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?
Not even a hint of.... "Ephesians 5:3... But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people."
It would be interesting to know if there is such a thing as "new ways". The only answer is faith, he says, but that is quite general and might be misunderstood. There are many faiths, and even the devils believe (and tremble). The real only answer is Christ as the son of God, his death and resurrection. (Probably that's what Timmermans meant by "faith", but many others could misunderstand).
To speak in new ways... what does that mean? like the pacifists who refused to fight in the army? like the hutterites who isolated themselves? like the sphere sovereignty people who want to separate church and state and education and business from each other? Like the social gospel people who wanted to be good samaritans without being christ followers? Like the soul winners who ignored poverty? or like the soul winners who ignored personal christian morality?
Whether new or not, perhaps the church should concentrate on not compromising, and follow the example of Daniel and his friends at the expected expense of their life. The deacon Stephen who preached an unpleasant message and died for it. Like Peter and Paul and early christians who would not offer sacrifice to Ceasar. Like those who would obey God rather than men. And the church grew greatly at that time. Maybe not new, but in this day and age, maybe it is new.
We have christian schools in Alberta that have been there since the 1950s. But as time went on, they began to yearn for the provincial dollar, believing they had a right to it. I think they do have a right to it, but how easy will it be to maintain christian education once governments impose their value system on the christian school under the threat of removing funding? It will be interesting to see whether the school retains both its funding and its right to speak against homosex, or premarital sex, or adultery, as the state maintains the supposed human rights to equal treatment for all. Likewise the compromises that churches engage in have a great danger of killing them slowly as they attempt to honor Christ without sacrifice.
Bonnie and Larry and Bill are making good points. Sphere sovereignty does not mean that one sphere does not interract or influence another. Sphere sovereignty means that the church does not run or operate the state, and that the state does not appoint preachers or elders, and that neither the church nor the state should operate business nor daily education. At that level, private citizens, perhaps influenced by their church and their education, would operate the state, their business, and their schools. It is impossible to avoid interaction, since the state will have to decide whether to tax churches or exempt them. The state will at minimum have to facilitate education if private citizens are not doing it adequately.
But it is true that scripture does speak to poverty, justice, fairness, and if the church speaks the gospel, it is difficult to see why it would exclude some issues from its purview. (Should the church be in the business of deciding on appropriate tradeoffs politically? ie. trading abortion for healthcare?) On the other hand, the tendency of the church is often to latch on to issues which society finds popular. In that case, scripture is merely being used as a cover or justification for involvement. Women in office and environmental issues are particularly relevant here. Was greenpeace the result of scriptural preaching or something else? Were all the scriptural advocacy for women in office not relevant for 1900 years?
While the church could speak on many issues, it should recognize that in the eyes of the world, its opinion on these issues will not often bring people to Christ, especially if it has the same position as the world. It will merely lull people to placidity, since they will not be challenged by the gospel. While Jesus did say to give to Ceasar what is ceasar's and to God what is God's, it was not until denying Ceasar what he thought was his, that the gospel took on real significance.
I believe one of the causes of differences between denominations or between christians who think they believe different things from other christians, is that deep down in their hearts, people want to be different. They want to find a way to distinguish from others, or as scripture says, "...there must be differences to show which has God's approval..." I Corinthians 1:19. This takes place in doctrine, in lifestyle, in philosophy, science, dress, language, and education, within the church. This can be caused by anyone, whether educated or not, whether ecclesiastical or not. How is this relevant to discussions about evolution? The same things happen there. Questions about peer review, scientific method, consensus of scientists become deciding factors for divisions.
So, in the interest of providing a balance and another perspective, I suggest you check out the latest youtube video on Wazooloo.com, of Genesis Week, where Ian Juby explains mistakes made in paleontology with regard to mixing bones of Australopithecus and homoerectus. (youtube.com/watch?v=8FKKw74DWo0). This mixing was not discovered before the scientific paper went to peer review and so it was published, but of course it was later discovered to be mistaken. He explains many examples of how scientific journals refused to publish papers from scientists who were later given the Nobel Prize for their scientific work; ie. Krebs cycle, Watson and Crick's double helix, etc. Ironically, Darwin never wrote in a peer review journal. So why the big emphasis on anti-evolutionists publishing in peer review journals? He gives several other very interesting examples of the lack of objectivity of peer review journals, such as when the journals refused to publish previously published papers, even though they had not detected that they were already published in their own journal.
Then, he explains that there are a number of peer review journals which do accept young earth oriented papers, or intelligent design or anti-evolution research. And guess what, then we have some people ridiculing these other journals. So it is not really about peer review, but about point-of-view. And this gives us a clue about ecumenicity, or about reducing or removing barriers to Christian brotherhood. The importance of motives (desire to be different, or not), the willingness or lack of it to accept various ways of saying the same thing play huge roles. Perhaps we should focus more on how christians are different from the world, rather than different from each other. That might put the emphasis where it really should be.
Bill. It's true dead seeds do not sprout. Some seeds die without producing a plant. But perhaps your simple statement misses the essence of what is happening. A seed that wants to remain alive only as a seed, will never produce a plant. It must get rid of the mantle and essence of the seed, in order to become a plant. In the process of germinating, the seed disintegrates(dies). Even a seed potato must empty itself in order to become a potato plant. It must die to self, and live to what it can produce. This too is scientific reality.
Above reproach..... "Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money." I Timothy 3.
Tjalle, thanks for your response. I suppose we are all prejudiced on this topic to some extent, aren't we? I would suggest the primary issue is not age of the earth, but rather whether evolution is possible or actually happened. However, there are some problems with polystrate fossils, inability to date new volcanic rock with ancient methods, lack of serious erosion between supposedly ancient layers, and that absence of fossils does not mean absence of animals.
I understand that there are many stories of ancient land bridge or ice bridge (most likely ice) between the continents, and people crossing. Interesting also that orientals and native americans are so similar in appearance. You wonder how long it would take for populations to differentiate and homogenize; I would suggest it would not take long, given the right circumstances. In the end, as Joy said, they are still all people. We are beginning to see many examples of people today who cannot be placed into a particular so-called "race" or ethnicity.
I have recently read a book by JC Sanford, PhD in genetic biology, who writes about the unlikelihood an impossibility of upward evolution. The sheer number of deleterious mutations, and the impossibility of "natural selection" to select for beneficial mutations at a genome or organism level, is explained in great detail. The book is called, "Genetic Entropy, and the Mystery of the Genome". It is highly technical, but understandable with a bit of background understanding of DNA.
How do we talk about these things as Christians? Is it justifiable for evolutionists to ignore the problems with evolution just because YEC do not have an immediate answer for kangaroos in Australia? Is it justifiable for YEC to ignore the concerns of evolutionary nuclear scientists because evolutionists ignore the problems with genetics or polystrate fossils, or lack of intermediate and transitional fossils? We seem to be able to agree on the technology of computers, nuclear power, space ships. On history of sociology, impact of faith, and geological and athropological history there is less agreement. On God himself, and on scripture, there is less agreement. What do we use as a basis for commonality on this?
I wonder if your comment on "bishop Usher has had his day" is one reason why discussions like this are difficult. While I agreed that age of the earth is not the primary issue, that doesn't mean it isn't important. It neither means that I agree or disagree with YEC on that point.
Not to put too fine a point on it about K-Ar method, but measuring a grain of rice with a yardstick which is well marked, still ought to give a reasonable size, even while it might lack precision. We would not expect a yardstick to indicate a grain of rice is four inches in size. An error bar of 400,000 years in a dating method is significant. Any new rock should measure less than 100,000 years old at max. A better reply would have been to counter with the abilities of the Ar40-Ar39 method.
If kangaroos started from two animals, then they could have started anywhere they could have go to presumably, and extinctions on other land areas would not have been necessary....
You are right, the term evolution for separation of people's, is misleading. There is no new species, and selection of types is merely selection, not evolution. People are still people. Selected wheat varities are still wheat, no matter how they look.
I agree the bible is not a "science" book. But that is no reason to suppose that it is not essentially accurate. The bible is not a book about the probable, but about the possible, or even about the impossible becoming possible. (Thus Lazarus raised from the dead). Evolution is also entirely improbable; some would say impossible.
The truth that God sent His son to die for us; highly improbable, yet it happened. Eternal life, highly improbable, yet God's promise for us. Did sin enter the world through man, or did God plant it into his creation? Did God create us to disobey, or did he make us obedient originally? Did God ask man to reject the way he was created? Or to return to the way he was created? Is that the choice?
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?
Posted in: Banner Article Highlights Need for Accountability
Not even a hint of.... "Ephesians 5:3... But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people."
Posted in: The Voice of The Church in Society
It would be interesting to know if there is such a thing as "new ways". The only answer is faith, he says, but that is quite general and might be misunderstood. There are many faiths, and even the devils believe (and tremble). The real only answer is Christ as the son of God, his death and resurrection. (Probably that's what Timmermans meant by "faith", but many others could misunderstand).
To speak in new ways... what does that mean? like the pacifists who refused to fight in the army? like the hutterites who isolated themselves? like the sphere sovereignty people who want to separate church and state and education and business from each other? Like the social gospel people who wanted to be good samaritans without being christ followers? Like the soul winners who ignored poverty? or like the soul winners who ignored personal christian morality?
Whether new or not, perhaps the church should concentrate on not compromising, and follow the example of Daniel and his friends at the expected expense of their life. The deacon Stephen who preached an unpleasant message and died for it. Like Peter and Paul and early christians who would not offer sacrifice to Ceasar. Like those who would obey God rather than men. And the church grew greatly at that time. Maybe not new, but in this day and age, maybe it is new.
We have christian schools in Alberta that have been there since the 1950s. But as time went on, they began to yearn for the provincial dollar, believing they had a right to it. I think they do have a right to it, but how easy will it be to maintain christian education once governments impose their value system on the christian school under the threat of removing funding? It will be interesting to see whether the school retains both its funding and its right to speak against homosex, or premarital sex, or adultery, as the state maintains the supposed human rights to equal treatment for all. Likewise the compromises that churches engage in have a great danger of killing them slowly as they attempt to honor Christ without sacrifice.
Posted in: The Voice of The Church in Society
Bonnie and Larry and Bill are making good points. Sphere sovereignty does not mean that one sphere does not interract or influence another. Sphere sovereignty means that the church does not run or operate the state, and that the state does not appoint preachers or elders, and that neither the church nor the state should operate business nor daily education. At that level, private citizens, perhaps influenced by their church and their education, would operate the state, their business, and their schools. It is impossible to avoid interaction, since the state will have to decide whether to tax churches or exempt them. The state will at minimum have to facilitate education if private citizens are not doing it adequately.
But it is true that scripture does speak to poverty, justice, fairness, and if the church speaks the gospel, it is difficult to see why it would exclude some issues from its purview. (Should the church be in the business of deciding on appropriate tradeoffs politically? ie. trading abortion for healthcare?) On the other hand, the tendency of the church is often to latch on to issues which society finds popular. In that case, scripture is merely being used as a cover or justification for involvement. Women in office and environmental issues are particularly relevant here. Was greenpeace the result of scriptural preaching or something else? Were all the scriptural advocacy for women in office not relevant for 1900 years?
While the church could speak on many issues, it should recognize that in the eyes of the world, its opinion on these issues will not often bring people to Christ, especially if it has the same position as the world. It will merely lull people to placidity, since they will not be challenged by the gospel. While Jesus did say to give to Ceasar what is ceasar's and to God what is God's, it was not until denying Ceasar what he thought was his, that the gospel took on real significance.
Posted in: Is Creationism an Area of Ecumenism? Does God Belong in Science?
I believe one of the causes of differences between denominations or between christians who think they believe different things from other christians, is that deep down in their hearts, people want to be different. They want to find a way to distinguish from others, or as scripture says, "...there must be differences to show which has God's approval..." I Corinthians 1:19. This takes place in doctrine, in lifestyle, in philosophy, science, dress, language, and education, within the church. This can be caused by anyone, whether educated or not, whether ecclesiastical or not. How is this relevant to discussions about evolution? The same things happen there. Questions about peer review, scientific method, consensus of scientists become deciding factors for divisions.
So, in the interest of providing a balance and another perspective, I suggest you check out the latest youtube video on Wazooloo.com, of Genesis Week, where Ian Juby explains mistakes made in paleontology with regard to mixing bones of Australopithecus and homoerectus. (youtube.com/watch?v=8FKKw74DWo0). This mixing was not discovered before the scientific paper went to peer review and so it was published, but of course it was later discovered to be mistaken. He explains many examples of how scientific journals refused to publish papers from scientists who were later given the Nobel Prize for their scientific work; ie. Krebs cycle, Watson and Crick's double helix, etc. Ironically, Darwin never wrote in a peer review journal. So why the big emphasis on anti-evolutionists publishing in peer review journals? He gives several other very interesting examples of the lack of objectivity of peer review journals, such as when the journals refused to publish previously published papers, even though they had not detected that they were already published in their own journal.
Then, he explains that there are a number of peer review journals which do accept young earth oriented papers, or intelligent design or anti-evolution research. And guess what, then we have some people ridiculing these other journals. So it is not really about peer review, but about point-of-view. And this gives us a clue about ecumenicity, or about reducing or removing barriers to Christian brotherhood. The importance of motives (desire to be different, or not), the willingness or lack of it to accept various ways of saying the same thing play huge roles. Perhaps we should focus more on how christians are different from the world, rather than different from each other. That might put the emphasis where it really should be.
Posted in: Unless a Kernel of Wheat Falls
Bill. It's true dead seeds do not sprout. Some seeds die without producing a plant. But perhaps your simple statement misses the essence of what is happening. A seed that wants to remain alive only as a seed, will never produce a plant. It must get rid of the mantle and essence of the seed, in order to become a plant. In the process of germinating, the seed disintegrates(dies). Even a seed potato must empty itself in order to become a potato plant. It must die to self, and live to what it can produce. This too is scientific reality.
Posted in: Why We Don't Want To Rent Space
Good points!
Posted in: Banner Article Highlights Need for Accountability
Above reproach..... "Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money." I Timothy 3.
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Tjalle, thanks for your response. I suppose we are all prejudiced on this topic to some extent, aren't we? I would suggest the primary issue is not age of the earth, but rather whether evolution is possible or actually happened. However, there are some problems with polystrate fossils, inability to date new volcanic rock with ancient methods, lack of serious erosion between supposedly ancient layers, and that absence of fossils does not mean absence of animals.
I understand that there are many stories of ancient land bridge or ice bridge (most likely ice) between the continents, and people crossing. Interesting also that orientals and native americans are so similar in appearance. You wonder how long it would take for populations to differentiate and homogenize; I would suggest it would not take long, given the right circumstances. In the end, as Joy said, they are still all people. We are beginning to see many examples of people today who cannot be placed into a particular so-called "race" or ethnicity.
I have recently read a book by JC Sanford, PhD in genetic biology, who writes about the unlikelihood an impossibility of upward evolution. The sheer number of deleterious mutations, and the impossibility of "natural selection" to select for beneficial mutations at a genome or organism level, is explained in great detail. The book is called, "Genetic Entropy, and the Mystery of the Genome". It is highly technical, but understandable with a bit of background understanding of DNA.
How do we talk about these things as Christians? Is it justifiable for evolutionists to ignore the problems with evolution just because YEC do not have an immediate answer for kangaroos in Australia? Is it justifiable for YEC to ignore the concerns of evolutionary nuclear scientists because evolutionists ignore the problems with genetics or polystrate fossils, or lack of intermediate and transitional fossils? We seem to be able to agree on the technology of computers, nuclear power, space ships. On history of sociology, impact of faith, and geological and athropological history there is less agreement. On God himself, and on scripture, there is less agreement. What do we use as a basis for commonality on this?
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
I wonder if your comment on "bishop Usher has had his day" is one reason why discussions like this are difficult. While I agreed that age of the earth is not the primary issue, that doesn't mean it isn't important. It neither means that I agree or disagree with YEC on that point.
Not to put too fine a point on it about K-Ar method, but measuring a grain of rice with a yardstick which is well marked, still ought to give a reasonable size, even while it might lack precision. We would not expect a yardstick to indicate a grain of rice is four inches in size. An error bar of 400,000 years in a dating method is significant. Any new rock should measure less than 100,000 years old at max. A better reply would have been to counter with the abilities of the Ar40-Ar39 method.
If kangaroos started from two animals, then they could have started anywhere they could have go to presumably, and extinctions on other land areas would not have been necessary....
You are right, the term evolution for separation of people's, is misleading. There is no new species, and selection of types is merely selection, not evolution. People are still people. Selected wheat varities are still wheat, no matter how they look.
I agree the bible is not a "science" book. But that is no reason to suppose that it is not essentially accurate. The bible is not a book about the probable, but about the possible, or even about the impossible becoming possible. (Thus Lazarus raised from the dead). Evolution is also entirely improbable; some would say impossible.
The truth that God sent His son to die for us; highly improbable, yet it happened. Eternal life, highly improbable, yet God's promise for us. Did sin enter the world through man, or did God plant it into his creation? Did God create us to disobey, or did he make us obedient originally? Did God ask man to reject the way he was created? Or to return to the way he was created? Is that the choice?