Churchians?

[Dee Dee Warren]

I don't really have the time to address this but since it is troubling me, and I prefer to point out flaws on my own side of issues when I see them, I am distinctly not comfortable with the blanket use of the term Churchian to refer to someone who is not YEC. Is it sometimes accurate? I am sure it is, but I am also sure there are YEC Churchians, cause there are many persons in Church who's devotion is to the Institution and not the Person of Christ.

However, I have never used that term, and to be honest rhetoric doesn't get under my skin much.... I am a brawler, but lately seeing that term just does not do it for me.

I feel as strongly about eschatology as some do about creation issues. I feel just as stronlgy that the logical consequences of denying the time statements leads to all kinds of Biblical denial. I can point to apostates and atheists who become so because they believe Jesus was wrong in what he said. Does that then justify me coming up with a new name for futurists other than futurists or Christian or brethren?

Now, yes, I know the analogy does not sit on all fours. Yes I know the OEC have their own issues where they have done things less than charitable... but I am looking in my own backyard.

But remember in essentials unity.... liberty and charity for others.

[jason]

.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 11:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284942#post284942)
jason:

I've learnt to expect no better from heretics who would apply such a label to a christian believer,

Like your hero Hugh Ross, you call YECs heretics (Ross compared us to the Judaizing heretics who added circumcision to the conditions of salvation and the Gnostics). But of course Jason and Ross love to play the martyr attacked by these mean ole YECs.


... and cast doubt upon there salvation while talking out of the other side of there mouth that this is not a salvation issue. The label can not be taken in any other way than to imply the person is not saved.

The label "Churchian" should be taken by what it says -- someone who attends a church. Such a person may or may not be a Christian. I've already said repeatedly that OECs and TEs may be Christian, and ICR and AiG say the same thing. But some anti-YEC churchians I doubt are Christians at all, e.g. a leading Australian TE who thinks that Jesus was mistaken about Genesis, but we know better than Jesus because we have the light of science.


So draw your own conclusions.
That Ross and his dupes are hypocrites. You did tell my to draw my own conclusions :bonk:


And I can point to others who abandon the faith because they have come to the conclusion that YEC is the only possible understanding of scripture.

A likely story. They are using it as an excuse, just like they use compromising churchians as useful idiots to attack Christians. And YEC IS the only possibly understanding of Scripture if we let the text speak for itself as opposed to imposing outside ideas from uniformitarian "science". That's why it was the universal view of the church from the Church Fathers to the Reformers.

I can certainly point to those whose faith was shipwrecked by churchians who told them to trust "science" over Scripture.


But a century from now we will see it for the heresy it is becoming.

What, are you calling YEC a heresy? Like I said, there's one rule for YECs and another for their enemies. The latter are only too happy to slag off at YECs but squeal like stug pigs at the slightest counterattack by YECs.


Sorry ...

No you're not.


Got to take a stand against something that, based on the use of language by many of its leading proponents, is adding to the requirements for salvation.

Like who? I'm sick of your accusations, so put up or shut up!!


They claim it is not so, but then again Arius did not seek to undermine the divinity of Christ either.

Yes he did -- read your history. He said Jesus was created. Athanasius rightly said that there was a time when God was not creator, but never a time when He was not Father of the Son.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jason you are a bold-faced hypocrite. Your post was completely out of line and frankly utterly disgusted me, and I have reported it and ask that all the responses here be removed so that we can start again. I don't blame him for resonding, but this thread is not for you to spew your anti-YEC venom when my whole purpose was to honestly deal with something I am not comfortable with within my own camp, not to give you a platform for your hypocrisy.

Socrates, please do not use my thread to attack Ross. That is not my purpose here, and frankly I am not comfortable with either ministry so aggressively attacking each other. Let's deal with points, rationally and calmly and point out the flaws, but the rancor has GOT to go.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 08:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284823#post284823)
Dee Dee Warren:

I don't really have the time to address this but since it is troubling me, and I prefer to point out flaws on my own side of issues when I see them, I am distinctly not comfortable with the blanket use of the term Churchian to refer to someone who is not YEC. Is it sometimes accurate? I am sure it is, but I am also sure there are YEC Churchians, cause there are many persons in Church who's devotion is to the Institution and not the Person of Christ.

The label "Churchian" should be taken by what it says -- someone who attends a church. Such a person may or may not be a Christian. I've already said repeatedly that OECs and TEs may be Christian, and ICR and AiG say the same thing. But some anti-YEC churchians I doubt are Christians at all, e.g. a leading Australian TE who thinks that Jesus was mistaken about Genesis, but we know better than Jesus because we have the light of science.

Similarly, I have no problem using "Churchian" to refer to the Uniting Church minister whom the atheist Paul Willis cited in his debate with AiG(Australia)'s CEO Carl Wieland (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/wielandreport.asp). This cheap attempt at invoking a churchian useful idiot backfired on him, because the Christians in the audience were hardly impressed by giving an example from Australia's apostate Uniting Church had just decided to ordain unrepentant practising homosexuals (and of course denies Genesis is history).


I feel as strongly about eschatology as some do about creation issues. I feel just as stronlgy that the logical consequences of denying the time statements leads to all kinds of Biblical denial. I can point to apostates and atheists who become so because they believe Jesus was wrong in what he said. Does that then justify me coming up with a new name for futurists other than futurists or Christian or brethren?

No, because AFAICT preterists, futurists and historicists are debating over what the Bible means. The YEC contra mundum debate is over whether the Bible is the authoritative framework for the history of the universe or whether it must be reinterpreted to fit in with the modern outside ideas from uniformitarian science.

Now, yes, I know the analogy does not sit on all fours. Yes I know the OEC have their own issues where they have done things less than charitable... but I am looking in my own backyard.


But remember in essentials unity.... liberty and charity for others.

Right, quoting the ardent YEC St. Augustine :soc:

BTW, the most comprehensive book on Ross that Answers in Genesis stocks is Van Bebber and Taylor’s book Creation and Time: A report on the Progressive Creationist book by Hugh Ross, Eden Productions, Mesa, AZ, 1994 (online at www.christiananswers.net/paradise/ctb-alt.htm ). Right at the beginning, they say:


‘We believe that Dr Ross is saved, and that his expressed desire to live for Christ is genuine.’

By promoting and stocking this book, AiG is presumably endorsing this statement. Quite a contrast from Ross comparing YECs to two lots of heretics. So I hope people on both sides will take this into account, and realise that AiG as an organization overwhelmingly majors on issues rather than personalities.

Also, AiG (Australia) points out that its founding chairman, Prof. John Rendle-Short, was a saved theistic evolutionist for 40 years (before AiG came into existence) -- see this tribute From (theistic) evolution to creation (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/creation.asp). This more strongly gives the lie to those who say that AiG regards YEC as a condition for salvation.

But like so many other people, including his own father Dr Arthur Rendle Short, an eminent English surgeon and apologist, he struggled with the problem of death and suffering before the Fall, which was the basis for the Gospel message (1 Corinthians15:21–22, 45). Fortunately, he held the foundational message despite the conflict, and this perfectly illustrates what I mean by these people being saved through "blessed inconsistency". People like Charles Templeton and Jack Spong were sadly consistent and apostatized completely.

[bar Jonah]

As a YEC, I wholeheartedly agree with Dee Dee. This is an unacceptable Ad Hominem term. Any use of it only demonstrate a fear of inadequacy on the part of the user. It's a crutch.

That said, this is news to me. I've only ever heard this term to describe people who pretend to be Christians and simply go to church but don't have a real (or at least demonstrable) relationship with God.

In this sense, "Churchianity" has long been a serious problem for the Body of Christ for almost two millenia.

[Socrates]

Today @ 04:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=286915#post286915)
RightIdea:

As a YEC, I wholeheartedly agree with Dee Dee. This is an unacceptable Ad Hominem term. Any use of it only demonstrate a fear of inadequacy on the part of the user. It's a crutch.

Think what you like. I have explained why I use it.


That said, this is news to me. I've only ever heard this term to describe people who pretend to be Christians and simply go to church but don't have a real (or at least demonstrable) relationship with God.

In this sense, "Churchianity" has long been a serious problem for the Body of Christ for almost two millenia.

Exactly. And this fits with a lot of the clergy paraded as useful idiots by the mendacious misochristic media to attack YECs, and many of the other opponents. At least this is true in my country. E.g. I've already given you the example from the pro-homosexual Uniting Church, the leader of a theistic evolutionary organization that said that Jesus was mistaken about Genesis. There is also the Archbishop of Brisbane who wrote a foreword to a book by an Australian Humanist of the Year which told demonstrable lies about YECs and mocked the Bible. They thought they had a real coup when he was appointed Governor General, but got egg on his face when he was pressured to resign because it turns out that he covered up child abuse in his church.

I've already amply explained that I don't regard YEC as a condition for salvation, and neither does AiG. Nor do we regard Ross as unsaved. But we both regard it as significant that a lot of anti-YEC opposition from within the church is from clergy who should not be considered as Christians at all.

[jason]

Yesterday @ 05:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=285216#post285216)
Socrates:

Like your hero Hugh Ross, you call YECs heretics
When you throw around terms that suggest people are not saved because they take an old earth position the term is used correctly.


I've already said repeatedly that OECs and TEs may be Christian, and ICR and AiG say the same thing. But some anti-YEC churchians I doubt are Christians at all, e.g. a leading Australian TE who thinks that Jesus was mistaken about Genesis, but we know better than Jesus because we have the light of science.
That person might be, care to drop a name ? I am after all an australian.


A likely story. They are using it as an excuse,
My wife is using it as an excuse is she ?

She has not given up the faith, she simply had YEC out in her path as a stumbling block, by me no less.


What, are you calling YEC a heresy? Like I said, there's one rule for YECs and another for their enemies. The latter are only too happy to slag off at YECs but squeal like stug pigs at the slightest counterattack by YECs.
No you are welcome to slag me off as your endlessly do. I am not complaining about your attacks.

And yes, if it is being added as a requirement for salvation, even implicitly then it is heretical.


Like who? I'm sick of your accusations, so put up or shut up!!
Henry Morris is on record as saying that he does not think non-yecs should be in positions of authority.

That is not adding it as a requirement for salvation, but that is where it will start.

And throwing around labels like "compromising Churchian" and "useful idiot" is only going to give others the impression that "real christians" hold a YEC position and that there is something suspect about those who do not.

It is a short step from there.

After all, Mary is the mother of Christ, and look where that line of thought ended up after 1500 years.

Yes he did -- read your history. He said Jesus was created. Athanasius rightly said that there was a time when God was not creator, but never a time when He was not Father of the Son. [/QUOTE]
Yes I know he said Jesus was created. He still regarded him as divine.

Jason

[jason]

Yesterday @ 10:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=285955#post285955)
Dee Dee Warren:

Jason you are a bold-faced hypocrite. Your post was completely out of line and frankly utterly disgusted me, and I have reported it and ask that all the responses here be removed so that we can start again.
If you really feel the need. I did edit it three or four times to tone it down. I thought it was ok in the end.

Oh well, I apologise. I guess these sorts of things never come out right.


but this thread is not for you to spew your anti-YEC venom
Anti-YEC venom ?


not to give you a platform for your hypocrisy.
?

Look if I came of badly I am sorry. You have my apologies. I will remove my opening response if you like.

Jason

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 05:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=286985#post286985)
jason, replying to:


Socrates:

Like your hero Hugh Ross, you call YECs heretics

When you throw around terms that suggest people are not saved because they take an old earth position the term is used correctly.
And neither I nor the leading creationist organisations have said so :bonk:


Soc: I've already said repeatedly that OECs and TEs may be Christian, and ICR and AiG say the same thing. But some anti-YEC churchians I doubt are Christians at all, e.g. a leading Australian TE who thinks that Jesus was mistaken about Genesis, but we know better than Jesus because we have the light of science.

That person might be, care to drop a name ? I am after all an australian.

Allan Day of ISCAST, as documented in the AiG article The Skeptics and their ‘Churchian’ Allies. I must say that I don't know why DD and RI got so hot under their collars about the use of the word ‘Churchian’ when it was my citation of this article which started it, yet it is a perfect term for heretics like Allan Day.



Soc: A likely story. They are using it as an excuse,

Jason: My wife is using it as an excuse is she ?

Definitely.


She has not given up the faith, she simply had YEC out in her path as a stumbling block, by me no less.

How would I know? And a word of advice -- don't bring your wife into it unless you want to see counterattacks directed against her.



Soc: Like who? I'm sick of your accusations, so put up or shut up!!

Henry Morris is on record as saying that he does not think non-yecs should be in positions of authority.

Where? And I certainly won't become a member of a church where the leadership is slack on creation.


That is not adding it as a requirement for salvation, but that is where it will start.

And your proof for this is, what?


And throwing around labels like "compromising Churchian" and "useful idiot"

They are very useful labels. The latter especially comes from Lenin and was used to describe leftist (pseudo)intellectuals who supported communism. Lenin found them useful to his cause, but had contempt for them as idiots who were too stupid to realise that it they had their way, their own positions and whole society would be in jeopardy. Same for the atheists who use some of the compromising churchians. They are only too happy to use their junk in battles with Christians, but the result of the compromiser's bilge is to harden the atheists in their unbelief.

But it's OK for Jason's hero Ross to compare YECs to Judaizing and Gnostic heretics. That's because an anti-YEC bigot can do no wrong in his own eyes.


... is only going to give others the impression that "real christians" hold a YEC position and that there is something suspect about those who do not.

There is, but not necessarily salvific, as per my previous post here.


After all, Mary is the mother of Christ, and look where that line of thought ended up after 1500 years.

So you think Christians should now deny that? :huh:



Soc: Yes he did -- read your history. He said Jesus was created. Athanasius rightly said that there was a time when God was not creator, but never a time when He was not Father of the Son.

J: Yes I know he said Jesus was created. He still regarded him as divine.

A contradiction in terms. :doh:

[Dee Dee Warren]

jason:

If you really feel the need. I did edit it three or four times to tone it down. I thought it was ok in the end.

Well you already edited it out of existence. I did in fact report it, and no it was no okay, but hypocritically foul.


Oh well, I apologise. I guess these sorts of things never come out right.

Apology accepted.



Anti-YEC venom ?

Since I no longer have your post to quote, I cannot point out the venom, but I have found consistently you do so. That however is not the subect of this thread, and I ask you and Socrates to take your personal dispute elsewhere.

This thread is narrowly defined. I am not interested in your hatred of YEC in this thread. I as one YEC am calling on other YEC to discuss the use of this term. Really on this one, you would be more polite to butt out. I cannot enforce that of course as this is an open area of the forum, but as the thread starter I am telling you what my intention was and am asking you to voluntarily respect it. Anticipating that you will, I will not respond to any of your comments as it would not be fair to respond to something and ask you not to. Feel free to start a thread on any of the subpoints. If you wish to rant about YEC heresy take it to the Locker Room.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 12:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=286877#post286877)
Socrates:



The label "Churchian" should be taken by what it says -- someone who attends a church.

No I am sorry though that does not fly or address my concern. Are you and I then "Churchians"? Come on. It implies that it is someone who only attends a church but is not a Christian. Yes, there are many people to whom that apply, but I think it is generically used in the YEC camp to refer to anyone who is OEC. That is my concern. Is the DaVinci code guy properly a Churchian? Sure.




Such a person may or may not be a Christian.

I am sorry Soc it has the taint of implying that they are not. The phrase "Churchianity" has a history that cannot be ignored. That is like saying the "n" word simply means a black person which ignores the "slur" aspect.



I've already said repeatedly that OECs and TEs may be Christian, and ICR and AiG say the same thing.

And I agree with that. Those who try to say otherwise are wrong. However, I think that they are wrongly using Churchian so often. It leads to misunderstanding. However, rrather than using that to say that YEC don't believe that OEC are saved, Christian charity would say that we grant the benefit of the doubt and say that the use of Churchians is inconsistent. That is my burden. I know your heart that OEC are saved as is mine. Anyone who uses my honest-hearted concern as an occasion to attack YEC is abusing my intent and I deeply object.




But some anti-YEC churchians I doubt are Christians at all, e.g. a leading Australian TE who thinks that Jesus was mistaken about Genesis, but we know better than Jesus because we have the light of science.

I have no problem there. Then let's limit the use to such as there is compelling foundation.


Similarly, I have no problem using "Churchian" to refer to the Uniting Church minister whom the atheist Paul Willis cited in his debate with AiG(Australia)'s CEO Carl Wieland (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/wielandreport.asp). This cheap attempt at invoking a churchian useful idiot backfired on him, because the Christians in the audience were hardly impressed by giving an example from Australia's apostate Uniting Church had just decided to ordain unrepentant practising homosexuals (and of course denies Genesis is history).

Again I didn't say it was never appropriate. It is the generic use that I am objecting to. I am next going to focus on a thread of the over-use of "useful idiot" - see here is my heart Socrates, such things are fueling fire between true brethren, and as such is generating more heat than light. I would resent if I thought a OEC was calling me a Churchian generically, even if speficially they were referring to obvious apostates. I am not denying there are apostates.




No, because AFAICT preterists, futurists and historicists are debating over what the Bible means. The YEC contra mundum debate is over whether the Bible is the authoritative framework for the history of the universe or whether it must be reinterpreted to fit in with the modern outside ideas from uniformitarian science.

I disagree to a point. I would say that futurists are looking at the world and saying that since such things did not happen we must re-interpret Christ's timing words to mean something else. This is actually much more on point than I realized.





By promoting and stocking this book, AiG is presumably endorsing this statement. Quite a contrast from Ross comparing YECs to two lots of heretics. So I hope people on both sides will take this into account, and realise that AiG as an organization overwhelmingly majors on issues rather than personalities.

I am not referring to any one organization in my comments anyways. I have seen several YEC usages of Churchian lately, individuals, not organziations, and it bothered me. You know I am a financial supporter of AiG. Despite any difference I may have on anything, for I do not wholeheartedly agree with any ministry, I believe in the ministry.

[jason]

Today @ 04:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=287223#post287223)
Dee Dee Warren:
Well you already edited it out of existence. I did in fact report it, and no it was no okay, but hypocritically foul.
Fair enough. I thought you wanted it rid of, so I did as you asked. Hypocritically foul ? Ok then.


Since I no longer have your post to quote, I cannot point out the venom, but I have found consistently you do so.
Really ? Fair enough. I shall watch that in future.

I started a new thread to pursue the question. Please let me know if you consider that "hypocritically foul" or "venomous".


I am not interested in your hatred of YEC in this thread.
I don't hate YEC's. I consider a small minority of them a destructive influence in the church, and I consider their rhetoric the problem.


Feel free to start a thread on any of the subpoints. If you wish to rant about YEC heresy take it to the Locker Room.
I did start a new thread. Don't worry about replying Dee Dee, sorry to have upset you. It is easy to write things that don't read the same way to one person as another. And in hind sight my original post was probably a little over the top.

Jason

[Dee Dee Warren]

No problem Jason, forgotten, over and done.

[peh2]

What is YEC? There are other abbrevations I don't understand in here but I can't see them now that I'm posting so can't ask...is there some where on the forum where their definitions are listed?

[jason]

YEC = Young Earth Creationist.

Some one who holds to the view that the earth is only thousands of years old and a global flood of Noah.

Jason

[Dee Dee Warren]

I still would like to continue this "in house" YEC discussion.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Silence?

[bar Jonah]

jason:
YEC = Young Earth Creationist.

Some one who holds to the view that the earth is only thousands of years old and a global flood of Noah.

Jason
But note, there is variance of specifics in both camps.

Some OECs believe in a global flood, and some do not. Some believe the earth is billions of years old but that man has only been around the last 6,000 years, while some agree with the secular evolutionists who claim man has been on earth far longer than that.

So be wary of making assumptions.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323858#post323858)
Dee Dee Warren:

Silence?

What would you like to discuss? Perhaps how yet another churchian evolutionist here, Burgy, has trashed biblical inerrancy and is woefully ignorant of textual criticism? Or how Morton refuses to lift a finger when Burgy attacks the Bible or Meert and IG dismiss Genesis as myth?

[bigsplit]

I read these post of Christians and it shocks me. Not that anyone who has posted here is as foul as these arguments imply, but the rhetoric arising out of the YEC v OEC camps are unbelievable.

I have read that Christians are placing requisites on salvation and discussing what is a salvation issue vs what is not. That is incredible to hear, no one who would try to make such a call on either side of the creation argument is a christian as far as I have learned. Such judgements are extremely anti-christion and rotton to the very core. Such arguments do not serve any value to the debate what-so-ever it only serves to poisons the well of the entire debate and says much about the salvation of the party who allows such rhetoric to spew from their lips or on this site their fingers.

I am in a broad sense an OEC, but I certainly see it as a slippery slope and if what I believe is undermined by evidence it would certainly not cause me to abandon my faith. But I do seek answers to questions that concern me about my place and role in this Universe. "Seek and ye shall find." If all the answers to our questions were in "THE BOOK" then there would be no role for the Holy Spirit as teacher. We know from the NT that all of what Jesus taught could not be contained in the Library of Congress. I may be wrong about my particular version of OEC, after all I am only a fallible man; but I have prayed on it and sought the truth on these issues. I did this not even knowing that such a debate existed at all and thought my questions were my own. The only person I had to talk with about these questions was God. Eventually, I recieved my answers. I feel strongly that I am absolutly right about my "revelations" but if it turns out that I am not I will know it is because of my human fallibility and not the absents of my Father.

God bless you all and be good to one another.

[Socrates]

12-03-2003 @ 11:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=324367#post324367)
bigsplit:

I read these post of Christians and it shocks me. Not that anyone who has posted here is as foul as these arguments imply, but the rhetoric arising out of the YEC v OEC camps are unbelievable.

Please be specific rather than resorting to emotional vague generalities.


I have read that Christians are placing requisites on salvation and discussing what is a salvation issue vs what is not.

And what exactly is your problem? None of the YECs here say that YEC is a prerequisite for salvation. All of us would say that belief in the fully deity of Christ and His bodily resurrection, and a future resurrection of believers, is essential.

Some of might point out that certain behaviors of churchians is incongruous with their professed Christianity, e.g. yoking with atheists to trash the Bible.


That is incredible to hear, no one who would try to make such a call on either side of the creation argument is a christian as far as I have learned.

Such judgements are extremely anti-christion and rotton to the very core.

And this statement above is a very anti-Christian JUDGEMENT!! :punch:


I am in a broad sense an OEC, but I certainly see it as a slippery slope and if what I believe is undermined by evidence it would certainly not cause me to abandon my faith. But I do seek answers to questions that concern me about my place and role in this Universe. "Seek and ye shall find." If all the answers to our questions were in "THE BOOK" then there would be no role for the Holy Spirit as teacher. We know from the NT that all of what Jesus taught could not be contained in the Library of Congress.

And the point it, what? I have already said that Francis Schaeffer was right that the Bible is true truth but not exhaustive truth. But part of the truth the Bible teaches is how long ago God created, over what time frame and what order of events.

From Biblical framework, we are free to propose models to elucidate the Bible, trying to explain what is not taught. But models should never override Scripture, which OEC does. See also the introduction to the AiG article Moving forward
Arguments we think creationists shouldn't use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/forward.asp).


I may be wrong about my particular version of OEC, after all I am only a fallible man; but I have prayed on it and sought the truth on these issues. I did this not even knowing that such a debate existed at all and thought my questions were my own. The only person I had to talk with about these questions was God. Eventually, I recieved my answers. I feel strongly that I am absolutly right about my "revelations" but if it turns out that I am not I will know it is because of my human fallibility and not the absents of my Father.

I'm not interested in such subjectivity. What matters is how any belief system matches up with the objective propositional revelation of Scripture.

[bigsplit]

My subjectivity/objectiveity, let's discuss it.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13189

My emotions, sorry if they offend you, I just do not care to see division within Christianity, but you are right I should be more specific.

My anti-Christian statement: This statement from you I do not understand. I just further qualified your own argument that YEC v OEC is not a salvation issue by adding that those who would say it is are deceived and are behaving in ways that are not Christian like. But, you say that I am being anti-christian for this statement. I "Could" deduce that your sentiments imply your true feelings on the YEC v OEC debate as different than your stated opinion that it is not a salvation issue, but I will not do so.

But in all earnestness, thank you for your criticism, I try to take critique as constructively as I can. Even if I disagree with the criticism, in all communications it is not necessarily the intentions of the source that is received by the hearer, or reader in this case. You are correct in the nature of your post that I should be more clear in my statements and less presumptious as to the mindset of the audience to whom I address.

[Dee Dee Warren]

12-03-2003 @ 12:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323966#post323966)
Socrates:



What would you like to discuss? Perhaps how yet another churchian evolutionist here, Burgy, has trashed biblical inerrancy and is woefully ignorant of textual criticism? Or how Morton refuses to lift a finger when Burgy attacks the Bible or Meert and IG dismiss Genesis as myth?

Is inerrancy a salvational issue Soc? I don't think so. Is ignornace of textual ciriticism a salvational issue? I don't think so. I am pretty ignorant compared to some of the subject. Is being a hypocrite salvational? God help us all if it is.

What I would like to discuss was made plain in my opening post. The blanket use of "churchian" by some in the YEC camp. Personally I think it is indefensible in the blanket way it is being used.

[Socrates]

Today @ 05:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=328954#post328954)
Dee Dee Warren:

Is inerrancy a salvational issue Soc? I don't think so.

No. But it is essential for Christianity as a whole. No seminary or denomination can survive if they stop regarding the Bible as inerrant. Francis Schaeffer strongly made this point in The Great Evangelical Disaster, calling biblical inerrancy is a watershed issue. This comes from his perspective in the Swiss mountains: a watershed doesn't look like much, but water on one side will flow to end up in the sea on opposite sides thousands of miles apart. And once a denomination permits the slightest compromise on inerrancy, it will slide all the way to complete apostasy.

Schaeffer also provides useful advice on dealing with controversies, with a balance picture of what biblical love means--and it's not the WFJ tolerance of wolves in sheep's clothing.

The 19th century evangelical Anglican bishop JC Ryle also pointed out:

We corrupt the Word of God most dangerously, when we throw any doubt on the plenary inspiration of any part of Holy Scripture.

This is not merely corrupting the cup, but the whole fountain. This is not merely corrupting the bucket of living water, which we profess to present to our people, but poisoning the whole well. Once wrong on this point, the whole substance of our religion is in danger. It is a flaw in the foundation. It is a worm at the root of our theology. Once allow this worm to gnaw the root, and we must not be surprised if the branches, the leaves, and the fruit, little by little decay.


Is ignornace of textual ciriticism a salvational issue? I don't think so.

No. I was just showing how pathetic Burgy was to attack inerrancy on the grounds that we don't have the originals.


I am pretty ignorant compared to some of the subject. Is being a hypocrite salvational? God help us all if it is.

All the same, not everyone who says "Lord Lord" is a Christian. And if someone has not done the slightest thing to defend Christianity and done much to yoke with atheists to attack the Bible, why should Christians accept him as one of them?


What I would like to discuss was made plain in my opening post. The blanket use of "churchian" by some in the YEC camp. Personally I think it is indefensible in the blanket way it is being used.

I think the term is mainly used when there is a question about the anti-YEC's Christianity, such as saying that Jesus made mistakes, that it wasn't exactly true that Jesus was the only 'God' who rose from the dead or that there is no future physical resurrection.

I have made it clear that I regard non-YECs such as Steadele, Jezz, Wienerdog, John Ransom as genuine Christians. But these guys all regularly and strongly defend Christianity unlike some of the more obsessive anti-YECs here.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I think the term is mainly used when there is a question about the anti-YEC's Christianity, such as saying that Jesus made mistakes, that it wasn't exactly true that Jesus was the only 'God' who rose from the dead or that there is no future physical resurrection.


This misses my point on this thread again. My issue here was I had hoped and explained pretty narrow. Why is it used so blanketly. I already stated that there are "Churchians" in life. We probably sit next to some at church and it may not have anything to to with YEC/OEC etc. I am disturbed that it is used so broadly and easily and why must we be so blanket aggressive/demeaning with those with whom we disagree? Not that it is never justified of course it is. My complaint was well-defined.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 09:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=332816#post332816)
Dee Dee Warren:

This misses my point on this thread again. My issue here was I had hoped and explained pretty narrow. Why is it used so blanketly. I already stated that there are "Churchians" in life. We probably sit next to some at church and it may not have anything to to with YEC/OEC etc. I am disturbed that it is used so broadly and easily and why must we be so blanket aggressive/demeaning with those with whom we disagree?
And you'd never do that would you? :gape:


Not that it is never justified of course it is. My complaint was well-defined.

I'm open to suggestion to an alternative term for critics within the church, encompassing both those who are genuine Christian (like most OECs) and those whose salvation is questionable (some TEs including those who say that Jesus made mistakes, that it's not exactly true that He was the only 'God' who rose from the dead and denying a future physical resurrection of believers).

[Dee Dee Warren]

12-11-2003 @ 12:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=333845#post333845)
Socrates:


And you'd never do that would you? :gape:

Not using a term so blanketly (please remain in context that is pretty important) that would condemn brethren with heretics. That is what we are talking about here.




I'm open to suggestion to an alternative term for critics within the church, encompassing both those who are genuine Christian (like most OECs) and those whose salvation is questionable (some TEs including those who say that Jesus made mistakes, that it's not exactly true that He was the only 'God' who rose from the dead and denying a future physical resurrection of believers).

I don't think we should have the same term for both that is my whole point. Why should we demean the brethren in that way? Churchian is fine for the Spongs of the world, but I don't find it fine for Hugh Ross. Nor the many OEC we have here at this site such as Steadele.

[$cirisme]

From what I've seen used of the term... it implies that the user considers YEC a salvational belief... which is nonsense.

[Dee Dee Warren]

That is exactly my point, thank you.

[Jezz]

This is a little old and off-topic, but there was something here that I felt needed to be addressed, and I am uniquely qualified to be able to do it...


There is also the Archbishop of Brisbane who wrote a foreword to a book by an Australian Humanist of the Year which told demonstrable lies about YECs and mocked the Bible. They thought they had a real coup when he was appointed Governor General, but got egg on his face when he was pressured to resign because it turns out that he covered up child abuse in his church.
I have no idea about what Hollingworth did with the foreword of that book, but if you want to use the "child abuse" allegations against Hollingworth then I suggest you do a little research of your own on this witch hunt. Knowing how badly it is that the media misrepresent your own YEC position, you should know better than to rely on little tidbits in the media before condemning someone (especially where politics are involved). This issue was a lot more complicated than the media ever let on. Just about everyone who regurgitates information on this topic has it distorted or just plain wrong. (Case in point: the child abuse in question was not in Hollingworth's church, as you claimed, but in his diocese (heck, some even in a different diocese).) I won't go into it in detail now, but I'm calling you on this serious allegation (as Hollingworth is not here to defend himself) - in the spirit of the rules of these forums if you want to sustain this particular allegation you'll need to back it up or withdraw it. If you want to back it up, I'll start a new thread with my report in it in an appropriate forum (perhaps pol. science).

Fair warning: I myself have investigated these things from the beginning, and I have written an orderly account of them most excellent Socrates. This takes the form of an 11-page report (along with dozens of pages of appendices) which I did as a personal exercise in media studies - to see just how disgraceful the media in our country are. Quite honestly, it sickened me.

[Ben Reid]

I would be most interested to see the report you did, especially as I am an Australian myself -- would you be willing to share it?

[judge]

Today @ 12:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=366520#post366520)
Ben Reid:

I would be most interested to see the report you did, especially as I am an Australian myself -- would you be willing to share it?

Hi Ben!

check your inbox



:smile:

[Jezz]

Ben Reid:

I would be most interested to see the report you did, especially as I am an Australian myself -- would you be willing to share it?
Seeing as how you are interested, I will format my report and post it over the weekend in the Pol Sci forum. It will take a little bit because I have to put the hyperlinks back in to all of the primary source material that I used.

[Ben Reid]

Today @ 02:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=369114#post369114)
Jezz:


Seeing as how you are interested, I will format my report and post it over the weekend in the Pol Sci forum. It will take a little bit because I have to put the hyperlinks back in to all of the primary source material that I used.

Thanks Jezz -- I appreciate it. I'll look out for the thread when you get the time to post it (don't worry about the hyperlinks if it takes too much of your time).

p.s. Just wanted to let you know that I am big follower of your posts here on TWEB (I lurk here quite a lot). I think you are one of the finest Christian apologists on the web (I especially have enjoyed your anlaysis of the usage of words such as "extraordinary", "supernatural" and "miraculous") and we are lucky to have someone like you gracing your presence here. You provide much wisdom, strength and insight to people such as myself, so I hope you never feel that your posting is in vain.

[Socrates]

01-07-2004 @ 10:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=366514#post366514)
Jezz:

I have no idea about what Hollingworth did with the foreword of that book,

He endorsed it, despite the fact that the author was Humanist of the Year and mocked the Bible throughout.


... but if you want to use the "child abuse" allegations against Hollingworth then I suggest you do a little research of your own on this witch hunt.

I have done plenty. I actually have no doubt that much of the witch-hunting was for dishonorable motives, but also that Hollingworth was a churchian politician who did what was expedient. The media actually loved Hollingworth while he was an ultra-liberal in a dog-collar, but turned on him when his appointment to the Governor General position meant that a clergyman (no matter how liberal) held the top office.

It has a parallel with the Whore of Babylon who committed harlotry with the kings of the world, but they turned on her -- a symbol of the false religious systems who compromise with the world and are destroyed by it.


Knowing how badly it is that the media misrepresent your own YEC position,

I sure do. And you may well be interested in the new book Press v Pulpit: Christophobia in the Australian Media, by award-winning journalist Cameron Horn.


... you should know better than to rely on little tidbits in the media before condemning someone (especially where politics are involved).

Who says I was relying on the media?


This issue was a lot more complicated than the media ever let on. Just about everyone who regurgitates information on this topic has it distorted or just plain wrong. (Case in point: the child abuse in question was not in Hollingworth's church, as you claimed, but in his diocese (heck, some even in a different diocese).)

What a pathetic quibble. I was using this to mean the Anglican Church. And as one in a high position of authority, he dealt with child abuse in a disgraceful way, so that even his supporters eventually realised that his position as GG was untenable. I think the PM appointed Hollingworth for honorable reasons and didn't realise what a wolf he is.

[Jezz]

Socrates:
He endorsed it, despite the fact that the author was Humanist of the Year and mocked the Bible throughout.
Hmmm...


I have done plenty. I actually have no doubt that much of the witch-hunting was for dishonorable motives,
Much? I'd go so far as to say 95%.


...but also that Hollingworth was a churchian politician who did what was expedient. The media actually loved Hollingworth while he was an ultra-liberal in a dog-collar, but turned on him when his appointment to the Governor General position meant that a clergyman (no matter how liberal) held the top office.

It has a parallel with the Whore of Babylon who committed harlotry with the kings of the world, but they turned on her -- a symbol of the false religious systems who compromise with the world and are destroyed by it.
I have no idea where Hollingworth's beliefs lie on the conservative/liberal scale (and you should also know that I do not respect the liberal end of the scale from my posts), however such facts are not relevant to the way the whole affair is handled.


I sure do. And you may well be interested in the new book Press v Pulpit: Christophobia in the Australian Media, by award-winning journalist Cameron Horn.
Yeah, there is a fair bit of that going on in our media. I postulated that a fair amount of Hollingworth's witch hunt was motivated by such.

I was watching one of those comic debates that channel 7 do once, and Greg Fleet was on. During his bit, he made a comment about some guy who was Christian, and said that you have to feel a little bit sorry for him because it means he believes something that isn't true. Not only did the audience laugh, they applauded...


Who says I was relying on the media?
It seemed to me, from what I know, that either you were relying on the media or you were deliberately misrepresenting the facts in the same way as the media. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by taking the former option (and given that 99% of people haven't looked it up for themselves, it was also playing the odds to make that assumption). Maybe if I am wrong, you can correct that when I start up the new thread.


What a pathetic quibble. I was using this to mean the Anglican Church.
My bad. I apologise for misreading.


And as one in a high position of authority, he dealt with child abuse in a disgraceful way,
See, it is this statement which made me think that perhaps you were relying on the media. There was really only one case that he handled questionably. The way you make this statement implies that he handled all child abuse cases disgracefully.


so that even his supporters eventually realised that his position as GG was untenable. I think the PM appointed Hollingworth for honorable reasons and didn't realise what a wolf he is.
Possibly. I'll defer discussion on that to the new thread when I start it.

[Socrates]

Today @ 10:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=370687#post370687)
Jezz:

I have no idea where Hollingworth's beliefs lie on the conservative/liberal scale (and you should also know that I do not respect the liberal end of the scale from my posts),

I know. Hollingworth is liberal on biblical authority and the homosexual issues, and in yoking with a humanist in supporting his bible-mocking book.


Yeah, there is a fair bit of that going on in our media. I postulated that a fair amount of Hollingworth's witch hunt was motivated by such.

I would be interested in your analysis, and think you're right. This is evident in the so many comments by the antitheists in our Democrat party who whinged about a constitutional separation of Church and State, forgetting that we are in Australia not America :dufus: But I still think that in this case there really was fire with the media smoke.


I was watching one of those comic debates that channel 7 do once, and Greg Fleet was on. During his bit, he made a comment about some guy who was Christian, and said that you have to feel a little bit sorry for him because it means he believes something that isn't true. Not only did the audience laugh, they applauded...

:puke: Actually Press v Pulpit has a whole chapter on comedians v Christ, but I can't recall if this one is on it -- yet more supporting evidence.

[Socrates]

01-04-2004 @ 09:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=362352#post362352)
cirisme:

From what I've seen used of the term... it implies that the user considers YEC a salvational belief... which is nonsense.

Seems to be a problem with perception.

As I've said, OECs are not usually outside orthodoxy (Steadele, Wienerdog and Jezz are definitely orthodox), but so many TEs on TWeb and elsewhere are. And I'm even more sure that Burgy is a heretic given that he regards Spong and Bultmann as Christians, and supports abortion and homosexual acts.

And the fact that Morton regards Burgy as a fellow Christian, and weasels around instead of condemning Meert's unambiguously heretical statements makes me suspicious of him too. I previously thought that Morton was barely within the pale.

[Jezz]

Socrates:
I know. Hollingworth is liberal on biblical authority and the homosexual issues, and in yoking with a humanist in supporting his bible-mocking book.
Actually, I think that Hollingworth specifically addressed that criticism in his Australian Story interview. I'll see if I can find it. I agree that on the surface it would not seem to be something that a conservative Church representative would do (I certainly wouldn't).


I would be interested in your analysis, and think you're right. This is evident in the so many comments by the antitheists in our Democrat party who whinged about a constitutional separation of Church and State, forgetting that we are in Australia not America :dufus:
Interestingly enough, I remember thinking the same thing - and then one day I actually looked up the Australian Constitution to see what it had to say on the matter. And there is indeed a "separation of Church and State" in our Constitution:

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter5.htm

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Obviously Hollingworth's appointment did not contradict this statute, and those in the Democrat party crying "separation of church and state" were simply abusing the concept (as commonly happens in the US as well). Moreover, they probably forgot about the opening line of the preamble:

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established...


But I still think that in this case there really was fire with the media smoke.
Perhaps. I'll wait until I start the new thread to comment further.

Apologies to all for the delay for starting the new thread. It will probably have to wait until this weekend.

[$cirisme]

Seems to be a problem with perception.
So why continue using it when it is obvious people have a hard time understanding what you mean?

[bar Jonah]

I have to agree the term is not effective for the purpose you intend it, Soc. It simply means something else to almost everyone you use it, too. The only use of "churchians" I've ever heard of (and I've heard it many times) is to describe people who simply go to church but who aren't really saved. :nsm:

[Socrates]

Yeah, OK.

[Jezz]

All,

My long-overdue report on Hollingworth has finally been posted (well, part 1 anyway...) in the Pol-Sci forum. You can find it here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19778).

Apologies for the delay.