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.
Bev, you are bringing up touchy subjects, and an area which has a lot of shades in it. I think it is good you courageously bring it up. If what you say about 60 to 80% of spiritual leaders struggling with this issue is true, then how do we deal with this issue? I think it goes further than just accessing stuff on the internet, although that is the most pernicious. What was salacious and covered in brown paper fifty years ago, is now plastered on billboards along the highway, it seems. Stuff on the internet comes up uninvited, and for some, it is like giving candy to a baby, or alcohol to an alcoholic.
Perhaps it is all part of a larger picture, which tolerates shacking up, premarital sex, easy divorce, immodest dress, R rated and PG rated movies. The more that this permeates the church, the harder it is to fight against porn as well. It seems if 60% of leaders are struggling with this probably at a variety of levels, then we need to find ways of combating this problem in a generic way. We have a safe church committee for protection of young children, and protection of churches from liability. But perhaps we should have a specific group or committee or program developing and promoting safeguards for internet viewing, prayer for combatting this vile sin, and materials explaining the whys of it, and also the ways of conquering it, perhaps like the AA twelve step program.
If enough churches get together to make a request for such a classis, that is, the number of such churches would be proportionate to the number of churches in any other classis, then it would be difficult to deny such a request, anymore than it would be difficult to deny one particular church's right to not attend classis, or to maintain its stand on this particular issue, which synod has said both positions have valid scriptural grounds. (perhaps I am mistaken, but don't the korean churches and native churches have a separate classis each?)
As a side note, Meg, you said "a) churches in that classis who do not hold a Biblical conviction that women ought to serve..." This is semantics partly, but these churches are misportrayed. These churches do believe that women ought to serve, but not as office-bearers. Secondly, it should be reworded to say that these churches hold a biblical conviction that women ought not to serve as office-bearers. (It is not that these churches do not hold a position, as your statement implies.)
Randy, your use of church history is apt. It helps us to understand why positions were taken at the time, and helps us to question whether those conditions still exist. It was important at the time to stress God's sovereignty, faithfulness, pre-eminence, which are all embodied in the idea of supra-lapsarianism. The church at the time needed visible signs of God's amazing grace, as well as His election choices.
Back to Eph 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". John the Baptizer baptized a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Jesus himself was baptized by John, yet not for the remission of sins, since He was sinless. Paul in Acts 19 says that John baptized for repentance, but people needed to be baptized by the Holy spirit. Romans 6 says that baptism means walking in newness of life. I Peter 3 says that baptism is the answer of a good conscience before God (thru Christ's resurrection). Hebrews 6 talks of the doctrine of baptisms (plural). So from their point of view, it is not as simple and straightforward as some like to think. We sometimes oversimplify much more than scripture does.
True there is one baptism by one God, who is also Spirit and Son. There is one salvation, not several. There is one redemption for sins, and Christ is not crucified over and over again. We are buried with Christ once, but also continually, and also raised with Christ. We are raised, but also being raised (sanctified). But baptism by water symbolizes that; it doesn’t equal that.
Even though we have been sanctified by Christ before God, yet sanctification for us here is still also a process. That is why we are “called” to obedience even though our spirit renewed desire is already to do God’s will, since as Paul says, we still do the things we do not want to do.
I’m not arguing for a re-baptism. I am merely putting forth an argument that presents an alternative perspective which may be still scriptural. I am certainly not arguing for re-baptism on every whim and caprice for a renewal which in occurs daily. But I am merely suggesting that when people have been baptized as children, by parents who either were not Christians, or who completely disregarded the covenant of believers in the way they raised their children as pagans, then it might be appropriate to permit to baptize these children when they become new believers as adults. (There may be grounds also for not permitting this, but such illegitimate baptisms based on formula and forms seem to be illegitimate in spite of using all the right words. God said he didn’t want sacrifices from the Israelites if their hearts were not right. Paul was clear that outward circumcision meant nothing; only circumcision of the heart mattered. Perhaps our practice of baptism could also include a recognition of those teachings as well.)
As far as consensus is concerned, we all know that consensus is a result of a discussion, that it does not apply if some seriously disagree, and that consensus is not in itself the basis for the validity of anything, especially when it comes to our faithlife.
Your statement that the bible no where says "...." sounds definitive, but is not. The bible also no where says that infants of believers should be baptized, nor that rebaptism is wrong. The bible also no where says that only "ministers (servants) should preach, or that there should be different denominations, or that worship services should be held on Sundays, or that elders should have limited terms. The weight of evidence leans in a certain direction, and in this case it seems synod went against the weight of the evidence, instead of following the weight of the scriptural evidence.
When you try to decide if something undermines a ministry, ask yourself if another situation was at question, how you would answer that question? For example, suppose the issue was re-baptism. If some adopted it, and others did not, and wanted a separate classis, would having the separate classis or not having it undermine someone's ministry (either position)? What evidence or proof would you use to demonstrate that someone's ministry was undermined? Would it be good or bad that someone's ministry was undermined?
The lack of evidence of turbulence or rapid flow of water would not mean that mud could not be deposited rapidly (within a day or two). If mud enters the surface of a relatively deep water body which then becomes murky with silt and clay particles, these particles could begin to deposit fairly quickly without leaving evidence of turbulence. It depends on how deep the water is. With shallow water one would expect to see some horizontal differentiation, but not necessarily with deeper water over a relatively flat surface.
With replenishment of the mud particles, the deposition of these layers could reoccur fairly frequently in a relatively short period of time.
The other thing that one would expect to see in soil formations laid down over long periods of time, is evidence of erosion, and evidence of plant growth (roots, root channels). Erosion would tend to break up sediment layers, leaving very few continuities. Plant growth would distort and mix sediment layers, leaving organic residues between layers as well as mixed within layers. Calculations of organic matter production over a thousand years, or over a million years, would give some clue as to how much material ought to be there. If these things are not evident, then it would be more reasonable to suppose that neither erosion nor plant growth occurred between layers, which would in most cases lead to the conclusion that there was not time for these things to happen.
Ken, don't worry about being slow to respond. No problem.
You said the silurian reefs "may be" 140 metres tall. That sounds uncertain. They either are, or they aren't. Or we don't know.
I didn't say that they formed during the flood, just quicker perhaps than we think. At 400mm per year, or approx one-half metre per year, it might have taken about 300 years to form.
As far as some mountains growing at about one inch per year, apparently due to glaciers receding in some cases and resulting in decompression or a change in subsurface equilibrium, this is not normally visually observed. It must be precisely measured because it is such a slow small growth. But perhaps growth has not always been constant, and not always at such a slow rate. The following comment suggests that at times the growth rates have been twenty times as fast. And maybe the assumptions for this change in growth rate are still flawed, and maybe growth rates have been even faster.
"...Who knew mountains, like awkward teens, could have sudden growth spurts? According to a new study published in Science (sub. required), the Andes mountains may have doubled their height in as few as 2 - 4 million years -- suggesting that the latest plate tectonics science may need some revision.
Conventional thinking had it that mountain ranges tended to rise gradually over a period of several million years. Indeed, most geologists had pegged the Andes mountain range's "age" at roughly 40 million years and had attributed its formation to plate tectonics.
Carmala Garzione's research, however, seemed to indicate otherwise. Garzione, a professor of geology at the University of Rochester, and her colleagues examined the sediment record and found that the Andes had slowly grown for tens of millions of years before suddenly spiking between 10 and 6 million years ago -- a process they call "delamination":..."
Sea water entering the basin would indeed have the effect of adding salt, and thin layers of calcium anhydrite as well as the thin layers of silt. My question is whether it required the length of time to do all this that the present theory suggests, or could it have happened much quicker.
Another example of the problems with basing evolutionary theory on the geologic column. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. The geologic column does not provide absolute proof of absence of particular life forms, even though it does provide evidence that certain species existed in the past. Therefore the geologic column does not provide proof of common descent. Evolution is the faith that does not fit the facts, says this video ... youtube.com/watch?v=lTWZJBXAZJA
While I appreciate your comments Hedzer, i think you miss the boat when suggesting that christians are afraid of scientific explanations. Whether God chose a method to heal the blind that was supernatural or natural but unknown is not the primary issue. When we fully understand what we call the supernatural, perhaps it will seem natural to us. But we do not need to suppose that God can only work by methods that man in his sinful condition ought to be able to understand. God is not limited to our parameters. God is not limited by our capacity or by our knowledge, nor by our arrogance. And our scientific explanations today are sometimes just as arrogant as the opinions of the 'scientists' of copernicus and galileo's day, or the doctors and healers of Jesus day.
Yesterday, I was at a pachyrhinosaurus bone bed at Pipestone Creek, in Northern Alberta, about 500 km northwest of Edmonton. This bone bed is buried quite deep, under about 500 or 600 feet of clay or more, but exposed along the edge of a creek. It is estimated to be at least the size of two football fields, and I was informed that thirty-two animals have already been excavated from a small area, about 10 feet by 40 feet. Interesting that these bones are found just under a shallow layer of shale, about 6 inches to 18 inches in thickness. This horizontal shale/sandstone layer is found below hundreds of feet of clay, which is similar to the clay found underneath the stone. Some kind of catastrophic event is concluded to have happened, which involved flooding and drowning. These pachyrhinosaurus animals were about 6 meters in length from nose to tail, with the head of adult animals being more than a metre in size. A plaster covered skull fossil weighs about 1200 pounds. Juvenile and baby pachys were also found in this bone bed.
Interesting thing about bone fossils is that if you have a moist finger, it will stick to the fossil, and will not stick to other bones. Also, in general, it is thought that herbivore animals have porous centers to the big bones, while carnivores have hollow centers to the big bones, but that might not be absolutely true in every case. I don't know yet exactly how this is relevant to "Genesis Again", but thought you might find it interesting.
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: Of Rob Ford and Pastors
Bev, you are bringing up touchy subjects, and an area which has a lot of shades in it. I think it is good you courageously bring it up. If what you say about 60 to 80% of spiritual leaders struggling with this issue is true, then how do we deal with this issue? I think it goes further than just accessing stuff on the internet, although that is the most pernicious. What was salacious and covered in brown paper fifty years ago, is now plastered on billboards along the highway, it seems. Stuff on the internet comes up uninvited, and for some, it is like giving candy to a baby, or alcohol to an alcoholic.
Perhaps it is all part of a larger picture, which tolerates shacking up, premarital sex, easy divorce, immodest dress, R rated and PG rated movies. The more that this permeates the church, the harder it is to fight against porn as well. It seems if 60% of leaders are struggling with this probably at a variety of levels, then we need to find ways of combating this problem in a generic way. We have a safe church committee for protection of young children, and protection of churches from liability. But perhaps we should have a specific group or committee or program developing and promoting safeguards for internet viewing, prayer for combatting this vile sin, and materials explaining the whys of it, and also the ways of conquering it, perhaps like the AA twelve step program.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
If enough churches get together to make a request for such a classis, that is, the number of such churches would be proportionate to the number of churches in any other classis, then it would be difficult to deny such a request, anymore than it would be difficult to deny one particular church's right to not attend classis, or to maintain its stand on this particular issue, which synod has said both positions have valid scriptural grounds. (perhaps I am mistaken, but don't the korean churches and native churches have a separate classis each?)
As a side note, Meg, you said "a) churches in that classis who do not hold a Biblical conviction that women ought to serve..." This is semantics partly, but these churches are misportrayed. These churches do believe that women ought to serve, but not as office-bearers. Secondly, it should be reworded to say that these churches hold a biblical conviction that women ought not to serve as office-bearers. (It is not that these churches do not hold a position, as your statement implies.)
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Randy, your use of church history is apt. It helps us to understand why positions were taken at the time, and helps us to question whether those conditions still exist. It was important at the time to stress God's sovereignty, faithfulness, pre-eminence, which are all embodied in the idea of supra-lapsarianism. The church at the time needed visible signs of God's amazing grace, as well as His election choices.
Back to Eph 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". John the Baptizer baptized a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Jesus himself was baptized by John, yet not for the remission of sins, since He was sinless. Paul in Acts 19 says that John baptized for repentance, but people needed to be baptized by the Holy spirit. Romans 6 says that baptism means walking in newness of life. I Peter 3 says that baptism is the answer of a good conscience before God (thru Christ's resurrection). Hebrews 6 talks of the doctrine of baptisms (plural). So from their point of view, it is not as simple and straightforward as some like to think. We sometimes oversimplify much more than scripture does.
True there is one baptism by one God, who is also Spirit and Son. There is one salvation, not several. There is one redemption for sins, and Christ is not crucified over and over again. We are buried with Christ once, but also continually, and also raised with Christ. We are raised, but also being raised (sanctified). But baptism by water symbolizes that; it doesn’t equal that.
Even though we have been sanctified by Christ before God, yet sanctification for us here is still also a process. That is why we are “called” to obedience even though our spirit renewed desire is already to do God’s will, since as Paul says, we still do the things we do not want to do.
I’m not arguing for a re-baptism. I am merely putting forth an argument that presents an alternative perspective which may be still scriptural. I am certainly not arguing for re-baptism on every whim and caprice for a renewal which in occurs daily. But I am merely suggesting that when people have been baptized as children, by parents who either were not Christians, or who completely disregarded the covenant of believers in the way they raised their children as pagans, then it might be appropriate to permit to baptize these children when they become new believers as adults. (There may be grounds also for not permitting this, but such illegitimate baptisms based on formula and forms seem to be illegitimate in spite of using all the right words. God said he didn’t want sacrifices from the Israelites if their hearts were not right. Paul was clear that outward circumcision meant nothing; only circumcision of the heart mattered. Perhaps our practice of baptism could also include a recognition of those teachings as well.)
As far as consensus is concerned, we all know that consensus is a result of a discussion, that it does not apply if some seriously disagree, and that consensus is not in itself the basis for the validity of anything, especially when it comes to our faithlife.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Your statement that the bible no where says "...." sounds definitive, but is not. The bible also no where says that infants of believers should be baptized, nor that rebaptism is wrong. The bible also no where says that only "ministers (servants) should preach, or that there should be different denominations, or that worship services should be held on Sundays, or that elders should have limited terms. The weight of evidence leans in a certain direction, and in this case it seems synod went against the weight of the evidence, instead of following the weight of the scriptural evidence.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
When you try to decide if something undermines a ministry, ask yourself if another situation was at question, how you would answer that question? For example, suppose the issue was re-baptism. If some adopted it, and others did not, and wanted a separate classis, would having the separate classis or not having it undermine someone's ministry (either position)? What evidence or proof would you use to demonstrate that someone's ministry was undermined? Would it be good or bad that someone's ministry was undermined?
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
The lack of evidence of turbulence or rapid flow of water would not mean that mud could not be deposited rapidly (within a day or two). If mud enters the surface of a relatively deep water body which then becomes murky with silt and clay particles, these particles could begin to deposit fairly quickly without leaving evidence of turbulence. It depends on how deep the water is. With shallow water one would expect to see some horizontal differentiation, but not necessarily with deeper water over a relatively flat surface.
With replenishment of the mud particles, the deposition of these layers could reoccur fairly frequently in a relatively short period of time.
The other thing that one would expect to see in soil formations laid down over long periods of time, is evidence of erosion, and evidence of plant growth (roots, root channels). Erosion would tend to break up sediment layers, leaving very few continuities. Plant growth would distort and mix sediment layers, leaving organic residues between layers as well as mixed within layers. Calculations of organic matter production over a thousand years, or over a million years, would give some clue as to how much material ought to be there. If these things are not evident, then it would be more reasonable to suppose that neither erosion nor plant growth occurred between layers, which would in most cases lead to the conclusion that there was not time for these things to happen.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Ken, don't worry about being slow to respond. No problem.
You said the silurian reefs "may be" 140 metres tall. That sounds uncertain. They either are, or they aren't. Or we don't know.
I didn't say that they formed during the flood, just quicker perhaps than we think. At 400mm per year, or approx one-half metre per year, it might have taken about 300 years to form.
As far as some mountains growing at about one inch per year, apparently due to glaciers receding in some cases and resulting in decompression or a change in subsurface equilibrium, this is not normally visually observed. It must be precisely measured because it is such a slow small growth. But perhaps growth has not always been constant, and not always at such a slow rate. The following comment suggests that at times the growth rates have been twenty times as fast. And maybe the assumptions for this change in growth rate are still flawed, and maybe growth rates have been even faster.
"...Who knew mountains, like awkward teens, could have sudden growth spurts? According to a new study published in Science (sub. required), the Andes mountains may have doubled their height in as few as 2 - 4 million years -- suggesting that the latest plate tectonics science may need some revision.
Conventional thinking had it that mountain ranges tended to rise gradually over a period of several million years. Indeed, most geologists had pegged the Andes mountain range's "age" at roughly 40 million years and had attributed its formation to plate tectonics.
Carmala Garzione's research, however, seemed to indicate otherwise. Garzione, a professor of geology at the University of Rochester, and her colleagues examined the sediment record and found that the Andes had slowly grown for tens of millions of years before suddenly spiking between 10 and 6 million years ago -- a process they call "delamination":..."
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/growing-mountains.php
Sea water entering the basin would indeed have the effect of adding salt, and thin layers of calcium anhydrite as well as the thin layers of silt. My question is whether it required the length of time to do all this that the present theory suggests, or could it have happened much quicker.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Another example of the problems with basing evolutionary theory on the geologic column. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. The geologic column does not provide absolute proof of absence of particular life forms, even though it does provide evidence that certain species existed in the past. Therefore the geologic column does not provide proof of common descent. Evolution is the faith that does not fit the facts, says this video ... youtube.com/watch?v=lTWZJBXAZJA
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
While I appreciate your comments Hedzer, i think you miss the boat when suggesting that christians are afraid of scientific explanations. Whether God chose a method to heal the blind that was supernatural or natural but unknown is not the primary issue. When we fully understand what we call the supernatural, perhaps it will seem natural to us. But we do not need to suppose that God can only work by methods that man in his sinful condition ought to be able to understand. God is not limited to our parameters. God is not limited by our capacity or by our knowledge, nor by our arrogance. And our scientific explanations today are sometimes just as arrogant as the opinions of the 'scientists' of copernicus and galileo's day, or the doctors and healers of Jesus day.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Yesterday, I was at a pachyrhinosaurus bone bed at Pipestone Creek, in Northern Alberta, about 500 km northwest of Edmonton. This bone bed is buried quite deep, under about 500 or 600 feet of clay or more, but exposed along the edge of a creek. It is estimated to be at least the size of two football fields, and I was informed that thirty-two animals have already been excavated from a small area, about 10 feet by 40 feet. Interesting that these bones are found just under a shallow layer of shale, about 6 inches to 18 inches in thickness. This horizontal shale/sandstone layer is found below hundreds of feet of clay, which is similar to the clay found underneath the stone. Some kind of catastrophic event is concluded to have happened, which involved flooding and drowning. These pachyrhinosaurus animals were about 6 meters in length from nose to tail, with the head of adult animals being more than a metre in size. A plaster covered skull fossil weighs about 1200 pounds. Juvenile and baby pachys were also found in this bone bed.
Interesting thing about bone fossils is that if you have a moist finger, it will stick to the fossil, and will not stick to other bones. Also, in general, it is thought that herbivore animals have porous centers to the big bones, while carnivores have hollow centers to the big bones, but that might not be absolutely true in every case. I don't know yet exactly how this is relevant to "Genesis Again", but thought you might find it interesting.