In a court of law, there are usually experts on both sides. This is also true in this case. Just as you and Edwin, two non-experts, have decided to follow a certain path without any knowledge to back it up, so even scientists often do the same. The geologists follow the path of the paleontologists, and paleontologists use an apparent "expert" opinion by a geneticist, while the geneticist follows a statement or two from a fossil expert. In the meantime, their own interpretations are colored by their assumptions, the pre-conceived notions about what is the most likely interpretation. For that reason, supposed experts in fossils have made huge mistakes of interpretation of various fossils, such as calling a tooth a neanderthal tooth and falsely building a whole theory around it, when in fact it was a pig's tooth, as confirmed by an anatomist. When you say you will trust the experts, I say you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know who the experts are, nor do you know if indeed they are truly experts, nor do you distinguish in what they are expert at. Even experts make mistakes, as identified by other experts. Experts are not infallible, and this has been shown over and over again in the field of evolutionary interpretation.
Every PhD is considered an expert legally. Yet they can disagree with each other, and often do. This book called "Evolution's Achilles Heels" is written by nine experts, nine PhDs, in subjects ranging from paleontology to geology, to mechanical engineering, to physical chemistry, to nuclear physics, to genetics. They point out the fatal flaws for evolution in a reasonable, comprehensive, understandable way. They are able to do this because they are not locked into the prevailing evolutionary mindset, although most of them were evolutionists at one time.
Throughout evolutionary science, expert opinions have changed, vacillated, and repented. Few evolutionists still follow more than half of Darwin's conclusions, because they have been proved false. Many previous assumptions about sediment being laid down by wind, are changing into the idea that sediments were laid down by water, not wind. Evolutionist assumptions about uniformitarianism are changing into a recognition of the necessity for catastrophism which is dramatically different than earlier "expert" assumptions. So, you have a choice: you can follow the wrong experts, or the right experts. Or you can realize that you should follow the truth, rather than people. (The blind leading the blind... lemmings falling off a cliff... if everyone jumps off a bridge, will you?.... etc., etc.)
The gospel message is the good news of salvation, Christ coming in our place to die for our sins thru faith in Him. The story of that gospel takes many forms, and can be very extensive, and it never quite ends as it lives in our lives. The entire scripture is the story of that gospel, how it came to be, how it was necessary, how it was fulfilled. But without the central theme (salvation) of the gospel, the story loses focus and perspective. That's why every "complete" sermon ought to include a statement of the gospel message, as it tells an aspect of the gospel story.
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. Psalm 14. ...All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. Psalm 53 - The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.... Everyone has turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. Mark 10 - “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
So you see, Roger, Paul did not dream up total depravity. He had read the Psalms of David (the righteous king), and knew the words of Jesus.
But I agree that being negative about everything is .. well. its negative. Still you are right, that you cannot appreciate Christ, and cannot appreciate the gospel, and God's goodness, unless you realize how far we are from what God made us to be.
Scripture seems to indicate it will get worse before it gets better. It will get worse before the end. But yet, God's grace will remain. Paul and Silas were singing songs of praise to God when they were in prison. It seemed quite bad for them... but then, not quite.
I'm wondering what religion you actually follow, Roger. It seems you know a lot about christianity, and about reformed theology, and yet don't accept it. You have hinted that Jesus is not God, that he is just a good teacher to follow, and that scripture contradicts itself, especially Paul's epistles probably shouldn't be scripture. So I'm curious. Or did I get you wrong?
Last night I was listening to Hank Hanegraaff (Bible Answer Man broadcast) on the radio, and I found it interesting that he became a Christian at the age of 29 by examining the evidence for creation science. When he realized the poverty of evolutionary thought, then the message of scripture made more sense to him.
Another Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, also is quite strong in his opposition to evolution. Born in India, he was an atheist until the age of 17, when he became a Christian after attempting suicide. He is considered by some to be the leading Christian apologist of this time, and has been preaching internationally since 1977, as well as speaking at universities, colleges, and other groups of young adults. A very sharp guy.
And then, as I mentioned previously, the speaker Peter Sparrow, who was convinced by anti-evolutionary evidence that maybe God was real after all, and became a Christian at the age of 19.
Don't underestimate the power of apologetics as a tool for witness.
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.
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: My Banner Article
In a court of law, there are usually experts on both sides. This is also true in this case. Just as you and Edwin, two non-experts, have decided to follow a certain path without any knowledge to back it up, so even scientists often do the same. The geologists follow the path of the paleontologists, and paleontologists use an apparent "expert" opinion by a geneticist, while the geneticist follows a statement or two from a fossil expert. In the meantime, their own interpretations are colored by their assumptions, the pre-conceived notions about what is the most likely interpretation. For that reason, supposed experts in fossils have made huge mistakes of interpretation of various fossils, such as calling a tooth a neanderthal tooth and falsely building a whole theory around it, when in fact it was a pig's tooth, as confirmed by an anatomist. When you say you will trust the experts, I say you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know who the experts are, nor do you know if indeed they are truly experts, nor do you distinguish in what they are expert at. Even experts make mistakes, as identified by other experts. Experts are not infallible, and this has been shown over and over again in the field of evolutionary interpretation.
Every PhD is considered an expert legally. Yet they can disagree with each other, and often do. This book called "Evolution's Achilles Heels" is written by nine experts, nine PhDs, in subjects ranging from paleontology to geology, to mechanical engineering, to physical chemistry, to nuclear physics, to genetics. They point out the fatal flaws for evolution in a reasonable, comprehensive, understandable way. They are able to do this because they are not locked into the prevailing evolutionary mindset, although most of them were evolutionists at one time.
Throughout evolutionary science, expert opinions have changed, vacillated, and repented. Few evolutionists still follow more than half of Darwin's conclusions, because they have been proved false. Many previous assumptions about sediment being laid down by wind, are changing into the idea that sediments were laid down by water, not wind. Evolutionist assumptions about uniformitarianism are changing into a recognition of the necessity for catastrophism which is dramatically different than earlier "expert" assumptions. So, you have a choice: you can follow the wrong experts, or the right experts. Or you can realize that you should follow the truth, rather than people. (The blind leading the blind... lemmings falling off a cliff... if everyone jumps off a bridge, will you?.... etc., etc.)
Posted in: Gospel Culture or Salvation Culture
The gospel message is the good news of salvation, Christ coming in our place to die for our sins thru faith in Him. The story of that gospel takes many forms, and can be very extensive, and it never quite ends as it lives in our lives. The entire scripture is the story of that gospel, how it came to be, how it was necessary, how it was fulfilled. But without the central theme (salvation) of the gospel, the story loses focus and perspective. That's why every "complete" sermon ought to include a statement of the gospel message, as it tells an aspect of the gospel story.
Posted in: My Banner Article
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. Psalm 14. ...All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. Psalm 53 - The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.... Everyone has turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. Mark 10 - “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
So you see, Roger, Paul did not dream up total depravity. He had read the Psalms of David (the righteous king), and knew the words of Jesus.
But I agree that being negative about everything is .. well. its negative. Still you are right, that you cannot appreciate Christ, and cannot appreciate the gospel, and God's goodness, unless you realize how far we are from what God made us to be.
Scripture seems to indicate it will get worse before it gets better. It will get worse before the end. But yet, God's grace will remain. Paul and Silas were singing songs of praise to God when they were in prison. It seemed quite bad for them... but then, not quite.
I'm wondering what religion you actually follow, Roger. It seems you know a lot about christianity, and about reformed theology, and yet don't accept it. You have hinted that Jesus is not God, that he is just a good teacher to follow, and that scripture contradicts itself, especially Paul's epistles probably shouldn't be scripture. So I'm curious. Or did I get you wrong?
Posted in: My Banner Article
Last night I was listening to Hank Hanegraaff (Bible Answer Man broadcast) on the radio, and I found it interesting that he became a Christian at the age of 29 by examining the evidence for creation science. When he realized the poverty of evolutionary thought, then the message of scripture made more sense to him.
Another Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, also is quite strong in his opposition to evolution. Born in India, he was an atheist until the age of 17, when he became a Christian after attempting suicide. He is considered by some to be the leading Christian apologist of this time, and has been preaching internationally since 1977, as well as speaking at universities, colleges, and other groups of young adults. A very sharp guy.
And then, as I mentioned previously, the speaker Peter Sparrow, who was convinced by anti-evolutionary evidence that maybe God was real after all, and became a Christian at the age of 19.
Don't underestimate the power of apologetics as a tool for witness.
Posted in: Who Is the Living God?
Great article!
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.
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.