What recent riddle has been solved to make evolution look more realistic? I would say in general it has been the other way around. Could you give one or two examples?
Great ideas, Christy! When I was young, our family used to sing songs from the hymn book for a half hour or so after the supper meal on Sunday night. Everyone got to pick one or two favorites, and we started to learn harmony in acapella. Now with our own family we usually follow the practice of singing a couple songs or more after every supper meal, some acapella, and some with piano accompaniment. Guests get to pick a favorite and they usually enjoy it as well. We do this after reading a piece of scripture. The songs include hymns, praise songs, spirituals, or whatever we like that honors God.
Roger, thanks for your comments. It is a bit difficult to lump all other religions or faith beliefs together when comparing to Scripture. There are various points on which each falls short.
Christians understand scripture to be inspired by God and to be speaking the truth. Yes there are sometimes different emphases, but differences are discussed in the framework of trusting scripture. Whenever human ideas are placed on an equal plane with scripture, is when we have problems with heresy, lack of understanding, etc. This was shown even in scripture itself, and also led to a need for the reformation. But coming back to scripture allows for reconciliation, renewal, and unity.
Other faiths that believe in more than one god, or that make material things into gods, such as pieces of wood or stone or money or nature, are by and large irrational from the beginning. However, scripture also indicates the ancient greeks worshipped the "unknown" god, which the apostle Paul suggested was the true God, whom they did not yet know. The human desire to worship is a reflection of the way we were created; so how do we find our way to the true God? or, how do we let God reveal Himself to us?
A couple of belief systems built on christianity or historic scriptures but have added stuff, include mormons, bahai, and islam. They basically orginate in somewhat of the same way, but are not the same. How to compare these? Mormons have added an entirely new revelation which was not even hinted at in scripture. Golden plates, ironically only discovered by europeans rather than by aboriginals, and has anyone even seen pictures of these plates? It's far fetched, but the main thing is learning when the book of Mormon contradicts scripture. Furthermore, scripture is open, revealed, and available to all. The things in scripture are by and large verifiable by history, ie. rulers of Israel, roman conquest, syrian and babylonian rules, egypt, persecution of the church. Scripture is written by numerous writers over a thousand years, yet makes a relatively consistent whole, with a direction, a beginning and end both historical and spiritual. The books of the bible tend to refer to each other, and in that sense, validating each other. The new testament writers had all met Jesus, and had met each other. Of course, Mormons will claim their book is consistent with history, and in some peripherals it could be... but by and large it is a great stretch. ( I have only read about a third of it.)
Islam also claims the prophets of christianity/judaism. They even claim Christ as a prophet. But scripture is clear, that Christ claimed to be much more than a prophet. So if Christ is a prophet, somethings he said were false, according to Islam. Which means there is an inconsistency and incoherency. Of course, they say we don't have the true sayings of Jesus... which they would have to say, but as we find older manuscripts we are amazed at how similar they are to the newer ones. So Islam tries to worship the true god, but because of their reliance on one man's words, they end up contradicting much of scripture. This appears to put Islam into the category of false prophets which scripture warns us about. Islam in some ways tries to do good things, ie. moral purity and daily prayer. But it destroys the effect by forgetting that we must be born again in repentance, and that our thoughts condemn us, for which we need the sacrifice of Christ to redeem us. We cannot redeem ourselves by our devotion nor by good works, we can only praise God with them. And their methods of punishment often make them more impure than the ones they punish. The immorality of the inquisition in Spain lives on in Islam today, and seems to be promoted by the Koran. The inquisition at least was inconsistent with scripture, and so was an unchristian practice done by those who called themselves christian, thus requiring a reformation.
Bahai also claims another prophet. But faiths built on prophets will fail as the prophets fail. Jesus said that even the jews who claimed Abraham as their father, and Moses as their prophet, would miss out on God, if they did not realize that only God had the ultimate claim on them. Mormonism depends on Joseph Smith, and Islam depends on "Mohammed". Without them, their system fails. Christianity depends only on Christ, as revealed by all the writers of the old and new testament. Additional writers and prophets such as Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Huss, John Calvin, John Tyndale, Abraham Kuyper, Charles Wesley, Billy Graham, C.S. Lewis and many others, are only revealing scripture, not re-writing it, nor adding to it (or they shouldn't be, anyway), nor contradicting it. If these other men contradict scripture, then scripture becomes the final authority, even though these may be sincere christian men.
In the end, just as believing in a piece of wood, or in nature, or in your self-sufficiency will let you down in the end, so believing in a false god will let you down also, either in this life, or in the life to come. It is faith, not religion, that brings you close to God. But religious life practices and beliefs can reveal truth or falsehood; thus when mormonism advocated more than one wife in direct opposition to the epistles of timothy and titus, which said elders and deacons should be husband of one wife, they revealed a contradiction with scripture. Most mormons have changed this now, but they had based this belief apparently on the book of Mormon, and so the book of Mormon has been somewhat discredited I would think. I think in many ways, mormons are admirable people, but they follow a false book.
Islam is more problematic, because they follow a false prophet. It would be like us following King Henry VIII as a prophet, or following John Calvin or Martin Luther or the Pope as a sinless individual. Even King David of the bible was criticized by his generals and punished by God for his sins. Certainly, has Mohammed not revealed his own sins, while being unrepentant? Should the words of such a man be considered inspired by God, and should he be followed as demi-god?
Sometimes there is no easy way to decide. But pray to God that he will reveal to your heart who He is, and what He has done for us.
Thankyou for your comments, David. We have a tendency to want to forgive, but we should realize that the consequences of needing to forgive these kinds of things will lead to a decline in witness and effectiveness of the church. At some level, these editorial indiscretions are like committing adultery. Adultery can also be forgiven, but we want to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Scripture asks us, no tells us, to defend the faith and contend for the faith. (Jude) To put on the full armor of God. In that sense we mount the ramparts. The struggle is the same as it has always been, between following God and following the world. We like to do both, but it doesn't work; it was the downfall of both Israel and Judah, and led to the decline of the roman cath church, which led to the reformation.
The reformed roots were to bring God's people back to scripture, rather than to man's opinions. We are to be reformed from a life of sin and separation from God, towards a life of repentance and consecration towards God, using scripture as God's word, as our guide. Accomodating to worldly living is not being reformed. Being reformed is informing ourselves and others how the world should be transformed in its living if it desired to follow Christ. Fundamentalism is a worldly concept, not worthy of comment. Being a radical christian means dedicating all of life to God, not trying to accomodate our desire to be like the world.
When we have difficult questions, which we always will, they should be answered in a scriptural and reformed way, and not given the credence which caused the problem in the first place. For example, since there are so many divorces, should we have an article in the banner saying that since there are so many divorces, that probably that is a normal state of affairs, which we should have a special ceremony for? or should we have an article advising us to reform our lives and attitudes in such a way as to reduce the number of divorces?
A Banner that denigrates the basic confessions and supports immoral living has nothing to say to us that the world is not already saying. If it continues to do that, it will cease to be a christian magazine, much less a reformed magazine. The mandate of the Banner is not to imitate the Washington Post or the Toronto Star. It is not to create controversy. It is not to provide both sides of every issue as if both sides are always valid. Rather, it is to be a witness to Christ, to contend for the faith, explain the milk and the meat of the gospel, and to help us put on the full armor of God.
Isaac's example is clear. His father sent a servant to get a wife for him. His union was anticipated and publicly approved and acknowledged. It was acknowledged as marriage, a permanent committment. No one questioned whether this was a trial period, or a partnership of temporary convenience. It is our lack of understanding of marriage that sometimes creates the issue, especially when we have cohabitation as an imitation of the world's view of sex and marriage.
It is not primarily the state that validates marriage, nor even the church. Instead it is the public and private committment for marriage until death do us part that is the marriage. The state and the church facilitate this committment, and consolidate and support this committment. But when young cohabiting people deny they are married, or fail to announce their marriage committment in some public way, they are simply indicating a lack of committment, a lack of marriage. If they are committed, they ought to use every means at their disposal to support that committment. They should not leave their committment in question. Instead, they are reserving the right to renege. This is not the way of christian living, but the way of the world, and should not be supported by the church.
David Feddes raised some very excellent points relative to the politics of selecting banner editors, editorial committees, synodical oversight, and the banner purpose. I think the comment about Canadian vs USA staff is not so pertinent, since if all editors had been USA but equally provocative, the problems would have remained. On the other hand, Ken Bakker's comments are written in a barely acceptable fashion as has been pointed out, since they appear to defend the indefensible. If this magazine goes to every home on the involuntary membership dollar, then it ought to uphold the confessions and scripture. These two questionable articles clearly did not do so. Furthermore, the ten years of editorship has not in fact been without "issues", as David pointed out with regard to the "don't be so sure" article.
While I have suggested that we forgive Bob DeMoor for his indiscretion in the two inflammatory articles, I was again put off by the title "where have they all gone?", relating again to the homosex issue. It would be interesting to use the same title for an article on where the great majority of people have left for other reasons, including acceptance of women in office, crc apparent acceptance of homosex, acceptance of premarital sex, and questioning of primary doctrines from Genesis. How many left because being upset with the statements made by John Suk? How many left for other reasons related to lack of orthodoxy, and ignoring of scripture? With a general decline since 1992, it is becoming apparent that many denominational statements and positions are driving crc people either to more orthodox reformed churches because they perceive a better correlation to scripture there, or to anabaptist churches because they sense a better committment to christian living there. Traditional social crc members will likely remain because of their primary committment to their heritage, social situation, family relationships, but yet they will decline. Only a primary commitment to scripture, to God and Christ above all, and to Christian living in both personal and communal aspects, will provide motivation to remain with the denomination. Thus these types of banner articles serve only to drive people away, with no beneficial side effect, since they also separate people who remain, away from God and from His Will.
Forgiveness for the publishing of two inflammatory articles implies repentance and a renewed sense of discretion with regard to the implications of titles, articles, and the way they are written. Without that discretion well applied, crc members will often feel like prisoners of the system, implicitly maligned by perverse statements having the "apparent" blessing of an involuntary publication funded by their church tax dollars.
I would also suggest that the banner withdraw from all magazine competitions regarding various article categories (I forget the name of the association or award committee), since review by such an organization has led to awards for some articles that I think should not even have been in the magazine, and such type of "peer" review can lead to a perversion of the intent and method of various articles and editorial content. The only review that matters is what God has said about it, and that should be interpreted by the denomination, not by some outside organization which has standards outside of and not approved by crc confessions, nor by scripture.
Posted in: My Banner Article
What recent riddle has been solved to make evolution look more realistic? I would say in general it has been the other way around. Could you give one or two examples?
Posted in: 4 Ways to Worship God With Songs Every Day
Great ideas, Christy! When I was young, our family used to sing songs from the hymn book for a half hour or so after the supper meal on Sunday night. Everyone got to pick one or two favorites, and we started to learn harmony in acapella. Now with our own family we usually follow the practice of singing a couple songs or more after every supper meal, some acapella, and some with piano accompaniment. Guests get to pick a favorite and they usually enjoy it as well. We do this after reading a piece of scripture. The songs include hymns, praise songs, spirituals, or whatever we like that honors God.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Roger, thanks for your comments. It is a bit difficult to lump all other religions or faith beliefs together when comparing to Scripture. There are various points on which each falls short.
Christians understand scripture to be inspired by God and to be speaking the truth. Yes there are sometimes different emphases, but differences are discussed in the framework of trusting scripture. Whenever human ideas are placed on an equal plane with scripture, is when we have problems with heresy, lack of understanding, etc. This was shown even in scripture itself, and also led to a need for the reformation. But coming back to scripture allows for reconciliation, renewal, and unity.
Other faiths that believe in more than one god, or that make material things into gods, such as pieces of wood or stone or money or nature, are by and large irrational from the beginning. However, scripture also indicates the ancient greeks worshipped the "unknown" god, which the apostle Paul suggested was the true God, whom they did not yet know. The human desire to worship is a reflection of the way we were created; so how do we find our way to the true God? or, how do we let God reveal Himself to us?
A couple of belief systems built on christianity or historic scriptures but have added stuff, include mormons, bahai, and islam. They basically orginate in somewhat of the same way, but are not the same. How to compare these? Mormons have added an entirely new revelation which was not even hinted at in scripture. Golden plates, ironically only discovered by europeans rather than by aboriginals, and has anyone even seen pictures of these plates? It's far fetched, but the main thing is learning when the book of Mormon contradicts scripture. Furthermore, scripture is open, revealed, and available to all. The things in scripture are by and large verifiable by history, ie. rulers of Israel, roman conquest, syrian and babylonian rules, egypt, persecution of the church. Scripture is written by numerous writers over a thousand years, yet makes a relatively consistent whole, with a direction, a beginning and end both historical and spiritual. The books of the bible tend to refer to each other, and in that sense, validating each other. The new testament writers had all met Jesus, and had met each other. Of course, Mormons will claim their book is consistent with history, and in some peripherals it could be... but by and large it is a great stretch. ( I have only read about a third of it.)
Islam also claims the prophets of christianity/judaism. They even claim Christ as a prophet. But scripture is clear, that Christ claimed to be much more than a prophet. So if Christ is a prophet, somethings he said were false, according to Islam. Which means there is an inconsistency and incoherency. Of course, they say we don't have the true sayings of Jesus... which they would have to say, but as we find older manuscripts we are amazed at how similar they are to the newer ones. So Islam tries to worship the true god, but because of their reliance on one man's words, they end up contradicting much of scripture. This appears to put Islam into the category of false prophets which scripture warns us about. Islam in some ways tries to do good things, ie. moral purity and daily prayer. But it destroys the effect by forgetting that we must be born again in repentance, and that our thoughts condemn us, for which we need the sacrifice of Christ to redeem us. We cannot redeem ourselves by our devotion nor by good works, we can only praise God with them. And their methods of punishment often make them more impure than the ones they punish. The immorality of the inquisition in Spain lives on in Islam today, and seems to be promoted by the Koran. The inquisition at least was inconsistent with scripture, and so was an unchristian practice done by those who called themselves christian, thus requiring a reformation.
Bahai also claims another prophet. But faiths built on prophets will fail as the prophets fail. Jesus said that even the jews who claimed Abraham as their father, and Moses as their prophet, would miss out on God, if they did not realize that only God had the ultimate claim on them. Mormonism depends on Joseph Smith, and Islam depends on "Mohammed". Without them, their system fails. Christianity depends only on Christ, as revealed by all the writers of the old and new testament. Additional writers and prophets such as Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Huss, John Calvin, John Tyndale, Abraham Kuyper, Charles Wesley, Billy Graham, C.S. Lewis and many others, are only revealing scripture, not re-writing it, nor adding to it (or they shouldn't be, anyway), nor contradicting it. If these other men contradict scripture, then scripture becomes the final authority, even though these may be sincere christian men.
In the end, just as believing in a piece of wood, or in nature, or in your self-sufficiency will let you down in the end, so believing in a false god will let you down also, either in this life, or in the life to come. It is faith, not religion, that brings you close to God. But religious life practices and beliefs can reveal truth or falsehood; thus when mormonism advocated more than one wife in direct opposition to the epistles of timothy and titus, which said elders and deacons should be husband of one wife, they revealed a contradiction with scripture. Most mormons have changed this now, but they had based this belief apparently on the book of Mormon, and so the book of Mormon has been somewhat discredited I would think. I think in many ways, mormons are admirable people, but they follow a false book.
Islam is more problematic, because they follow a false prophet. It would be like us following King Henry VIII as a prophet, or following John Calvin or Martin Luther or the Pope as a sinless individual. Even King David of the bible was criticized by his generals and punished by God for his sins. Certainly, has Mohammed not revealed his own sins, while being unrepentant? Should the words of such a man be considered inspired by God, and should he be followed as demi-god?
Sometimes there is no easy way to decide. But pray to God that he will reveal to your heart who He is, and what He has done for us.
Posted in: My Banner Article
So, no examples then? No evidence that you know of?
Posted in: Who Is the Living God?
Great article!
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Thankyou for your comments, David. We have a tendency to want to forgive, but we should realize that the consequences of needing to forgive these kinds of things will lead to a decline in witness and effectiveness of the church. At some level, these editorial indiscretions are like committing adultery. Adultery can also be forgiven, but we want to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Scripture asks us, no tells us, to defend the faith and contend for the faith. (Jude) To put on the full armor of God. In that sense we mount the ramparts. The struggle is the same as it has always been, between following God and following the world. We like to do both, but it doesn't work; it was the downfall of both Israel and Judah, and led to the decline of the roman cath church, which led to the reformation.
The reformed roots were to bring God's people back to scripture, rather than to man's opinions. We are to be reformed from a life of sin and separation from God, towards a life of repentance and consecration towards God, using scripture as God's word, as our guide. Accomodating to worldly living is not being reformed. Being reformed is informing ourselves and others how the world should be transformed in its living if it desired to follow Christ. Fundamentalism is a worldly concept, not worthy of comment. Being a radical christian means dedicating all of life to God, not trying to accomodate our desire to be like the world.
When we have difficult questions, which we always will, they should be answered in a scriptural and reformed way, and not given the credence which caused the problem in the first place. For example, since there are so many divorces, should we have an article in the banner saying that since there are so many divorces, that probably that is a normal state of affairs, which we should have a special ceremony for? or should we have an article advising us to reform our lives and attitudes in such a way as to reduce the number of divorces?
A Banner that denigrates the basic confessions and supports immoral living has nothing to say to us that the world is not already saying. If it continues to do that, it will cease to be a christian magazine, much less a reformed magazine. The mandate of the Banner is not to imitate the Washington Post or the Toronto Star. It is not to create controversy. It is not to provide both sides of every issue as if both sides are always valid. Rather, it is to be a witness to Christ, to contend for the faith, explain the milk and the meat of the gospel, and to help us put on the full armor of God.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Isaac's example is clear. His father sent a servant to get a wife for him. His union was anticipated and publicly approved and acknowledged. It was acknowledged as marriage, a permanent committment. No one questioned whether this was a trial period, or a partnership of temporary convenience. It is our lack of understanding of marriage that sometimes creates the issue, especially when we have cohabitation as an imitation of the world's view of sex and marriage.
It is not primarily the state that validates marriage, nor even the church. Instead it is the public and private committment for marriage until death do us part that is the marriage. The state and the church facilitate this committment, and consolidate and support this committment. But when young cohabiting people deny they are married, or fail to announce their marriage committment in some public way, they are simply indicating a lack of committment, a lack of marriage. If they are committed, they ought to use every means at their disposal to support that committment. They should not leave their committment in question. Instead, they are reserving the right to renege. This is not the way of christian living, but the way of the world, and should not be supported by the church.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Or, the sex act is adultery, or fornication.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
David Feddes raised some very excellent points relative to the politics of selecting banner editors, editorial committees, synodical oversight, and the banner purpose. I think the comment about Canadian vs USA staff is not so pertinent, since if all editors had been USA but equally provocative, the problems would have remained. On the other hand, Ken Bakker's comments are written in a barely acceptable fashion as has been pointed out, since they appear to defend the indefensible. If this magazine goes to every home on the involuntary membership dollar, then it ought to uphold the confessions and scripture. These two questionable articles clearly did not do so. Furthermore, the ten years of editorship has not in fact been without "issues", as David pointed out with regard to the "don't be so sure" article.
While I have suggested that we forgive Bob DeMoor for his indiscretion in the two inflammatory articles, I was again put off by the title "where have they all gone?", relating again to the homosex issue. It would be interesting to use the same title for an article on where the great majority of people have left for other reasons, including acceptance of women in office, crc apparent acceptance of homosex, acceptance of premarital sex, and questioning of primary doctrines from Genesis. How many left because being upset with the statements made by John Suk? How many left for other reasons related to lack of orthodoxy, and ignoring of scripture? With a general decline since 1992, it is becoming apparent that many denominational statements and positions are driving crc people either to more orthodox reformed churches because they perceive a better correlation to scripture there, or to anabaptist churches because they sense a better committment to christian living there. Traditional social crc members will likely remain because of their primary committment to their heritage, social situation, family relationships, but yet they will decline. Only a primary commitment to scripture, to God and Christ above all, and to Christian living in both personal and communal aspects, will provide motivation to remain with the denomination. Thus these types of banner articles serve only to drive people away, with no beneficial side effect, since they also separate people who remain, away from God and from His Will.
Forgiveness for the publishing of two inflammatory articles implies repentance and a renewed sense of discretion with regard to the implications of titles, articles, and the way they are written. Without that discretion well applied, crc members will often feel like prisoners of the system, implicitly maligned by perverse statements having the "apparent" blessing of an involuntary publication funded by their church tax dollars.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
I would also suggest that the banner withdraw from all magazine competitions regarding various article categories (I forget the name of the association or award committee), since review by such an organization has led to awards for some articles that I think should not even have been in the magazine, and such type of "peer" review can lead to a perversion of the intent and method of various articles and editorial content. The only review that matters is what God has said about it, and that should be interpreted by the denomination, not by some outside organization which has standards outside of and not approved by crc confessions, nor by scripture.
Posted in: Storytelling as Relationship Building
Jesus. The Greatest Story ever told. And we believe the story. And we believe Jesus.