John Zylstra: "Rather the entire raw theory of evolution as secularly presented in the absence of God, is being promoted and assumed..."
John Zylstra: Unfortunately John, you are the only one assuming and promoting this fallacy. I hear and understand that you love The Lord and His Word, however, it is time to show some charity towards your brothers and sisters in Christ and not put words in their mouths and thoughts in their minds that they did not express.
As Dan indicates, it is your particular theory of the natural world that they take issue with, not God's Word.
There is an element of hubris in your approach on this matter.
Not clear on why dichomy with respect to vision rests solely with the preacher. Just because an individul is designated a leader does make them leadership material or a good "mensch" leader. If the vision is great but the leadership and/or preaching is wanting, the flock may have a shepherd but not necessarily a Good Shepherd.
John Zylstra: Let's set Walhout aside since not all agree with him, just as you do not. Some of these individuals also do not agree with your theory of the natural world.
Nonetheless, you lumped them in with what you feel Walhout is arguing.
You're deliberately avoiding the point on "fallacy."
You're not engaging people in discussion but trying to beat them into submission to your "singular" notion of the natural world.
I wonder if the argumentation hasn't gone adrift somewhere in this and the related conversation thread, especialy as the author of the article is deliberatively hesitant by stating "The best option is prayerful attention, listening carefully to everything God is saying both in his original creation and in his redemptive gospel."
To argue that Walhout and Demoor need to be disciplined verges on suggesting that heresy or apostasy lies at the root of what was published.
The question as raised, steps over the line of Christian charity.
John is correct. There are ecclesiatical judicial processes in place with to deal with matters of discipline. Empirical science also has it's ground rules. God provides us with two books: scripture and creation.
At heart of this discussion thread and related ones is a difference of opinion on how to do empirical research, and that one particular position on the origin of the universe and life is core CRCNA dogma.
There is a helpful breakdown of the differnet postions in Shiao Chong's blog 3-D Christianity in two articles titled "Beyond Evolution vs. Christianity" & "Religion and Science, Faith and Reason."
I'm going step out on a limb, and say that the position being promoted by John Zylstra who raised the question on displince is position #1. Young Earth Creation or Creation Science. All others contravene scripture.
1. Young Earth Creation or Creation Science – this is the popularly understood “creation” position – it believes that the earth is only about 6,000 years old and rejects macro-evolution (evolution across species) but accepts micro-evolution (evolution within species). The Institute for Creation Research (Henry Morris and Duane Gish) and Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham) are examples of organizations that espouse this view.
2. Progressive Creation or Old Earth Creation – this position accepts the scientific consensus that the universe is 10-15 billion years old but still rejects macro-evolution. It holds that God directly intervened in the development of life in order to create the basic “kinds” or species of organisms over billions of years. An example of a progressive creationist is Hugh Ross and his Reasons to Believe.
3. Evolutionary Creation – this Christian position believes the universe is billions of years old and accepts both macro and micro evolution. It holds that God uses evolutionary processes and sustains them for his purposes. It still holds to a personal God that works in the world, accepts the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, and believes the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Lamoureux falls into this category, along with world renowned geneticist and evangelical Christian Francis Collins and the Biologos organization.
4. Deistic Evolution – this is historically known as Theistic Evolution but Lamoureux argues that its position is more akin to Deism, where God is impersonal and doesn’t enter into our time-space continuum. In this view, God designed the evolutionary clock, so to speak, wound it up and then let it run its evolutionary course without any intervention or involvement from God. Some notable advocates of this position include Charles Darwin himself, for most of his life. Near the end of his life, Darwin waffled back and forth between Deism and Agnosticism. Other famous advocates are Michael Denton and the famous ex-atheist turned deist, Anthony Flew.
5. Dysteleological Evolution or Atheistic Evolution – this is often popularly misconstrued as THE “evolution” position. Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens have championed this position as the only scientific position.
Unfortunately, John Zylstra's question raises a question whether he is attempting to discipline individuals without using due process, and secondly arguing that his position is dogma when his own position may be suspect and non-scriptural.
John Z: Your respond is more than passing strange since:
1. it is your proposal that Walhout and DeMoor ought to be disciplined;
2. you chose to be an arbiter of what ought go into homes subscribing to the Banner;
3. regardless of your argument to the contrary, the material you cite is primarily sourced from position #1 Young Earth Science or Creation Science; and
4. underlying your articulation of position #1 is that it constitutes the official position of the CRCNA whereby Walhout and DeMoor are judged to be in error and therefore need to be disciplined.
Dialogue means giving people who disgree with you the space to actually disagree with you.
The people who have disageed with you have been graceful in acknowledging the diferences and have not resorted to misinterpreting or twisting what you have said.
As I have indicated in an earlier comment it is apparent that you love your Lord and his Word, but some of your brothers and sisters have expressed in threads on this topic in the Network and Banner that you are less than charitable towards them.
There are brother's and sisters in Christ in the conversation thread "Tomrrow's Theology" who neither share your "particular take" on science and scripture.
They desire, like you, to listen carefully to everything God is saying both in his original creation and his redemptive creation.
It's one thing to have a spirited discussion, and another to declare the author and publisher to be antathema needing strong discipline in a new conversation thread "How would the go about discipling a retired pastor who suggests and promotes changing many of the core CRC doctrines?"
If Walhout is to lose his ministerial credentials and DeMoor is to fired, what is to be done to those whose opinions differ from yours in "Tomorrow's Theology?"
Where is the charity? [1 Corinthians 13] This is what makes the conversation not fruitful.
What is at issue is not John Z's freedom to open a discussion on discipline, but his attempt to silence all discussion on differing points of view other than his own - even to the point of disparging Augustine and Calvin.
Secondly, is the grounds for disciplinary action against Edwin Walhout, et al. John Z. lays out an argument and cites source material which is grounded in position #1 Young Earth Creation or Creation Science [see above] with the underlying assumption that this is the official position of the CRCNA.
This is not to say that there are not people who agree with the Creation Science within the CRC, like John Z.
Nonetheless, there is a large body of people who are both scripture believing Christians and work in the field of science, et al. who disagree with position #1.
Is possible that you are reading more into what article lays out as questions of enquiry?
For the last two hundred years sections of the church have painted themselves into a corner over what in the end is nothing more than a theory. Some christians in the 20th century, like their opponents have bought into a form of postivism, fighting over the factualism of evolution. It's no different than individuals in the field of science treating empirical data as metaphysical statements.
It's unhealthy for the body of Christ. We've lost a sense of the mystery in God's creation that He will reveal in His good time, or not.
We have one collection, a cause selected by the deacons. The collection for the budget is received either at a box at the entrance to the sanctuary, automated deposit, or in the budget envelope during the collection for the deacon selected cause.
Wendy, as read the comments I'm wondering whether the question being asked needs some clarification:
1. Do you mean by special collections.... Those collections historically identified as second collections in contrast to collections for the church budget; and
2. When individuals speak of the church budget... Are ministry shares still built into the congregational budget or have they been assigned as a special collection.
3. As a matter of personal interest... Is it still part of the liturgy to have the deacons bring these gifts forward to the Lord in the worship service in prayer?
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
John Zylstra: "Rather the entire raw theory of evolution as secularly presented in the absence of God, is being promoted and assumed..."
John Zylstra: Unfortunately John, you are the only one assuming and promoting this fallacy. I hear and understand that you love The Lord and His Word, however, it is time to show some charity towards your brothers and sisters in Christ and not put words in their mouths and thoughts in their minds that they did not express.
As Dan indicates, it is your particular theory of the natural world that they take issue with, not God's Word.
There is an element of hubris in your approach on this matter.
Posted in: Leadership or Preaching? What is more important in the CRC?
Not clear on why dichomy with respect to vision rests solely with the preacher. Just because an individul is designated a leader does make them leadership material or a good "mensch" leader. If the vision is great but the leadership and/or preaching is wanting, the flock may have a shepherd but not necessarily a Good Shepherd.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
John Zylstra: Let's set Walhout aside since not all agree with him, just as you do not. Some of these individuals also do not agree with your theory of the natural world.
Nonetheless, you lumped them in with what you feel Walhout is arguing.
You're deliberately avoiding the point on "fallacy."
You're not engaging people in discussion but trying to beat them into submission to your "singular" notion of the natural world.
Therein lies the hubris.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
I wonder if the argumentation hasn't gone adrift somewhere in this and the related conversation thread, especialy as the author of the article is deliberatively hesitant by stating "The best option is prayerful attention, listening carefully to everything God is saying both in his original creation and in his redemptive gospel."
To argue that Walhout and Demoor need to be disciplined verges on suggesting that heresy or apostasy lies at the root of what was published.
The question as raised, steps over the line of Christian charity.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Hi Adam...
John is correct. There are ecclesiatical judicial processes in place with to deal with matters of discipline. Empirical science also has it's ground rules. God provides us with two books: scripture and creation.
At heart of this discussion thread and related ones is a difference of opinion on how to do empirical research, and that one particular position on the origin of the universe and life is core CRCNA dogma.
There is a helpful breakdown of the differnet postions in Shiao Chong's blog 3-D Christianity in two articles titled "Beyond Evolution vs. Christianity" & "Religion and Science, Faith and Reason."
I'm going step out on a limb, and say that the position being promoted by John Zylstra who raised the question on displince is position #1. Young Earth Creation or Creation Science. All others contravene scripture.
1. Young Earth Creation or Creation Science – this is the popularly understood “creation” position – it believes that the earth is only about 6,000 years old and rejects macro-evolution (evolution across species) but accepts micro-evolution (evolution within species). The Institute for Creation Research (Henry Morris and Duane Gish) and Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham) are examples of organizations that espouse this view.
2. Progressive Creation or Old Earth Creation – this position accepts the scientific consensus that the universe is 10-15 billion years old but still rejects macro-evolution. It holds that God directly intervened in the development of life in order to create the basic “kinds” or species of organisms over billions of years. An example of a progressive creationist is Hugh Ross and his Reasons to Believe.
3. Evolutionary Creation – this Christian position believes the universe is billions of years old and accepts both macro and micro evolution. It holds that God uses evolutionary processes and sustains them for his purposes. It still holds to a personal God that works in the world, accepts the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, and believes the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Lamoureux falls into this category, along with world renowned geneticist and evangelical Christian Francis Collins and the Biologos organization.
4. Deistic Evolution – this is historically known as Theistic Evolution but Lamoureux argues that its position is more akin to Deism, where God is impersonal and doesn’t enter into our time-space continuum. In this view, God designed the evolutionary clock, so to speak, wound it up and then let it run its evolutionary course without any intervention or involvement from God. Some notable advocates of this position include Charles Darwin himself, for most of his life. Near the end of his life, Darwin waffled back and forth between Deism and Agnosticism. Other famous advocates are Michael Denton and the famous ex-atheist turned deist, Anthony Flew.
5. Dysteleological Evolution or Atheistic Evolution – this is often popularly misconstrued as THE “evolution” position. Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens have championed this position as the only scientific position.
Unfortunately, John Zylstra's question raises a question whether he is attempting to discipline individuals without using due process, and secondly arguing that his position is dogma when his own position may be suspect and non-scriptural.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
That would not be a fruitful exercise.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
John Z: Your respond is more than passing strange since:
1. it is your proposal that Walhout and DeMoor ought to be disciplined;
2. you chose to be an arbiter of what ought go into homes subscribing to the Banner;
3. regardless of your argument to the contrary, the material you cite is primarily sourced from position #1 Young Earth Science or Creation Science; and
4. underlying your articulation of position #1 is that it constitutes the official position of the CRCNA whereby Walhout and DeMoor are judged to be in error and therefore need to be disciplined.
Dialogue means giving people who disgree with you the space to actually disagree with you.
The people who have disageed with you have been graceful in acknowledging the diferences and have not resorted to misinterpreting or twisting what you have said.
As I have indicated in an earlier comment it is apparent that you love your Lord and his Word, but some of your brothers and sisters have expressed in threads on this topic in the Network and Banner that you are less than charitable towards them.
Yours in our Lord and Saviour
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
There are brother's and sisters in Christ in the conversation thread "Tomrrow's Theology" who neither share your "particular take" on science and scripture.
They desire, like you, to listen carefully to everything God is saying both in his original creation and his redemptive creation.
It's one thing to have a spirited discussion, and another to declare the author and publisher to be antathema needing strong discipline in a new conversation thread "How would the go about discipling a retired pastor who suggests and promotes changing many of the core CRC doctrines?"
If Walhout is to lose his ministerial credentials and DeMoor is to fired, what is to be done to those whose opinions differ from yours in "Tomorrow's Theology?"
Where is the charity? [1 Corinthians 13] This is what makes the conversation not fruitful.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Hi Philip W:
What is at issue is not John Z's freedom to open a discussion on discipline, but his attempt to silence all discussion on differing points of view other than his own - even to the point of disparging Augustine and Calvin.
Secondly, is the grounds for disciplinary action against Edwin Walhout, et al. John Z. lays out an argument and cites source material which is grounded in position #1 Young Earth Creation or Creation Science [see above] with the underlying assumption that this is the official position of the CRCNA.
This is not to say that there are not people who agree with the Creation Science within the CRC, like John Z.
Nonetheless, there is a large body of people who are both scripture believing Christians and work in the field of science, et al. who disagree with position #1.
"Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda"
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Is possible that you are reading more into what article lays out as questions of enquiry?
For the last two hundred years sections of the church have painted themselves into a corner over what in the end is nothing more than a theory. Some christians in the 20th century, like their opponents have bought into a form of postivism, fighting over the factualism of evolution. It's no different than individuals in the field of science treating empirical data as metaphysical statements.
It's unhealthy for the body of Christ. We've lost a sense of the mystery in God's creation that He will reveal in His good time, or not.
Posted in: How many churches no longer take special offerings?
We have one collection, a cause selected by the deacons. The collection for the budget is received either at a box at the entrance to the sanctuary, automated deposit, or in the budget envelope during the collection for the deacon selected cause.
Posted in: How many churches no longer take special offerings?
Wendy, as read the comments I'm wondering whether the question being asked needs some clarification:
1. Do you mean by special collections.... Those collections historically identified as second collections in contrast to collections for the church budget; and
2. When individuals speak of the church budget... Are ministry shares still built into the congregational budget or have they been assigned as a special collection.
3. As a matter of personal interest... Is it still part of the liturgy to have the deacons bring these gifts forward to the Lord in the worship service in prayer?