Given that I'm in an Anglophile state of mind today, I have to say that I would not have believed it unless I saw it with my own eyes, but there is a blog out there entitled: Sydney Anglican Heretics and the subtitle reads: "A blog dedicated to exposing, discussing and, we pray, undoing the silly and heretical teachings that are slipping, almost unnoticed (we notice!), into the Anglican Diocese of Sydney". Views on creation seem to be the main issue here. Sadly Michael Jensen and Mark Baddeley, both whom I have had the pleasure of meeting, come in for some very unnice treatment. Ironically, in many circles the Sydney Anglicans are usually labelled fundamentalists, so the designation of "heretic" is rather comical all things considered. But to Mike and Mark remember the words of Churchill: "A man with no enemies is a man with no convictions!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Dear Michael,
Thanks so much for the link. What a hoot for a Sydney Anglican like me! Since leaving Sydney 8 years ago I have discovered just how much vitriol is out concerning Sydney Anglicans ... there are times I've thought about cosmetic surgery ...
God bless.
Marty.
Michael,
We do not think it's "comical" that supposed leaders of the Anglican Church put death before the Fall, billions of years before man, and hold to a pagan theory of creation that has death, chance and time operating instead of the Wisdom of God i.e. Christ the creator. We don't think it's something that you should smugly laugh at.
John
John, Interesting. Yes smug describes the Mooreman attitude well.
Marty please descend to the particular and give the waiting world an example of the'vitriol'to which you refer.
Recently a JW was offended when I pointed out his theology was not Christian. Quite un-Christian of me, he claimed. Apparently quite content to imagine he was Christian while at the same time denying the deity of Christ.
Then I read your comments above, regarding Mooreman's rewriting of Scripture, and note how they some squeal when their compromise is exposed. Apparently content to kick Genesis etc out of recognizable shape but at the same time objecting when this sin is pointed out. Funny chaps what!
Dear Warwick,
In short, because I've studied at Moore I've had Presbyterians call me "liberal", Baptists call me "too intellectual", liberal Anglicans call me "fundamentalist", Church of Christers call me "ritualist", Brethrens call me "too traditional", Unitings call me "too narrow", all of whom have known nothing about me, except that I've studied at Moore.
When you say:
"Apparently content to kick Genesis etc out of recognizable shape but at the same time objecting when this sin is pointed out. Funny chaps what!"
what else is that but ad hominem name-calling that will only generate heat not light.
God bless you dear brother.
Marty.
ps: I have no intention of continuing this discussion on Michael's excellent blog and distract from his NT observations.
Marty you are truly one of the bunch.
Ad Hominem 'attacking your opponent personally rather than her/his argument.' Ad hominem is fallacious argumentation.
www.tmsdebate.org/main/forensics/glossary.htm appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.
Maybe you have your terms of criticism mixed up.
I see nothing in what I have written above which fits ad hominem.
I have attacked the argument, not the man.
My complaint is that these days Moore college does not have the integrity nor the courage to stand up for the plain meaning of Scripture. At least one brave AngloDebater has admitted he interprets Genesis through the evolutionary world-view. It is obvious that this is the prevailing philosophy because not one of those with whom we have debated has even endeavoured to defend their old earth, theistic evolution view from Scripture.
Marty as Scripture says- that which is not of faith is of sin. Is interpreting Scripture through the prevailing ever-changing world-view, not from Scripture, therefore not sin?
BTW it was Michael who brought up the issue here.
Dios te bendiga
Post a Comment