A recent article on the Sydney Anglican Heretics blog highlights the depth of compromise on Genesis in the Sydney Anglican Diocese. I mean, if theistic evolution is the position of the leader of the church then I expect this to have some kind of top-down effect.^[1,2]

John writes:

Peter [Jensen], as has long been known, is an evolutionist*. Quite naturally Peter, along with all theistic evolutionists, has to play some irrational semantic games and alter the meaning of words in order to mould Scripture to fit a pagan worldview. Somehow – the details, scientifically or theologically, never exactly laid out – God is able to allow chance to create while never surrendering his office of creator. At this point I tend to think that Peter and the others are trying to turn a circle into a square but still have it called a circle. Beats me!

Anyway, the point I want to make is that Peter’s allegiance to evolution puts him outside of Christian orthodoxy, by a theological mile. If a metaphysical principle is creating the enormous amounts of novel biological information that life requires, then it isn’t our Lord doing it. New biological information is the product of thought, of teleonomic conception, not the randomisation processes being acted upon by natural selection that evolution posits as being its source (This is superbly argued in the triple-PhD Wilder-Smith’s book, God: To be or not to be?). Peter can’t have his square and circle be the one object: Either Christ, acting through will and thought, brings forth biological information, and thus life, or it’s chance randomisation of matter, the metaphysical principle of materialism. The two are incompatible and irreconcilable.

* Lest it be said that we are misrepresenting Peter’s views, the following is a quote from Doctrine 1 while he was principal at Moore College: “There is a division of opinion about how God created the world [Actually, there isn’t, Peter. The difference lies between those that truly believe the Bible is God’s unchanging revelation to mankind and those, like yourself, that believe it can change as science, so-called, “proves” God has less and less to do with. Just ask Jack Spong.]. From the standpoint of these notes the ‘theistic evolution’ account offers the best understanding….By ‘theistic evolution’ we mean that God created the world through the process of evolution [there’s that square-circle again folks!].” Doctrine 1, Unit 7, p. 105.

http://sydneyanglicanheretics.blogspot.com/2010/02/test-for-orthodoxy.html

For another great illustration highlighting the incoherency of theistic evolution, I recommend John Woodmorrappe’s short essay on the subject.

1. Peter Jensen is the Archbishop of the Sydney Anglican Diocese
2. In the comments section of John’s article, Sam Drucker quipped that Peter Jensen “encourage[d] Clergy to avoid confrontation on this issue.” Whether that is the case or not, I can attest first hand to such experiences among the Anglican faithful and now I wonder how much of it is the influence of the leaders in the church who don’t think that discussion about this issue is important?

For the sake of those who might be surprised to find out, you actually can present what the gospel says in bold and clear terms on atheist message boards. (And in my opinion, only by presenting it boldly and clearly.) The following is a brief exchange between me and an atheist (who we’ll call Anthony) which ensued after I had described one thing that makes Christianity unique or sets it apart in the marketplace of religions. I hope the following can be instructive, in some small way, for those who find themselves with an opportunity to present what the gospel is to unbelievers.

RYFT (Christian):

Christianity is the only religion in the entire world whose afterlife is based on grace; that is, every single other religion on the planet teaches an afterlife that is reached by some kind of balance of good works. Christianity is singularly unique in that salvation (afterlife) is not based on any human good works at all, period. It is based on the good works of Jesus Christ, in whom alone the believer is saved. This is because “a balance of good works” is precisely that: a balance, meaning that in addition there are bad works, violations of God’s holy law. In human courts, a person found guilty of breaking several criminal laws is never told by the judge, “Well, aside from these laws you have broken you’re an otherwise pretty decent fellow. You may go. No sentence for you.” It would be unjust to not punish guilty criminals. He may be a decent fellow, but he is nevertheless guilty of having broken several criminal laws, and justice demands crime be punished. On what grounds, then, would a person think God would leave sins unpunished? That would be unjust.

ANTHONY (Atheist):

You came to the conclusion that the correct religion in the world consists of a God with a one-size-fits-all plan for salvation? One that simply judges a book by its cover?

RYFT:

Since that is a crude caricature that fails to reflect what I had said, there is nothing for me to respond to. I have zero interest in answering for beliefs I don’t have.

ANTHONY:

But you said Christianity is based on belief and grace, rather than actions in life. I was addressing that. The only characteristic that God would consider is your belief in him, which is a human act. Would that be a fair assessment?

RYFT:

I had said nothing about what Christianity is based on. I said salvation is based on God’s grace, not human works.

Moreover, that is not a fair assessment, but a wildly inaccurate one that completely ignores what I had actually said. Belief in God does not save anyone. A person is not saved because he believes, but because of what Christ did.

It’s not as if man exists in some state of spiritual neutrality from which either ‘belief’ or ‘non-belief’ finally determines his standing before God, whether justified or condemned. Under biblical Christianity, all mankind exists in a state of condemnation already on account of sin. We all come from the same pool of death and darkness, of sin and moral ruin—and through unbelief (itself a sin) man remains there. We exist under judgment for death; only in Christ is there judgment for life. We exist under God’s wrath; only in Christ is that wrath removed. We exist under condemnation; only in Christ are we justified. Salvation is through Christ, not belief, who died for the sins of all who repent and believe.

"The doctrines of grace are the biblical teachings that define the ends and means of God’s perfect work of redemption. They tell us that God is the one who saves, for his own glory, and freely. And they tell us that he does so only through Christ, only on the basis of his grace, only with the perfection that marks everything the Father, Son, and Spirit do. The doctrines of grace separate the Christian faith from the works-based religions of men. They direct us away from ourselves and solely to God’s grace and mercy. They destroy pride, instil humility, and exalt God." (James R. White)

ANTHONY:

You’re not making any sense. First you say, “Belief in God does not save anyone.” But then you say, “Salvation is through Christ, not belief, who died for the sins of all who repent and believe.” So in order for me to be saved, I need to believe that Christ is my personal Savior (an entity that is also considered God). Or am I getting this wrong?

(And that quote from White? Niiiice!)

RYFT:

You are getting this wrong. Let me construct a chain we can follow.

(1) Salvation is through Christ alone—by who he is (sinless substitute) and what he did (atoning sacrifice). (2) His death paid for the sins of all who repent and believe. (3) So in order to be saved, you need to be one of those who repent and believe because that’s whose sins Christ’s death paid for. (4) If you do not repent and believe, your sins are not covered by his sacrifice, leaving you to pay for your sins on your own.

So then it is not your repentance and belief that saves you. It is Christ’s life and death that saves you, a salvation you enter into through repentance and belief.

If there are any lingering questions, go ahead and ask. I hope I’ve made it clear, but only you can tell me.

ANTHONY:

It’s a bit confusing? You say it’s not your belief that saves you, but then you would not be able to be saved without that particular belief.

RYFT:

Well, not quite: “you would not be able to be saved without” Christ paying for your sins. Salvation is through having sins paid for. Belief does not pay for sins. (1) Christ paid for the sins of all those who repent and believe. (2) All those who repent and believe therefore have their sins paid for.

ANTHONY:

Got it.

I was inspired to post this following the conversation about grace on an earlier post.

I heard the song East to West by Casting Crowns for the first time on a myspace site a few years ago and became addicted to it almost instantly. The lyrics will really hit home for those of you who know what it means to struggle with sin everyday. But it also touches very personally on many truths at the heart of Christianity and paints a vivid picture of Christ crucified for the purpose of separating us from sin as “far as the east is from the west”.

For example, you may recognise the reference in the song to this passage from Scripture:

‘as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us.’

Psalm 103:12

The significance of the comparison of East with West being that the two are mutually exclusive; necessarily separate; the one can never unite with the other.

I think the writers of this song (Mark Hall and Bernie Herms) demonstrate – not just through this song, but many others they write – a proper attitude to sin and to Christ, as well as the ability to capture, through the lyrics, imagery and music, the anxiety that Christians face every day about their sin. Don’t be afraid to allow this song to stir the emotions. You may just find that it brings you to tears as it does me.

‘East to West’ – Casting Crowns
(Album: Altar & the Door)

Here I am, Lord, and I’m drowning
in your sea of forgetfulness
The chains of yesterday surround me
I yearn for peace and rest
I don’t want to end up where You found me
And it echoes in my mind, keeps me awake tonight

I know You’ve cast my sin as far as the east is from the west
And I stand before You now as, as though I’ve never sinned
But today I feel like I’m just one mistake away from You leaving me this way

From an old Table Talk article posted by Douglas Wilson, titled ‘Sanctified Apathy’

When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were commanded to bow down to the Babylonian idol, they refused. They knew that God was able to deliver them, and they said as much to the king. “If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up” (Dan. 3:17-18). They said that their God could deliver them. But even if He decided not to, as far as they were concerned, the king could throw them into the furnace. They didn’t care. Of course they didn’t care about the furnace because they did care, and deeply, about honoring God. And this is the basis for sanctified apathy.

The more we care about honoring God, the less we will care about receiving honors from men. This is important because if we care about the opinions of men in the wrong way, it keeps us from being able to believe in Jesus (John 5:44).The more we care about being approved as a faithful workman by God, the less we will care if others condemn or oppose us on their own puny authority (2 Tim. 2:15).

Modern Christians are constantly exhorted to care. This is legitimate, indeed it is inescapable. But the problem is that we are regularly told to care about all the wrong things. “If we continue to maintain that God created the world in six days, we will not be granted academic respectability.” To which we must reply, well, who cares? Why should we care that the guardians of the academy believe that we are not intellectually respectable? They believe that the moose, the sperm whale and the meadowlark are all blood relations. Why do we want their seal of approval on our intellectual abilities? It is like asking Fidel Castro to comment on the economic viability of Microsoft.

Full article available here

In conjunction with the Global Atheist Conference which concluded yesterday, Australia’s national broadcasting station, the ABC, invited Professor Richard Dawkins onto to it’s program of panelists, Q and A. The topic to be discussed was, none too coincidentally, “God, Science and Sanity”. And given the makeup of the panel on last Monday night (8 March 2010), it comes as no surprise that Prof. Dawkins stole the show.

For those of you unaware – of which I assume this is the vast majority of you – the Q and A program pits pollies, professionals and “pundits” up against each other while passing the questioning over to the audience, whether to a member in the studio or to someone watching at home who participates via the program’s website. The idea is quite simple: grab a hodge-podge of celebrities, specialists and politicians, throw them in the same room, given them a topic and then let the public “have at it”.

And “have at it” was the operative word last Monday; but not against Prof. Dawkins – that was one parrot that wasn’t going to get knocked off his perch. But the other panelists, namely those who identify as theists, sure did get a hammering.

Read the rest of this entry

On September 12, 2009, The Wall Street Journal published two responses to the question “Where does evolution leave God?”.^[1] On September 21, The Australian republished this discussion framing it as a debate on their front page. As it turns out this was a misnomer. Rather than a debate, it was nothing more than two independent responses by Richard Dawkins and Karen Armstrong, both of whom already believe that evolution is virtually ipso facto.

In fact neither Dawkins or Armstrong appear to have been given the opportunity to respond to their opponents’ opening remarks - not that it would have been necessary though, as Armstrong spends half her time agreeing with Dawkins anyway.

The article begins, “We commissioned Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins to respond independently to the question “Where does evolution leave God?” Neither knew what the other would say. Here are the results.”

Read the rest of this entry