greg Clarke really meant that I and others were genuine, unadulterated 100% idiots because we hold that God created everything in 6 days. That is, I, my friends, men like Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Theophilus, Lactantius, Paul, Jesus, the Disciples, the majority of the Church and extremely clever boffins, like the triple-earned biochemistry PhD A.E. Wilder-Smith, are literal idiots for believing that God was speaking without literary devices when he declared to Moses that,
“Then the LORD said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.
" 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.' "
When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.’ (Exodus 31)
Unlike Greg Clarke, whose doctorate is in English literature, I have real faith that God is the first and only Person to be trusted with regard to ultimate things, such as origins, not the speculations of sinful men. Greg Clarke prefers to believe that the mutable philosophies of post-structuralism and the like, wedded to the contemporary creation myth of evolution, are a surer interpretive tool than God’s plain revelation.
Is Greg Clarke an idiot? Good question and one deserving an answer!
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Oh, How They Love Them, How They Adhere to Their Teaching!
"Abraham is our father." (John 8:39)
"Are you greater than our father Abraham?" (John 8:53a)
So responded the Jews to our Lord Jesus as he attempted to show them their misunderstanding of who he was and how they had got their understanding of the knowledge and will of God wrong.
They revered Abraham. They believed their knowledge of him and the promises of God to him assured them they were right with God.
"We are disciples of Moses!" (John 9:28b)
So, again, the Jews responded to our Lord Jesus avowing how strictly they adhered to the faith of their father - this time their father in faith, Moses.
History shows the Jews had it badly wrong. They did not recognise their Messiah, the one through whom the promise to Abraham and the one through whom the law of Moses would be fulfilled. Sadly, they got it so wrong they crucified their Messiah.
How could they be so removed from the faith of Abraham and Moses when they worked so hard to maintain a faith centred on those two greats of their history? Although they claimed to be wise they became foolish. Their knowledge was not, as they claimed, rooted in the faith of Abraham and Moses but was the product of their own devices.
"Furthermore Moore College is known around the world for standing firm, faithfully teaching and defending the evangelical and reformed Christian faith."
Such was a quote provided by Neil Moore some time back where the Principal of Moore Theological College was declaring one of the foundations of the theological seminary of Episcopal Diocese of Sydney. But how far they have shifted from from the faith of Luther and Calvin?
Martin Luther said this, "He [Moses] calls 'a spade a spade' i.e., he employs the terms 'day' and 'evening' without Allegory, just as we customarily do ... we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e, that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit." 1 Luther also said, "We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago."2
John Calvin said this, "For it is not without significance that he divided the making of the universe into six days, even though it would have been no more difficult for him to have completed in one moment the whole work together in all its details than to arrive at its completion gradually by a progression of this sort."3 Calvin also said this, "They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe."4
That faith in Genesis 1 is not taught at Moore Theological College today. The teaching of Luther and Calvin, principals of the Protestant Reformation, are not adhered to as Reformed Church in its infancy did. It was not always like it is today. In fact you only need go back a few decades for something of the faith of Luther and Calvin taught at Moore Theological College.
It [theory of evolution] is against the evidence; for example, the evidence of the fossils which show that living organisms are in their final form when they first appear. Evolution is also against common sense. Take the problem of the wing of a bird which is a very intricate aeronautical structure. It is effective only in its completed form; how can it get built up little bit by little bit by a staggering number of minute accidental variations, none of which is of any use until the final form is reached?
Such were the thoughts of David Broughton Knox, former Principal of Moore Theological College. He was, at least until recent years, much revered in Sydney Episcopal circles. This reverence is due most to his biblical scholarship and faith.
What I have quoted is an extract of an essay he wrote "Not By Bread Alone - God's Word on Present Issues." Broughton Knox said there was no evidence for evolution. The situation remains the same today yet much of the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney distances itself from Broughton Knox's belief on this issue. They have moved while hypocritically revering Broughton Knox as a father of their theological seminary.
The sad but spectacular failure of Connect 09 to achieve it purpose toward getting 10% of the population of the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney into bible believing churches by year 2010 must be weighing heavy on the hearts of the Archbishop and others. Surely, they are asking themselves "Where do we stand in relation to the will of God?" The silence within the Diocese on this issue is as deafening as a loud trumpet (or a stadium full of activated Vuvuzelas) but no-one is willing to go into print about it (except us). Let us then defer to Broughton Knox, again from his quoted essay:
"We need to renew our faith in Christ as Lord and in his coming kingdom.
This can only be as we recognise our need to deepen our own subjection to the Word of God in Holy Scripture; and as we understand that it is the failure to believe in the authority of Scripture which has led to the now general failure of faith. The great truths and facts of revelation must be restored to the forefront of our minds. Then we will have something to say to our God-forgetting community. But let it be remembered, we cannot generate faith out of our own resources. Faith is a gift of God and we need to call upon him both for ourselves and others. Our heavenly Father remains sovereign over his world and his ears are open to the prayers of Christians, so that we should pray constantly that his Spirit may revive us, as in the time of the Reformation and the Puritan Movement of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and the Evangelical Movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. When his Spirit begins to work, then faith in his Word will become strong once more and the conscience will accept Scripture as the standard for the Christian's life."
The Jews revered their fathers of faith but moved from the faith of their fathers. Many Sydney Episcopalians likewise revere their fathers of faith yet move from the faith of their fathers. The parallels, including the consequences of this shift, are striking.
Sam Drucker
1. Martin Luther in J. Pelikan, editor, "Luther's Works, Lectures on
Genesis" (St. Louis, MO) (Concordia Publishing House) 1958 Chs 1-6, 1:6.
2. Ibid page 3
3. J. Calvin - "Institutes of the Christian Religion" J. T. McNeill, editor
(Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press) 1960, 1.14.22
4. Ibid 2:925
"Are you greater than our father Abraham?" (John 8:53a)
So responded the Jews to our Lord Jesus as he attempted to show them their misunderstanding of who he was and how they had got their understanding of the knowledge and will of God wrong.
They revered Abraham. They believed their knowledge of him and the promises of God to him assured them they were right with God.
"We are disciples of Moses!" (John 9:28b)
So, again, the Jews responded to our Lord Jesus avowing how strictly they adhered to the faith of their father - this time their father in faith, Moses.
History shows the Jews had it badly wrong. They did not recognise their Messiah, the one through whom the promise to Abraham and the one through whom the law of Moses would be fulfilled. Sadly, they got it so wrong they crucified their Messiah.
How could they be so removed from the faith of Abraham and Moses when they worked so hard to maintain a faith centred on those two greats of their history? Although they claimed to be wise they became foolish. Their knowledge was not, as they claimed, rooted in the faith of Abraham and Moses but was the product of their own devices.
"Furthermore Moore College is known around the world for standing firm, faithfully teaching and defending the evangelical and reformed Christian faith."
Such was a quote provided by Neil Moore some time back where the Principal of Moore Theological College was declaring one of the foundations of the theological seminary of Episcopal Diocese of Sydney. But how far they have shifted from from the faith of Luther and Calvin?
Martin Luther said this, "He [Moses] calls 'a spade a spade' i.e., he employs the terms 'day' and 'evening' without Allegory, just as we customarily do ... we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e, that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit." 1 Luther also said, "We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago."2
John Calvin said this, "For it is not without significance that he divided the making of the universe into six days, even though it would have been no more difficult for him to have completed in one moment the whole work together in all its details than to arrive at its completion gradually by a progression of this sort."3 Calvin also said this, "They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe."4
That faith in Genesis 1 is not taught at Moore Theological College today. The teaching of Luther and Calvin, principals of the Protestant Reformation, are not adhered to as Reformed Church in its infancy did. It was not always like it is today. In fact you only need go back a few decades for something of the faith of Luther and Calvin taught at Moore Theological College.
It [theory of evolution] is against the evidence; for example, the evidence of the fossils which show that living organisms are in their final form when they first appear. Evolution is also against common sense. Take the problem of the wing of a bird which is a very intricate aeronautical structure. It is effective only in its completed form; how can it get built up little bit by little bit by a staggering number of minute accidental variations, none of which is of any use until the final form is reached?
Such were the thoughts of David Broughton Knox, former Principal of Moore Theological College. He was, at least until recent years, much revered in Sydney Episcopal circles. This reverence is due most to his biblical scholarship and faith.
What I have quoted is an extract of an essay he wrote "Not By Bread Alone - God's Word on Present Issues." Broughton Knox said there was no evidence for evolution. The situation remains the same today yet much of the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney distances itself from Broughton Knox's belief on this issue. They have moved while hypocritically revering Broughton Knox as a father of their theological seminary.
The sad but spectacular failure of Connect 09 to achieve it purpose toward getting 10% of the population of the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney into bible believing churches by year 2010 must be weighing heavy on the hearts of the Archbishop and others. Surely, they are asking themselves "Where do we stand in relation to the will of God?" The silence within the Diocese on this issue is as deafening as a loud trumpet (or a stadium full of activated Vuvuzelas) but no-one is willing to go into print about it (except us). Let us then defer to Broughton Knox, again from his quoted essay:
"We need to renew our faith in Christ as Lord and in his coming kingdom.
This can only be as we recognise our need to deepen our own subjection to the Word of God in Holy Scripture; and as we understand that it is the failure to believe in the authority of Scripture which has led to the now general failure of faith. The great truths and facts of revelation must be restored to the forefront of our minds. Then we will have something to say to our God-forgetting community. But let it be remembered, we cannot generate faith out of our own resources. Faith is a gift of God and we need to call upon him both for ourselves and others. Our heavenly Father remains sovereign over his world and his ears are open to the prayers of Christians, so that we should pray constantly that his Spirit may revive us, as in the time of the Reformation and the Puritan Movement of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and the Evangelical Movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. When his Spirit begins to work, then faith in his Word will become strong once more and the conscience will accept Scripture as the standard for the Christian's life."
The Jews revered their fathers of faith but moved from the faith of their fathers. Many Sydney Episcopalians likewise revere their fathers of faith yet move from the faith of their fathers. The parallels, including the consequences of this shift, are striking.
Sam Drucker
1. Martin Luther in J. Pelikan, editor, "Luther's Works, Lectures on
Genesis" (St. Louis, MO) (Concordia Publishing House) 1958 Chs 1-6, 1:6.
2. Ibid page 3
3. J. Calvin - "Institutes of the Christian Religion" J. T. McNeill, editor
(Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press) 1960, 1.14.22
4. Ibid 2:925
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Leupold Genesis part 34 verse 5 'day'
Extensive discussion has centred around the last statement of v. 5: "Then came evening, then came morning--the first day." To try to make this mean that the day began with evening, as days did according to the later Jewish reckoning (Le 23:32), fails utterly, because verse 5 reports the conclusion of this day's work not its beginning. Or again, to make this statement refer to two parts of a long geologic period: the first part a kind of evening; the-second a kind of morning; both together a kind of long period, runs afoul of three things: first, that "evening" nowhere in the Scriptures bears this meaning; secondly, neither does "morning"; thirdly, "day" never means "period."
One major difficulty lying in the path is the attempt to make this whole statement like a problem in addition: evening plus morning, result: one day. Luther's translation, somewhat free at this point, seemed to support this view: da ward aus Abend und Morgen der erste Tag, i.e. "evening and morning went to make Up the first day." In reality, a vast absurdity is involved in this point of view. An evening may be stretched to include four hours, a morning could be said to be four or even six hours long. The total is ten, not twenty-four hours. The verse, however, presents not an addition of items but the conclusion of a progression. On this day there had been the creation of heaven and earth in the rough, then the creation of light, the approval of light, the separation of day and night. Now with evening the divine activities cease: they are works of light not works of darkness. The evening ('erebh), of course, merges into night, and the night terminates with morning. But by the time morning is reached, the first day is concluded, as the account says succinctly, "the first day" and everything is in readiness for the second day's task. For "evening" marks the conclusion of the day, and "morning" marks the conclusion of the night. It is these conclusions, which terminate the preceding, that are to be made prominent. They are "the terminations of the two halves of the first day" (Procksch).
One major difficulty lying in the path is the attempt to make this whole statement like a problem in addition: evening plus morning, result: one day. Luther's translation, somewhat free at this point, seemed to support this view: da ward aus Abend und Morgen der erste Tag, i.e. "evening and morning went to make Up the first day." In reality, a vast absurdity is involved in this point of view. An evening may be stretched to include four hours, a morning could be said to be four or even six hours long. The total is ten, not twenty-four hours. The verse, however, presents not an addition of items but the conclusion of a progression. On this day there had been the creation of heaven and earth in the rough, then the creation of light, the approval of light, the separation of day and night. Now with evening the divine activities cease: they are works of light not works of darkness. The evening ('erebh), of course, merges into night, and the night terminates with morning. But by the time morning is reached, the first day is concluded, as the account says succinctly, "the first day" and everything is in readiness for the second day's task. For "evening" marks the conclusion of the day, and "morning" marks the conclusion of the night. It is these conclusions, which terminate the preceding, that are to be made prominent. They are "the terminations of the two halves of the first day" (Procksch).
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Spirit of Marcion Remains Abroad. (Part 2)
"Watch out for false prophets, they come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognise them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." (Matthew 7:15-18)
In Part 1 of this blog I cited extracts of Rev Michael Jensen's opinion piece in the June 2010 edition of "Eternity" a publication disseminated around the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. Rev Jensen dealt with the struggle of some to reconcile the God of the Old Testament with God revealed in Jesus Christ in the New Testament.
Rev Jensen recalled Marcion in the 2nd Century AD who rejected the God of the Old Testament and chose only selected texts of the New Testament to have a faith of his liking. Marcion was labelled a heretic but that did not stop adherents over several centuries pursuing beliefs he espoused. Rev Jensen presented an acceptable case against Marcion and his like but some phrases he used jolted my attention because they have application to a pitiful aspect of current day theology within the Diocese of Sydney. I'll repeat them in part hereunder and point out current day comparisons:
"Marcion's project was essentially two pronged. On the one hand, he challenged the integrity of the source of our knowledge about God, the Bible."
On the subject of Creation the overwhelming trend with students coming out of the Diocesan theological seminary is to dilute the message of Genesis 1 of its strength. Instead of accepting the traditional reading of Genesis 1 from the early Church, the Reformation, the Puritans, the Great Awakening of 18th Century to well into the 20th Century; latter day influences such as Kline, Blocher, Wenham and Kidner have caused many within and outside the theological seminary to strip Genesis 1 of its genre of Historical Narrative or Prose. This hatchet job on the first book of the Bible opens the door to all manner of propositions as to what the author (God through Moses) is saying. Hence we have assertions such as: Genesis 1 only teaches the Sovereignty of God and nothing else; Genesis 1 is a reaction to Enuma Elish the Babylonian creation myth; the repetitions, rhythm, numbers and chiasmus make it "mysterious" and "a historical;" and, finally, the disjointed "framework hypothesis" propounds theme at cost of detail.
This is all what you would expect to see arising from the "Eclipse of Biblical Narrative" as observed by Hans Frei who I cited in Part 1 of this blog. Further, it has one purpose and that is to accommodate Darwinism in one form or another and the popular form is Theistic Evolution.
Further, this is all an attack on the nature of God revealed in Jesus Christ. I quote again from Rev Jensen so readers can see his inconsistency:
"They [Theologians like Irenaeus of Lyon] realized that Jesus was not revealing a new God but the same creating and law-giving God. Whatever Christian theology did from that point on, it had to do with the creator and law-giver as identical with the God revealed in Jesus. Marcion had (it turned out on a closer reading of the Bible) drawn a false contrast between the God of Israel and Jesus Christ."
Theistic Evolutionists, whom Rev Jensen gives aid and comfort to in other places, either consciously or unconsciously draw a false dichotomy between the Son Creator through whom all things were made, and Incarnate Son. They say the Son Creator used a slow, death and suffering filled, dead-end riddled process which continues today yet they acknowledge the Son Incarnate undertook miracles wholly and instantaneously. What they fail to acknowledge is that the miracles undertaken by the Son Incarnate were of a nature, process and design to affirm his Person as Creator. How can Theistic Evolutionists miss this obvious connection? Because they have an a priori, a commitment to Darwinism to the relegation of knowledge of Jesus Christ , the Word, the Son and Creator.
As such, they repeat the errors Marcion. Like Marcion, they reshape parts of the Bible. Like Marcion, they emphasise, almost to the exclusion of all else, "a faith of the resurrection and the Spirit". They fail to preach all of Christ.
To cite Rev Jensen again:
"Though it [the Church] had to—and still has to—manage some tricky parts of Scripture, it had far more to lose by going with Marcion than it stood to gain."
Scripture can be tricky according to the degree of faith. There are degrees of faith. Pray to God for greater faith. Coming to terms with God who made the covenant through Moses with Israel and the new covenant ushered in by Incarnate Son is limited by us, not by God. There is a big plan of God which angels long to look into (1 Peter 1:12) and even those of us mortals who have God's Spirit dwelling within can be left wanting. Notwithstanding a desire to know more I will now venture to offer some thoughts on the nature of God revealed in the Old Testament and his dealings with man. To help me in this I will cite some words uttered by Rev William Romaine, 1714 - 1795AD when he preached on Psalm 107:10-16 during the period of the Great Awakening in the 18th Century.
The ministry of William Romaine occupies a chapter in J. C. Ryle's "Christian Leaders of the 18th Century" and the author makes the following observation about him:
"I turn from Whitefield, Wesley, and Grimshaw, to the fourth spiritual hero of the last [18th] century - William Romaine. In doctrine and practical piety, the four good men were, in the main, of one mind. In their mode of working, they were curiously unlike one another. Whitefield and Wesley were spiritual cavalry, who scoured the country, and were found everywhere. Grimshaw was an infantry soldier, who had his head-quarters at Haworth, and never went far from home. Romaine, in the meantime, was a commander of heavy artillery, who held a citadel in the heart of a metropolis [London], and seldom stirred beyond his walls. Yet all these four men were mighty instruments in God's hand for good; and not one of them could have been spared. Each did good service in his own line; and not the least useful, I hope to show, was the Rector of Blackfriars, William Romaine."
The writer of Psalm 107 knows something of the nature of man and God and how God responds to those willing to turn to him out of their rebellion. The first and great rebellion came from our ancestor Adam and has characterised man ever since. I defer now to some advice from William Romaine:
"And God had given to Adam greater gifts and abilities, with innocence to enable him to use them aright, than to any of his descendants; and had, with the most tender affection, counselled him against that very temptation by which he was most liable to be seduced - therefore when he rebelled against God and contemned [sic] the counsel of the Most High, it was the most horrid rebellion that a creature could commit against its Creator. And it was far from cruelty in God, it was an act of justice without severity, to suffer him to fall into the pit which he had dug for himself, and there to be taken by the enemy, and committed a prisoner to darkness and the shadow of death, and to be fast bound with misery and iron. But it may be enquired, why are we subject to his misery? Because we could not but be involved in his guilt. His treason corrupted his blood; and being corrupt in the fountain, it could not but be corrupt in the streams which issue from it. We see a standing instance of this in the book of nature; a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. And we have a clear evidence of it in the book of God; which declares, that coming from a corrupt stock, we are altogether corrupt and abominable, being by nature children of wrath. And we have incontestable proof from the equity of our own laws, which not only punish treason with the loss of life in the traitor himself, but also with the loss of honours and estate in his descendants to the latest posterity."
All descendants of Adam bear this stamp - like Adam we have our being as a thought (concept) from the great I AM i.e. Father, Son, Holy Spirit (in base term - Life). Speaking of all creation, the Apostle Paul says "in him [the Son] all things hold together." (Col. 1:17) Our being depends solely on him who is good and all he created was good, even very good.
Sadly, our ancestor Adam rebelled against the great I AM thus separating himself from Life. This is death and we, as descendants of Adam, bear the same rebellious nature and condition. It has been a mercy of the great I AM to continue a sustaining of the contaminated creation through the Son (Col. 1:17) so as to work a good work - a new creation inhabited by those who turn to him in true repentance.
I regard the Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32) as an excellent picture of our plight and the love of the great I Am. Read it.
Did you understand this? This son already wants the portion of his inheritance. In Bible times after the father died, the eldest son received two thirds of the inheritance, and the youngest son received one third. So it was a worthwhile portion to receive. However, the younger son cannot wait for he wants it now. We may say, he actually prays for the death of his father. He is also one who has rights, for he asks for his goods. Then he does not come as a beggar, but comes as one with a right. "Give me my goods." But let us not be hasty to cast stones, for indeed, the lost son dwells very close to us, "My goods!" Yes, we too have received many goods. Our good health, our daily life, our gifts and talents. And for what purpose do you think we have received all this? We have received this in order to serve the great I AM in this world, and in order to one day receive the full inheritance.
And now in this parable we see the father is silent. That is something very striking. We see here offended love, which also a silent love. No there is no one who can feel what that was for that father; his son before him in the room, a son no longer content with his father's love. He steps upon his heart, upon his heart of love and now adds to the grief of his silent father. There in Eden, we trampled upon the great I AM's heart of love. We did that willingly, there was no reason to stray from the obedience to the great I AM. Do you know what the worst is? There is now a breach which cannot be repaired by us. Returning now to the parable, now the father silently gives the goods to his son. The sin is so great, now things can never again come aright. He has offended love, he has despised love.
There he goes, where to? Well, to a far country, yes? How far away from his father? Over there, one lives with sports and entertainment, and here, another keeps himself busy with his religion - a religion not born of God. Thus man dances through this far off land, without the great I AM. But this world is not just a dance. It is a school. A school of suffering and we learn this until we draw our last breath. We have to learn who we have sinned against, we have sinned against the great I AM's love! Now what that love accomplishes at this school is what we learn in the continuance of this parable. The lost son finally realises his sorry state and sees that even as a servant he is better placed in his father's house. He resolves to return in full repentance and faith.
While yet a distance away his father sees him coming and, with tears, runs to his son. He meets him, throws his arms around him and kisses his returned son. The great I AM does this for you and I in his Son, Jesus Christ. He meets us while we are yet far off. More than this, we are made clean. We are made fit to live in the presence of the great I AM. As the father in the parable has the best robe placed upon the returned son so you and I who return are washed by the righteous blood and clothed with the righteous garment of the Son (Rev 3:18). Only by this means are we admitted to the Father's house yet it is offered willingly by a loving Father. In receiving we are adopted into the Son. What privilege! What an inheritance!
What, I hear you ask, about the Amalekites, Canaanites etc and false teachers within Israel whose being was cut short without more time to turn to the great I AM in repentance? He knows the heart of all. He knows those who will turn. He knows too what a snare those people would be to Israel in their relationship with him. We see a picture of this within our own body. We know today that a mutating cell within our body can be a cancer which grows to suffocate life from the body. The best means of dealing with cancerous cell(s) is to get to it early and cut it out completely even taking some of what may be healthy cells to ensure that all the cancerous cell(s) is removed. This is done by Physicians in love is it not? In a like manner, Israel was to remove from its nation and surrounds that (those) which was a hazard to the life of their relationship with the great I AM. In his love, the great I AM was prepared to help Israel in this.
Well, this posting is quite long. I must end it. In closing, I urge readers who are in the Church to test the spirits. Beware of those false teachers who tamper with and excise passages of Scripture. Every tree is known by the fruit it bears. Test the spirit of understanding in the work of the great I AM in creation. Was the order of creation a process of faulty, mutation riddled life forms including vegetation (bad fruit) by a "bad tree" or was it an order of whole and very good life forms by a "good tree" (later spoiled by sin of the creation)?
Sam Drucker
In Part 1 of this blog I cited extracts of Rev Michael Jensen's opinion piece in the June 2010 edition of "Eternity" a publication disseminated around the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. Rev Jensen dealt with the struggle of some to reconcile the God of the Old Testament with God revealed in Jesus Christ in the New Testament.
Rev Jensen recalled Marcion in the 2nd Century AD who rejected the God of the Old Testament and chose only selected texts of the New Testament to have a faith of his liking. Marcion was labelled a heretic but that did not stop adherents over several centuries pursuing beliefs he espoused. Rev Jensen presented an acceptable case against Marcion and his like but some phrases he used jolted my attention because they have application to a pitiful aspect of current day theology within the Diocese of Sydney. I'll repeat them in part hereunder and point out current day comparisons:
"Marcion's project was essentially two pronged. On the one hand, he challenged the integrity of the source of our knowledge about God, the Bible."
On the subject of Creation the overwhelming trend with students coming out of the Diocesan theological seminary is to dilute the message of Genesis 1 of its strength. Instead of accepting the traditional reading of Genesis 1 from the early Church, the Reformation, the Puritans, the Great Awakening of 18th Century to well into the 20th Century; latter day influences such as Kline, Blocher, Wenham and Kidner have caused many within and outside the theological seminary to strip Genesis 1 of its genre of Historical Narrative or Prose. This hatchet job on the first book of the Bible opens the door to all manner of propositions as to what the author (God through Moses) is saying. Hence we have assertions such as: Genesis 1 only teaches the Sovereignty of God and nothing else; Genesis 1 is a reaction to Enuma Elish the Babylonian creation myth; the repetitions, rhythm, numbers and chiasmus make it "mysterious" and "a historical;" and, finally, the disjointed "framework hypothesis" propounds theme at cost of detail.
This is all what you would expect to see arising from the "Eclipse of Biblical Narrative" as observed by Hans Frei who I cited in Part 1 of this blog. Further, it has one purpose and that is to accommodate Darwinism in one form or another and the popular form is Theistic Evolution.
Further, this is all an attack on the nature of God revealed in Jesus Christ. I quote again from Rev Jensen so readers can see his inconsistency:
"They [Theologians like Irenaeus of Lyon] realized that Jesus was not revealing a new God but the same creating and law-giving God. Whatever Christian theology did from that point on, it had to do with the creator and law-giver as identical with the God revealed in Jesus. Marcion had (it turned out on a closer reading of the Bible) drawn a false contrast between the God of Israel and Jesus Christ."
Theistic Evolutionists, whom Rev Jensen gives aid and comfort to in other places, either consciously or unconsciously draw a false dichotomy between the Son Creator through whom all things were made, and Incarnate Son. They say the Son Creator used a slow, death and suffering filled, dead-end riddled process which continues today yet they acknowledge the Son Incarnate undertook miracles wholly and instantaneously. What they fail to acknowledge is that the miracles undertaken by the Son Incarnate were of a nature, process and design to affirm his Person as Creator. How can Theistic Evolutionists miss this obvious connection? Because they have an a priori, a commitment to Darwinism to the relegation of knowledge of Jesus Christ , the Word, the Son and Creator.
As such, they repeat the errors Marcion. Like Marcion, they reshape parts of the Bible. Like Marcion, they emphasise, almost to the exclusion of all else, "a faith of the resurrection and the Spirit". They fail to preach all of Christ.
To cite Rev Jensen again:
"Though it [the Church] had to—and still has to—manage some tricky parts of Scripture, it had far more to lose by going with Marcion than it stood to gain."
Scripture can be tricky according to the degree of faith. There are degrees of faith. Pray to God for greater faith. Coming to terms with God who made the covenant through Moses with Israel and the new covenant ushered in by Incarnate Son is limited by us, not by God. There is a big plan of God which angels long to look into (1 Peter 1:12) and even those of us mortals who have God's Spirit dwelling within can be left wanting. Notwithstanding a desire to know more I will now venture to offer some thoughts on the nature of God revealed in the Old Testament and his dealings with man. To help me in this I will cite some words uttered by Rev William Romaine, 1714 - 1795AD when he preached on Psalm 107:10-16 during the period of the Great Awakening in the 18th Century.
The ministry of William Romaine occupies a chapter in J. C. Ryle's "Christian Leaders of the 18th Century" and the author makes the following observation about him:
"I turn from Whitefield, Wesley, and Grimshaw, to the fourth spiritual hero of the last [18th] century - William Romaine. In doctrine and practical piety, the four good men were, in the main, of one mind. In their mode of working, they were curiously unlike one another. Whitefield and Wesley were spiritual cavalry, who scoured the country, and were found everywhere. Grimshaw was an infantry soldier, who had his head-quarters at Haworth, and never went far from home. Romaine, in the meantime, was a commander of heavy artillery, who held a citadel in the heart of a metropolis [London], and seldom stirred beyond his walls. Yet all these four men were mighty instruments in God's hand for good; and not one of them could have been spared. Each did good service in his own line; and not the least useful, I hope to show, was the Rector of Blackfriars, William Romaine."
The writer of Psalm 107 knows something of the nature of man and God and how God responds to those willing to turn to him out of their rebellion. The first and great rebellion came from our ancestor Adam and has characterised man ever since. I defer now to some advice from William Romaine:
"And God had given to Adam greater gifts and abilities, with innocence to enable him to use them aright, than to any of his descendants; and had, with the most tender affection, counselled him against that very temptation by which he was most liable to be seduced - therefore when he rebelled against God and contemned [sic] the counsel of the Most High, it was the most horrid rebellion that a creature could commit against its Creator. And it was far from cruelty in God, it was an act of justice without severity, to suffer him to fall into the pit which he had dug for himself, and there to be taken by the enemy, and committed a prisoner to darkness and the shadow of death, and to be fast bound with misery and iron. But it may be enquired, why are we subject to his misery? Because we could not but be involved in his guilt. His treason corrupted his blood; and being corrupt in the fountain, it could not but be corrupt in the streams which issue from it. We see a standing instance of this in the book of nature; a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. And we have a clear evidence of it in the book of God; which declares, that coming from a corrupt stock, we are altogether corrupt and abominable, being by nature children of wrath. And we have incontestable proof from the equity of our own laws, which not only punish treason with the loss of life in the traitor himself, but also with the loss of honours and estate in his descendants to the latest posterity."
All descendants of Adam bear this stamp - like Adam we have our being as a thought (concept) from the great I AM i.e. Father, Son, Holy Spirit (in base term - Life). Speaking of all creation, the Apostle Paul says "in him [the Son] all things hold together." (Col. 1:17) Our being depends solely on him who is good and all he created was good, even very good.
Sadly, our ancestor Adam rebelled against the great I AM thus separating himself from Life. This is death and we, as descendants of Adam, bear the same rebellious nature and condition. It has been a mercy of the great I AM to continue a sustaining of the contaminated creation through the Son (Col. 1:17) so as to work a good work - a new creation inhabited by those who turn to him in true repentance.
I regard the Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32) as an excellent picture of our plight and the love of the great I Am. Read it.
Did you understand this? This son already wants the portion of his inheritance. In Bible times after the father died, the eldest son received two thirds of the inheritance, and the youngest son received one third. So it was a worthwhile portion to receive. However, the younger son cannot wait for he wants it now. We may say, he actually prays for the death of his father. He is also one who has rights, for he asks for his goods. Then he does not come as a beggar, but comes as one with a right. "Give me my goods." But let us not be hasty to cast stones, for indeed, the lost son dwells very close to us, "My goods!" Yes, we too have received many goods. Our good health, our daily life, our gifts and talents. And for what purpose do you think we have received all this? We have received this in order to serve the great I AM in this world, and in order to one day receive the full inheritance.
And now in this parable we see the father is silent. That is something very striking. We see here offended love, which also a silent love. No there is no one who can feel what that was for that father; his son before him in the room, a son no longer content with his father's love. He steps upon his heart, upon his heart of love and now adds to the grief of his silent father. There in Eden, we trampled upon the great I AM's heart of love. We did that willingly, there was no reason to stray from the obedience to the great I AM. Do you know what the worst is? There is now a breach which cannot be repaired by us. Returning now to the parable, now the father silently gives the goods to his son. The sin is so great, now things can never again come aright. He has offended love, he has despised love.
There he goes, where to? Well, to a far country, yes? How far away from his father? Over there, one lives with sports and entertainment, and here, another keeps himself busy with his religion - a religion not born of God. Thus man dances through this far off land, without the great I AM. But this world is not just a dance. It is a school. A school of suffering and we learn this until we draw our last breath. We have to learn who we have sinned against, we have sinned against the great I AM's love! Now what that love accomplishes at this school is what we learn in the continuance of this parable. The lost son finally realises his sorry state and sees that even as a servant he is better placed in his father's house. He resolves to return in full repentance and faith.
While yet a distance away his father sees him coming and, with tears, runs to his son. He meets him, throws his arms around him and kisses his returned son. The great I AM does this for you and I in his Son, Jesus Christ. He meets us while we are yet far off. More than this, we are made clean. We are made fit to live in the presence of the great I AM. As the father in the parable has the best robe placed upon the returned son so you and I who return are washed by the righteous blood and clothed with the righteous garment of the Son (Rev 3:18). Only by this means are we admitted to the Father's house yet it is offered willingly by a loving Father. In receiving we are adopted into the Son. What privilege! What an inheritance!
What, I hear you ask, about the Amalekites, Canaanites etc and false teachers within Israel whose being was cut short without more time to turn to the great I AM in repentance? He knows the heart of all. He knows those who will turn. He knows too what a snare those people would be to Israel in their relationship with him. We see a picture of this within our own body. We know today that a mutating cell within our body can be a cancer which grows to suffocate life from the body. The best means of dealing with cancerous cell(s) is to get to it early and cut it out completely even taking some of what may be healthy cells to ensure that all the cancerous cell(s) is removed. This is done by Physicians in love is it not? In a like manner, Israel was to remove from its nation and surrounds that (those) which was a hazard to the life of their relationship with the great I AM. In his love, the great I AM was prepared to help Israel in this.
Well, this posting is quite long. I must end it. In closing, I urge readers who are in the Church to test the spirits. Beware of those false teachers who tamper with and excise passages of Scripture. Every tree is known by the fruit it bears. Test the spirit of understanding in the work of the great I AM in creation. Was the order of creation a process of faulty, mutation riddled life forms including vegetation (bad fruit) by a "bad tree" or was it an order of whole and very good life forms by a "good tree" (later spoiled by sin of the creation)?
Sam Drucker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
