The Christian Worldview

Hospitality and Jesus

2012-01-06T20:37:00.000+11:00

What would you give or do to have a meal with Jesus?
What about with one of his trusted inner circle of disciples? His special chosen ones?
What about with one of his other disciples or Paul? His special chosen ones?

What would you give? Give up? or do for that?

Then Why do we find it so hard to practice hospitality to one of His Chosen in the church?
His special Chosen ones!

Culture and Christianity the debate continues

2011-12-20T22:31:00.000+11:00

Just yesterday Tim Keller wrote that the "Cultural Transformationists" and the "Two Kingdoms" adherent were getting closer in fairly representing and debating the issues than ever before, a good thing for Reformed Evangelicals. He clarifies the issues and it can be read here. As Keller describes it, Transformationists "Though different in significant ways, they all believe Christians should be about redeeming and changing the culture along Christian lines." Two Kingdom adherents "the opposite---that neither the church nor individual Christians should be in the business of changing the world or society"

Michael Horton doesn't agree totally with Keller's description of the "Two Kingdom's" view so that also needs careful persual read it here.

A must read is the article in Themelios by Dan Strange which is very thought provoking about these issues. However it is a footnote in this article by Strange that I want reflect upon in terms of considering a person's assumptions in the arguments the Culture itself presents as cogent, reasonable and "convincing".
Consider Stranges footnote #72

As Julian Rivers pointed out in 2004, ‘It may be that a culture deviates in some respect from the law of God to such an extent that some moral positions seem defensible to Scripture alone. We may rapidly be reaching that point in the Western world as regards sexual ethics’ (‘Public Reason’, Whitefield Briefing 9:1 [May 2004]: 4). One thinks here of a country like Switzerland currently discussing the decriminalization of consensual incest and the U.S. case of David Epstein, charged with having a three-year affair with his adult daughter. Epstein’s lawyer said to ABCNews, ‘Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so. At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms. It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. . . . How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not’

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/15/david-epsteins-lawyer-we-_n_797138.html).

To which I hope that we’d point out the assumption behind the thinking that ‘what is carried out in private is of no concern to anybody else’ is “that what I do in private doesn’t affect anybody else”. But this ignores how such activities affect one’s character and relationships in the public sphere. One cannot divorce their worldview that allows and condones such behavior from how they relate the rest of the time in public.

Just something to ponder.

regards,

Gary

Why Twitter is an idol

2011-11-22T16:55:00.001+11:00

Just recently I saw a great articles labeled iphone, ipad, idol - apart from being witty it was pretty much right on.
It got me thinking when on the evening news there was a piece about twitter. If you reflect upon it, twitter is all about me. People tweet their latest irrelevancy, what I am eating, what I am doing this instant, where I am going, who I am meeting, my observation of some item of culture or news or fad or point of view in less than 140 characters.

In that sense alone it is an idol because that idol is ME.

Now perhaps people are looking for intimacy, for connection on a relational level. But twitter doesn't promote it because it is a one sided conversation - it is "one hand clapping" because it doesn't allow for interaction, it doesn't allow for another person to respond. At least in a blog people can comment and you can enter into a dialogue with them.

However, there's another reason that Twitter is an idol and that is very intimately tied to the medium. It is because Twitter, being limited to 140 characters, and being used by so many people to post unconnected irrelevancies that it provides no context in which to understand the person making them. You would need a person to post minute by minute their life and You, yes You would have to read them just to get a bit of the context of their life and experiences so that you would get some meaningful context for what is being said.
In the end, who is going to read such a one sided monologue with a twit on the other end :)

Now of course you could say that you already know the person however much of the tweets people love to receive are of people that they actually don't know all that well.

So let me encourage you, sit down have a coffee and talk together. Ask them something about them, instead of focusing on hearing your own voice. You will gain so much more from being other person centred.

In Christ,
Gary

How Mark Driscoll prepares his sermons is not something a pastor would want to emulate

2011-11-16T21:29:00.001+11:00

Over at Sermon Central is the summary of Mark Drsicoll's facebook chat about Preaching and his Q & A. I hope pastors would be a little wary of trying to imitate Mark.
Mark Driscoll begins his discussion by admitting that his approach is both unorthodox and not something that others should copy. One asks then what is the benefit of talking then about his method? If it is merely to engage others and discuss helpful insights, OK, but he does spend a lot emphasizing speech and 10000 hours of preaching.

His first disclaimer is that the Bible speaks very little on preaching, however that is not helpful at all in that what it does tell us is very instructive for our preaching and is adequate to know what things are central in Preaching.

You can read volumes on Preaching and it’s basis in Scripture.

When someone says this we need to take a second look and see what Scripture says on this matter. It tells us from the OT for example that the Scribes read the Word and gave it’s sense to their hearers. Too little is said in this “discussion” regarding 1. That we are called to faithful teach the Scriptures and 2. Preachers model to the flock by their preaching how to interpret God’s Word and then apply it.

Mark talks about how his early preaching was terrible, but to say pragmatically that if you get to 10000 hours of preaching you will be quite better misses the point. It doesn’t necessarily mean you will be a better preacher, that is, one faithful to the Word, it just means you’ll be a better speaker, more comfortable with your “presentation.” But our calling is to faithfully and accurately divide the word and declare its sense so that people may apply it to their lives.

Mark has a degree in speech and there is no doubt he is a good speaker and captivating communicator but that does not mean he is necessarily a good exegete making clear the Scriptures and applying them to his hearers. I remember his sermon on worship from the book of Revelation chapter 5 where he is novel in his interpretation and not consistent with the text. Doesn’t he realize in his preaching he models for the flock his method of interpreting and applying the Scripture? This is a serious and lofty calling, to preach the Word of God.

Does that mean we always get it right? No, but because we are accountable to the Lord we deal carefully with the Word of God and secondly, being accountable to the flock including the elders we are able to be corrected and come back to the flock to say I was wrong at this point, or need clarification what I was trying to say.

And what does it say of your regard to the flock when we hear you say all my early sermons were terrible until I got my hours up? If you mean your delivery was painful, ok, but surely Mark you are not suggesting that your exposition of the text was wrong.

Be aware my friends of these things and don’t treat such comments lightly. You just cannot equate prep time with the amount of time you spend preaching it. No matter how many books you read or write. Now we may be too harsh at this point, after all he did say “for various projects ( perhaps we should understand here ‘sermon series’ ) I am reading and studying all the time” which implies sermon preparation is actually longer than the one hour or so he starts off mentioning. If this is so, then we need to understand, that this time of study is actually part of the prep time for a sermon.

I do hope at this point he also means he is considering the passage in context and doctrinally as well as considering the original languages and what they point out.

In this case preparation for most preachers just cannot be done by most people in about an hour no matter if they have a photographic memory or not.

Just a few thoughts to ponder

In Christ,

Gary

Shane Hipps don't think much about hell either

2011-11-04T18:35:00.001+11:00

I am so glad Shane Hipps is not my teaching pastor!
He is Rob Bell's replacement at Mar's Hill but his understanding on Hell shows no Biblical understanding at all.

His "argument" is predicated on truth being what someone experiences. perhaps he is a poached egg but hasn't experienced it yet.

What these guys so blatently neglect is the Authority of God's Word the Bible. They want to pick and choose what suits their Reason, but they fail to see that it is only in the Scriptures that we are told to trust that Jesus' death on the cross makes you rught with God.

Gary

Radical Guilt free Evangelism

2011-10-11T18:04:00.001+11:00

For many of us, evangelistic classes on how to evangelise fill us with guilt. We are even tempted to say
"Hey let's leave that to those gifted in evangelism". How is it possible then to have guilt free evangelism?
Simply by have a changed life, a transformed life where you are being made into the image of Christ.

The Scriptures actually teach this. All of 1 Peter talks about your identity in Christ and having different attitudes and behaviour to the world around. Being different to our culture. This is seen in the submit to those in Authority, slaves submit to your masters ( a principle applied today in our workforce ), wives submit to your husbands, husbands care and nurture your wives. Then some radical attitudes in 3:8-12. "finally all of you ( no one is left out here ) live in harmony with one another, be sympathetic, love the brethren, be humble"

And even the most famous passage of all that speaks of apologetics, giving a defense for your faith in 1 Peter 3:15f is predicated upon living a changed life so that when people ask of you Why you live this way you have an opportunity to answer them with the truth of the Gospel.

Josh McDowell understands this well. He was asked in an interview why young people still flock to hear him, and it was clear that it was because it is evident that he really cares for them.

1 Peter tells us to understand who we are in Christ and to display changed attitudes and work on our relationships within the Church. When we change people will ask us What has happened.

Now that's provoking isn't it?

God Bless
Gary

The quickening pace of the downhill slide of Wycliffe and SIL

2011-09-28T18:02:00.000+10:00

I have already made brief comment on this blog about Christ's sonship in the context of Islam, but now Wycliffe and SIL reveals a foreign worldview at work than the Scriptures in their translation of those very Scriptures.
In my mind they have been captivated by the vain philosophies of this world.
Read World Magazines fair report and a highlighting of the issues involved.
In Christ alone,
Gary

Worth a look: reflecting upon Schaeffer's impact

2011-09-19T08:00:00.001+10:00

Hi Friends,
Over at the Gospel coalition there's a thoughtful reflection upon Francis Schaeffer and his impact.
Enjoy the read.
God Bless
Gary

Dominionism, journalism and careful research

2011-09-04T21:51:00.013+10:00

There is an excellent piece in 'The New York Times' by Ross Douthat talking about an article by Ryan Lizza on Michele Bachmann's intellectual formation in the New Yorker.

Douthat correctly points out the weaknesses in the article and gives a much more balanced report on what Francis Schaeffer thought. For those interested in politics, Schaeffer's understanding in regard to Christian involvement in the world is so enlightening.

When I first read the Lizza article I was astounded he could label Schaeffer a domionist. If Schaeffer is a dominionist then every preacher who preaches on Genesis 1:26 and points out that mankind is commanded by God to have dominion over the earth would be a dominionist. However the label dominionist is a restricted theological label referring to those who say that man can work to make this world christian ready for Christ's return. And not just that but such an earthly kingdom should be governed by Old Testament law. It is a theological position best put forth by R J Rushdooney and people of his ilk like North. It seems to me that Lizza did not know the distinctions when writing his article.

Douthat rightly points out these deficiencies and in so doing gives Christians a helpful reminder of Schaeffer's worldview basis, involvement in culture and his exhortation to Christians, as well as indicating to journalists and reporters alike the importance of balanced and informed reporting.

I certainly hope more Christians will now through these articles be spurred on to reconsider Schaeffer.

God Bless,

Gary

The Gospel in Jonah and why Israel should have taken notice

2011-07-27T17:56:00.010+10:00

Many of us know the general story line of Jonah. After all it is a favorite of so many Sunday school teachers and has even made it onto the screen.

Yet how many of us have picked up on the import of the book of Jonah for the nation of Israel? We all know that Jonah was a very reluctant prophet and ran away in the opposite direction when God told him to go and deliver a message to that great wicked city of Nineveh. How many of us though have reflected on the book and noticed the really significant literary markers?

For example have you noticed that in chapter 1:1 it uses the Covenant name of God YHWH, translated Lord and it consistently uses that name for God until Jonah himself gives an account of who he is to the sailors in 1:9. Then he says "I fear the Lord, the God of Heaven." In other words, his God is both one who forms a relationship with Israel, first up through Abraham, and also the All powerful Sovereign Creator of the Universe.

In dealing with Jonah, God comes to him as the Covenant making God, the one who makes relationships with man. It is the covenant God of Israel, the Lord who made covenant promises to Abraham about his descendants being more numerous than the sands, and not just that but that their role was to be a light to the Nations. They were to "evangelise" the Nations and bring them to God. Over and over the nation Israel failed in this duty given them by God. They neglected it and as Jonah symbolises, sometimes they went to extreme lengths not to give that light to the nations of the world.

And where in the Scriptures that the Lord God gave to his people Israel do we first read of the two names of God as Elohim ( transl God ) and YHWH ( translated Lord )? It is in Genesis 1&2. Not two creation stories as such but an account of Creation by the All powerful Sovereign Creator, in Genesis 1 and then in Genesis 2 we see He is the one who makes a covenant relationship with mankind, first up in Adam and Eve.

How does this use of the name of God play out in the rest of chapter 1 and chapter 2?

The sailors could not throw Jonah into the sea to his death as they did not want to be culpable before God for that. so they tried to row to shore but couldn't. And importantly it is said of them that they called upon the Lord. And after Jonah was tossed into the sea, they offered sacrifice to the Lord and made vows.
Miraculously we read that the Lord provided a great fish so that Jonah would indeed not die, and the sailors would not then have been culpable of his death.

What we have seen is that even in Jonah's running away, gentiles, the sailors come to know the Lord God and sacrifice and make vows to Him. Exactly the duty of Israel and the Jews as we read about in Genesis 12.

We need in our study of God's Word that He is very precise in the words that He wants His prophets to write down for our benefit. And secondly we need to see thematic markers that link back to earlier doctrinal truths such as Israel's duty to being a light to the Nations as expressed in Genesis 12. This will bring God's Word to bear much more on our lives as they are illuminated by the Scriptures themselves.

Next I will look at Jonah 3. You might like to consider it with the above in mind.

God Bless.
Gary

Romans 8 and When will the Creation be released from bondage

2011-07-21T20:10:00.013+10:00

In a few fascinating verses in Romans 8 we read about the Creation. Is it not the physical earth that was subjected to a curse due to Adam and Eve's sin in Genesis 3? And yet here in 8:21 that "the Creation itself "(emphatic ) "will be" not maybe, or symbolically, "delivered" ( just as we await the certainty of a resurrected physical body ) "from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God"

This is mind boggling. We know from context that the children of God are those who call out to God "abba Father" 8:15. It is all those who are heirs with Christ, who have received adoption. It is hard not to make it any clearer, Paul says in 8:17 "if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together."

And in all this God has subjected the Creation in hope!

And in verse 21 Paul links the Creation's release from bondage with the presence of the children of God, their glorious liberty or release.

So the question that arises for me is "when shall this occur?"

Certainly we do not yet see the Creation released from bondage. It is indeed groaning as he says in verse 22. and then he goes on to speak of the first fruits of the Spirit. An investigation of this use of "first fruits" could indeed bring forth fruit! Paul has used the term in 1 Cor 15 to draw a very apt implication about Christ's resurrection body and our physical resurrected body as guaranteed by His resurrection. For in the Old Testament the first fruits were the first ripe sheaf of the harvest that belonged to God and were to be offered to Him before the rest of the Harvest could be used. Lev 23. And furthermore it was offered the first day after the Sabbath during Passover, which we know was the very day Christ rose from the dead. So is Paul suggesting something along similar lines here in Romans 8? Here in the Spirit we have downpayment, one who helps us while we are yet still awaiting redemption of our body, who helps us in prayer and himself makes intercession regarding the content of what we pray.

Now some may argue that this deliverance from Bondage of the Creation that Paul is referring to is when God creates a new heavens and a new earth. That could be so, but it requires quite a bit of solid argument. When Paul compares the bondage of the earth, he says it "was subjected" and then clearly says that God himself is the one who will release it from bondage. That nature won't restore itself but it is God who will restore it, the very same one 'who long ago subjected it to corruption and futility' as MacArthur says.

This suggests to me it is not speaking here of the new heaven and new earth , though admittedly that whole topic needs fleshing out, still I take it the restoration is of the present creation, not the making of a new one.

And in that case I ask, when will this release from Bondage happen? Will it be on Christ's return as Judge of Heaven and Earth, and as Amillennialists suggest in the quick few seconds or hours that occur before all is wrapped up?

Is it not intriguing that the chapters that many Amillennialists struggle with, namely Romans 9-11 come immediately after this passage? The continuity of thought from Romans 8 on should provoke us to investigate more carefully what is being said in Romans 8 and how that relates to Romans 9-11.

As for me, it seems thoroughly consistent with a 1000 year millennium where Christ as the second Adam reigns as King, fulfilling those great offices of Prophet, Priest and King. A King who fulfills perfectly the role of Adam to be viceregent over all the earth, which Adam gave up in the calamity of Genesis 3.

The peace of a restored Creation are perfectly pictured in Isaiah's picture of the wolf and the lamb lying down together, at peace with one another. Isaiah 11:6

In Christ,
Gary

The Queensland false Messiah - AJ as Jesus

2011-05-18T08:03:00.006+10:00

Our news has recently been awash with reports on the new reincarnation of Jesus in the person of Alan John Miller 47 in Kingaroy Queensland.
Not only does Alan Miller claim to be a reincarnation of Jesus the Christ, but also his "wife" Mary Suzanne Luck is a reincarnation of Mary Magdalen. So just as Luck would have it, they meet in a town in Queensland, Australia out of the 6 billion people on this planet. Coincidence? Well highly improbable but it's not on those grounds we dismiss him as a cult leader and deceived.

My daughter, just 13 years old observed, well that's easy to show as false - all you need to do is look for the holes in his hands and feet and in his side. But as I explained to her, although she is going down the right track, it would be dismissed by Alan and Mary because they are claiming to be reincarnations of Jesus and Mary.
Yet we as Christians can on at least two grounds dismiss this claim.
First it contradicts the Bible directly, and the Bible is the Word of God which Jesus himself gave full authority to. After all, his answer to the temptations from satan were "It is Written". In Hebrews 9:27 it says man is destined to live once, and after that face the judgment. This life is all one has. Reincarnation is a false teaching.
But secondly, Jesus with holes in his hands and side and feet as seen by the disciples after his death and resurrection, ascended to the right hand of God where he awaits the time the Father has determined to return in the second coming. He did not die to be reincarnated as someone else. He is at the right hand of the father - living! He with his resurrected body which reveal the scars of the cross will return in that same resurrected body at His glorious appearing.
So on two grounds this fellow Alan is mightily deceived and leading others astray in demonic deception.

We do well to know why this is deception and a cult, and be able to answer enquiries from unbelievers. And then to pray for these people to be convicted by God's Holy Spirit and find Christ, and in him eternal life, and life to the full.

In Christ,
Gary

Being on time - An African addresses this issue for us - will we listen?

2011-05-14T18:39:00.004+10:00

I have observed that in our Australian culture it is becoming more evident that Christians don't worry at all about being late for anything.
And when it comes to Church, well it seems we ought to be grateful that they at least turned up!
Leaving aside the doctrine of Church, I recently had a discussion, very short mind you, with a friend about African time. And how many Africans they know are never on time for anything and their comments were that it was "a cultural thing". I observed that perhaps as Christians this was something that needed to be changed, and now it seems that we in Australia are also in need of that change.
I came across this blog by Pastor Conrad Mbewe where he addresses 'Africa time'. Have a read and see if you are not challenged by what he has to say.

your sometimes late, brother in Christ,
Gary

Osama Bin Laden a Narcissist

2011-05-11T08:00:00.005+10:00

So much care needs to be taken when surfing the blogosphere. It is so easy to read a quote about something someone else has written out of context isn't it?
Take this quote for example,

Most of us, thank God, will never approach the wickedness he unleashed on the world. But all of us will wrestle with the same root pathology. That’s because, left to ourselves, we all share the same religion as Osama Bin Laden. It isn’t Islam; it’s self-worship.

When one reads that by itself, you might be tempted to say, hey yeh sure, but we cannot ignore that there was more to Bin Laden than self-worship. He was we must admit deceived, there was demonic deception involved in his adherence to Islam.

Yet in his intriguing blog on 'Osama bin Laden and the Terror of Narcissism' Russell D Moore astutely draws our attention to one pathology we all share with Osama. Indeed it is self-worship.
In a time when it's easy to delight in the death of a wicked man, that earthly justice has been carried out, we are aptly reminded of our own sinfulness out of which we have been redeemed and that the Gospel is there for each and every person, like Osama, like me, like you, to hear, if we will but proclaim it.

In Christ,
Gary

God's Word is not open to changing by leaving out Son of God

2011-04-30T10:04:00.011+10:00

If you read Christianity Today back on Feb 2011 you would have noticed an article called The Son and the Crescent. It dealt with a new translation that would make it easier to reach Muslims with the gospel since they have an aversion to understanding Jesus as the Son of God. The major reason Muslims find it offensive the article claimed is that it suggested that God had sexual relations with Mary. To say that in Arabic the word ibn "son of", carries biological connotations is really just to point out the inadequacies and frustrations from limitations in translating to other languages, which in the end need to be corrected in teaching what that particular phrase means. We do the same with the English translations using the word love from the Greek which can mean agape, phileo, eros and storge.

Furthermore, this is a poor reason I believe to change Son of God to "the beloved Son who comes ( originates ) from God." It creates more problems in regard to truth than it solves in regard to correcting an error of perception by some Muslims.

We could ask what is meant biblically by originates, as in one sense all Creation originates from God as He made it. As to the lesser word "comes", well Angels also come from God, in that they are sent.

Worse in my mind is that the originators of this bible are in fact adding to by subtracting from God's Word. It is not merely a translation issue as replacing the English word charity with the English word love as being more accurate, as some would want to claim. This is to translate a phrase "Son of God" as something else. It it to replace a Title with a description of an event! and that changes meaning.

It effects our whole doctrinal, that is biblical teaching about the Christ. Apart from it's subtle impact on the doctrine of Trinity, it implodes real sonship. Jesus alone, as the early church recognised is truly Son of God, we can only call God Father in that we are adopted through Christ! And that is why giving the sense of Scripture is a required job of the preacher.

And this understanding of the sonship of Jesus the Christ, is no where made more explicit than in Gal 4:4, but then you must read the whole of it's context there to feel its force. Whereas no one elses sonship could achieve anything, it was the Son of God who alone wrought redemption. In the end, that fact is offensive to Muslims just as it is offensive to unbelievers in general who are in rebellion against the Lord God. That reality is offensive to any religious person because they are in need of redemption and it cannot be a work of themselves for they are dead in their sin!

Many years ago I had a friend who was a convert from Islam to Christianity and who "evangelised" in a Muslim country where his life was on the line continually. But the religious and political leaders often would invite him to explain this Christianity to them. He never once watered down what Scripture taught and his hearers were able to discern the sense in which Scripture laid out Truth, and they didn't refuse to countenance what was said because of their preconceptions. Some of them were even converted by the Spirit of God.

Lastly, we must ask a serious question, quite apart from adding to or subtracting from the Word of God which is serious enough by itself, and that question is will we then water down for all to whom the word of God is offensive? Will we suddenly say leave out the bit about gluttons and adulterers and homosexuals not entering the Kingdom of God?

Friends, Wake up. It is God who transforms people and brings them into His Kingdom. It is the Word of God which is a powerful sword. It is not our wise words or worldly wisdom but God alone who must be set apart as Lord in all our endeavours.

In Christ,
Gary

For whom the Bell Tolls - the reality of shipwrecking the Faith

2011-04-10T15:02:00.005+10:00

Here's a laughable parody of Rob Bell's new book 'Love wins'.

Robbed Hell - C.A.S.T. Pearls Presents from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

Most sad is the heresy of Rob Bell and his real failure to understand God's word. It is clear evidence of a shipwrecked faith.

Pray.

in Christ,
Gary

The Eureka Covenant

2011-03-18T18:37:00.004+11:00

For all Australian Residents only,
Let's all try and make our elected representatives in Parliment take notice of what they ought to be doing.
Join the Facebook Cause 'The Eureka Covenant', use the following listing of State emails and paste into the TO field of your emails.

Then copy the Facebook Causes 'The Eureka Covenant' intro and positions into the body of the email.

NSW State Parliment:

heffron@parliament.nsw.gov.au
john.aquilina@parliament.nsw.gov.au
alan.ashton@parliament.nsw.gov.au
linda.burney@parliament.nsw.gov.au
barry.collier@parliament.nsw.gov.au
peter.debnam@parliament.nsw.gov.au
robert.furolo@parliament.nsw.gov.au
paul.gibson@parliament.nsw.gov.au
kevin.greene@parliament.nsw.gov.au
brad.hazzard@parliament.nsw.gov.au
heffron@parliament.nsw.gov.au
gerard.martin@parliament.nsw.gov.au
tony.stewart@parliament.nsw.gov.au
john.ajaka@parliament.nsw.gov.au
robert.borsak@parliament.nsw.gov.au
robert.brown@parliament.nsw.gov.au
tony.catanzariti@parliament.nsw.gov.au
david.clarke@parliament.nsw.gov.au
ian.cohen@parliament.nsw.gov.au
rick.colless@parliament.nsw.gov.au
sophie.cotsis@parliament.nsw.gov.au
catherine.cusack@parliament.nsw.gov.au
greg.donnelly@parliament.nsw.gov.au
cate.faehrmann@parliament.nsw.gov.au
amanda.fazio@parliament.nsw.gov.au
marie.ficarra@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Luke.Foley@parliament.nsw.gov.au
michael.gallacher@parliament.nsw.gov.au
jenny.gardiner@parliament.nsw.gov.au
duncan.gay@parliament.nsw.gov.au
kayee.griffin@parliament.nsw.gov.au
don.harwin@parliament.nsw.gov.au
office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au
john.kaye@parliament.nsw.gov.au
trevor.khan@parliament.nsw.gov.au
charlie.lynn@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Matthew.Mason-Cox@parliament.nsw.gov.au
shaoquett.moselmane@parliament.nsw.gov.au
gordon.moyes@parliament.nsw.gov.au
F.Nile@parliament.nsw.gov.au
edward.obeid@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Robyn.Parker@parliament.nsw.gov.au
melinda.pavey@parliament.nsw.gov.au
greg.pearce@parliament.nsw.gov.au
peter.primrose@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Christine.Robertson@parliament.nsw.gov.au
enquiries@treasurer.nsw.gov.au
Penny.Sharpe@parliament.nsw.gov.au
david.shoebridge@parliament.nsw.gov.au
mick.veitch@parliament.nsw.gov.au
lynda.voltz@parliament.nsw.gov.au
helen.westwood@parliament.nsw.gov.au
ian.west@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Australian Federal Politicians

philip.ruddock.MP@aph.gov.au
mparke.mp@aph.gov.au
higgins@aph.gov.au
Yvette.D'Ath.MP@aph.gov.au
Wayne.Swan.MP@aph.gov.au
Warren.Snowdon.MP@aph.gov.au
W.Tuckey.MP@aph.gov.au
W.Truss.MP@aph.gov.au
Tony.Zappia.MP@aph.gov.au
Tony.Windsor.MP@aph.gov.au
Tony.Smith.MP@aph.gov.au
Tony.Burke.MP@aph.gov.au
Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
Tanya.Plibersek.MP@aph.gov.au
Sussan.Ley.MP@aph.gov.au
Stuart.Robert.MP@aph.gov.au
Steven.Ciobo.MP@aph.gov.au
Steve.Irons.MP@aph.gov.au
Steve.Gibbons.MP@aph.gov.au
Steve.Georganas.MP@aph.gov.au
Stephen.Smith.MP@aph.gov.au
Sophie.Mirabella.MP@aph.gov.au
Sid.Sidebottom.MP@aph.gov.au
Shayne.Neumann.MP@aph.gov.au
Sharryn.Jackson.MP@aph.gov.au
Sharon.Grierson.MP@aph.gov.au
Sharon.Bird.MP@aph.gov.au
Scott.Morrison.MP@aph.gov.au
S.Stone.MP@aph.gov.au
S.Crean.MP@aph.gov.au
Russell.Broadbent.MP@aph.gov.au
Rowan.Ramsey.MP@aph.gov.au
Rogerpricemp@aph.gov.au
Richard.Marles.MP@aph.gov.au
R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au
Peter.Slipper.MP@aph.gov.au
Peter.Lindsay.MP@aph.gov.au
Peter.Garrett.MP@aph.gov.au
Peter.Dutton.MP@aph.gov.au
Pat.Farmer.MP@aph.gov.au
P.Secker@aph.gov.au
P.Neville.MP@aph.gov.au
P.Georgiou.MP@aph.gov.au
Nola.Marino.MP@aph.gov.au
Nicola.Roxon.MP@aph.gov.au
Nick.Champion.MP@aph.gov.au
Mike.Symon.MP@aph.gov.au
Mike.Kelly.MP@aph.gov.au
Michael.Keenan.MP@aph.gov.au
Michael.Johnson.MP@aph.gov.au
Michael.Danby.MP@aph.gov.au
Maxine.McKew.MP@aph.gov.au
Martin.Ferguson.MP@aph.gov.au
Mark.Dreyfus.MP@aph.gov.au
Mark.Coulton.MP@aph.gov.au
Mark.Butler.MP@aph.gov.au
Maria.Vamvakinou.MP@aph.gov.au
Margaret.May.MP@aph.gov.au
Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au
Mal.Washer.MP@aph.gov.au
Luke.Simpkins.MP@aph.gov.au
Luke.Hartsuyker.MP@aph.gov.au
Louise.Markus.MP@aph.gov.au
Lindsay.Tanner.MP@aph.gov.au
Laurie.Ferguson.MP@aph.gov.au
Kirsten.Livermore.MP@aph.gov.au
Kevin.Andrews.MP@aph.gov.au
Kelvin.Thomson.MP@aph.gov.au
Kay.Hull.MP@aph.gov.au
Kate.Ellis.MP@aph.gov.au
Justine.Elliot.MP@aph.gov.au
Julie.Owens.MP@aph.gov.au
Julie.Collins.MP@aph.gov.au
Julie.Bishop.MP@aph.gov.au
Julia.Irwin.MP@aph.gov.au
Julia.Gillard.MP@aph.gov.au
Jon.Sullivan.MP@aph.gov.au
John.Murphy.MP@aph.gov.au
John.Cobb.MP@aph.gov.au
Jodie.Campbell.MP@aph.gov.au
Joanna.Gash.MP@aph.gov.au
Jim.Turnour.MP@aph.gov.au
Jill.Hall.MP@aph.gov.au
Jennie.George.MP@aph.gov.au
Jason.Wood.MP@aph.gov.au
Jason.Clare.MP@aph.gov.au
Janelle.Saffin.MP@aph.gov.au
James.Bidgood.MP@aph.gov.au
JMacklin.MP@aph.gov.au
J.Moylan.MP@aph.gov.au
J.Hockey.MP@aph.gov.au
J.Forrest.MP@aph.gov.au
J.Fitzgibbon.MP@aph.gov.au
Ian.Macfarlane.MP@aph.gov.au
Harry.Jenkins.MP@aph.gov.au
Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au
Greg.Combet.MP@aph.gov.au
Graham.Perrett.MP@aph.gov.au
Gary.Gray.MP@aph.gov.au
Fran.Bailey.MP@aph.gov.au
Duncan.Kerr.MP@aph.gov.au
Don.Randall.MP@aph.gov.au
Dennis.Jensen.MP@aph.gov.au
David.Hawker.MP@aph.gov.au
David.Bradbury.MP@aph.gov.au
Darren.Chester.MP@aph.gov.au
Darren.Cheeseman.MP@aph.gov.au
Danna.Vale.MP@aph.gov.au
Damian.Hale.MP@aph.gov.au
D.Melham.MP@aph.gov.au
D.Adams.MP@aph.gov.au
Craig.Thomson.MP@aph.gov.au
Craig.Emerson.MP@aph.gov.au
Chris.Trevor.MP@aph.gov.au
Chris.Pearce.MP@aph.gov.au
Chris.Hayes.MP@aph.gov.au
Chris.Bowen.MP@aph.gov.au
Catherine.King.MP@aph.gov.au
C.Pyne.MP@aph.gov.au
Bruce.Scott.MP@aph.gov.au
Bronwyn.Bishop.MP@aph.gov.au
Brett.Raguse.MP@aph.gov.au
Brendan.O'Connor.MP@aph.gov.au
Bonner.eo@aph.gov.au
Bob.McMullan.MP@aph.gov.au
Bob.Katter.MP@aph.gov.au
Bob.Debus.MP@aph.gov.au
Bob.Baldwin.MP@aph.gov.au
Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Bernie.Ripoll.MP@aph.gov.au
Belinda.Neal.MP@aph.gov.au
Barry.Haase.MP@aph.gov.au
B.Nelson.MP@aph.gov.au
B.Billson.MP@aph.gov.au
Arch.Bevis.MP@aph.gov.au
Anthony.Byrne.MP@aph.gov.au
Annette.Ellis.MP@aph.gov.au
Anna.Burke.MP@aph.gov.au
Andrew.Southcott.MP@aph.gov.au
Andrew.Robb.MP@aph.gov.au
Andrew.Laming.MP@aph.gov.au
Amanda.Rishworth.MP@aph.gov.au
Alex.Somlyay.MP@aph.gov.au
Alex.Hawke.MP@aph.gov.au

The Meaning of Life Video

2011-03-17T13:01:00.000+11:00

Check out Randall Niles The Meaning of Life Video found at all aboutworldview.org

Amusing ourselves to death

2011-03-17T07:12:00.005+11:00

John Stonestreet of summit.org makes an astute comment

We live in an age of entertainment so that people think Christianity is about Christian entertainment.

Ponder that and you will reaslise why so many who role up at Church seek not to be fed by the Word of God, not to have their thinking extended so that their actions may follow right thinking but rather to be entertained.

In Christ,
Gary

The New Tolerance is so intolerant

2010-12-16T19:32:00.022+11:00

Josh McDowel points out in his book 'The New Tolerance' written back 1998 that "the new tolerance goes far beyond the traditional definition of the word." Websters dictionary defined tolerance as "to recognise and respect [ others' beliefs, practices etc ] without sharing them," and to bear or put up with [ someone or something not especially liked]. pg16.

The New Tolerance "is that every individuals beliefs, values, lifestyle, and perception of truth claims are equal .. There is no hierarchy of truth. Your beliefs and my beliefs are equal, and all truth is relative." pg 19.

What has happened is that all values and beliefs have been elevated to a position worthy of equal respect."

Now let's ponder on this for a moment? Is the fellow who advocates paedophilia [ eg the organisation of Nambla promotes this ] one we would suggest is worthy of holding a position we should respect? What about advocates of bestiality? There was a movie about this number of years ago, where a woman engaged to be married had sex with her dog, and finally informs her fiancee of this. The man breaks off the engagement. One reviewer of the movie was condemnatory of the fact the fellow broke off the engagement rather than the fact she had committed bestiality!

How far and wide has this notion of new tolerance drifted in our Western culture? And why has it been so uncritically accepted? Consider this - what is the worldview of this ethical system that elevates this notion of equality of all beliefs as demanding of respect and worthiness?

Just last year, Time Magazine September 20, 2010 in their Inbox section had two writers mentioning tolerance when speaking about the previous editions 'Is America Islamophobic? The first mentioned 'But tolerance is what religions have preached for years, Islam included. Again are we ready to persecute the majority for the behaviour of the few.'

This confuses speaking out against the teachings of Islam which justify terrorist activity as being a persecution of all Muslims. And that is a big logical leap. No one consider it seems that a motive for speaking out is from love for the Muslim that is living according to an erroneous worldview and in rebellion against the living God.

The other wrote 'however the article failed to highlight the contrast between the attitudes prevalent in the U.S and the tolerance enshrined within the Constitution and Bill of rights.'

What he was suggesting is that there was inconsistency with the tolerance put forth by the bill of Rights, but then we need to ask, what kind of tolerance is enshrined there? We would not be surprised if the modus operandi of such comments were really prefaced on a 'New tolerance' as defined above would we?

These are just two of many media statements you are likely to hear commonly raised which refer to the need for "tolerance".

So how will a Christian respond in such a situation?

In regard to such statements we must ask whether tolerance is the loving thing to do. ( something Josh McDowell has pointed out a number of times ).

Consider this. Have all religions preached tolerance in the sense of it's new definition? Just take Christianity and Islam as an example. Are all their beliefs equal? What does that mean? For starters, Christianity claims Christ to be God, not a mere prophet as Islam believes ( of lesser status even than Mohammad in Islam ), and Christianity claims that Jesus is the only way back into right relationship with God the Father. Which Islam out rightly rejects. Right there we have a contradiction in beliefs, they are contrary to each other. That Jesus is the only way to God is either true or false. If you want to rejoin that there's no hierarchy of truth, indeed that all truth is relative then a consequence of that is that anything goes. And beliefs lead to actions, whether they be terrorism, or adultery or Bestiality etc but if all Truth is relative then who are you to object to what anyone else does.

I want you to feel the implication of that worldview. You have no right to protest injustice or unkindness or bullying or whatever. Living that way and you will soon be as mad and in despair as Nietzsche, or the Marquis de Sade.

I won't even bother to follow up the nonsense of the relativist view in that I find it truly self defeating. Just ask, what is the truth status of the claim that 'all truth is relative.'? Let's just for the moment let Alice chase that rabbit down the rabbit hole into wonderland and stick with how can I treat my neighbor fairly and how can he treat me likewise? Where is Tolerance really going to meeting the demands of doing the loving thing?

And that brings us to another aspect of this new tolerance. It is that it is firmly rooted in the worldview of postmodernism. Where there is no metanarrative, no such thing as The Truth, only instead a multiplicity of narratives, ( or if you prefer, multiplicity of worldviews ). However, as I pointed out years ago and has been aptly argued by William C. Craig, so called postmodernism is nonsense, it is only modernism with a fresh coat of paint and is in practice only raised in relation to ethics and religion!

What we can conclude is that the New Tolerance is no tolerance at all!

In Christ
Gary

Body Life in the Church - 1 Corinthians

2010-10-20T17:38:00.002+11:00

It was a really challenging sermon on Sunday Night,thanks to Norm, and it got me thinking. How many of us are just playing at being a Christian? We can see it in how we think of Church, our understanding of our place in the body because of Christ.
The Corinthians were playing at church weren't they? They were only interested in themselves - their special group, of Apolos, or Cephas, or Christ 1:12. Their Jesus was one they thought up in their own imaginations, one they were comfortable with, who let them focus in on themselves and do what they pleased. That was seen in their understanding of gifts. they were for them weren't they? for their benenefit, so they could be seen by others as spiritual. WRONG. Those gifts were given by the Spirit to them not for their benefit but for the body. For the common good.
Get over it you lot, me included - it is not all about you! And we see none better exemplified when they came together for the Lord's Supper. Well some at least got there and had a feast as for the others nothing was left for those that arrived late because they weren't wealthy enough to have a short work day!
Let's not be Corinthians! Let us all see what it means to be part of the body. When you aren't there on a sunday or at your home group, then the body is deformed! Don't settle for that garbage about "Well it's just me that is missing out". That is a total denial of the word of God in chapter 12. If someone walked in and they were missing their nose and their ears and one of their feet we'd quickly say - What happened to you? How did you get so messed up? And yet that is what is happening far too often in our local churches across our land. The body is meeting together and it's disfigured all because YOU ARE MISSING!

Come on friends, let's get this into perspective. If Christ is your Head, then make sure you are attached to the Body.

Science and Faith: How the new Atheists get it wrong

2010-09-19T14:50:00.009+10:00

It is quite common today to hear atheists saying that Science gives us all the explanations, all the answers we need in life. Indeed they quite often say that Science and Religion are separate concerns and must be kept separate. But this is just a naive bias that they have towards "Religion" and in particular Christian theism.
What they don't understand is the connectedness of Biblical theism with Science and the foundation that Biblical theism gives to Science, indeed how the Christian faith provides justification for the basic presuppositions of Science that Science itself cannot provide.
Donald M MacKay many yeas ago wrote about all this in a very thoughtful and clear way. He pointed out a long time ago that Science and Faith are connected as a root and it's fruit are!
Further he showed just how reasonable the Christian Faith is to the endeavour of Science. He also spoke of how reasonable the Christian Faith is. He said "I doubt very much whether any argument can do more than prove the Christian position to be not unreasonable."
Is this not what Alvin Plantinga has done in the last century of philosophical endeavour?
MacKay further wrote the following: "let us suppose we are meeting a human friend. 'A mass of pink protoplasm rises to a height of five feet and begins to pucker and wobbler up and down noisily. - but of course, that's the wrong language. I should say "He rises to his feet wreathed in smiles and greets us heartily.' Why should I? because we came to meet as persons, not as a thing."
So it is with meeting Jesus, God in the flesh.

Peace
Gary

The nonsense of Rhonda Byrne's The Power

2010-09-16T17:20:00.006+10:00

Rhonda Byrne is at it again - making a fortune off the gullible and those wanting what they don't have in life. Her book 'The Power' is a sequel to 'The Secret' and contains just more of the same nonsense.
In it as Tim Challies says on his blog she effectively says

Want it, love it, get it. It couldn't’t be easier. And she provides lots of stories and not a shred of evidence) to prove her case.

Check out his blog for a full critique.
Again Tim points out:

Not surprisingly, Byrne spends a good bit of the book discussing the three things people want most: money, love and health. In every case, you can have it all as long as you believe it and love it enough.

And isn't this the opposite of the Gospel. We don't love self by focusing upon these things, rather we love Jesus the Christ and seek first His Kingdom as the number one priority and focus in our lives. What a remarkable contrast? And what a tragedy if Christians don't realise this.

God Bless
Gary

Wacky stuff - wanting to burn the Koran

2010-09-11T09:54:00.005+10:00

The Pentecostal minister Terry Jones of Gainsville perhaps could understand better the power of the Gospel, via the Word of God which is the Sword of the Spirit to combat the forces of darkness, however it seemed telling that the vision we see of Hilarly Clinton denouncing the coming bonfire was that she was standing in front of a sign saying "Council of Foreign Relations'. How subliminal was that!

We in Australia however need to understand, but not condone the emotions of Americans in regard to Muslims and 9/11.

And further, understand how tragic is the failure of the media to deal critically with Islam. Many are just intent on dealing superficially with the teachings of Islam, and more pointedly the Koran. They have not ever tried to understand Islamic hermeneutics when it comes to the Koran where the later verses in the Koran override the earlier, which negates all the quotes about the tolerance and the peacefulness of Islam. What this tells us is that just like there are professing Christians who never read the bible or do so superficially ( let alone obey the Lord God ), likewise there are Muslims who do exactly the same.

If we are going to impact the world with the gospel message we do well to take these things into account and recognise that while there are indeed lovely caring Muslims all around us, still Islam is false.

Something to ponder.
Gary

Mark 4v35f Sermon

2010-08-16T18:22:00.003+10:00

Mark 4 v35-.
IT MATTERS WHOM YOU'RE IN THE BOAT WITH.

By Gary Wearne

Outline:

illustration. A few years back I went fishing with a good friend Larry and his 9 year old daughter in his runabout on Jervis bay.

Started off a really pleasant and calm day and after 35 minutes had a good spot on the bay and were enjoying the fishing. After a couple of hours, a warm breeze from the West sprang up and as it was unusual I suggested to Larry maybe we better head in. Well in the time it took to pull up our lines and get started the breeze had turned cold and was quite forceful, causing very choppy conditions.

Heading back to shore took twice as long as it did to get out and I began to be concerned that if the engine conked out we'd be swept out through the heads into the pacific ocean! That's how difficult our headway was into the wind and the waves. I began to be worried for larry's daughter if we should capsize or be driven out through the heads.

At times on that trip in I was a bit fearful and no one else on board spoke a word!

In our passage this morning we get a similar report from Mark in chapter 4 of his gospel. So what's going on here?

Most of you know the story reasonably well.

How it had been a long day for Jesus,
he's been teaching and the kingdom, he'd been revealing to his disciples the mysteries of the Kingdom ... expand on this...

and now he's going to teach them more about himself.
That's the context,

Now ask yourself - What does it mean when Jesus says something?

What do you think it means

Is it merely a hope,
wishful thinking?

a desire he has ?

Is it along the lines of comments we make such as "I'd like to be over there in .."

Well Mark 4:35-41 addresses really well Who Jesus is! It challenged the disciples and it will challenge us to rethink, or think once more about Who Jesus is.

His will matches His intent.
What He says goes!
What He says will happen!

So in verse 35 Jesus tells his disciples
Not "let's just head out of here"

But "let us go over to the other side"
Let us ! take great notice of that - "let us" - he says we are going over to the other side. He didn't say, I've some good news and some bad news, good news, we're taking a boat trip over to the other side of the lake, bad news, some of you aren't going to make it!

And as they were going across the lake, Jesus fell asleep, exhausted after the long day of ministry.

And a great storm suddenly arose.
And such a bad storm that they fear they will perish,
they fear for their lives,
these hardened fishermen!
they know a bad storm when they see one, and they are afraid. verse 38.

But Jesus had said "let us .." go to the other side.
Not "well some of us will get there.."

When we begin to get a grasp on what's going on here we better understand their statement in verse 41 "Who can this be?"

After all that they have seen Jesus do, still they weren't in tune with Who He was!

Their concept of the Messiah was still mixed up notions of current Jewish expectations of the Jews in Bondage to a Gentile power.

Notice how the storm stopped immediately at His command, even the water became calm, here indeed was a true miracle.

It wasn't as though Jesus saw over the squall that there was a blue patch of sky coming,
or that he could sense the change in temperature of the wind or whatever,

When a storm dies down as it can,
the swell does not immediately stop. Yet at Jesus' command it did.

Jesus has control over nature itself.

Now this should, as it did speak heaps to the disciples, they knew that only God has control over the winds and the waves. They would have known Psalm 89:8-9 ... turn with me to that psalm. READ it.

See how it talks of O Lord God of Hosts. .. Who is like thee? Who indeed.

Given that Psalm, the disciples have a dilemma about Who Jesus is don't they? No one else is like God,
Yet here is one, they are willing to call the Messiah who does what God alone can do!

hmmm

How does all this apply to us?

The disciples asked the question, the right question. Who is this man?

Their knowledge of Him grew.
All things we are told have their Amen in Him - He upholds all things. Col 1:16.

So what of the trials of your life?
Cancer? Alchzeimers disease, or illness of a loved spouse? things way outside of our control! outside of our expertise.

Maybe like some of the disciples who were fishermen, they knew trouble when they saw it? The problem is they hadn't really come to grips with Who Jesus was and What His Word counts for!

Do you run after man made solutions so that time wise the seeking of solutions controls your life? It consumes your life?

Honor God in your Trial!

Don't be fearful. verse 40.
Sure it's good to have a right perspective but not to have overwhelming fear.

illustration: It's a bit like getting up on the roof of your house. It's smart to have enough "fear" to be cautious if your know what I mean - you don't get up there and do a song and dance, you are careful. But it's not to be so controlled by fear that you get up there and can't move so bad you have to be rescued by the fire Brigade. That's overwhelming fear.

Second - what is faith?
Jesus asked His disciples, verse 40. Have you no faith. Here he contrasts faith and fear. In verse 40 the word for fear is deiloi ... means ...cowardice, timidity, fearfulness. It is a word which is always used in a negative sense. This is fear that should not be. And in contrast to this type of fear, Jesus speaks of faith.

What is faith? It's trusting relying upon someone or something. It's a verb it always has an object. Some mistakenly talk of faith in the sense that it doesn't have an object and when they do that they mistakenly think in terms of not having enough faith for so and so, to do such and such. to get better as some charismatics say...

Who are you trusting in?

Yourself?
Riches,
Ability,
Career,
Competence.

Good looks.
or the Creator of all things - Jesus

And it's when we understand Who Jesus is that a proper fear arises - the word for fear used in vs41 is phobon. and can have the positive sense of reverence. look at how it's used in Acts 9:31 and Romans 3:18.
Fear / reverence for the eternal one, not being consumed by some temporal trial.
Do you think that the storm and the very true reality in their minds of the possibility of death caused them fear? Well in verse 41 we are told that they feared exceedingly. "They feared a great fear".

They were growing in their apprehension and comprehension of Jesus the Christ.

They had much to learn, as no doubt each of us has much to learn about our Lord.

Not thinking here of academic knowledge, but of knowledge that's personal, intimate. and joyous!

Lastly, God cares !

Do you need to be told that? Do you need to be reminded?
He Cares
Matt 6.... illustration
He wants them to trust Him. He wants you to Trust Him.

The Sin Delusion – Why do Atheists just not get it?

2010-08-07T22:36:00.012+10:00

Why do Atheists just not consider the wretchedness of man due to his sinfulness?
Some helpful comments by Clay Jones who is an assistant professor at Biola University give us a perspective to mull over on this when he talks about evil and suffering.

Richard Dawkins has that famous comments in his ‘The God Delusion’ that shows he hasn’t really understood the Old Testament nor it’s teaching about God at all.
Dawkin’s said on page 31

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser;a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

But let me challenge him to reread it and look at the Grace that God shows towards a sinful and rebellious people. How patient he is in regard to their ongoing sinfulness. Just read the book of Genesis to see this at its clearest.

Often times we hear the objection from unbelievers that a central objection to believing in the Christian God is the ‘Problem of evil’, and it in general doesn’t take a syllogistic form but rather a more down to earth objection as to “Why do bad things happen to good people?” and only later is it raised up a level to “Why is there so much suffering in the World if God is so good?”

In this regard the interview with Clay at Apologetics 315 gives great insight into this whole issue. Clay has written an article which talks openly about the command of the Lord God for Israel to wipe out the Canaanites. He rightly points out that many who object have failed to take into account a number of crucial factors.
Firstly it’s not Divine Genocide but Capital Punishment that is taking place here for the sin of the Canaanites as indicated from Leviticus 18 indicates the utter baseness of the people here. Not only were they committing incest and adultery but in the end they give over their children in sacrifice to Molech.
Furthermore, it is a people problem for God later judges the Israelites with exile in 722 BC for doing the very same things, first warned the tribes of the North by His prophets about committing the very same sins of the Canaanites. So the Assyrians destroyed them in warfare and took off many into exile. Then Judah was warned also and they suffered the same fate of exile in 586 BC under the Babylonians. But let me here encourage you to listen to the interview.

His point is that it’s not genocide, as in destroying just the race of the Canaanites on whim, but killing those who sin in this way which is Capital Punishment.

Secondly, not only is it about Capital Punishment but those that object about Divine Genocide have failed to address the utter sinfulness of what is going on , and indeed they ignore in our own culture what is going on. In this regard what he says has powerful ramifications for Christian apologetics and how to answer objections by unbelievers in regard to the questionable goodness of God. We need to ask them when they object in some regard to God’s goodness and things like Divine genocide and the like whether they regard paedophilia and bestiality as abhorrent and evil?

What is their reply? And on what basis are they able to call these things that men do evil?

We are asking what do they do about the obvious evilness of man himself!

How does their worldview give an account of what is right and wrong, evil or good?

For the Christian he takes into account not merely the fall of man as told in Genesis 3 but also what the Lord God tells us through Paul in Romans 1.
Romans 1 must be taken into consideration here. It’s central to our Christian Worldview. Sure God made mankind good, and yet in Adam they fell and all mankind now are sinners. That doesn’t mean primarily that we regard man’s problem is that he does specific sins which we regard as abhorrent such as lying and cheating and adultery and murder but that he ignores his creator, the Living Sovereign God of Scripture. Man is in rebellion against his Creator and desires to rule his own life. From this suppressing the knowledge of God results a moral and epistemological corruption. There are consequences to his rebellion in the world that God has made and they are a foolish thinking and moral degeneration.

Let me again encourage you to browse over to Apologetics 315 and download the Clay Jones interview. it's well worth the 54 minutes listening to it.

Your brother in Christ,
Gary

Intelligent Design and the evidence for evolution

2010-07-27T18:07:00.005+10:00

In Expelled - No Intelligence allowed, Ben Stein interviews Stephen C Meyer.
Stephen says

For every argument Darwin put forward for his two major ideas there's an evidence based counter argument

That really blows out of the water the refrain you often hear from evolutionists that the facts are clear. Consider how this is the stated opinion of Richard Dawkins.
The truth is that there are no brute facts, no self-interpreting fact as such, rather we interpret the fact by our worldview. Watch the video, it is challenging.

The Grain Offering - Sermon on Leviticus 2

2010-06-22T17:53:00.005+10:00

Leviticus 2. Sermon
References: The best understanding of Leviticus is by Bob Deffinbaugh over at Bible.org who has helped immensely here in my understanding of Lev and Lev 2 as this sermon reveals. However all mistakes are mine.
Introduction:
Well tonight we come to our second sermon on Leviticus and I hope and pray you are ready to let our Lord God speak to you through his Word, let’s pray. ..

Have you ever been travelling at Christmas time and run out of food or milk and search in vain for a shop, anything to be open to buy it? At one point here in Australia I was travelling through Adelaide on Christmas day and couldn’t even find a petrol station open. This situation isn’t much appreciated these days when teenagers haven’t experienced not being able to get what they want when they want, or haven’t travelled to places which don’t provide what they like.
Such situations really hinder your progress and make you desperate to finding out where things are!

Tonight we finally come to Leviticus 2. Not a chapter that is often preached upon is it? I have the feeling from the lack of good commentaries and the lack of preaching on Leviticus, that there are a lot of preachers who just don’t get its relevance and cannot see clearly what it means for Christians. So often they tend to lump together chunks of Leviticus in order to find some sort of application. Or even worse they just resort to typology or allegory to find some present application for Christians.

Not just one preacher but quite a few focused on the items of the sacrifice in chapter 2 like taking the oil as signifying the Holy Spirit or the baked flour suggesting the "stuff of life" and then from latter point this leaping into Jesus as the bread of life.

The difficulty I have with this is that there is nothing in the text to suggest this.
There are times when the OT is to be understood in terms of types or examples for us today. We see this in 1 Cor 10:6 where we are told that Old Testament events are particularly there for a reason. We are told "these things occurred as examples [ types! ] to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did." Yet it is difficult off hand to see in Leviticus 2 what the evil things they might have done since there aren’t any such things mentioned.
And who doesn’t know 2 Tim 3:16-17 which tells us “All Scripture [ the graphe = writings, and therefore at minimum the Old Testament ] is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that [ purpose] the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”.

Keeping in mind the above passages of 1 Cor 10:8 and 2 Tim 3:16-17 I need also to hear and give heed to the impact of Nehemiah 8 where we are told the Levites on finding the book of the law, read it, and gave it's sense to the people.

This is an important reminder for me as I preach the Old Testament. It means that in dealing with the Old Testament I must ask
1. What did this passage mean to the original hearers?
2. How would they have understood it? What is the sense they gave to it?

We grant that they would not have specifically have seen some of the prophecies as pointing to the Messiah, as they rightly do, but the scripture passages still had meaning for them there and then.

And so when dealing with the sacrifices required of Israel by the Lord God, we must not merely ignore the two points above and read back into them some meaning that we have in the light of Christ's death as the sacrifice for sin and some Christian understanding we have of this. [ I am not saying here that there may not be some further understanding of some Old Testament Text in the light of the New Testament and the coming of Christ and His teaching, however we must correctly handle the word of truth, which means first of all seeing the text in its immediate context! ]

Working through the above two points will actually fill out and enrich our understanding of God’s Word and throw more light on any New Testament related text or theme. Preachers and Christians short change themselves when they ignore the immediate context and merely jump into the New Testament.

Now as I read through Leviticus 2 I was perplexed. What is the meaning of the "grain offering"?
None of the commentaries really helped me at this point, reflecting perhaps my lack of solid commentaries on Leviticus. Sure the ones I had, explained what the grain offering was, how it was done, but explaining the what and how do not explain Why. What was the meaning of this sacrifice for the Israelites?
At this point the temptation is to read the further chapters and their sacrifices and preach some general overview and make some point from all of them, but this is not I believe appropriate. It goes against the grain of Leviticus 2 { yes that was a pun for those of you who missed it }. And it doesn’t take notice of Nehemiah chapter 8 as I said.

I mean it reads to many as though it’s a case of a couple cooking on one of those reality TV cooking shows. Like My Kitchen Rules MKR.

Imagine the Israelites, travelling in the wilderness. No corner stores or Coles and Woolworths here from which to buy your daily needs. Out in the desert under Mt Sinai with no place or time to grow a crop for barley and grain. You just have in your bag what you had when you left Egypt. And that get’s down to how much you and your family can carry and perhaps if you have horses or camels what you could load onto them.

And that’s the first point to pick up on from our text. This sacrifice was costly. It was asking for something they generally lacked. And it was asking for their seed that would be the foundation of their crops in the promised land.

So was this all required by “a mean nasty, put you in a corner god” like that which Richard Dawkins says in his book ‘The God Delusion’?

Of course not. Do you read here that God says to the Israelites you must make this sacrifice on such and such a day or month or when you do X & Y bad things?

No. there’s none of that here in the text. This is a freewill offering, one that the Israelite decides upon for his or her own reason to give to the Lord. It is an offering of gratitude, having already offered and understood the burnt offering which enables him to stand before the Lord God as OK.
It’s in that light that this offering stands out.
This is an act of gratitude when you stand by Grace before the Lord.
Still, just because it’s one of gratitude doesn’t mean you can be sloppy or reckless in how you approach God. It doesn’t mean you can presume upon Him. It still means doing things His way.

What do we see from the text about this grain offering. Well for starters in vs 1-3 it speaks of the uncooked grain offering. It is to be of fine flour, that in itself talks of the grain being well ground. Not fine in the sense of good but rather it’s well ground. And that tells us that a lot of hard work, a lot of physical effort is put into it. It’s not as though they had an electric flower grinder in their tent! You had to sit there and grind the grain between two stones.

And it is to have oil and frankincense added to it. Expensive items which again are difficult to come by in the wilderness. then a handful of all this is offered up on the fire, whereas the rest of it goes to the Priests, to Aaron and his sons.

This is how the priesthood is provided for by God. Through offerings made to Him the priests receive a portion which sustains them! See how it says that it is the most holy for the Lord and it’s for the priests! It’s holy, set apart for the Lord and yet it goes to the Priests! God says it’s important to Him and yet it’s for them!

Then in verses 4-10 it tells us about grain offerings that are cooked in different ways.
vs 4-10 the various cooked grain offerings.
It’s a little bit like having bread or dumplings or pancakes. A fair bit of variety is available to the offerer in this regard. You can bake it in an oven, vs4, have it prepared on a griddle, vs 5, or cooked in a pan, vs7.

And yet it cannot have any ingredient you choose. As in vs 3, vs 4, vs 5 and again in vs 11 and so it is to be without yeast. Yeast or as we read in the NIV “leaven” is a corrupting ingredient, both leaven and honey ferment if left overnight. We aren’t given the reason for leaven and honey being forbidden – but we do know that before leaving Egypt they weren’t to eat leavened bread with the Passover feast because it reminds them of their departure from Egypt in Haste and effectively of God’s deliverance of His people. See Deut 16:4.

vs11-13 Ingredients: refused ( leaven ) and required ( salt ).
Look at verses 11-14, “must be made without yeast…. Or honey, but it must have salt”
Importantly, the salt of the covenant, is speaking of the Mosaic covenant. By which God promised He would be with them, and they’d have the promised land - If they were obedient.
The thing about salt isn’t that it only purifies, but also that it lasts. It is everlasting. Salt, like the Mosaic promise of God, is long lasting. And so it is with the promise, the Mosaic covenant of God. It will stand. It isn’t some promise that God made on a whim, and he will change his mind about later. It’s set in stone! It is an enduring covenant. What we have then is a massive assertion about the reliability of God and His Word. He stands by what he has said.

Then in vs14-16 we have Early grain offerings, in other words, that of the firstfruits.

So where do we see the application in all of this. We have seen partly what it meant for the people of God in the wilderness. We see how in moving from Egypt by the exodus through the wilderness and into Canaan how it will be a situation much different to Egypt. In Egypt they had the Nile to rely upon but here and in Canaan they would have to rely upon rain which meant relying upon the Lord himself.

It would mean living by faith, living by trust in the Lord to provide and sustain. And in this very point we see that such faith acknowledges God not just as creator, not merely as redeemer but also as sustainer!

It’s really easy when things are going good, when you are receiving blessings from God to “forget where you have come from and Why”. [ quote by Deffinbaugh ]

And if you need any illustration of this you see it in Israel’s unfaithfulness over and over again throughout the Old Testament. Just look at what the prophet Ezekiel was told to tell Israel after they had chosen idolatry instead of the loving Lord. Look at Ezekiel 16:19.
In the New Testament is it no wonder that Jesus points out to the Jewish people, God’s special people, that a Kingdom person relies upon God for everything. “give us our daily bread” is no idle prayer. Matthew 6:11.
And as James makes really clear in James 4:13-16, we depend upon God much more than we realise or want to admit.

We have great backups don’t we? A Government provision of Medicare, a pension or superannuation. Some of us even have family to fall back on. It’s so easy to ignore God’s centrality as our Sustainer.

And He sustains not just physically but spiritually.

Not just physically but spiritually - >we are under the new covenant, and we are to abide in Him John 15, to abide in His Word, which is the bread of life, John 15:7; 16:13-15; 17:17.
They, the Israelites in the wilderness had a burnt offering, and with it they offered a free will offering in a response of gratitude to God’s provision.

So what about us? No grain offering is required, or there for us since we are not Jews, but interestingly we read of giving in gratitude to the support of fellow Christians which is spoken of as a fragrant aroma. READ Phil 4:8.
We have the ability to give sacrificially, of time, money and emotionally in support of the brethren.

We just need to think of the example here of that wonderful widow in 1 Kings 17:8-16 who through her own meagre rations provided for God’s man Elijah and the container miraculously filled each time!

Remember most of all that this isn’t demanded of God, it is your free will offering and one He delights in. And that’s what I’d like to finish on tonight and focus our thoughts upon, Our text of Leviticus 2 speaks over and over again of this offering being “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

We find this same phrase mentioned after Noah sacrifices on leaving the ark in Genesis 8. In the RSV or KJV it says literally, “a sweet aroma to the Lord.” And that word “sweet” is connected to the very name “Noah” by both coming from the same Hebrew root.
Look with me to verse 21.
“The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in His heart, never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood.. “ and then he speaks of the enduring nature of that promise.
This is what the Israelite remembers. That’s what comes to mind for the Israelite when he hears this.
God’s promise. God’s Word endures. And it will come to pass. Back then He was pleased with Man’s offering of sacrifice even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. Here is the grace of God. God’s mercy and God’s forgiveness and God’s patience. As we learnt earlier in Genesis, God has a plan to redeem man, to send his Messiah to pay the penalty for sin, to defeat satan. Gen 3:15. That Word will endure, and indeed we know it does through the coming of Jesus the Messiah to die on the cross and rise again.

So, If you want to please the Lord, the Lord who is Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer, then here is how you can do it. He is pleased by your gratitude. By your actions that show this.

Further research is required on the following…
But let me leave you with something to ponder upon here, I pointed out that the word sweet and the word Noah derive from the same Hebrew root. both in Leviticus 2 and in Genesis 8. That Hebrew word is “rest” which gives us the idea of being settled in a particular place with overtones of finality. It seems to me, and I could be wrong but it seems to me given it is talking about God’s response to man’s freewill offering by speaking of that word soothing, or sweet as the KJV uses it in a sweet aroma, all this is suggesting that God is finally pleased, settled in himself at this response of man’s action of a freewill offering in gratitude to His grace shown in the giving of the burnt offering. This is what pleases the Lord. When we give Him the thanks and praise that is His due!

Secular Humanism's inconsistent Worldview in regards to morality

2010-06-07T17:48:00.014+10:00

I recently listened to a talk by Dr. Phil Fernandes { #36562.mp3 lecture } where he observes that the humanistic manifesto of secular humanists makes clear that they are not consistent with their own stated Worldview.
For example, they assert that all moral values are autonomous - that is, each person decides for themselves what is right or wrong, what is moral or not. Then just a few paragraphs later they state that they are "for any sexual act between consenting adults." This seems very open and even handed, not at all like those Christians who are frigid and haters of sex.
The impression is that they are not against anything, after all, their moral values are decided upon by the individual and yet this provides a dilemma for them. They phrased their statement very carefully. They are against rape, that is the act which involves the nonconsent by some adult, and it is only OK when between adults, sex between adults and children as the movement NAMBIA advocates is wrong on their Worldview. On this we applaud them for we too agree that such things are wrong. But here's the kicker, Why, given that each person decides their own moral values individually is rape and sex with children wrong! On their worldview they say something is universally wrong yet they have asserted that one's moral values are determined individually.
We need to push them about this inconsistency because their worldview doesn't allow this declaration, even if it's silently inferred, that somethings are Universally wrong.

Trying to ground morality in either the individual or the community is a dead end. The grounding of moral values in the individual as expressed above is either emotive, based on emotions or perhaps the same thing, just asserting your own preferences. We will speak of the societal based morality another time. For now we can see the atheist who proudly adheres to the humanist manifesto is in a sticky situation.

So all is not well with Atheism as Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens would declare!

God Bless,
Gary

Elijah and the raven

2010-06-04T08:26:00.005+10:00

Have you ever pondered the significance that it was a raven that provided food for Elijah. That it was God using a raven to provide sustenance for Elijah?
We know that the first mention of the raven was in Genesis 8 where Noah sent out a raven to see if the dry land had appeared and whether the "land" was clean", that the stench of death had dissipated over the surface of the earth. There was God using an unclean bird to check on the cleanliness of the earth!
The raven is know for two things, the first being that it feasts on the carcase of rotting flesh, hence it's appointment in Genesis 8 and that it is an unclean bird, mentioned at least twice in the book of Leviticus where the clean / unclean distinction is a highlight.

It's second Major significance is that it is one of those rare animals that doesn't even care for it's own young. And that is significant for it's appearance in the Elijah episode. Here God uses an animal that doesn't care even for it's own and He uses it to provide and care for Elijah.

Isn't our God great!

Gary

Welcome to the human family - defining human

2010-05-19T18:08:00.011+10:00

In the same article I just blogged about from New Scientist May 2010, the editorial refers to the comment by the anthropologist Louis Leakey who wrote the following having been told about chimps used sticks to scoop up termites

Now we must redefine tool, redefine man or accept chimpanzees as human.

What is going on here? Do we now define 'human' as using sticks to scoop up termites? Ha! But is this editorial serious that we define humans by their being able to use things such as tools? Isn't it better to say, humans have the ability to create tools, and not merely use a stick, perhaps that is closer to the point? Otherwise we get into conundrums associated with anthropomorphic language.

This editorial goes on to point out that all this raises the question of what a species is. And they point out that this in itself has been vexing question which has flummoxed [ that is, baffled and confused! ] even Linnaeus and Darwin. And yet with authority they declare a truism!

fertile offspring is a hallmark of a species

Wow - of course that's a truism, for if there were no fertile offspring there'd be no species to even consider! And then, without providing the evidence they declare that "there is plenty more evidence to support giving them the status of Homo sapiens Neanderthals."

We read "We cannot know the mental life of a Neanderthal, but it may not have been so different from our own."
And this is based presumably on the fact that the Neanderthal genome differs little from ours, encoding fewer than 100 changes that would affect the shape of proteins.

It is then the writer speaks of the concept of being human that involves traits of thinking and talking and love and belief and art and language.

I just would like a bit more on those who hold to a materialist worldview being able to account for these latter concepts of humanness. Even for Leakey it's a long way from using a stick to concepts such as love, belief, art and language.

Gary

Welcome to the human family - you're a Neanderthal

2010-05-19T17:48:00.007+10:00

In the May 2010 edition of New Scientist ( Australia ) the editorial has a piece about "Welcome to the human family. It speaks to the question of whether there is any reason not to allow Neanderthals into the fold of homo sapiens?

After talking about how Neanderthals have a common ancestor with modern humans and how the descendants went their own ways only to 'reconnect' about 50,000 years ago in the Eastern Mediterranean. Their point? "This pattern wouldn't necessarily merit separate species for most animals, so why for us and Neanderthals?

Fair enough in their line of thinking, however it is interesting what they bring into the discussion regarding the concept of being human.
It is more than "ecology and genetics: we are human because we think, talk, love and believe" and later the editor states that this includes "language and art" It is then we read a startling admission - "if that's not human, then what is?

As Christians we would agree to much of this, adding that humanness is being created in the image of God, able to have self-reflection, rationality, ability to reason and love and care, to have and be aware ones own of self conscious.
Still, how do you account for all that on a materialist worldview? that's the humdinger.

Gary

Jesus and Israel: One covenant or two

2010-05-16T09:50:00.012+10:00

Here is what Vern Poythress not a theological lightweight by any means says about the book by David Holwerda 'Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or two?'

David Holwerda argues that God's promises to Old Testament Israel cannot be understood apart from Jesus Christ. Based on careful exposition of key New Testament texts-including a significant in-depth study of Romans 9-11-in dialogue with a wide variety of interpreters and theologians, Holwerda maintains that the Old Testament promises of God find their complete fulfillment in Jesus Christ and the church.

"Here is a first-rate presentation of a Reformed, covenantal understanding of promise and fulfillment, with special reference to the relation of Israel to the church. The book focuses largely on the New Testament's use of the Old Testament themes of Israel (holy people), temple, land, and law. It relates all of these themes to fulfillment in Christ, in agreement with the idea of inaugurated eschatology. Through exegetical reflection the book provides an attractive, persuasive overview of covenantal thinking and indicates the major points of contact and disagreement with dispensationalism and with current discussions of Jewishness among Jews and among Christian theologians of liberal and neoorthodox bent. I recommend this book heartily."
--Vern S. Poythress, Westminster Theological Seminary

These are strong words. God's promises "in the Old Testament cannot be understood apart from Jesus Christ", well yes, we do understand God's promises centre on Israel's Messiah. From Genesis 3:15 the Messiah is central since He deals with sin and death and judgement. But one assumes Vern is not arguing for a Christological hermeneutic which says everything in the Old Testament has to be read in the light of the new. That you must know the NT's take on something before you will get the meaning of some Old Testament promise right.

The real problem between amillennialist and dispensationalist is a consistent hermeneutic that doesn't spiritualise a passage because of ones theoligical presuppositions. It is over the replacement theology of Israel with the church that has been subtly introduced in Vern's statement above "the Old Testament promises of God find their complete fulfillment in Jesus Christ and the church" that difficulties arise.
We dispensationalists and premillennialist want to be a bit more exacting than the blurb on a back cover of a book. Jesus Christ will fulfill all the Old Testament promises. He has done so with many already and yet a great number await their lireral fulfillment. Furthermore to sneak in the chuch in that statement is exactly where amillennialist and premillenialist / dispensationalist differ.

Perhaps Holwerda will be a bit more precise in his statements.

Gary

financial mismanagement or something else?

2010-04-08T07:40:00.003+10:00

Here in Australia it has been announced that our state electricity will increase costs to the consumer by up to 60% in the coming year.
The reason being given is that half of that 60% is due to the Emissions Trading Scheme our Federal Government wants to introduce to combat global warming. In other words it's a round about way of introducing a new tax on the people, but making the utilities introduce it upon the people. Be that as it may that still leaves a 30% increase which is being touted as going to infrastructure as the electricity infrastructure is in dire need of improvements and developments to meet the projected needs of people in NSW over the next 25 years. What is shocking about this is that directors of companies such as Coca-Cola of Goodmans - fielders to name two regularly allow in their budget allocations for infrastructure write offs, and developments. It's incomprehensible that a electricity company could fail to allow for infrastructure development to meet the needs of projected growth from which they earn their profits!
Is there something else going on here? a 60% increase will put many middle class families under financial pressure and the aged and poor under extreme pressure. But just listen to the State governments answer to that. "We will make tax credits available to alleviate these pressures." they say. We will divert tax dollars through Government agencies to help out the poor and so on. In other words not only will our costs as consumers increase inordinately, but the Government will direct tax resources into those areas where burdens become horrific. Is this merely the promotion of the socialist, welfare state? It makes more and more people dependant upon the State. And why? because of an over hyped global warming scenario that has little scientific evidence to justify it.
Is there not a better way to care for our environment and at the same time not work on the basis of making more and more people dependant upon welfare?
With welfare one major change is that the bureaucracy gets bigger and bigger and more powerful.
What economic model is better than a welfare model?

any thoughts?
Gary

a word for atheists

2010-04-02T20:16:00.002+11:00

My new T-shirt to make a point will read
"Atheism - the vodka of the people."

hmmm
Gary

Listening to History helps us understand Genesis correctly.

2010-03-30T21:48:00.012+11:00

How is it that there are so many strange views about Genesis "out there" and they have failed to study that which has already been written on the matter?
We see this for example in those who spend so much time talking about J.E.D.P in regard to Genesis and when it was written and by whom that they ignore what the Bible actually says about it, indeed what Jesus said about it, and lastly what scholars have already said about it.
Hommel says

"When we find that a whole school of evangelical theologians do not hesitate to declare that a passage was composed at a later date or interpolated, simply because they are unwilling to recognise the existence of any high moral teaching or lofty conception of the Godhead prior to the time of the prophets of the eighth or seventh century B.C, then in view of the facts advanced in the present volume, we cannot but regard their attitude as a deplorably mistaken one, and hope that it may soon become a thing of the past." Ane. Heb. Trad. pp 291-292.

Firstly what Hommel basically pointed out is that a persons presuppositions can direct their "scholarly" conclusions to quite silly conclusions. Dating as they do the book of Genesis to the eighth or seventh century. To do that on the basis of assuming that the earlier Israelites lacked presumably the ability to understand the high moral teaching or lofty conception of the Godhead is presumptuous. It reminds one of the liberal theologians of the 19th Century who denied the miraculous and so deleted them from the Scriptures, explaining them away. And what do you do about the theological concepts found in the pre 8th and 7th century revelation of God? Many of the 19th Century liberals also methodologically started their studies by looking at the religious ideas found in the world and narrowing down to the Israelite religion. But this denies that they "set apart Christ as Lord" 1 Peter 3, in all their endeavours, even their scholarly endeavours!

Secondly and perhaps just as disheartening is that the hope of Hommel wasn't realised and people have continued to try to build a case for the late date or interpolation of the text of Genesis.
Pick up the commentary by Wenham on Genesis 1-15 and you will find pages of discussion about the Yahwist tradition and the Elohim and Priestly traditions etc but not a word about Moses himself having written down the revelation of God and the idea it was written during the trek in the wilderness.

Let us be careful in our Study of the Word of God, which alone is a light to our feet.

God bless,
Gary

Atheists trying to get an upper hand

2010-03-18T10:29:00.010+11:00

Over at Trevin Wax's blog he quotes from Daily Mail online, from an article about Peter Hitchens' conversion as follows:

Why is there such a fury against religion now? Because religion is the one reliable force that stands in the way of the power of the strong over the weak. The one reliable force that forms the foundation of the concept of the rule of law.

The one reliable force that restrains the hand of the man of power. In an age of powerworship, the Christian religion has become the principal obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power.

A very interesting obeservation by Peter Hitchens' the brother of an avowed atheist and writer, Christopher.

Read the article for encouragement.

Gary

There's No Clarity of argument from some atheists

2010-03-10T19:41:00.005+11:00

Clarity of Argument is not always something you read from those antagonistic to Christianity. You see it exemplified in Richard Dawkins and his book 'The God Delusion' which really just reveals that he is more concerned about winning converts to "his" side by diatribe and invective and ridicule than presenting rational or forceful arguments.
Now in letters to the Star-Ledger a newspaper in New Jersey Carol Shields, a public school educator and teacher trainer no less, makes a complaint that totally misses the point. She gets stuck into Bret Shundler, the newly elected State Commissioner of Education, for advocating Intelligent Design and knowing "nothing about current Science theory"
She says:

he’s not familiar with the state science standards, namely 5.3 E, which reads:

"Evolution and Diversity: Sometimes, differences between organisms of the same kind provide advantages for surviving and reproducing in different environments. These selective differences may lead to dramatic changes in characteristics of organisms in a population over extremely long periods of time."

In the above quote however things are not so clear. Are proponents of ID rejecting change between organisms of the same kind? We certainly accept change within same kinds of animals and birds and so on. The problem arises with macro evolution, that change can occur from one kind to another.
We do well to remember that Darwin named his book "Origin of the species" not "change within species" which is what his evidence presented him with.
What do you think?
regards,
Gary

Who do we aim to evangelise for fruitful evangelism?

2010-03-08T09:58:00.006+11:00

Hi Friends,

Just last night I saw an intriguing video on evangelism. It was well done and did its job in provoking me to think and consider all those who don't know about Jesus, have not been challenged about Who Jesus is and their relationship to Him, and indeed some of the planet who haven't even heard his name.

On that level it challenged me. But also at another level it challenged me to rethink some evangelistic attitudes that I have held for quite a while, attitudes which I freely admit I have held due to my culture.

Here in our Australian culture the men are notoriously slack and have to a large extent abandoned their responsibilities as leaders in the family. Not the least when it comes to any sort of spiritual matter. This is seen reflected in our churches where it is mainly women and young children who are coming to church Sunday by Sunday.

One way I was challenged in ministry to change this was to specifically aim my evangelisitic efforts at men. The thinking was that if you got the men, then you would "get" the wife and the children.

Now I am being challenged to aim instead specifically at the children. The statistics given last night if my memory is sound were that 50% - 60% of people become Christians as a child. Now this statistic in itself is a debateable thing. These children may make a decision about Jesus at that age, but my experience tells me that very few of them continue to live as disciples of Jesus onwards through their adult years. There seems to be a major dropping out in the late teenage years. Perhaps that just reflects how poorly we have been doing discipleship and addressing their questions and preaching meaty sermons.

Not only that, but we can wonder how much worldly philosophies are at the back of desires to "market" our evangelistic efforts to a certain age set. Certainly Communism has shown that if you indoctrinate a child, you are likely to have a devoted follower as an adult. I believe it was Marx or somebody who said "give me a child till they are 5 and I will have a committed communist for life" - or something like that.

Now I can understand the frustration that can lead many to aim at children in their evangelistic efforts. So many adults have warped ideas about Christianity and Jesus' teachings that you seem you are hitting your head against a brick wall.

It's so much easier to get young children and teach them what the bible really says and watch the Holy Spirit work in their lives.

However we need to be careful about these worldly philosophies. We are certainly not about indoctrination! We are about people hearing who Jesus is - and challenging them about being his disciples.

But what about this method of targeting children? Is it biblical? Are we trying to build the Kingdom of God or recognizing that God is building the KOG and calls us to proclaim the good news?

Is evangelistic method a non-truth issue and are we free to improvise in who we are reaching?

Perhaps in some situations it's just a matter of what seems at present to be the emphasis. We have a lot of children in our area and we need to reach them with the gospel, I would just crucially add and be open to talking that same gospel message to their parents, and to talk that same gosple message to all we encounter.

As Matt 28 says as you are going about your life, make disciples....

Remember it's God's business to convict and change, but we need to realise God calls us to make disciples, those that follow Jesus.

What do you guys think on this?

In Christ,

Gary

Why is Carl Sagan so lonely?

2010-03-04T19:14:00.003+11:00

When you think about it, Scientists have just replaced the Bibles supernaturalism and “angel beings” with scientific cool sounding beings on other planets. Of course Freud would say they have a problem with their mothers, but really the reason is the longing to have the significance they were created by God for. After all, what Sagan and others are looking for is intelligent life, not some slime dumbbell.
Is it because they recognise they have to account for man being different to the rest of the earth’s creatures? He has intelligence, he reasons, a big part supposedly of what scientists do. And if there’s no God then all that’s left is that somehow this extraterrestrial life arrived here on earth a bit earlier and left a bit here on earth in the form of ‘man’.
Even so, extraterrestrial beings, since they are part of the created cosmos don’t account for the human trait of reasons and intelligence. The Biblical God as the Creation account in Genesis 1 & 2 make clear, is that God created the Universe [ and all imaginary universes and parallel universes ]. He alone is Creator and separate from what He created. Pantheism isn’t right!
Rather You are significant because you are made in God’s image!

For some related ideas read Chuck Colson's review on the film avatar.

till later,
Gary

You've hurt my thinking, forget about my feelings!

2010-03-03T15:06:00.010+11:00

There's an interesting piece over at Bill Kinnons blog where he quotes the Bishop of Durham who says,

Part of our difficulty in the Christian world of late Western modernity has been that the mind, the faculty of thought and reasoning, has become detached. As happens if you have a detached retina in your eye, when you're thinking becomes detached you stop seeing things clearly. "Thought"and "reason" seem to have been placed to one side, in a private world reserved for "intellectuals" and "academics."(Note for example, the way in which sports commentators use the word "academic" to mean "irrelevant" as in "from now on the result of the race is academic.") Furthermore, we often speak of our thoughts as if they were feelings: in a meeting, to be polite, we might say "I feel that's wrong", because it sounds less confrontational than saying, "I think that's wrong". Similarly, perhaps without realizing it (which itself is a sign of the same problem!), we sometimes allow feelings to override thoughts: "I feel very strongly that we should do this" can carry more rhetorical weight than "I think we should do that" since nobody wants to hurt our feelings. As a natural next step, we allow feelings to replace thought processes altogether, so that what looks outwardly like a reasoned discussion is actually an exchange of unreasoned emotions, in which all participants claim the high moral ground because when they say, "I feel strongly we should to do this", they are telling the truth: they do feel strongly, so they will feel hurt and rejected if people don't agree with them. Thus reasoned discourse is abandoned in favour of the politics of the playground. (2010 SPCK, Virtue Reborn, Pg 134) [emphasis added]

What a helpful reminder of the way things are going in public discourse these days. Using feelings to address disagreeing with thoughts is really pathetic in that it leaves an argument floundering as a mere opinion instead of something requiring rational debate.

BTW, I do not agree with Bill's blogg assessment that Brian McLaren is not a wolf in sheeps clothing. I believe he is a wolf, a false teacher because of what he teaches given that the bible clearly refutes his "teachings". Perhaps he is now just a wolf and people have lost their ability to discern.

Gary

The Myth of Adam Crusoe

2010-02-16T13:01:00.002+11:00

The Adam Crusoe evolution Myth.
or "how not to read Genesis 1"

"And Adam named all the beasts of the field.." and one hominad he called "Saturday" since it was the 6th day, and he wasn't around on Friday to do any naming.
Saturday was a strong silent type, after all, he couldn't speak, and he really was a bit of a savage! But at least Adam thought to himself, 'at least with him I can shake hands.'

nonsense breeds nonsense

Gary

Confusion reigns on Genesis 1 & 2

2010-02-14T10:55:00.016+11:00

Confusion today certainly reigns in the understanding of Genesis 1 & 2. A recent comment shows how many are thinking about what view is to be taken on Genesis 1 and 2. On the blog, First Things, Christopher Bensen wrote

I would like to see Wheaton open its range of acceptable options on the origin of human species, permitting scientists to endorse any of the following:
(1) reject the idea that Adam and Eve were created from pre-existing human-like creatures, or hominids”; (2) are neutral or “unsure” on the hominid theory; (3)affirm that “God gave a human spirit to a pair of pre-existing human-like creatures, or hominids”; or (4) deny the historicity of Adam and Eve and think of Genesis as a wholly “theological document.”

He was addressing what has been happening at Wheaten College, an evangelical college in the USA.
Consider the confusion involved in Bensen's enthusiasm for Scientists who would endorse any of points 1-4. The confusions involves people arbitrarily selecting from the text of Genesis 1 what they like against what offends their opinions. So many moderns are taking the approach that Genesis 1 is purely a literary piece given in figurative language so that Adam's evolving from some hominid is a possibility. However they still want to say that Adam and Eve were some creature that God breathed into at some point so that they became "a living being in the image of God." However the text of Genesis 1 clearly says that Eve was created from the rib of Adam, not from some hominid. Satan's questions to Eve, "Has God said" is alive and well. Deception in many claiming to be Christians are rampant. I am not making a judgment here about people's salvation but merely point out that this is happening frequently within the family of God.

And consider also point 4 a wholly nonsensical statement. To say that Genesis is wholly a Theological document is to state the obvious. It is a Theological statement, it's the Word of God. It is what God has revealed to us for our benefit. However being a Theological statement does not evacuate the text of truth nor historicity in the sense of it being an actual event that really happened.

In Christ,
Gary

Acknowledging the use of literary structure in Genesis 1-11

2010-02-06T22:04:00.010+11:00

Sometimes when you read all the debates over the nature of Genesis 1-11 and whether it should be interpreted via the grammatical historical method or use genre to guide the exegete towards the meaning of the text, you get the impression that for those that take the days of Genesis 1 as 24 hour periods that we don't accept any literary markers in the text. That there isn't a literary structure to the text.

Advocates of the Framework Hypothesis for example make a big deal out of the phrasing "And God said Let there be ... and God saw that it was good ... and there was evening and morning the Nth day." declaring it to be strophes and thus semi poetic, and then they point out the literary feature of the seeming parallelism between days 1 & 4, 2 & 5, 3 &6.

Now I don't reject such literary structure, indeed I think that the Lord is focusing the reader on some very important points, points which are discerned by first investigating the text grammatical historical method. However, I do wonder by the same token whether those that reject the literal interpretation and that Genesis 1-2 are historical, in the sense of being actual events that took place, whether they have taken on board the literary structure that runs from Genesis 2:4 all the way through Genesis 12 marked by the phrase "this is the account of", running from the creation account all through the narratives to Abraham in Chapter 11, who is clearly an historical figure.

The fact that we have chronological narrative doesn't exclude that there is also the presence of literary structure.

In Christ,
Gary

Genesis 1-11 Myth or History?

2010-02-04T11:41:00.012+11:00

Superman is a myth. He is not an historical being. In the story of Superman he isn’t even a god but rather he’s a person from another planet. Presumably the point of the story is that he is a Hero. He uses his abilities to fight for truth justice and the American way. So he’s a good capitalist!

C.F. Nosgen gives this definition of "myth":

"Any unhistorical tale, however it may have arisen, in which a religious society finds a constituent part of its sacred foundations, because an absolute expression of its institutions, experiences, and ideas, is a myth."

You notice that what stands out in the above definition is that the story is unhistorical. Keep this in mind and see how Engelsma in his article is concerned about the view of so many of his peers.

Here below are the words of Professor David J. Engelsma Protestant Reformed Seminary Grandville, MI U.S.A. June 2001. I quote a fair bit as it sets the approach for how many scholars today are approaching Genesis 1-11.

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_84.html

“To be sure, the term "myth" is seldom used in Reformed and evangelical circles.
Those who are, in fact, teaching that Genesis 1 - 11 is myth will usually disavow "myth" as the proper description of that part of Holy Scripture. There is good reason for this. "Myth" has unsavory connotations. The Bible expressly denounces myths. Only the most radical (and candid!) of liberal theologians--the Rudolph Bultmanns--boldly call the Bible stories in Genesis 1-11 "myths." Hence, the evangelical and the Reformed mythologians are careful to use other terms. However just as a rose by any other name smells sweet, so a myth by any other name still stinks.

We ignore the liberals like Hermann Gunkel, who called Genesis 1-11 "legend," and the neo-orthodox like Karl Barth, who called the passage "saga." Our concern is the extent to which Genesis 1-11 is regarded as myth in reputedly conservative circles. In The Fourth Day, Howard Van Till described the opening chapters of Genesis as "primal, or primeval history." The committee of the Christian Reformed Church that advised synod on the views of Van Till and his colleagues referred to Genesis 1-11 as "stylized, literary, or symbolic stories." 5

The Dutch Reformed scientist and author Jan Lever had earlier written two books that were translated into English in which he attacked the Reformed confession that Genesis 1-11 is historical. In his Where are We Headed? A Christian Perspective on Evolution, he vehemently denied that Genesis 1-11 is "an account of historical events.... Anyone who reads the Bible with common sense can reach the conclusion that a literal reading of the Genesis account is wrong." Rather, the opening chapters of the Bible are a "confession about God." 6

A recent book by notable evangelical theologians and other scholars, The Genesis Debate, has a number of these men insisting that Genesis 1-11 is unhistorical, indeed allegorical. One scholar is bold to state an implication of this view of Genesis 1-11 that fairly bristles with doctrinal implications, namely, that it is absurd to think that the human race descended from two (married) ancestors. Nevertheless, so the editor informs us, this scholar, like all the others, is "committed to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture." 7

Another prominent evangelical, Charles E. Hummel, in an InterVarsity publication, The Galileo Connection, contends that the first eleven chapters of Genesis must be seen as a "literary genre"; they are a "semipoetic narrative cast in a
historico-artistic framework." Genesis 1-11 is not a "cosmogony," but a "confession of faith." 8

The Fuller Seminary theologian Paul K. Jewett prefers the designations "primal history" and "theologized history." Authoritative science has enabled us moderns to recognize the "childlike limitations of the understanding" of those who wrote the first eleven chapters of the Bible. Theirs was a "prescientific simplicity" when they told the story of "God's making the world 'in the space of six days.' "9

Bruce Waltke, who was professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary at the time, wrote in Christianity Today that we must not read Genesis 1:1-2:3 as historical. Rather. we must take "an artistic-literary approach." He quoted Henri Blocher approvingly: the passage is "an artistic arrangement ... not to be taken literally." Waltke concluded that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a "creation story in torah ('instruction'), which is a majestic, artistic achievement, employing anthropomorphic language." 10

To refer to no others, in his book, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, John Frame, at the time professor of theology at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California, wrote that he is open to the possibility of interpreting Genesis 1 and 2
"figuratively" because of the findings of geologists that the earth is very old. 11

All of these men studiously avoid the use of the word "myth," although a couple of them give the game away by their description of the kind of stories they think to find in Genesis 1- 11. Having denied that Genesis gives us "a picture of reality," Lever goes on to affirm that Genesis "does provide us with the fundamentals for a life and world view, a religious perspective on the nature of this reality, its finitude and its dependence upon God in becoming and in being." 12 This is the textbook definition of myth.

Similarly, Bruce Waltke explains his own figurative interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3 by quoting H. J. Sorenson in the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

The basic purpose is to instruct men on the ultimate realities that have an immediate bearing on daily life and on how to engage vitally in these realities to live successfully. It contains "truths to live by" rather than "theology to speculate on." 13
This is the classic myth.

Avoidance of the term "myth" is of no significance. What is important is that the events recorded in Genesis 1 - 11 never really happened, never really happened as Genesis 1-11 records them as happening. Genesis 1-11 is not history, but myth. This world never did come into existence by the Word of God calling each creature in the space of six days, and then in the order set forth in Genesis 1. The human race never did originate from a man, Adam, who was formed by the hand of God from the dust, and from a woman, Eve, built by the hand of God from a rib of the man as we read in Genesis 2. Sin and death never did enter the world by the man's eating a piece of forbidden fruit at the instigation of his wife and by the temptation of a speaking serpent as Genesis 3 tells us. There never was the development of agriculture, herding, music, and metallurgy as Genesis 4 reveals. There never was a universal flood as taught in Genesis 6-8. There never was a Tower of Babel occasioning the dividing of the nations by confounding of the language as set forth in Genesis 11.

Genesis 1-11: Myth!
This is the prevailing opinion in evangelical, Reformed, and Presbyterian seminaries, schools, publishing houses, and churches at the beginning of the 2lst century.”

As we see above, the widespread agnosticism towards Genesis being taken literally is astounding. Sure one might want to argue that this is a result of hermeneutics within the Reformed circles however such an attitude towards Genesis 1-11 is being found more generally amongst those of evangelical persuasion. One could also fruitfully ask how much is this motivated by the academic desire for recognition through gaining PHd’s where a PHd is only given when someone suggests and argues something new? Still motivations are notorious to pin down so instead let’s just consider a couple of the main points above.

Let us just take for a moment the phrase approving of Blocher by Bruce Waltke that “the passage is "an artistic arrangement ... not to be taken literally." And as Waltke says, it’s not literal nor historical! In other words it never truly happened. And if that’s so, from where do we understand what sin is and Why there’s a need for a saviour? Sin was never a rebellion against God as we see from Genesis 3 on their understanding.

He is referring to how one is to read Genesis 1:1-2:3.
He isn’t referring to how one reads 1:2-2:3 but from the very first verse of chapter 1.

What are the implications that Genesis 1:1-2 is not history?

I want us to consider a number of Scriptures in response to this, ones which together I think blow a hole in the notion that Genesis 1-11 isn’t historical.

First, consider John 1:1-14. Where clearly John is putting forward the argument that Jesus is the Word who was with God before the Creation of all, and is God! Not only that but John clearly declares that “all things were made through him”, vs 2. That places John’s comments back at the time of the Creation of all things. It also makes it a related text referring to creation. Now the use of the phrase “In the beginning” is intended by John to draw the reader back to the very first words of Genesis 1 and to have the reader identify what He is saying about the Word, Jesus as having face to face with God before anything at all was created! The argument John uses, relies upon Genesis 1:1 being understood literally and historically. Historical in the sense that at some point God made all things, except the Word! John’s argument falls apart if Genesis 1:1 is not taken at face value, as being literal about what it is saying, that Genesis 1:1 is actually speaking about the Creation by God of all things. If you turn around and declare that all of Genesis is “an artistic arrangement .. not to be taken literally”, that it is not an event you are being told actually happened, then Gen 1:1 about God being before anything was Created and the one who created the Universe and everything else is not a truth you get from Genesis 1:1. You must instead dream up something else as the meaning for that verse, and it could be whatever, if you take Genesis 1 as non literal. Whatever it symbolically represents, you are not clear nor sure that it is that God before all else created the Universe and all that is in it.

Perhaps you chide me for attributing this interpretation to framework views and non literal interpretations etc but carefully consider what these writers are so quick to proclaim about Genesis 1 & 2. They say for example that Adam and Eve were not literal historical figures, that Adam wasn’t created from the dust but suggest instead that some ape had the breath of God breathed into it and became at that point “Adam in the image and likeness of God”. But what hermeneutical arbitrariness is this? In one breath to deny any actual chronology in the Genesis text and that days mean 24 hour periods because of the phrase “evening and morning”, and yet insist that “man” or Adam is made in the image and likeness of God is to read the text arbitrarily. Why take only those words literally? Then there’s Eve who the text tells us plainly is made from a rib of Adam and God goes into great detail to say Adam was caused to sleep etc, but they insist that all that detail is irrelevant because only the symbolic or figurative idea which they want to place on this “non-event” is that what matters, and it could be as simple as one person said to be that of the closeness of man and woman!

But let us also consider another Scripture passage which directs us how to interpret Genesis 1. Which actually tells us that the days of Genesis 1 are literal 24 hour periods. That Scripture is Exodus 20:11 and 31:12f. I am amazed how people so quickly dismiss the Sabbath commandment and proceed not to argue against it’s relationship to Genesis 1 but to ignore it. The Sabbath argument in Exodus 20:11 clearly and logically demands that the days of Genesis 1 are 24 hour periods. Israel’s Sabbath as commanded by God in Exodus 20 is patterned after God’s seventh day rest in Genesis 1. The point about the pattern is that it matches identically the original. If you are a manufacturer of anything in bulk you normally use a die that is the pattern of your design. If you don’t have a pattern that is an exact match then you don’t replicate the original. Further, when we look at Exodus there is no terminology that says that “the Sabbath is like a day”, there are no grammatical indicators to show us that what is being stated is figurative or a metaphor. Instead it straightforwardly says that “in six days God created everything and on the seventh rested.”

The Sabbath argument clearly rules out the day age theory of Genesis 1. I readily admit it doesn’t necessarily disqualify the Framework hypothesis, as advocates of that position would say it doesn’t matter for their argument if the days of Genesis 1 are 24 hour periods or not, since their argument is in the end that Genesis 1 days are a literary device not concerned with history or the chronology of events but that God created and filled and the work of God culminates in the rest of God. As some advocates of the framework position say “Day isn’t a time period but a literary device a figure of speech used by Moses to simply portray God as creator and creation as an ordered process. Morning and evening etc are a poetic literary device. Genesis 1 therefore presents creation topically, not chronologically.

Notice here also that the Sabbath argument of Exodus 20 also nullifies the objection you sometimes hear about the Sabbath being opened ended and therefore not a “24 hour period.” The Sabbath passage of Exod 20 shows us that it is speaking of 24 hour periods and that it is based upon God’s creation week, in which case the seventh day itself is not open ended.

BTW, this point also helps us rule out that Genesis 1:1-2 should read along the lines of a gap between verses 1 & 2. When God set about creating some things? Because then we are not certain of the deity of Jesus. If you posit a gap between Gen 1:1 and verse 2 and think of God’s act there being one of recreation, because of the fall of angels, then Jesus is not necessarily divine as John’s argues for, and that’s a nonsense conclusion.

If Genesis 1-3 is not meant to be taken as history, nor literal but rather as figurative, then we readily admit we know nothing about the real fall of man into sin and what that means. We know nothing about Who created the world for all that we have in Genesis 1 in the end is a literary tale to teach a certain topic and a very limited one at that. If Gen 1-3 is topical only, then what do we know about the first ancestors? What is this Adam to whom Jesus and Paul refer? Indeed many New Testament passages make nonsense as to their clear meaning if one rules that Genesis 1-3 isn’t literal nor historical. So Paul in his argument about headship in 1 Tim 2 argues that man has headship over the wife because Adam was created first and it was Eve who fell. Ie she was the one tempted and then tempted Adam to go along! If Adam are figurative and not literal people, the Paul’s justification about headship is nonsense.

The Third Scripture is perhaps the most powerful of all because it tells us Jesus’ attitude towards Genesis 1 & 2. In Mark 10:6 Jesus, in speaking to the question of divorce declared: “But from the beginning of the creation, male and female made he them” (Mark 10:6). Here Jesus plainly affirmed:
(a) There was a “creation” (ktisis—denoting “the sum-total of what God has created” [Cremer, 1962, p.381]);
(b) The first humans existed from the “beginning of the creation”. Not some billions of years after initial creation.
(c) The first couple was “made” (epoiesen—an aorist tense, stressing the fact that this original couple came into existence by single acts of creation. Had the Lord subscribed to the idea that the first humans evolved over vast ages of time, He would have employed the Greek imperfect tense, which is designed to express progressive action at some point in the past); and
(d) They were “male and female” from the beginning (not a bisexual blob that eventually evolved into male and female). Reference Wayne Jacksons : http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Bible-and-the-Genesis-Account.pdf

Do these three passages tell us how we are to interpret Genesis 1-3 when there is so much confusion about those passages? I believe they do, and convincingly. I am interested to see what others say about this as one of the fundamentals of understanding Scripture and producing “theology” is to let Scripture interpret Scripture. If these passages perform the function I suggest here, then we do well to ask Why “Scholars” and pastors fail to take notice of them. And notice I haven't even mentioned the grammatical arguments which help you understand the day in Genesis 1 as 24 hour periods and that genre doesn't help alternative views, and that Genesis 1 is properly, historical narrative.

In Christ,

Gary

Exegetical Notes on 1 Peter

2010-01-31T09:03:00.007+11:00

I thought it would be good to work through some book of the bible exegetically and look at a bit closer what is being said. So I have chose 1 Peter.

A great resource for 1 Peter which I will be using is 'First Peter - An Expositional Commentary' by D Edmond Hierbert.

Consider 1:1 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion.."
First we notice how Peter says he is merely an apostle, not the apostle of Jesus Christ. Humility? He mentions both his given name and Title, Jesus "because he will save his people from their sins" and Messiah, the expected prophesied one of the Old Testament, the one who brings God's plan to fruition.

Much debate has been given to the word elect here. It simply means chosen. Is it a seperate noun or an adjective modifying the following noun, Sojourners?
Hiebert suggests the latter and points out arguments that favour this.
Implications then are Peter is focusing here on them being "elect sojourners of the dispersion."
As Hierbert points out "Peter thus fuses heavenward and earthward relationships."
They are chosen "but" sojourners.

If this is so we could put it this way, whilst sojourners or aliens in the land of the disporia, still even in that situation they are chosen by God. He knows it.

Try putting this in context, if the readers of Peters letter were Jewish Christians, then being out of the promised land still is tough for people of the promise. There is some weight to be given that they are Jewish Christians, the use of Old Testament, [ especially concepts ] that Peter is minister of the circumcision Gal 2:10 etc yet even if not they are a people suffering difficulties and perhaps persecution, see the purpose of the letter 1 Peter 5:12 where they are encourgaed by God's grace.

What then about that word election? Should a sermon here expound the doctrine of election? Perhaps it does well to say some things about it, such as how ofter people will pit election against understanding man's "free will" both of which are taught in the Bible. eg God saying through His prophet to the people of Israel "choose this day whom you will server, Baal or YHWH." Yet we do well to point out as some have that this notion of election arises in contexts where it's given as a basis for comfort in extreemely difficult circumstances. If you don't say this then you perhaps have missed the point. Theology must always be contextual, I seem to find these days people who rip a verse out of context and make a theology.

See how here elect is passive, meaning the readers are the objects of God's electing action and as verse 4 tells us, in order that they might be partakers of the heavenly inheritance being reserved for them.
Consider again "elect sojourners", they are resident aliens in a places where they do not belong. We could say, they now belong with Christ, they are God's chosen people heading towards their heavenly home.

Research: does Peter's use of sojourners here conflict with Hebrews use of it to refer to Old Testament saints giving rise to some "replacement theology of Israel? Not likely. Perhaps Peter is merely using it metaphorically?

Don't forget also that we need to continue to look at the idea of elect in regard to Peter's comment of foreknowledge in verse 2.

In Christ,
Gary

Things to do soon

2010-01-30T20:22:00.005+11:00

Hi all,
there's always something to occupy your time isn't there? I am winding up the estate of my mother at present and that takes up a large ammount of my time.
I heard a joke by the Marx Brother's recently about this.
"I am winding up my mother's estate, and it's taking a lot of my time, she had over 100 clocks"

Still we are in the process of building a new house and that is time consuming.

But what I must get on and do on my "to do" list are:
1. Write a piece on Ancient Near East cosmological views and comparison of the Bible's.
2. Write something more on Genesis 1 and Creation.
3. Write my sermon outline on Leviticus 2, and related to this investigate the hermeneutical principle that some are putting forth, those mainly moving in reformed circles, which says something along the lines that we interpret OT with Christ in mind. Some explain it this way "a hermeneutic that has as it's goal to trace every verse to its ultimate reference point: the cross of Christ."
Here we would need to consider what they mean by this? There's the need to consider texts such as How would you interpret Genesis 4, the Cain and Able Text with this hermeneutic? How would you interpret Leviticus 2? Consider Cain and Able, which unlike with Genesis 3:15 where one certainly sees a prophecy about the messiah, you understand it as showing the spread of sin and God's grace in challenging Cain not to sin but repent. We could say that this shows man's need for a saviour - which whilst true I doubt this should be the total focus of the application of the sermon on Genesis 4. Now there's some difficult questions to work through.

see you later
Gary

J I Packer lecture on problems in Gen 1 transcribed

2010-01-30T19:57:00.003+11:00

Hi Friends,
Over the years I enjoyed J I Packer's "Knowing God" and it has benefitted me as well as countless others. Yet his talk on problems on Gen 1 though a good overview do not argue his position in any real depth.
I include the document I transcribed of his talk for you to read for yourselves. The Audio is found on Sydney Anglicans Web site.
God bless,
Gary

JI Packer audio lecture on problems in Gen
Lecture ‘the attributes of God pt 2.’
Found on Sydney Anglicans site. My bold comments end with gw.
My summation: Packer says some good things at different points but he doesn’t present an argued case for the Framework position, he just says he thinks it the best and to see Henri Blocher’s book which he says is convincing. So as a lecture on issues in Genesis regarding evolution and creation it falls far too short. He offers no biblical support at how the framework position is faithful to the bible and he doesn’t even outline the Framework view.
1. Debate been going on for past 100 years and not sure if it’s an area of prime importance. In sense not sure it’s vital to know what conclusion to come to in these debates.
“Prime” – he merely gives opinion here without substance or justification. gw
2. Problems in bible of biblical witness and scientific enquiry. Alleged clash.
3. Packer’s concern is that none of us get derailed in the discussion of alleged clash between scientific enquiry and biblical account of creation.
4. 5a. cosmos – relation between the two, the nature and origins of cosmos. Simple guideline for working through this is to remember the limits of scientific enquiry / theorising and outlook; they study the cosmos as an ongoing concern. Science looks at the Process, processes taking place, it’s observational. Then wouldn’t expect scientific enquiry to tell you anything definitive about origins. Because the method of Science is one of studying a going concern from within. The bible is however, God centred, gen – revln and sees cosmos as product of God’s work, have revln, tells us things science couldn’t in principle tell us. so Theology is queen of sciences, not science – good point. gw
5. Postmodernism takes technology but has no confidence in natural science to explain natural origins.
6. The Biblical revln provides a framework within which all science knowledge with which scientists work etc understanding God made everything, and its thru his sustaining power that the cosmos continues to function and exist.
7. At one stage Scientists had a Deistic understanding, which is the wrong view to hold of the cosmos anyway. Like a clock wound up, mechanistic, but Biblically wrong. [ very Western, not found in Asia so a neurosis of the West eg Enlightenment etc. ] So Nature of Cosmos = upheld by God..
8. 5b. how relate biblical and scientific accounts of origin. Cosmologists have no doubt there was a Big bang, this the preferred view of Scientists. I don’t think there is any doubt there was a big bang but doesn’t tell you what went bang. Doesn’t tell what preceded or was behind this. So Scientific accounts stop short of what lies behind or brought about the cosmos as a going concern. Math and technical resourcefulness for dating things behind big bang theory seem certain – here is an assumption of philosophy of fact. gw One still has to go back to the bible to celebrate that God made everything.
9. What of evoln? Isn’t it quite certain that our human bodies came from simpler forms of physical life, so warrantable that human history, is a story of how mankind progressed. The appropriate Christian answer – this is a theory of evoln & it is only a theory. And only one. Doesn’t tell you about mind or mental life or mental items in the evolutionary family tree. If it were true It would still require you to posit a special event which the Christian will call a special act where [ shows Packer’s naïve study about work done trying to posit mental life, intelligence in evolutionary terms. Called socialisation etc gw ] 1st man became self consciousness and God consciousness. We still have to posit an act of God at this point in evolution. Only a Guess or hypothesis that God breathed into man 2:6 at this point of evoln of man? And if evoln theory has substance to it then it’s reasonable to hypothesis this. Yet it goes contrary to other ways things happens, [ ie miracle ? gw ] a monkey like physical being into a human. Packer doubts this hypothesis that random mutations at genetic level produced more and more order and complexity, thinking of the human body at this point, elaborate functioning contrary to way other things go in the universe. Where randomness happens.
10. Proper response it seems to me is that it’s Not question of time but whether order comes out of chaos. What evidence do we have that it can happen? What warrant when everywhere else disorder comes. But perhaps as a believer, God overrides the process so theistic evolutionist, however it’s still a guess. Nobody is committed to evoln of a guess, there are gaps in evoln family tree and oddity of the idea of chance producing the human body problems. So from philosophy of science standpoint evoln is by no means proven and as a guess / hypothesis - it is very strange indeed. Order out of chaos.
11. If believe in a God who overrules what happens to organism, then theistic, then a unique process because God guided it, people called theistic evolutionist, however it still only a hypothesis. Because of gaps in evolutionary family tree and oddity of billions of years producing the human body.
12. Biblical narratives of gen 1 and 2 doesn’t say anything about whether evolutionary hypothesis true or not. I assert it here and will argue it later.
13. Understanding biblical testimony to creation from gen 1
14. 3 views historically taken 1:1-2:4. First, the Naïve view that what’s taking place here is what would in principle have been observed if one was there during it. Days are 24 hour days, a literal weeks work on God’s part. During which God put chaotic mass into shape.
15. view 2 - no cannot maintain that in face of testimony of geology and all that physics tells us about the cosmos, biology , ethnology etc that cosmos took billions of years. Rather a match between work of the 6 days and the stages of evoln process, as Scientists envision them, so days gen are pointers to geological epochs so “let there be” points to processes which took millions of years to happen - this view is called concordism, “it seeks to enhance Moses credit by giving him a degree in science” as a Roman Catholic scholar said. [ ignores philosophy of fact and makes science determinative of truth of the bible – science stands in judgment as authority over the bible. gw ] it’s reading gen 1 as allegorical science. Knowing science now you know the correct way to read it is as allegorical science. Allegorical because the details appear to be saying something else. RC scholars mainly concordists.
16. The third view is the way almost unanimous ( really? GW ) by OT scholars today Roman Catholic or protestant, liberal or conservative. Take view that this account is on the face of it a quasi liturgical celebration of the fact of creation rather than science in disguise. The argument for this – from its literary form it’s literary genre, a narrative of celebration where literary repetition contributes to it’s effect. “And God said, morning and evening, let there be” etc. also the parallel between days 1,4; 2,5;3,6. Well, that’s very schematic, formal, it doesn’t read like allegorical science but rather like a hymn with choruses, [ here taking strophes as choruses gw ] it is a prose passage of course but seems fair from literary standpoint that it’s a prose poem. Those who understand it this way, 6 days are just part of the picture, as is the other bits, it is just speaking of the fact of creation, pictured as a weeks work, the thrust is to teach proper attitude to God because of creation, thanks and praise, so “meet the creator” not how created. [ false dichotomy, it’s both gw ] it’s as if Moses, and I will take it as Moses until better instructed, [Jesus said it was as did Paul gw] has a strategy of putting it as a week of work is so it [ fits ] the exodus commandment of Sabbath [ but this is strained, it doesn’t matter it’s a literary device (a picture) but whether they are actual days for Sabbath so the Exodus argument is one based on creation – gw ] this view of how to read gen 1 used to be called framework, but now called literary hypothesis. I for one find it irresistibly convincing. See book Henri blosch . A Conservative Calvinist. ‘In the beginning’ a picture of a weeks work celebrating the fact of creation. [ I am not saying the bible is wanting to give a scientific account of stages etc – but that God’s Word on creation implies things in regard to science none the less. gw] Seems no interest in giving a scientific account as we know it. Just the fact to rejoice in.
17. If try make sense of concordism then you are up against trouble, because sun, moon and stars on your view are not created till 4th day, and yet light on the very first day. this fact makes concordist reading unnatural.
18. This the framework hypothesis of Bloche is the best way to interpret 1: to 2:4 on my opinion.
19. For Packer to say that “as a theologian his job is to receive the bible’s message that is intended to give me” is to assume the very point at gen 1 and 2 he is trying to prove. How to interpret gen 1. gw
Questions from the floor:
20. Claimed two genesis creation accounts –comment : comparable, to modern movies, a long view of sky, then close up relation to field, [true they are not two different Creation accounts as indicated by the use of the word elohim and yhwh elohim! gw ] Packer says the story of what really happens begins in chapter 2!
21. Woman created from mans side, is it non factual poetry or what? – I don’t know if it is right to say about the biology of it – I just know what is right to say about the theology of it – [ means you must interpret it from gen1 correctly gw ] I know theol of it because Christian expositors been proclaiming it from the beginning eg Augustine. Woman made out of Adams side so he would know she completes him and he would cherish her, not to lord it over her as with doormat. Completion and companionship etc [ but does Packer know what the bible says? And are such statements as Augustine reveal understanding of meanings in gen 1 either taken as allegorical or literal. As when Packer then goes on to talk about “this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” this is completion of me. How is completion here from Adam missing a rib? She is separate, but why not my kind? Packer says the woman given back to Adam and she completes him. So is it all about adam here and not eve? Gw ] Packer says it’s a prose picture, not a poem. Packer takes gen 2 and 3 to be historical, but also gen 2 and 3 to be told in a symbolic way. Rather use symbolic than mythical or fantasy. Things described in such a way that helps you understand their meaning. Details presented symbolically so that the meaning will come across, the symbols are carriers of the meaning. [This is very strange philosophy of language. Why cannot one understand the meaning from a prose picture straightforwardly? Does the symbol have a corresponding reality as it does in normal prose, so we see a sign of which is used in airports for toilet’s worldwide and it has the referent, the bathroom. – gw ] So serpent is a symbolic presentation of Satan. [ now what is interesting here is that Packer’s discussion of snakes and satan, presented as one and the same, starts with post fall understanding of snakes, they are cunning and subtle and dangerous, they bite people before people aware that they are there. They are malevolent & we don’t like snakes, all this is not pre-fall. All this conveyed by simply exhibiting Satan as a serpent. So his interpretation is faulty for it assumes post fall understanding of snakes, not pre-fall. Gw ]
22. Packer says Moses concerned we get the right feeling, emotional response to the story. And so symbolism is used. Similarly Eve out of Adams rib – with idea of completion, also teachers basic truth about the two sexes..its more than the doctrine of marriage but of the two sexes living and working together in the human community, and the sense that persons of the other gender bring things that complete us. [ but that ignores chapter 3 where it is both together as one flesh!!!!! Gw ]
23. Packers answer to questions reveals a lot!

Hearing the mind of God, Genesis 1

2010-01-25T20:58:00.002+11:00

How easy is it to sometimes get caught up in doctrinal issues without ponding what the Scriptures are saying?
It seems to me it's quite easy. Often we quickly see an important point but have failed to realise something even more significant.
Consider Genesis 1:26 "then God said, let us make man in our image.."
Something wonderful is happening here. Up until this moment we read, the repetitions "God said, .. and there was .. and God called ... and God saw that it was good." But now we read, "then God said, let us make man.." Here we don't merely have something special in that God creates man, but that he deliberates within the godhead about it!

We are reading about God deliberating what He will do! We are being told about the thought processes of God himself. We are hearing the mind of God.

Now I am not for one moment detracting from the fact that Scripture is God's Word. I am just saying that sometimes we jump immdeiately to saying things like "oh here's a verse that has the seed of the teaching about the Trinity in it." Or "Wow- we are made in God's image". But we fail to notice that here in this verse we are told of the deliberating of God about the making of man and it stands out from His previous acts of Creation.

Oh What a glorious God.

Gary

Unpacking J. I Packer on Genesis 1 & 2

2010-01-24T15:28:00.011+11:00

Just recently in a debate with a friend over whether Genesis 1 is to be understood literally they quoted with admiration a talk given by J I Packer. They recommended that I listen to it to get the view that they adhere to, so I downloaded it and listened.

I was soon disappointed for I didn’t hear a reasoned defence of their position but merely a statement that Packer himself finds the framework position to be the best and that “I for one find it irresistibly convincing. See book Henri blosch . A Conservative Calvinist. ‘In the beginning’ a picture of a weeks work celebrating the fact of creation.”

Packer does lay out in general the three common views towards Genesis 1. Of the third view he says:

The third view is the way almost unanimous by OT scholars today Roman Catholic or protestant, liberal or conservative. Take view that this account is on the face of it a quasi liturgical celebration of the fact of creation rather than science in disguise. The argument for this – is from its literary form, it’s literary genre, a narrative of celebration where literary repetition contributes to it’s effect. “And God said, morning and evening, let there be” etc. also the parallel between days 1,4; 2,5;3,6.
Well, that’s very schematic, formal, it doesn’t read like allegorical science but rather like a hymn with choruses, [ here taking phrases as choruses gw ] it is a prose passage of course but seems fair from literary standpoint that it’s a prose poem. Those who understand it this way, 6 days are just part of the picture, as is the other bits, it is just speaking of the fact of creation, pictured as a weeks work, the thrust is to teach proper attitude to God because of creation, thanks and praise, so “meet the creator” not how created. it’s as if Moses, and I will take it as Moses until better instructed, [Jesus said it was as did Paul - gw] has a strategy of putting it as a week of work is so it [ fits ] the exodus commandment of Sabbath. This view of how to read Gen 1 used to be called framework, but now called literary hypothesis. I for one find it irresistibly convincing. See book Henri blosch . A Conservative Calvinist. ‘In the beginning’ a picture of a weeks work celebrating the fact of creation. Genesis seems to have no interest in giving a scientific account as we know it. Just the fact to rejoice in.

Let’s unpack what Packer says here:
First, he doesn’t say that his hermeneutic is putting genre as the deciding criteria of the meaning of a passage above the grammatical historical investigation which provides the basis for deciding upon the genre in the first place. We need to be aware that this is exactly what he is doing here. See his statement “a quasi liturgical celebration of the fact of creation rather than science in disguise. The argument for this – is from its literary form, it’s literary genre”.

Secondly, I thoroughly agree that Genesis 1 doesn’t read like allegorical science. However after agreeing it is a prose passage he calls it a prose poem. This would need careful argument and those that propose it don’t succeed in justifying it. All I have read agree it is not Hebrew poetry, and I would merely ask you to compare Gen 1 with clear Hebrew poetry of two Creation passages Job 38:8-11 and Psalm 104:5-9 in the bible to see the standout differences. To mention repetitive phrases does not mean they are strophe’s of poetry. And the suggested parallelism between Days 1/4 2/5 3/6 fails on matters of material correspondence. By which I mean that the created concerns of the different days actually overlap into other days as well.

I don’t deny that Genesis 1 declares God as Creator and ought to be thanked and praised and adored. However that doesn’t mean God is not teaching us things we need to adhere to. Even those with different interpretations of Genesis 1 assume this. For example some see in Genesis 1 statements that reject the worldview and beliefs of those pagans in the Ancient Near East. Such as plurality of gods, the religion of pantheism etc. And to this I would agree. Further I think it’s a false dichotomy to say that it is about “meet the Creator”, not “How He created”.

Lastly, it is strained to say that Moses’ strategy was to place creation in a 6 day frame so as to fit the Sabbath commandment of Exodus. It is to not seriously deal with the argument of the Sabbath since it requires a literal 24 hour day for the Sabbath commandment to work. Of course I recognise the quick rejoin that the framework of 6 days in Genesis 1 are merely a literary device for that Sabbath argument, however that argument relies upon accepting the genre argument of Genesis 1 as true to begin with and this has not in my opinion be sustained.

PS - I value much of what J I Packer has written elsewhere, it's just that on this tape on Genesis I think there are serious problems with his limited argument.

To God be the Glory
Gary

Man evolving? Is He really

2010-01-24T10:59:00.005+11:00

One of the famous cartoons of our era shows man evolving from and ape. But where is the evidence for this?
All around us in world we live in we see the opposite. We see decay, we see man acting immorally and with a corrupted mind. I don't deny the good acts that some people do sometimes, but the evidence of mankind plagued by sin is unavoidable.

If I neglect my garden the weeds soon appear, it doesn't evolve into a beautiful eden just by allowing more time, and it certainly won't become the manicured golf course of Augusta National in Georgia.

As we get older disease enters in and decay happens and our spine curves and shortens. You can ignore it for a time but face it you will.

Politicians are forever holding up education as the answer to mans problems, but education does not fix the problems of society or man, indeed it only makes man an educated sinner.

We daily are confronted with the young in our society who show such little regard for the life of others, where it becomes more common every day for some youth to kill and maime those around them. Is it no wonder when they have been raised on the religion of evolution, where they have been told that they have just arisen from the slime and are of no more value than dirt? If one has truly arisen from slime why worry that we return to slime?

It is the Creator God who gives meaning and value to everything, including you as a human being.

To God be the glory:
Gary

Hearing God's word and sticking your fingers in your ears!

2010-01-22T12:39:00.014+11:00

Tony Jones a foremost emergent crowd "leader" made the following comment at his B-Net blog:
Tuesday August 4, 2009 Categories:

GLBT, same sex marriage OK, I’m serious about this. I’m not even being snarky. Really.
If you are one who thinks that homosexual sex is sinful, can you please explain to me WHY a gay or lesbian person who is in a long-term, monogamous relationship would not be able to wholeheartedly follow Christ?
My only stipulation is this: You may not quote one of the six verses in scripture that mentions homosexuality. Instead, you must use theological and/or philosophical arguments to attempt to convince me that when you have genital contact with someone of your own gender, it somehow inhibits your relationship with Christ.
Thank you in advance for your civility in answering this question.

Brian McGraw rightly responded -- how do you have a theological argument without the use of scripture?

I would add that such an approach is totally unbiblical as it's a denial of 1 Peter 3:15 that starts with "in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord" meaning in every aspect of life we are to live with Christ as Sovereign Ruler of our lives.

You will find further helpful responses by pastorboy at Wittenburg Church Door
Yet at Wittenburg you will also read a few comments by Chad, in one of which Chad responds as follows:

"Ok, you have shown that you can offer a “why” response to God’s commands. There is reason behind the commands. You have listed:
- It hurts your spouse- offends the person to whom you have lied.- harms the one from whom you’ve stolen- causes harm to a person in God’s image and their family and friends.
All of these reasons are reasons I would agree with as to why God has commanded us not to commit adultery, not to lie, not to steal and not to kill.
So now, why not answer Tony’s question?"

Now I want to draw our attention to the problem with the whole approach of Tony and the emergent sheep and people like Chad, namely they have a problem with Scripture being the Word of God, that God has said something and they need to deal with it.

Now I am not saying that flippant replies to serious enquiry such as "God said so" are satisfactory. Often in Scripture we need to read the context of God's Commands, understand his Nature and consider other relevant Scriptures as well. Indeed sometimnes lengthy argument is given for a particular doctrinal teaching, such as Paul locating the reason for women not to teach [ mixed company ] as being grounded in Creation. So 1 Tim 2:11-15

So given that disclaimer, I now want to point out that Chad and his ilk exemplify that same question of Satan who asked of Eve in the Garden of Eden "Has God Said?" The thrust of this question in it's context is to raise Doubt in Eve's mind about the goodness of God [ "you must not even touch it" ] and His care for Eve. It is to make God out to be some ogre who wishes to stop Eve having fun and is one set on limiting her development. But the central issue here is even more disasterous.
In her refusal to listen to and obey the clear commands of God, she sets herself up as the Authority on what is right and wrong. She abandons God who alone has that Authority and in whom alone is the Standard of right and wrong, good and evil.

In the above statement by Chad we read that all the reasons pastorboy gave "are ones that he Chad would agree to." Perhaps he is just using sloppy language however if he is following the emergent crowds holy grail that things must agree with what they alone determine as compatible to their moral sensibilities then he is treading on dangerous ground. That's why so many are already decrying the notions of Hell and homosexuality and the atonement.

Please hear me when I say that what I have said above is not questioning Chad's salvation. what I am pointing out is that the line Chad is taking and the emergent crowd frequently espouse is a dangerous one that will easily lead to them being outright heretical, and because of that the warning needs to be sounded clearly and forcefully.

It is because of this undercurrent of unbelief that the emergent crowd are doomed to head towards heresy, and it's firsfruits can be seen in what Brian McLaren and others are already saying.

Beware!

Gary

Feeding the Sheep

2010-01-22T11:19:00.005+11:00

I just read the following helpful post by the blog Grafted in at the branch who reported the following:

an encouraging word from D.J. Ward:"The best way to purify the church and keep it pure--is to get rid of all the goats! And the best way to run the goats out of the church--is to feed them 'sheep food'. God's sheep will grow in grace under the preaching of grace--but goats will go hungry because they choke on 'sheep food'. They will soon leave and go somewhere else. Preach sovereign grace!" Is this not what scripture teaches? Did the Lord Jesus not say, "Feed My sheep." John 21:17 Did the apostle Peter not commission church elders to, "Feed the flock of God entrusted to you." 1 Peter 5:2

I suppose the thing about goats is that they will eat rubbish, but when it comes to the things of God they will either be repulsed by the truth or convicted by the Holy Spirit and repent.

While speaking of sheep, the other thing they need as they grow is solid food. They only have milk while they are lambs. We don't need malnourished sheep and the way to nourish them is with the solid teaching and exposition of the Scriptures.

Helpful to ponder eh?

In Christ,

Gary

Putting Neh 8:8 in context

2010-01-21T19:12:00.002+11:00

Anyone reading my blog will see that I use Neh 8:8 frequently. It is one Old Testament Scripture that gives rise I believe to the duty of the preacher, to expound the word of God and do expository preaching.
But anyone who looks at Neh 8:7-8 will immediately ask what is the context of the verse - you all do that won't you?
The historical context is that it is post-exilic, that's just a technical way of saying it is after the Jews, God's people returned from exile. Bowman points out about this passage that "the original Hebrew text was doubtless translated aloud as Aramaic, the common speech of the postexilic Palestine."
So we have that they read out the Hebrew and part of making it distinct was to translate it into Aramaic, then they continued to make clear the meaning.
Since this is most probably the case of what was going on, it gives us insight into what was going on. Still it doesn't detract that part of their responsibility was to make clear the sense of the text, and this is something I believe we as preachers, in a far removed culture still need to do, and do well.

In Christ,
Gary

Some things that contribute to making a good sermon

2009-12-19T11:07:00.014+11:00

I often reflect upon what makes a good sermon, not only because I sometimes preach but because I also hear a lot of other sermons.
I have already spoken of failures in preaching by looking at the book 'Why Johnny can't preach' but here I want to draw together a few biblical principles and some practical observations about what contributes to a good sermon.

First and foremost, apart from prayer and reading carefully the text, I would say that the preacher wants to consider the passage before him in careful detail. This means taking account of the meaning of the words in the verses, what the background of the passage is and it's grammatical context. So as the preacher does his homework on the passage, he is asking if there are some things that are not clear here, or whether there is some doctrine being addressed here, and implications arising from that and so on. But what is kept in mind and this is the major point I am making here, is that in your study of the passage and preaching of it, it is not enough merely to read out the verse and assume everybody understands what is being said there. As we read in Neh 8:8 the scribes read the verses, making it clear and gave the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read.
What is then required in giving their meaning is to understand the verses in their immediate context and to the original hearers. We must not just jump to some application we think arises from the passage for us today. Indeed we must teach the people of God what the passage actually means by showing what it meant to the original hearers.
As a practical consideration here, so many Commentaries fail to clearly indicate the argument being put forward in a passage, or what the point being made is and how the surrounding context reinforces that point. Many go into great detail as to the meaning of words but fail to show how it all contribute to the point being made in the passage. I am not talking about application here but the meaning of the passage. I have found that John MacArthur's "commentaries" actually are a good example of a commentary that helps you understand the words in a verse but also how it contributes to the point being made. They are not technical commentaries I suppose, as they could be better described as expository sermons dealing in depth with the passage, but they are indeed helpful.

A second but I believe related point to this endeavour is for the preacher to "rightly divide the word of truth" as Paul says in 2 tim 2:15. some translate it "correctly handle the word of truth". Most commentators point out here that it is highlighting the important role Timothy has in teaching God's Word, yet I think Gordon Fee is probably more accurate when he puts the words in their context of standing against the false teachers who are quarreling about words. Now this does not mean that the meaning of the words of Scripture aren't important. He is not saying we must have unity at all cost so don't quarrel about words. Elsewhere Paul tells us elders are to refute error, so it cannot mean that Paul is telling Timothy just to ignore what is going on. Indeed the prior verse Paul instructs Timothy to warn them about quarreling about words. Chapter 3 is a lengthy onslaught against the false teachers and Paul lays out for all how certain people in the Church have been targeted by them. As Fee points out, Timothy is to stand against their error, but his disposition is to be markedly different to that of the false teachers. This will result in, as chapter 2 tells us, that he is not ashamed, unlike the false teachers, because he correctly handles the word of truth, and that is the kind of workman you are to be.
And being such a workman is hard work!
As Homer A Kent Jr says on this passage:

"Simpson says 'it enjoins on every teacher of the Word straight forward exegesis.' There must be discernment between the various subjects taught in Scripture: salvation and service, the Jew and the church. Interpretation and application must be clearly treated. Attention must be paid to the dispensing of the word, the use of wisdom and tact.The Holy Spirit will guide God's workman, but there is latent here much need for precise and earnest labour."

Do I achieve this? Am I good at this? I do not consider myself a great preacher, but I do put in the hard work and try to follow the above principles so that I too will not be ashamed!

Perhaps you have other points your could add to those above. Why not share them with us.

God bless,
Gary

Responding to harsh criticism

2009-12-19T11:01:00.002+11:00

I found the article by Tim Keller on how to deal with criticism, and how John Newton has helped him respond in godly ways a helpfull reminder in times like ours..
I would only add that when criticism comes your way, also ask your spouse what they think and also other close godly friends whether you have over stepped the mark or done wrong.

have a look
God bless
Gary

The importance of Context in interpreting the Scriptures

2009-12-18T20:21:00.002+11:00

In the book "Scripture and Truth" edited by D.A Carson and John D. Woodbridge, Carson makes the wonderful comment that speaks to the importance of considering the context of a passage.
Regarding Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord'. As the heavens are higher than the earth ( now that has implications for Science doesn't it ? - gw ) so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Carson says "The context makes it evident that the categories do not concern competing logic systems or the like ( as though God operates by a different logic system than man - gw ), rather they are essentially moral. The previous verse exhorts 'Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts' Isa 55:7. Man's thoughts are to be bought into conformity with God's thoughts not by abandoning logic but by repentance."

Now there's something to mull over - perhaps we could use it when we gather together to Praise Him and Hear his Word and minister to one another.
In Christ,
Gary

Climate Warming - is it hysteria or should we be careful?

2009-12-14T16:18:00.003+11:00

I have many questions about the whole global warming scenario. Is the hysteria a wake up call or should we be a little more aware of what stands as evidence and the part of motives of the people involved?
It seems to me that pseudo science is offered at times to induce people to accept massive political and power changes to our societies than are warranted. Al Gore's "An Incovenient Truth" seemed one of the more extreme in this tale, and it certainly requires discernment and careful analysis of the evidence along with the underlying unstated presuppositions which are most of the time left out of the discussion and presentation of the "evidence".

Irrespective of which way the evidence leads I for one believe that Christians ought to look after their environment. We are not to abuse it, rip it off, but care for it and I see this as rooted in the creation mandate of Genesis 1. See my blog on this.

However one place to consider are the people over at The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

One of their articles has the following nifty little poem which struck my fancy.

A doctor fell in a deep well
and broke his collar bone.
The moral: Doctor, mind the sick
and leave the well alone.

This famous poem arrives, though somewhat absurdly, at a good moral: Tend to the sick, not the well. “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” We should examine the debate, science, and economics of global climate change in light of this principle, arriving at a responsible course of action.

Debate: “The time for argument is over,” say countless environmentalist politicians. “All the scientists agree.” But is there really a consensus in favor of anthropogenic ("man-made") catastrophic global warming theory? Not a chance! Marc Morano, of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently published the report, ”More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” So much for “consensus.” Besides, as Copernicus, Columbus, and others have demonstrated, “consensus” proves nothing (except, sometimes, where the money and power are).

look up the rest of the article and ponder what it is saying.

In Christ,
Gary

Culture Wars - Catherine Millet

2009-12-12T20:49:00.011+11:00

Cultural wars – Catherine Millet
The French writer who has made her sexual promiscuity public in her books has to some degree shocked the literary and art world. It’s most likely dismissed by Christians as being exhibitionist and immoral however we do well to see what is actually going on here in her writing and more so in her life which is a lived out world view. Let’s be frank here, her writing is pornographic and in that sense detestable from our perspective of the Christian Worldview, but let’s go further and see how her worldview stacks up under an internal critique, using her own words and experiences – does it still hold together as a worthwhile system? [1] It's at this level that the cultural wars are to be fought as a Christian, no in slanging matches or in fearful ignoring of what is going on around us.

She seems to me to be the child of Kierkegaard and Sartre and Camus, those existentialists who threw out reason and objective Truth and took on subjectivity as the arbiter of right and wrong, good and bad. Truly you see in her actions and attitudes that all that matters is the experience. As with Kierkegaard, all that matters is personal experience, and no ones else’s “truth” invalidates mine because it is mine, and theirs is theirs. Yet such subjectivism and individualism must I think devolve into mysticism, where the irrational triumphs over the rational and people are alienated from each other more and more.

Observing this MacArthur says of such a system, what I call this existential worldview, that it has no integrity. “Those who espouse it cannot live with the repercussions of their own illogic.”[2]

“In practice a man cannot totally reject [ rationality ], however much his system leads him to it, unless he experiences .. some form of mental breakdown”[3]

And this I believe is exactly what you see in the life of Catherine Millet. The above observations by MacArthur and Schaeffer indicate for us what we might expect as ramifications for Millet’s Worldview.

Her writing, especially as found in her ‘The sexual life of Catherine M’ has found wide readership being translated into 40 languages and selling more than 5 million copies worldwide. It depicts her proclivity for sexual encounters with whoever, where ever and whenever, even attending orgies, all the time whilst married to Jacques Henric who himself knew what was going on.
As she says in one interview:

“The sensation that one was glorying in this unbelievable freedom, this transcendence. I look back on it with nothing but pleasure. It was important to me, to my identity, my ego, but it wasn’t an addiction.”[4]

No it wasn’t an addiction but a worldview where she is the ultimate authority on right and wrong, good and evil. Where she determines what is right for her. It reaches almost the status of religion where above she says the so called freedom was an experience of “transcendence”.[5]
What really rocked her world though was when she found out her husband had himself been having affairs all the way along. His unfaithfulness “knocked her sideways; she describes being unable to sleep or breathe; suffering wild fits of rage, feeling her heartbeat falter. At times she was banging her head against the wall.”

As Francis Schaeffer referred to, she is finding herself below the line of despair, which is where the existentialist with his worldview is.

It is the moment of crisis because no man is an island. They exist in community and the fundamental community is that of God and family. Where one has friendship and trust and love with the opposite sex within the plan of God, within marriage. Where is intimacy when one lives as a self-determining authority? Where is integrity when you set the standards only for yourself and others determine their own standards? What we have in Catherine Millet at this point is the clash of her worldview with reality. That she is hurt, feels cheated and ignored is not surprising for the Christian who understands that sexual encounter is far more than a physical encounter, it is the becoming of one flesh as God in His Word proclaims. Elsewhere she proudly proclaims that the sex act is like an empty pocket [6] into which people put different things, like love as in “if you love me you’ll..” or even money or as in her case “pleasure” or so she claims but her anguish expressed above and the beating of her head against the wall reveals that she is really in denial. She is as Romans’ 1 tells us suppressing the truth about God, and one of the results of this is abandonment to abnormal sex where true passion and pleasure are destroyed.

What I find interesting is what seems to be prevalent today in out society of doing what’s right in your own eyes, of being the self-legislators of “truth” does not end up satisfying people. That even whilst searching everywhere in ways like this there is still for many a deep hunger for social relationship, for community, and more so with one special person, where love and intimacy and acceptance will be found. No matter how far people rebel against God and run, they are left only in despair and loneliness and loss of intimacy which themselves point to the reality that they are the absolutes they have abandoned in their rebellion against God.

I am not recommending you read Catherine Millet’s book, indeed I wouldn’t want you to because the language is so explicit it’s demeaning. Rather I want you to see that she is like so many others who run from God and attempt to make themselves the arbiters of Truth only to end up in shallowness and a world lacking intimacy and worth and love.

I would also hope that in God’s Grace she might hear of the good news of the gospel message that alone can release people from such bondage.

your brother in Christ,
Gary

1. Some see her work as porn as the new art, but I have no interest in arguing against that view here, but rather the more important question of whether such a worldview implodes upon itself into despair.
2. John MacArthur ‘Reckless Faith’ Crossway Books 1994 pg 27.
3. Quoted in MacArthur ‘Reckless Faith’ pg 27.
4. Mind Games by Jon Henley ’Life’: The sun-Herald Magazine Dec 6th 2009 pg 21
5. Mind Games by Jon Henley ’Life’: The sun-Herald Magazine Dec 6th 2009 pg 21
6. http://dtl.unimelb.edu.au/view/action/singleViewer.do?dvs=1260584686450~273&locale=en_AU&DELIVERY_RULE_ID=4&search_terms=SYS%20=%20000009892&adjacency=N&application=DIGITOOL-3&frameId=1&usePid1=true&usePid2=true

Unity in the Faith -

2009-12-09T20:11:00.007+11:00

Unity is such a buzz word and rightly so. It does and should urge us to seek a fellowship which is God's body gathered together to serve Him and each other. A place where people have community and care for one another.
But what makes the local church different from a R.S.L or a golf club where people meet together and enjoy each others company?
The local church is different because Biblical Unity is always based upon Truth. It's never mere emotionalism or desire or having a common goal.
Paul in Philippians 4 pleads with Euodia and Syntyche to agree with each other, to be likeminded. Yet the likemindedness spoken of here has to do with "in the Lord". There is never an injunction in the Scriptures to "Unity at all cost", Unity requires discrimination.
Indeed in Philippians, as the great preacher Martin Lloyd Jones pointed out,

they are exhorted "to stand fast in the Lord" Just like he'd exhorted the Corinthian Church "to stand firm in the faith" 1 Cor 16:13 Similarly, Phil 1:27 "Stand firm in the one spirit". All these suggest the same thing. To stand firm in the Faith"
Here is not unity at the expense of Truth, here [ there ] is no unity with those who deny the deity of Jesus.

Martin Lloyd Jones speaks of the issue of unity in the context of the ecumenicalism of his day. One is to stand fast in the the Lord and that is to stand fast concerning the truth of the Lord.

We need to remember that when Paul speaks to Euodia and Syntyche that these are fellow Christians, those he speaks of in 4:3 whose "names are written in the book of life." They are the opposite of the dogs of Philippians 3:2 who all are to be on guard against. These two women are not false teachers riling against reach other but fellow saints whom he pleads with. As our passage tells us "they are in the Lord" yet their quarelling with each other is detrimental to fellowship and so Paul pleads with them to stop.
What we can say then from our passage is that these two were not arguing over some doctrine, some teaching of God's Word. If they had been we would have expected rightly for Paul to exhort the elders at Phillipi to correct their errors or where they lacked in teaching and urge them to be reconciled. Or if they had been two eagerly checking out what the other claimed Scripture said against Scripture, then I expect Paul would have applauded then as Acts 17 might suggest regarding the Bereans. Of course if that endeavour was being unkind and not seeking the others good then I believe he would have surely rebuked them about that, but I don't think that their problem was grounded in a dispute over Scriptures teaching, and that's why Paul pleads with them to stop and be likeminded.

What more can we learn from God's word to us about Unity here? Perhaps you might suggest something?
your brother in Christ,
Gary

Understanding Hermeneutics - the first step

2009-11-15T21:16:00.002+11:00

When considering hermeneutics some are a bit put off by the fact that some begin by quoting Scripture as providing the contours, the boundaries as it were for proper hermeneutics, hermeneutics which is the proper method of Interpreting Scripture. They see this as perhaps circular reasoning and are maybe embarrassed by it.
Let me suggest that this same unease is encountered by some who study and debate Christian apologetics. They are uneasy about beginning with Scripture. They think that this somehow is a refusal to find “common ground” with “the unbeliever” or “the seeker”. ( if there is such as person as a seeker in the Bible’s sense of the term. ) and that such a method commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. Furthermore in such debates from Christians discussing apologetics you find the fear that if the believer begins with Scripture, then all that will ensue with the unbeliever is a “shouting match” where the believer says “God says” and the unbeliever rejoins “Who says” or perhaps a seemingly reasonable argument that “we must not assume the very thing we are trying to prove”.
What is often forgotten is first of all the motive for the Christian to do apologetics, that is offer a defence for what the Christian faith is, is his faithful response to the word of God found in 1 Peter 3 “Always be ready to give an answer … the reason for the hope you have.” And the reason he is motivated by this is because the Lord God has already worked in his heart to convict him of his sin against God, brought him to repentance and filled him with his Holy Spirit. That is, God has transformed him, and that is the reason why he wants to obey 1 Peter 3:15. It is only a Christian, one transformed by God already who wants to do apologetics with his unbelieving neighbour.
That is the foundation for all he does as a Christian. So methodologically he begins apologetics with his understanding of the unbeliever as a sinner, one in rebellion against the Lord God. Then he takes a two pronged approach to the unbeliever. He reasons with him to show that his worldview, the unbeliever’s worldview – whether it be naturalism or a even a religious worldview, is incoherent, it just doesn’t provide for meaning and reason and love and ethics and right and wrong and science and the like. Then he asks him if he can share about the Christian Worldview of the bible that does provide and account for these things and he can speak of the Creator of all, God, who is personal and Sovereign etc, Who is outside of His Creation and yet enters into it to relate to man, and how man sinned and rebelled and how God in His wisdom and plan sent Jesus, Who is God, into the world to redeem Him, etc.
In the end it has to be assumed, that the unbeliever is in rebellions against the God who is his Creator and Creator of all, even though he does know him. Rom 1. The unbeliever is actively and continually suppressing that knowledge.
So what we need to understand here from this illustration from apologetics is that methodologically it is reasonable and coherent to argue from Scripture right from the very start in any endeavour we take as a Christian, and ever so much more when it comes to hermeneutics.
Thus we begin our discussion of correct hermeneutics, that is, how one can rightly interpret the bible by quoting Scriptures that make it clear that:
1. Scripture is God’s Word. Inspired, breathed out. 1 Tim 3:16.
2. Scripture has to be accurately handled. 2 Timothy 2:15 “accurately handling the Word of Truth”.
3. Scripture is Truth. 2 Tim 2:15.
4. Scripture is clear though it has some passages that are hard, but not impossible to understand. So 2 Peter 3:15-16. It just means a lot of hard effort needs to be put in, indeed in 2 Tim 2:15 it requires “a workman”, one who puts in much effort! In Deut 6:6-7 Moses tells the Israelites to teach these words to their children, to discuss them. The assumption is that it can be understood. Then in the reading and application of the book of the law in Nehemiah 8:8, it says the scribes ”read and gave the sense of the Scriptures” Now there’s a good reminder of the role of the elder in expository preaching of the word to God’s people. Then Jude 3 assumes that Christians can understand the word of God for we all are to “contend for the Faith once for all delivered.”
No doubt there are others to add, but these at least are a minimum.

your brother in Christ,
Gary

What happens if you take Genesis 1 as semi poetic

2009-11-12T09:52:00.008+11:00

If you happen to study the issue of how a christian is to interpret Genesis 1 you will no doubt find a small number of people who take the genre of Genesis 1 to be semi poetic.
I actually read yesterday on the net that Rob Bell takes the even stronger position of calling it poetic, even though most commentaries point out that it is certainly not Hewbrew poetry as found for example in the Psalms. Have a read of Wenham's Commentary on Genesis 1-15 where this is addressed.
But a few take the supposed lesser position of calling it semi poetic.
Now even though I don't believe it can be taken as semi poetic, after all, finding a few repetitive phrases or even a triadic structure that some see in parallel days of 1&4; 2&5; 3&6 doesn't make something semi poetic, let's for a moment assume they are right and see what follows from taking it that way.
If it is semi poetic then day, morning and evening do not function in the specific and clear way they seem to. Indeed as one advocate of this approach says for example about the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, this is just "a wonderful literary expression of the closeness between the sexes." In that case everything in Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally but poetically, even though it is asserted that this does not deny that Genesis 1 is historical.

Given all that we now meet a methodological problem in that when they get to 1:26f they suddenly switch hermeneutical horses and call that literal, not poetic since they still want to claim man is made in the image of God.
What this tells me is that this issue is very much a hermeneutical issue. And what's more, proponents of the semi poetic view are being arbitrary in their taking of Genesis 1 as semi poetic.
And that is totally irrespective of having to address the issue of the whole nature of poetry being somewhat subjective.
This is a very serious and difficult problem for those who advocate taking Genesis 1 as semi poetic and it is something they have to deal with.

What do you think?

In Christ,
Gary

Apologetics methodology - reaching our culture where it is at.

2009-10-25T12:29:00.018+11:00

Pastors wake up! we are past Josh McDowell's plaid trousers. To put it another way -
Pastors, we are not in Kansas anymore. At least Dorothy had the perception to realise that she wasn't in Kansas anymore, unlike many pastors and evangelists today. Back in the late 60's or early 70's I had the pleasure of watching a movie involving Josh McDowell speaking about Christianity and the Evidence that demands one make a verdict about Jesus. It was relevant and informative and challenging, for in those days many were asking the question about evidence for the christian faith.
I remember the laughter however when Josh, appearing before a University crowd came on the screen dressed in plaid trousers. At the time something culturally relevant for Americans but not so with Australians where Blue Jeans was the "in thing".
Thirty odd years on however, we have Pastors who just don't get it that those sorts of answers that Josh gives don't cut it anymore in evangelism purely because most unbelievers are not asking those questions anymore.
These Pastors who quote McDowell are in effect wearing plaid trousers without any awareness that the culture has moved on.
Our Culture has moved on. Far fewer have any basic understanding of the Bible or the Christian Faith. It's revealed partly by the unbelievers best known verse which isn't John 3:16 but rather "Do not judge". Most unbelievers think that objections to Christianity have won the day. Many live by unexamined assumptions about life where beliefs are picked up by adding them to your plate from the smorgasbord of beliefs and chosen on the basis of pragmatism only. What "works for me" seems to be the guiding motive in what people believe today. They accept half-baked worldviews such as postmodernism with any investigation or deep thinking about what is involved. The Closing of the American Mind is aptly descriptive of the Australian scene and indeed most Western advanced countries. But surely it is tragic if this is the situation of our pastors also.

Some might think that apologetic method is not important for the Christian, he just needs to tell others about Jesus. But this is both simplistic and untrue. It ignore that Paul shows a clear method of being culturally relevant to unbelievers and showing them that their worldview is a house of cards and that Christianity alone makes sense of it all. In Acts 17 Paul helps us see the importance of what he elsewhere calls "pulling down fortresses." The unbeliever is shown how man has 'a worldview of choice' that is internally incoherent, for example he makes idols of the same wood he uses to warm himself by the fire.
And we need to repeatedly hear that Evangelising doesn't mean everybody responds positively as we see clearly from Acts 17, indeed Paul is denigrated and maligned by some of his hearers but such responses are not a reason to refrain from proclaiming the gospel message.

Isn't this something we take for granted, this cultural awareness in evangelism - when preparing missionaries for the mission field. We do this as an integral part of the training we do when sending missionaries overseas to the Chinese or Africans. We learn the culture and language so as to be able to communicate and not needlessly offend by saying inappropriate things or using gestures in the wrong manner. So why are we so reticent at home within our own culture?
Is it that we are so cut off, or perhaps it's the opposite of being so absorbed by our culture? that we are not aware that our professing of evangelistic truth is not hitting home and we blame the lack of response to being due to hardened hearts or refusal to turn to God.

I hope all of us will spend some more time in pondering this as we seek to take the good news to those without the Lord Jesus Christ.

Your brother,
Gary

Suffering and the Economy

2009-09-09T13:01:00.008+10:00

Often after watching the evening news I am forced to ponder the behaviour of politicians here and abroad in regard to the global financial meltdown.
Are their enacted and proposed solutions viable? Will they work out in the end for those whose only hope is in pragmatism? Or will it come crashing down like a deck of cards in a tornado? a disaster much worse than what has happened in the last 16 months with the crashing global economies.
I regularly see advertisements on television by superannuation funds saying that though times are tough we must look to the long term regarding our superannuation. That it will return to the good ol times of prosperity once again. I get the same speel from my frequent supperannuation investment reports encouraging me to further invest!

Yet at present we see America spiralling into further debt that must end in dire consequences for all. They say their current debt is a mere 7 trillion dollars but the real amount of unfunded liabilites when you add their medicare and social security is closer to 100 trillion. Think of it, their economy is only a 10 trillion dollar economy and their debt at it's simplest calculated level is 7 trillion! Who could run a household and not be bankrupt on those kind of figures?

We do well to heed the words of Lawrence Reed as reported over at Wayne Israel's blog, Christianworldview.
"[The corrections introduced by Governemnt] are preventing the necessary adjustments from cleansing the economy and is putting us on a reckless path to inflation, debt and national bankruptsy."

"Government and it's unconscionable debt are spiralling out of control. This must stop or financial disaster looms."

He correctly alludes to the collaspse of character that is behind this fiscal lunacy.

I understand the positiveness of politicians in the face of financial collapse, they worry that their negative comments could send the economy further into crisis, and perhaps they do indeed operate on what Reed says is the Keynesian school of economic thought - see the above linked article, however I see overall they are failing to lead the country and act responsibly. What is required is indeed a proper level of integrity, not just pragmatism or economic rationalism which here in Australia was actually the backbone of Liberal federal government rule, but seems to be also that of Labour!

Overall, we trust our Lord and God through all crisis, but that doesn't mean we have to be uninformed or naive about possible consequences. And more importantly for Christians, is our character and that of our children being honed by our Lord to withstand the difficulties that await all due to economic failure of whole economies? We need to resist the mindset of our culture that we can have it all and we can have it now. Our mindset is that in Christ we already have all that is important.

In Christ,
Gary

The different Worldview of Suffering and trust

2009-08-19T21:19:00.006+10:00

In Job 13:15 we read a challenge to us all in our worldly thinking. We read of Job who after much suffering says "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him."

How different is this worldview than our daily perspective? Remember how Daniel's friends made a similar trust declaration in the Lord God when facing the fiery furnace.

Daniel 3:17 "If it be so, our Lord God whom we serve is able to deliver us from this burning fiery furnace ; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O King. But if not, be it known to you, O King, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up."

Their attitude is that either way, their God will deliver them, either out of the furnace or through death!

Our God, the Creator redeemer and Sustainer of all things is all powerful and trustworthy, what a Great God.

Gary

Some Guidance for young pastors

2009-08-19T09:34:00.012+10:00

What is important in the ministry of a new pastor? What goals should he have for his ministry, what should be his focus and what areas should he expend his energies on?

These are important questions and sadly ones that are not really reflected upon and counsel sought at the beginning of one's ministry. Just this weekend I was talking to a pastor who had been in ministry for over 15 years and the last 7 odd as a senior pastor of a large growth church. He was on long service and reflecting on his ministry. Especially having moved to an already growing church how does he direct and focus them towards biblical goals. His dilemna was not have a "history" with them from the start, the kind of deep relationships that really should characterize our ministry lives.

I reminded him that a pastor should be torn betwen two poles, that of being in his study and engrossed in the Word of God, writing sermons and Bible studies and contrasted to this, at the other pole being out with people, talking to them, fellowshipping and guiding them and building personal relationships.

Of course I have heard ministers say you should not form close relationships with your flock, that you shouldn't have friendships among the people you minister to, but I believe this is nonsense. I have seen it at it's extreme where people have told me they have never stepped inside of the rectory / manse, let alone had a meal there! How tragic.

One of the traits of an elder is that he be hospitable, that he be hospitable towards strangers, and my point is that if his heart is like this towards strangers then surely it is the same with his people.

But consider how the apostle Paul acted towards those he'd evangelised and taught. I see deep love and care and comitment to them. He talks to them as friends.

So what a pastor has is two foci - the Word of God and people.
In his ministry two major involvement are preaching the Word of God faithfully week after week and caring for people, building relationships. They primarily are worthy of expending his energy upon.

Of course his family is a priority and indeed they are part of his ministry and part of "his flock" and so spending time with them isn't something he should feel guilty about of have to justify time wise. In act it's helpful to block out periods for them specifically, just as he would for any other people he ministers and builds relationships with.

But you say, ministry has so much other things that creep in. True but you need to be discerning and make true priorities. For example we have administration to do, but it should never crowd out the other two foci.

something we all need to reflect upon

Gary

Australian Coin Collecting - a really good introduction

2009-07-31T20:36:00.007+10:00

Here's the second great newspaper article from the Sunday Telegraph 1964. It's old currency valuation but at least you get the idea of what to look for and what it was worth back then.

Enjoy collecting your pennies.

Gary

Australian Stamp collectors - the best introduction.

2009-07-31T13:51:00.028+10:00

I recently was at my mother's home cleaning it up after she passed away in May when I found a couple of really informative newspaper articles on Stamps and coins.

Here's the first one on stamps - Australian stamps of course. Written by Jack Cato in 1963. It is old but you get the idea of valuable stamps from back then.

hope you enjoy reading about them if you are interested in stamps.

Gary

Leviticus 1

2009-06-20T18:46:00.040+10:00

The following is a Sermon on Leviticus 1 without having worked through the whole of Leviticus so I certainly could make emendations.

Who has read the book?

It seems pretty clear that some books of the bible are viewed both by Christians and preachers as being almost in the too hard basket.
Some preachers certainly view the book of Revelation as being a bit hard and they avoid preaching on it suggesting as one pastor once told me at the end of his career that it was too confusing to understand and he'd never preached on it. This despite the fact that the book of Revelation itself claims to be an unveiling not a cloaking of Who Jesus is!

With the book of Leviticus things are only slightly different.

How many have read the book, let alone heard a sermon on it?

Too many preachers have a penchant for only preaching the New Testament. Sure the book of Leviticus has subjects that at times don't appear relevant to us as Christians, for example all those chapters about regulations regarding infections and childbirth and mildew, and how about the "ordination" of the Priests, but that really reflects a poor understanding of the book itself.

So let's get into this book that so many ignore.

The book of Leviticus is part of the Torah, the first five books of Moses because he is the one who wrote them. He is said to have written them during the Exodus from Egypt so one of the things you need to ask is what did all this mean for Moses' hearers? What would it have meant for them to implement these laws?

Those are very good questions, something that can help us ponder what they then mean to us.

In verse 1 we read that "The Lord called to Moses."
Sometimes we miss the obvious because we don’t pay attention to detail.
Literally, the verse is “and He { the Lord ] called to Moses.”
Do you see that little word “and”. What’s it there for? It’s there to connect it to what came previously. And that’s the book of Exodus. You see there’s no break in God’s Word. It’s not as though the books of the Old Testament are a mere collection of different stories from different times. Thematically they connect! Theologically they connect!

From one little Hebrew word we are to get insight into what’s going on in Leviticus 1.

We could actually get there without this by asking a simple question.

From where did he call?

God is not distant in heaven! From the last chapter of the book of Exodus chapter 40 verses 34f we read that the Glory of the Lord is in the tabernacle. This is important for us to think through.

Back in Egypt whilst the people were in Egypt from the time of the famine, a new king arose who did not know about Joseph, and he persecuted the people of God by putting them under harsh labor. Exod 1.

And later we read God hears the groaning of the people of God who as slaves were suffering in Egypt. Exodus 2:23-25. “and God remembered his Covenant with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.” That is, God had a history of promise with His people. It began with Abraham, then continued through Isaac and Jacob. God, we are being told, stands by His Promise.

What was His promise to Abraham? To make a people a nation, who He would bless, who would be a blessing, and He would stand by them. Genesis 12:1-3. So He selects Moses to represent His people, and we read in chapter 3 that the Lord God speaks to him out of a burning bush.

After the rescue, after salvation! Where he delivered them out of Egypt, just like we see in Exodus 20 where He reminds them of this deliverance before he tells them how they are to live in the 10 commandments. Then after all that, towards the end of the book of Exodus we read of the making of the tabernacle and the Glory of the Lord, that is, His presence comes to the tabernacle when the cloud, which guides them through the 40 years in the wilderness, comes over the tabernacle.

So God, who is with the people, His people, calls to Moses.

It is further in verse 1 of Leviticus 1 that we see the Lord God speaks to Moses. God is not Silent. He is able to be understood. He speaks and man is to listen.

So just what is God declaring? He tells us of the need for a sacrifice, the need for a burnt offering that is a pleasing aroma to the Lord. Three times this is repeated, and as I often like to remind people, God does not waste his breathe. He doesn't talk like us who just like to hear our own voice. When He repeats himself in the bible it's important. and so here we read three times what is pleasing to God, vs 9, 13 &17.

It's an offering from the herd, or from the flock or of birds. If anyone makes an offering this is how you are to do it.
You are to do it the way God says.
The Priest, that is those of the family of Aaron, vs 11 are to sprinkle the blood on the altar. Yet it's the person making the offering that slaughters the animal, they are the one's who we'd say "get their hands bloody" !
They are the one's who take the life of the animal.

And it will cost the offerer. It’s to be from the domesticated animals, his flock, not a wild animal, So you will see that it will be costly economically.

Why all this blood? Why all this death? It's because sin is serious! The sinner needs to bring a sacrifice for his sin. Death is required for sin. In the offenders place death must occur. And the offender is to place his hands on the animal in identification, in acknowledgment that this is what is happening.

{{ Yet whilst it is serious and while it is to be seen as an offering for sin, it is also an offering of worship which the Lord God is happy with. You could miss this point easily unless you compare it with later sacrifices where it is not a pleasing aroma to the Lord – all because the last two which are for expiation of sin are not dealing with communion as such. But we’ll see this when we get to them. }} – See Constable and work this through.

What I find interesting is that man, unbelieving man denies two of the clear points of this passage. Today man denies that God speaks. He denies that God has made His mind clear. They deride the bible. They continually say "Has God said", just as Satan asked Eve in the Garden of Eden.

And secondly they try to find excuses all the time for sin. They give it other names, they blame everything but the sinner. They redefine adultery to having an "affair". They blame his environment for what man does. Suggesting that if we only change his environment, or educate him that man won't do what we are forced at times to identify as evil.

However, we don’t understand a passage by merely contrasting it to how the world rejects it, to use it as a ramrod in our culture wars as T. D. Gordon would say.

Instead we still need to ask What Israel would have thought of this. What Moses hearers would have thought of what God required. Clearly if you want to please God, sacrifice needs to be made for our sin. If one is to be in communion with the Lord God sacrifice is required.

Now let’s see here that “the sons of Israel,” verse 2, “the Israelites” are the covenant people of God because of God’s promise to Abraham. They do not make this sacrifice to earn salvation. They make sacrifice so they can come back into communion with God once they have sinned.

Think about that for a moment. It has immense implications for your understanding of Who God is and who Israel are. This is for God’s believing people. This is for those who sprinkled blood on the doorposts in Egypt in faith so as to be delivered and have the angel of death Passover their eldest child.

These sacrifices are the means by which Israel sought and sustained their communion with God. The way God required it! The sense of God’s presence in all this is clearly brought out in the words used throughout – all this is done “before the Lord” vs 3, that is He is present – and you have to grasp the severity of all this.

At the time of the Exodus from Egypt there were some 1.5 million people, and by this time there could at least have been two million. How do you carry out sacrifices on that scale for sin? It's not a picture of white robed priests and those that cut the throat of the animals in fine white linen but of blood covered offenders. Where in a desert do you get all that water required to clean your hands and clothes?

Is such a system workable? And if it isn't what does that mean? This is what the Lord God requires. So you cannot make excuses. But perhaps, just perhaps this is meant again to teach God's people that sacrifice is required for sin and He would do it through the Messiah, His lamb.

Here we pay attention to the fact that “a male sacrifice is required, one with out blemish.” These are not merely suggesting that The Lord God requires our best, but they are types for Christ, the true sacrifice for sin. READ Hebrews 9:14.

We won’t speculate on the notion that a male sacrifice is required here, for later on we read a female one is acceptable in one of the sacrifices. Yet we can have confidence that being without blemish is important as the New Testament refers a number of times to the lamb of God, Jesus being without blemish. Look at Paul’s quote in N.T.

So in verse 4 it's clearly stated that this sacrifice is for atonement. it carries the idea of sin being dealt with and cleansed, but also of ransom, see Leon Morris, and then also the notion that it accomplishes reconciliation between God and man.

And it further fits well with the Lord God's repeated point to His people throughout the Old Testament that the attitude of those that deal with this sin is important to Him.

You know of course that in a reconciled relationship your attitudes count. Your attitude to the other person matters. If you are ignoring them and don’t listen to them there’s a serious problem isn't there?

So also our attitude to sin is important. Just as the Israelites attitude to sin was important to the Lord. He requires a contrite and broken heart. those that mourn over their sin. He's not looking for someone who is merely perfunctionary about putting on a sacrifice. He's not looking for Priests, who almost mechanically go about their duties.

Consider Isaiah 66:2f "This is the one whom I esteem; he who is humble and contrite in Spirit, and trembles at my word. But whoever sacrifices a bull is like one who kills a man, and whoever offers a lamb like one who breaks a dogs neck.... they have chosen their own ways, and their souls delight in their abominations .. [for] when I called no one answered, when I spoke, no one listened.. They did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me."

The one the Lord God esteems are those that are humble and contrite in spirit and listen to Him! They respond to what He says. They "tremble at His Word".

This is the same criticism that Jesus make of the Jews and leaders in His day. He pointed out in Matthew 5 what Kingdom people would be like. They are poor in spirit "they recognise their spiritual bankruptsy", They mourn, "mourn over their sin", they thirst for righteousness.

The Kingdom comes with the King not to throw out the Romans, it's not political oppression that is their, the people of Israel’s problem, but sin. Their problem is spiritual, not political.

How are we to see the application here in Leviticus 1?

Of course we recognise for us the immediate truth that Jesus is the final sacrifice, the on Who truly makes us right with God.

But before we jump into what’s in it for me, let’s see what this means for both the Jew and the also the Christian.

What we see here is that to Walk with God, to have communion with God requires sacrifice for our sin. For the Jew, he could not ignore What God requires. He needed to hear with humility that his sin was serious. When Jesus “the Lamb of God” came – and these are that great Old Testament prophet John the Baptists words, - He came to deal with Sin. He is God’s Answer, He the Messiah, is King, the promised King of Israel, and the King who came to die to make atonement for sin.

It tells us God’s ritual to come into His presence,

Can ritual be bad? Of course, and this was Jesus accusation against the Pharisees of his time. They were white washed tombs, cleaning the outside by performing bits and pieces of the law while remaining defiled inside! They needed to recognise who the Messiah was and Why He was there and welcome Him as King and Redeemer and Priest.

More importantly for Israel this book tells them how they can fulfil what God requires and what it means.

Back in Exodus 19:6 they are explicitly told they will be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

Wow what a privilege, what a standing. What honor.

And do you realise it’s really part of the covenant that God made with Abraham isn’t it – they will be a blessing to the world. This then as God’s continuing revelation helps them understand this come to grips with it.

But how can they be a holy nation when sin rears its ugly head. And when it does how can they commune with a holy God when sin happens?

There’s much more to see about them being a holy nation as the rest of Leviticus tells us – and we will soon see that. [ namely that they are separate, extremely different to the world and the requirements of God here in Leviticus mark them off objectively for all to see, from the nations around them ]

What then about us? For us Christians, what do we learn here?
Isn’t it amazing how the same notion is applied to Christians in 1 Peter2:9 ! You are a kingdom of priests, you are marked off.

And secondly, what are we to do when we sin? How are we to be restored? We understand that When Jesus the lamb of God, died on the cross he paid the penalty even for our future sins, but is there still something we are to do?

Look at 1 John 1:7-9. daily confess our sins and purpose to walk in God’s ways..

Lastly, from God’s word to the Jews, as found in Leviticus 1 we can take heart in the same Hope. The same Lord God who promised Israel, who made His covenant with them and faithfully kept it, is the Same God who holds us. Who transforms us into the likeness of His son Jesus.

What blessing when holiness is so awesome!

What Love - love in the New Testament

2009-06-13T22:50:00.013+10:00

How often do we hear a sermon and the preacher makes a big deal out of love and yet fails to explain what love he is speaking of?

This becomes quite clear when we understand that in Greek there are four words for love.
There's phileo, eros, agape and storge.
Phileo is speaking brotherly love, such as in philadelphia, the city of brotherly love.
Yet it can also be understood more broardly as speaking of "friendship".

Then there's eros - from which we get the word erotic, meaning sexual love. However it can also mean passionate love and sensual desire. The Greek philosophers saw it not as necesarily about "physical attraction" but "appreciation of beauty itself ", that is not necessarily having to do with a person. Yet their notion of love was tied up closely with their search for Truth and Beauty and the good, so it was somewhat focused by those concerns.

Third, we have storge, "affection", that which Parent have towards their children or children towards their parents. It's that which is family love and is the one most often forgotten about.

Last of all and most importantly we have agape - that other person centred love, it is the word used most frequently for the love God shows towards mankind and shown by Jesus. That love we see Jesus exemplifying on the cross, dying for others sin. It is selfless love, doing what is needed for the other person.

As you study the Word of God, and you come across the word love, find out which one is being used as it will broaden and deepen your understanding of the text.

In Christ,
Gary

Preaching expository sermons on Leviticus

2009-06-12T08:16:00.037+10:00

We have just begun a series of sermons on the book of Leviticus at church and it has spurred me to think about how I would preach through such an Old Testament book as Leviticus.

When you look at the book we quickly see there are many chapters on similar themes, for example sacrifice in chapter 1-5, then the Priesthood from 8-10 and so on. One is then tempted to lump them together and do a wholesale approach like taking the first 5 chapters together and do a thematic sermon for each group. Of course this is not expository preaching which I am committed to, even though there are times when I can see value in doing such a thematic preaching series from the bible.

Still I must ask myself "Have I preached through the book of Leviticus if I leave out chapters like chapter 5 and for the rest skim quietly over the text just drawing out the main theme of each chapter"?

My conclusion is no.

Still, having not preached through Leviticus I admire those who have attempted to preach it, either thematically or through expository preaching of the text. It is a daunting task, one that many leave undone altogether.

I have frequently seen on the internet preachers who take a "narrative" preaching tac with Old Testament books. That is, taking the section before them which can run into many chapters and then giving the general outline of the story and drawing an application from this.

This perhaps for some is prompted by the belief that the Old Testament books are primarily telling the story of Israel's birth as the people of God and then Israel's "story." For some this is then compounded by the view that since the Old Testament in it's early transmission was done orally, then the words and the phrases used are not of central importance. They seem to assume that oral transmission is of lesser accuracy than written transmission.

In practice we see this happen with some Preachers when they get past Genesis 12 with the choosing of Abraham by God. Suddenly they begin to choose a chapter or more at a time to preach from. However this leads to a neutered understanding of what God is teaching. We miss seeing the many connections with what the Lord God has already told Israel and us the readers, earlier.

To highlight just one example, when in Genesis 12 God says "Any one who curses you I will curse"

In this verse the words translated curse are different in these two cases. A point sadly missed by translators.
It says that any who even disdain Israel, God will curse! That gives it a whole different flavour doesn't it?

It tells us that Israel is indeed "the apple of His eye"! They are precious to Him.

If we pick up on this, something picked up from careful hermeneutics of the text and investigating each verse, then we see open for us a perspective that was previously hidden due to our "shallow" reading of the text. [ Again have a good read of T. D. Gordon "Why johnny can't preach" and the failure of preachers to understand the unity and argument and so on of the text. ]

With this perspective about Israel as precious to the Lord God and that God would curse those that even merely disdain Israel, what should the people of God have thought as they related to other nations? Further, do we not also see God's judgment on nations for their attitude and actions towards Israel throughout the Old Testament as fulfillment of this promise God made to Abraham?

That is just one example of taking careful note of what God says in His word. Can one not expect further reward when looking at other Old Testament books?

Some preachers approach to books like Leviticus is to see their importance in terms of generalities, in the sense of seeing types of Jesus prefigured by the sacrificies for example. Their basis for this is something I am intrigued by. Sometimes they justify their approach here by quoting Luke's statement in Luke 24 about Jesus comments to the two on the Emmaus road after His death and Resurrection.

In Luke 24 verse 27 we read "And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." But let's be careful about what Luke is actually saying here. Does it mean that every chapter is talkimg about Jesus as Messiah? Not at all. There are for example chapters that lay out in detail the dimensions of the Temple, how it was to be built, how those set aside were to minister in it, the priests, etc. What we cetainly gain from such chapters is the necessity of a sacrifice for sin, at other times what we see that the Messiah is portrayed through typology, and other times that he is the one promised whom God would send. When the bible speaks of Cain killing Abel it is not speaking in any way directly about Christ, but rather the spread of sin after the fall of Genesis 3. When it speaks twice in Genesis of Abraham passing his wife off as his sister it does not speak of Christ, but of man failing to Trust the promises of the Lord God.

What one can surmise is that Jesus raised with the two on the Emmaus road passages that spoke of Him, one like 2 Sam 7 the promised Messiah, or the promised Messiah of Isaiah 53, "the son" of Psalm 2 and so on.
The point of Jesus' teaching is that they all pointed to Him, the annointed one, the suffering servant, the Messiah.

Next time I will give a simple outline of what I see as some of the important preachable points of Leviticus 1.

In Christ,
Gary

Why Johnny can't preach - T D Gordon

2009-06-11T17:39:00.017+10:00

Every now and then you read something or hear someone speak and it just thrills you to bits. This happened for me a week ago when I listened to the online interview of T. David Gordon by Michael Horton over at the Whitehorse Inn.

I have been mulling over the issue of media and preaching taking note of people like Neil Postman and Marshall McLuhan for about the last 6 months. And suddenly I hear someone addressing the concerns in a much more clear and well argued way than I could.

T. David Gordon wrote a little book called 'Why Johnny can't Preach', its sub title being "The media have shaped the Messengers." He's not talking here about liberal left wing journalists pushing an anti-christian agenda through their media outlets. Rather he suggests that the types of media in our modern age, for example television, are having a major impact on up and coming preachers. The reason he called his book Johnny can't preach is that it follows on from the notions that are found in books such as Johnny can't read and Johnny can't write.

Media ecology is a term used to describe "how changes in dominant media alter the human and social environment." pg 16. we need to acknowledge and deal with a culture, one which we are included in, that is image based and has a predominance of electronic media. Where speaking on the phone is not the same as communicating via a letter.

T. David Gordon has voiced a concern that you find among some who fervently desire a real return to expository preaching. Not some glib allusion to a verse here and there but a solid exposition of the verses and their meaning and how they fit into a cogent unity and structure. Too often Preachers are settling to deliver stories or pick swaths of text to cover in one sermon, and yet the preacher fails to show the unity and structure of the text.

When people complain about a bad sermon or show distinterest in what is preached we are not allowed to wriggle out of it by saying that it's due to short attention span or spiritual apathy. Many times it's due to our poor preaching. We have failed to show them the development of the argument and the movement of God's Word.

Gordon speaks about the following points that should characterise a sermon.
1. Unity.
2. Order.
3. Movement. - each point takes us somewhere.
4. Point. - so arrive at a conclusion with real force, the person puts forth a powerful claim to us.
5. Textual fidelity - we have no authority, the Scriptures have that authority. These words are God's words. So we understand God is speaking to us.
6. Instruction. - to see what that biblical truth is.
7. evangelical tone.

He also says that if people heard a good sermon every week their attention span would grow. I didn't know this but in early American history it wasn't uncommon for people to go and listen to debates that lasted 6 hours, with one speaker giving his point for 3 hours and then another responding!

Some great quotes:
"Preachers are supposed to give people bread, not the bread factory."
"Our sheep do not need gourmet meals, but they do need good, solid nourishment."

Gordon makes the comment in another interview that at the end of the sermon we should ask - did you understand the point of that sermon?
Was there something holding it all together or was it just a collation of sermonettes? Now there's a challenge to preachers as they prepare their sermons.

In Christ,

Gary

The Emergent conversation- good or bad? or perhaps in the middle

2009-06-02T16:04:00.052+10:00

It isn't uncommon today to hear the word "conversation" or the phrase "having a conversation" in emergent circles in regard to talking about doctrine or methods of doing church or missiology.

Now what has struck me about this word conversation is how it was previously spoken of by Neil Postman in 'Amusing ourselves to death', a book he published back in 1985. Well before many of the emerging or emergent crowd were out of nappies.

First of all, I need to reject the objection that I am lumping emergents and emerging together, that I am taking them as synonymous. While I do see them as able to be distinguished, they do at times overlap and as pyromaniacs pointed out over at their blogspot, emergent can be treated as "a major influential element in the emerging conversation".

Secondly, so as not to fall prey to accusations of 'the genetic fallacy', that some may take what I say here to be saying that something is dubious because of its origin ( although it is at times proper to speak of such bad origins when satan is the source of something! ) I want to reject that notion up front. I am not saying that emergents picked up anything from Postman. Indeed I think he has some very valuable things to offer us to reflect upon and we and emergents could have learnt something valuable from Postman. While the terminology of "conversation" as some emergents use it seems to have strong similarities with Postman, the similarities have more to do with what Postman was countering. Listen to what Postman actually said back in 1985.

Postman used the word "conversation:" metaphorically to "refer not only to speech but to all techniques and technologies that permit people of a particular culture to exchange messages." pg 6. Further "in this sense all culture is a conversation or more precisely , a corporation of conversations , conducted in a variety of symbolic modes."

He then goes on "our attention here is on how forms of public discourse regulate and even dictate what kind of content can issue from such forms"

Sounds difficult doesn't it but it really isn't.

Consider his example of smoke signals by American Indians. They would not have been able to include philosphical discourse since they are insufficiently complex to do that. You wouldn't be able to have two indians conversing about the nature of existence using smoke signals. He said they'd run out of wood and blankets before the second axiom. The media just doesn't allow for philosophical argument.

I just love what Neil Postman says. It's so thought provoking. He seems to be describing exacty the situation of "conversation" that we find so prevalent today among emergents.

The trouble is, I think the emergents in many cases are settling for smoke signals.

Here I agree I need to carefully set out how I see emergents connection to the notion of "conversation" as Postman uses it.

I am not refering to the common notion of emergents as part of an "emerging conversation" which refers to a continued dialogue with others that the evangelical movement would have seperated from due to their unorthodox beliefs. I am using "conversation" to address the characteristics of an "emergent church service" such as Dr Sam Harbin described as follows: ( and has been described in magazines and newspaper articles about the emergent church )

"A place where ancient christian art decorates the walls, meditative activities at different stations around the room, ..." or there's prayer labyrinths, and someone writing in a worship journal, and or perhaps a stool on which sits at "pastor" having a discussion about christian things instead of a sermon and people mold playdoh into some model to represent the talk. A video screen off to one side of the room showing a plethora of images covering many subjects flashing by rapidly, and so on.

What we have going on here is the younger generations enthusiasm and predilection towards the media tools of the 20th and 21st century. Using different media to put across the gospel message as well as to teach the bible.

Now it's in that regard that what Postman was talking about has major ramifications in relation to Preaching. There are those who love to roll out the statement that "it doesn't matter what media you use, you just have to be faithful and true regarding the content", whereas the method they insist, can change, they declare they are faithfully keeping the message the same.

What they fail to understand is that the medium can distort, and even negate the message or be totally inadequte to convey the message.

They need to think more about Marshall McLuhan who said "the medium is the message".

Let me say that some emergents in their conversations about doctrine are so reliant on sound bites and unsubstantiated opinion and lacking any depth of argument that they are just like Indians, sending up smoke signals. If I permit myself a sound bite, as the saying goes, "one ought to be aware of smoke and mirrors". What is being "discussed" lacks just what Postman saw as missing in Public Discourse, any real depth of argument.

Now please don't accuse me of similar lack of depth of argument. I will readily admit there's much more to be argued, I just think it's been adequately said by Postman and lately by T. David Gordon.

In the meantime, just reflect on secular media and their impact. Video hits today predominantly visualise sexual themes and the music seems to not be the focus. Indeed sometimes the music is trash and the video is the only artistic part! What's happening is that instead of reflecting upon the words of the music and the message, often the message is visualised in a particular direction. What becomes the focus is the video, not the music. Indeed the music sometimes becomes secondary.

Now what we have among some in the Church is the notion that we shouldn't have to rely just on preaching, since that is so cognitive and word oriented but rather we should be able to include dance and drama and visual art to get the message across. I acknowledge this isn't just a problem found in emergent circles because it is clearly evident in those seeker services of the 90's and in some earlier church services. The point I want to highlight is how we need to think through the whole issue of how different media can detract, distort, or negate the message.

Apart from Scripture itself telling preachers to preach the Word, to declare the Scriptures and explain the sense of the teachings, eg Neh 8 they have also forgotten that other forms can easily distort and even negate the message. Not just that but the form can be inadequate to get the message across anyway, just like the Indians smoke signals. To argue that in the bible the prophets used drama, so therefore we can also use drama, or that Jesus told stories so we also can use the story form, is to confuse us and our calling to edify and equip the saints through the Word with the fact that they are used by God the father to declare exactly what He wanted communicated. We are not prophets in that sense. We are teachers of God's already delivered Word. We are to contend for the faith ( Scriptures ) once for all delivered. Jude 3. We don't make up or bring our own ideas to God's people.

Consider drama - if we think that it's a clear substitute for the preached Word of God we are mistaken. First of all the actors tend to interpret things not written. Certainly they need to thoroughly understand the Biblical or theological point of some story or parable or acted drama in the bible if they are to "act it out." Sadly we see how easy it is to get this wrong, just consider how many books used in teaching children through stories get the point of the passage so totally wrong. Yet even if they get it right, those listening can focus on the wrong thing, firstly because the context of the acted drama has not been given, and it needs to be seen in the biblical context in which it is given. In many cases those we get to do drama are not the pastor-teachers but usually actors in the body who are not often biblically astute about what they are doing. But secondly, our visual sense can take over and override our intellectual assessment, thinking through what is going on. We are so prone to being entertained in our culture that we switch off our mind in the presense of such stimulation.

I am not denying that people can interpret a preacher wrongly. And certainly there are many bad preachers out there - a subject for the next post. Yet it is the Word of God that is a two edged sword, which the Holy Spirit takes and convicts people with. Scripture does not say the Spirit takes drama and uses it that way. The Bereans are lauded because they checked out everything that the apostle Paul said against the Scriptures, the written word. Acts 17. It keeps on coming back to God's Word. Once for all delivered.

We need a bit of thoughtful reflection. Many pastors lament the Biblical illiteracy of many of their flock. But are we encouraging that because of the media we are using? We need to hear "Preach the Word, in season and out of season." We are not there to entertain, or "amuse" but to edify with the Word.

Have a read of Postman's book and reflect on what you are doing.

In Christ,

Gary

About being literal again – hermeneutics

2009-05-28T18:23:00.005+10:00

Over at Michael Patton's Reclaiming the mind forum there's a discussion about Steve Gregg and his views on different topics.
In his article at his site Steve has the following observations.
It seems people continue to be confused about what literal means when doing hermeneutics.

Consider Ryrie’s comments and then Steve Gregg's in response.

In discussing the angel fallen from heaven to release the locusts from the pit, Ryrie writes:
“Sometimes the word "star" refers to a heavenly body (as in 8:12). But the word is often used to refer to some kind of intelligent creature, usually an angel (cf. 1:20; Job 38:7). Both meanings are perfectly consistent with plain, normal interpretation. In English we use this word in the same two ways. Literally, a star means an astronomical entity; and equally literally, though as a figure of speech, we use the word to mean a person, like the star of a football game.”
Gregg comments:
"One is tempted to ask whether there is any method of interpretation that would be regarded by such an interpreter as recognizably non-literal, since the use of "a figure of speech" is regarded (when convenient) to be "equally literal" as the ordinary lexical meaning of a word. The applicability of the term "literal" to such usage suggests an almost infinite flexibility in determining what may be called "plain," "normal," and "literal" interpretation.
I have frequently heard teachers claim that, when convenient to their interpretation, "literal" interpretation does not preclude the use of symbolism, parable or figures of speech. I think these people are giving the word a novel new flexibility. I am using the word "literal" as the dictionary and most people understand it, i.e. as meaning "according to the exact meaning; not figurative"...in other words, I am using it literally."

Here we need to observe that Ryrie was speaking about literal in regard to a word. It is quite a different thing to be speaking about being literal in regard to the meaning of a sentence. It is the context, that is the sentence that provides whether something is to be taken as a metaphor, or figurative, or symbolism and so on. eg “like Bethlehem” the word “like” indicates figurative. So Ryrie is quite correct when he says one understands the word star literally and in it’s historical sense, and then understands the phrase “the star of a football game” as figurative.

Take Gregg’s comments focusing on Revelation.

1. { Dispensationalists speak of } The law of frequent mention:
“All agree that [the number 1000] is used symbolically in Psalm 50 [v.10], but the phrase ‘a thousand years’ occurs six times within the narrative of Revelation 20.”
Then we have Gregg’s comment:
The term “the Lamb” occurs 22 times in Revelation, but this does not make it a literal description of Christ.

This really is nonsense. Of course the mere frequency of a word does not make it a literal description of Christ. Behind the statement of numerical frequency of the title is the Biblical understanding of the Title in regard to Jesus.

The word Lamb is taken literally. It means an animal. However further hermeneutical investigation based on the grammatical historical method tells us that in the Bible a lamb was used in the sacrificial system, so when John the Baptist points to Jesus – clearly a man , a person, as 'the lamb of God' he is pointing to the sacrificial nature of the Son of God here on earth.

We need clarification in these issues, not muddled thinking.

In Christ,
Gary

The Great Commission - putting the emphasis where it ought to be

2009-05-27T13:47:00.008+10:00

In Matthew 28:16-20 we have what is commonly called the Great Commission. Some Preachers have spoken of it sometimes as the Great Ommission since it is often neglected by many Christians.

Of course we don't do that do we? Yet before we can answer that question we need to make sure we have understood it correctly. Where is the emphasis in "Therefore Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."

There's a really poor translation around, which isn't really a translation at all but a paraphrase, sadly used by preachers in their teaching and writing of books. It says "Then instruct them in the practice of all I have commanded you." MSG. But this scuttles the impact of the Great Commission.

It's not about merely having head knowledge, having a few instructions about practices Jesus wants us to do but in putting this truth into practice in our very lives.

The central focus is the three verbs, making disciples, baptising and teaching. not in the "go".

What "Going" tells us is that it's to be taken in the sense of "as you are living your lives", not as in the sense of many missionary preachers who use this passage to call people to become missionaries and go overseas to some other culture. As you live your life, going to the supermarket, meeting the neighbor over the fence, getting petrol at the Petrol Station, going to playgroup, at work, having lunch ..

This is like witnessing, as a Christian you are a signpost - the only question is whether you are a good signpost or a bad one. Perhaps the signpost is chipped, it's writing isn't clear, it doesn't clearly tell people the directions, or perhaps it points the wrong way? A Christian by their very lives is a signpost, a witness. And so it is with the Great Commission. As we go about our lives, which have been impacted by Jesus, we are to make disciples, baptise and teach them to obey.

How I need to rely more on God's grace and power through His Spirit as I live my life.

In Christ,
Gary

The No Metanarrative Fallacy

2009-05-24T15:24:00.013+10:00

Some of you may have read of the view of many emergents who reject metannaratives, the view that there is one overarching view of the world that is true and correct, claiming it to be abusive and a power trip. They do this having taken on board uncritically the view of postmodernism.

You will often hear "postmodernists" explain either their rejection of a metanarrative or in relation to all religions having part of the truth by using the example of the 6 blind men and the elephant. Where one has hold of the tail and claims this is the reality, another has hold of the trunk and says this is it, another has a leg, and another the ear and so on. Or that each person has partial religious truth and is to be respected for it's their perspective.

Without going into whether this is an epistemological rejection of an overarching view of reality or a rejection of metaphysical perspective per se we can see what they are getting at. It is I believe an illustration used by advocates of religious pluralism and radical skepticism. See Greg Koukle's article The Trouble with the Elephant.

However, have they a case to argue using this illustration or analogy? One thing that is often ignored but pointed out by Leslie Newbingen is that while there are 6 blind men groping around the elephant, we and the narrator of the story actually see the whole elephant. That is, at least the person using the analogy is claiming a total comprehension of reality. They themselves claim to know it all in order to be able to use the analogy in saying each of the 6 blind men only have part of the truth but it is truth as far as it goes and true for them!

You see, the person using this anaolgy is actually usurping the place of God who is omniscient and omniresent. That is, God who is the only one in the position to know everything and know it truly. He alone knows how it all fits together. And some of this he has revealled to us in Scripture. Not every known fact there is, but how it relates to Him as Creator., as Sovereign Personal Triune God.

Grasping this will help immensly in speaking and communicating with the present unbelieving generation.

In Christ,

Gary

The thorn in the flesh of postmoderns - death

2009-05-21T20:35:00.024+10:00

Even though I have grave suspicion about whether there is truly a postmoden worldview, this generation has a thorn in their flesh. Despair and grief when friends die inadvertantly such as in car accidents and drug overdoses.

How do you grieve if you hold to naturalism? That all that is is matter. You repond just as the Bible says - without hope! If you believe you just came from slime by chance, then the move into dust is just something that happens.

Os Guiness wrote a great book looking at the state of man searching for meaning and value - calling it "The Dust of Death." What an appropriate title, well before the emergents examined the establishment and the [ counter ] culture.

Can we face death with a different perspective than the unbeliever? Yes.

A couple of weeks ago I had to do the funeral of my mother who died at 89. We actually had a thanksgiving because she was friend of Jesus. She was a christian. That means we don't grieve as the world does because one day we shall meet again.

Here's something I wrote for the funeral.

How do you assess someone's life?
It's got to be more than talking about a person's life from their birth to when they die. Just recently here in Australia Richard Pratt died, and the media gave you the impression that what mattered was his wealth and power.

We also have just had Anzac day where we remember our Veterans, their commitment and achievements and what they gave the rest of us.

But what about a VET's life?

How is that assessed?

Thinking about it - we see soldiers who returned emotionally scarred, others physically scarred.
Is that how you think of them?

Or do you think about their early childhood or their teenage years?

We need to reflect on this because many who are older and suffering and then die, that's the last memory we have of them!
Like some with cancer - you tend to remember their suffering, how difficult it all was.
So How are we to assess mum's life?
All of us here can agree there's much in her life to respect, to admire, to love.

She gave herself to us three children when she didn't have to! Being our stepmother and a widow she could have walked away! But she didn't.

She went without so we could have much.
She went without marrying again. Without that close relationship that's so important to our humanity. To share on an adult level what's so important.

I could talk about her childhood, at Boort, and her parents store, and her army days as a driver.

But what is important is her relationship with Jesus.
Because when we have a relationship with Jesus we have life.
Not mere existence, not scrapping by, but life. Living with meaning. Knowing that God is your Creator and that you are made in His image. That is, you are not just some concoction of chemicals which finally got together and emerged out of the slime.

No, You and I and mum are persons, able to love, care, think, plan hope and share. Mum had learned about Jesus early in her childhood. She had gone frequently to Church. But she was of that generation which saw religion, saw christianity as a private matter. Not one you talked about much with other people.

But I remember a time when all that changed.
When in her reading of some great books by Christians she saw what Christian faith was all about, how it was about being His disciple, walking with Him and doing what pleased Him and not what pleased her.

That's the high point in mums life. When she told me one day she was thinking about joining a bible study group at church.
When her relationship with God and Jesus was her Life!

Not something that we do on sundays and when we pray at night.

That life, means death, physical death is not the end. It's Why for a christian death is not something to be feared.

While alive she had meaning and purpose and value in all that she did. And now that she is passed from us, she is still alive, because she is with our heavenly Father who is Life.

Mum, your legacy to us is that God is in the business of change. He is in the business of changing people to be like his Son Jesus.

We saw you change as you walked with Him.
And you hold out the goal for us to continue to be changed by Jesus day by day.
That is how one can assess a life. One tha tis changed by God. Impacted by Jesus.

Thanks.

Is the emergent church really dead?

2009-05-21T19:54:00.009+10:00

Over at Parchment and Pen C. Michael Patten wrote that after 15 years the emergent church is dead.
One could reasonably argue that the emergent church wasn't really a church at all, but mainly a group of authors and blogists who picked up on disatisfaction with some aspects or concrete expressions of those that claim to be Christ's Church in the world.
One definite reaction seems to have been against mega churches that sought to express or impact the culure from a marketing perspective, such as is seen by Willow creek in Chicago and to some extent Saddleback church in L.A.

Cetainly Brian McLaren as an author is still having a wide impact on many "christians" and Tony Jones and his friends at emergent village are likewise putting forth ideas that are far from orthodox, such as their view on hell, homosexuality and the authority of Scripture. It's not that I decry people asking questions but rather the failure of many asking the questions to do serious homework and see the answers which have already in the past of theological study been powerfully offered.

Certainly one can describe many who claim to be emergent or belong to the emergent corral as having accepted the philosophical views of postmodernism, even when they lash out at the evangelical church for having accepted without criticism the assumptions of modernism. Here they are commiting the same blunder they accused the mainstream evangelical church of doing.

However in regard to emegents many are following the mood of postmodernism which really is internally inconsistent and a worldview at odds with a Biblical Worldview.

I want to say more about postmodernism soon, but in the meantime we could perhaps descibe it as really something very old, as being self-legislating in regard to absolutes. Doing what was around in the time of the Judges, where "every man did what was right in his own eyes."

Still where does that leave people today? having moved on from postmodernism are they post-postmodern? Perhaps they are epiphenomenalmoderm? That is, valuing the experiences generated from modernism. Experiences based on the fruits of modernism.

I prefer to call then emodern. They are people who want and use the inventions of the modern era such as computors and ipods and iphones and so on and yet blithely say that there are no absolutes, but the very science which undergirds these inventions requires absolutes. The Logic used in computor hardware has the states of a 1 or a 0 or the state which can be labelled "don't care", there's no fourth option. Computer programming is fiercely absolute in requiring adherence to these laws or things don't work! Just imagine the present 16-25 yr olds reactions if their iphones and laptops suddenly stopped doing what they we designed to do.

Perhaps the generation before us us truly just a reflection of the very logic of solid state hardware, they are heading towards the "don't care", the "whatever" has become a don't care. They seek the experience for experiences sake. But even here they are usually discriminatory. They have not taken Camus or Sarte to their logical conclusion of despair. They don't normally try suicide for the experience.

But overall, is such a discriminatory response livable?

We have a worldview, the Biblical Worldview that gives account for value and meaning and truth and trust and love and knowledge and morality. When we realise this, we will be able to challenge them in their lostness.

In Christ,
Gary

The Preacher's Job

2009-05-18T13:30:00.002+10:00

What is the main role of the pastor in a church?
In Ephesian's 4:11 we are told that God gave gifted men to be pastor-teachers. I take it as one person spoken of here, although some debate it suggesting it is two separate people being spoken of.

Sometimes I have heard the person in the church comment that "our minister is a great pastor, he really looks after his people, but he is not a very good preacher." I have also heard in other churches how people make the opposite claim. "Our minister is a really good preacher but not good at pastoring, he's hopeless at relationships and relating to people."

It really saddens me when I hear this for obviously something is wrong. And in many cases it's not the missperception of the person in the church who said this. In some cases it is that someone has been trained and given a ministry as leader in a church and they are not so gifted. It is our fault for putting them in that position.

However I think we also need to understand what Ephesians is speaking of when talking of the pastor-teacher.

It is the case I believe that an elder pastors by feeding God's people, by teaching them God's Word, he protects them, the flock by teaching the word, applying it, correcting, rebuking and encouraging the flock to obey the commands of Christ, Matt 28:20. In teaching them he pastors them, and in pastoring them he teachers them.

Does that mean he doesn't have to be all that relational? I know of a few preachers who come across as personal in their sermons, as very relational but actually find personal relationships very difficult and are rigid and stiff in relating at that personal level. There's no question about it we are all different. Some of the guys I went through college with were great at getting up front and leading singing and worship with a guitar - they were what I would classify as extroverts, whereas I would not put myself in that category. Does that mean I should not be a pastor-teacher?

The point to remember here is twofold, first God has given gifted men to his church. Second in deciding who they are God again has given requirements for such men. One of which he speaks of in Titus is to be hospitable, that is, a over of strangers. Someone who loves to care for and be hospitable to strangers. My reflection on that means that he continually battles to divide his time between the study and the market place, between studying God's Word and involvement in relationships. He will love both these things.

What do you think?

In Christ
Gary

What is preaching?

2009-05-14T20:13:00.007+10:00

I just read a post over at JDGreear.com where J.D talks about Piper's views on preaching.

It's great stuff and well worth reading. Piper makes some challenging statements which you should read in the context of his article. Things like "Preaching isn't Church but serves the Church", and that he, Piper preaches 40 minutes, not aiming to be immediately practical but eternally helpful; and in preaching, he is not relaxed!

Oh for more expository preaching! Real food for the living.

In Christ,
Gary

Who is in church? the unbelievers and inquirers

2009-04-26T11:54:00.011+10:00

Last time we saw that in the church gathered together we have saints and pastor-teachers. Who else can we also expect to be there from what the bible tells us?

There's an interesting word found in 1 Cor 14:23-24 the "idiwtnrs", literally 'the ungifted', and my question here exegetically is whether in the context of gifts as the chapter speaks of, it's speaking of someone without charismata, "gifts", however one gift all Christians have is salvation, the grace gift. In that case these are truly unbelievers. Of course Leon Morris in his Commentary on 1 Corinthians published by IVP argues the case better than I. See commentary on 1 Cor and chapter 14:16, 23-24. He points out that in verse 23 the idiwtns is distinguished from "the whole church" so that the person mentioned cannot be a Christian. It seems best then as Paul distinguishes him from the unbeliever to see him as an enquirer.

So in the context of 1 Cor 14 in the church gathering you have Paul saying that both unbelievers and enquirers can be present.

What does that mean for us who gather together in church? We need to be mindful that some among us are unsaved, or enquirers. Does that mean we should turn our teaching from the pulpit into an evangelistic message? If so how often do you do that since presumably the unbeliever and enquirer can be there every time? No. The call is for pastor-teachers to equip the church, to expound the whole Word of God. The saints are to be equipped for evangelism. They can and should be able to evangelise with the gospel message of salvation both the unbeliever and enquirer.

Does that then exclude any call to unbelievers to repent and turn to the Lord Jesus in the pulpit sermon? No. for many texts open themselves up to this as one of the applications. It may not and probably should not be the main application, unless it it so in the text, yet it is often accompanying the thrust of the text. For example, if it calls upon the believer to rejoice and obey some specific command, then it means that "if you are an unbeliever among us tonight then 'you cannot do this' or 'this promise is not for you unless you repent of your sin and turn to the Lord Jesus as Lord'." etc.

Who is with us in church? Saints, pastor teachers, unbelievers and enquirers.

For us saints, let's do the work of ministry!

God Bless,
Gary

Who is in church? Pastor - Teachers

2009-04-26T11:09:00.006+10:00

We saw last time that some of those in Church the Bible tells us are saints, those God called, set apart for himself.

In Ephesians 4:11-12 we also see that in the Church gathering, we see God has provided, gifted special men, namely the pastor-teachers, with a specific role, that of "equipping the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."
Don't diminish God's gifts, you who want to be truly charismatic, receiving the Grace gifts of God, the most basic of all which is salvation, then receive also those who he himself , Jesus, we are told has given these pastor-teachers to the church. 4:10.
The first letter to Timothy tells us these men, these elders are to be apt to teach, elsewhere we are told they are able to rebuke correct etc. They are to have certain gifts evident. They are not merely warm and friendly guys who don't ruffle feathers. You can do a study on elders in the New Testament to see their role and yours. you could and must look at Titus and Hebrews 13 and note how the Bereans in Acts 17 checked all that Paul, the apostle Paul ! said, against the Scriptures.

So when we gather together at church, there's also pastor-teachers, those elders who have a certain role to carry out to our benefit who are in our midst.

Let's rejoice in God's gifts to us. Not neglecting to pray for our Elders.

God bless,

Gary

Who is in Church?

2009-04-26T10:54:00.004+10:00

When we gather together on sundays or at any other time to hear God's Word preached, to worship in manifold ways our Great God, and to serve one another, who are gathered there?

Paul begins his letter to the Ephesians "to saints, who are in Ephesus and faithful in Christ Jesus" 1:1
It's their physical location, in Ephesus, and their spiritual location, faithful in Christ Jesus. They are made saints, holy, those whom God has set apart as special to himself, through their faith in Christ Jesus.
We find out more about these saints, when Paul speaks of the role of the pastor-teacher in Eph 4:11-12. Their work is "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."
So when we come together, when we gather as the body of Christ, we are primarily saints, called, set apart by God himself. Saints not as the Roman Catholic see them as some special person who has been designated so by the Papal Authorities. Someone who requires some authenticated miracle in order to become saints. No, we who are redeemed and transformed by god are saints. And these are some of the people the bible tells us, gathered together in "church".

Who is in Church? I hope you are one of the saints!
God Bless.
Gary

Truth in a "whatever" World.

2009-04-21T19:01:00.003+10:00

Here's a timely reminder from Bill Muehlenberg’s book review of John MacArthur's book 'The Truth War'
He says in part:
"Many evangelicals, especially those in the emerging church movement, have recently declared that doubt, uncertainty, mystery and questions are superior to certainty, belief, faith and conviction. This seems to stand in marked contrast to the affirmations of Scripture. Consider a remark made by John Stott some 40 years ago in Christ the Controversialist:
“In those things which are clearly revealed in Scripture, Christians should not be doubtful or apologetic. The corridors of the New Testament reverberate with dogmatic affirmations beginning ‘We know’, ‘We are sure’, ‘We are confident’. If you question this, read the First Epistle of John in which verbs meaning ‘to know’ occur about forty times. They strike a note of joyful assurance which is sadly missing from many parts of the church today and which needs to be recaptured.”
Today many church leaders are glorying in doubt and uncertainty, and are telling us that having firm convictions and strong beliefs is arrogant and somehow un-Christlike. But as MacArthur reminds us, “this is not authentic Christianity”. To refuse to embrace and defend the revealed truth of God “is a particularly stubborn and pernicious form of unbelief”."

Are we wanting to be authentic Christians? Then it means accepting what God's Word says about Truth, in face of those waving their finger about being in a postmodern culture.

We should imitate the Bereans of Acts 17.

In Christ
Gary

Pastors and Christians wake up call - Dr Akin's talk at BtT

2009-04-19T11:16:00.004+10:00

Hi all,
I think we can all benefit greatly from reading and pondering Dr Akin's talk on BtT ( between the Times ) at chapel for a wake up call as it were for Southern Baptists.

So much of what he says I am in total agreement with.
I am thrilled when I hear things like his following comments:
"Russ Bush was absolutely correct when I heard him say in a seminary classroom in the early 1980’s, “the question of biblical inspiration is ultimately a question of Christological identity.” Why? Because Jesus believed the Holy Scriptures to be the completely true and trustworthy Word of God! Even Rudolf Bultmann said this, he just believes Jesus got it wrong! Well hear me, and hear me well. To deny inerrancy is to say that Jesus was wrong and that you are smarter than He. That is both heresy and blasphemy. It is spiritually suicidal!

Are you questioning inerrancy? Then repent! Do you deny inerrancy? Then go join another denomination. We will love you and pray for you, but we do not want you infecting our people with a spiritual disease that is always fatal to the Church of the Lord Jesus. Inerrancy and the sufficiency of the Bible in all matters of faith and practice is not up for debate in the Southern Baptist Convention. It alone will give us the necessary weapons to take on and take down what Newsweek (8-13-08) calls “a newly muscular secularism.” "

and his reminder:
"However, and hear me well, the “war for the Bible” is not over and it will never end until Jesus returns. Launched by Satan in the Garden of Eden, “has God said,” will continue to be under assault, and we must ever be on guard and ready to answer those who question its veracity and accuracy. "
Great sermon and a challenge to our pampering to the arrogant lost who don't want to listen to our Lord and His Word.
For those who say we just need to love Jesus then you better listen to Jesus and do what he says. You wouldn't get away with saying you love your spouse but don't listen to a thing they say!

In Christ,
Gary

And it's not just your thought

2009-04-18T09:20:00.002+10:00

Isn't it mamazing how sometimes you think or say something and somebody else has already said the same thing?
When I am studying the bible and teaching it, I am greatly relieved? to sometimes later find that somebody else has made the same point, drawn the same conclusion, or inferred the same thing.
It's not that I thereby think I must be right, I could after all be wrong, but in the Community of believers with so many more gifted people than I it is encouraging and reassuring. A bit like you make the point in a bible study and someone pipes up that is essential what the NIV Study bible footnotes say. And I don't read those notes ever.
Still when somebody else has made a similar point I think it's good to point out this fact. After posting my last blog on One Flew over the Cuckoo's nest I did a google and found that Rich Deem had already used that as a title. You might like to read his points about Anthony Flew and the role of Intelligent Design in Flew's rejection of atheism.

In Christ,
Gary

One Flew over the cuckoo's nest

2009-04-17T21:32:00.004+10:00

With no disrespect intended for Anthony Flew, the great secular Philosopher who is said to now be not an atheist but at minimum a deist, I am glad that he has flown above the squalor of naturalism to consider some "Being" beyond all this.

Read a little on how to approach those claiming to be atheists in Ronnie W. Rogers blog, in the meantime at least we could say he has flown from the nut cases on this planet that are unexplainable on the basis of naturalism. How can one account for error and madness, let alone the beauty of creative thought and art, when all one has is a non-personal non creator behind it all. In other words, something that's just the way it is. In a world of no standards, or should I not say no standard giver / declarer, there is no difference between evil and good, between something useful and something useless. Slime has a hard time rising above itself! Out of slime love does not arise, but out of the Love of God, love shines!

In Christ,
Gary

The importance of Wisdom

2009-04-16T22:06:00.007+10:00

Over at Sam Norton's blog he has a little piece about atheism which he called Reasonable atheism (1): Of atheisms humourless and sophisticated. He speaks of two different types of atheism, one humourless and the other sophisticated. It stirred my thinking when he spoke about Hume's attitude in his Enquiry being intellectually crippling in that it fails to take in the wisdom tradition, a stance he labels asophic which I think is to say "against wisdom" or having "no wisdom". He calls it humorless because it's like having a sense of humor, you either get the joke or you don't.

My Ramblings ...
Ponder this for a moment. What do atheists and atheistic philosphers do with humor? How do they account for that? Surely one reason that some philosophers don't get it is because they treat all reality as if it's only epistemology!

That's a very important reminder for those doing Philosophy and Theology. You can get thrown by the so called power of epistemological arguments against knowledge and truth, even against the doctrines of the Christian faith as though this new or old philosophical "epistemology" has overturned the Christian faith. But they forget that with the Christian worldview, the Scriptures - there's also wisdom, all those wisdom passages that tell us about the practical aspect of life, that which involves living, not just those things which are theoretical or for the philosopher, the stuff to do with the mind, no matter how much that's important.

Think of Proverbs 12:25 "Anxiety in a man's heart weighs him down, but a good word makes him glad." Good words, helpful words to think on. But what does the atheist say about it? How can he who believes in no god account for the value of such advice in our world? Doesn't he care for his friend or family member who is weighed down with anxiety?

It is only when we know of the Creator who made man in His image for relationship, who blessed him and yet due to man's rebellion we find we are out of fellowship with God and each
other. Only in that context can such a thing as wisdom make sense.

Often times you will hear or read of the atheist rejecting the Christian and His belief because of the argument from evil. We however must ask him, what about love and humor and wisdom - these things also count in the world we live in. How will he account for any of that?

In Christ
Gary

OZCORNERS BLOG: Why Do We Get Angry?

2009-04-16T17:56:00.001+10:00

OZCORNERS BLOG: Why Do We Get Angry?

Righteous anger? Who me?

2009-04-16T17:43:00.002+10:00

Anger is such a difficult thing to come to grips with isn't it? I knew a pastor who flew into a rage when someone disagreed with him. And it certainy isn't listed as one of the fruits of the Spirit is it? Still anger prevails at times around us.

We can show anger, or even harbour anger without verbalising it, but my wife reckons sometimes even when we only harbour anger it's reflected in our expression! So what do we do with it? You might read Rob's short summary on it for a positive way of looking at it.

I am reminded of two things about anger. God's anger is a righteous anger, so I too may be angry at injustice and sin and tragedies. And I also need to heed the warning scripture gives when we are angry for no good reason. Do not let the sun go down on your anger - deal with it, ask forgiveness and seek restored relationships.

In Christ,
Gary

Historical evidences of Christianity, John Dickson

2009-04-15T12:01:00.002+10:00

A third-century Christian prayer hall in Megiddo, unearthed in Israel between 2003-2005.

Just in case you didn’t tape the ‘Life of Jesus’ TV documentary by John Dickson here’s a link to one of the important points he made about the divinity of Jesus and the historical evidence.
I found this documentary refreshing and clear about who Jesus is. Good on you John and the crew.

In Christ,
Gary

Tax Collectors and sinners - Who are the sinners in Luke's Gospel?

2009-04-14T22:23:00.003+10:00

When studying Luke’s Gospel it is well worth asking the question who are the sinners spoken of in Luke’s Gospel and what literary purpose do they serve. This is really to ask a hermeneutical question so as to properly understand Luke’s Gospel.

In a recent article in Southern Cross April 2009[1] John Dickson and Greg Clarke speak to this as they ask “The God who loves us to death” and point out in effect that God is not a cosmic child abuser as some have suggested.

Let me quote their comment
“All scholars agree: one of Jesus’ most striking habits was to associate with the immoral and irreligious – those classed as ‘sinners’. The word sinner sounds strange but in the first century it was a potent insult. The Psalms of Solomon is a Jewish text probably written by Pharisees in Jerusalem shortly before Jesus. It does a good job conveying the contemporary attitudes towards sinners: ‘But [the righteous] shall pursue sinners and overtake them, for those who act lawlessly shall not escape the Lord’s judgment. They shall be overtaken as by those experienced in war, for on their forehead is the mark of destruction. And the inheritance of sinners is destruction and darkness. The text goes on to say how the hoped for Messiah would ‘smash the arrogance of sinners like a potter’s jar’ and ‘condemn sinners by the thoughts of their hearts.’
Dickson and Clarke’s point is to argue that “We can say with some confidence that Jesus’ habit of associating with sinners was not exactly Messiah-like.” And their point is that Jesus whilst associating with such people did not at all condone their sin, but came to save sinners and not the righteous.

Their article is certainly a challenge to smugness, however it’s not their topic as such that I am concerned with here but their understanding of the word sinner in the Gospels, specifically in Luke.

Their point is worth understanding in the hermeneutical task of understanding Luke’s Gospel. My question is that I wonder just how far the historical point from the Psalms of Solomon as to the meaning of sinners actually contributes to understanding ‘sinners’ in Luke’s Gospel? I consider that Luke is telling us that ‘sinners’ in Luke’s Gospel is meant to stand in contrast to the self-righteous standing of the Pharisees and in the end shows their sin in rejecting the Messiah, Jesus. The people the Pharisees called sinners were people who broke the Pharisees standards, Standards as set out in the 613 specific laws that they operated by. If you broke any of those 613 laws you were a 'sinner' in their eyes. Yet Jesus’ point is that all are sinners. John the Baptist came calling all to repent and be baptised. What was startling in that message was that baptism was something that Jews required only of proselytes, those gentiles wanting to become God-fearers. Now that tells us something about what the Jewish leaders, the Pharisees thought about themselves doesn’t it?

So in Luke 5:29-32 when Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners - did you notice how the NIV puts sinners in inverted commas, as ‘sinners’ – he is eating with those considered bad by Pharisees standards and this creates a problem as it is their standard – it’s not God’s standard. Then also we need to ask ourselves – are not tax-collectors also sinners? So why mention tax-collectors as though they are some separate group. It’s because Luke is showing Jesus came reaching out to those rejected even by Israel – those considered traitors to Israel – the tax collectors, and those considered lawbreakers by the Pharisees standards. Jesus in his actions is actually confronting the Pharisees standard of sin. The contrast becomes stark and blatant. Even more so when these sinners accepted, indeed welcomed the Messiah, something that these students of the law, these Pharisees didn’t! Indeed the Kingdom of God came to even such as these!

That’s great news.
In Christ,
Gary
[1] Sydney Anglican magazine.

Revelation 1:1-3

2009-04-08T15:33:00.002+10:00

Revelation 1 v1-3.
By Gary Wearne
Author's Note: The following is a sermon outline for an introductory series on Revelation.

Introduction.
· Most neglected book
· Portrayed by many as difficult to understand, mysterious. Perplexing.
However, three things about the book of Revelation confront our neglect to come to grips with what it's teaching.
a) It's part of the bible, God's Word. READ 1:2. This is the very Word of God.

b) The books very name challenges us - the word "Revelation" comes from the greek word apokalyypsus in verse 1, and it means unveiling. A revealing.
God is not here trying to cloud what He is saying.
He's not in the business of smoke and mirrors.
It's certainly not like the sound bites we get from our politicians - a lot of words, but no content, nothing of substance being said.
In this book God is speaking to us to reveal !

c) God tells us that he who reads ! and those who hear! And those who keep these things written - obey them - are blessed 1:3
It's not an obligation but rather something to your profit!
A Christian is promised blessing from God himself upon reading or hearing or obeying this prophecy. This book of Revelation is prophecy.
And it's not to be ignored merely for being prophecy!
Yet that's the attitude of many in the Church these days. Sure, we had a period in the 70's and 80's where many went overboard on prophecy. Still that doesn't absolve our present neglect of this part of God's Word!

Now what is this blessing were promised?
First let's be clear it's not merely a corporate blessing being spoken of here.
It's not as though we as a group - as Australians are blessed by being born in this "lucky country" that offers to all so many opportunities. No way, the first blessing mentioned in 1:3 is for the individual, the one who reads this prophecy. The "he" there is singular.
Then it goes on to speak of hearers - plural. And it's plural again referring to those who obey - keep what's written in this prophecy.

Next we need to pick up that what is being spoken about in the book of Revelation requires continual study.
It's not as though one can read it through once and fathom the depths of Revelation in one enormous meal, it's not as though it's a blessing that can be received once for all and the next time you read a few pages of the book it's no longer a blessing!
Nope the passage says in verse3 that it's blessing is associated with continual reading hearing and obeying. All the participles are in the present tense.
Again we see that our attitude to this book is to be quite different to that which most of us take.
I once spoke to a pastor who was nearing the time of his retirement and he said to me he never preached the book of Revelation because it was too difficult and controversial! Goodness, what do you think God thought of that, he'd failed to see the book as not a mystery but an unveiling and a blessing! How tragic.

In the book of Revelation this blessing is the first of 7. The others are found at 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7 & 14.

So we've seen for whom the blessing is announced, it remains for us to understand what this word blessed means?
John MacArthur in his commentary on Matt 5 has this helpful comment to make about markarios ( blessed ). "means happy fortunate, blissful. Homer used it to describe a wealthy man and Plato used it of one successful in business. Homer and Hesiod spoke of the greek gods as being happy within themselves because they were unaffected by the world of men - who were subject to poverty, disease, weakness, misfortune and death. The fullest meaning of the term, therefore, had to do with an inward contentedness that is not affected by circumstances. This kind of happiness that God desires for His children, a state of joy and well-being that does not depend on physical, temporary circumstances. ( see Phil 4:11-13 )." MacAthur Matthew 1-7 pg 142
Now this gets to the crunch of being blessed. Unfortunately our use of it in our culture misses the rich depth of the Bible term.
We often here the commentators on football describing a player as being blessed. Meaning he's good at his sport. But this falls well short of what the Bible is getting at. It has little to do with outward circumstances.
In fact the word when used in Revelation 14:13 speaks of those martryed - dead for the sake of Christ - being blessed - which means it's quite out of the realm of the physical here and now. Now don't get me wrong. I a not saying you cannot experience this blessedness here and now - obviously from God's Word you can - but its source doesn't arise from outward circumstances such as wealth or a good business or whatever. To get the Bibles perspective it's something one receives from God himself. A contentedness and joy, and feeling of well-being. We can see from the bible that God blesses his people when he bestows on them some gift temporal or spiritual (Gen_1:22; Gen_24:35; Job_42:12; Psa_45:2; Psa_104:24, Psa_104:35).

Now that we've seen the importance of this prophecy let's dwelve just a little bit more this morning into the first 3 verses.

A) In 1:1 we read … This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, not the revelation or revelations of John the apostle, sometimes you read in some Bibles that this book is called the revelations of St John - that's wrong.

B) Also "these things which must shortly come to pass" it says. The word used here is tachi - it's the word from which we petrol heads get the word for the tachometer in our car. It's not here speaking of what we mean when we tell our wives "I'll put out the trash shortly, by which we mean when this TV show has finished or I am finished doing what I am doing". Nope, it has to do rather with rapidity of motion - this happens quickly - in the flash of an eye as we say. It isn't speaking then of a point of time in the near future, rather it's about quickness! It's about the rapidity of execution.

Interestingly the same word occurs in Revl 22:20 - turn with me to that verse, understanding the word may help you better get the time perspective right. It's speaking about quickness, not when !

Now back in verse 1 we read something about the man John.
C) Unlike many who gain status by claiming a prophecy from God or a "revelation" - John MacAthur's relates of one man who claims Jesus speaks to him in person - he appears to him in his door whilst he's shaving himself. - well really! Does he stop shaving himself?

See here how John the apostle views himself! He is a servant which is a polite way of rendering slave. Doulos.

And lastly this morning look at verse 3 again…
D) Also in 1:3 we read "For the time is at hand" kairos is the word used and relates to a period of time. Daniel himself mentions the "time of the end" five times in Daniel 8:17; 11:35,40; 12:4,9. The time is also mentioned to be at hand in Revelation 22:10. It speaks of a season of time, not a specific hour ( hora ) or time in general ( chronos ).

Conclusion:
I hope that our introduction to the book of Revelation has challenged any preconceptions we may have held.
And I am hoping that it has spiked your interest in coming to grips with What the Lord lays out for us here.

It will challenge and encourage us - but we hold tightly to the promise this morning that in the study of it, in the reading and hearing there's special blessing to us from God himself.

Let's pray.