Jac3510 wrote:So, I've gone through every word of your links, Bart. I was expecting something much stronger, although I can see where you (and I) could take some exceptions. Specifically:
Italics mine. Claiming an undermining of the authority of Scripture, which is a basis of our knowledge of salvation, ties the concepts together.
No it doesn't. That's an overstatement on its face. Do you really think that people who deny the inerrancy of Scripture can't believe the Gospel?
That's not to say that undermining the authority of Scripture isn't important. Indeed, it is! That's not to say that people who don't believe in the authority of Scripture will have just an easy a time of believing the Gospel. Indeed, they won't! Yet you can't say that just because Hamm believes that Ross is undermining the authority of Scripture that he is questioning his salvation, or that of any OEC for that matter.
Equating Ross with driving young people away from Church is making a clear statement as to the soteriological impact of and OEC position.
No it doesn't. Do you believe that people can only be saved if they are in the church? But even if I were to concede your point, that still doesn't mean that Hamm is questioning Ross' or any other OECs salvation. It would, at worst, mean that he believes that OEC makes it harder for people to believe the Gospel, but that's not at all the same thing as the commonly tossed around argument, "Hamm and other YECs have argued that OECs aren't even Christian!"
italics mine
As above, just because Ham claims that someone is compromising the faith doesn't mean he is questioning their salvation.
Did, and same as the previous statement. It was an interesting read, though, and it makes me far more cautious of Ross' credibility in general, especially the comments on Hebrew (in which I have had formal training). I find it interesting, too, that Ross' statement about YEC being divisive is ignored, even as people here get mad when YECs claim OEC is divisive . . .
AIG Newsletter from 2003. Note that Ross is referred to and equated as "an enemy"
An enemy doesn't necessarily mean a non-Christian. I think the word is too strong, but insofar as OEC promotes the idea that there was death before the Fall, it does have soteriological ramifications. Are they enough to undermine the Gospel? I don't think so (although, I absolutely think so when it comes to theistic evolution as it denies the historicity of Adam and Eve). But does it have ramifications? Obviously, yes, because it implies that Jesus didn't conquer death, but rather only human death. I know you don't like systematic theology, but that statement will have reverberations in a lot of places.
Infers that Ross is not presenting the gospel.
No it doesn't. AiG does two different things: they combat what they see to be compromise and they also present the Gospel. You are reading too much into that.
General statement against all OEC as "spiritual fornicators"
Funny, I don't see them called spiritual fornicators anywhere in that article. In fact, that phrase isn't used anywhere in the article, despite your putting it in quotation marks. The most direct comment you get is this:
"I believe Satan has used the same trick on the church today, as many Christian leaders have committed a form of 'spiritual fornication' in compromising with the world and thus have undermined the authority of the Word of the living God."
Saying someone has committed
a form of spiritual fornication is not saying that they are a spiritual fornicator. If you read the article, you'll see he makes a very consistent point (whether you agree on not is another issue) that relates back to Balaam. Just as Israel compromised their beliefs and worshiped false gods (thus, the spiritual fornication), the NT church was doing the same; in an analogous way, the modern church is compromising her beliefs, not in worshiping a false god, but in rejecting the authority of Scripture and placing in its stead modern science.
Does that mean that he is questioning their salvation? No, it doesn't. For my part, I wouldn't use that analogy, because it can be taken entirely too far, as Rich did (see below), and I'm sure many others as well. There's nothing wrong with drawing a comparison between the
results of compromising your beliefs with the results of Israel compromising her beliefs, but it is probably excessive to use the phrase "form of spiritual fornication."
In any case, the very fact that Ham, here, points to Rev 2:14 proves that he isn't questioning Ross' and others' salvation, as the church there wasn't in danger of Hell, but rather in danger of being disciplined by God.
Quote from Rich Deem with regard to these elements
Way, way overblown. Ham never implied OECs "worship another god." That's absurd. Further, connecting OEC with the doctrine of Balaam in no way implies that OECs "are unrighteous and destined for hell." Again, the church in Rev 2:14 was not destined for hell. This statement alone makes me question Rich's understanding of the Gospel far more than anything his OECism would. Does he really believe those in the church of Pergamos was going to hell? Does he think, then, we can lose our salvation? That implies we have to do something to KEEP it.
Pretty clear inference, isn't it?
Yes, but the inference is clearly not that OECs are on the road to Hell. Did you read the article as you asked me to? He had just said:
- Is division always wrong? Jesus said in Luke 12:51 'Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on Earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:' When you shine the light of God's Word in a dark world there must of necessity be some division.
Ham is talking about the necessity of division in the church, not about whether or not some in the church are going to go to Hell for their beliefs on the origin of the earth. He even admits that Matt 7 is in the context of salvation, which his discussion is not. His point is that OEC leads to destruction, not to Hell. He is using Matt 7 and the narrow road to illustrate that.
Here's a quote from Hovind, before he started serving his sentence for Tax Fraud, in which he call Ross and several other major leaders of the OEC movement "Heretics".
Hovind doesn't call Ross a heretic anywhere. He says some of his ideas, in his opinion, are heretical. I've said the same about things I disagree with here. Does that mean I am questioning the salvation of those people I am disagreeing with?
Video of Hovind in which he refers to Ross as a cult leader and a heretic.
Watched the entire video. I must have missed it. Can you point me to when he said this? I notice he said the OEC view requires a "guru," but that's hardly the same thing as a cult-leader.
By Danny Faulkner at AIG Read the entire article. Here's the conclusion.
Faulkner questions Ross' competence in the article, not his salvation. It is a matter of objective data. Are we not allowed to question people's ability to understand the data they are using in making their arguments? I would be very interested in Ross' response to these charges, beyond, "Well, I'm an astronomer." The MACHOs and peppered moths gaffes are particularly embarrassing, and from the other article referencing Faulkner you linked, so is the issue of trigonometric parallax.
Click on "JohnHagee is a heretic". This is the same teaching that Ross promotes and so the same conclusion would be present.
Again, the argument is that death before the fall is heretical because it undermines the Gospel. That does not, however, mean that Hovind is saying Ross, or Hagee for that matter, is not saved.
End note 1 with a quote from Hamm that I was unable to link to, leading me to believe it's been taken down.
Good, because the quote, as you have it, is an overstatement. See below:
Overall quote is direct from Greg Moore. Inside the quote marks are direct from Ken Ham from Ken Ham, “The god of an old earth: Does the Bible teach that disease, bloodshed, violence and pain have always been 'part of life'?”, Answers in Genesis, <
www.answersingenesis.org /creation/v21/i4/oldearth.asp> (Nov. 2, 2005)
Much like Rich stated:
- the claim that the God of creation would lie to us with a false history of the universe, is a direct attack on the righteous character of God and cannot be tolerated within the Church! The God who would deceive His creatures with lies is not the God of the Bible.
Ham was honest enough to take his attack down. Now, let's see Deem be just as honorable.
I could go on. Those who want to see the multiple places that Ross and OECs in general are accused of being heretics and apostate need only to google on the web and in blogs. I've focused on Hamm with a few references from Hovind for good measure. As is often the case words are measured and guarded to provide plausible deniability. There's enough here though to show the clear statements and inferences.
If this is the best--or worst, depending on how you look at it--that you've seen, then I'm hardly impressed with the claim. I can offer many quotes of Ross and OECs arguing that YEC pushes people out of the church (you took exception to Ham arguing for that), that the God of YEC isn't the God of the Bible, that equate YECs with the destructive approaches of those who condemned Galileo, and that YECs ought to be run out of the church. You should try to clean up your own camp's divisiveness before complaining about Ham and others.
