Randy, re your offense at Driscoll: yes, he is sometimes prone to hyperbole, and gives offense to some. However, you and I probably also give offense to some. That is no criteria for serious evaluation. Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:3, are a couple of examples where people took offense at Jesus. Romans 9:23 and I Peter 2:8 (NKJV) calls Jesus a rock of stumbling and offense.
Driscoll's point about city churches is not a slur, but an encouragement towards priorities. I belong to a "rural" church as well, but I fully understand Driscoll's point, and his examination of demographics, culture, and lostness from an evangelical perspective. Sometimes offense is taken where none is intended. (you may ask yourself).
Disagreements have their place, and they are inevitable. However, when a disagreement lasts for decades, it is not always good to have it too close to daily or weekly activities, such as the local church or classis. If you live in a city, and want to attend a complementarian church instead of a "liberal" church, you can probably do so. You can live in a semblance of peace, and still participate in the disagreement at various times via letters, internet, or different assemblies on a less frequent basis. There is no need to assume a need to "differ" within classis, when there are numerous other places and ocassions for making those arguments known, such as synod perhaps, or in this day and age, discussion blogs, networks, etc. Furthermore, there is the added benefit of having a larger audience, perspectives from outside the denomination, and being involved in a discussion that does not become so personal and acrimonious. So I don't think the argument that we need to have differences within classis on this issue hold much water.
As we can see in the quote Bev, from your linked site, the difficulty is usually in deciding what is essential, and what is not. We know from the epistles of John that obedience is "essential" to sanctification, to christian living and christian witness, and we know from Jude that we should contend for the faith, and that "certain people have turned the gospel of grace into a license for immorality", which would suggest that morality is also essential. But the details, the details of how to work this out.... that's where we often run into trouble...
"Schultze’s sermon indicates, though, that by 1902 there was no agreement on just what things were essential and which were non-essential within the Moravian Church let alone in the wider church. Despite the fact that the “Moravian motto” does not clarify what are essential things, the call for a type of unity that allows liberty of expression in some things clearly resonates with many people. Other denominations today claim this same phrase as a motto, especially churches that emerged out of the Campbellite movement in 19th century America."
Bonnie's comments that the healthiest churches have least tolerance for bad behaviour is a good one. Her comments about having lower standards than other professions, while well intended, seems to miss the main point of not tolerating bad behaviour. It is not because of a professional title, or occupation, but because of the main purpose of officebearers such as pastors elders and deacons, to teach, lead, exemplify the grace of Christ and the obedience that comes with it. Since everyone struggles with sin, we all need to encourage each other (mutual accountability) and this encouragement can be positive, as well as negative encouragement (not tolerating sin). What is the point of having a pastor preaching the gospel while he denies it in his life, in his visible witness? Same applies to an elder. That doesn't mean that elders and pastors are perfect, and we need to live in an attitude of forgiveness. But grace comes with repentance and change and newness of life. In some cases, if the personal struggle is too long and too big, then that would be a clear sign that God has another calling in mind for the individual. If the offense is against a vulnerable person based on position of trust, then probably that also is quickly a sign that God has another calling in mind.
The fear of not being forgiven ought to be greater than the fear of changing an occupation. The fear of idolators, adulterers, fornicators, homsex practicers, not entering heaven, ought to be greater than the fear of losing prestige or position with mere men. Grace requires repentance. By not addressing these issues, we may be condemning some pastors, elders, deacons or even any self-professed christian to hell. Jesus said there will be those who say, "Lord, Lord, didn't we do miracles and heal and cast out demons?" And God will say, "I never knew you". why? because they were not obedient, and worshipped other idols, of self, or sex, or other things. This is much more serious than comparing standards to some of the professions. "he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins: James 5.
A quote from your link: "Unfortunately, Behe doesn't mention the Krebs in his book. A pity. Here is a complex biochemical system, clearly an excellent hook on which to hang his thesis. Right? However, closer inspection of the literature reveals problems with such a "Krebs cycle is irreducibly complex" hypothesis..."
Why would you try to refute a comment that Behe never made, as you acknowledge yourself? Seems a bit like bait and switch?
Irreducibly complex does not mean that you could not have a smaller eye, or a different eye. It means you need more than half the parts to make it work. If you take 90% of it away, you do not have something useful, and usually if you take one small part away, it is also not very useful. This reduces the chances based on random mutations, to get a combination of simultaneous mutations that would produce something useful, and this must be combined with a larger organism in which there are other parts that are also complex, and need to be there for the whole organism to function. It is not only that you need all the parts, but they must also be there at the same time, in the right position, of the right size, and fitted together properly, and then hooked up to the larger organism properly. A perfect eye without a brain behind it would also be useless.
The eye of the ragworm is useful to the ragworm, but not to the human; it would be like walking around with your eyes closed.
The beefalo tends to revert back to the bison. This appears to be more of a selection than a mutation. There is an assumption by evolutionists that recessive genes must have originated from a mutation, but how is that proved?
Episode 35 of Season 2 on "Genesis Week" (found on youtube or Wazoolo.com) discusses how a recent fossil find of a supposedly 70 million year old dinosaur had unfossilized dinosaur skin attached. It also discusses the large number of fossil human footprints found around the world, in particular in Laetoli, South Africa, and in Mungo Park, Australia, as well as the Paluxy tracks in the USA. Also Mexico (Sylvia Gonzales found those). They are using CT scans and ground penetrating radar to analyze them, and some of them are in layers that supposedly pre-date the dinosaur periods of time. Interesting.
Elder Lubbert, the statement I made was not made to capture the attitude of the socio-cultural worldview we live beside. It was meant to speak to christians who would like to understand their own place in the evangelizing, discipling. I would not speak to non-christians this way; they are not the problem. It is christians who are the problem. The words I used are easy enough to understand, unless christians have already stopped attending church. In that case, those would not be reading this.
The socio-cultural worldview beside us is much the same as always, outside of Christ. I mean that it focusses on pleasure, money, self, education, nature, security, sex, sport, pensions, entertainment, as alternatives to God. And when those things become too important to Christians then it chokes the word of God in their lives as well.
The problem is, how far do you go, and what are the implications? It is also a simple but wrong solution to simply say that it does not matter how man was created, or whether he was not directly created at all. It is also simple and wrong to say that man falling into sin is only an allegorical or sylized literal (meaning metaphorical) idea. It seems that because it is difficult to believe that God could make man out of dust, or woman from man, that we must find another interpretation? God could not do that, and therefore we must find another answer? But how could God create the universe in the first place? Where did God get that power?
Posted in: Of Rob Ford and Pastors
Curious I am, as to why this is more anabaptist than reformed. Could you explain?
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Randy, re your offense at Driscoll: yes, he is sometimes prone to hyperbole, and gives offense to some. However, you and I probably also give offense to some. That is no criteria for serious evaluation. Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:3, are a couple of examples where people took offense at Jesus. Romans 9:23 and I Peter 2:8 (NKJV) calls Jesus a rock of stumbling and offense.
Driscoll's point about city churches is not a slur, but an encouragement towards priorities. I belong to a "rural" church as well, but I fully understand Driscoll's point, and his examination of demographics, culture, and lostness from an evangelical perspective. Sometimes offense is taken where none is intended. (you may ask yourself).
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Disagreements have their place, and they are inevitable. However, when a disagreement lasts for decades, it is not always good to have it too close to daily or weekly activities, such as the local church or classis. If you live in a city, and want to attend a complementarian church instead of a "liberal" church, you can probably do so. You can live in a semblance of peace, and still participate in the disagreement at various times via letters, internet, or different assemblies on a less frequent basis. There is no need to assume a need to "differ" within classis, when there are numerous other places and ocassions for making those arguments known, such as synod perhaps, or in this day and age, discussion blogs, networks, etc. Furthermore, there is the added benefit of having a larger audience, perspectives from outside the denomination, and being involved in a discussion that does not become so personal and acrimonious. So I don't think the argument that we need to have differences within classis on this issue hold much water.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
As we can see in the quote Bev, from your linked site, the difficulty is usually in deciding what is essential, and what is not. We know from the epistles of John that obedience is "essential" to sanctification, to christian living and christian witness, and we know from Jude that we should contend for the faith, and that "certain people have turned the gospel of grace into a license for immorality", which would suggest that morality is also essential. But the details, the details of how to work this out.... that's where we often run into trouble...
"Schultze’s sermon indicates, though, that by 1902 there was no agreement on just what things were essential and which were non-essential within the Moravian Church let alone in the wider church. Despite the fact that the “Moravian motto” does not clarify what are essential things, the call for a type of unity that allows liberty of expression in some things clearly resonates with many people. Other denominations today claim this same phrase as a motto, especially churches that emerged out of the Campbellite movement in 19th century America."
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Mike, as long as you can continue to enjoy and encourage comments like mine , then you are okay with diversity.
Posted in: Of Rob Ford and Pastors
Bonnie's comments that the healthiest churches have least tolerance for bad behaviour is a good one. Her comments about having lower standards than other professions, while well intended, seems to miss the main point of not tolerating bad behaviour. It is not because of a professional title, or occupation, but because of the main purpose of officebearers such as pastors elders and deacons, to teach, lead, exemplify the grace of Christ and the obedience that comes with it. Since everyone struggles with sin, we all need to encourage each other (mutual accountability) and this encouragement can be positive, as well as negative encouragement (not tolerating sin). What is the point of having a pastor preaching the gospel while he denies it in his life, in his visible witness? Same applies to an elder. That doesn't mean that elders and pastors are perfect, and we need to live in an attitude of forgiveness. But grace comes with repentance and change and newness of life. In some cases, if the personal struggle is too long and too big, then that would be a clear sign that God has another calling in mind for the individual. If the offense is against a vulnerable person based on position of trust, then probably that also is quickly a sign that God has another calling in mind.
The fear of not being forgiven ought to be greater than the fear of changing an occupation. The fear of idolators, adulterers, fornicators, homsex practicers, not entering heaven, ought to be greater than the fear of losing prestige or position with mere men. Grace requires repentance. By not addressing these issues, we may be condemning some pastors, elders, deacons or even any self-professed christian to hell. Jesus said there will be those who say, "Lord, Lord, didn't we do miracles and heal and cast out demons?" And God will say, "I never knew you". why? because they were not obedient, and worshipped other idols, of self, or sex, or other things. This is much more serious than comparing standards to some of the professions. "he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins: James 5.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Stay away from Twitter....
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
A quote from your link: "Unfortunately, Behe doesn't mention the Krebs in his book. A pity. Here is a complex biochemical system, clearly an excellent hook on which to hang his thesis. Right? However, closer inspection of the literature reveals problems with such a "Krebs cycle is irreducibly complex" hypothesis..."
Why would you try to refute a comment that Behe never made, as you acknowledge yourself? Seems a bit like bait and switch?
Irreducibly complex does not mean that you could not have a smaller eye, or a different eye. It means you need more than half the parts to make it work. If you take 90% of it away, you do not have something useful, and usually if you take one small part away, it is also not very useful. This reduces the chances based on random mutations, to get a combination of simultaneous mutations that would produce something useful, and this must be combined with a larger organism in which there are other parts that are also complex, and need to be there for the whole organism to function. It is not only that you need all the parts, but they must also be there at the same time, in the right position, of the right size, and fitted together properly, and then hooked up to the larger organism properly. A perfect eye without a brain behind it would also be useless.
The eye of the ragworm is useful to the ragworm, but not to the human; it would be like walking around with your eyes closed.
The beefalo tends to revert back to the bison. This appears to be more of a selection than a mutation. There is an assumption by evolutionists that recessive genes must have originated from a mutation, but how is that proved?
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
An interesting description of DNA, how it's replicated, stored, packaged, etc., from a Christian perspective.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLx8NnhRdC4&list=UU23yiJV4Bkagj5dkH-UyHFA&index=2
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Episode 35 of Season 2 on "Genesis Week" (found on youtube or Wazoolo.com) discusses how a recent fossil find of a supposedly 70 million year old dinosaur had unfossilized dinosaur skin attached. It also discusses the large number of fossil human footprints found around the world, in particular in Laetoli, South Africa, and in Mungo Park, Australia, as well as the Paluxy tracks in the USA. Also Mexico (Sylvia Gonzales found those). They are using CT scans and ground penetrating radar to analyze them, and some of them are in layers that supposedly pre-date the dinosaur periods of time. Interesting.
Posted in: When Churches Lose Members
Elder Lubbert, the statement I made was not made to capture the attitude of the socio-cultural worldview we live beside. It was meant to speak to christians who would like to understand their own place in the evangelizing, discipling. I would not speak to non-christians this way; they are not the problem. It is christians who are the problem. The words I used are easy enough to understand, unless christians have already stopped attending church. In that case, those would not be reading this.
The socio-cultural worldview beside us is much the same as always, outside of Christ. I mean that it focusses on pleasure, money, self, education, nature, security, sex, sport, pensions, entertainment, as alternatives to God. And when those things become too important to Christians then it chokes the word of God in their lives as well.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
The problem is, how far do you go, and what are the implications? It is also a simple but wrong solution to simply say that it does not matter how man was created, or whether he was not directly created at all. It is also simple and wrong to say that man falling into sin is only an allegorical or sylized literal (meaning metaphorical) idea. It seems that because it is difficult to believe that God could make man out of dust, or woman from man, that we must find another interpretation? God could not do that, and therefore we must find another answer? But how could God create the universe in the first place? Where did God get that power?