Lubbert, you have taken this in an interesting direction. "materialistic, positivistic, scientific axioms..." hmmm. They are all much the same, aren't they? but my position is not based strictly on materialism, nor positivism, which exclude other aspects of life and reality. My position is merely that there ought not to be a substantive contradiction between material things and our understanding of God's power and how God works in the creation that He created. Therefore, when Jesus fed the 5000, I believe this to be real and material, but not originating from a material and physical origin. Thus it is not a normally replicatable activity. My position is not based at all on a materialist point of view, even though I obviously do not deny material reality. The real issue is whether scripture means what it says. You cannot argue this away by philosophical mumbo jumbo that diverts. Are you trying to say that Adam and Eve were not material? That they were created from spiritual dust? That they were only created in the imagination of man's heart? Do you get that kind of indication from scripture?
John K, the apparent perceived absurdity of the discussion... is based on what ? It would seem obvious, and not absurd, to suggest that Jesus statements, and the rest of the new testament's references to Adam and Eve ought to be taken seriously. We do not believe in our confessions because John Calvin happens to agree with them, do we? Is it not that Calvin agrees with them, because they are true? "It is not true because it is in scripture, but rather, it is in scripture because it is true."
HC 1 is a good Q/A. But I have begun to wonder recently whether we ever get past it, sometimes. What does it mean that we do not belong to ourselves... how does the rest of the HC explain that to us? What do we know about the rest of the HC? Why do we bother to learn the sections on the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer? How do we know that HC 1 is not just a bunch of nice sounding words, but that it really impacts our lives?
For someone who was going to "bow out", John K, you are adding many comments.... Lubbert, I disagree with your perspective. It is also difficult to respond to your vague generalities rather than to specifics, since they simply sound like judgements, rather than true analysis. At least Walhout talked about specifics, and not vague generalities. However, thanks for making your point.
They are obviously not the same. Unless you think only one denomination, or one local church is 'the church". The church is the people of God, the body of Christ. The institutional is a particular manifestation of that in a particular time and place. I think the principles should be the same, but sometimes there is more discipline for example between church groups than within church groups. Sometimes the confessions are professed more by one church, but practiced more by another church that does not have them down on paper. Sometimes the best corporate worship is biblically practiced in a non-building setting, where people(two or three prophets) take turns in speaking, where each one shares a word, or a hymn or spiritual song, or a prayer.
A certificate of incorporation is not a bad thing, but if we think the certificate is the most important part of authenticity or legitimacy, then we certainly have it wrong.
Great points, Dan. It's of course important to protect the flock, and professors should not forget that. On the other hand, as Christians, we know it sometimes will be tough. Tough to live, tough to stand up to temptation and mockery, and tough to witness. I agree that a certain degree of humility is also necessary for creationists. Well, you said "serious humility". And yes, true, perhaps. But don't you find that often serious humility translates as timidity? I would not like to see that.
And that can impact our global mission. If we do not have good answers for Genesis 1, and Genesis 11, and Exodus 8-11, we will begin to be very timid in explaining why John 1, or John 11, or John 20:31 are valid. Especially for those working in the scientific community. The global impact is then greatly diminished. The global mission is then inhibited and reduced.
We assume so often that our global mission is all about reaching out in missions or aid to foreign lands. Yet at home and in Europe our church attendance has dropped to to 25-35% of the population. Much of this is due to affluence, or irrelevant leadership, and to a great deal of excess humility translated as timidity. But some of it is also due to ceding certain precepts and territory to Christ denying principles, values and philosophies, including the philosophy of natural history. It is ironic that while we confess and proclaim that God is lord of all of life, we often too easily allow certain disciplines and certain philosophies to kick God out of the picture, or to put God on the shelf in the back of the closet.
I don't think we have to apologize, even though being humble, about seeking good answers to scientific ore real questions about how our perception of the universe and its parts fits with what God has revealed in scripture. We know that when Christians are accused of being "flat earthers", that is not a scientific nor a valid claim, but it is made by Satan in order to discredit the followers of Christ. The fact that the bible talks about the "circle of the earth"(Isaiah 40) is an inconvenient fact, and more conveniently ignored in the quest to discredit God. It is relevant to the discussion on evolution to demonstrate the disconnect between scripture and those who discredit it. But whether christians actually did believe or not in a flat earth at one time, is irrelevant to the truth or untruth of the theory of evolution or seven day creation. Yet it is often brought up, which simply demonstrates again how much of this discussion is often not about science, but about discrediting scripture, and discrediting God.
As Christians we need to provide tools for each other to demonstrate the power of Isaiah 40, the realithy of Genesis 1, and the significance of Genesis 11. And this includes looking at the rocks and fossils from the perspective of the power and majesty of God. How God can use the natural laws which He created and installed in the universe in such a magnificent and fantastic manner to bring about what we see today, in ways we can barely imagine.
The verse in scripture that says something like, "the people say that things are proceeding as they have always done, going on as they always have, so where is the coming of Christ? of that great day of the Lord?" warns of the fallacy of uniformitarianism.
" Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. "
A certain type of uniformitarianism can be lethal. Fatal.
"who in their writings habitually misquote " Norm, a shotgun approach to what is a virtual slander, does not help anyone. I don't doubt that YEC are human, and have made mistakes, and will make some mistakes in the future. Your other link provided some good discussion. This comment is not useful.
Keith, I don't know what the grounds for Article 17 have been in all these cases, and it is impossible anyway to comment on circumstances about which one knows nothing, but it would be interesting to know whether the "new wise" council as you put it, was able to convince the old "unwise" council, as you put it, that they had made a mistake. Now, that doesn't mean that some kind of apology is not appropriate; often words and communications around these issues could be poor, I am assuming (having never been involved in one). But as susceptible as the approach is to mistakes, there is no guarantee whatsoever, that a different approach will be susceptible to fewer mistakes. Was it Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst of all systems of government, except for every other one." ? Not that this is about democracy, but rather about local congregational authority as being original. If I was bishop, of course I would think it was the best system, because I would never imagine that I could ever make a poor decision. But perhaps most of us think that, except you, of course. Just joking a bit, but you see that who is wise and who is unwise is sometimes a matter of debate.... and of course you are right, sometimes it is obvious. It would be interesting to categorize the various disputes of Article 17: which were doctrinal, which were personality, lifestyle, work habits, mission and vision disputes, etc. How many of each type, etc.
You raise a number of interesting points, Richard.
I agree that proof of God's existence is based on circumstantial evidence, and on eyewitness acounts. Not on the basis of a repeatable scientific experiment. The proof is seen in faith. We see the proof by our faith.
"When kids lose their faith..." of course, we confess (by scripture) that God does not lose anyone who belongs to Him, so perhaps they never had that faith to begin with, although they thought they did, and others thought they did. I'm reminded again of Charles Templeton, a preacher and a friend of Billy Graham. But I would say that it does not have to do with their view of church; it has to do with their view of God, and of themselves. We are not christians first of all because of what we think of the church, although the church may be a place or group where we learn about God, and are brought closer to Him. The church does not mean much by itself until we understand who God is, and what Christ has done for us.
To say that the presence of God is more important than the truths about Him, is a bit hmm, a bit obfusicating, don't you think? I mean, the presence of what God? Why would He be present? Why not distant? or, if present, why would that be a good thing and not a bad thing? You see, we cannot understand the presence of God without understanding who He is. And that means knowing what is true about God.
To say that God is present, means understanding that God is active, and that our lives are not accidental random events, which is to understand a much different presence than the pantheistic notion that God is equal to what He has created. God could be just as distant even though nearby, if our relationship to Him is not imbedded in His purpose for us, and our response to Him.
The problem with God's presence being real, is that we need to have an understanding of God. The problem is that if God did not really create us good, or with the capacity to obey and love, and repent, if we are mere accidents of random events and natural selection, then our relationship with God is similar to us being a sitcom on television, and God watching. Or our relationship is similar to us being rabbits in the forest, or carrots in the garden, and God simply harvesting us, even though He doesn't really need us, nor intend any future for us, nor really have a reciprocal relationship with us. So that is kind of an existential problem.
From a logistical and apologetics point of view, it is impossible for God to be real if God does not exist. We would call that mental illness. But yes, if God is real, and can be experienced, then we need to know who God is, what has he done, and what does He intend and desire for us. Otherwise we are deceived by our experience, and we are creating God, rather than being God's creatures.
A practical problem is that if scripture told the story of creation and Noah's flood as mere fables, to teach us lessons without the backing of reality, but with the substance and weight of 'Sleeping Beauty", or "Aesops Fables", then it becomes for us difficult to differentiate the resurrection from a moral fable, and it becomes difficult for us to give more weight to the parables of Jesus, or the prophecies of the day of judgement, the day of the Lord. Nor can we then differentiate God's commands for us apart from the moral and ethical judgements of society. Even while our faith may prevail, our witness becomes weaker and timid.
For that reason, I believe God wants us to place Him and His scriptures into the context of the discussion of origins. I believe that God wants us to realize that He is in control of current happenings and natural events even today. That just as God reveals himself to us in nature, in the ordinary things of plants and animals and rocks and weather and bodies in space, so He also reveals himself to us in natural history, in earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes. If we ignore God when we look at these things, our eyes will be darkened and we will see dimly.
And if our eyes are darkened, we will not be able to share the light of the Word, and the light of the World, with the world. And that will impact our global mission.
What's interesting also is how thick a single geological layer of rock can be. For example, carboniferous rock (often limestone) can range from 300 ft to 42,000 ft. thick. 42,000 ft is more than the height of mount Everest. One layer, formed over a period of only 60 million years (out of 4,000 million). Displacing most other layers completely. Does this fit with a uniformitarian approach?
We know, and have seen in certain places, hundreds of feet of sediment laid down in less than one year. This is also evident in the fossil record. Sediments can be laid down very quickly, and layered by water. Yet, the geo-evolutionary perspective presented is always that of mountains slowly eroding to form sediment that eventually layers over the flat lands and creates more fossils. Which type of sediment formation have we actually seen more of?
Norman, I started to read the talk origins link, but it had so little science in it, I couldn't finish reading it. I want to clarify that mine is not a lament. My point is one of shifting direction, and realizing that there are implications of faith in the approach to the interpretation of Genesis 1, and that it is worthwhile to examine alternatives to evolutionary theory. It is important to realize that the issue is not settled, and that various scientists including PhDs are discovering major problems with evolutionary theory, and are proposing alternatives. Walt Brown is one example, and Creation Ministries International is another example. I suspect neither one is 100% correct, but both are worth considering, and refinements are possible that make the alternatives more viable. I have just begun to have a look at Creation.com, and I appreciate their approach as well.
This issue is partly about protecting the flock; if you have difficulty being a witness to your children because of this issue, as many people do, then many children (or first mission field) are leaving the church because of it. But it is also about our mission in the world to others for exactly the same reason. If God is irrelevant (as evolution proposes), or if God created evil and death not as result of sin but as normal and "good", then our message of salvation rings hollow. God reveals himself in the physical world, but usually we cannot understand this revelation without the context of scripture.
Another interesting video by Ian Juby on the impact of the flood on demise of dinosaurs, showing that other theories are scientifically inconsistent. christianima.com/wazooloo/
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Lubbert, you have taken this in an interesting direction. "materialistic, positivistic, scientific axioms..." hmmm. They are all much the same, aren't they? but my position is not based strictly on materialism, nor positivism, which exclude other aspects of life and reality. My position is merely that there ought not to be a substantive contradiction between material things and our understanding of God's power and how God works in the creation that He created. Therefore, when Jesus fed the 5000, I believe this to be real and material, but not originating from a material and physical origin. Thus it is not a normally replicatable activity. My position is not based at all on a materialist point of view, even though I obviously do not deny material reality. The real issue is whether scripture means what it says. You cannot argue this away by philosophical mumbo jumbo that diverts. Are you trying to say that Adam and Eve were not material? That they were created from spiritual dust? That they were only created in the imagination of man's heart? Do you get that kind of indication from scripture?
John K, the apparent perceived absurdity of the discussion... is based on what ? It would seem obvious, and not absurd, to suggest that Jesus statements, and the rest of the new testament's references to Adam and Eve ought to be taken seriously. We do not believe in our confessions because John Calvin happens to agree with them, do we? Is it not that Calvin agrees with them, because they are true? "It is not true because it is in scripture, but rather, it is in scripture because it is true."
Posted in: Reciting HC Q&A 1 During Worship Service
HC 1 is a good Q/A. But I have begun to wonder recently whether we ever get past it, sometimes. What does it mean that we do not belong to ourselves... how does the rest of the HC explain that to us? What do we know about the rest of the HC? Why do we bother to learn the sections on the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer? How do we know that HC 1 is not just a bunch of nice sounding words, but that it really impacts our lives?
HC 1 is a good start, but how do we finish?
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
For someone who was going to "bow out", John K, you are adding many comments.... Lubbert, I disagree with your perspective. It is also difficult to respond to your vague generalities rather than to specifics, since they simply sound like judgements, rather than true analysis. At least Walhout talked about specifics, and not vague generalities. However, thanks for making your point.
Posted in: Of Elephants and Rabbits: Church Multiplication
They are obviously not the same. Unless you think only one denomination, or one local church is 'the church". The church is the people of God, the body of Christ. The institutional is a particular manifestation of that in a particular time and place. I think the principles should be the same, but sometimes there is more discipline for example between church groups than within church groups. Sometimes the confessions are professed more by one church, but practiced more by another church that does not have them down on paper. Sometimes the best corporate worship is biblically practiced in a non-building setting, where people(two or three prophets) take turns in speaking, where each one shares a word, or a hymn or spiritual song, or a prayer.
A certificate of incorporation is not a bad thing, but if we think the certificate is the most important part of authenticity or legitimacy, then we certainly have it wrong.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Great points, Dan. It's of course important to protect the flock, and professors should not forget that. On the other hand, as Christians, we know it sometimes will be tough. Tough to live, tough to stand up to temptation and mockery, and tough to witness. I agree that a certain degree of humility is also necessary for creationists. Well, you said "serious humility". And yes, true, perhaps. But don't you find that often serious humility translates as timidity? I would not like to see that.
And that can impact our global mission. If we do not have good answers for Genesis 1, and Genesis 11, and Exodus 8-11, we will begin to be very timid in explaining why John 1, or John 11, or John 20:31 are valid. Especially for those working in the scientific community. The global impact is then greatly diminished. The global mission is then inhibited and reduced.
We assume so often that our global mission is all about reaching out in missions or aid to foreign lands. Yet at home and in Europe our church attendance has dropped to to 25-35% of the population. Much of this is due to affluence, or irrelevant leadership, and to a great deal of excess humility translated as timidity. But some of it is also due to ceding certain precepts and territory to Christ denying principles, values and philosophies, including the philosophy of natural history. It is ironic that while we confess and proclaim that God is lord of all of life, we often too easily allow certain disciplines and certain philosophies to kick God out of the picture, or to put God on the shelf in the back of the closet.
I don't think we have to apologize, even though being humble, about seeking good answers to scientific ore real questions about how our perception of the universe and its parts fits with what God has revealed in scripture. We know that when Christians are accused of being "flat earthers", that is not a scientific nor a valid claim, but it is made by Satan in order to discredit the followers of Christ. The fact that the bible talks about the "circle of the earth"(Isaiah 40) is an inconvenient fact, and more conveniently ignored in the quest to discredit God. It is relevant to the discussion on evolution to demonstrate the disconnect between scripture and those who discredit it. But whether christians actually did believe or not in a flat earth at one time, is irrelevant to the truth or untruth of the theory of evolution or seven day creation. Yet it is often brought up, which simply demonstrates again how much of this discussion is often not about science, but about discrediting scripture, and discrediting God.
As Christians we need to provide tools for each other to demonstrate the power of Isaiah 40, the realithy of Genesis 1, and the significance of Genesis 11. And this includes looking at the rocks and fossils from the perspective of the power and majesty of God. How God can use the natural laws which He created and installed in the universe in such a magnificent and fantastic manner to bring about what we see today, in ways we can barely imagine.
The verse in scripture that says something like, "the people say that things are proceeding as they have always done, going on as they always have, so where is the coming of Christ? of that great day of the Lord?" warns of the fallacy of uniformitarianism.
" Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. "
A certain type of uniformitarianism can be lethal. Fatal.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
"who in their writings habitually misquote " Norm, a shotgun approach to what is a virtual slander, does not help anyone. I don't doubt that YEC are human, and have made mistakes, and will make some mistakes in the future. Your other link provided some good discussion. This comment is not useful.
Posted in: Some Denominations Have Bishops; We Have Article 17
Keith, I don't know what the grounds for Article 17 have been in all these cases, and it is impossible anyway to comment on circumstances about which one knows nothing, but it would be interesting to know whether the "new wise" council as you put it, was able to convince the old "unwise" council, as you put it, that they had made a mistake. Now, that doesn't mean that some kind of apology is not appropriate; often words and communications around these issues could be poor, I am assuming (having never been involved in one). But as susceptible as the approach is to mistakes, there is no guarantee whatsoever, that a different approach will be susceptible to fewer mistakes. Was it Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst of all systems of government, except for every other one." ? Not that this is about democracy, but rather about local congregational authority as being original. If I was bishop, of course I would think it was the best system, because I would never imagine that I could ever make a poor decision. But perhaps most of us think that, except you, of course. Just joking a bit, but you see that who is wise and who is unwise is sometimes a matter of debate.... and of course you are right, sometimes it is obvious. It would be interesting to categorize the various disputes of Article 17: which were doctrinal, which were personality, lifestyle, work habits, mission and vision disputes, etc. How many of each type, etc.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
You raise a number of interesting points, Richard.
I agree that proof of God's existence is based on circumstantial evidence, and on eyewitness acounts. Not on the basis of a repeatable scientific experiment. The proof is seen in faith. We see the proof by our faith.
"When kids lose their faith..." of course, we confess (by scripture) that God does not lose anyone who belongs to Him, so perhaps they never had that faith to begin with, although they thought they did, and others thought they did. I'm reminded again of Charles Templeton, a preacher and a friend of Billy Graham. But I would say that it does not have to do with their view of church; it has to do with their view of God, and of themselves. We are not christians first of all because of what we think of the church, although the church may be a place or group where we learn about God, and are brought closer to Him. The church does not mean much by itself until we understand who God is, and what Christ has done for us.
To say that the presence of God is more important than the truths about Him, is a bit hmm, a bit obfusicating, don't you think? I mean, the presence of what God? Why would He be present? Why not distant? or, if present, why would that be a good thing and not a bad thing? You see, we cannot understand the presence of God without understanding who He is. And that means knowing what is true about God.
To say that God is present, means understanding that God is active, and that our lives are not accidental random events, which is to understand a much different presence than the pantheistic notion that God is equal to what He has created. God could be just as distant even though nearby, if our relationship to Him is not imbedded in His purpose for us, and our response to Him.
The problem with God's presence being real, is that we need to have an understanding of God. The problem is that if God did not really create us good, or with the capacity to obey and love, and repent, if we are mere accidents of random events and natural selection, then our relationship with God is similar to us being a sitcom on television, and God watching. Or our relationship is similar to us being rabbits in the forest, or carrots in the garden, and God simply harvesting us, even though He doesn't really need us, nor intend any future for us, nor really have a reciprocal relationship with us. So that is kind of an existential problem.
From a logistical and apologetics point of view, it is impossible for God to be real if God does not exist. We would call that mental illness. But yes, if God is real, and can be experienced, then we need to know who God is, what has he done, and what does He intend and desire for us. Otherwise we are deceived by our experience, and we are creating God, rather than being God's creatures.
A practical problem is that if scripture told the story of creation and Noah's flood as mere fables, to teach us lessons without the backing of reality, but with the substance and weight of 'Sleeping Beauty", or "Aesops Fables", then it becomes for us difficult to differentiate the resurrection from a moral fable, and it becomes difficult for us to give more weight to the parables of Jesus, or the prophecies of the day of judgement, the day of the Lord. Nor can we then differentiate God's commands for us apart from the moral and ethical judgements of society. Even while our faith may prevail, our witness becomes weaker and timid.
For that reason, I believe God wants us to place Him and His scriptures into the context of the discussion of origins. I believe that God wants us to realize that He is in control of current happenings and natural events even today. That just as God reveals himself to us in nature, in the ordinary things of plants and animals and rocks and weather and bodies in space, so He also reveals himself to us in natural history, in earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes. If we ignore God when we look at these things, our eyes will be darkened and we will see dimly.
And if our eyes are darkened, we will not be able to share the light of the Word, and the light of the World, with the world. And that will impact our global mission.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
What's interesting also is how thick a single geological layer of rock can be. For example, carboniferous rock (often limestone) can range from 300 ft to 42,000 ft. thick. 42,000 ft is more than the height of mount Everest. One layer, formed over a period of only 60 million years (out of 4,000 million). Displacing most other layers completely. Does this fit with a uniformitarian approach?
We know, and have seen in certain places, hundreds of feet of sediment laid down in less than one year. This is also evident in the fossil record. Sediments can be laid down very quickly, and layered by water. Yet, the geo-evolutionary perspective presented is always that of mountains slowly eroding to form sediment that eventually layers over the flat lands and creates more fossils. Which type of sediment formation have we actually seen more of?
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norman, I started to read the talk origins link, but it had so little science in it, I couldn't finish reading it. I want to clarify that mine is not a lament. My point is one of shifting direction, and realizing that there are implications of faith in the approach to the interpretation of Genesis 1, and that it is worthwhile to examine alternatives to evolutionary theory. It is important to realize that the issue is not settled, and that various scientists including PhDs are discovering major problems with evolutionary theory, and are proposing alternatives. Walt Brown is one example, and Creation Ministries International is another example. I suspect neither one is 100% correct, but both are worth considering, and refinements are possible that make the alternatives more viable. I have just begun to have a look at Creation.com, and I appreciate their approach as well.
This issue is partly about protecting the flock; if you have difficulty being a witness to your children because of this issue, as many people do, then many children (or first mission field) are leaving the church because of it. But it is also about our mission in the world to others for exactly the same reason. If God is irrelevant (as evolution proposes), or if God created evil and death not as result of sin but as normal and "good", then our message of salvation rings hollow. God reveals himself in the physical world, but usually we cannot understand this revelation without the context of scripture.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Another interesting video by Ian Juby on the impact of the flood on demise of dinosaurs, showing that other theories are scientifically inconsistent. christianima.com/wazooloo/
Posted in: The Pope as Evangelist
Steve, some of the comments under the Christianity Today article are enlightening.