Naturally, John K, you are entitled to your opinion. But is "entitlement" really the issue? Entitled by whom? Human beings are "entitled" to be unbelievers, but of what use is it? Why do we focus so often on "entitlement"?
The real issue is not "entitlement", but being true to scripture, and true to your faith. I agree with Calvin that some people are inclined to reject what they do not know or understand. I also agree with Calvin, that we should not forbid scientists from working because we are afraid of some new knowledge. But you have not drawn a connection between this statement and our present discussion... what I mean is that no one is saying that we should not do science. So I think this is a red herring. What some of us are saying is that perhaps science is not being done well; that conclusions are being drawn which do not have substantive proof.
Furthermore, are you implying that Calvin would agree with Walhout? That there is no original sin; that no original Adam and Eve existed; that God did not declare everything good? That God did not make a promise to Adam and Eve that their seed would crush the head of the serpent? What exactly are you implying?
When you state that things that Paul stated went way over the head of Peter, did you get that idea from scripture? Is that really what he said?
When you say that all you need to know is that Christ is your saviour, what is it you are being saved from? your sin? your sinful nature? But what if your "sin" is merely an outworking of the supposed "natural" evolutionistic tendencies to survival? Why would you be redeemed from that? And you say that Christ redeems the whole creation... but why does the creation need to be redeemed? what's wrong with it? How do you know? What makes your beliefs different from someone who says that man is "naturally good"?
It is my view that these views are fundamental, not peripheral. They are basic to our understanding of ourselves, of creation, and of the creator/redeemer. Does that mean that people should not be investigating fossils, and starlight, and planets, and genetics, and different types of rock, or the sequences they are found in? No, all investigation is legitimate, but our interpretation is colored by our assumptions, and we do not serve the greek or roman gods, but we serve the true God. We know the true God through scripture, not thru the imaginations of our minds, nor thru the wistful desires of our heart. And we know God thru the majesty and order and magnificence of creation, not thru the supposed random accidentalness and ferocious survival instinct and desperation to survive, which if it was the dominating principle certainly would make it useless and meaningless to love God and our neighbor, wouldn't it.
I think this issue is well worth discussing. We need to know how to defend against such statements as Walhout makes. The problem is that Walhout proposed it and gave it the appearance of a valid christian approach, which is highly, highly questionable, and certainly should not have been given the imprimatur of the banner podium in the way that it did.
Richard, I agree mostly with what you said in the previous post (the one before that...). I love to discuss, but I also know that discussion of the confessions of another denomination is not really the main work of the church. Richard, yes, theology is important. Most confessions were born out of struggle, in the midst of the struggle. The belhar is talking about a struggle that is virtually over, and a struggle where society and government are already leading and have led for some time. On the other hand, the creation/evolution debate/struggle is more relevant, and needs more attention, because raw evolutionary theory justifies racism, and justifies treating less capable and less fit people and anyone "different" as of less worth. Racism is a symptom, of which a lack of love and a lack of obedience, and in some cases a belief in evolution are the cause. Good theology will get at the cause.
But I would not ask for the church to make a new confession which makes a statement on evolution, since our confessions have already declared scripture to be authoritative, and have declared God the good creator, man the fallen sinner. At this point, the real work is not to make another confession, but to uphold what we have. The real work is to support those who want to work in the field of creation science, since they are being more diligent in upholding the confessions.
The real work of the church is not making new confessions, but is living them out. The real work of the church is living by the authority and guidance of scripture, depending on God, and trusting His Spirit. Confessions of faith guide us in our belief, but only our personal confession and repentance can change us, by God's grace and spirit and power.
Confessions of faith may unite us, or may separate us, but certainly will not stop church shopping in this day and age. Unity, reconciliation and justice are indeed very important, but they must cross confessional boundaries, not wait for a new confession to be written or adopted. I think the confessions are very important yes, and I agree the proposal to add a new confession is no small thing, but I do not think at this point the belhar will help us in any significant way, and it has a high potential to harm us. So I would suggest to accept it for information, express appreciation of the circumstances in which it was written, and leave it for the church that wrote and adopted it, to live it out in the context of scripture and the context of their environs.
We ought to put ourselves to more productive use, and deal with the issues that are really the causes of present-day problems and faithlessness within our churches. It bears repeating that it is no use adopting another confession that can be conveniently ignored by so many.
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."
You are not nuts. You are not crazy. Some seminary trained preachers preach the pure word of God, but some don't. Some established churches practices church discipline but some don't. Some administer sacraments purely, but some don't. A missional group may be as much "church" as any of these established churches, and may have the "marks" of the church, or may make similar mistakes or different mistakes than established churches. Preach the word in season, and out of season (indoors, and outdoors, and without doors...).
Richard, you have made several good points. First, about sticking to what we're good at; perhaps you are right, but we should remember that Darwin was trained in bachelor regular degree as precursor to being a parson, not as a scientist. And then, the claim of Ian Juby, robotics engineer, Dr. Carl Baugh, Dr. Austin, Dr. Jerry Bergman(two science PHDs and several master degrees), and other scientists, is that evolutionists are not practicing good science when they extrapolate or theorize about evolution. So that makes sticking to what you are good at a bit of a conundrum.
I think you are right that apologetics is rarely an effective means of evangelism. But that doesn't mean it can't be useful, particularly in removing barriers to evangelism. Just like offering cookies and conversation to someone who needs a relationship with a Christian, so apologetics can assist in reducing intellectual barriers to receiving and understanding who God is, particularly for scientists.
There is also a great deal of difficulty in convincing people that they are sinners in need of the grace of God, if (a) god is random, or randomness is god, (b) if sin is merely evolutionary principles at work (c) if what we see is all there is (d) if there is a god, then he created death, competition, survival and all the associated behaviours so how could any of it be sin. (e) if we are merely more sophisticated animals than the simple amoeba.
As far as the math of amino acids is concerned, of course you are right, there is much room for many amino acids both in the sea and on land, and in fact there are billions and trillions of amino acids present there today, contained of course in dna and proteins and living organisms. The fact that there is room anywhere, such as in space, say on Mars, or Jupiter or between the planets and stars is not really the issue. After all, they do not exist there, even though there is lots of space. The issue is for them to form first, and then combine randomly by chance under random conditions, into useable amino acids which also have to combine randomly into proteins, which then have to randomly combine and form into organisms. The stated odds of this happening were just for one simply protein. Developing all the required proteins for simple life would have been vastly even less likely.
Then these organisms had to have an environment that didn't kill them, which is different than the environment that they would have spontaneously developed in. And it would have had to happen in a lot less than 13 billion years, since all the further evolution would have had to happen subsequently.
And in spite of the great difficulty of randomly arriving at even a simple amino acid, or a simple protein, this still pales in comparison to arriving at an actual organism with all its many requirements for DNA replication and repair mechanisms, as well as all the concommitant necessary parts of even the simple single cell, and having that organism change into another organism in sequences to develop into the huge variety of species we have today, and having that happen randomly. In addition, there are all the biological mechanisms present today for preventing that from happening, which would also have to be overcome, reducing the possibility even further.
The point is not only about the high improbability, but that basing science on such high improbabilities is not really science, but blind faith. Any normal science that looked at something with such a high improbability, would normally postulate and conclude that it would not happen in that way.
This video is just arguing a bit from credibility, from authority, along with some supporting evidence. Ian Juby has another 24 free videos on you-tube dealing with issues such as radiometric dating of rocks and fossils, biogenesis requirements, various fossil combinations, hydroplate theory, sedimentary and igneous rock, Mount St. Helen's, flume sedimentation experiments showing cross bedding, etc., etc. The point is he is doing this from a science perspective. This is more relevant to those who use their five senses to look at nature and observe and make conclusions about what they see. For someone involved in science, it is like offering them cookies and coffee, or inviting them for dinner.
Doug, good comments. Just to expand a bit more on it: As Christians, we all confess that justice (God's justice) demands that we are all unworthy, undeserving. We deserve punishment for our disobedience to God. This punishment Christ took on himself, on our behalf. It is God's mercy that put this punishment, this justice, on to Himself, on to His Son. When we insist on justice only, then we condemn ourselves. It is when we appreciate God's mercy to us, that we are able to grant mercy to others. Indirectly, this concentration on justice alone, seems to remove God's grace from us, or remove us from God's grace.
Justice means paying a worker an adequate wage to buy his food and shelter and not defrauding the employer or his worker. Mercy means giving someone unable to work, or unable to find work, enough to prevent starvation and freezing to death, just as God gave us life, even though we did not deserve it and had lost our real right to it.
Sorry to put in three posts here in a row.... but I came across an excellent expose of evolutionary paleotology, put together by Street Church Adelaide. Youtube - "Evolution - A Crumbling Theory ( StreetChurch Adelaide )
Facts are not always facts, even when it comes to empirical science. Evil and falsehood not only wants to pervert scriptural truths, but it perverts scientific and "natural" evidence as well, if the motivation is there.
Friend Norman, I appreciate your elucidation of your perception of Helder's misrepresentation, in other words highlighting that she did not mention natural selection when yes it is an essential part of the evolutionary theory. However, I hope you are not suggesting that she was not aware of this component of the theory. I believe that while it is a part of the theory, so is genetics itself, and so are basic principles of biology(mating or cell division) and physics and chemistry. Yet Helder did not mention these either. The reason I believe is because natural selection is too often overplayed as being evolution, while it is not.
Evolutionary ideas were not new at the time of Darwin or Wallace. Anaximander of Miletus (c.610–546 BC) proposed that animals of different species derived from other species. Lamark proposed transmutation of species well before Darwin did. James Hutton, Charles Wells, and Patrick Matthew have mentioned natural selection, or at least described it, well before Darwin did. Selection itself was practiced by people for many centuries in terms of breeding dogs, poultry, horses, bovines, and it is unreasonable to assume that people were unaware of selection also within the natural environment. It is a common concept also accepted by creationists. However, creationists limit natural selection to operating within the existing variability within a species or kind, and in fact even evolutionists must limit the ability of natural selection to act only on existing genomic information. Natural selection by itself cannot create new genes, nor create mutations, nor create new morphologies. It is not natural selection by itself that causes evolution; rather it is the random mutations working over long periods of time that allows natural selection to work to create new species (by evolutionary theory). Thus while natural selection is necessary for evolutionary theory, it is not as essentially separate from non-evolutionary theory compared to the need for random mutations and long periods of time, which evolutionary theory requires in contrast to other theories.
In creationist paradigm, natural selection works to keep "kinds" or species reproducing after their own kind. In the creationist paradigm, natural selection is recognized to generally work against the random mutations, and does not promote them. Natural selection tends to reduce diversity and variability instead of increasing it, and thus does not favor evolution of species more than stability of species.
Jonathan, thanks for your comment. I think the importance of having these discussions in the open, is to discover communally what the issues are, and what is true and what is not true, particularly about our attitudes towards scientific investigation and pursuits, and how it is affected by our worldview and how it affects our worldview. I think our global mission is impacted by our respect and attitude towards one another, and I think in general, Norman's attitude was pretty good. But there are times when his bias reveals itself. It is important to realize that inaccurate and dishonorable characterizations of fellow Christians is something that happens on both sides of this discussion.
For that reason, the details become important. And it is important beyond two people having a private discussion, to realize that often attitudes are common among a larger group of people. For example, when people accuse YEC of propogandizing, it certainly needs to be put into the context of the propoganda of evolution in school textbooks, Time magazine and national geographic, which they are up against. Another example is Norman's reference to "parasitic science". People who are unaware of what this implies will feel that it puts YEC in its place. But actually, it is a meaningless pejorative term, used by those who do not understand science. Scientific endeavors almost always refer to and depend on work done previously by others. In that context, parasitic makes no sense. In a scientific context, an experiment that results in a "no" answer is just as valid as an experiment that results in a "yes" answer. Evolutionists constantly argue, correctly, that science corrects itself, by which they mean that a later experiment or investigation can refine or correct the perceptions derived from a previous experiment. Many science papers have been written which do nothing more than act as a literature review, compiling, summarizing and analyzing and comparing results from other research papers on a particular subject. In fact, Dawkins book does this to some extent. So the term "parasitic" is meaningless, other than to cast a biased pejorative denigration on the work of some scientists or writers, compared to other writers. I simply wish to clarify this for readers who may be confused on this term.
Often, Norman has called me a YEC. But I don't think I have ever said I was a YEC. I am definately against accepting "mud to man" evolution, and that is a starting point for me. I think neither science nor scripture proves this type of evolution. But at this point I am open to some type of time shift, or the possibility of longer days at least prior to day four, or a longer first day; however, I will not defend longer days, since I think those who presently support longer days or even a "symbolic" interpretation of Genesis 1, mostly have their minds closed to other scientific or extraordinary possibilities. I prefer to have an open mind, which I believe will lead to more interesting scientific conclusions in the future. So even though I might not conclusively be a total YEC, I still prefer to defend YEC, or at least question the OEE (old earth evolution) assumptions. I find much contradictions and slippery weasel stuff in the OEE scenarios, and more faithfulness and open-mindedness in the YEC positions. Maybe there is something in between, but in the meantime I prefer science which does not put God or parts of scripture on a dusty shelf or in the trash bin.
There is no doubt that there is a war going on for the minds and hearts of children, young people and young scientists. There is no doubt that the evolution debate is a major and primary weapon in this war. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend this is not so. We must frame our position in the context of God's primary claim on our lives. And we must pray that God will give us the wisdom to discern and discover His handiwork in this area of our lives.
Norm, the article you posted was incredibly biased against even a discussion of creation vs evolution. The author does not even want the debate, nor the discussion. His article was faith based (faith in evolution), and intolerant, and full of fear that if discussion occurred that average minds would reject evolution. This simply adds credibility to the argument that evolution is mere myth, since if it wasn't, evolutionary scientists would not be so afraid of scrutiny.
Part of the reason that the apostles appointed seven men (assistants) which we now call deacons, is in order to delegate certain work, to allow them to carry out their own particular calling. It is also for that reason that in most larger churches, deacons and elders meet separately to carry out that work. In trying to put them back together again for classis, are we not nullifying that designation of tasks and callings? Do we also want to send elder delegates to the local deaconal conferences, etc.? Just some questions to think about.
In some smaller churches, elders/deacons fulfill dual roles due to the nature of the size and scope of work. But I'm not sure that this makes sense at classis or synod. Maybe it does, maybe not. However, regardless, the decision for this should at minimum be left up to the local church. If there are three delegates per church, the church should decide who they are to be.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Naturally, John K, you are entitled to your opinion. But is "entitlement" really the issue? Entitled by whom? Human beings are "entitled" to be unbelievers, but of what use is it? Why do we focus so often on "entitlement"?
The real issue is not "entitlement", but being true to scripture, and true to your faith. I agree with Calvin that some people are inclined to reject what they do not know or understand. I also agree with Calvin, that we should not forbid scientists from working because we are afraid of some new knowledge. But you have not drawn a connection between this statement and our present discussion... what I mean is that no one is saying that we should not do science. So I think this is a red herring. What some of us are saying is that perhaps science is not being done well; that conclusions are being drawn which do not have substantive proof.
Furthermore, are you implying that Calvin would agree with Walhout? That there is no original sin; that no original Adam and Eve existed; that God did not declare everything good? That God did not make a promise to Adam and Eve that their seed would crush the head of the serpent? What exactly are you implying?
When you state that things that Paul stated went way over the head of Peter, did you get that idea from scripture? Is that really what he said?
When you say that all you need to know is that Christ is your saviour, what is it you are being saved from? your sin? your sinful nature? But what if your "sin" is merely an outworking of the supposed "natural" evolutionistic tendencies to survival? Why would you be redeemed from that? And you say that Christ redeems the whole creation... but why does the creation need to be redeemed? what's wrong with it? How do you know? What makes your beliefs different from someone who says that man is "naturally good"?
It is my view that these views are fundamental, not peripheral. They are basic to our understanding of ourselves, of creation, and of the creator/redeemer. Does that mean that people should not be investigating fossils, and starlight, and planets, and genetics, and different types of rock, or the sequences they are found in? No, all investigation is legitimate, but our interpretation is colored by our assumptions, and we do not serve the greek or roman gods, but we serve the true God. We know the true God through scripture, not thru the imaginations of our minds, nor thru the wistful desires of our heart. And we know God thru the majesty and order and magnificence of creation, not thru the supposed random accidentalness and ferocious survival instinct and desperation to survive, which if it was the dominating principle certainly would make it useless and meaningless to love God and our neighbor, wouldn't it.
I think this issue is well worth discussing. We need to know how to defend against such statements as Walhout makes. The problem is that Walhout proposed it and gave it the appearance of a valid christian approach, which is highly, highly questionable, and certainly should not have been given the imprimatur of the banner podium in the way that it did.
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
Richard, I agree mostly with what you said in the previous post (the one before that...). I love to discuss, but I also know that discussion of the confessions of another denomination is not really the main work of the church. Richard, yes, theology is important. Most confessions were born out of struggle, in the midst of the struggle. The belhar is talking about a struggle that is virtually over, and a struggle where society and government are already leading and have led for some time. On the other hand, the creation/evolution debate/struggle is more relevant, and needs more attention, because raw evolutionary theory justifies racism, and justifies treating less capable and less fit people and anyone "different" as of less worth. Racism is a symptom, of which a lack of love and a lack of obedience, and in some cases a belief in evolution are the cause. Good theology will get at the cause.
But I would not ask for the church to make a new confession which makes a statement on evolution, since our confessions have already declared scripture to be authoritative, and have declared God the good creator, man the fallen sinner. At this point, the real work is not to make another confession, but to uphold what we have. The real work is to support those who want to work in the field of creation science, since they are being more diligent in upholding the confessions.
The real work of the church is not making new confessions, but is living them out. The real work of the church is living by the authority and guidance of scripture, depending on God, and trusting His Spirit. Confessions of faith guide us in our belief, but only our personal confession and repentance can change us, by God's grace and spirit and power.
Confessions of faith may unite us, or may separate us, but certainly will not stop church shopping in this day and age. Unity, reconciliation and justice are indeed very important, but they must cross confessional boundaries, not wait for a new confession to be written or adopted. I think the confessions are very important yes, and I agree the proposal to add a new confession is no small thing, but I do not think at this point the belhar will help us in any significant way, and it has a high potential to harm us. So I would suggest to accept it for information, express appreciation of the circumstances in which it was written, and leave it for the church that wrote and adopted it, to live it out in the context of scripture and the context of their environs.
We ought to put ourselves to more productive use, and deal with the issues that are really the causes of present-day problems and faithlessness within our churches. It bears repeating that it is no use adopting another confession that can be conveniently ignored by so many.
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: Of Elephants and Rabbits: Church Multiplication
You are not nuts. You are not crazy. Some seminary trained preachers preach the pure word of God, but some don't. Some established churches practices church discipline but some don't. Some administer sacraments purely, but some don't. A missional group may be as much "church" as any of these established churches, and may have the "marks" of the church, or may make similar mistakes or different mistakes than established churches. Preach the word in season, and out of season (indoors, and outdoors, and without doors...).
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Richard, you have made several good points. First, about sticking to what we're good at; perhaps you are right, but we should remember that Darwin was trained in bachelor regular degree as precursor to being a parson, not as a scientist. And then, the claim of Ian Juby, robotics engineer, Dr. Carl Baugh, Dr. Austin, Dr. Jerry Bergman(two science PHDs and several master degrees), and other scientists, is that evolutionists are not practicing good science when they extrapolate or theorize about evolution. So that makes sticking to what you are good at a bit of a conundrum.
I think you are right that apologetics is rarely an effective means of evangelism. But that doesn't mean it can't be useful, particularly in removing barriers to evangelism. Just like offering cookies and conversation to someone who needs a relationship with a Christian, so apologetics can assist in reducing intellectual barriers to receiving and understanding who God is, particularly for scientists.
There is also a great deal of difficulty in convincing people that they are sinners in need of the grace of God, if (a) god is random, or randomness is god, (b) if sin is merely evolutionary principles at work (c) if what we see is all there is (d) if there is a god, then he created death, competition, survival and all the associated behaviours so how could any of it be sin. (e) if we are merely more sophisticated animals than the simple amoeba.
As far as the math of amino acids is concerned, of course you are right, there is much room for many amino acids both in the sea and on land, and in fact there are billions and trillions of amino acids present there today, contained of course in dna and proteins and living organisms. The fact that there is room anywhere, such as in space, say on Mars, or Jupiter or between the planets and stars is not really the issue. After all, they do not exist there, even though there is lots of space. The issue is for them to form first, and then combine randomly by chance under random conditions, into useable amino acids which also have to combine randomly into proteins, which then have to randomly combine and form into organisms. The stated odds of this happening were just for one simply protein. Developing all the required proteins for simple life would have been vastly even less likely.
Then these organisms had to have an environment that didn't kill them, which is different than the environment that they would have spontaneously developed in. And it would have had to happen in a lot less than 13 billion years, since all the further evolution would have had to happen subsequently.
And in spite of the great difficulty of randomly arriving at even a simple amino acid, or a simple protein, this still pales in comparison to arriving at an actual organism with all its many requirements for DNA replication and repair mechanisms, as well as all the concommitant necessary parts of even the simple single cell, and having that organism change into another organism in sequences to develop into the huge variety of species we have today, and having that happen randomly. In addition, there are all the biological mechanisms present today for preventing that from happening, which would also have to be overcome, reducing the possibility even further.
The point is not only about the high improbability, but that basing science on such high improbabilities is not really science, but blind faith. Any normal science that looked at something with such a high improbability, would normally postulate and conclude that it would not happen in that way.
This video is just arguing a bit from credibility, from authority, along with some supporting evidence. Ian Juby has another 24 free videos on you-tube dealing with issues such as radiometric dating of rocks and fossils, biogenesis requirements, various fossil combinations, hydroplate theory, sedimentary and igneous rock, Mount St. Helen's, flume sedimentation experiments showing cross bedding, etc., etc. The point is he is doing this from a science perspective. This is more relevant to those who use their five senses to look at nature and observe and make conclusions about what they see. For someone involved in science, it is like offering them cookies and coffee, or inviting them for dinner.
Posted in: Political Diversity
Doug, good comments. Just to expand a bit more on it: As Christians, we all confess that justice (God's justice) demands that we are all unworthy, undeserving. We deserve punishment for our disobedience to God. This punishment Christ took on himself, on our behalf. It is God's mercy that put this punishment, this justice, on to Himself, on to His Son. When we insist on justice only, then we condemn ourselves. It is when we appreciate God's mercy to us, that we are able to grant mercy to others. Indirectly, this concentration on justice alone, seems to remove God's grace from us, or remove us from God's grace.
Justice means paying a worker an adequate wage to buy his food and shelter and not defrauding the employer or his worker. Mercy means giving someone unable to work, or unable to find work, enough to prevent starvation and freezing to death, just as God gave us life, even though we did not deserve it and had lost our real right to it.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Sorry to put in three posts here in a row.... but I came across an excellent expose of evolutionary paleotology, put together by Street Church Adelaide. Youtube - "Evolution - A Crumbling Theory ( StreetChurch Adelaide )
Facts are not always facts, even when it comes to empirical science. Evil and falsehood not only wants to pervert scriptural truths, but it perverts scientific and "natural" evidence as well, if the motivation is there.
" ""
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
sorry, youtube.com/watch?v=bGB-PfFSV2w&feature=relmfu
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Friend Norman, I appreciate your elucidation of your perception of Helder's misrepresentation, in other words highlighting that she did not mention natural selection when yes it is an essential part of the evolutionary theory. However, I hope you are not suggesting that she was not aware of this component of the theory. I believe that while it is a part of the theory, so is genetics itself, and so are basic principles of biology(mating or cell division) and physics and chemistry. Yet Helder did not mention these either. The reason I believe is because natural selection is too often overplayed as being evolution, while it is not.
Evolutionary ideas were not new at the time of Darwin or Wallace. Anaximander of Miletus (c.610–546 BC) proposed that animals of different species derived from other species. Lamark proposed transmutation of species well before Darwin did. James Hutton, Charles Wells, and Patrick Matthew have mentioned natural selection, or at least described it, well before Darwin did. Selection itself was practiced by people for many centuries in terms of breeding dogs, poultry, horses, bovines, and it is unreasonable to assume that people were unaware of selection also within the natural environment. It is a common concept also accepted by creationists. However, creationists limit natural selection to operating within the existing variability within a species or kind, and in fact even evolutionists must limit the ability of natural selection to act only on existing genomic information. Natural selection by itself cannot create new genes, nor create mutations, nor create new morphologies. It is not natural selection by itself that causes evolution; rather it is the random mutations working over long periods of time that allows natural selection to work to create new species (by evolutionary theory). Thus while natural selection is necessary for evolutionary theory, it is not as essentially separate from non-evolutionary theory compared to the need for random mutations and long periods of time, which evolutionary theory requires in contrast to other theories.
In creationist paradigm, natural selection works to keep "kinds" or species reproducing after their own kind. In the creationist paradigm, natural selection is recognized to generally work against the random mutations, and does not promote them. Natural selection tends to reduce diversity and variability instead of increasing it, and thus does not favor evolution of species more than stability of species.
John
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Jonathan, thanks for your comment. I think the importance of having these discussions in the open, is to discover communally what the issues are, and what is true and what is not true, particularly about our attitudes towards scientific investigation and pursuits, and how it is affected by our worldview and how it affects our worldview. I think our global mission is impacted by our respect and attitude towards one another, and I think in general, Norman's attitude was pretty good. But there are times when his bias reveals itself. It is important to realize that inaccurate and dishonorable characterizations of fellow Christians is something that happens on both sides of this discussion.
For that reason, the details become important. And it is important beyond two people having a private discussion, to realize that often attitudes are common among a larger group of people. For example, when people accuse YEC of propogandizing, it certainly needs to be put into the context of the propoganda of evolution in school textbooks, Time magazine and national geographic, which they are up against. Another example is Norman's reference to "parasitic science". People who are unaware of what this implies will feel that it puts YEC in its place. But actually, it is a meaningless pejorative term, used by those who do not understand science. Scientific endeavors almost always refer to and depend on work done previously by others. In that context, parasitic makes no sense. In a scientific context, an experiment that results in a "no" answer is just as valid as an experiment that results in a "yes" answer. Evolutionists constantly argue, correctly, that science corrects itself, by which they mean that a later experiment or investigation can refine or correct the perceptions derived from a previous experiment. Many science papers have been written which do nothing more than act as a literature review, compiling, summarizing and analyzing and comparing results from other research papers on a particular subject. In fact, Dawkins book does this to some extent. So the term "parasitic" is meaningless, other than to cast a biased pejorative denigration on the work of some scientists or writers, compared to other writers. I simply wish to clarify this for readers who may be confused on this term.
Often, Norman has called me a YEC. But I don't think I have ever said I was a YEC. I am definately against accepting "mud to man" evolution, and that is a starting point for me. I think neither science nor scripture proves this type of evolution. But at this point I am open to some type of time shift, or the possibility of longer days at least prior to day four, or a longer first day; however, I will not defend longer days, since I think those who presently support longer days or even a "symbolic" interpretation of Genesis 1, mostly have their minds closed to other scientific or extraordinary possibilities. I prefer to have an open mind, which I believe will lead to more interesting scientific conclusions in the future. So even though I might not conclusively be a total YEC, I still prefer to defend YEC, or at least question the OEE (old earth evolution) assumptions. I find much contradictions and slippery weasel stuff in the OEE scenarios, and more faithfulness and open-mindedness in the YEC positions. Maybe there is something in between, but in the meantime I prefer science which does not put God or parts of scripture on a dusty shelf or in the trash bin.
There is no doubt that there is a war going on for the minds and hearts of children, young people and young scientists. There is no doubt that the evolution debate is a major and primary weapon in this war. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend this is not so. We must frame our position in the context of God's primary claim on our lives. And we must pray that God will give us the wisdom to discern and discover His handiwork in this area of our lives.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norm, the article you posted was incredibly biased against even a discussion of creation vs evolution. The author does not even want the debate, nor the discussion. His article was faith based (faith in evolution), and intolerant, and full of fear that if discussion occurred that average minds would reject evolution. This simply adds credibility to the argument that evolution is mere myth, since if it wasn't, evolutionary scientists would not be so afraid of scrutiny.
Posted in: Diakonia Remixed and Experience of Deacons at Classis
Part of the reason that the apostles appointed seven men (assistants) which we now call deacons, is in order to delegate certain work, to allow them to carry out their own particular calling. It is also for that reason that in most larger churches, deacons and elders meet separately to carry out that work. In trying to put them back together again for classis, are we not nullifying that designation of tasks and callings? Do we also want to send elder delegates to the local deaconal conferences, etc.? Just some questions to think about.
In some smaller churches, elders/deacons fulfill dual roles due to the nature of the size and scope of work. But I'm not sure that this makes sense at classis or synod. Maybe it does, maybe not. However, regardless, the decision for this should at minimum be left up to the local church. If there are three delegates per church, the church should decide who they are to be.