Don't know if I should comment on this too much, but it is interesting that Keith is suggesting this, while term limits for elders are being advocated by DeMoor and the church order. Theoretically a bishop could work, but then, any system could work if there are no problems. Having a bishop impose a preacher who was headed in different theological and missional directions, would not be helpful. I'm also reminded of bishops in another unnamed denomination who simply shuffled child abusers around from place to place. It would be more useful, if we simply acknowledged that article 17 pastors could be very viable pastors/preachers if they were in the right location, just as we acknowledge that there are many pastors who have not experienced an article 17 who nevertheless still do not fit in many congregations.
I would also add that I doubt that any council dealing with article 17 would think it got off scot free. The trauma, discontent, struggle could often leave permanent scars on council members, which should not be discounted so easily.
Excellent points, Richard. As Christians, we should always start with an assumption based on what Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
And Jesus said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God."
Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word. The word was with God. The Word was God."
These are our starting point.
But when it comes to mission, we know that only God can bring someone to Him. We cannot do it on our own. Not by reason. Not by being nice. Not by bring coffee and cookies. Not by apologetics or reason. Even the answer to our prayers requires God's permission and plan and will.
Still, how do we be obedient to Him? How do we prove He matters to us? How do we know we are presenting and obeying God, rather than a creation of our own imagination?
The epistle of John says that if we belong to him, we will obey His commandments. And what does He command? To believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and to love our neighbors.
To love our neighbors sometimes includes apologetics, as well as coffee and cake. If we ignore what impediments they have, or ignore their paradigm and their frame of reference, we are not getting to know our neighbors. If we use apologetics merely as a tool to beat them down and defeat them, then we are not loving our neighbor, but if we use it as a way of protecting them from storms, from insecurity, from purposelessness and aimlessness, then we can love our neighbor and demonstrate God's love.
If you regard belief in evolution like an addiction, then would you try to bring faith as a gift of God, and ignore the addiction? Especially an addiction that is so difficult to reconcile with miracles, with faith, with knowledge of sin, and with a sense of sacrifice and forgiveness?
That only facts are true, is semantics (to me at least). That God exists, is a fact. That God loves me is a fact. That God has forgiven me is a fact. Maybe empiricism is better described as talking about facts concerning what we can sense, feel, taste, touch, etc. But I agree that empiricism is a small box to live in.
I agree we depend on the work of the spirit. Totally. But scripture reminds us to test the spirits, to see whether they are of God, whether they are "true". This testing is also the work of the Spirit.
I don't think as Christians we ought to live in an either/or when it comes to faith and reason. Faith guides our reason, and reason substantiates our faith. So while I agree that knowing things about God is not the same as knowing God, God does not ask us to put our brains and thinking and reason into the garbage, nor separate our reason from faith as if reason was bad and faith was good. God created us with reason, just like we are created with eyes to see and ears to hear. And the Spirit makes the eyes and ears of our heart work properly; he also guides our reason, and claims it for God/himself.
Your last paragraph is interesting. Maybe you express some things a bit different than the way I think of them. I think I agree, that teaching theology is different than living theology, but then, that should be part of teaching theology. Our theology should teach that God is involved in our life, always has been and always will be. But I would argue that true teaching about God, is in fact actually introducing us to Him, so that we meet Him. Otherwise it is false teaching due to omission of the vitality and presence of God.
Norman, I have now read the paper by Margaret Helder, so await your analysis. I am also reading an interesting book right now, by Jonathan Sarfati. It is called "The Greatest Hoax on Earth?" a refutation of Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth". I'm about one quarter way through, and it's impressive. Between its detail in analyzing the faulty evolutionary arguments, including an analysis of various experiments such as the peacock's tail, and the spotted guppies, it shows the faulty logic employed to "prove" evolution. You might find it interesting.
"....the experiences of brilliant, science-minded Christians like Todd Wood and Glen Morton who get repeatedly slammed for being, well, good scientists...." says Norman. So is this true? Are they getting slammed for being good scientists? Really? No. It may be they get slammed for changing sides, or for disagreeing with various creationists, or for neglecting certain chemical or physical facts. But not for being good scientists... this is a slur and an adhominem attack. For example, when Morton proposed that a certain chemical (albite) could be a sink for the vast amounts of sea salt that would need to have disappeared from the ocean in order for the ocean to be more than 60 million years old (old age theory), Humphreys pointed out that there was not enough albite in the sea floor to account for the settled out sodium, since in cooler conditions it decomposed to chlorite and released the sodium back into the ocean again. This is not a slam on Morton for being a good scientist; it is simply a contradiction of facts and processes. The result is that the ocean is apparently not as salty as it should be if it is as old as old earth evolutionists claim it is. At the very least, a good explanation for why it is not salty enough, has not been provided. That is just one example. inThe re
Richard, you said a while back, "The matter of origins is extremely important. It shapes our entire view of reality. For that reason, it's essential that we believers begin with the Scriptures, or better, the message and teaching of the Scriptures. The message there is that the creation is "good." That's so much more important than "true," especially when it's a holy God saying that word. "True" comes in at such a disappointing and distant second place, by comparison. The so-called creation scientists who try to make their own house of cards, also seem to trade in "good" for "true," and wonder why people aren't impressed with their findings. "" ""
I think this is an important statement. It is one I disagree with however, for this reason. It is a false (not true) dichotomy. How do you know if the message in scripture, that the creation was created "good", is true? How do you know what part of the creation is "good"? How do you distinguish between what God declared "it was good", compared to what is not so good anymore? Wouldn't you have to believe in the truth of scripture first, to believe creation was made good?
Evolutionary theory would postulate that creation was not made good. It just was. And by our standards it would not be good, unless weeds, disease, strife, battles, murder, hatred and selfishness are good.
It would seem that truth and goodness are inseparable. The truth is also that God often turns evil for our good. But that doesn't make the evil good on its own.
“Helder uses disagreements between scientists who totally disagree with YEC as proof that YEC must be correct. “ Again, Norman, let me reiterate that she does not do this, in spite of what you say. If you look closely at the argument, what she is doing is using a refutation of a particular evolutionary hypothesis of an evolutionist by another evolutionist, to demonstrate that the piece of evidence does not support an evolutionary explanation for the Cambrian explosion. Did she say that this proves that YEC must be correct? No, not as I read it. What she said was that YEC model or theory would expect a sudden appearance of fossils rather than a gradual appearance of fossils. The evolutionary model or theory expects a gradual appearance of fossils. Thus in this case, the Cambrian explosion meets the general expectations of the creation model more easily than meeting the expectations of the evolutionary model. Any explanations for the Cambrian explosion within the evolutionary paradigm, so far do not work. It doesn’t really matter whether it is YEC scientists or evolutionary scientists who have discredited the arguments for various evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian explosion.
You seem to worry about all the work done, the field work, the expense, the gathering of evidence, etc., that it is not getting enough credit. But that is not the point. Was it Edison who said about his many many efforts to develop a light bulb, that it was not a waste of time, but merely a learning about how many ways one cannot make a light bulb? I would say this is somewhat similar. If we knew all the results ahead of time, we would not have to do the research.
Finally, you do ask some very good questions, such as where are the missing genera and species in the Cambrian layer –why are they not there? And why are different types of animals in different layers sometimes – and how prevalent is this? Why are Precambrian fossils usually single celled without bones? However, a few questions of yours are making wrong assumptions, such as that YEC would accept 50 million years of Cambrian explosion. On the other hand, a good question of yours is how are other apparent “explosions” of mammals and flowered plants explained? And what is the problem with old earth creation science? Good questions, regardless of whether answers yet exist or not.
In your postulation (in your next installment) that YEC is bad for science and bad for faith, you will need to distinguish between attitude and process. Yes, ocassionally some YEC seem to have a reduced respect for scientific endeavor. But YEC science itself is in the same mode as any other type of science, in that it needs to investigate, experiment, satisfy confidence levels, and resolve incongruities. A couple examples of how evolutionary theory has been bad for science include the assumption that Coelanth fish was extinct when it wasn’t, and that tonsils and appendixes served no purpose, but were mere evolutionary residuals, and that only 1% of the DNA was valuable while 99% was “junk DNA”. YEC science assumptions would be that people would not expect useless stuff in the DNA, and now over 80% of the DNA has been found not to be junk DNA, and investigation is continuing. And tonsils and appendixes have been discovered to have a purpose, in spite of, not because of, evolutionary assumptions and presuppositions.
Is evolutionary theory good for science when it leads researchers to prematurely claim that there is 99% or 97% dna similarity between chimps and humans? When actually there is a 12% difference in size of the genome to start with, not counting a whole bunch of other differences, and that the similarity is no where near 99%? Is this good science?
Not saying who should be selected as director, but I think the significant leadership should come from synod (the elders), not from a CEO, not from a pope, not from a director. This would have implications for who might be selected as exec director, since he would operate as one who effects the decisions and purposes of Synod. As Larry suggested CEOs built the recession, which is true, yet politicians, theologians, and church politicians also can sometimes be mistaken, and cause huge problems. Capabilities and experience relevant to the requirements of the task do not ensure perfect success, yet they are beneficial for getting the job done.
An alternate possibility is that a preacher/pastor is retained for a period of five years. Then he could be renewed in his term, or perhaps not renewed, depending on the wisdom of the church council. This would make his term more similar to that of the other ordained elders, who serve for limited terms. Perhaps we could discuss the pros and cons of such a process. What would that do for freedom to preach? for security of position? for refreshment of ministry? for a focus on God? etc.
Strip mining of coal covers much more land globally than Canada's oil, which is a target of convenience, an irrational concentration of effort by enviros: From the July issue of Scientific American: " Other forms Of fossil fuel add more to the world's carbon budget, yet they do not draw as much ire (as oilsands). Perhaps they should. ln 2011 U.S. coal-fired power plants emitted nearly two billion meb·ic tons of greenhouse gases-roughly eight times the amount produced by mining, refining and burning tar sands. Many coal mines around the world create just as visible a scar on the landscape and an even bigger climate change legacy. Yet mines like those in Montana and Wyoming's Powder River Basin are not the targets of highprofile protests such as those facing Keystone XL; protesters do not tic themselves to the tracks to block the kilometers-long trains that carry coal from the basin day after day. The U.S. Geological Survey suggests that basin alone holds 150 billion metric tons of coal that could be recovered with existing technology. Burning it all would send the world flying beyond any trillionmetric- ton carbon budget. " (by David Biello)
Hey!? I agree Richard's ideas are "real", but are you suggesting that comments made by Dan K and myself are not "real"? And if so, which comments and why?
A new short video on some scientists/mathematician conversion from evolutionary belief to skepticism and disbelief in evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKPKuk6gF-4 This is part 2 of a new series by Ian Juby who interviews these individuals, Dr. Jerry Bergman, with several PhD degrees and masters degrees associated with genetics and medicine, and Alan Bergman, an actuarial mathematician. This is interesting and enlightening from several perspectives. In one case the change from atheism to belief in God accompanied the examination of the scientific evidence, and in the other case, the change from a sort of irrelevant theism to an understanding of Christ as Lord of Life, and how that opened up the eyes to the revelation of nature and the inconsistencies of evolutionary theory.
"...Scott and Branch say about Safarti's MO -- he agrees with the arguments of two evolutionists disagreeing with each other and uses this as evidence that evolution is wrong. If it's true, it's "parasitic science" indeed."
I have not seen this so far in his book. I have not seen that he uses the mere fact that evolutionists disagree with each other as evidence that evolution is wrong. His sense of logic is too strong for that. I don't know where you get "parasitic science" as a concept in this instance. Scientific conclusions almost always rely on other work, and Safarti gives credit, and even agrees with many experimental evidence and initial conclusions of evolutionary scientists. He agrees that there is natural selection within populations, for example, but does not agree that it is proof of evolution. I don't know if scott and branch are merely displaying their bias, but based on your comments alone, I would say that they are.
Posted in: Some Denominations Have Bishops; We Have Article 17
Don't know if I should comment on this too much, but it is interesting that Keith is suggesting this, while term limits for elders are being advocated by DeMoor and the church order. Theoretically a bishop could work, but then, any system could work if there are no problems. Having a bishop impose a preacher who was headed in different theological and missional directions, would not be helpful. I'm also reminded of bishops in another unnamed denomination who simply shuffled child abusers around from place to place. It would be more useful, if we simply acknowledged that article 17 pastors could be very viable pastors/preachers if they were in the right location, just as we acknowledge that there are many pastors who have not experienced an article 17 who nevertheless still do not fit in many congregations.
I would also add that I doubt that any council dealing with article 17 would think it got off scot free. The trauma, discontent, struggle could often leave permanent scars on council members, which should not be discounted so easily.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Excellent points, Richard. As Christians, we should always start with an assumption based on what Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
And Jesus said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God."
Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word. The word was with God. The Word was God."
These are our starting point.
But when it comes to mission, we know that only God can bring someone to Him. We cannot do it on our own. Not by reason. Not by being nice. Not by bring coffee and cookies. Not by apologetics or reason. Even the answer to our prayers requires God's permission and plan and will.
Still, how do we be obedient to Him? How do we prove He matters to us? How do we know we are presenting and obeying God, rather than a creation of our own imagination?
The epistle of John says that if we belong to him, we will obey His commandments. And what does He command? To believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and to love our neighbors.
To love our neighbors sometimes includes apologetics, as well as coffee and cake. If we ignore what impediments they have, or ignore their paradigm and their frame of reference, we are not getting to know our neighbors. If we use apologetics merely as a tool to beat them down and defeat them, then we are not loving our neighbor, but if we use it as a way of protecting them from storms, from insecurity, from purposelessness and aimlessness, then we can love our neighbor and demonstrate God's love.
If you regard belief in evolution like an addiction, then would you try to bring faith as a gift of God, and ignore the addiction? Especially an addiction that is so difficult to reconcile with miracles, with faith, with knowledge of sin, and with a sense of sacrifice and forgiveness?
That only facts are true, is semantics (to me at least). That God exists, is a fact. That God loves me is a fact. That God has forgiven me is a fact. Maybe empiricism is better described as talking about facts concerning what we can sense, feel, taste, touch, etc. But I agree that empiricism is a small box to live in.
I agree we depend on the work of the spirit. Totally. But scripture reminds us to test the spirits, to see whether they are of God, whether they are "true". This testing is also the work of the Spirit.
I don't think as Christians we ought to live in an either/or when it comes to faith and reason. Faith guides our reason, and reason substantiates our faith. So while I agree that knowing things about God is not the same as knowing God, God does not ask us to put our brains and thinking and reason into the garbage, nor separate our reason from faith as if reason was bad and faith was good. God created us with reason, just like we are created with eyes to see and ears to hear. And the Spirit makes the eyes and ears of our heart work properly; he also guides our reason, and claims it for God/himself.
Your last paragraph is interesting. Maybe you express some things a bit different than the way I think of them. I think I agree, that teaching theology is different than living theology, but then, that should be part of teaching theology. Our theology should teach that God is involved in our life, always has been and always will be. But I would argue that true teaching about God, is in fact actually introducing us to Him, so that we meet Him. Otherwise it is false teaching due to omission of the vitality and presence of God.
Great points, Richard!
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norman, I have now read the paper by Margaret Helder, so await your analysis. I am also reading an interesting book right now, by Jonathan Sarfati. It is called "The Greatest Hoax on Earth?" a refutation of Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth". I'm about one quarter way through, and it's impressive. Between its detail in analyzing the faulty evolutionary arguments, including an analysis of various experiments such as the peacock's tail, and the spotted guppies, it shows the faulty logic employed to "prove" evolution. You might find it interesting.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
"....the experiences of brilliant, science-minded Christians like Todd Wood and Glen Morton who get repeatedly slammed for being, well, good scientists...." says Norman. So is this true? Are they getting slammed for being good scientists? Really? No. It may be they get slammed for changing sides, or for disagreeing with various creationists, or for neglecting certain chemical or physical facts. But not for being good scientists... this is a slur and an adhominem attack. For example, when Morton proposed that a certain chemical (albite) could be a sink for the vast amounts of sea salt that would need to have disappeared from the ocean in order for the ocean to be more than 60 million years old (old age theory), Humphreys pointed out that there was not enough albite in the sea floor to account for the settled out sodium, since in cooler conditions it decomposed to chlorite and released the sodium back into the ocean again. This is not a slam on Morton for being a good scientist; it is simply a contradiction of facts and processes. The result is that the ocean is apparently not as salty as it should be if it is as old as old earth evolutionists claim it is. At the very least, a good explanation for why it is not salty enough, has not been provided. That is just one example. inThe re
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Richard, you said a while back, "The matter of origins is extremely important. It shapes our entire view of reality. For that reason, it's essential that we believers begin with the Scriptures, or better, the message and teaching of the Scriptures. The message there is that the creation is "good." That's so much more important than "true," especially when it's a holy God saying that word. "True" comes in at such a disappointing and distant second place, by comparison. The so-called creation scientists who try to make their own house of cards, also seem to trade in "good" for "true," and wonder why people aren't impressed with their findings. "" ""
I think this is an important statement. It is one I disagree with however, for this reason. It is a false (not true) dichotomy. How do you know if the message in scripture, that the creation was created "good", is true? How do you know what part of the creation is "good"? How do you distinguish between what God declared "it was good", compared to what is not so good anymore? Wouldn't you have to believe in the truth of scripture first, to believe creation was made good?
Evolutionary theory would postulate that creation was not made good. It just was. And by our standards it would not be good, unless weeds, disease, strife, battles, murder, hatred and selfishness are good.
It would seem that truth and goodness are inseparable. The truth is also that God often turns evil for our good. But that doesn't make the evil good on its own.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
“Helder uses disagreements between scientists who totally disagree with YEC as proof that YEC must be correct. “ Again, Norman, let me reiterate that she does not do this, in spite of what you say. If you look closely at the argument, what she is doing is using a refutation of a particular evolutionary hypothesis of an evolutionist by another evolutionist, to demonstrate that the piece of evidence does not support an evolutionary explanation for the Cambrian explosion. Did she say that this proves that YEC must be correct? No, not as I read it. What she said was that YEC model or theory would expect a sudden appearance of fossils rather than a gradual appearance of fossils. The evolutionary model or theory expects a gradual appearance of fossils. Thus in this case, the Cambrian explosion meets the general expectations of the creation model more easily than meeting the expectations of the evolutionary model. Any explanations for the Cambrian explosion within the evolutionary paradigm, so far do not work. It doesn’t really matter whether it is YEC scientists or evolutionary scientists who have discredited the arguments for various evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian explosion.
You seem to worry about all the work done, the field work, the expense, the gathering of evidence, etc., that it is not getting enough credit. But that is not the point. Was it Edison who said about his many many efforts to develop a light bulb, that it was not a waste of time, but merely a learning about how many ways one cannot make a light bulb? I would say this is somewhat similar. If we knew all the results ahead of time, we would not have to do the research.
Finally, you do ask some very good questions, such as where are the missing genera and species in the Cambrian layer –why are they not there? And why are different types of animals in different layers sometimes – and how prevalent is this? Why are Precambrian fossils usually single celled without bones? However, a few questions of yours are making wrong assumptions, such as that YEC would accept 50 million years of Cambrian explosion. On the other hand, a good question of yours is how are other apparent “explosions” of mammals and flowered plants explained? And what is the problem with old earth creation science? Good questions, regardless of whether answers yet exist or not.
In your postulation (in your next installment) that YEC is bad for science and bad for faith, you will need to distinguish between attitude and process. Yes, ocassionally some YEC seem to have a reduced respect for scientific endeavor. But YEC science itself is in the same mode as any other type of science, in that it needs to investigate, experiment, satisfy confidence levels, and resolve incongruities. A couple examples of how evolutionary theory has been bad for science include the assumption that Coelanth fish was extinct when it wasn’t, and that tonsils and appendixes served no purpose, but were mere evolutionary residuals, and that only 1% of the DNA was valuable while 99% was “junk DNA”. YEC science assumptions would be that people would not expect useless stuff in the DNA, and now over 80% of the DNA has been found not to be junk DNA, and investigation is continuing. And tonsils and appendixes have been discovered to have a purpose, in spite of, not because of, evolutionary assumptions and presuppositions.
Is evolutionary theory good for science when it leads researchers to prematurely claim that there is 99% or 97% dna similarity between chimps and humans? When actually there is a 12% difference in size of the genome to start with, not counting a whole bunch of other differences, and that the similarity is no where near 99%? Is this good science?
Looking forward to your next conclusion.
John Z
Posted in: Who Will Lead Our Denomination?
Not saying who should be selected as director, but I think the significant leadership should come from synod (the elders), not from a CEO, not from a pope, not from a director. This would have implications for who might be selected as exec director, since he would operate as one who effects the decisions and purposes of Synod. As Larry suggested CEOs built the recession, which is true, yet politicians, theologians, and church politicians also can sometimes be mistaken, and cause huge problems. Capabilities and experience relevant to the requirements of the task do not ensure perfect success, yet they are beneficial for getting the job done.
Posted in: Some Denominations Have Bishops; We Have Article 17
An alternate possibility is that a preacher/pastor is retained for a period of five years. Then he could be renewed in his term, or perhaps not renewed, depending on the wisdom of the church council. This would make his term more similar to that of the other ordained elders, who serve for limited terms. Perhaps we could discuss the pros and cons of such a process. What would that do for freedom to preach? for security of position? for refreshment of ministry? for a focus on God? etc.
Posted in: Climate Change - Wither Now?
Strip mining of coal covers much more land globally than Canada's oil, which is a target of convenience, an irrational concentration of effort by enviros: From the July issue of Scientific American: " Other forms Of fossil fuel add more to the world's carbon budget, yet they do not draw as much ire (as oilsands). Perhaps they should. ln 2011 U.S. coal-fired power plants emitted nearly two billion meb·ic tons of greenhouse gases-roughly eight times the amount produced by mining, refining and burning tar sands. Many coal mines around the world create just as visible a scar on the landscape and an even bigger climate change legacy. Yet mines like those in Montana and Wyoming's Powder River Basin are not the targets of highprofile protests such as those facing Keystone XL; protesters do not tic themselves to the tracks to block the kilometers-long trains that carry coal from the basin day after day. The U.S. Geological Survey suggests that basin alone holds 150 billion metric tons of coal that could be recovered with existing technology. Burning it all would send the world flying beyond any trillionmetric- ton carbon budget. " (by David Biello)
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Hey!? I agree Richard's ideas are "real", but are you suggesting that comments made by Dan K and myself are not "real"? And if so, which comments and why?
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
A new short video on some scientists/mathematician conversion from evolutionary belief to skepticism and disbelief in evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKPKuk6gF-4 This is part 2 of a new series by Ian Juby who interviews these individuals, Dr. Jerry Bergman, with several PhD degrees and masters degrees associated with genetics and medicine, and Alan Bergman, an actuarial mathematician. This is interesting and enlightening from several perspectives. In one case the change from atheism to belief in God accompanied the examination of the scientific evidence, and in the other case, the change from a sort of irrelevant theism to an understanding of Christ as Lord of Life, and how that opened up the eyes to the revelation of nature and the inconsistencies of evolutionary theory.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
"...Scott and Branch say about Safarti's MO -- he agrees with the arguments of two evolutionists disagreeing with each other and uses this as evidence that evolution is wrong. If it's true, it's "parasitic science" indeed."
I have not seen this so far in his book. I have not seen that he uses the mere fact that evolutionists disagree with each other as evidence that evolution is wrong. His sense of logic is too strong for that. I don't know where you get "parasitic science" as a concept in this instance. Scientific conclusions almost always rely on other work, and Safarti gives credit, and even agrees with many experimental evidence and initial conclusions of evolutionary scientists. He agrees that there is natural selection within populations, for example, but does not agree that it is proof of evolution. I don't know if scott and branch are merely displaying their bias, but based on your comments alone, I would say that they are.
Hope you enjoy your fishing.