Friday, November 19, 2010
What really counts
Check this post at Mark's blog. He tells us that evangelical courage is needed where the world/devil is attacking the church: say...origins? Well here in the SAD camp, we turn tail on that one, and make the Bible say what the world wants it to say...oops, have I let the SAD cat out of the bag?
Monday, November 15, 2010
Speaking of rest...
Yesterday was the Newtown Festival. It attracts some 80,000 (mostly lost) people. I couldn't see any Christian outreach. Once again, right in the heart of Sydney Anglican land, a stone's throw from, that spiritual bulwark against all things non-Christian, Moore College, not a Christian stand anywhere....except a creationist one, at times doing a rather busy trade and all.
Sorry I didn't see any other Christians proclaiming Christ at Sydney's own Mars Hill. Oh well, maybe Michael Jensen and his really-much-more-Christian-than-you-creationists-because-you-preach-another-Gospel mates can set their alarms for next year and be seen to be doing some evangelism. They should be the real experts by now, what after that great success...what was its name....Disjunct oh 9? Only cost them more than a million bucks and look at the harvest. What a bargain. And they still have lots of Essential Jesus booklets by the truck load left over which they can use until 2109, maybe even stretched to 2209
No, maybe they won't be bothered turning up. Apparently they prefer to spend their time writing about Barth, Peak Oil and goodness knows what other sort of unintelligible irrelevancies our other great Sydney Anglican mate the Reverend Gordie Chengster continually spins out over at his blog.
SAD. So SAD.
Sorry I didn't see any other Christians proclaiming Christ at Sydney's own Mars Hill. Oh well, maybe Michael Jensen and his really-much-more-Christian-than-you-creationists-because-you-preach-another-Gospel mates can set their alarms for next year and be seen to be doing some evangelism. They should be the real experts by now, what after that great success...what was its name....Disjunct oh 9? Only cost them more than a million bucks and look at the harvest. What a bargain. And they still have lots of Essential Jesus booklets by the truck load left over which they can use until 2109, maybe even stretched to 2209
No, maybe they won't be bothered turning up. Apparently they prefer to spend their time writing about Barth, Peak Oil and goodness knows what other sort of unintelligible irrelevancies our other great Sydney Anglican mate the Reverend Gordie Chengster continually spins out over at his blog.
SAD. So SAD.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Recipe For Comfortable Pewsitting for Sydney Anglicans
Parishioners within the Sydney Anglican Diocese looking for an easy time need only make it known to their Rector that they are a Biblical Creationist and the easy time is guaranteed.
What follows is excising from consideration for any key ministries within the parish. You will certainly not be a viable candidate for Rector's Warden or Rector's appointment to Parish Council. Only if you have sufficient support from other parishioners will you have possibility of appointment to Warden or Parish Council.
Synod representative is out due to the sudden emergence of other nominations who will attract more voting support than you.
Appointment by the Rector to lead a home group/bible study is definitely out of the question. So too is leadership of the evangelism team or perhaps even involvement in organizing evangelistic events.
Don't be seen talking at length to teenage youth group members for too long otherwise you will be thought to be polluting their mind with your creationist stuff. If you actually are a Biblical Creationist then you probably will talk about the subject at some point with the teens but this is highly dangerous. Don't do it. Teens will be quietly warned off you and you might even be discouraged from further attending that church.
Conversations with the Rector will be polite but somewhat limited to all but interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2.
So, for keeping your head down and to rest in just turning up each Sunday with no pressure make it known to the Rector you have become a Biblical Creationist and you are ready to argue the point with him any time he is ready.
Ah, Sydney Anglicanism, a rest for the weary.
Neil
What follows is excising from consideration for any key ministries within the parish. You will certainly not be a viable candidate for Rector's Warden or Rector's appointment to Parish Council. Only if you have sufficient support from other parishioners will you have possibility of appointment to Warden or Parish Council.
Synod representative is out due to the sudden emergence of other nominations who will attract more voting support than you.
Appointment by the Rector to lead a home group/bible study is definitely out of the question. So too is leadership of the evangelism team or perhaps even involvement in organizing evangelistic events.
Don't be seen talking at length to teenage youth group members for too long otherwise you will be thought to be polluting their mind with your creationist stuff. If you actually are a Biblical Creationist then you probably will talk about the subject at some point with the teens but this is highly dangerous. Don't do it. Teens will be quietly warned off you and you might even be discouraged from further attending that church.
Conversations with the Rector will be polite but somewhat limited to all but interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2.
So, for keeping your head down and to rest in just turning up each Sunday with no pressure make it known to the Rector you have become a Biblical Creationist and you are ready to argue the point with him any time he is ready.
Ah, Sydney Anglicanism, a rest for the weary.
Neil
Monday, November 1, 2010
Leupold Genesis part 43 verse 13
13. Then came evening, then came morning, --the third day.
On this verse compare above v. 5.
It is true that the first three days have no sun and no moon to furnish and to measure the needed light. But that fact does not in any wise warrant trying to make these days appear as different from the following three or four, for the pattern into which all six days of work fall is consistently the same for all, "then came evening, then came morning." It is the author's purpose by this means emphatically to declare the six days alike as to length and general character regular twenty-four hour days. Nothing but the desire to secure harmony with the contentions of certain physical sciences ever could have induced men to tamper with this very plainest of exegetical results.
Follows the work of the fourth day in v. 14-19.
Since this has to do with the appointment of luminaries, we see, first of all, how this day's work attaches itself to the work of the third day, as well as how it reaches over to the works that are yet to follow. For the vegetation that was brought into being by the work of the preceding day needs not only light but also seasons with modification of light. Consequently, that intricate set of operations that brings seasonal changes for vegetation and for man now appropriately follows.
On this verse compare above v. 5.
It is true that the first three days have no sun and no moon to furnish and to measure the needed light. But that fact does not in any wise warrant trying to make these days appear as different from the following three or four, for the pattern into which all six days of work fall is consistently the same for all, "then came evening, then came morning." It is the author's purpose by this means emphatically to declare the six days alike as to length and general character regular twenty-four hour days. Nothing but the desire to secure harmony with the contentions of certain physical sciences ever could have induced men to tamper with this very plainest of exegetical results.
Follows the work of the fourth day in v. 14-19.
Since this has to do with the appointment of luminaries, we see, first of all, how this day's work attaches itself to the work of the third day, as well as how it reaches over to the works that are yet to follow. For the vegetation that was brought into being by the work of the preceding day needs not only light but also seasons with modification of light. Consequently, that intricate set of operations that brings seasonal changes for vegetation and for man now appropriately follows.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
False Convert Detected (Part 7)
Following is the final instalment from Thomas Shepard (1605-1649) on The False Convert Detected.
"IV. Presumption, or False Faith.
This is the last and most dangerous rock that these times are split upon. When men see an insufficiency in all duties to help them, and themselves unworthy of mercy, they make a bridge of their own to carry them to Christ. I mean, they look not for faith wrought by an omnipotent power, which the eternal Spirit of the Lord Jesus must work in them; but they content themselves with a faith of their own forging and framing: and hence they think and believe that Christ is their sweet Saviour, and so doubt not but they are safe, when there is no such matter. All men are of this opinion, that there is no salvation but by the merits of Jesus Christ; and because they hold fast this opinion, therefore they think they hold fast Jesus Christ in the hand of faith, and so perish hanging on their own fancy and shadow. Some others catch hold of Christ before they come to feel the want of faith and ability to believe, and catching hold on him (like dust on a man's coat, whom God will shake off, now they say, they thank God they have got comfort by this means, and though God killeth them, yet they will trust unto him, Micah 3:11. This hope damns thousands.
Faith is 'a precious faith,' 2 Pet.1:2. Precious things cost much, and we set them at a high rate: if thy faith be so, it has cost thee many a prayer, many a sob, many a tear. But ask most men how they came by their faith in Christ, the say, very easily. When the lion sleeps, a man may lie and sleep, by it; but when it awakens, wo to that man: so while God is silent and patient, thou mayest befool thyself with thinking thou dost trust unto God; but wo to thee when the Lord appears in his wrath! Many of you trust to Christ, as the apricock-tree, that leans against the wall, but its fast rooted in the earth: so you lean upon Christ for salvation, but you are rooted in the world, rooted in your pride still. Wo to you if you perish in this estate, God will hew you down as fuel for his wrath. This therefore I proclaim from the God of heaven—
(1. You that never felt yourselves as unable to believe as a dead man to raise himself, you have as yet no faith at all.
(2. You that would get faith, first must feel your inability to believe: and fetch not this slip out of thine own garden; it must come down from Heaven to thy soul, if ever thou partakest thereof."
So ends a tough sermon from Thomas Shepard, Puritan.
Biblical Creationists are not without their secret sins. They ought examine themselves. How do they regard their sins? Thomas Shepard gives vital advice.
Those who call themselves Christian and who are not Biblical Creationist have their secret sins as well but they have this known sin - unbelief - the direct utterance of God is set before them in Exodus 20:11 yet they continue to doubt God to trust the world. Come out of the world for the sake of your soul. Trust God though he permit you to be pressed by the sea on one side and advancing Pharoah on the other. Stand still and wait on the Lord lest you perish, lest you be found, in the end, a false convert!
Sam Drucker
Sam Drucker
"IV. Presumption, or False Faith.
This is the last and most dangerous rock that these times are split upon. When men see an insufficiency in all duties to help them, and themselves unworthy of mercy, they make a bridge of their own to carry them to Christ. I mean, they look not for faith wrought by an omnipotent power, which the eternal Spirit of the Lord Jesus must work in them; but they content themselves with a faith of their own forging and framing: and hence they think and believe that Christ is their sweet Saviour, and so doubt not but they are safe, when there is no such matter. All men are of this opinion, that there is no salvation but by the merits of Jesus Christ; and because they hold fast this opinion, therefore they think they hold fast Jesus Christ in the hand of faith, and so perish hanging on their own fancy and shadow. Some others catch hold of Christ before they come to feel the want of faith and ability to believe, and catching hold on him (like dust on a man's coat, whom God will shake off, now they say, they thank God they have got comfort by this means, and though God killeth them, yet they will trust unto him, Micah 3:11. This hope damns thousands.
Faith is 'a precious faith,' 2 Pet.1:2. Precious things cost much, and we set them at a high rate: if thy faith be so, it has cost thee many a prayer, many a sob, many a tear. But ask most men how they came by their faith in Christ, the say, very easily. When the lion sleeps, a man may lie and sleep, by it; but when it awakens, wo to that man: so while God is silent and patient, thou mayest befool thyself with thinking thou dost trust unto God; but wo to thee when the Lord appears in his wrath! Many of you trust to Christ, as the apricock-tree, that leans against the wall, but its fast rooted in the earth: so you lean upon Christ for salvation, but you are rooted in the world, rooted in your pride still. Wo to you if you perish in this estate, God will hew you down as fuel for his wrath. This therefore I proclaim from the God of heaven—
(1. You that never felt yourselves as unable to believe as a dead man to raise himself, you have as yet no faith at all.
(2. You that would get faith, first must feel your inability to believe: and fetch not this slip out of thine own garden; it must come down from Heaven to thy soul, if ever thou partakest thereof."
So ends a tough sermon from Thomas Shepard, Puritan.
Biblical Creationists are not without their secret sins. They ought examine themselves. How do they regard their sins? Thomas Shepard gives vital advice.
Those who call themselves Christian and who are not Biblical Creationist have their secret sins as well but they have this known sin - unbelief - the direct utterance of God is set before them in Exodus 20:11 yet they continue to doubt God to trust the world. Come out of the world for the sake of your soul. Trust God though he permit you to be pressed by the sea on one side and advancing Pharoah on the other. Stand still and wait on the Lord lest you perish, lest you be found, in the end, a false convert!
Sam Drucker
Sam Drucker
Saturday, October 23, 2010
False Convert Detected (Part 6)
Following is the penultimate instalment of Thomas Shepard (1605-1649) on The False Convert Detected.
"III. Carnal Confidence.
Whereby men attempt to save themselves by their own duties and performances.
The paths to hell are but two. The first is the path of Sin, which is a dirty way. Secondly, the path of Duties, which (rested in) is but a cleaner way. But I think thou wilt object, ' No true Christian man hopes to be saved by his good works and duties, but only by the mercy of God, and merits of Christ.' I answer, it is one thing to trust to be saved by duties, another thing to rest in duties. A man rests in duties, when he is of this opinion that only Christ can save him, but in his practice he goes about to save himself . . . But because it is hard to know when a man rests in duties, and few men find themselves guilty of this sin, which ruins so many, I will shew some signs of a man's resting in duties. (1) Those that never came to be sensible of their poverty and utter emptiness of all good rest in duties. Now did you ever feel thyself in this manner poor? viz. I am as ignorant as any beast, as vile as any Devil: Oh Lord, what sin and rebellion lurks in my heart! I once thought at least my heart and desires were good, but now I feel no spiritual life. Oh dead heart! I am the poorest, vilest, blindest creature that ever lived. If thou dost not thus feel thy self poor, thou never came out of thy duties; for when the Lord brings any man to Christ he brings him empty. (2) Those that gain no Evangelical righteousness by duties rest in duties; I say, Evangelical righteousness, that is, more prizing of acquaintance with, desire after, loving and delighting in union with the Lord Jesus Christ. Now Jesus Christ is a Christian's gain, Philip.1:21. and hence a child of God asks himself after sermon, after prayer, after sacraments. What have I gained of Christ? Have I got more knowledge of Christ, more admiring of the Lord Jesus? A carnal heart, that rests in his duties, asks only what he has dorie, as the Pharisee,' I fast twice a week, I give alms,' and the like; and thinks verily he shall be saved, because he prays, and because he reforms, and because he sorrows for his sins, that is not because of the gaining of Christ in a duty, but because of his naked pertormance of the duty. (3) Those that see little of their vile hearts in performing duties rest in their duties: for if a man be brought nearer to Christ, and to the light, by duties, he will spy out more moats; for the more a man participates of Christ, his health and life, the more he feels the vileness and sickness of sin. As Paul, when he rested in duties before his conversion, before that the Law had humbled him, 'he was alive,' Rom.7, that is, he thought himself a sound man because his duties covered his sins, like fig leaves. Therefore ask thine own heart, if it be troubled sometimes for sin, and if after thy praying and sorrowing thou dost grow well, and think thyself safe, and feel not thyself more vile: If it be thus, I tell thee, thy duties be but fig-leaves to cover thy nakedness, and the Lord will unmask thee one day."
One final instalment to follow in a couple of days.
Sam Drucker
"III. Carnal Confidence.
Whereby men attempt to save themselves by their own duties and performances.
The paths to hell are but two. The first is the path of Sin, which is a dirty way. Secondly, the path of Duties, which (rested in) is but a cleaner way. But I think thou wilt object, ' No true Christian man hopes to be saved by his good works and duties, but only by the mercy of God, and merits of Christ.' I answer, it is one thing to trust to be saved by duties, another thing to rest in duties. A man rests in duties, when he is of this opinion that only Christ can save him, but in his practice he goes about to save himself . . . But because it is hard to know when a man rests in duties, and few men find themselves guilty of this sin, which ruins so many, I will shew some signs of a man's resting in duties. (1) Those that never came to be sensible of their poverty and utter emptiness of all good rest in duties. Now did you ever feel thyself in this manner poor? viz. I am as ignorant as any beast, as vile as any Devil: Oh Lord, what sin and rebellion lurks in my heart! I once thought at least my heart and desires were good, but now I feel no spiritual life. Oh dead heart! I am the poorest, vilest, blindest creature that ever lived. If thou dost not thus feel thy self poor, thou never came out of thy duties; for when the Lord brings any man to Christ he brings him empty. (2) Those that gain no Evangelical righteousness by duties rest in duties; I say, Evangelical righteousness, that is, more prizing of acquaintance with, desire after, loving and delighting in union with the Lord Jesus Christ. Now Jesus Christ is a Christian's gain, Philip.1:21. and hence a child of God asks himself after sermon, after prayer, after sacraments. What have I gained of Christ? Have I got more knowledge of Christ, more admiring of the Lord Jesus? A carnal heart, that rests in his duties, asks only what he has dorie, as the Pharisee,' I fast twice a week, I give alms,' and the like; and thinks verily he shall be saved, because he prays, and because he reforms, and because he sorrows for his sins, that is not because of the gaining of Christ in a duty, but because of his naked pertormance of the duty. (3) Those that see little of their vile hearts in performing duties rest in their duties: for if a man be brought nearer to Christ, and to the light, by duties, he will spy out more moats; for the more a man participates of Christ, his health and life, the more he feels the vileness and sickness of sin. As Paul, when he rested in duties before his conversion, before that the Law had humbled him, 'he was alive,' Rom.7, that is, he thought himself a sound man because his duties covered his sins, like fig leaves. Therefore ask thine own heart, if it be troubled sometimes for sin, and if after thy praying and sorrowing thou dost grow well, and think thyself safe, and feel not thyself more vile: If it be thus, I tell thee, thy duties be but fig-leaves to cover thy nakedness, and the Lord will unmask thee one day."
One final instalment to follow in a couple of days.
Sam Drucker
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
False Convert Detected (Part 5)
Following is the next instalment of Thomas Shepard (1605 - 1649) on The False Convert Detected. Are you herein identified?
"II. Carnal Security, or False Peace.
Now this false peace is begot in the heart by these three means:-
(1). By Satan. Luke 11:21. 'When the strong man keepeth the Palace, his goods are in peace' : that is, when Satan armed with abundance of carnal reasonings possesses men's souls, they are at peace. As masters give their servants peace, even so the Devil. a. By removing those sins which trouble the conscience: for a man may live in a sin, and yet never be troubled for that sin; for sin against the light of conscience only troubles the conscience. Mark the plot of the Devil: he will not suffer a man to live in any sin gainst conscience, whereby he should be troubled; and so the poor deluded man himself goes up and down, not doubting but he shall be saved; why ? because their conscience (they thank God) is clear, and they know of no one sin they live in. b. By giving the soul liberty to recreate itself in any sinful course, wherein the eye of conscience may not be pricked and wounded. To be pent up all the day long in doing God's work, watching, praying, fighting against every sin, this is a burden, this is too strict; and because they cannot endure it, they think the Lord looks not for it at their hands. Now Satan gives men liberty to think thus; and this liberty begets peace, and this peace makes them think well of themselves, 2 Pet. 2 :19. There are many rotten professors in these days that walk loosely, and take too much liberty in their speeches, liberty in their thoughts, liberty in their desires, in their pastimes, and that sometimes under a pretence of Christian liberty. Oh, this liberty that the Devil gives, and the world takes, besots most men with a foolish opinion that all is well with them. c. By giving the soul cessation sometimes from the act of sin: hence they are hardly persuaded that they live in sin, because they cease sometimes from the act of sin. Oh! Satan will not always set I at his work. For if a man should never pray, never have good thoughts, never keep any Sabbath; if a man should always speak idly, and never a good word drop from him; a man's conscience would never be quiet, but shaking him up for what he does: but by giving him respite from sinning for a time, Satan frets stronger possession afterward, as Matt. 12:43. d. By giving the soul fair promises of heaven and eternal life, and fastening them upon the heart. Most men are confident their estate is good. Why ? Oh! Satan bewitches them: for as he told Eve by the serpent, she should not surely die; so he insinuates his persuasions to the soul.
(2). By False Teachers, partly by their loose examples, partly by their flattering doctrines, and their large charity, dawbing everyone up for honest and religious people ; and if they be but a little troubled, applying comfort presently, and so healing them that should be wounded. They say commonly, Thou hast sinned, but comfort thyself, despair not, Christ has suffered ; and thus skin over the wound, and let it fester within for want of cutting it deeper. I say therefore, because they want a faithful watchman to cry Fire, Fire, in that sleepy estate of sin and darkness, wherein they lie, therefore whole towns, parishes, generations of men are burnt up, and perish miserably. Lam. 2:14.
(3). By a False Spirit, this is a third cause that begets a false peace. As there is a true Spirit, that witnesses to our spirits that we are the sons of God, Rom. 8 :16, so there is a false spirit, just like the true one, witnessing that they are the sons of God, 1 John 4:1. We are bid to try the spirits: Now if these spirits were not like God's true Spirit what need trial ? What need one try whether dirt be gold, which are so unlike each other ? And this spirit I take to be set down, Matt. 24:23. Mark this comparison. First, the Spirit of God humbles the soul: so before men have the witness of the false spirit, they are mightily cast down and dejected in spirit; and hereupon they pray for ease, and purpose to lead new lives. Secondly, the Spirit of God in the Gospel reveals Jesus Christ and his willingness to save: so the false spirit discovers Christ's excellency, and willingness to receive him. It fares with this soul as with surveyors of lands, that take an exact compass of other men's grounds, of which they shall never enjoy a foot. So did Balaam, Num. 24:5, 9. This false spirit sheweth them the glory of heaven and God's people. Hereupon the soul comes to be affected, and to taste the goodness and sweetness of Jesus Christ, as those did, Heb. 6. The soul being comforted after it was wounded, now calls God my God, and Christ my sweet Saviour: and now it doubts not but it shall be saved, Hos. 8:2, 3, and yet remains a deluded miserable creature still. But here mark the difference between the witness of each spirit. The false spirit makes a man believe he is in the state of grace, and shall be saved, because he has tasted Christ, and so has been comforted, and that abundantly: But the true spirit persuades a man his estate is good and safe, because he has not only tasted but bought this Christ; as the wise merchant in the Gospel who not only found the pearl, but sells away all to buy it. So a child of God tasting a little of God, and a little of Christ, at his first conversion, although he tastes not all the sweetness that is in God, yet he forsakes all for God, for Christ, and so takes them lawfully as his own. Again, the false spirit having given a man comfort and peace, suffers a man to rest in that estate : but the true Spirit having made the soul taste the love of the Lord, stirs up the soul to do and work mightily for the Lord."
Two more short instalments to follow in coming days.
Sam Drucker
"II. Carnal Security, or False Peace.
Now this false peace is begot in the heart by these three means:-
(1). By Satan. Luke 11:21. 'When the strong man keepeth the Palace, his goods are in peace' : that is, when Satan armed with abundance of carnal reasonings possesses men's souls, they are at peace. As masters give their servants peace, even so the Devil. a. By removing those sins which trouble the conscience: for a man may live in a sin, and yet never be troubled for that sin; for sin against the light of conscience only troubles the conscience. Mark the plot of the Devil: he will not suffer a man to live in any sin gainst conscience, whereby he should be troubled; and so the poor deluded man himself goes up and down, not doubting but he shall be saved; why ? because their conscience (they thank God) is clear, and they know of no one sin they live in. b. By giving the soul liberty to recreate itself in any sinful course, wherein the eye of conscience may not be pricked and wounded. To be pent up all the day long in doing God's work, watching, praying, fighting against every sin, this is a burden, this is too strict; and because they cannot endure it, they think the Lord looks not for it at their hands. Now Satan gives men liberty to think thus; and this liberty begets peace, and this peace makes them think well of themselves, 2 Pet. 2 :19. There are many rotten professors in these days that walk loosely, and take too much liberty in their speeches, liberty in their thoughts, liberty in their desires, in their pastimes, and that sometimes under a pretence of Christian liberty. Oh, this liberty that the Devil gives, and the world takes, besots most men with a foolish opinion that all is well with them. c. By giving the soul cessation sometimes from the act of sin: hence they are hardly persuaded that they live in sin, because they cease sometimes from the act of sin. Oh! Satan will not always set I at his work. For if a man should never pray, never have good thoughts, never keep any Sabbath; if a man should always speak idly, and never a good word drop from him; a man's conscience would never be quiet, but shaking him up for what he does: but by giving him respite from sinning for a time, Satan frets stronger possession afterward, as Matt. 12:43. d. By giving the soul fair promises of heaven and eternal life, and fastening them upon the heart. Most men are confident their estate is good. Why ? Oh! Satan bewitches them: for as he told Eve by the serpent, she should not surely die; so he insinuates his persuasions to the soul.
(2). By False Teachers, partly by their loose examples, partly by their flattering doctrines, and their large charity, dawbing everyone up for honest and religious people ; and if they be but a little troubled, applying comfort presently, and so healing them that should be wounded. They say commonly, Thou hast sinned, but comfort thyself, despair not, Christ has suffered ; and thus skin over the wound, and let it fester within for want of cutting it deeper. I say therefore, because they want a faithful watchman to cry Fire, Fire, in that sleepy estate of sin and darkness, wherein they lie, therefore whole towns, parishes, generations of men are burnt up, and perish miserably. Lam. 2:14.
(3). By a False Spirit, this is a third cause that begets a false peace. As there is a true Spirit, that witnesses to our spirits that we are the sons of God, Rom. 8 :16, so there is a false spirit, just like the true one, witnessing that they are the sons of God, 1 John 4:1. We are bid to try the spirits: Now if these spirits were not like God's true Spirit what need trial ? What need one try whether dirt be gold, which are so unlike each other ? And this spirit I take to be set down, Matt. 24:23. Mark this comparison. First, the Spirit of God humbles the soul: so before men have the witness of the false spirit, they are mightily cast down and dejected in spirit; and hereupon they pray for ease, and purpose to lead new lives. Secondly, the Spirit of God in the Gospel reveals Jesus Christ and his willingness to save: so the false spirit discovers Christ's excellency, and willingness to receive him. It fares with this soul as with surveyors of lands, that take an exact compass of other men's grounds, of which they shall never enjoy a foot. So did Balaam, Num. 24:5, 9. This false spirit sheweth them the glory of heaven and God's people. Hereupon the soul comes to be affected, and to taste the goodness and sweetness of Jesus Christ, as those did, Heb. 6. The soul being comforted after it was wounded, now calls God my God, and Christ my sweet Saviour: and now it doubts not but it shall be saved, Hos. 8:2, 3, and yet remains a deluded miserable creature still. But here mark the difference between the witness of each spirit. The false spirit makes a man believe he is in the state of grace, and shall be saved, because he has tasted Christ, and so has been comforted, and that abundantly: But the true spirit persuades a man his estate is good and safe, because he has not only tasted but bought this Christ; as the wise merchant in the Gospel who not only found the pearl, but sells away all to buy it. So a child of God tasting a little of God, and a little of Christ, at his first conversion, although he tastes not all the sweetness that is in God, yet he forsakes all for God, for Christ, and so takes them lawfully as his own. Again, the false spirit having given a man comfort and peace, suffers a man to rest in that estate : but the true Spirit having made the soul taste the love of the Lord, stirs up the soul to do and work mightily for the Lord."
Two more short instalments to follow in coming days.
Sam Drucker
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Hey anybody, can you spare a Bible? (With apologies to Frank Zappa.)
A friend had a stand at the Eastwood Granny Smith Festival this weekend. On one of his walks around the festival my friend came across a Baha’i outreach and began talking to lady there. Having read much of the original documentation of this religion, as well as a considerable amount of its commentary, my friend felt at ease discussing this woman’s faith and contrasting it with his own.
She was first asked what proves prophethood. She replied that it was the message. He replied that many people can talk persuasively, gently and even beguilingly, mentioning, as an historical example, how Plato recognised and castigated the Sophists for teaching the Athenian politicians how to mesmerise an audience by keeping truth to a minimum. “No,” my friend stressed, "there must be a more objective, external way of seeing whether someone really was from God.”
He pointed out that Jesus used miracles to set himself apart from anyone else, with raising the dead chief among them all. She had never read the Gospels before and would accept one as a gift, so, remembering he’d left all his giveaways at home, he walked to a nearby Anglican stand to ask for a Bible to give to this young woman. Well, what a surprise – there was none. However, they did have The Essential Jesus, but not a single Bible at their “outreach”. When the minister pressed the point about accepting this pared down, adroitly expurgated version of God’s Word (“We’re just giving a more manageable Jesus.”), my friend informed them that he wasn’t happy about page 1 where the author has replaced the real McCoy with his own insipid and jaundiced interpretation of Genesis 1.
The minister sarcastically replied, “Oh, I guess you want a more creationist version of that story!”
“Not really,” came the response. “I wanted a biblical one!”
Walking off and still holding out that a Bible would be delivered to him, my friend made it only 3 more stalls when he saw that the atheists had a stand selling second-hand books. He asked them if they had a Bible.
“Yes, we do,” and pulling a box from underneath the stand, the man drew out, not one, but two Bibles. My friend bought a complete Bible for 2 bucks, decided against going back to the Anglicans to burst all their stupid and puerile balloons they were giving out as evangelical tools (apparently no face painting this year – seems like Peter’s belt-tightening has hit hard!), and raced off to the Baha’i woman and presented her with, not The Essential Jesus, but all of Jesus.
Atheists to the rescue by drawing a non-believer closer to God and Anglicans, once again, making great sausage dog balloon shapes.
By the way, what is the essential Jesus? Are the Anglicans saying that the 4 Gospels need a makeover? Why is Jesus not recognised as the Creator in their “Essential” Jesus? And finally, why do they take 2 balloons to make a cute sausage dog when they could save money and do it with one?
She was first asked what proves prophethood. She replied that it was the message. He replied that many people can talk persuasively, gently and even beguilingly, mentioning, as an historical example, how Plato recognised and castigated the Sophists for teaching the Athenian politicians how to mesmerise an audience by keeping truth to a minimum. “No,” my friend stressed, "there must be a more objective, external way of seeing whether someone really was from God.”
He pointed out that Jesus used miracles to set himself apart from anyone else, with raising the dead chief among them all. She had never read the Gospels before and would accept one as a gift, so, remembering he’d left all his giveaways at home, he walked to a nearby Anglican stand to ask for a Bible to give to this young woman. Well, what a surprise – there was none. However, they did have The Essential Jesus, but not a single Bible at their “outreach”. When the minister pressed the point about accepting this pared down, adroitly expurgated version of God’s Word (“We’re just giving a more manageable Jesus.”), my friend informed them that he wasn’t happy about page 1 where the author has replaced the real McCoy with his own insipid and jaundiced interpretation of Genesis 1.
The minister sarcastically replied, “Oh, I guess you want a more creationist version of that story!”
“Not really,” came the response. “I wanted a biblical one!”
Walking off and still holding out that a Bible would be delivered to him, my friend made it only 3 more stalls when he saw that the atheists had a stand selling second-hand books. He asked them if they had a Bible.
“Yes, we do,” and pulling a box from underneath the stand, the man drew out, not one, but two Bibles. My friend bought a complete Bible for 2 bucks, decided against going back to the Anglicans to burst all their stupid and puerile balloons they were giving out as evangelical tools (apparently no face painting this year – seems like Peter’s belt-tightening has hit hard!), and raced off to the Baha’i woman and presented her with, not The Essential Jesus, but all of Jesus.
Atheists to the rescue by drawing a non-believer closer to God and Anglicans, once again, making great sausage dog balloon shapes.
By the way, what is the essential Jesus? Are the Anglicans saying that the 4 Gospels need a makeover? Why is Jesus not recognised as the Creator in their “Essential” Jesus? And finally, why do they take 2 balloons to make a cute sausage dog when they could save money and do it with one?
Friday, October 15, 2010
Leupold Genesis part 42 verse 12
12. And the earth produced grass and herbs yielding seed after their kind and trees yielding fruit whose seed was in them after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
The accomplishment of the things ordered in v. 11 is reported in this verse in terms that are not a wooden repetition of v. 11; for after "seed" is inserted "after their kind'" to emphasize how the "kind" limitation also applies to the herbs, though this had not been mentioned previously. So, too, after "trees" the word "of fruit" is omitted, since this idea is covered by the qualifying phrase "bearing fruit." The work of the second half of the third day is also to be found "excellent" in divine approval, so that the statement, "and it Was good," appears for each of the two halves of this day.
The accomplishment of the things ordered in v. 11 is reported in this verse in terms that are not a wooden repetition of v. 11; for after "seed" is inserted "after their kind'" to emphasize how the "kind" limitation also applies to the herbs, though this had not been mentioned previously. So, too, after "trees" the word "of fruit" is omitted, since this idea is covered by the qualifying phrase "bearing fruit." The work of the second half of the third day is also to be found "excellent" in divine approval, so that the statement, "and it Was good," appears for each of the two halves of this day.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
False Convert Detected (Part 4)
Following is the next instalment of Thomas Shepard (1605-1649) on The False Convert Detected. Consider it very carefully.
In my post a couple of days ago Shepard dealt with:
"SOME COMMON CAUSES WHY SO MANY, BEING MISTAKEN IN THEIR HOPE OF SALVATION, ARE ETERNALLY RUINED
1. Error in the Understanding. [subsections 1, 2 and 3 provided in previous post]
(4). In judging of the sincerity of the heart by some good affection in the heart. Hence many a deluded soul reasons the case out thus with himself: Either I must be a prophane man, or an hypocrite, or an upright man. Not prophane, for I am not given to drinking, swearing; nor hypocrite, for I hate these outward shews, I cannot endure to appear better without than I am within: Therefore I am upright. Why ? Oh, because my heart is good; my affections and desires within are better than my life without, I know mine own heart, and the heart is all God desires. And thus they fool themselves, Prov. 28:26. This is one of the greatest causes and grounds of mistake amongst men: they are not able to put a difference between good desires, and strong affections that arise from the love of Jesus Christ. Self-love will make a man seek his own good and safety: hence it will pull a man out of his bed betimes in the morning, and call him up to pray; it will make him tug hard for pardon, for Christ, for mercy. But the love of Christ makes a man desire Christ and his honour for himself, and all other things for Christ.
(5). In judging of God's love to them, by aiming sometimes at the glory of God. Is this possible, that a man should aim at God's glory, and yet perish? Yes, and ordinarily too, 2 Kings 10:18. But here's the difference, though a wicked man may make God's glory in some particular things his end, yet he never makes it in his general practice his utmost and last end. A subtle heart may forsake all the world, as Judas did, may bind himself to all the duties God requires outwardly at his hands, and so do good works; but what's his last end? It's that he might gain respect or place or that Christ may have some part of the glory, and he another. There's many seek the honour of Christ, but do you seek his honour only: Is it your last end, where you rest and seek no more but that? Observe this rule; If you are more grieved for the eclipse of thine own honour, or for thine own losses, than for the loss of God's honour; it is an evident sign thou desirest it not in the prime and chiefest place. Sin troubled Paul more than all the plagues and miseries of the world. Indeed, if thy name be dashed with disgrace, and thy will be crossed, thy heart is grieved and disquieted: but the Lord may lose his honour daily by thine own sins, and those that be round about thee, but not a tear, nor a sigh, nor a groan to behold such a spectacle. As sure as the Lord lives, thou seekest not the Lord's honour as thy greatest good.
(6). In judging the power of sin to be but infirmity. For if any thing troubles an unregenerate man, and makes him call his estate into question, it is sin, either in the being, or power of it. Now sin in the being ought not, must not make a man question his estate, because the best have that left in them that will humble them, and make them live by Faith: therefore the power of sin only can justly thus trouble a man. (Which power reigns only in the unregenerate). Now if a man do judge of this to be only but infirmity, which the best are compassed about with, he cannot but think himself well. And if this error be settled in one that lives in no one known sin, it is very difficult to remove: for, let the minister denounce the terror of God against them, they are never stirred; why? Because they think, Here's for you tha' live in sin: not as for themselves, although they have sins, yet they strive against them, and so cannot leave them; for, say they, we must have sins so long as we live here. Now mark it, there's no surer sign of man under the dominion of his sins than this, that is, not to be greatly troubled for sin (for they may be little troubled) because they cannot overcome sin. I deny not but the best do sin daily: yet this is the disposition of Paul, and every child of God, he mourns not the less, but the more for sin. This is the great difference between a reigning sin and a sin of infirmity. A sin of infirmity is such a sin as a man would, but cannot, part with: and hence he mourns the more for it: a reigning sin is such a sin as a man by virtue of his conscience would sometimes part with, but cannot; and hence mourns the less for it, and gives way to it. Now for the Lord's sake take heed of this deceit; for I tell you, those sins you cannot part with, if you groan not day and night under them (saying, O Lord, help me, for I am weary of myself), will certainlv undo you. You say, you cannot but speak idly, and think vainly, and do ill, as all do sometimes: I tell you, those sins shall be everlasting chains to hold you fast in the power of the Devil.
And thus much of the understanding's corruption, whereby men are commonly deluded."
Three instalments to follow.
Sam Drucker
In my post a couple of days ago Shepard dealt with:
"SOME COMMON CAUSES WHY SO MANY, BEING MISTAKEN IN THEIR HOPE OF SALVATION, ARE ETERNALLY RUINED
1. Error in the Understanding. [subsections 1, 2 and 3 provided in previous post]
(4). In judging of the sincerity of the heart by some good affection in the heart. Hence many a deluded soul reasons the case out thus with himself: Either I must be a prophane man, or an hypocrite, or an upright man. Not prophane, for I am not given to drinking, swearing; nor hypocrite, for I hate these outward shews, I cannot endure to appear better without than I am within: Therefore I am upright. Why ? Oh, because my heart is good; my affections and desires within are better than my life without, I know mine own heart, and the heart is all God desires. And thus they fool themselves, Prov. 28:26. This is one of the greatest causes and grounds of mistake amongst men: they are not able to put a difference between good desires, and strong affections that arise from the love of Jesus Christ. Self-love will make a man seek his own good and safety: hence it will pull a man out of his bed betimes in the morning, and call him up to pray; it will make him tug hard for pardon, for Christ, for mercy. But the love of Christ makes a man desire Christ and his honour for himself, and all other things for Christ.
(5). In judging of God's love to them, by aiming sometimes at the glory of God. Is this possible, that a man should aim at God's glory, and yet perish? Yes, and ordinarily too, 2 Kings 10:18. But here's the difference, though a wicked man may make God's glory in some particular things his end, yet he never makes it in his general practice his utmost and last end. A subtle heart may forsake all the world, as Judas did, may bind himself to all the duties God requires outwardly at his hands, and so do good works; but what's his last end? It's that he might gain respect or place or that Christ may have some part of the glory, and he another. There's many seek the honour of Christ, but do you seek his honour only: Is it your last end, where you rest and seek no more but that? Observe this rule; If you are more grieved for the eclipse of thine own honour, or for thine own losses, than for the loss of God's honour; it is an evident sign thou desirest it not in the prime and chiefest place. Sin troubled Paul more than all the plagues and miseries of the world. Indeed, if thy name be dashed with disgrace, and thy will be crossed, thy heart is grieved and disquieted: but the Lord may lose his honour daily by thine own sins, and those that be round about thee, but not a tear, nor a sigh, nor a groan to behold such a spectacle. As sure as the Lord lives, thou seekest not the Lord's honour as thy greatest good.
(6). In judging the power of sin to be but infirmity. For if any thing troubles an unregenerate man, and makes him call his estate into question, it is sin, either in the being, or power of it. Now sin in the being ought not, must not make a man question his estate, because the best have that left in them that will humble them, and make them live by Faith: therefore the power of sin only can justly thus trouble a man. (Which power reigns only in the unregenerate). Now if a man do judge of this to be only but infirmity, which the best are compassed about with, he cannot but think himself well. And if this error be settled in one that lives in no one known sin, it is very difficult to remove: for, let the minister denounce the terror of God against them, they are never stirred; why? Because they think, Here's for you tha' live in sin: not as for themselves, although they have sins, yet they strive against them, and so cannot leave them; for, say they, we must have sins so long as we live here. Now mark it, there's no surer sign of man under the dominion of his sins than this, that is, not to be greatly troubled for sin (for they may be little troubled) because they cannot overcome sin. I deny not but the best do sin daily: yet this is the disposition of Paul, and every child of God, he mourns not the less, but the more for sin. This is the great difference between a reigning sin and a sin of infirmity. A sin of infirmity is such a sin as a man would, but cannot, part with: and hence he mourns the more for it: a reigning sin is such a sin as a man by virtue of his conscience would sometimes part with, but cannot; and hence mourns the less for it, and gives way to it. Now for the Lord's sake take heed of this deceit; for I tell you, those sins you cannot part with, if you groan not day and night under them (saying, O Lord, help me, for I am weary of myself), will certainlv undo you. You say, you cannot but speak idly, and think vainly, and do ill, as all do sometimes: I tell you, those sins shall be everlasting chains to hold you fast in the power of the Devil.
And thus much of the understanding's corruption, whereby men are commonly deluded."
Three instalments to follow.
Sam Drucker
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
False Convert Detected (Part 3)
Following is the next instalment from Thomas Shepard on False Convert Detected. Examine yourself.
"SOME COMMON CAUSES WHY SO MANY, BEING MISTAKEN IN THEIR HOPE OF SALVATION, ARE ETERNALLY RUINED
1. Error in the Understanding.
(1). The mind being ignorant of the height and excellency of true grace, imagines within itself such a measure of common grace to be true grace, which the soul easily having attained unto, conceives it is in the estate of grace, and so deceives itself miserably, Rom.10:3. (By common grace is meant the possession of certain marks, such as are referred to in Heb. 6; Matt. 12:43; 2 Pet. 2:20, etc., which fall short of the true effects which always accompany regeneration). The mind comes to this position thus: The mind is haunted and pursued with troublesome fears of Hell, Conscience tells him he hath sinned, and the Law tells him he shall die, and Death appears and tells him he must shortly meet with him; and if he be taken away in his sins, then comes a black day of reckoning, where no creature can comfort him. Hence, he says, Lord, keep my soul from these miseries; he desires peace and ease, and to hear such sermons, and read such books, as may best satisfy him concerning the least measure of grace: for, sin only troubling him, grace only can comfort him soundly. And so grace, which is meat and drink to an holy heart, is but medicine to this kind of men, to ease them of their fears and troubles. Hereupon, being ignorant of the height of true grace, he fancies to himself such a measure of common grace to be true grace. As, if he feels himself ignorant of that which troubles him; so much knowledge will I then get, he says. If some soul sins in his practice trouble him, these he will cast away, and so reforms. If omission of good duties molests him, he will hear better, and pray oftener. And now he is quieted.
When he has attained unto this pitch of his own, he thinks himself a young beginner, and a good one too. And now if he be pressed to get into the estate of grace, his answer is, That is not to be done now, he thanks God; that care is past. The truth is, Beloved, 'tis too high for him; all his grace coming by his own working, not by God Almighty's power. For the Lord's sake take heed of this deceit. True grace (I tell you), is a rare pearl, a glorious sun clouded from the eyes of all but them that have it, Rev. 2:17, a strange, admirable, almighty work of God upon the soul, which no created power can produce; as far different, in the least measure of it, from the highest degree of common grace, as a Devil is from an Angel.
(2). In judging some trouble of mind, some light sorrows for sin, to be true repentance; and so thinking they do repent, hope they shall be saved. Nay, it may be they will fast, and humble, and afflict their souls voluntarily for sin, Isa. 58:3, and hereupon when they hear that all that sin shall die, they grant this is true indeed, except a man repent; and so they think they have done already. This is true, at what time soever a sinner repents, the Lord will blot out his iniquity: but this repentance is not when a man is troubled somewhat in mind for sin, but when he comes to mourn for sin as his greatest evil; and that not for some sins, but all sins, little and great; and that not for a time but always, like a spring, never dry, but ever running all a man's life time.
(3). In judging the striving of conscience against sin to be the striving of the flesh against the spirit, and hence they think being thus compounded of flesh and spirit, they are regenerate, and in no worse estate than the children of God themselves. So many among us know they should be better, and strive that they may grow better, but through the power of sin cannot; conscience tells them they must not sin, their hearts and lusts say they must sin; and here forsooth is flesh and spirit. Oh no, here is conscience and lust only together; which striving Herod, Balaam, Pilate, or the vilest reprobate in the world may have. Know therefore that the Striving of the spirit against the flesh is against sin because it is sin; but the striving of thy conscience against sin, is only against sin because it is a troubling or a damning sin."
Another instalment in a couple of days.
Sam Drucker
"SOME COMMON CAUSES WHY SO MANY, BEING MISTAKEN IN THEIR HOPE OF SALVATION, ARE ETERNALLY RUINED
1. Error in the Understanding.
(1). The mind being ignorant of the height and excellency of true grace, imagines within itself such a measure of common grace to be true grace, which the soul easily having attained unto, conceives it is in the estate of grace, and so deceives itself miserably, Rom.10:3. (By common grace is meant the possession of certain marks, such as are referred to in Heb. 6; Matt. 12:43; 2 Pet. 2:20, etc., which fall short of the true effects which always accompany regeneration). The mind comes to this position thus: The mind is haunted and pursued with troublesome fears of Hell, Conscience tells him he hath sinned, and the Law tells him he shall die, and Death appears and tells him he must shortly meet with him; and if he be taken away in his sins, then comes a black day of reckoning, where no creature can comfort him. Hence, he says, Lord, keep my soul from these miseries; he desires peace and ease, and to hear such sermons, and read such books, as may best satisfy him concerning the least measure of grace: for, sin only troubling him, grace only can comfort him soundly. And so grace, which is meat and drink to an holy heart, is but medicine to this kind of men, to ease them of their fears and troubles. Hereupon, being ignorant of the height of true grace, he fancies to himself such a measure of common grace to be true grace. As, if he feels himself ignorant of that which troubles him; so much knowledge will I then get, he says. If some soul sins in his practice trouble him, these he will cast away, and so reforms. If omission of good duties molests him, he will hear better, and pray oftener. And now he is quieted.
When he has attained unto this pitch of his own, he thinks himself a young beginner, and a good one too. And now if he be pressed to get into the estate of grace, his answer is, That is not to be done now, he thanks God; that care is past. The truth is, Beloved, 'tis too high for him; all his grace coming by his own working, not by God Almighty's power. For the Lord's sake take heed of this deceit. True grace (I tell you), is a rare pearl, a glorious sun clouded from the eyes of all but them that have it, Rev. 2:17, a strange, admirable, almighty work of God upon the soul, which no created power can produce; as far different, in the least measure of it, from the highest degree of common grace, as a Devil is from an Angel.
(2). In judging some trouble of mind, some light sorrows for sin, to be true repentance; and so thinking they do repent, hope they shall be saved. Nay, it may be they will fast, and humble, and afflict their souls voluntarily for sin, Isa. 58:3, and hereupon when they hear that all that sin shall die, they grant this is true indeed, except a man repent; and so they think they have done already. This is true, at what time soever a sinner repents, the Lord will blot out his iniquity: but this repentance is not when a man is troubled somewhat in mind for sin, but when he comes to mourn for sin as his greatest evil; and that not for some sins, but all sins, little and great; and that not for a time but always, like a spring, never dry, but ever running all a man's life time.
(3). In judging the striving of conscience against sin to be the striving of the flesh against the spirit, and hence they think being thus compounded of flesh and spirit, they are regenerate, and in no worse estate than the children of God themselves. So many among us know they should be better, and strive that they may grow better, but through the power of sin cannot; conscience tells them they must not sin, their hearts and lusts say they must sin; and here forsooth is flesh and spirit. Oh no, here is conscience and lust only together; which striving Herod, Balaam, Pilate, or the vilest reprobate in the world may have. Know therefore that the Striving of the spirit against the flesh is against sin because it is sin; but the striving of thy conscience against sin, is only against sin because it is a troubling or a damning sin."
Another instalment in a couple of days.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, October 10, 2010
False Convert Detected (Part 2)
This is the second instalment of Thomas Shepard (1605-1649) on False Convert Detected.
"There are four strait [sic] gates which everyone must pass through before he can enter into Heaven.
1. There is the strait [sic] gate of Humiliation. God saves none, but first he humbles them. Now it is hard to pass through the gates and flames of Hell; hard to mourn not for one sin, but all sins, and not for a season, but all a man's life-time. Oh, it is hard for a man to suffer himself to be loaden with sin, and pressed to death for sin, so as never to love sin more. It is easy to drop a tear or two, and be sermon-sick: but to have a heart rent for sin and from sin, this is true humiliation, and this is hard. If God broke David's bones for his adultery, and the angels backs for their pride; the Lord, if ever he saves thee, will break thine heart too.
2. The strait [sic]gate of Faith, Eph. 1:19. It's an easy matter to presume, but hard to believe in Christ. It is easy for man that was never humbled to believe and say, 'Tis but believing; but it is an hard matter for a man humbled, when he sees all his sins in order before him, and crying out against him, and God frowning upon him, now to call God Father. Judas had rather be hanged than believe.
3. The strait [sic] gate of Repentance. It is an easy matter for a man to confess himself to be a sinner, and to cry God forgiveness until next time: but to have a bitter sorrow, and to turn from all sin, and to return to God, and all the ways of God, which is true repentance; this is hard.
4. The strait [sic] gate of Opposition of Devils, the World, and a man's own Self, who knock a man down when he begins to look towards Christ and Heaven.
Hence learn, that every easy way to Heaven is a false way, although ministers should preach it out of their pulpits, and angels should publish it out of Heaven. There are easy ways to Heaven (as men think), which all lead to Hell."
More from Shepard soon.
Sam Drucker True
"There are four strait [sic] gates which everyone must pass through before he can enter into Heaven.
1. There is the strait [sic] gate of Humiliation. God saves none, but first he humbles them. Now it is hard to pass through the gates and flames of Hell; hard to mourn not for one sin, but all sins, and not for a season, but all a man's life-time. Oh, it is hard for a man to suffer himself to be loaden with sin, and pressed to death for sin, so as never to love sin more. It is easy to drop a tear or two, and be sermon-sick: but to have a heart rent for sin and from sin, this is true humiliation, and this is hard. If God broke David's bones for his adultery, and the angels backs for their pride; the Lord, if ever he saves thee, will break thine heart too.
2. The strait [sic]gate of Faith, Eph. 1:19. It's an easy matter to presume, but hard to believe in Christ. It is easy for man that was never humbled to believe and say, 'Tis but believing; but it is an hard matter for a man humbled, when he sees all his sins in order before him, and crying out against him, and God frowning upon him, now to call God Father. Judas had rather be hanged than believe.
3. The strait [sic] gate of Repentance. It is an easy matter for a man to confess himself to be a sinner, and to cry God forgiveness until next time: but to have a bitter sorrow, and to turn from all sin, and to return to God, and all the ways of God, which is true repentance; this is hard.
4. The strait [sic] gate of Opposition of Devils, the World, and a man's own Self, who knock a man down when he begins to look towards Christ and Heaven.
Hence learn, that every easy way to Heaven is a false way, although ministers should preach it out of their pulpits, and angels should publish it out of Heaven. There are easy ways to Heaven (as men think), which all lead to Hell."
More from Shepard soon.
Sam Drucker True
Friday, October 8, 2010
The False Convert Detected (Part 1)
I propose to do a series which is an extract from writings of Thomas Shepard (1605 - 1649) who I think would be deemed a Puritan. His subject is not what we normally correspond about here and it is not something I have discussed with my colleagues first. I have decided to go feral and suffer the consequences later.
I think the subject is vital (even if one disagrees with Shepard's conclusions) because it ought to cause even dissenters to think about their relationship with Jesus Christ. Perhaps, even, it may detect the root cause of extensive deadness within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and opposition to the truth of God's word on origins.
"THE FALSE CONVERT DETECTED
'Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.' Matt. 7:14. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter, of my people slightly, saying Peace, peace; when there is no peace.' Jerem. 6:14.
Look to all ages, and we shall find but a handful saved. As soon as ever the Lord began to keep house, and there were but two families in it, there was a bloody Cain living, and a good Abel slain. And as the world increased in number, so in wickedness, Gen. 6:12. It is said, All flesh had corrupted their ways, and amongst so many thousand men not one righteous but Noah, and his family; and yet in the Ark there crept in a cursed Ham. Afterwards, as Abraham's posterity increased, so we see their sin abounded. When his posterity was in Egypt, where, one would think, if ever men were good, now it would appear, being so heavily afflicted by Pharaoh, being by so many miracles miraculously delivered by the hand of Moses, yet most of these God was wrath with, Heb. 3:11, and only two of them, Caleb and Joshua, went into Canaan, a type of Heaven. Look into Solomon's time: what glorious times! what great profession was there then! Yet after his death ten tribes fell to the odious sin of Idolatry. Look farther into Isaiah's time, when there were multitudes of sacrifices and prayers, Isa. 1:11. Yet then there was but a remnant, nay, a very little remnant, that should be saved. And look to the time of Christ's coming in the flesh (for I pick out the best time of all), when one would think by such sermons he preached, such miracles he wrought, such a life as he led, all the Jews would have entertained him; yet it is said, He came unto his own, and they received him not. John1:11. In the Apostle's time many indeed were converted, but few comparatively; and amongst the best churches were many bad, Philip. 3:18; Rev. 3:4. And presently after the Apostles time Many grievous wolves came in and devoured the sheep. Acts 20 :29.
Even amongst them that have the means of grace, but few shall be saved. It's a strange speech of Chrysostom in his fourth sermon to the people of Antioch, where he was much beloved, and did much good ; ' How many do you think,' he says, ' shall be saved in this city ? It will be an hard speech to you, but I will speak it ; though here be so many thousands of you, yet there cannot be found an hundred that shall be saved, and I doubt of them too.' It may be sometimes amongst ninety-nine in a parish, Christ sends a minister to call some one lost sheep among them, Luke 15. Three grounds were bad where the seed was sown, and only one ground good, Matt. 13. The number of them that shall be saved is very small, Luke 13:24. . . . This minister's exhortation to all confident people, that think they believe, and say they doubt not but to be saved; and hence do not much fear death. Oh, learn to suspect and fear your estate, and fear it so much that thou cannot be quiet until thou hast got some assurance thou shalt be saved. A confident opinion rages amongst divers sorts of people whom the Devil never troubles, because he is sure of them already, and therefore cries peace in their ears, whose conscience never troubles them, because it has shut its eyes: and hence they sleep, and sleeping dream that God is merciful unto them, and will be so; yet never see they are deceived, until they awake with the flames of Hell about their ears: and the world troubles them not, because they are friends to it, and so enemies to God. And ministers never trouble them, for they have none such as are fit for that work near them. And their friends never trouble them, because they are afraid to displease them. This one truth well thought on may damp thine heart. It may be there are better in Hell than thyself that art so confident; and therefore tell me what thou hast to say for thyself, that thou shalt be saved ?
Thou wilt say probably, first, ' I have left my sins I once lived in, and am now no drunkard, no swearer, no liar, etc'—I answer ; thou mayest be washed from thy mire (the pollution of the world), and yet be a swine in God's account, 2 Pet. 2:20. Thou mayest live a blameless, innocent, honest life, and yet be a miserable creature still, Philip. 3:6.
'But I pray, and that often.'—This thou mayest do, and yet never be saved, Isa. 1:11. 'To what purpose is your multitude of sacrifices?' Thou mayest pray with much affection, yet be a thousand miles off from being saved, Prov. 1:28.
'But I hear the Word of God, and like the best preachers.'— This thou mayest do too, and yet never be saved. Nay, thou mayest so hear, as to receive much joy, and comfort in hearing, nay, to believe and catch hold on Christ, and say and think he is thine, and yet not be saved, as the stony ground did, Matt. 13, who heard the word with joy, and for a season believed.
'I read the Scriptures often.'—This you may do too, and yet never be saved ; as the Pharisees, who were so perfect in reading the Bible, that Christ needed only to say, 'It hath been said of old times,' for they knew the text and place well enough without intimation.
'But I am grieved and sorrowful, and repent for my sins past.'—Judas did thus, Matt. 27:3, he repents himself with a legal repentance for fear of Hell, and with a natural sorrow for dealing so unkindly with Christ. True humiliation is ever accompanied with hearty reformation.
'I have very many good desires and endeavours to get to Heaven.'—These thou and thousands may have, and yet miss of Heaven, Luke 13:24.
These things thou may verily think of thyself, and yet be deceived, and damned at last. 'There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof is the way of death.' Prov. 14:12. Thou mayest go fairly, and live so honestly, that all the best Christians about thee may think well of thee, and never suspect thee; and so mayest pass through the world, and die with a deluded comfort, and never know thou art counterfeit, till the Lord brings thee to thy strict and last examination, and so thou receivest that dreadful sentence, Go ye cursed. So it was with the five foolish virgins, that were never discovered by the wise, nor by themselves, until the gate of grace was shut upon them, Matt. 25. If thou hast therefore no better evidences to shew for thyself, that thine estate is good, than these, I will not give a pin's point for all thy flattering false hopes of being saved: but it may be thou hast never yet come so far as this pitch; and if not, Lord! what will become if thee? Suspect thyself much, and when in this shipwreck of souls thou seest so many thousands sink, cry out and conclude, it's a wonder of wonders, and a thousand to one, if ever thou comest safe to shore."
More from Shepard later.
Sam Drucker
I think the subject is vital (even if one disagrees with Shepard's conclusions) because it ought to cause even dissenters to think about their relationship with Jesus Christ. Perhaps, even, it may detect the root cause of extensive deadness within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney and opposition to the truth of God's word on origins.
"THE FALSE CONVERT DETECTED
'Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.' Matt. 7:14. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter, of my people slightly, saying Peace, peace; when there is no peace.' Jerem. 6:14.
Look to all ages, and we shall find but a handful saved. As soon as ever the Lord began to keep house, and there were but two families in it, there was a bloody Cain living, and a good Abel slain. And as the world increased in number, so in wickedness, Gen. 6:12. It is said, All flesh had corrupted their ways, and amongst so many thousand men not one righteous but Noah, and his family; and yet in the Ark there crept in a cursed Ham. Afterwards, as Abraham's posterity increased, so we see their sin abounded. When his posterity was in Egypt, where, one would think, if ever men were good, now it would appear, being so heavily afflicted by Pharaoh, being by so many miracles miraculously delivered by the hand of Moses, yet most of these God was wrath with, Heb. 3:11, and only two of them, Caleb and Joshua, went into Canaan, a type of Heaven. Look into Solomon's time: what glorious times! what great profession was there then! Yet after his death ten tribes fell to the odious sin of Idolatry. Look farther into Isaiah's time, when there were multitudes of sacrifices and prayers, Isa. 1:11. Yet then there was but a remnant, nay, a very little remnant, that should be saved. And look to the time of Christ's coming in the flesh (for I pick out the best time of all), when one would think by such sermons he preached, such miracles he wrought, such a life as he led, all the Jews would have entertained him; yet it is said, He came unto his own, and they received him not. John1:11. In the Apostle's time many indeed were converted, but few comparatively; and amongst the best churches were many bad, Philip. 3:18; Rev. 3:4. And presently after the Apostles time Many grievous wolves came in and devoured the sheep. Acts 20 :29.
Even amongst them that have the means of grace, but few shall be saved. It's a strange speech of Chrysostom in his fourth sermon to the people of Antioch, where he was much beloved, and did much good ; ' How many do you think,' he says, ' shall be saved in this city ? It will be an hard speech to you, but I will speak it ; though here be so many thousands of you, yet there cannot be found an hundred that shall be saved, and I doubt of them too.' It may be sometimes amongst ninety-nine in a parish, Christ sends a minister to call some one lost sheep among them, Luke 15. Three grounds were bad where the seed was sown, and only one ground good, Matt. 13. The number of them that shall be saved is very small, Luke 13:24. . . . This minister's exhortation to all confident people, that think they believe, and say they doubt not but to be saved; and hence do not much fear death. Oh, learn to suspect and fear your estate, and fear it so much that thou cannot be quiet until thou hast got some assurance thou shalt be saved. A confident opinion rages amongst divers sorts of people whom the Devil never troubles, because he is sure of them already, and therefore cries peace in their ears, whose conscience never troubles them, because it has shut its eyes: and hence they sleep, and sleeping dream that God is merciful unto them, and will be so; yet never see they are deceived, until they awake with the flames of Hell about their ears: and the world troubles them not, because they are friends to it, and so enemies to God. And ministers never trouble them, for they have none such as are fit for that work near them. And their friends never trouble them, because they are afraid to displease them. This one truth well thought on may damp thine heart. It may be there are better in Hell than thyself that art so confident; and therefore tell me what thou hast to say for thyself, that thou shalt be saved ?
Thou wilt say probably, first, ' I have left my sins I once lived in, and am now no drunkard, no swearer, no liar, etc'—I answer ; thou mayest be washed from thy mire (the pollution of the world), and yet be a swine in God's account, 2 Pet. 2:20. Thou mayest live a blameless, innocent, honest life, and yet be a miserable creature still, Philip. 3:6.
'But I pray, and that often.'—This thou mayest do, and yet never be saved, Isa. 1:11. 'To what purpose is your multitude of sacrifices?' Thou mayest pray with much affection, yet be a thousand miles off from being saved, Prov. 1:28.
'But I hear the Word of God, and like the best preachers.'— This thou mayest do too, and yet never be saved. Nay, thou mayest so hear, as to receive much joy, and comfort in hearing, nay, to believe and catch hold on Christ, and say and think he is thine, and yet not be saved, as the stony ground did, Matt. 13, who heard the word with joy, and for a season believed.
'I read the Scriptures often.'—This you may do too, and yet never be saved ; as the Pharisees, who were so perfect in reading the Bible, that Christ needed only to say, 'It hath been said of old times,' for they knew the text and place well enough without intimation.
'But I am grieved and sorrowful, and repent for my sins past.'—Judas did thus, Matt. 27:3, he repents himself with a legal repentance for fear of Hell, and with a natural sorrow for dealing so unkindly with Christ. True humiliation is ever accompanied with hearty reformation.
'I have very many good desires and endeavours to get to Heaven.'—These thou and thousands may have, and yet miss of Heaven, Luke 13:24.
These things thou may verily think of thyself, and yet be deceived, and damned at last. 'There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof is the way of death.' Prov. 14:12. Thou mayest go fairly, and live so honestly, that all the best Christians about thee may think well of thee, and never suspect thee; and so mayest pass through the world, and die with a deluded comfort, and never know thou art counterfeit, till the Lord brings thee to thy strict and last examination, and so thou receivest that dreadful sentence, Go ye cursed. So it was with the five foolish virgins, that were never discovered by the wise, nor by themselves, until the gate of grace was shut upon them, Matt. 25. If thou hast therefore no better evidences to shew for thyself, that thine estate is good, than these, I will not give a pin's point for all thy flattering false hopes of being saved: but it may be thou hast never yet come so far as this pitch; and if not, Lord! what will become if thee? Suspect thyself much, and when in this shipwreck of souls thou seest so many thousands sink, cry out and conclude, it's a wonder of wonders, and a thousand to one, if ever thou comest safe to shore."
More from Shepard later.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, October 3, 2010
GREG CLARKE AND THOSE GALATIANS
Three or four times a year I pick up a few gigs from a hospitality agency and work as a waiter. I don't do it for the money – it's far too meagre; rather, I do it for the adrenalin rush and the opportunity to do something that makes me a whole lot more anonymous in the big scheme of things. Once a few glasses of wine and conversation are mixed together most people at functions pay scant attention to the face behind the hands that place and remove their fare for the evening. The other night I worked a do at a farewell for Year 12 at an up-market private Sydney girls' school and one of the punters made an exception to that strong rule.
While taking a break he struck up a conversation with me. It turned out that this corporate lawyer had an interest in philosophy and church history. I mentioned some classes I've taught over the last few years linking the former subject with film. He relayed a renewed enthusiasm for the first 30 minutes of The Matrix after I demonstrated its uncanny resemblance to Plato's Simile of the Cave. I asked him what his daughter was going to do after completing her final exams and he told me she planned to take a year off, a so-called 'gap year', and travel.
The philosophy behind this phenomenon is for young people to gain some insight into worldly matters and make them a better, more diligent student. (As an aside, my time before attending university was less of a gap, more of a yawning canyon. It took me more than 20 years before I thought I had something to contribute to academia.) This is something our least favourite theological college should take on board as part of its entry requirements. The students and graduates I've met seem to have quite an unworldly persona about them, with some transferring from university to the theological classroom without so much as stopping to take a breath.
Greg Clarke's latest journalistic folly evinces such a far-removed attitude to plain things. Dear old Gregory appears to really have lost touch with the common folk. It appears he's forgotten to follow the most trustworthy of how-to manuals, the Gospels, and emulate his saviour's three years of speaking with ordinary (and not so ordinary!) people about earthly and heavenly matters. Gregory, and just about all Sydney Anglican egg-heads, takes what is clearly an accurate adumbration of earth's history and uses it as an excuse to parade his allegiance to atheist and heathen ideologies. His most recent attempt in September's Eternity to deconstruct Genesis 1 and 2 surpasses any other analysis in its incorporation of postmodernal gibberish that I've previously read. A few of Gregory's paragraphs will be sufficient to see that the man has forgotten his audience. Gregory writes:
“Genesis 1 portrays the act of creation as speaking words. It reveals a God, unlike the pagan gods of other creation myths, so elegant and potent that he can simply say a word and make things real.
“Genesis 2, the second account of creation (and Bible-believing people have no problem with getting more than one perspective on things!) doesn't put the creation together in the same day-by-day, element-by-element, manner as the first account. Rather, it gives us a literary portrait of what it was like for humanity to enter the world. And God the Creator is here described more like an artist, perhaps a performance artist, sculpturing humanity from the dust of the earth, forming shaping, and then breathing the spirit of life into the clay.
“The first account is like a hymn, a structured poem of creation; the second account is like a drama, an unfolding play of God's creative desires.
Well, Gregory, as a piece of reporting in a small-town rag on a performance by a local amateur drama group, it may cut the mustard, despite your predilection for cliché, but for theological commentary all I can say is, “You dear idiot Greg Clark”, to borrow one of the Apostle Paul's under-utilised wake-up calls. Further, to the Church at Colossae, Paul scolds them for their stupidity, their blockheadedness, over “spoiling the faith through intellectualism or high-sounding nonsense. Such stuff is at best founded on men's ideas of the nature of the world and disregards Christ!”
Greg, mate, brother, who has bewitched you? My advice is to drop the pseudo-intellectualism – you sound like a dork - grab hold of some common-man thinking, and go back to the basics: God created extremely quickly and perfectly because he's the most wise, intelligent and loving being that there is. God has told us this in his Word. One does not need a PhD in Literary-speak, like Greg has, to understand this.
While taking a break he struck up a conversation with me. It turned out that this corporate lawyer had an interest in philosophy and church history. I mentioned some classes I've taught over the last few years linking the former subject with film. He relayed a renewed enthusiasm for the first 30 minutes of The Matrix after I demonstrated its uncanny resemblance to Plato's Simile of the Cave. I asked him what his daughter was going to do after completing her final exams and he told me she planned to take a year off, a so-called 'gap year', and travel.
The philosophy behind this phenomenon is for young people to gain some insight into worldly matters and make them a better, more diligent student. (As an aside, my time before attending university was less of a gap, more of a yawning canyon. It took me more than 20 years before I thought I had something to contribute to academia.) This is something our least favourite theological college should take on board as part of its entry requirements. The students and graduates I've met seem to have quite an unworldly persona about them, with some transferring from university to the theological classroom without so much as stopping to take a breath.
Greg Clarke's latest journalistic folly evinces such a far-removed attitude to plain things. Dear old Gregory appears to really have lost touch with the common folk. It appears he's forgotten to follow the most trustworthy of how-to manuals, the Gospels, and emulate his saviour's three years of speaking with ordinary (and not so ordinary!) people about earthly and heavenly matters. Gregory, and just about all Sydney Anglican egg-heads, takes what is clearly an accurate adumbration of earth's history and uses it as an excuse to parade his allegiance to atheist and heathen ideologies. His most recent attempt in September's Eternity to deconstruct Genesis 1 and 2 surpasses any other analysis in its incorporation of postmodernal gibberish that I've previously read. A few of Gregory's paragraphs will be sufficient to see that the man has forgotten his audience. Gregory writes:
“Genesis 1 portrays the act of creation as speaking words. It reveals a God, unlike the pagan gods of other creation myths, so elegant and potent that he can simply say a word and make things real.
“Genesis 2, the second account of creation (and Bible-believing people have no problem with getting more than one perspective on things!) doesn't put the creation together in the same day-by-day, element-by-element, manner as the first account. Rather, it gives us a literary portrait of what it was like for humanity to enter the world. And God the Creator is here described more like an artist, perhaps a performance artist, sculpturing humanity from the dust of the earth, forming shaping, and then breathing the spirit of life into the clay.
“The first account is like a hymn, a structured poem of creation; the second account is like a drama, an unfolding play of God's creative desires.
Well, Gregory, as a piece of reporting in a small-town rag on a performance by a local amateur drama group, it may cut the mustard, despite your predilection for cliché, but for theological commentary all I can say is, “You dear idiot Greg Clark”, to borrow one of the Apostle Paul's under-utilised wake-up calls. Further, to the Church at Colossae, Paul scolds them for their stupidity, their blockheadedness, over “spoiling the faith through intellectualism or high-sounding nonsense. Such stuff is at best founded on men's ideas of the nature of the world and disregards Christ!”
Greg, mate, brother, who has bewitched you? My advice is to drop the pseudo-intellectualism – you sound like a dork - grab hold of some common-man thinking, and go back to the basics: God created extremely quickly and perfectly because he's the most wise, intelligent and loving being that there is. God has told us this in his Word. One does not need a PhD in Literary-speak, like Greg has, to understand this.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Declension in Church Music?
John Kennedy, D.D. of Dingwall, Scotland, in the 19th Century was one of the foremost evangelical leaders in Scotland. He was a contemporary and close friend of C. H. Spurgeon and was known as "the Spurgeon of the North". At one point he felt compelled to write a review of the campaigns of D.L. Moody in Scotland. He called it: Hyper - Evangelism, 'Another Gospel,' Though a Mighty Power - A Review of the Recent Religious Movement in Scotland.
I might later quote some other objects of his criticism which have since found their way into Evangelical practices today (including the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney) but I was taken by Kennedy's comments on music. There has been, once or twice at this site, mention of music in Sydney Episcopalian services. It also received mention and debate in the Diocesan newspaper "Southern Cross" earlier this year so it seemed right to let John Kennedy have say today. His comments on this topic were divided into two parts under the heading "Unscriptural Devices" and they follow herewith:
1. Excessive hymn-singing is one of these. The singing of uninspired hymns even in moderation, as a part of public worship, no one can prove to be scriptural; but the excess and the misdirection of the singing in this movement were irrational as well. Singing ought to be to the Lord ; for singing is worship. But singing the gospel to men has taken the place of singing praise to God. This, at any rate, is something new—that indeed is its only recommendation—and when the singing is also good, its melody combines with its novelty to make an impression. The singing produced an effect. Many professed to have been converted by the hymns.
2. The use of instrumental music was an additional novelty, pleasing to the kind of feeling that finds pleasure in a concert. To introduce what is so gratifying there, into the service of the house of God, is to make the latter palatable to those to whom spiritual worship is an offence. The organ sounds effectively touch chords which nothing else would thrill. To Scottish Presbyterians is was something new; but as their spiritual guides did not object to it, why should they ? Tided thus, by their pastors, over all difficulties, which their scruples might occasion, they found it pleasant to enjoy the new sensation. They could be at the concert and in church at the same time. They could get at once something for conscience and something for the flesh.
And yet it is not difficult to prove that the use of instrumental music, in the worship of God, is unscriptural, and that therefore all, who have subscribed the Confession of Faith, are under solemn vow against it. There was a thorough change, in the mode of worship, effected by the revolution, which introduced the New Testament dispensation. So thorough is this change, that no part of the old ritual can be a precedent to us. For all parts of the service of the house of God there must be New Testament precept or example. No one will pretend that for instrumental music, in the worship of God, there is any authority in New Testament Scripture. "The fruit of the lips," issuing from hearts that make "melody to the Lord," is the only form of praise it sanctions. The Church of Rome claims a right to introduce into the worship of God any innovation it lists; the Church of England allows what is not expressly forbidden in Scripture; but Scotch Presbyterians are bound, by the Confession of Faith, to disallow all that is not appointed in Scripture. (Conf. chap, xxi.) How those, who allow the use of instrumental music, in our Assembly Hall, can reconcile their doing so with their ordination vows, I cannot even conjecture.
It may seem strange, but it is quite as true as it is strange, that those who are ready to plead that principles and doctrine, inculcated under the former dispensation, are no longer entitled to our acceptance, unless re-delivered with New Testament sanctions, are just the parties who are also ready to go back to Old Testament antecedents in the mode of worship. What is eternally true is treated as if it were temporary, and that which has "vanished away" is regarded as perpetual. But if the ancient mode, of conducting the service of praise, furnishes an example for all times, on the self-same ground you are entitled to choose what you list out of the ceremonies of Old Testament worship. The altar and the sacrifice may be defended as surely as the organ.
"But we use the organ only as an aid," it is said. "It is right that we should do our best in serving the Lord; and if the vocal music is improved by the instrumental accompaniment, then surely the organ may be used." On the same ground you might argue for the use of crucifixes and pictures, and for all the paraphenalia of the Popish ritual. "These," you might say, "make an impression on minds that would not otherwise be at all affected. They vividly present before worshippers the scenes described in Scripture, and if, as aids, they serve to do so, they surely cannot be wrong." To this, there are three replies, equally good against the argument for instrumental music. 1. They are not prescribed in New Testament Scripture, and therefore they must not be introduced into New Testament worship. 2. They are incongruous with the spirituality of the New Testament dispensation. 3. These additions but help to excite a state of feeling which militates against, instead of aiding, that which, is produced by the word. An organ may make an impression, but what is it but such as may be made more thoroughly at the opera ? It may help to regulate the singing, but does God require this improvement ? And whence arises the taste for it ? It cannot be from the desire to make the praise more fevent and spiritual, for it only tends to take attention away from the heart, whose melody the Lord requires. It is the craving for pleasurable aesthetics, for the gratification of mere carnal feeling, that desires the thrill of organ sounds, to touch pleasingly the heart, that yields no response to what is spiritual. If the argument, against the use of the organ, in the service of praise, is good, it is, at least, equally so against its use in the service of preaching. If anything did "vanish away," it surely is the use of all such accessories in connection with the exhibition of Christ to men.
Oh, what grief would befall John Kennedy of Dingwall, Scotland were he to encounter a church service in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney today.
Sam Drucker
I might later quote some other objects of his criticism which have since found their way into Evangelical practices today (including the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney) but I was taken by Kennedy's comments on music. There has been, once or twice at this site, mention of music in Sydney Episcopalian services. It also received mention and debate in the Diocesan newspaper "Southern Cross" earlier this year so it seemed right to let John Kennedy have say today. His comments on this topic were divided into two parts under the heading "Unscriptural Devices" and they follow herewith:
1. Excessive hymn-singing is one of these. The singing of uninspired hymns even in moderation, as a part of public worship, no one can prove to be scriptural; but the excess and the misdirection of the singing in this movement were irrational as well. Singing ought to be to the Lord ; for singing is worship. But singing the gospel to men has taken the place of singing praise to God. This, at any rate, is something new—that indeed is its only recommendation—and when the singing is also good, its melody combines with its novelty to make an impression. The singing produced an effect. Many professed to have been converted by the hymns.
2. The use of instrumental music was an additional novelty, pleasing to the kind of feeling that finds pleasure in a concert. To introduce what is so gratifying there, into the service of the house of God, is to make the latter palatable to those to whom spiritual worship is an offence. The organ sounds effectively touch chords which nothing else would thrill. To Scottish Presbyterians is was something new; but as their spiritual guides did not object to it, why should they ? Tided thus, by their pastors, over all difficulties, which their scruples might occasion, they found it pleasant to enjoy the new sensation. They could be at the concert and in church at the same time. They could get at once something for conscience and something for the flesh.
And yet it is not difficult to prove that the use of instrumental music, in the worship of God, is unscriptural, and that therefore all, who have subscribed the Confession of Faith, are under solemn vow against it. There was a thorough change, in the mode of worship, effected by the revolution, which introduced the New Testament dispensation. So thorough is this change, that no part of the old ritual can be a precedent to us. For all parts of the service of the house of God there must be New Testament precept or example. No one will pretend that for instrumental music, in the worship of God, there is any authority in New Testament Scripture. "The fruit of the lips," issuing from hearts that make "melody to the Lord," is the only form of praise it sanctions. The Church of Rome claims a right to introduce into the worship of God any innovation it lists; the Church of England allows what is not expressly forbidden in Scripture; but Scotch Presbyterians are bound, by the Confession of Faith, to disallow all that is not appointed in Scripture. (Conf. chap, xxi.) How those, who allow the use of instrumental music, in our Assembly Hall, can reconcile their doing so with their ordination vows, I cannot even conjecture.
It may seem strange, but it is quite as true as it is strange, that those who are ready to plead that principles and doctrine, inculcated under the former dispensation, are no longer entitled to our acceptance, unless re-delivered with New Testament sanctions, are just the parties who are also ready to go back to Old Testament antecedents in the mode of worship. What is eternally true is treated as if it were temporary, and that which has "vanished away" is regarded as perpetual. But if the ancient mode, of conducting the service of praise, furnishes an example for all times, on the self-same ground you are entitled to choose what you list out of the ceremonies of Old Testament worship. The altar and the sacrifice may be defended as surely as the organ.
"But we use the organ only as an aid," it is said. "It is right that we should do our best in serving the Lord; and if the vocal music is improved by the instrumental accompaniment, then surely the organ may be used." On the same ground you might argue for the use of crucifixes and pictures, and for all the paraphenalia of the Popish ritual. "These," you might say, "make an impression on minds that would not otherwise be at all affected. They vividly present before worshippers the scenes described in Scripture, and if, as aids, they serve to do so, they surely cannot be wrong." To this, there are three replies, equally good against the argument for instrumental music. 1. They are not prescribed in New Testament Scripture, and therefore they must not be introduced into New Testament worship. 2. They are incongruous with the spirituality of the New Testament dispensation. 3. These additions but help to excite a state of feeling which militates against, instead of aiding, that which, is produced by the word. An organ may make an impression, but what is it but such as may be made more thoroughly at the opera ? It may help to regulate the singing, but does God require this improvement ? And whence arises the taste for it ? It cannot be from the desire to make the praise more fevent and spiritual, for it only tends to take attention away from the heart, whose melody the Lord requires. It is the craving for pleasurable aesthetics, for the gratification of mere carnal feeling, that desires the thrill of organ sounds, to touch pleasingly the heart, that yields no response to what is spiritual. If the argument, against the use of the organ, in the service of praise, is good, it is, at least, equally so against its use in the service of preaching. If anything did "vanish away," it surely is the use of all such accessories in connection with the exhibition of Christ to men.
Oh, what grief would befall John Kennedy of Dingwall, Scotland were he to encounter a church service in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney today.
Sam Drucker
Leupold Genesis part 41 verse 11
11. And God said: Let the earth produce grass, and herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind whose seed is in them upon the earth; and it was so.
The second half of the work of the third day is here recorded. This work attaches itself quite naturally to the preceding work the dry land just formed is at once to bring forth all forms of vegetation. The work of this half of the day is not immediate creation in the sense of the works preceding. For in the instances that went before the word was spoken and the result followed. In this instance the earth is the mediate agent, being bidden to produce whatever vegetation is necessary by a process of highly accelerated growth. Such a work is neither of a higher nor of a lower character than are the other works. Upon closer reflection this verse is seen to answer a question often asked, whether the plant preceded the seed, or the seed the plant. Since the seed is not bidden to bring forth but the earth is, and since, the things brought forth are first to produce seed, and since nothing indicates the prior creation of seed, the only possibility left open to us is to believe that plants and herbs came first. This still leaves room for the possibility that the Spirit in His hovering implanted the potentialities that here unfold themselves.
How do the things produced by the earth differ from one another? The three orders mentioned are (1) grass, (2) herbs, (3) trees. Some put the three items down as independent classes in an ascending scale (e. g. Delitzsch). Some make (2) a genitive dependent on (1), having as a result a pair of doubles "grass of herb" and "tree of fruit," as the Greek version botanhn cortu and eulon carpimon. Still others make (1) the general term covering all and (2) and (3) subdivisions of (1). We feel that the first point of view alone is correct and does justice to the meaning of the words employed. "Grass" represents the word deshe', whose root signifies "to be damp." Whatever grows in a well-watered spot will be of a fresh green, therefore the word is rendered frisches Gruen. Since, no doubt, these three classes aim to cover all vegetation in so far as it is of interest to man, the word deshe' may well be said to include such things as mosses and other plants designed to carpet the earth. The second term, "herbs," is a singular collective noun 'esebh, also translated "herbage." That the word is really distinct from deshe' in meaning appears first from its use in passages like (2Ki 19:26) and (Isa 37:27) where in an enumeration both are mentioned separately. Again the characteristic mark ascribed to it in this verse is noteworthy: mazria' zera', literally, seeding seed, therefore "yielding seed." Grasses, for that matter, yield seed too, but if specific mention of the seed is made only in the second class, apparently this refers to something like seed-bearing pods which make the seed more prominent as a separate feature. According to scriptural usage man eats 'esebh; see 1:29 and 3:18. So do cattle, (De 11:15). This being a broad class name, it must include things such as vegetables, or at least, generally speaking, everything between grass and trees and, without a doubt, the various grains.
So, too, the last term must be used in a very broad sense. "Fruit-bearing trees," again a singular collective 'ets peri, must include both trees that bear fruit as well as trees yielding nuts and cones and, surely, all bushes yielding berries. For the expression translated literally means only "tree of fruit." Two other marks, however, are appended to this class: first, these fruit trees bear fruit "after their kind," a peculiar and definite limitation, which all those understand best who have seen how the "kind" sets limitations upon all who would mix kinds and cross them. Nature itself here is seen to have definite limits fixed which appear as constant laws or as insurmountable barriers. The last mark stamped upon this third class of vegetable growth is "whose seed is in them upon the earth." The seed needed for the propagation of the particular kinds is seen to be in the fruit. So whether the fruit be edible or not, as long as it has seed qualities, it meets the requirements of this mark. The concluding phrase for this mark, "upon the earth," might perhaps better have been rendered as "above the ground." For to try to make this phrase modify the verb tadhshe' at the beginning of the sentence certainly removes it far from the word modified. Besides, the characteristic thing about this "fruit-bearing seed" is that it usually hangs at some distance above the ground. Then, too, 'erets does mean "ground," and 'al does mean "above."
These three broad classes of vegetation may not coincide with botanical distinctions as science now makes them. But, assuredly, they are seen to be a general and a very appropriate type of division as far as man's use of them is concerned, and in some ways the distinctions made are seen to be very apt. The lines of demarcation drawn at creation are just as sharp now as they were then.
This verse closes with an, "and it was so," to indicate again how immediate was the fulfilment of the thing commanded.
Tadshe' is, of course, a jussive or a yakteel elevatum (K. S. 189), and deshe' and zera' are cognate objects.
We should yet draw attention to the fact that the things mentioned in 2:5 are not to be included in the above classification, and so reservations must be made in reference to our use of the terms "vegetables" and "bushes" in the above discussion.
If above in v. 7 the "and it was so" stood after it had been reported that the individual things to be created had actually come into being, here in v. 11 the "and it was so" precedes this latter statement, (K. S. 369b).
The second half of the work of the third day is here recorded. This work attaches itself quite naturally to the preceding work the dry land just formed is at once to bring forth all forms of vegetation. The work of this half of the day is not immediate creation in the sense of the works preceding. For in the instances that went before the word was spoken and the result followed. In this instance the earth is the mediate agent, being bidden to produce whatever vegetation is necessary by a process of highly accelerated growth. Such a work is neither of a higher nor of a lower character than are the other works. Upon closer reflection this verse is seen to answer a question often asked, whether the plant preceded the seed, or the seed the plant. Since the seed is not bidden to bring forth but the earth is, and since, the things brought forth are first to produce seed, and since nothing indicates the prior creation of seed, the only possibility left open to us is to believe that plants and herbs came first. This still leaves room for the possibility that the Spirit in His hovering implanted the potentialities that here unfold themselves.
How do the things produced by the earth differ from one another? The three orders mentioned are (1) grass, (2) herbs, (3) trees. Some put the three items down as independent classes in an ascending scale (e. g. Delitzsch). Some make (2) a genitive dependent on (1), having as a result a pair of doubles "grass of herb" and "tree of fruit," as the Greek version botanhn cortu and eulon carpimon. Still others make (1) the general term covering all and (2) and (3) subdivisions of (1). We feel that the first point of view alone is correct and does justice to the meaning of the words employed. "Grass" represents the word deshe', whose root signifies "to be damp." Whatever grows in a well-watered spot will be of a fresh green, therefore the word is rendered frisches Gruen. Since, no doubt, these three classes aim to cover all vegetation in so far as it is of interest to man, the word deshe' may well be said to include such things as mosses and other plants designed to carpet the earth. The second term, "herbs," is a singular collective noun 'esebh, also translated "herbage." That the word is really distinct from deshe' in meaning appears first from its use in passages like (2Ki 19:26) and (Isa 37:27) where in an enumeration both are mentioned separately. Again the characteristic mark ascribed to it in this verse is noteworthy: mazria' zera', literally, seeding seed, therefore "yielding seed." Grasses, for that matter, yield seed too, but if specific mention of the seed is made only in the second class, apparently this refers to something like seed-bearing pods which make the seed more prominent as a separate feature. According to scriptural usage man eats 'esebh; see 1:29 and 3:18. So do cattle, (De 11:15). This being a broad class name, it must include things such as vegetables, or at least, generally speaking, everything between grass and trees and, without a doubt, the various grains.
So, too, the last term must be used in a very broad sense. "Fruit-bearing trees," again a singular collective 'ets peri, must include both trees that bear fruit as well as trees yielding nuts and cones and, surely, all bushes yielding berries. For the expression translated literally means only "tree of fruit." Two other marks, however, are appended to this class: first, these fruit trees bear fruit "after their kind," a peculiar and definite limitation, which all those understand best who have seen how the "kind" sets limitations upon all who would mix kinds and cross them. Nature itself here is seen to have definite limits fixed which appear as constant laws or as insurmountable barriers. The last mark stamped upon this third class of vegetable growth is "whose seed is in them upon the earth." The seed needed for the propagation of the particular kinds is seen to be in the fruit. So whether the fruit be edible or not, as long as it has seed qualities, it meets the requirements of this mark. The concluding phrase for this mark, "upon the earth," might perhaps better have been rendered as "above the ground." For to try to make this phrase modify the verb tadhshe' at the beginning of the sentence certainly removes it far from the word modified. Besides, the characteristic thing about this "fruit-bearing seed" is that it usually hangs at some distance above the ground. Then, too, 'erets does mean "ground," and 'al does mean "above."
These three broad classes of vegetation may not coincide with botanical distinctions as science now makes them. But, assuredly, they are seen to be a general and a very appropriate type of division as far as man's use of them is concerned, and in some ways the distinctions made are seen to be very apt. The lines of demarcation drawn at creation are just as sharp now as they were then.
This verse closes with an, "and it was so," to indicate again how immediate was the fulfilment of the thing commanded.
Tadshe' is, of course, a jussive or a yakteel elevatum (K. S. 189), and deshe' and zera' are cognate objects.
We should yet draw attention to the fact that the things mentioned in 2:5 are not to be included in the above classification, and so reservations must be made in reference to our use of the terms "vegetables" and "bushes" in the above discussion.
If above in v. 7 the "and it was so" stood after it had been reported that the individual things to be created had actually come into being, here in v. 11 the "and it was so" precedes this latter statement, (K. S. 369b).
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Church Goes After Jeroboam I
It's been a while since I felt compelled to write but here goes. King Jeroboam I (hereafter referred to as Jeroboam) seems sufficient cause.
Jeroboam's sin was to set up idols at Bethel and Dan for the Northern Tribes (Israel) to worship rather than having them travel to Jerusalem to worship the God of Israel. His motive was to retain control of his recently acquired kingdom by discouraging the people from travelling through the kingdom ruled by Rehoboam - his adversary.
Jeroboam appointed his own priests who were not of the Aaronic line and established a religious calendar with appropriate festivals. It was all very convenient, one golden calf in the north and one in the south. They were presented as something not really removed from the true worship of God for these were the "gods, Oh Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt." (1 Kings 12:28) Furthermore, the cumbersome and rigid appointment of priests from the Aaronic line was less attractive to the people than Jeroboam's method of appointing priests from every class of people. It was all so easy for Jeroboam to avoid a charge of apostasy from the people.
Jeroboam's actions were an offence to God and the seeds of ruin to Israel. There are firm lessons in all this for the Church today.
As with Jeroboam, compromising religion can be introduced in the name of the true God. Church activities are not necessarily acceptable to God just because they are instituted in His name. Rituals of worship can be convenient, popular and presented under the sacred name of Jesus Christ yet be delusive.
Synchretism of Christian theology and pagan superstition in past centuries by various denominations has been destructive to the Church. A cursory look at what may be described as fervour in evangelical circles today is a poor caricature of the spiritual worship and faithfulness Jesus Christ instituted in His Church some 2,000 years ago. This fact presents important questions. Is the message we preach biblical and faithful to the gospel revealed in Jesus Christ or is it corrupted by worldly ideas which surround us? Do our public services lead people to the true worship of God or are they calculated merely to be aesthetically pleasing and, even worse, just giving some sense of worth to one or more persons with musical interest.
Similarly, presenting to the world a disjointed Jesus Christ who is a miracle worker of the New Testament but a blurred and indistinct Creator of the Old Testament is sure recipe for failure both in understanding of the hearer and blessing of God.
As the example of Jeroboam shows, simply sanctifying religious exercises with the trappings of 'tradition' is not enough. His ridiculous claim that the golden calves were the ancient God of the Hebrews did not make it so. Similarly, we may dress up our professed Christianity today with the nomenclature of past orthodoxy and associate such worthy names as Calvin, Luther and Wesley with it. But would they really approve? Such men laboured and fought to reform the church and conform it to the Scriptures. It is dishonest to wrest their teachings to justify theologies and practices which any honest person should know they would have repudiated. Even worse, to classify semi-pagan theories and practices as 'Christian' is a sacrilegious affront to the Holy Spirit. There is all too much reason to fear that many evangelicals have forgotten Jeroboam and none more so than many within the Anglican Diocese of Sydney today.
Neil
Jeroboam's sin was to set up idols at Bethel and Dan for the Northern Tribes (Israel) to worship rather than having them travel to Jerusalem to worship the God of Israel. His motive was to retain control of his recently acquired kingdom by discouraging the people from travelling through the kingdom ruled by Rehoboam - his adversary.
Jeroboam appointed his own priests who were not of the Aaronic line and established a religious calendar with appropriate festivals. It was all very convenient, one golden calf in the north and one in the south. They were presented as something not really removed from the true worship of God for these were the "gods, Oh Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt." (1 Kings 12:28) Furthermore, the cumbersome and rigid appointment of priests from the Aaronic line was less attractive to the people than Jeroboam's method of appointing priests from every class of people. It was all so easy for Jeroboam to avoid a charge of apostasy from the people.
Jeroboam's actions were an offence to God and the seeds of ruin to Israel. There are firm lessons in all this for the Church today.
As with Jeroboam, compromising religion can be introduced in the name of the true God. Church activities are not necessarily acceptable to God just because they are instituted in His name. Rituals of worship can be convenient, popular and presented under the sacred name of Jesus Christ yet be delusive.
Synchretism of Christian theology and pagan superstition in past centuries by various denominations has been destructive to the Church. A cursory look at what may be described as fervour in evangelical circles today is a poor caricature of the spiritual worship and faithfulness Jesus Christ instituted in His Church some 2,000 years ago. This fact presents important questions. Is the message we preach biblical and faithful to the gospel revealed in Jesus Christ or is it corrupted by worldly ideas which surround us? Do our public services lead people to the true worship of God or are they calculated merely to be aesthetically pleasing and, even worse, just giving some sense of worth to one or more persons with musical interest.
Similarly, presenting to the world a disjointed Jesus Christ who is a miracle worker of the New Testament but a blurred and indistinct Creator of the Old Testament is sure recipe for failure both in understanding of the hearer and blessing of God.
As the example of Jeroboam shows, simply sanctifying religious exercises with the trappings of 'tradition' is not enough. His ridiculous claim that the golden calves were the ancient God of the Hebrews did not make it so. Similarly, we may dress up our professed Christianity today with the nomenclature of past orthodoxy and associate such worthy names as Calvin, Luther and Wesley with it. But would they really approve? Such men laboured and fought to reform the church and conform it to the Scriptures. It is dishonest to wrest their teachings to justify theologies and practices which any honest person should know they would have repudiated. Even worse, to classify semi-pagan theories and practices as 'Christian' is a sacrilegious affront to the Holy Spirit. There is all too much reason to fear that many evangelicals have forgotten Jeroboam and none more so than many within the Anglican Diocese of Sydney today.
Neil
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Christianity in a Technology Affluent World
Once again I have been reading through my back issues of the Banner of Truth Journal. I thought readers might be interested in an essay submitted by Maurice Roberts, former Editor of the Journal. Roberts' essay was published in Issue 337 of October 1991 under the heading "Man's Modern Techtopia" It follows herewith:
"Man's technical brilliance is fast producing a society which promises to give birth to a secular paradise. The genius of modern civilisation, if it is allowed to run its present course to perfection, will bring mankind to the point at which there is everything to live with and nothing to live for. Every form of material comfort will be on hand to gratify man's physical needs. But society will have lost its soul, its sense of purpose and the very meaning of existence.
The Western world and its secular way of life is an increasingly lonely place for a Christian to live in precisely because it threatens to kill him with material kindness. There probably never was an age which intruded so benignly on the privacy of the mind and of the soul as our modern world does. The secular view of everything under the sun, thanks to the media, presses in on us, not only in the work-place and in the school, but even in the home and at the sick bed. From early childhood until we reach our dying hour the worldly-wise mentality is fed to us in generous spoonfuls. It is taken in with our mother's milk, copied off the blackboard into our earliest school jotters, learned out of countless newspapers and magazines and, in the twilight of life, fed to us in our eventide homes before we close our eyes in the sleep of death.
The supreme achievement of our age is to have banished God from the universe. No age, not even the age of Paine, Voltaire and Rousseau, did it so successfully. God, to all intents and purposes, is an irrelevance to our modern world. He is not, so we now hear, the Author of our existence, the Creator of our universe, our Father in heaven or our Last Judge. If occasional lip-service is paid in our society to such out-worn remnants of our grandparents' creed it is merely a token gesture with no more conviction behind it than if a lapsed Catholic were to cross himself unthinkingly in a moment of sudden fear.
Our modern civilisation is cruel to the Christian by its very kindness. There are no fires or faggots any more with which to burn the devout believer. A lavish toleration is allowed him. But the secular hand strokes the believer's cheek with every breath he breathes. Sensuality and scepticism caress the Christian's mind wherever he turns. Mammon frowns upon him in the streets of the town where he lives and godlessness licks his hand like a lap-dog whenever he sits down to take a moment's relaxation. The secular spirit blows upon us at all seasons like a prevailing wind and its dust settles on our minds like the fall-out from a factory chimney. The siren-voices of our age are singing in unison and their song beats relentlessly on our weary spirits with the message that we ought to forget God and live only for today
As surely as our civilised world has opted not to retain God in its knowledge, so certainly has God righteously given men over to believe the secular lie. God is not in all men's thoughts. Society is hungry and thirsty for things which belong only to this present life. The consequence is that we are now cursed with a fascination and a fixation for the things which all belong to this passing world. The words of the psalmist receive their tragic fulfilment today once again: 'He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul' [Psa. 106:15]. The general wish is that there should be no God; and so God has hidden himself from men as a just judgment on them. The penalty fits the crime. God has paid us back in our own coin. The living God is outlawed and banished from our man-made society. To refer to him in public is an unpardonable breach of etiquette. And God, for his part, is silent. His arm is not shortened nor his ear heavy but our sins have made it necessary that he should hide himself behind the thick cloud till society comes to its senses.
One cannot help being impressed with the exchange we have made as a world since the days of our Christian forefathers. They had humble houses, hard chairs, long working hours, small wages, frequent illnesses and often short lives. But their recompence was to have also well-worn Bibles, well-attended churches, believing hearts, grateful voices, loving families, hospitable homes.
Today's society has (or, at least, aims to get) television and refrigeration, fast cars and warm homes, well-stored larders and plentiful wardrobes, a confident manner and an affluent air. But at what price? It is not, of course, that these things are wrong of themselves. But they are no better than a bubble if they are sought in exchange for the higher treasures which our fathers had. The Christian sighs, not because he resents society's desire for plenty, but because our civilisation is profane like Esau and has sold its heritage for a mess of pottage. What sort of society have we become if in reality our god is our belly and if we spend all our strength for the bread which perishes?
The time was when it was a man's ambition to be mighty in prayer and in the Scriptures, when it was a shame to have uncatechised children and an irreligious Sabbath, and when a man's name was honoured because he was the conscience of his community The day has been known in our nation when education's first goal was to know the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, when to prepare for eternity was widely held to be man's first and greatest need, and when men's acknowledged ambition was to die well after an honourable lifetime toiling to glorify and enjoy God.
In our present-day Utopian society we have made provision for everything but the soul and have made preparation for everything but the hour of death. Our high-streets are a witness to our secular spirit in that they have become a market-place where everything is sold except the truth of Christ, and where men want to buy everything under the sun, but not the salvation purchased by Christ. Hence life has lost its meaning for the multitude who live in this twentieth-century Vanity Fair and woe betide the pilgrim who passes through and shows that his eyes are on a Celestial City not made by man's hand! They will laugh him to scorn and separate from his company as if he were a leper.
All through history men have dreamed of some Utopia, or ideal society on earth. Several famous and important writers have put their ideas for a perfect human world-order into book form. Plato, the Greek thinker, was perhaps the first we know of to write about an ideal state. He was followed by his pupil and rival Aristotle. Much later the idea was taken up by Sir Thomas More and then by Francis Bacon. Karl Marx and his associates did much the same in the last century in their endeavour to achieve a 'classless society'. In recent times George Orwell in his popular novel 1984 rewrites the theme with the well known character of 'Big Brother' ominously present as the observer of all men and with the sinister threat of the 'thought police' ever in the background.
All visions of an ideal world for man and his world suffer from the same sins of omission. They all leave a sovereign God of justice and mercy out of their reckoning. They have no hope of a glorious life in heaven after this one. And they have no place for a Messiah or Redeemer for mankind who dies for them and brings them salvation. We are grateful beyond all words that men's Utopias have never been permitted by God to succeed. All human kingdoms and civilisations have been transient and our own will be no exception.
Only one kingdom is eternal and its 'blessed and only Potentate' is the Lord our God. To every true Christian it is bliss to recall this fact frequently in our modern world. We are grateful to God for the comforts and conveniences of modern life. But they are no substitute to the Christian for God himself. In this the children of the world are opposite to the children of God, in that the former would do anything to make a happy world without God, whereas the latter would cheerfully do without everything this world offers if they could only have God himself The language of the believer is that God is his heaven and to be without the enjoyment of God's favour and fellowship is a veritable 'hell on earth', whatever the material comforts he enjoys.
It is for this very reason that the Christian sighs and groans so often in this modern world. The godless men of our age are straining every nerve today to turn society into a market of pleasures. The Lord's people, on the other hand, long to see it become a garden where men will once again walk with God and a sanctuary where worship and spiritual teaching are given first place in men's lives.
The believer cannot but mourn and weep today because society has made a conspiracy of silence against God. His house is largely shunned. His Word is ignored. His day is profaned. His gospel is scorned. His grace is rebuffed and his mighty deeds are culpably forgotten. In a word, all that the Christian loves is today trampled in the mire of the streets, and men love to have it so.
All over the world, however, there are men and women of God who are weary of the secular spirit of our age. Their tears are in God's bottle. Their sighs are in his book of remembrance. They are the Simeons and Annas of our time, who look for the consolation of Israel [Luke 2:25] and dream of the day when God will rise up from his long sleep like a giant refreshed by wine [Psa. 78:65]. Today they go in the bitterness of their soul because they see Zion languish and her walls turned to ruins. They have seen visions of a God who hears prayer and they pour out their complaint into his bosom.
The day will certainly dawn when the Lord our God will say to his church, 'Awake, awake, 0 Zion' [Isa. 52:1]. It is our absolute confidence that he will not retain his anger forever. Man's modern 'Techtopia' is but another edition of the tower of Babel. It will crumble and fall and be superseded—Oh! may God hasten the day!—by a better and a more spiritual age. Judgment will then return to righteousness [Psa. 94:15]. The promises of God are not yet exhausted. On the ashes of man's corrupt civilisations will be reared up the ancient kingdom of Christ in its glory once again. The 'wilderness will be a fruitful field and the fruitful field be counted for a forest' [Isa. 32:15;.
Let the darkness that surrounds us cause us to cry out to God all the more: 'God of our fathers, rise up again 'in majesty!'"
Nearly twenty years later, with more advanced technology, with greater hedonistic pursuits and Maurice Roberts' essay resonates all the more strongly.
Sam Drucker
"Man's technical brilliance is fast producing a society which promises to give birth to a secular paradise. The genius of modern civilisation, if it is allowed to run its present course to perfection, will bring mankind to the point at which there is everything to live with and nothing to live for. Every form of material comfort will be on hand to gratify man's physical needs. But society will have lost its soul, its sense of purpose and the very meaning of existence.
The Western world and its secular way of life is an increasingly lonely place for a Christian to live in precisely because it threatens to kill him with material kindness. There probably never was an age which intruded so benignly on the privacy of the mind and of the soul as our modern world does. The secular view of everything under the sun, thanks to the media, presses in on us, not only in the work-place and in the school, but even in the home and at the sick bed. From early childhood until we reach our dying hour the worldly-wise mentality is fed to us in generous spoonfuls. It is taken in with our mother's milk, copied off the blackboard into our earliest school jotters, learned out of countless newspapers and magazines and, in the twilight of life, fed to us in our eventide homes before we close our eyes in the sleep of death.
The supreme achievement of our age is to have banished God from the universe. No age, not even the age of Paine, Voltaire and Rousseau, did it so successfully. God, to all intents and purposes, is an irrelevance to our modern world. He is not, so we now hear, the Author of our existence, the Creator of our universe, our Father in heaven or our Last Judge. If occasional lip-service is paid in our society to such out-worn remnants of our grandparents' creed it is merely a token gesture with no more conviction behind it than if a lapsed Catholic were to cross himself unthinkingly in a moment of sudden fear.
Our modern civilisation is cruel to the Christian by its very kindness. There are no fires or faggots any more with which to burn the devout believer. A lavish toleration is allowed him. But the secular hand strokes the believer's cheek with every breath he breathes. Sensuality and scepticism caress the Christian's mind wherever he turns. Mammon frowns upon him in the streets of the town where he lives and godlessness licks his hand like a lap-dog whenever he sits down to take a moment's relaxation. The secular spirit blows upon us at all seasons like a prevailing wind and its dust settles on our minds like the fall-out from a factory chimney. The siren-voices of our age are singing in unison and their song beats relentlessly on our weary spirits with the message that we ought to forget God and live only for today
As surely as our civilised world has opted not to retain God in its knowledge, so certainly has God righteously given men over to believe the secular lie. God is not in all men's thoughts. Society is hungry and thirsty for things which belong only to this present life. The consequence is that we are now cursed with a fascination and a fixation for the things which all belong to this passing world. The words of the psalmist receive their tragic fulfilment today once again: 'He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul' [Psa. 106:15]. The general wish is that there should be no God; and so God has hidden himself from men as a just judgment on them. The penalty fits the crime. God has paid us back in our own coin. The living God is outlawed and banished from our man-made society. To refer to him in public is an unpardonable breach of etiquette. And God, for his part, is silent. His arm is not shortened nor his ear heavy but our sins have made it necessary that he should hide himself behind the thick cloud till society comes to its senses.
One cannot help being impressed with the exchange we have made as a world since the days of our Christian forefathers. They had humble houses, hard chairs, long working hours, small wages, frequent illnesses and often short lives. But their recompence was to have also well-worn Bibles, well-attended churches, believing hearts, grateful voices, loving families, hospitable homes.
Today's society has (or, at least, aims to get) television and refrigeration, fast cars and warm homes, well-stored larders and plentiful wardrobes, a confident manner and an affluent air. But at what price? It is not, of course, that these things are wrong of themselves. But they are no better than a bubble if they are sought in exchange for the higher treasures which our fathers had. The Christian sighs, not because he resents society's desire for plenty, but because our civilisation is profane like Esau and has sold its heritage for a mess of pottage. What sort of society have we become if in reality our god is our belly and if we spend all our strength for the bread which perishes?
The time was when it was a man's ambition to be mighty in prayer and in the Scriptures, when it was a shame to have uncatechised children and an irreligious Sabbath, and when a man's name was honoured because he was the conscience of his community The day has been known in our nation when education's first goal was to know the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, when to prepare for eternity was widely held to be man's first and greatest need, and when men's acknowledged ambition was to die well after an honourable lifetime toiling to glorify and enjoy God.
In our present-day Utopian society we have made provision for everything but the soul and have made preparation for everything but the hour of death. Our high-streets are a witness to our secular spirit in that they have become a market-place where everything is sold except the truth of Christ, and where men want to buy everything under the sun, but not the salvation purchased by Christ. Hence life has lost its meaning for the multitude who live in this twentieth-century Vanity Fair and woe betide the pilgrim who passes through and shows that his eyes are on a Celestial City not made by man's hand! They will laugh him to scorn and separate from his company as if he were a leper.
All through history men have dreamed of some Utopia, or ideal society on earth. Several famous and important writers have put their ideas for a perfect human world-order into book form. Plato, the Greek thinker, was perhaps the first we know of to write about an ideal state. He was followed by his pupil and rival Aristotle. Much later the idea was taken up by Sir Thomas More and then by Francis Bacon. Karl Marx and his associates did much the same in the last century in their endeavour to achieve a 'classless society'. In recent times George Orwell in his popular novel 1984 rewrites the theme with the well known character of 'Big Brother' ominously present as the observer of all men and with the sinister threat of the 'thought police' ever in the background.
All visions of an ideal world for man and his world suffer from the same sins of omission. They all leave a sovereign God of justice and mercy out of their reckoning. They have no hope of a glorious life in heaven after this one. And they have no place for a Messiah or Redeemer for mankind who dies for them and brings them salvation. We are grateful beyond all words that men's Utopias have never been permitted by God to succeed. All human kingdoms and civilisations have been transient and our own will be no exception.
Only one kingdom is eternal and its 'blessed and only Potentate' is the Lord our God. To every true Christian it is bliss to recall this fact frequently in our modern world. We are grateful to God for the comforts and conveniences of modern life. But they are no substitute to the Christian for God himself. In this the children of the world are opposite to the children of God, in that the former would do anything to make a happy world without God, whereas the latter would cheerfully do without everything this world offers if they could only have God himself The language of the believer is that God is his heaven and to be without the enjoyment of God's favour and fellowship is a veritable 'hell on earth', whatever the material comforts he enjoys.
It is for this very reason that the Christian sighs and groans so often in this modern world. The godless men of our age are straining every nerve today to turn society into a market of pleasures. The Lord's people, on the other hand, long to see it become a garden where men will once again walk with God and a sanctuary where worship and spiritual teaching are given first place in men's lives.
The believer cannot but mourn and weep today because society has made a conspiracy of silence against God. His house is largely shunned. His Word is ignored. His day is profaned. His gospel is scorned. His grace is rebuffed and his mighty deeds are culpably forgotten. In a word, all that the Christian loves is today trampled in the mire of the streets, and men love to have it so.
All over the world, however, there are men and women of God who are weary of the secular spirit of our age. Their tears are in God's bottle. Their sighs are in his book of remembrance. They are the Simeons and Annas of our time, who look for the consolation of Israel [Luke 2:25] and dream of the day when God will rise up from his long sleep like a giant refreshed by wine [Psa. 78:65]. Today they go in the bitterness of their soul because they see Zion languish and her walls turned to ruins. They have seen visions of a God who hears prayer and they pour out their complaint into his bosom.
The day will certainly dawn when the Lord our God will say to his church, 'Awake, awake, 0 Zion' [Isa. 52:1]. It is our absolute confidence that he will not retain his anger forever. Man's modern 'Techtopia' is but another edition of the tower of Babel. It will crumble and fall and be superseded—Oh! may God hasten the day!—by a better and a more spiritual age. Judgment will then return to righteousness [Psa. 94:15]. The promises of God are not yet exhausted. On the ashes of man's corrupt civilisations will be reared up the ancient kingdom of Christ in its glory once again. The 'wilderness will be a fruitful field and the fruitful field be counted for a forest' [Isa. 32:15;.
Let the darkness that surrounds us cause us to cry out to God all the more: 'God of our fathers, rise up again 'in majesty!'"
Nearly twenty years later, with more advanced technology, with greater hedonistic pursuits and Maurice Roberts' essay resonates all the more strongly.
Sam Drucker
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Church leader against evolution
I guess the SADs just don't want to be counted like this bloke from SA.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Leupold Genesis part 40 verse 10
10. And God called the dry land earth and the collection of waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
The meaning of the word "earth" was discussed under v. 1. The propriety of the use of the term "sea" Was treated just before this verse. What God's calling signifies was shown in connection with v. 5.
Here is the place for discussing what reasonable explanation may be offered for the fact that at the conclusion of the work of the second day the customary approval of the Creator is not recorded (v. 8); but that it does appear now at the conclusion of the work of the third day (v. 10). As was shown at the beginning of the explanation of v. 9, the work of the second day reaches back and completes the work of' the first day from one point of view. In a more decided sense the work of the third day reaches back and completes the work of the second in reference to the separation of water. The second day merely raises the surface fogs making them clouds, but the earth waters are still entangled with the solid matter. So the work of the second day was relatively incomplete, so much so that the divine approval, "it was good," was withheld, but it is in reality included in the approval bestowed upon the third day.
Note the chiasmus of v. 10: verb, object--object verb (K. S. 339 o).
The meaning of the word "earth" was discussed under v. 1. The propriety of the use of the term "sea" Was treated just before this verse. What God's calling signifies was shown in connection with v. 5.
Here is the place for discussing what reasonable explanation may be offered for the fact that at the conclusion of the work of the second day the customary approval of the Creator is not recorded (v. 8); but that it does appear now at the conclusion of the work of the third day (v. 10). As was shown at the beginning of the explanation of v. 9, the work of the second day reaches back and completes the work of' the first day from one point of view. In a more decided sense the work of the third day reaches back and completes the work of the second in reference to the separation of water. The second day merely raises the surface fogs making them clouds, but the earth waters are still entangled with the solid matter. So the work of the second day was relatively incomplete, so much so that the divine approval, "it was good," was withheld, but it is in reality included in the approval bestowed upon the third day.
Note the chiasmus of v. 10: verb, object--object verb (K. S. 339 o).
Monday, September 13, 2010
Jensen 'isms' again
The title? Apologies to William Burroughs, for the cognoscenti.
Just caught this post by Critias at Jensen's blot:
Now, I repost it here in case Jensen kills it, in the spirit of true Anglicanism.
Just caught this post by Critias at Jensen's blot:
Michael, I note with some mirth that you distance Sydney Anglicans from '6 day creation' but side with both Luther and Calvin, who recognised what the Bible had to say on the matter! [6-day creation, that is - Eric]
Sydney Anglicanism is far from 'fundamentalist' indeed! It is becoming a hot bed of neo-orthodoxy with a flexibility in its approach to the scriptures that speaks more of contemporary convenience to avoid the anguish of being regarded as fundamentalist than the need to be instructed by the Bible.
So, fundamentalism has become a vague label flung around by journalists...so who cares? Does it get in the way of the gospel? I doubt it, because most people are so disdainful of most church practices that the church has lost its public voice.
I guess, the more it denies that the Spirit of God can speak clearly, the more it will find itself with nothing to say.
Now, I repost it here in case Jensen kills it, in the spirit of true Anglicanism.
2 ways to have a laugh
Overheard: a couple of younger men discussing 2 ways to live on the way to work: one has had it 'done' to him, and he was chuckling about the 'stupid pictures' and the guy presenting it using them to talk to him; he clearly found the whole experience laughable and underwhelming. The other guy he was talking too was in disbelief that anyone would seriously think of this approach to an adult conversation.
So, I wonder if the 2W2L crowd did any market testing (you know, focus groups) to see what people thought of it....
So, I wonder if the 2W2L crowd did any market testing (you know, focus groups) to see what people thought of it....
Sunday, September 12, 2010
More on Evangelical Declension (Part 2)
What follows is the completion of the article written by Gordon Keddie in the June 1970 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal on the subject "Towards a Christian View of Science."
What Gordon Keddie had to say some forty years ago remains strictly relevant today.
I was impressed by the comment of correspondent John who mentioned a schizoprhenic approach to the issue by evangelicals today. It was as if John and Keddie have seen things the same now and then, respectively. I allow Keddie to complete his article herewith:
"(d) A schizoid approach. The neo-evangelical solves this problem first by making the Bible and science complementary and then by separating the two so that each is supreme in its own sphere with hardly even an overlap. This position is basically schizoid since the authority of the Bible is only applicable to the sphere of faith, while the sphere of physical reality is the domain of science alone.21
The practical consequences of this view are exemplified by the dichotomy in the published writings and utterances of F. H. T. Rhodes, Prof of Geology at Swansea and a well-known evangelical Christian. As an evangelical believer, on the one hand, he has addressed conferences of evangelical scientists on the relation of the Bible to science,22 while, on the other hand, he has written a popular textbook on evolution23in which there is not a single reference to God and where the only reference to creation describes the Biblical teaching on creation as something we 'now regard as a naive concept.'24 The account of evolutionary development would do credit to the most ardent evolutionist.
(e) Implications for evangelical theology. The implications of the neo-evangelical recension of the doctrine of creation for the Reformed system of theology have received scant consideration. There are a number that might be mentioned,25 but we shall confine our attention to one that is of crucial importance - the creation of man.
If, as Bube et al,26 Kuitert27 and Jeeves28 have suggested, 'Adam' was not necessarily the literal first human being created out of actual dust, how are we to interpret such clear comparisons between the first Adam and Christ, the last Adam? as we have in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15.22, 45? Dr Gleason Archer, Prof of Biblical Languages at Fuller Theol. Seminary states that,
'it is virtually impossible to accept the authority of Romans 5 . . . . without inferring that the entire human race has descended from a single father.'29
Archer further affirms that,
'the inspired record tells of a literal Adam and Eve, and gives no indication whatever that the account is intended to be mythical. It was certainly taken as historical by Christ and the apostles.'30
Surely it is the heart of the gospel that is being hazarded in the attempt to remove interpretations objectionable to modern science. If Adam is merely a hypostatization of sinful mankind in general rather than the actual federal head of the human race who fell into sin for himself and his descendants, then how can we comprehend the work of Christ in the new covenant if by no one man death reigned, then what assurance have we that through Christ's death many shall have eternal life ? What sort of soteriology do we have left?
The implications for theology do not stop at the rejection of an old 'literal reading of the creation account.' Why ? Because the science of theology reveals the system of truth in Scripture and if a system is more than the sum of its parts - it is an integral and interdependent whole reflecting the self-consistent nature of God - then any undermining of the foundations must eventually have profound consequences for the whole body of doctrine. The above example serves to emphasise the present necessity for Christians to examine, in faith, the foundations of their belief and to cast themselves on Christ, putting their trust in His Word as their sufficient authority in all things.
IV CONCLUSION - EVANGELICAL DECLENSION
It is the contention of this paper that the neo-evangelical 'trend' is a down-grade movement from truly evangelical Christianity. We shall briefly summarise the characteristic views of this group and comment thereupon by way of conclusion.
1. Scripture, while held to be divinely inspired and infallible, is nevertheless handled in such a way as to subordinate it to modern science where the Bible speaks on topics common to theology and natural science. [e.g., creation, miracles].
(a) The Bible is assumed, a priori, not to reveal 'scientific' information, that not being the purpose of special revelation.
(b) General disregard for strict exegesis of the Scripture is evident. This also holds for the practice of comparing Scripture with Scripture before arriving at any interpretation.
(c) There is increasing use of the inductive method of studying Scripture - a methodology inconsistent with the Biblical doctrine of inspiration.
2. Science, in its widest sense, is regarded as complementary to the Bible in contributing to a view of reality. The two are independent but interdependent. Thus science is autonomous and speaks for the realm of nature as the Bible does for that of faith.
(a) Modern science is regarded as the study of natural revelation and its best authenticated results [according to its own standards of course!] are considered to represent a valid picture of that revelation.
(b) Any conflict between 'traditional Biblical interpretation' and modern scientific discoveries must result in a re-examination of the former with a view to reinterpretation.
(c) No distinction is recognized in principle between the science practised by Christians (true science) and that of unbelievers (apostate science). There is no consistently Christian philosophy of science.
In practice, this unscriptural dualism divests the Scriptures of their absolute authority in all matters of faith and life. The announcement that they are inspired of God and therefore infallible becomes a hollow assertion when the plain teaching of the Bible is sidestepped to accommodate the most recent discoveries of science. Not that all neo-evangelicals deny, for instance, the historicity of the first Adam -there is considerable variance in views held - but all take the creation account out
of history and either use it as a literary framework on which the process of evolution, euphemistically termed 'progressive creation', is worked out (Ramm, N. H. Ridderbos, Lever, Henry) or reduce it to a few grand theological statements about God, man and the universe [Bube et al, van de Fliert, Kuitert]. Thus the conflict between the Bible and (apostate) science is neatly circumvented. Hear the words of Carl F. H. Henry, 'If by the evolutionary fact is meant that the universe is billions of years old, and that millions of years were required for the development of all the various species of plant and animal life, and that the antiquity of the human race is somewhat greater than the brief span of six thousand years assigned by scientists and theologians alike a few centuries ago, then warfare between science and Christianity is at an end.31
Henry is quite correct if he means neo-evangelical Christianity - obviously the war is over when one side has capitulated! The above statement has the ring of an epitaph. No more do we need to contend for an embarrassingly realistic Genesis account of creation! It is now dead and buried! We have reinterpreted the Light of the Word of God in the light of evolutionistic science!
The words of the apostle Paul are surely apposite here, 'O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so-called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith' (1 Tim 6.20-21a)."
Sam Drucker
References (cont. from previous post)
21. The Bible is not a 'textbook' of science (nor even of theology) - rather it is the ultimate primary written source of information - it is given. When the Bible speaks on any topic, therefore, it is authoritative in an ultimate way. Thus statements bearing on scientific subjects are normative for the prosecution of the science concerned. (See note 19.) The precise nature of such statements is to be decided on the basis of faithful exegesis of the best texts available.
22. See IVF Symposium, Christianity in a Mechanistic Universe [D. M. Mackay, ed.] and Jeeves, op. cit., p 164.
23. F. H. T. Rhodes, The Evolution of Life, London, Penguin Books, 1962, pp 302.
24. ibid., p 276.
25. e.g.. The questions concerning many miracles, the resurrection, the nature of history in the Bible.
26. R. H. Bube, op. cit., p 105.
27. M. H. Woudstra, op. cit.
28. Jeeves, op. cit., p 108.
29. G. L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Chicago, Moody Press, 1965, p 190.
30. ibid., p 191.
31. In R. Mixter [ed.]. Evolution and Christian Thought Today, London, Paternoster, 1961, p 219.
What Gordon Keddie had to say some forty years ago remains strictly relevant today.
I was impressed by the comment of correspondent John who mentioned a schizoprhenic approach to the issue by evangelicals today. It was as if John and Keddie have seen things the same now and then, respectively. I allow Keddie to complete his article herewith:
"(d) A schizoid approach. The neo-evangelical solves this problem first by making the Bible and science complementary and then by separating the two so that each is supreme in its own sphere with hardly even an overlap. This position is basically schizoid since the authority of the Bible is only applicable to the sphere of faith, while the sphere of physical reality is the domain of science alone.21
The practical consequences of this view are exemplified by the dichotomy in the published writings and utterances of F. H. T. Rhodes, Prof of Geology at Swansea and a well-known evangelical Christian. As an evangelical believer, on the one hand, he has addressed conferences of evangelical scientists on the relation of the Bible to science,22 while, on the other hand, he has written a popular textbook on evolution23in which there is not a single reference to God and where the only reference to creation describes the Biblical teaching on creation as something we 'now regard as a naive concept.'24 The account of evolutionary development would do credit to the most ardent evolutionist.
(e) Implications for evangelical theology. The implications of the neo-evangelical recension of the doctrine of creation for the Reformed system of theology have received scant consideration. There are a number that might be mentioned,25 but we shall confine our attention to one that is of crucial importance - the creation of man.
If, as Bube et al,26 Kuitert27 and Jeeves28 have suggested, 'Adam' was not necessarily the literal first human being created out of actual dust, how are we to interpret such clear comparisons between the first Adam and Christ, the last Adam? as we have in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15.22, 45? Dr Gleason Archer, Prof of Biblical Languages at Fuller Theol. Seminary states that,
'it is virtually impossible to accept the authority of Romans 5 . . . . without inferring that the entire human race has descended from a single father.'29
Archer further affirms that,
'the inspired record tells of a literal Adam and Eve, and gives no indication whatever that the account is intended to be mythical. It was certainly taken as historical by Christ and the apostles.'30
Surely it is the heart of the gospel that is being hazarded in the attempt to remove interpretations objectionable to modern science. If Adam is merely a hypostatization of sinful mankind in general rather than the actual federal head of the human race who fell into sin for himself and his descendants, then how can we comprehend the work of Christ in the new covenant if by no one man death reigned, then what assurance have we that through Christ's death many shall have eternal life ? What sort of soteriology do we have left?
The implications for theology do not stop at the rejection of an old 'literal reading of the creation account.' Why ? Because the science of theology reveals the system of truth in Scripture and if a system is more than the sum of its parts - it is an integral and interdependent whole reflecting the self-consistent nature of God - then any undermining of the foundations must eventually have profound consequences for the whole body of doctrine. The above example serves to emphasise the present necessity for Christians to examine, in faith, the foundations of their belief and to cast themselves on Christ, putting their trust in His Word as their sufficient authority in all things.
IV CONCLUSION - EVANGELICAL DECLENSION
It is the contention of this paper that the neo-evangelical 'trend' is a down-grade movement from truly evangelical Christianity. We shall briefly summarise the characteristic views of this group and comment thereupon by way of conclusion.
1. Scripture, while held to be divinely inspired and infallible, is nevertheless handled in such a way as to subordinate it to modern science where the Bible speaks on topics common to theology and natural science. [e.g., creation, miracles].
(a) The Bible is assumed, a priori, not to reveal 'scientific' information, that not being the purpose of special revelation.
(b) General disregard for strict exegesis of the Scripture is evident. This also holds for the practice of comparing Scripture with Scripture before arriving at any interpretation.
(c) There is increasing use of the inductive method of studying Scripture - a methodology inconsistent with the Biblical doctrine of inspiration.
2. Science, in its widest sense, is regarded as complementary to the Bible in contributing to a view of reality. The two are independent but interdependent. Thus science is autonomous and speaks for the realm of nature as the Bible does for that of faith.
(a) Modern science is regarded as the study of natural revelation and its best authenticated results [according to its own standards of course!] are considered to represent a valid picture of that revelation.
(b) Any conflict between 'traditional Biblical interpretation' and modern scientific discoveries must result in a re-examination of the former with a view to reinterpretation.
(c) No distinction is recognized in principle between the science practised by Christians (true science) and that of unbelievers (apostate science). There is no consistently Christian philosophy of science.
In practice, this unscriptural dualism divests the Scriptures of their absolute authority in all matters of faith and life. The announcement that they are inspired of God and therefore infallible becomes a hollow assertion when the plain teaching of the Bible is sidestepped to accommodate the most recent discoveries of science. Not that all neo-evangelicals deny, for instance, the historicity of the first Adam -there is considerable variance in views held - but all take the creation account out
of history and either use it as a literary framework on which the process of evolution, euphemistically termed 'progressive creation', is worked out (Ramm, N. H. Ridderbos, Lever, Henry) or reduce it to a few grand theological statements about God, man and the universe [Bube et al, van de Fliert, Kuitert]. Thus the conflict between the Bible and (apostate) science is neatly circumvented. Hear the words of Carl F. H. Henry, 'If by the evolutionary fact is meant that the universe is billions of years old, and that millions of years were required for the development of all the various species of plant and animal life, and that the antiquity of the human race is somewhat greater than the brief span of six thousand years assigned by scientists and theologians alike a few centuries ago, then warfare between science and Christianity is at an end.31
Henry is quite correct if he means neo-evangelical Christianity - obviously the war is over when one side has capitulated! The above statement has the ring of an epitaph. No more do we need to contend for an embarrassingly realistic Genesis account of creation! It is now dead and buried! We have reinterpreted the Light of the Word of God in the light of evolutionistic science!
The words of the apostle Paul are surely apposite here, 'O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so-called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith' (1 Tim 6.20-21a)."
Sam Drucker
References (cont. from previous post)
21. The Bible is not a 'textbook' of science (nor even of theology) - rather it is the ultimate primary written source of information - it is given. When the Bible speaks on any topic, therefore, it is authoritative in an ultimate way. Thus statements bearing on scientific subjects are normative for the prosecution of the science concerned. (See note 19.) The precise nature of such statements is to be decided on the basis of faithful exegesis of the best texts available.
22. See IVF Symposium, Christianity in a Mechanistic Universe [D. M. Mackay, ed.] and Jeeves, op. cit., p 164.
23. F. H. T. Rhodes, The Evolution of Life, London, Penguin Books, 1962, pp 302.
24. ibid., p 276.
25. e.g.. The questions concerning many miracles, the resurrection, the nature of history in the Bible.
26. R. H. Bube, op. cit., p 105.
27. M. H. Woudstra, op. cit.
28. Jeeves, op. cit., p 108.
29. G. L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Chicago, Moody Press, 1965, p 190.
30. ibid., p 191.
31. In R. Mixter [ed.]. Evolution and Christian Thought Today, London, Paternoster, 1961, p 219.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
What a novel idea: something from nothing
An 'interesting” letter appeared in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald. It was written in response to someone else's criticism of Stephen Hawking's incredible claim that the universe's existence comes down to nothing more than one very big accident or an almost infinite series of chance events. The writer, someone so obviously unexposed to, let alone actually trained in, even the most elementary philosophical principles, objected to the earlier writer's judgement that it was unreasonable to argue for the universe's coming into existence without a Designer. Here is what he – oh heck! let's call him, say, Ian Stewart of Davidson - claimed: “You just have to get your head around the idea of nothingness. Then it's quite easy. There was nothing, then the universe created itself spontaneously.”
My first impression was that this was a superb piece of mickey taking – you know, ostensibly quite serious, but really a parody in order to expose one's opponent's truly weak argument. However, reading further and seeing Ian Stewart of Davidson's unequivocal religious belief in the non-existence of God, I could see Ian Stewart of Davidson was writing a spoof-free letter to the editor and was actually presenting the idea that an ontological nothing can produce an actual something, that something in fact being a universe! When put so straightforwardly and unencumbered by technical jargon, this snippet of paralogical nonsense would surely leave even the most dogged atheist philosopher embarrassed and speechless.
Universities full of philosophers, for millennia, have scorned such unmitigable obtuseness, so I won't add anything except to say this. If an actual nothing, a zero, can produce a yet-to-be-fully-measured universe, then why on earth am I putting all my money into a bank? Surely the best thing I can do is to spend, spend, spend until my balance is nada, and then patiently wait until it begins to go back into the black....all by itself. You know, before long, on Ian Stewart of Davidson's philosophical outlook on reality, I won't have to invent Windows or Cochlea Ear Implants to become the richest man in the universe – chance and time will take care of that!
Evolution says much the same thing: no genetic information in the beginning is able to produce whole libraries full of the weightless "stuff" all obeying an “invisible” code. Or more simply, non-life is able to produce life, without so much as a skerrick of empirical demonstration.
It seems like the world is full of Ian Stewarts. How sad then that the Sydney Anglican Diocese encourages the Ian Stewarts of this world to flourish by subscribing to an evolutionary worldview.
My first impression was that this was a superb piece of mickey taking – you know, ostensibly quite serious, but really a parody in order to expose one's opponent's truly weak argument. However, reading further and seeing Ian Stewart of Davidson's unequivocal religious belief in the non-existence of God, I could see Ian Stewart of Davidson was writing a spoof-free letter to the editor and was actually presenting the idea that an ontological nothing can produce an actual something, that something in fact being a universe! When put so straightforwardly and unencumbered by technical jargon, this snippet of paralogical nonsense would surely leave even the most dogged atheist philosopher embarrassed and speechless.
Universities full of philosophers, for millennia, have scorned such unmitigable obtuseness, so I won't add anything except to say this. If an actual nothing, a zero, can produce a yet-to-be-fully-measured universe, then why on earth am I putting all my money into a bank? Surely the best thing I can do is to spend, spend, spend until my balance is nada, and then patiently wait until it begins to go back into the black....all by itself. You know, before long, on Ian Stewart of Davidson's philosophical outlook on reality, I won't have to invent Windows or Cochlea Ear Implants to become the richest man in the universe – chance and time will take care of that!
Evolution says much the same thing: no genetic information in the beginning is able to produce whole libraries full of the weightless "stuff" all obeying an “invisible” code. Or more simply, non-life is able to produce life, without so much as a skerrick of empirical demonstration.
It seems like the world is full of Ian Stewarts. How sad then that the Sydney Anglican Diocese encourages the Ian Stewarts of this world to flourish by subscribing to an evolutionary worldview.
Monday, September 6, 2010
More on Evangelical Declension (Part 1)
In response to recent comments by Eric I thought it relevant to reproduce an article written by Gordon Keddie in the June 1970 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal on the subject "Towards a Christian View of Science." The article is a continuation of the subject first addressed in the May 1970 edition of the Journal. Because of its length I will divide the article into two instalments separated by a few days. Keddie uses italics in several instances to emphasise points so, to retain his emphasis, I will not put the whole article in italics as I usually do when reproducing an article.
It is interesting to know the strength of argument against the trend within the evangelicalism to adopt evolution some thirty years ago. The increasing strength of argument today makes only for an increasingly uncomfortable time ahead for evangelical cowards.
What follows is my Part 1 of Gordon Keddie's article of June 1970:
"111 'NEW EVANGELICALISM - THE NEW DUALISM?
1. Proposition.
The neo-evangelical understanding of the relationship between the Bible as the special revelation of God and science as the legitimate investigation of His general (nature) revelation in the works of creation and providence closely resembles the dualistic thought of Thomas Aquinas, the mediaeval scholastic who gave the world the so-called Thomistic philosophy, still fundamental to modern Roman Catholic philosophy. This is an unscriptural position which has far-reaching consequences for evangelical theology, philosophy and special science.
2 Dualistic thought.
In this system there are two means of achieving a knowledge of absolute truth. One is using 'reason' - the so-called 'light of nature'. The other is by means of revelation from God's Word - this is 'grace'. These two aspects, nature and grace, are quite separate and independent means of learning truth, and so the system is said to be dualistic.1
Dualism considers the facts or findings of the sciences to be philosophically and theologically neutral, and so may be known as true by believer and unbeliever alike without reference to God. The facts may be apprehended by reason [nature] without any recourse to grace. (This is an over-simplification since obviously many facts can only be obtained by faith. The dualism extends in Romanist thought to two classes of fact - the natural order and the faith order. The point is that faith is not required prior to understanding truly facts of the natural order. This is in contradistinction to the Calvinistic view.) Thus it is claimed that the non-Christian can know some ultimate truths about the universe without first understanding them as facts made and interpreted by God. Facts, that all may know by use of reason alone, are assumed to be autonomous and reality is viewed as a 'sea of factuality' over which may roam with equal facility, theist and anti-theist alike.2
3 A Reformed evaluation.
Professor Cornelius Van Til has asserted that the dualistic view of facts as neutral 'brute facts' is tantamount to denying that God created the facts and even now sustains them. It denies the centrality and absolute sovereignty of God.3
Central to the Reformed system of truth, argues Herman Dooyeweerd, is the basic ground-motive of the sovereignty of God in creation, fall and redemption.
[i] God created all things ex nihilo, with the crowning act of creating man in His own image as a perfect and free moral being.
[ii] The fall of Adam [a literal first man] into sin whereby all men become totally depraved and are blinded to the truth of God.
[iii] The redemption through the blood of Christ of an elected people, who by the grace of God are saved through faith in Him.4 These regenerated people recover, in principle, the perfection of Adam as created, so that they can now see the Truth i.e., are no longer spiritually blind.
(a) Sin and the apostate scientist. Sin is a vital issue in the whole discussion, for it cuts off men from God and a knowledge of the truth.5 Professor Nigel Lee, in his recent Calvin on the Sciences, writes,
'In fact, the results of sin are of cosmic proportions, for "the condemnation of mankind is imprinted on the heavens, and on the earth, and on all creatures" ' (quoting Calvin, Comm. on Rom 8.19)6
The non-Christian, consequently, always, in principle, views the facts from a standpoint antithetical to that of the Creator of these facts. Whenever any facts impinge on religious and philosophical questions, they will be interpreted according to the anti-theistic ground motive of the fallen man, i.e., in terms of justifying his continued rebellion against God.7 A scientist who is an unbeliever is therefore an apostate scientist in principle and his science is accordingly apostate science.
(b) Common grace and the apostate scientist. One may justifiably wonder if what has just been said is not too extreme. Is it not saying that it is impossible for the non-Christian scientist to find out anything that is really true? Is it not also an easy way out - whereby any scientific findings that conflict with our own views are rejected as fictions because they are the products of unbelievers? Certainly not! Calvin, as noted above, emphasised the disastrous effects of sin but he also recognized that in spite of sin God was still immanent in the world of men and actively sustaining the order of creation by means of common grace. Calvin asserts that God has been 'pleased to assist us (Christians) by the work and ministry of the ungodly in physics . . . .' and describes the work of unbelievers as a gift of God.8 This means that although the theoretical thought of the apostate scientist is anti-God, his actual scientific work, to a degree dependent on the common grace of God, may be based on Christian principles of which he is not aware.9 The apostate scientist 'possesses goods as a thief,' the goods being made available solely by the grace of God.10
In passing, we should also note that the fruits of the work of the ungodly will accrue to the redeemed and to the Lord's glory and that although that work may be uncovering ultimate truth, the unbeliever is never in a position to recognize God's interpretations of the facts for what they are. It follows that it is incumbent on Christians to use the fruits of unbelieving scholarship and show how they reveal the glory of God. This is part of the cultural mandate of the believer (Gen 1.28). To lapse into anti-intellectual obscurantism is simply sin.11"
(c) The nature of true science. As we noted earlier, neo-evangelicals have a penchant for viewing modern science as the valid study of God's natural revelation. This naturally begs the question, 'Is modern science in fact the God-ordained study of the works of creation that it should be?' Is it true science or just a counterfeit ? What is true science and who are its rightful practitioners ?
The Christian philosopher, Hendrik Van Riessen, has given us a definition of true science. He writes,
'Inherent in the vocation of men on earth is the goal of knowing God through His creation. That is the area of inspiration for science. The general goal of science is to know God's creation through the laws by which God reigns and which enable every creature to walk on earth with trust. God is trustworthy. This is the sole basis for every scientific effort.'12
Science should never be thought of as independent of God. Christ is the Lord of science and He desires that men acknowledge Him in their scientific labour and knowledge.13 All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Him and so only through Christ may we in our science come to know any of that truth for what it really is.14
Prof Nigel Lee reminds us that Calvin emphasised that.
'. . . . special grace [and its resultant faith in Christ] is not only indispensable to salvation, but that it is also essential for the pursuit of true science.15
Calvin further stated that a true scientist was one who was born again to life in Christ and, while highly intelligent, submitted himself to the Word of God in general and 'the foolishness of the cross' in particular.16
What of modern science and scientists ? Ever since Laplace assured Napoleon that the successful pursuit of science did not require the 'hypothesis' of God,17 the presuppositions of the mass of scientists have rendered any supernaturalism quite irrelevant in this sphere. It should appear obvious that a scientific method which presupposes no God and no supernatural can only produce 'findings' which support these original presuppositions. Basic naturalism will not produce a picture of the glory of God in nature. Modern science, affirms Prof Van Til,'assumes that what Christianity teaches with respect to nature cannot be true.' The ideas of creation and a controlling providence are 'assumed to be intolerable.' On the contrary, it is claimed that the 'order of nature .... is what it is because of an impersonal unchangeable regularity.18'
Modern science as a whole is not true science. In essence, it is apostate and, as such, needs to be redeemed to the service of God. The Christian engaged in scientific work should be a true scientist, i.e., one who investigates nature with Biblical presuppositions and in accordance with Biblical norms.19 Modern science needs a reformation. Considering its present status, the Christian believer has no warrant to assume that it is a valid study of God's natural revelation producing results which bear some correspondence to that revealed truth. In principle, the opposite is the case as sinful men turn the truth of God into a lie (Rom 1.25). It should be noted, however, that the unbelieving scientist is better in practice than his basic presuppositions in principle allow. This is due, as we noted earlier. to the 'common' or temporal conserving grace of God20 overruling the apostasy in order to the fulfilment of His will. Conversely, the believing scientist is worse in practice than in principle, because the depredations of indwelling sin tend to draw him into conformity with the worldly pattern of the apostate. The distinction is not a simple case of black or white. Rather the situation is a dynamic one with a whole spectrum of inconsistencies between the two principal extremes. Notice also that science can never be neutral, for however inconsistent a man may be he is always governed by the god of his camp - either the living God or the god of this world.
Neo-evangelicals consistently treat modern science as if it were true science. They do so by ascribing neutrality to the scientific enterprise on the basis that the facts of nature are themselves neutral (See see. 111 [2]). Having thus accepted the findings of a science inimically disposed to the Biblical view of nature that they are attempting to defend, they are faced with the colossal and somewhat embarrassing problem of synthesising two irreconcilables into a meaningful whole.
To be continued
Sam Drucker
References (My numbering, not Keddie's)
1. E. L. H. Taylor, The Christian Philosophy of Law, Politics and the State, Nutley, N. J., Craig Press, 1965, pp 142 ff.
2. C. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, Philadelphia, Pa., Presb. & Reformed, 1967, pp 67 ff.
3. C. Van Til, Christian-Theistic Evidences [Syllabus], 1961, pp 85-86 ff.
4. H. Dooyeweerd, The Secularisation of Science, A.A.C.S. [mimeo] n.d., pp 3 ff.
5. Isa., 59.2-8.
6. F. N. Lee, Calvin on the Sciences, S.G.U., 1969, p 15.
7. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p 48.
8. J. Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion [Beveridge trans.] II, 2.16.
9. Lee, op. cit., pp 16-19, cf. Taylor, op. cit., pp 46 ff.
10. R. J. Rushdoony, By What Standard?, Philadelphia, Pa., Presb. & Ref., 1965, p 24. See Rushdoony, Van Til (Modern Thinkers series, P & Ref.) for an analysis of Van Til's thought on this point, pp 16 ff.
11. C. Van Til, Particularism and Common Grace, L. J. Grotenhuis, n.d., p 15.
12. H. Van Riessen, The Christian Approach to Science, Hamilton, Ont., A.R.S.S., 1966, p 58.
13. H. Van Riessen, The Society of the Future, Philadelphia, Pa., Presb. & Ref., 1952, p 137.
14. Col 2.3.
15. Lee, op. cit., p 20.
16. ibid, p 20.
17. R. E. D. Clark, The Christian Stake in Science, Exeter, Paternoster, 1967, p 29.
18. C. Van Til, The Doctrine of Scripture, [Syllabus] den Dulk, 1967, pp 48-49.
19. The Bible is to be understood as being normative for science (and all things). For instance, the Biblical fact of miracles means that our science must never rule out the possibility of the miraculous, i.e. the intervention of God in the world in such a way as to use means other than the natural laws that He has established. Modern science consistently denies this normative principle.
20. Taylor, op. cit., p 60.
It is interesting to know the strength of argument against the trend within the evangelicalism to adopt evolution some thirty years ago. The increasing strength of argument today makes only for an increasingly uncomfortable time ahead for evangelical cowards.
What follows is my Part 1 of Gordon Keddie's article of June 1970:
"111 'NEW EVANGELICALISM - THE NEW DUALISM?
1. Proposition.
The neo-evangelical understanding of the relationship between the Bible as the special revelation of God and science as the legitimate investigation of His general (nature) revelation in the works of creation and providence closely resembles the dualistic thought of Thomas Aquinas, the mediaeval scholastic who gave the world the so-called Thomistic philosophy, still fundamental to modern Roman Catholic philosophy. This is an unscriptural position which has far-reaching consequences for evangelical theology, philosophy and special science.
2 Dualistic thought.
In this system there are two means of achieving a knowledge of absolute truth. One is using 'reason' - the so-called 'light of nature'. The other is by means of revelation from God's Word - this is 'grace'. These two aspects, nature and grace, are quite separate and independent means of learning truth, and so the system is said to be dualistic.1
Dualism considers the facts or findings of the sciences to be philosophically and theologically neutral, and so may be known as true by believer and unbeliever alike without reference to God. The facts may be apprehended by reason [nature] without any recourse to grace. (This is an over-simplification since obviously many facts can only be obtained by faith. The dualism extends in Romanist thought to two classes of fact - the natural order and the faith order. The point is that faith is not required prior to understanding truly facts of the natural order. This is in contradistinction to the Calvinistic view.) Thus it is claimed that the non-Christian can know some ultimate truths about the universe without first understanding them as facts made and interpreted by God. Facts, that all may know by use of reason alone, are assumed to be autonomous and reality is viewed as a 'sea of factuality' over which may roam with equal facility, theist and anti-theist alike.2
3 A Reformed evaluation.
Professor Cornelius Van Til has asserted that the dualistic view of facts as neutral 'brute facts' is tantamount to denying that God created the facts and even now sustains them. It denies the centrality and absolute sovereignty of God.3
Central to the Reformed system of truth, argues Herman Dooyeweerd, is the basic ground-motive of the sovereignty of God in creation, fall and redemption.
[i] God created all things ex nihilo, with the crowning act of creating man in His own image as a perfect and free moral being.
[ii] The fall of Adam [a literal first man] into sin whereby all men become totally depraved and are blinded to the truth of God.
[iii] The redemption through the blood of Christ of an elected people, who by the grace of God are saved through faith in Him.4 These regenerated people recover, in principle, the perfection of Adam as created, so that they can now see the Truth i.e., are no longer spiritually blind.
(a) Sin and the apostate scientist. Sin is a vital issue in the whole discussion, for it cuts off men from God and a knowledge of the truth.5 Professor Nigel Lee, in his recent Calvin on the Sciences, writes,
'In fact, the results of sin are of cosmic proportions, for "the condemnation of mankind is imprinted on the heavens, and on the earth, and on all creatures" ' (quoting Calvin, Comm. on Rom 8.19)6
The non-Christian, consequently, always, in principle, views the facts from a standpoint antithetical to that of the Creator of these facts. Whenever any facts impinge on religious and philosophical questions, they will be interpreted according to the anti-theistic ground motive of the fallen man, i.e., in terms of justifying his continued rebellion against God.7 A scientist who is an unbeliever is therefore an apostate scientist in principle and his science is accordingly apostate science.
(b) Common grace and the apostate scientist. One may justifiably wonder if what has just been said is not too extreme. Is it not saying that it is impossible for the non-Christian scientist to find out anything that is really true? Is it not also an easy way out - whereby any scientific findings that conflict with our own views are rejected as fictions because they are the products of unbelievers? Certainly not! Calvin, as noted above, emphasised the disastrous effects of sin but he also recognized that in spite of sin God was still immanent in the world of men and actively sustaining the order of creation by means of common grace. Calvin asserts that God has been 'pleased to assist us (Christians) by the work and ministry of the ungodly in physics . . . .' and describes the work of unbelievers as a gift of God.8 This means that although the theoretical thought of the apostate scientist is anti-God, his actual scientific work, to a degree dependent on the common grace of God, may be based on Christian principles of which he is not aware.9 The apostate scientist 'possesses goods as a thief,' the goods being made available solely by the grace of God.10
In passing, we should also note that the fruits of the work of the ungodly will accrue to the redeemed and to the Lord's glory and that although that work may be uncovering ultimate truth, the unbeliever is never in a position to recognize God's interpretations of the facts for what they are. It follows that it is incumbent on Christians to use the fruits of unbelieving scholarship and show how they reveal the glory of God. This is part of the cultural mandate of the believer (Gen 1.28). To lapse into anti-intellectual obscurantism is simply sin.11"
(c) The nature of true science. As we noted earlier, neo-evangelicals have a penchant for viewing modern science as the valid study of God's natural revelation. This naturally begs the question, 'Is modern science in fact the God-ordained study of the works of creation that it should be?' Is it true science or just a counterfeit ? What is true science and who are its rightful practitioners ?
The Christian philosopher, Hendrik Van Riessen, has given us a definition of true science. He writes,
'Inherent in the vocation of men on earth is the goal of knowing God through His creation. That is the area of inspiration for science. The general goal of science is to know God's creation through the laws by which God reigns and which enable every creature to walk on earth with trust. God is trustworthy. This is the sole basis for every scientific effort.'12
Science should never be thought of as independent of God. Christ is the Lord of science and He desires that men acknowledge Him in their scientific labour and knowledge.13 All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Him and so only through Christ may we in our science come to know any of that truth for what it really is.14
Prof Nigel Lee reminds us that Calvin emphasised that.
'. . . . special grace [and its resultant faith in Christ] is not only indispensable to salvation, but that it is also essential for the pursuit of true science.15
Calvin further stated that a true scientist was one who was born again to life in Christ and, while highly intelligent, submitted himself to the Word of God in general and 'the foolishness of the cross' in particular.16
What of modern science and scientists ? Ever since Laplace assured Napoleon that the successful pursuit of science did not require the 'hypothesis' of God,17 the presuppositions of the mass of scientists have rendered any supernaturalism quite irrelevant in this sphere. It should appear obvious that a scientific method which presupposes no God and no supernatural can only produce 'findings' which support these original presuppositions. Basic naturalism will not produce a picture of the glory of God in nature. Modern science, affirms Prof Van Til,'assumes that what Christianity teaches with respect to nature cannot be true.' The ideas of creation and a controlling providence are 'assumed to be intolerable.' On the contrary, it is claimed that the 'order of nature .... is what it is because of an impersonal unchangeable regularity.18'
Modern science as a whole is not true science. In essence, it is apostate and, as such, needs to be redeemed to the service of God. The Christian engaged in scientific work should be a true scientist, i.e., one who investigates nature with Biblical presuppositions and in accordance with Biblical norms.19 Modern science needs a reformation. Considering its present status, the Christian believer has no warrant to assume that it is a valid study of God's natural revelation producing results which bear some correspondence to that revealed truth. In principle, the opposite is the case as sinful men turn the truth of God into a lie (Rom 1.25). It should be noted, however, that the unbelieving scientist is better in practice than his basic presuppositions in principle allow. This is due, as we noted earlier. to the 'common' or temporal conserving grace of God20 overruling the apostasy in order to the fulfilment of His will. Conversely, the believing scientist is worse in practice than in principle, because the depredations of indwelling sin tend to draw him into conformity with the worldly pattern of the apostate. The distinction is not a simple case of black or white. Rather the situation is a dynamic one with a whole spectrum of inconsistencies between the two principal extremes. Notice also that science can never be neutral, for however inconsistent a man may be he is always governed by the god of his camp - either the living God or the god of this world.
Neo-evangelicals consistently treat modern science as if it were true science. They do so by ascribing neutrality to the scientific enterprise on the basis that the facts of nature are themselves neutral (See see. 111 [2]). Having thus accepted the findings of a science inimically disposed to the Biblical view of nature that they are attempting to defend, they are faced with the colossal and somewhat embarrassing problem of synthesising two irreconcilables into a meaningful whole.
To be continued
Sam Drucker
References (My numbering, not Keddie's)
1. E. L. H. Taylor, The Christian Philosophy of Law, Politics and the State, Nutley, N. J., Craig Press, 1965, pp 142 ff.
2. C. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, Philadelphia, Pa., Presb. & Reformed, 1967, pp 67 ff.
3. C. Van Til, Christian-Theistic Evidences [Syllabus], 1961, pp 85-86 ff.
4. H. Dooyeweerd, The Secularisation of Science, A.A.C.S. [mimeo] n.d., pp 3 ff.
5. Isa., 59.2-8.
6. F. N. Lee, Calvin on the Sciences, S.G.U., 1969, p 15.
7. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p 48.
8. J. Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion [Beveridge trans.] II, 2.16.
9. Lee, op. cit., pp 16-19, cf. Taylor, op. cit., pp 46 ff.
10. R. J. Rushdoony, By What Standard?, Philadelphia, Pa., Presb. & Ref., 1965, p 24. See Rushdoony, Van Til (Modern Thinkers series, P & Ref.) for an analysis of Van Til's thought on this point, pp 16 ff.
11. C. Van Til, Particularism and Common Grace, L. J. Grotenhuis, n.d., p 15.
12. H. Van Riessen, The Christian Approach to Science, Hamilton, Ont., A.R.S.S., 1966, p 58.
13. H. Van Riessen, The Society of the Future, Philadelphia, Pa., Presb. & Ref., 1952, p 137.
14. Col 2.3.
15. Lee, op. cit., p 20.
16. ibid, p 20.
17. R. E. D. Clark, The Christian Stake in Science, Exeter, Paternoster, 1967, p 29.
18. C. Van Til, The Doctrine of Scripture, [Syllabus] den Dulk, 1967, pp 48-49.
19. The Bible is to be understood as being normative for science (and all things). For instance, the Biblical fact of miracles means that our science must never rule out the possibility of the miraculous, i.e. the intervention of God in the world in such a way as to use means other than the natural laws that He has established. Modern science consistently denies this normative principle.
20. Taylor, op. cit., p 60.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
