An interesting side note: Just this morning I was reading Hebrews 10 and into 11. It seems God led me to a new awareness of a relevant passage in Hebrews 11: 3. "By faith we understand that the universe (the worlds, the entire universe) was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." NKJ, NIV, NLT all have the same general translation. By faith we understand that what is seen of the universe was not made from what can be seen.
And verse 4: "...Abel gave a more acceptable sacrifice... although Abel is long dead..." It does appear that Abel actually lived, or he could not have died. His faith was an example to us. Hmm.
Edwin, I agree God's work progresses. I am just reading Revelations now, and it is fascinating (and a bit confusing). Everytime I read it I see it differently. I also agree that it is entirely plausible that as people become Christians, they influence society for the good. I'm not sure that I would equate technology with social progress, but nevertheless, technology is fascinating and can certainly be used for good. But it can also be used for evil, and often it has. We all know that nuclear fission can make bombs or useable energy. Cars can save lives, or destroy lives. Art can glorify God, or mock God.
Man was created in God's image. "Let us create man in our image" Man was created to rule over every creature on earth. Plants were given to mankind and to the animals for food. It happened right then and there. No progression necessary. It doesn't say man would rule over some of the animals at first and slowly more and more animals. It doesn't say that man was an animal but would rise above the rest. It's kind of important as to what it doesn't say, don't you think?
Then, Genesis 3: 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. Man had already achieved everything he needed. But then he disobeyed God, and now he knows good and evil. So now he cannot live forever. Unless he obeys God in repentance... then living forever with God is a promise. With God, promise made; promise kept.
So, should I be concentrating on the advances "we" human beings have made? Well, I do see some progress which I appreciate. I like most of the modern conveniences. I like being warm in winter, having enough food on the table, and a warm soft bed to sleep in. I like not having to work 16 hours a day, six days a week. I like the reduction of slavery. I like what scientific research has done for food production, soil conservation, clean drinking water, clean air emission reductions. Its great. But I'm concerned that we will take the credit, rather than giving thanks to God. That our progress will be like the wheat in the barn of the farmer in Jesus parable. The farmer built his barns, took his pride, and God took his life.
In this century more people have died in wars and starvation and genocide than any other century that we are aware of. Maybe just because there are more people. So while I see technological progress, and while I do see some blessings of God on those nations that honor God, I do not see an evolutionary progress as a whole. In God-fearing nations, we are finding fewer people attending church and fewer people claiming to be Christian than in past decades and centuries. Materialism and hedonism often replaces worship. If our "progress" is a result of God working in us, in our hearts, then we might wonder what the apparent spiritual decline might portend for the future of this "progress".
It would seem to me that putting your trust in evolutionary progress is trusting in a false god. Rather, Isaiah 65, I peter 3, and Revelations 21 talk about a new heaven and new earth. This does not appear to be a gradual progression or improvement of the old.
There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” 5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” 6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." "...Rev 22:5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light."
With consideration for Jolanda's comment that one should not dominate a discussion... which I appreciate, I can only say that Edwin Walhout dominated the page of the Banner with his article, and comments, objections, etc. did not have the same space or weight permitted. His article made some of my children question the integrity and faith of the crc, and others were also affected similarly. So I think it is legitimate to respond to every concern and question and "truth statement" made. I certainly don't mind if someone else responds instead of me, but I hope I will be forgiven for filling in the gap in the meanwhile.
I have been reading the book, "Evolution's Achilles Heels" by the 9 PhD scientists. It's somewhat technical and difficult, although yet written in a way that the points can be understood. I've finished the first of 8 chapters, which is a chapter on Natural Selection by Dr. Donald Batten. What is the point of this chapter in a nutshell? Well, creationists also accept natural selection. But they believe that natural selection works against evolution, not for it. It is a conserving action, weeding out harmful mutations. It does not create additional genetic information, but generally reduces the genetic variability within a species or a kind. Haldane's dilemna of population genetics indicates that in 10 million years with a fixed beneficial mutation rate of one per generation, under idealized and unrealistic conditions, the maximum amount of the human genome that could be generated is only 0.02%. Under realistic assumptions, the amount would be much, much lower. However, the genetic difference from the supposed common ancestor is at least 5%, and probably 12%, so much more time would be required to generate the genome, even if the genome was somewhere 50% similar to ape and 50% similar to human. At a 5% difference, it would take 250 times longer under idealized conditions. And this is only under the assumption that new genetic information could actually be generated, which does not appear to be the case, since observed mutations are almost always deleterious, or even when beneficial, are caused by a loss of information, or a loss of a genetic inhibitor, or activation of an inhibitor, and not by actual increase in new genetic material.
In the Second chapter, "Genetics and DNA", Dr. Carter points out that evolutionists assumed 97% of human DNA was junk DNA, because of their presuppositions. This was found to be in error, and in fact every indication is that almost every part of the DNA plays a role and function. Most genes in the individual DNA often play a dual or triple regulatory function, so that the 23,000 genes in the human genome can produce 100,000 proteins. The ENCODE project, which spent $3 billion to map the 3 billion letters in the human genome found out all sorts of things that make it more unlikely that evolutionary processes could have ever resulted in the development of new species from different species in a macro sort of sense.
God's creation is much more complicated and complex than we have thought in the past, which makes it less and less likely that undirected macro-evolution could be the mechanism for generating the creation we see today.
Roger, it is easy to say, "theistic evolution". It is easy to think that solves the problem. But it is meaningless. Timelines for evolution are not based on theistic evolution. They are based on randomness. Based on no interference, and on no intelligent design, but only mere accident. This causes interpretations that man and dinosaurs could not live together, or that animals invisible in the geologic record did not exist (when we know they did). We know that some dinosaur fossil bones have been found with organic cells in them, but this makes no sense for evolution old age. Whether it is theistic or not, you still must have evidence for evolution, and so far, the lack of intermediary fossils is astounding. Without them, you do not have evolution. If God creates one species from another simply by speaking, or even by rearranging genomes and adding additional genomic information so that a whole bunch of evolutionary steps can be avoided, well, then you do not have evolution. You have something else. So if you say, "theistic evolution" you should have something to say about what that is. Otherwise you are just saying abracadabra, and hoping the controversy goes away.
You are right, if evolution is theistic without randomness playing a role, then it is not me, but evolutionists, that will have an argument with you. Well, partly right. Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in Physical Chemistry) creationist has written a book called, "Refuting Compromise" in which he deals with theistic evolution as a compromise. I have not yet read this book so I can only imagine his arguments. His arguments will deal primarily with the scientific side. Based on his other books, his logic will be impeccable.
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.
You can't have it both ways, Keith. If it is not an official voice, it ought not to have a minister as editor, and it ought not to be paid for by the denomination and sent freely by the official crc dollar to every home. You can't have it both ways.
"The Banner is the official magazine of the Christian Reformed Church in North America" This is a quote repeated over and over again, when you do a google search for the crc banner. When we say that it is not the official voice, who are we trying to fool? Ourselves?
Posted in: My Banner Article
An interesting side note: Just this morning I was reading Hebrews 10 and into 11. It seems God led me to a new awareness of a relevant passage in Hebrews 11: 3. "By faith we understand that the universe (the worlds, the entire universe) was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." NKJ, NIV, NLT all have the same general translation. By faith we understand that what is seen of the universe was not made from what can be seen.
And verse 4: "...Abel gave a more acceptable sacrifice... although Abel is long dead..." It does appear that Abel actually lived, or he could not have died. His faith was an example to us. Hmm.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Edwin, I agree God's work progresses. I am just reading Revelations now, and it is fascinating (and a bit confusing). Everytime I read it I see it differently. I also agree that it is entirely plausible that as people become Christians, they influence society for the good. I'm not sure that I would equate technology with social progress, but nevertheless, technology is fascinating and can certainly be used for good. But it can also be used for evil, and often it has. We all know that nuclear fission can make bombs or useable energy. Cars can save lives, or destroy lives. Art can glorify God, or mock God.
Man was created in God's image. "Let us create man in our image" Man was created to rule over every creature on earth. Plants were given to mankind and to the animals for food. It happened right then and there. No progression necessary. It doesn't say man would rule over some of the animals at first and slowly more and more animals. It doesn't say that man was an animal but would rise above the rest. It's kind of important as to what it doesn't say, don't you think?
Then, Genesis 3: 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. Man had already achieved everything he needed. But then he disobeyed God, and now he knows good and evil. So now he cannot live forever. Unless he obeys God in repentance... then living forever with God is a promise. With God, promise made; promise kept.
So, should I be concentrating on the advances "we" human beings have made? Well, I do see some progress which I appreciate. I like most of the modern conveniences. I like being warm in winter, having enough food on the table, and a warm soft bed to sleep in. I like not having to work 16 hours a day, six days a week. I like the reduction of slavery. I like what scientific research has done for food production, soil conservation, clean drinking water, clean air emission reductions. Its great. But I'm concerned that we will take the credit, rather than giving thanks to God. That our progress will be like the wheat in the barn of the farmer in Jesus parable. The farmer built his barns, took his pride, and God took his life.
In this century more people have died in wars and starvation and genocide than any other century that we are aware of. Maybe just because there are more people. So while I see technological progress, and while I do see some blessings of God on those nations that honor God, I do not see an evolutionary progress as a whole. In God-fearing nations, we are finding fewer people attending church and fewer people claiming to be Christian than in past decades and centuries. Materialism and hedonism often replaces worship. If our "progress" is a result of God working in us, in our hearts, then we might wonder what the apparent spiritual decline might portend for the future of this "progress".
It would seem to me that putting your trust in evolutionary progress is trusting in a false god. Rather, Isaiah 65, I peter 3, and Revelations 21 talk about a new heaven and new earth. This does not appear to be a gradual progression or improvement of the old.
There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” 5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” 6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." "...Rev 22:5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light."
Posted in: My Banner Article
With consideration for Jolanda's comment that one should not dominate a discussion... which I appreciate, I can only say that Edwin Walhout dominated the page of the Banner with his article, and comments, objections, etc. did not have the same space or weight permitted. His article made some of my children question the integrity and faith of the crc, and others were also affected similarly. So I think it is legitimate to respond to every concern and question and "truth statement" made. I certainly don't mind if someone else responds instead of me, but I hope I will be forgiven for filling in the gap in the meanwhile.
I have been reading the book, "Evolution's Achilles Heels" by the 9 PhD scientists. It's somewhat technical and difficult, although yet written in a way that the points can be understood. I've finished the first of 8 chapters, which is a chapter on Natural Selection by Dr. Donald Batten. What is the point of this chapter in a nutshell? Well, creationists also accept natural selection. But they believe that natural selection works against evolution, not for it. It is a conserving action, weeding out harmful mutations. It does not create additional genetic information, but generally reduces the genetic variability within a species or a kind. Haldane's dilemna of population genetics indicates that in 10 million years with a fixed beneficial mutation rate of one per generation, under idealized and unrealistic conditions, the maximum amount of the human genome that could be generated is only 0.02%. Under realistic assumptions, the amount would be much, much lower. However, the genetic difference from the supposed common ancestor is at least 5%, and probably 12%, so much more time would be required to generate the genome, even if the genome was somewhere 50% similar to ape and 50% similar to human. At a 5% difference, it would take 250 times longer under idealized conditions. And this is only under the assumption that new genetic information could actually be generated, which does not appear to be the case, since observed mutations are almost always deleterious, or even when beneficial, are caused by a loss of information, or a loss of a genetic inhibitor, or activation of an inhibitor, and not by actual increase in new genetic material.
In the Second chapter, "Genetics and DNA", Dr. Carter points out that evolutionists assumed 97% of human DNA was junk DNA, because of their presuppositions. This was found to be in error, and in fact every indication is that almost every part of the DNA plays a role and function. Most genes in the individual DNA often play a dual or triple regulatory function, so that the 23,000 genes in the human genome can produce 100,000 proteins. The ENCODE project, which spent $3 billion to map the 3 billion letters in the human genome found out all sorts of things that make it more unlikely that evolutionary processes could have ever resulted in the development of new species from different species in a macro sort of sense.
God's creation is much more complicated and complex than we have thought in the past, which makes it less and less likely that undirected macro-evolution could be the mechanism for generating the creation we see today.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Roger, it is easy to say, "theistic evolution". It is easy to think that solves the problem. But it is meaningless. Timelines for evolution are not based on theistic evolution. They are based on randomness. Based on no interference, and on no intelligent design, but only mere accident. This causes interpretations that man and dinosaurs could not live together, or that animals invisible in the geologic record did not exist (when we know they did). We know that some dinosaur fossil bones have been found with organic cells in them, but this makes no sense for evolution old age. Whether it is theistic or not, you still must have evidence for evolution, and so far, the lack of intermediary fossils is astounding. Without them, you do not have evolution. If God creates one species from another simply by speaking, or even by rearranging genomes and adding additional genomic information so that a whole bunch of evolutionary steps can be avoided, well, then you do not have evolution. You have something else. So if you say, "theistic evolution" you should have something to say about what that is. Otherwise you are just saying abracadabra, and hoping the controversy goes away.
You are right, if evolution is theistic without randomness playing a role, then it is not me, but evolutionists, that will have an argument with you. Well, partly right. Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in Physical Chemistry) creationist has written a book called, "Refuting Compromise" in which he deals with theistic evolution as a compromise. I have not yet read this book so I can only imagine his arguments. His arguments will deal primarily with the scientific side. Based on his other books, his logic will be impeccable.
Posted in: Who Is the Living God?
Great article!
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?
Or, the sex act is adultery, or fornication.
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.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Sexual intercourse is part of marriage. But it is also part of fornication. It is the committment and promise that indicates which is which.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
You can't have it both ways, Keith. If it is not an official voice, it ought not to have a minister as editor, and it ought not to be paid for by the denomination and sent freely by the official crc dollar to every home. You can't have it both ways.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
"The Banner is the official magazine of the Christian Reformed Church in North America" This is a quote repeated over and over again, when you do a google search for the crc banner. When we say that it is not the official voice, who are we trying to fool? Ourselves?