"Neither praise thyself in what is good in thee, nor accuse God in what is evil in thee. For this is wrong judgment, and so, not judgment at all. This thou didst, being evil; reverse it, and it will be right. Praise God in what is good in thee; accuse thyself in what is evil. So shalt thou anticipate the judgment of God, as He saith, "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord" 1 Corinthians 11:31. He addeth, love mercy; being merciful, out of love, "not of necessity, for God loveth a cheerful giver" 2 Corinthians 9:7. These acts together contain the whole duty to man, corresponding with and formed upon the mercy and justice of God Psalm 101:1; Psalm 61:7. All which is due, anyhow or in any way, is of judgment; all which is free toward man, although not free toward God, is of mercy." "(Barne's (B
Rinse and hang: yes I am aware of group think, and fully aware of it in many different contexts. For that reason I tend to be as hard on those I "group" with, as on others.
I didn't ask my questions about what you believe or don't believe in scripture in order to be "fear mongering". I asked it to understand how you differentiate between what you believe or accept, compared to what you do not accept. If "science" says that there is no way that the flood could have happened, do you then accept the science and reject the story as mere fable? If science says there is no way that Moses could have parted the red sea, then do you accept that conclusion? If science says there is no way someone could be raised from the dead, do you then accept science and reject the resurrection? The Bahai's take everything about the resurrection symbolically, and deny Jesus physical resurrection just as they accept evolution; how are you different from that?
The fear mongering is just in your own mind. These are real questions, not rhetorical accusations.
Marie, thanks for your comment. You can see that there is a divergence of opinion on whether acceptance of evolution leads to a decline in faith or not, especially among the average person on the street. That was my main reason for starting this blog in the first place. You see, if evolution seems to make Genesis One, or Genesis 1-11 a mere myth, then much of the foundations of our faith, such as one man bringing sin into the world (requiring Christ to redeem us), become very questionable. It makes the early prophecies of a redeemer very questionable. This is why people like Dawkins are not ambivalent about christianity, but actually hate it and love to denigrate and despise it by pointing out how evolution contradicts it. They rejoice in the fact that evolution is an indicator for them that scripture is merely a man-made imperfect invention, instead of being the inspired word of God. This context is what underlies the discussion of the details; how does evolution jive with scripture; how can we reconcile the two?
Norman claims that some of young earth science actually adversely affects the faith of some christians due to unseemly tactics etc. And I agree that sometimes this happens. Sometimes our methods and our personal credibility hurt our positions. We need to remember this, and stress honesty, integrity, and detail. But it is a bit disingenuous to imply that evolutionists do not also often use unseemly tactics. In my experience, vitriol and personal attacks are much more common by evolutionists, including by people like Dawkins.
But, somehow, the discussion still needs to occur. We need to trust that the truth will come out. In some way, this will and does already affect our faith, and the faith perspective of many people. When people use the phrase, "survival of the fittest" in reference to some stupid action by a drunk driver or the business practices of a ruthless businessman, they are using that phrase in the context of a value system that is supported by the evolutionary theory which supposedly brought about the existence of the human race. Evolution is never merely a scientific theory, no matter how much people may want to insist it is. It is also a world and life view, coloring our actions and our perspective. And it is a considerably different world view than the one that scripture gives us.
So, do YEC cause christians to leave the faith? Or does acceptance of evolution theory remove the foundation of our faith? Which is it? or which is more likely more often?
If we refined evolution to be evolution within certain "kinds", and if we acknowdged, as Todd Wood does that evolution did not create human beings, then perhaps there is a tenuous co-existence. But, we must be aware that the general scientific community, including Dawkins and his kind, are not at all satisfied with such a co-existence. They will not only disagree; they will say it is unscientific to postulate such a compromise co-existence. It is not creationists who are against science, but it is the rabid evolutionists who claim that YEC are not interested in science. The fact is that YEC also find science very fascinating, because it is part of God's created world. But they do not feel the need to adopt the entirety of the rabid evolutionist definition of science to include the necessity for "mud to man" evolution.
When YEC make the detailed arguments, such as about the Coelanth fish, or about various fossil footprints, or about the way layers of sediment can form, or about polystrate fossils, or about missing layers of "time", or about clear unconformities, or lack of natural erosion in deep rock layers, or about genetic probabilities and disimilarities, YEC are indicating that they are very interested in science, and that they are objectively pointing out problems with evolutionists interpretation of the evidence. Norman's "young man" says that Christianity does not allow for science, but obviously that is not true. There are many Christian scientists. So why does he say it? Is it because he doesn't like the struggle or the way evidence is interpreted differently, or the way previously accepted conclusions are challenged? So often people claim that christianity does not like science, merely because it challenges evolution. To me this is a clear indication of antithesis. It is also a clear indication of how evolutionists do not really enjoy the theory being foundationally challenged, and so they switch the terms "evolution" and "science" as if they were synonyms, which they are not. So if some people are turned off by the YEC examination of the evidence and the way they argue against the evolutionist position, then perhaps it is because their minds are already turned off to alternate explanations, or perhaps the whole discussion is simply too difficult to comprehend and understand.
But, you must know, that this evolutionary perspective has greatly influenced human behaviour in the past, both for the assumed superiority of some races, as well as the assumed superiority of intellect and physique of some groups of people. If humans are merely animals, as the theory suggests, then it has a huge impact on our value system. As christians and scientists we cannot pretend that this is not an issue. And if we ignore this issue, then we are failing to be witnesses in this world of how God relates to us, and how we relate to God.
There is also the possibility of an OEC position (old earth creationist), which accepts an older age but without macro-evolution (mud to man). But this position seems to be considered less often.
I hope that clarifies a bit what this is all about.
Maybe John K, the reason the issue is not raised, is that there is no prohibition against caring for needy children. Maybe the issue is not raised because at least in Canada, health care is already available to all, including the children of single mothers. In addition, many pro-life people do not feel hindered in fostering, adopting, etc. In our small church of less than 100 souls, we have 14 adopted children, and support a mission project in Kenya which builds a school for orphans. Many pro-life people have set up homes or assistance for single mothers-to-be. Families usually support single teen moms within their family; while this sometimes sends mixed messages about appropriateness of "being" a single mother, it also confirms the value of unborn new life.
Bev, others will have more and better thoughts than I. But I am reminded of Elijah complaining to God that he was the only one left who served God. I am reminded of the donkey who spoke to Balaam. I am reminded of Gideon asking for the dew on the fleece. Prayer is a natural part of living for prophets; it is embodied in every thing they see, or desire, or experience. And for the prophets, I think that prayer included listening as much as speaking.
What is our present spiritual condition? Is it like Asa… who removed the idols and repaired the altar? Or is it like Asa who stopped relying on the Lord and became angry with the prophet?
Is it like Jehoshaphat who walked in the ways of his ancestor David and who sought the Lord? Or like Jehoshaphat who allied himself with (baal worshipper) Ahab by marriage, and helped Ahab in his battle?
Jehoshaphat removed the visible signs of false worship , the idols and high places and asherah poles from Judah (although not from Israel),. But apparently he still relied on alliances with worldly kings, with Ahab and Ahaziah, and was willing to even ally himself thru marriage, including the marriage of his son to a daughter of Ahab.
Can we assume then because we have removed the idols, and we have sought the Lord, that we have not allied ourselves with Ahabs of this world in various ways? When Jehosophat did this, his son Jehoram was the fruit of it, naturally marrying a daughter of Ahab as his godly father encouraged him, and then why would Jehoshaphat be surprised at the evil done by his son Jehoram?
We can ask ourselves what the spiritual condition of the denomination is, where are we headed, how are our alliances? And then, each of us can ask ourselves: what is our own personal spiritual condition? What prophecies will we listen to and where do we put our trust?
- - - - - - - ---- -- --- --- ---
Scripture references:
II Chron.15: 8 “When Asa heard these words and the prophecy of Azariah son of[a]Oded the prophet, he took courage. He removed the detestable idols from the whole land of Judah and Benjamin and from the towns he had captured in the hills of Ephraim. He repaired the altar of the Lordthat was in front of the portico of the Lord’s temple… 17 Although he did not remove the high places from Israel, Asa’s heart was fully committed to the Lordall his life…..“Because you relied on the king of Aram and not on the Lordyour God, the army of the king of Aram has escaped from your hand….10 Asa was angry with the seer because of this; he was so enraged that he put him in prison. At the same time Asa brutally oppressed some of the people….
…II chron 17:3 The Lord was with Jehoshaphat(son of Asa) because in his early years he walked in the ways his father David had followed… 6 His heart was devoted to the ways of the Lord; furthermore, he removed the high places and the Asherah poles from Judah. ..1.Now Jehoshaphat had great wealth and honor, and he allied himself with Ahab by marriage…1.When Jehoshaphat king of Judah returned safely to his palace in Jerusalem(after the battle), 2 Jehu the seer, the son of Hanani, went out to meet him and said to the king, “Should you help the wicked and love[a]those who hate the Lord?Because of this, the wrath of the Lordis upon you.3 There is, however, some good in you, for you have rid the land of the Asherah poles and have set your heart on seeking God. ”…II Chron. 20:27 Then, led by Jehoshaphat, all the men of Judah and Jerusalem returned joyfully to Jerusalem, for the Lordhad given them cause to rejoice over their enemies….
II Chron. 21:4 When Jehoram(son of Jehoshaphat) established himself firmly over his father’s kingdom, he put all his brothers to the sword along with some of the princes of Israel.5 Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years.6 He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done, for he married a daughter of Ahab. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord.”
Briantebben and Jeff, thanks for your comments. First, I want to affirm that yes, delegates are ultimately supposed to be deliberative. However, in your briantebben's example, you state that the delegate who presented an overture that he did not agree with, will be assumed to vote in favor of the belhar, in spite of his church disagreeing, and in spite of his classis disagreeing with it. This would happen according to your example, even before deliberations at synod have occurred. That is the issue. His deliberations have already ocurred in his mind, not swayed by deliberations at his council or his classis. Thus there does not appear to be much room for the influence of communal deliberations that follow. It appears merely to be a superiority of intellect or opinion that supercedes the deliberations of his council or classis.
This makes the whole issue more political than deliberative, since if the selection of delegates can be manipulated, based on as you said, "...as many people commented he is smart ,well spoken, gracious, and and a good listener ...", which means having a kind of popular appeal, or in other words, how could you not select someone who is smart, well spoken, gracious and a good listener? In the world of politics, this has a huge impact. But, most polilticians are smart well spoken and gracious and a good listener. Most pastors are as well. Many elders are also. This is no basis for selecting a delegate who has already predetermined to vote directly contrary to an issue that classis has voted on, even before any deliberations have taken place. Furthermore, it biases the vote and the considerations of the deliberations in such a way, that classis has in effect neutered its own vote. which
In my opinion, if a delegate votes differently than what classis has voted, then the delegate needs to identify clearly what comments and arguments at synod were new, which arguments had not been made at classis. Otherwise, perhaps the delegate will simply vote the way he does because he wants to, because he had already decided to, because he had decided his opinion was more valuable than the opinion of classis, or because he was folllowing a friend or mentor or former professor in the vote. Is this type of meaningless decision making what we want?
The guidance of the Holy Spirit can be a tenuous thing to discover. I mean how do we know it was the spirit who guided or whether it was man's own personal desires and worldly ambitions which guided? We trust in it, but we know we must test the spirits. The way to test the spirits is to have councils and classes test them. If that testing of the spirits at classis is disregarded by delegates as not being valid, then how do we know the Spirit is guiding at synod? Perhaps it is also invalid?
If a similar thing were to happen at each classis, that all delegates were assured to vote exactly contrary or most likely contrary, to the decision of their classis, then why waste time at classis? And does that mean that synod would be perceived to be a type of elitist decision making process far removed from classes and councils, in essence relegating council decisions as irrelevant and thus mere servants of synod, rather than synod having delegated authority originating at the local councils?
If that type of thing happens frequently, then synod will become irrelevant to councils, and perhaps to some classes as well. Rather than synod being a delegated body that represents the decisions and guidance of classes, it will simply be a body of people who have the money and time and ambition to attend to represent their own personal agendas and issues. The delegates then will be using classis to achieve their ends, rather than classes using delegates to achieve their ends. In my opinion, this is unhealthy. This is more likely not the Spirit working, but rather the will of man. A few men and women who want to use the denomination, synod and classis for their own ends. Thus is how I see it.
Using the Belhar as a confession is a serious thing, and if deliberations on it can be upset by such a few people who maintain their personal wisdom against that of the original authorities, then how do we know it is the Spirit working. I guess the system will work how it works, but it seems your classis was lacking in wisdom when they selected such delegates, or they didn't believe in their own deliberations.
Rob I think you have done your best to provide a good insiteful balanced approach to a discussion of who Adam is/was. However, within your "many" words, there seems to be a tendency in a few cases to look for problems where none exist. For example, when you mention Nod, you assume there was a community there. But Nod (which means wandering), is simply an identifier, like the name of a river, of an area. There is no indication that there was a community there already.
Also you mention that it is unlikely that Cain would have married his sister due to levitical laws. But you know that these laws were not given until later, and that even Abraham married his half sister. To suggest that this is a reason for proving other communities existed is simply not logical. Rather, it would be much more logical to assume that Adam and Eve had many other children, and that brothers married sisters at that time. I just saw a family on "America has Talent" which had 12 children in 18 years, and no twins. Isn't this also scientific evidence of such a likelihood for Adam and Eve that they also had many children even before Seth was born?
I think your synopsis of the meaning of "Adam", which is related to red, to earth, and is sometimes plural was well done, but it is certainly no indication that Adam was not a real singular living created being, created by God from dust in his own image. In fact, it would suggest that he was created from the earth itself, wouldn't it.
An explanation would be valuable, of why Genesis 4:26 would say that at the time of Enosh, Seth's son, men began to call on the name of the Lord, when obviously Abel and Cain were already sacrificing to God much earlier. At least this should highlight the value of context in understanding the meaning of a phrase or verse.
I'm not a campus minister. But I have attended both secular and Christian campuses as a student. I've obtained degrees in both the ARTS and in Science. So maybe you will accept some of my comments. I appreciate your attempt to create peace between scientists and the religious. It might work for some. But I would suggest that until people realize that the conflict is not really between science and faith, they will continue to have the wrong kinds of conflict. The real conflict is between good and evil, between truth and falsehood, between seeking the supremacy of God vs the supremacy of man. The conflict is really in essence today not between science and faith, but between random never-ending evolution and God's hand in creation. The conflict is between a materialistic world view and a world view that allows the concept of God to intervene.
Whether scripture is read as poetry or as literal events depends not first of all on science, but mostly on world-view. Even the idea that the struggle is between faith and science is one that is encouraged by those who want to discredit faith, while Satan knows full well that both science and scripture have been used illegitimately to promote lies and falsehoods. Today, the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west, even though we know that the earth cycles around the sun. It is difficult to separate the literal from the figurative in this case, since our physical worldview sees the rising of the sun daily, and the cycling only through repeated observations and calculations. Therefore the figurative explanation does not contradict what we know to be true. We don't really know what the sky looked like before the flood, at a time when there was not yet any rain on the earth. It is difficult to imagine the impacts of the global flood upon the earth, or the circumstances that accompanied it.
The evolutionary worldview can only see or be comfortable in a particular parameter of scientific examination; mostly this is because for evolutionary scientists, any question of intervention by God is a non-scientific question and thus ineligible in the discussion. In addition, for many (not all)evolutionary scientists, their scientific approach which relegates God to irrelevance, has made even a belief in God absolute anathema, and thus their scientific objections to non-evolutionary approaches are in reality religious objections, not scientific objections. Their objections to alternative explanations become emotional rather than scientific, because they have too much psychologically invested in their evolutionary atheism.
It is not science vs faith. Science leads to better crops, better machinery, micro-wave ovens, trains and planes, and the internet. None of this is against faith. The issue is truth vs falsehood, good vs evil, God vs Satan, the relevance of God vs the irrelevance of a god.
So, is Kairos position valid, or is it unbalanced? Should the CRCNA really belong to an organization such as Kairos? I suggest we dissassociate from it if it does not present a more balanced perspective. According to the news article, it claims to be neutral on the pipeline, but that is clearly not the case when it comes down to the issues it talks about and how it discusses those issues.
Posted in: Political Diversity
"Neither praise thyself in what is good in thee, nor accuse God in what is evil in thee. For this is wrong judgment, and so, not judgment at all. This thou didst, being evil; reverse it, and it will be right. Praise God in what is good in thee; accuse thyself in what is evil. So shalt thou anticipate the judgment of God, as He saith, "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord" 1 Corinthians 11:31. He addeth, love mercy; being merciful, out of love, "not of necessity, for God loveth a cheerful giver" 2 Corinthians 9:7. These acts together contain the whole duty to man, corresponding with and formed upon the mercy and justice of God Psalm 101:1; Psalm 61:7. All which is due, anyhow or in any way, is of judgment; all which is free toward man, although not free toward God, is of mercy." "(Barne's (B
(Barnes Notes)
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Rinse and hang: yes I am aware of group think, and fully aware of it in many different contexts. For that reason I tend to be as hard on those I "group" with, as on others.
I didn't ask my questions about what you believe or don't believe in scripture in order to be "fear mongering". I asked it to understand how you differentiate between what you believe or accept, compared to what you do not accept. If "science" says that there is no way that the flood could have happened, do you then accept the science and reject the story as mere fable? If science says there is no way that Moses could have parted the red sea, then do you accept that conclusion? If science says there is no way someone could be raised from the dead, do you then accept science and reject the resurrection? The Bahai's take everything about the resurrection symbolically, and deny Jesus physical resurrection just as they accept evolution; how are you different from that?
The fear mongering is just in your own mind. These are real questions, not rhetorical accusations.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Marie, thanks for your comment. You can see that there is a divergence of opinion on whether acceptance of evolution leads to a decline in faith or not, especially among the average person on the street. That was my main reason for starting this blog in the first place. You see, if evolution seems to make Genesis One, or Genesis 1-11 a mere myth, then much of the foundations of our faith, such as one man bringing sin into the world (requiring Christ to redeem us), become very questionable. It makes the early prophecies of a redeemer very questionable. This is why people like Dawkins are not ambivalent about christianity, but actually hate it and love to denigrate and despise it by pointing out how evolution contradicts it. They rejoice in the fact that evolution is an indicator for them that scripture is merely a man-made imperfect invention, instead of being the inspired word of God. This context is what underlies the discussion of the details; how does evolution jive with scripture; how can we reconcile the two?
Norman claims that some of young earth science actually adversely affects the faith of some christians due to unseemly tactics etc. And I agree that sometimes this happens. Sometimes our methods and our personal credibility hurt our positions. We need to remember this, and stress honesty, integrity, and detail. But it is a bit disingenuous to imply that evolutionists do not also often use unseemly tactics. In my experience, vitriol and personal attacks are much more common by evolutionists, including by people like Dawkins.
But, somehow, the discussion still needs to occur. We need to trust that the truth will come out. In some way, this will and does already affect our faith, and the faith perspective of many people. When people use the phrase, "survival of the fittest" in reference to some stupid action by a drunk driver or the business practices of a ruthless businessman, they are using that phrase in the context of a value system that is supported by the evolutionary theory which supposedly brought about the existence of the human race. Evolution is never merely a scientific theory, no matter how much people may want to insist it is. It is also a world and life view, coloring our actions and our perspective. And it is a considerably different world view than the one that scripture gives us.
So, do YEC cause christians to leave the faith? Or does acceptance of evolution theory remove the foundation of our faith? Which is it? or which is more likely more often?
If we refined evolution to be evolution within certain "kinds", and if we acknowdged, as Todd Wood does that evolution did not create human beings, then perhaps there is a tenuous co-existence. But, we must be aware that the general scientific community, including Dawkins and his kind, are not at all satisfied with such a co-existence. They will not only disagree; they will say it is unscientific to postulate such a compromise co-existence. It is not creationists who are against science, but it is the rabid evolutionists who claim that YEC are not interested in science. The fact is that YEC also find science very fascinating, because it is part of God's created world. But they do not feel the need to adopt the entirety of the rabid evolutionist definition of science to include the necessity for "mud to man" evolution.
When YEC make the detailed arguments, such as about the Coelanth fish, or about various fossil footprints, or about the way layers of sediment can form, or about polystrate fossils, or about missing layers of "time", or about clear unconformities, or lack of natural erosion in deep rock layers, or about genetic probabilities and disimilarities, YEC are indicating that they are very interested in science, and that they are objectively pointing out problems with evolutionists interpretation of the evidence. Norman's "young man" says that Christianity does not allow for science, but obviously that is not true. There are many Christian scientists. So why does he say it? Is it because he doesn't like the struggle or the way evidence is interpreted differently, or the way previously accepted conclusions are challenged? So often people claim that christianity does not like science, merely because it challenges evolution. To me this is a clear indication of antithesis. It is also a clear indication of how evolutionists do not really enjoy the theory being foundationally challenged, and so they switch the terms "evolution" and "science" as if they were synonyms, which they are not. So if some people are turned off by the YEC examination of the evidence and the way they argue against the evolutionist position, then perhaps it is because their minds are already turned off to alternate explanations, or perhaps the whole discussion is simply too difficult to comprehend and understand.
But, you must know, that this evolutionary perspective has greatly influenced human behaviour in the past, both for the assumed superiority of some races, as well as the assumed superiority of intellect and physique of some groups of people. If humans are merely animals, as the theory suggests, then it has a huge impact on our value system. As christians and scientists we cannot pretend that this is not an issue. And if we ignore this issue, then we are failing to be witnesses in this world of how God relates to us, and how we relate to God.
There is also the possibility of an OEC position (old earth creationist), which accepts an older age but without macro-evolution (mud to man). But this position seems to be considered less often.
I hope that clarifies a bit what this is all about.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
That site is a good summary, Norm. The comments are also interesting.
Posted in: The Church's Response to Abortion
Maybe John K, the reason the issue is not raised, is that there is no prohibition against caring for needy children. Maybe the issue is not raised because at least in Canada, health care is already available to all, including the children of single mothers. In addition, many pro-life people do not feel hindered in fostering, adopting, etc. In our small church of less than 100 souls, we have 14 adopted children, and support a mission project in Kenya which builds a school for orphans. Many pro-life people have set up homes or assistance for single mothers-to-be. Families usually support single teen moms within their family; while this sometimes sends mixed messages about appropriateness of "being" a single mother, it also confirms the value of unborn new life.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
Bev, others will have more and better thoughts than I. But I am reminded of Elijah complaining to God that he was the only one left who served God. I am reminded of the donkey who spoke to Balaam. I am reminded of Gideon asking for the dew on the fleece. Prayer is a natural part of living for prophets; it is embodied in every thing they see, or desire, or experience. And for the prophets, I think that prayer included listening as much as speaking.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
What is our present spiritual condition? Is it like Asa… who removed the idols and repaired the altar? Or is it like Asa who stopped relying on the Lord and became angry with the prophet?
Is it like Jehoshaphat who walked in the ways of his ancestor David and who sought the Lord? Or like Jehoshaphat who allied himself with (baal worshipper) Ahab by marriage, and helped Ahab in his battle?
Jehoshaphat removed the visible signs of false worship , the idols and high places and asherah poles from Judah (although not from Israel),. But apparently he still relied on alliances with worldly kings, with Ahab and Ahaziah, and was willing to even ally himself thru marriage, including the marriage of his son to a daughter of Ahab.
Can we assume then because we have removed the idols, and we have sought the Lord, that we have not allied ourselves with Ahabs of this world in various ways? When Jehosophat did this, his son Jehoram was the fruit of it, naturally marrying a daughter of Ahab as his godly father encouraged him, and then why would Jehoshaphat be surprised at the evil done by his son Jehoram?
We can ask ourselves what the spiritual condition of the denomination is, where are we headed, how are our alliances? And then, each of us can ask ourselves: what is our own personal spiritual condition? What prophecies will we listen to and where do we put our trust?
Scripture references:
II Chron.15: 8 “When Asa heard these words and the prophecy of Azariah son of[a]Oded the prophet, he took courage. He removed the detestable idols from the whole land of Judah and Benjamin and from the towns he had captured in the hills of Ephraim. He repaired the altar of the Lordthat was in front of the portico of the Lord’s temple… 17 Although he did not remove the high places from Israel, Asa’s heart was fully committed to the Lordall his life…..“Because you relied on the king of Aram and not on the Lordyour God, the army of the king of Aram has escaped from your hand….10 Asa was angry with the seer because of this; he was so enraged that he put him in prison. At the same time Asa brutally oppressed some of the people….
…II chron 17:3 The Lord was with Jehoshaphat(son of Asa) because in his early years he walked in the ways his father David had followed… 6 His heart was devoted to the ways of the Lord; furthermore, he removed the high places and the Asherah poles from Judah. ..1.Now Jehoshaphat had great wealth and honor, and he allied himself with Ahab by marriage…1.When Jehoshaphat king of Judah returned safely to his palace in Jerusalem(after the battle), 2 Jehu the seer, the son of Hanani, went out to meet him and said to the king, “Should you help the wicked and love[a]those who hate the Lord?Because of this, the wrath of the Lordis upon you.3 There is, however, some good in you, for you have rid the land of the Asherah poles and have set your heart on seeking God. ”…II Chron. 20:27 Then, led by Jehoshaphat, all the men of Judah and Jerusalem returned joyfully to Jerusalem, for the Lordhad given them cause to rejoice over their enemies….
II Chron. 21:4 When Jehoram(son of Jehoshaphat) established himself firmly over his father’s kingdom, he put all his brothers to the sword along with some of the princes of Israel.5 Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years.6 He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done, for he married a daughter of Ahab. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord.”
Posted in: Delegates From Classis Voting Opposite From Classis Vote on an Issue
Briantebben and Jeff, thanks for your comments. First, I want to affirm that yes, delegates are ultimately supposed to be deliberative. However, in your briantebben's example, you state that the delegate who presented an overture that he did not agree with, will be assumed to vote in favor of the belhar, in spite of his church disagreeing, and in spite of his classis disagreeing with it. This would happen according to your example, even before deliberations at synod have occurred. That is the issue. His deliberations have already ocurred in his mind, not swayed by deliberations at his council or his classis. Thus there does not appear to be much room for the influence of communal deliberations that follow. It appears merely to be a superiority of intellect or opinion that supercedes the deliberations of his council or classis.
This makes the whole issue more political than deliberative, since if the selection of delegates can be manipulated, based on as you said, "...as many people commented he is smart ,well spoken, gracious, and and a good listener ...", which means having a kind of popular appeal, or in other words, how could you not select someone who is smart, well spoken, gracious and a good listener? In the world of politics, this has a huge impact. But, most polilticians are smart well spoken and gracious and a good listener. Most pastors are as well. Many elders are also. This is no basis for selecting a delegate who has already predetermined to vote directly contrary to an issue that classis has voted on, even before any deliberations have taken place. Furthermore, it biases the vote and the considerations of the deliberations in such a way, that classis has in effect neutered its own vote. which
In my opinion, if a delegate votes differently than what classis has voted, then the delegate needs to identify clearly what comments and arguments at synod were new, which arguments had not been made at classis. Otherwise, perhaps the delegate will simply vote the way he does because he wants to, because he had already decided to, because he had decided his opinion was more valuable than the opinion of classis, or because he was folllowing a friend or mentor or former professor in the vote. Is this type of meaningless decision making what we want?
Posted in: Delegates From Classis Voting Opposite From Classis Vote on an Issue
The guidance of the Holy Spirit can be a tenuous thing to discover. I mean how do we know it was the spirit who guided or whether it was man's own personal desires and worldly ambitions which guided? We trust in it, but we know we must test the spirits. The way to test the spirits is to have councils and classes test them. If that testing of the spirits at classis is disregarded by delegates as not being valid, then how do we know the Spirit is guiding at synod? Perhaps it is also invalid?
If a similar thing were to happen at each classis, that all delegates were assured to vote exactly contrary or most likely contrary, to the decision of their classis, then why waste time at classis? And does that mean that synod would be perceived to be a type of elitist decision making process far removed from classes and councils, in essence relegating council decisions as irrelevant and thus mere servants of synod, rather than synod having delegated authority originating at the local councils?
If that type of thing happens frequently, then synod will become irrelevant to councils, and perhaps to some classes as well. Rather than synod being a delegated body that represents the decisions and guidance of classes, it will simply be a body of people who have the money and time and ambition to attend to represent their own personal agendas and issues. The delegates then will be using classis to achieve their ends, rather than classes using delegates to achieve their ends. In my opinion, this is unhealthy. This is more likely not the Spirit working, but rather the will of man. A few men and women who want to use the denomination, synod and classis for their own ends. Thus is how I see it.
Using the Belhar as a confession is a serious thing, and if deliberations on it can be upset by such a few people who maintain their personal wisdom against that of the original authorities, then how do we know it is the Spirit working. I guess the system will work how it works, but it seems your classis was lacking in wisdom when they selected such delegates, or they didn't believe in their own deliberations.
Posted in: Who Was Adam?
Rob I think you have done your best to provide a good insiteful balanced approach to a discussion of who Adam is/was. However, within your "many" words, there seems to be a tendency in a few cases to look for problems where none exist. For example, when you mention Nod, you assume there was a community there. But Nod (which means wandering), is simply an identifier, like the name of a river, of an area. There is no indication that there was a community there already.
Also you mention that it is unlikely that Cain would have married his sister due to levitical laws. But you know that these laws were not given until later, and that even Abraham married his half sister. To suggest that this is a reason for proving other communities existed is simply not logical. Rather, it would be much more logical to assume that Adam and Eve had many other children, and that brothers married sisters at that time. I just saw a family on "America has Talent" which had 12 children in 18 years, and no twins. Isn't this also scientific evidence of such a likelihood for Adam and Eve that they also had many children even before Seth was born?
I think your synopsis of the meaning of "Adam", which is related to red, to earth, and is sometimes plural was well done, but it is certainly no indication that Adam was not a real singular living created being, created by God from dust in his own image. In fact, it would suggest that he was created from the earth itself, wouldn't it.
An explanation would be valuable, of why Genesis 4:26 would say that at the time of Enosh, Seth's son, men began to call on the name of the Lord, when obviously Abel and Cain were already sacrificing to God much earlier. At least this should highlight the value of context in understanding the meaning of a phrase or verse.
Posted in: Science and Faith on Campus and in the Church
I'm not a campus minister. But I have attended both secular and Christian campuses as a student. I've obtained degrees in both the ARTS and in Science. So maybe you will accept some of my comments. I appreciate your attempt to create peace between scientists and the religious. It might work for some. But I would suggest that until people realize that the conflict is not really between science and faith, they will continue to have the wrong kinds of conflict. The real conflict is between good and evil, between truth and falsehood, between seeking the supremacy of God vs the supremacy of man. The conflict is really in essence today not between science and faith, but between random never-ending evolution and God's hand in creation. The conflict is between a materialistic world view and a world view that allows the concept of God to intervene.
Whether scripture is read as poetry or as literal events depends not first of all on science, but mostly on world-view. Even the idea that the struggle is between faith and science is one that is encouraged by those who want to discredit faith, while Satan knows full well that both science and scripture have been used illegitimately to promote lies and falsehoods. Today, the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west, even though we know that the earth cycles around the sun. It is difficult to separate the literal from the figurative in this case, since our physical worldview sees the rising of the sun daily, and the cycling only through repeated observations and calculations. Therefore the figurative explanation does not contradict what we know to be true. We don't really know what the sky looked like before the flood, at a time when there was not yet any rain on the earth. It is difficult to imagine the impacts of the global flood upon the earth, or the circumstances that accompanied it.
The evolutionary worldview can only see or be comfortable in a particular parameter of scientific examination; mostly this is because for evolutionary scientists, any question of intervention by God is a non-scientific question and thus ineligible in the discussion. In addition, for many (not all)evolutionary scientists, their scientific approach which relegates God to irrelevance, has made even a belief in God absolute anathema, and thus their scientific objections to non-evolutionary approaches are in reality religious objections, not scientific objections. Their objections to alternative explanations become emotional rather than scientific, because they have too much psychologically invested in their evolutionary atheism.
It is not science vs faith. Science leads to better crops, better machinery, micro-wave ovens, trains and planes, and the internet. None of this is against faith. The issue is truth vs falsehood, good vs evil, God vs Satan, the relevance of God vs the irrelevance of a god.
Posted in: When Churches Start Becoming Experts on Pipelines, Does That Mean Oil Companies Can Become Experts on Theology?
So, is Kairos position valid, or is it unbalanced? Should the CRCNA really belong to an organization such as Kairos? I suggest we dissassociate from it if it does not present a more balanced perspective. According to the news article, it claims to be neutral on the pipeline, but that is clearly not the case when it comes down to the issues it talks about and how it discusses those issues.