Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:"These people" as were used in the post directly were referencing Ken Hamm and Kent Hovind. At least as far as Kent Hovind is concerned, there's ample evidence based on his business dealings, multiple convictions and current residence in the federal penitentiary system that other motives may have been involved.

That doesn't impugn all young earth creationists anymore than such a guilt by association would if such an event were to occur with a prominent OEC representative. It's certainly fair to point out however, given that the "these people" you're answering to explicitly included him as one of the two parties involved.

1. I took "these people" to refer to "a lot of YECs" given that Rick said, "A lot of YECs hold to their dogmatic interpretation of the Bible" and then asked, "these people's dogmatic views." If, then, Rick was intending "these people" to refer to Ham and Hovind, it seems, at the very least, he is equating "a lot of YECs" with them. Perhaps he can clarify what he meant here.

2. Even if you are right, I don't think it is appropriate to judge either of these individuals.Regarding Hovind, you do realize that his conviction was on tax fraud, which was directly related to his very public statements that he believes that the income tax is unconstitutional. That doesn't make him a crook. It makes him imprudent for being willing to die on a hill not worth dying on.

Further, even if you were correct, I still find it absolutely terrible that you would assume that the man is only supporting YEC because he thinks money can be made off it. Seriously . . . that's just . . . low.

3. Finally, my question still stands. What makes anyone think that Ham or even Hovind has any different motivation than you do?

Jac3510 wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:"These people" as were used in the post directly were referencing Ken Hamm and Kent Hovind. At least as far as Kent Hovind is concerned, there's ample evidence based on his business dealings, multiple convictions and current residence in the federal penitentiary system that other motives may have been involved.

That doesn't impugn all young earth creationists anymore than such a guilt by association would if such an event were to occur with a prominent OEC representative. It's certainly fair to point out however, given that the "these people" you're answering to explicitly included him as one of the two parties involved.

1. I took "these people" to refer to "a lot of YECs" given that Rick said, "A lot of YECs hold to their dogmatic interpretation of the Bible" and then asked, "these people's dogmatic views." If, then, Rick was intending "these people" to refer to Ham and Hovind, it seems, at the very least, he is equating "a lot of YECs" with them. Perhaps he can clarify what he meant here.

2. Even if you are right, I don't think it is appropriate to judge either of these individuals.Regarding Hovind, you do realize that his conviction was on tax fraud, which was directly related to his very public statements that he believes that the income tax is unconstitutional. That doesn't make him a crook. It makes him imprudent for being willing to die on a hill not worth dying on.

Further, even if you were correct, I still find it absolutely terrible that you would assume that the man is only supporting YEC because he thinks money can be made off it. Seriously . . . that's just . . . low.

3. Finally, my question still stands. What makes anyone think that Ham or even Hovind has any different motivation than you do?

I said "other motives MAY have been involved." I don't presume to know anyone else's motives and I'm even careful on my own in many instances. When it comes to matters of money, public exposure and power, I don't presume myself to be any better or worse than anyone else. Collectively as a whole, I have no reason to believe that YEC proponents are any more or less pristine in their motives than anyone else.

With Hovind there is strong reason to question his practices, both those for which he has been convicted and is serving time for currently (his wife as well although I believe she's been released.) The Dinoland themepark he started and for which he received multiple donations for from the Christian community has now gone into receivership and is closed and being held for probably liquidation. Christ said to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. Hovind is also suspected in his practices and motivations outside his personal financial dealings by many within the YEC camp, several of whom disagree with the methods he employed in his debating and other activities surrounding his ministry well before his financial misdealings became known. Knowing these things, it's certainly fair to question whether there were other motives involved with him. I don't see that as necessarily at all tied to his YEC beliefs. I see him as I see some prominent christian leaders in the Health and Wealth gospel (6 of whom are under investigation for similar tax issues by the US senate.) It doesn't necessarily mean their motives are wrong, but where there is power, money and prestige the heart of man is such that it's prudent to watch carefully and avoid being pulled into those spheres of influence. That's just a general principle to apply and watch when it comes to anyone.

I still find it absolutely terrible that you would assume that the man is only supporting YEC because he thinks money can be made off it. Seriously . . . that's just . . . low.

Show me where I said or even directly implied that. You know Jac, for someone who reacts so strongly when others "put words in your mouth" you're very quick here to do the same thing. If you don't want to be treated in this manner, may I suggest you not do the same thing over which you cry foul. If you want to defend Hovind that's your business. I can think of better examples of YEC leaders who would be worth the effort in this context. I'm certainly not going to fail to recognize his shortcomings as a national christian leader however. It's sad that he also happens to be YEC and there's not a one to one relationship with that, but if you're going to invoke him in a broad statement asking for a suspension of disbelief in terms of motives, I think that's a particularly weak appeal as regards him. I don't know his heart, but I know his actions and there's plenty of evidence there to tread carefully.

Hamm, I don't know his motives and I have no reason to question his sincerity, even where I disagree with him and think that he has done some OEC leaders a great disservice by attacking them personally and publically questioning their motives and in places, even their salvation. I suspect that there are places where he and his organization have gotten caught up in the emotions of debate and in those situations it's not uncommon to overstate things and make those kind of unkind remarks and I can find instances in my own past and in other OECs where we've done the same. Those are human elements that neither side of the OEC/YEC debate can claim not to have to deal with.

If I were a YEC supporter, I think I could find better examples to appeal to certainly in Hovind's case at the least.

I said "other motives MAY have been involved." I don't presume to know anyone else's motives and I'm even careful on my own in many instances. When it comes to matters of money, public exposure and power, I don't presume myself to be any better or worse than anyone else. Collectively as a whole, I have no reason to believe that YEC proponents are any more or less pristine in their motives than anyone else.

With Hovind there is strong reason to question his practices, both those for which he has been convicted and is serving time for currently (his wife as well although I believe she's been released.) The Dinoland themepark he started and for which he received multiple donations for from the Christian community has now gone into receivership and is closed and being held for probably liquidation. Christ said to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. Hovind is also suspected in his practices and motivations outside his personal financial dealings by many within the YEC camp, several of whom disagree with the methods he employed in his debating and other activities surrounding his ministry well before his financial misdealings became known. Knowing these things, it's certainly fair to question whether there were other motives involved with him. I don't see that as necessarily at all tied to his YEC beliefs. I see him as I see some prominent christian leaders in the Health and Wealth gospel (6 of whom are under investigation for similar tax issues by the US senate.) It doesn't necessarily mean their motives are wrong, but where there is power, money and prestige the heart of man is such that it's prudent to watch carefully and avoid being pulled into those spheres of influence. That's just a general principle to apply and watch when it comes to anyone.

My interest isn't in defending Hovind, but when he is attacked in this manner and directly tied to the "dogmatic" views of "a lot of YECs," I think it behooves me to challenge the assumptions.

In Hovind's case, I'm sure he would be the first to argue we should render unto Caesar Caesar's, but that would also presume what is Caesar's is actually Caesar's. His entire position is that the government doesn't have the right to our property. As I said before, it was an imprudent fight to pick. Foolish, perhaps. But inconsistent with the Bible? Not necessarily.

Which brings us to . . .

Show me where I said or even directly implied that.

Perhaps I'm taking your words too seriously, but tell me where I misread you--and I'll provide only direct quotes to avoid the foul of putting words in your mouth (more on that below):

• Rick: I would like to know what motivates [Hovind and Hamm's] dogmatic views
  Jac: Why would you think our motivation is any different from yours?
  Bart: There's ample evidence based on [Hovind's] business dealings, multiple convictions and current residence in the federal penitentiary system that other motives may have been involved

Looks like a direct implication to me. Rick asked what motivated Hovind. I implied the same as OEC. You implied other motivations, that is, those that OEC doesn't hold, i.e., fidelity to Scripture. Those motives are tied to his business dealings (money) and his convictions (about money). One can rather fairly take from your words that you are strongly implying that Hovind had money, rather than fidelity to Scripture, in mind.

Now, perhaps you didn't mean it that way. Perhaps you had lost the flow of the conversation and were making an unrelated point. If so, please clarify. But, given the way the conversation has run, I believe the implications are exactly how I took them. So . . . where did I misunderstand you?

You know Jac, for someone who reacts so strongly when others "put words in your mouth" you're very quick here to do the same thing. If you don't want to be treated in this manner, may I suggest you not do the same thing over which you cry foul.

You misunderstand me. I don't cry foul when people put words in my mouth. I cry foul when people attribute positions to me that I have expressly repudiated. I certainly don't like it when people take me to mean something I didn't say, that is, when they take implications from my positions I don't hold. But in that case, I simply offer a correction, often times by asking them where they got the idea that my position would require that particular conclusion (i.e., "Where did you get that idea?"). What I get deeply upset at as when people tell me that I am holding to a position that I have EXPRESSLY repudiated, as has happened multiple times, that you know about.

So . . . have I attributed to you a conclusion that isn't necessary or have I attributed to you a position you have expressly repudiated? I see no evidence of the latter, although if you provide, I'll be the first to retract. I still await evidence for the former.

I can think of better examples of YEC leaders who would be worth the effort in this context. I'm certainly not going to fail to recognize his shortcomings as a national christian leader however. It's sad that he also happens to be YEC and there's not a one to one relationship with that, but if you're going to invoke him in a broad statement asking for a suspension of disbelief in terms of motives, I think that's a particularly weak appeal as regards him. I don't know his heart, but I know his actions and there's plenty of evidence there to tread carefully.

Invoke him? Bart, you are really being serious? Who brought him up?!? In any case, I suppose I could use this as another example of where you implied that he was just in it for the money . . . or perhaps I'm being to narrow. Maybe you think he was just think he was in it for the personal gain? I don't think that's much better . . . do you?

Anyway, I'm not as quick to condemn the man as you are, nor to believe that we should have the slightest hint that his motives may be less than pristine. I'm trying not to confuse his political ideology with his theological convictions.

Hamm, I don't know his motives and I have no reason to question his sincerity, even where I disagree with him and think that he has done some OEC leaders a great disservice by attacking them personally and publically questioning their motives and in places, even their salvation. I suspect that there are places where he and his organization have gotten caught up in the emotions of debate and in those situations it's not uncommon to overstate things and make those kind of unkind remarks and I can find instances in my own past and in other OECs where we've done the same. Those are human elements that neither side of the OEC/YEC debate can claim not to have to deal with.

As this board has done OEC a great disservice by allowing AiG supporters to be called a covert atheist without moderation?

People make mistakes, Bart. Further, I'm just going to ask you to post links as to where Hamm has questioned Ross' salvation. That is thrown around here all the time. I want to see where he said that and see what he was talking about.

Now, in light of all that, I only strengthen my question why anyone, ANYONE, would question even someone like Hamm or Hovind's motivations when everyone makes mistakes. It seems to me to be unconscionable.

If I were a YEC supporter, I think I could find better examples to appeal to certainly in Hovind's case at the least.

If I were here defending YEC, I would. But since I'm not the one who brought them up, I don't see how this impacts me. On the other hand, when they are brought up and attacked, I don't see why I would be faulted as picking bad examples when I offer the rather mild defense I did, which was really no defense at all, but rather only asking the person to substantiate their claim.

Still further, I could put the issue to you this way: if you recognize that Hamm and Hovind are not the greatest representatives of YEC, then do you have a problem with the way they are constantly paraded on these boards as the prime YEC advocates? If you are right that there are better examples of YEC, then why pick on these two so much? Wouldn't that be like attacking polytheism--hardly a sophisticated belief in the supernatural--and using that as a basis for disbelieving in all supernatural? Rather, when you critique a position, should you not critique its strongest representation? If so, why do these two get so much flack if, as you argue, there are better representatives?

I stand by what I said and now I'm repeating myself so the value of this conversation is diminishing.

I didn't raise Hamm and Hovind. Others did. You responded in a manner inclusive of Hamm and Hovind and I responded as I did with reasonable cause as to why Hovind would be a poor example to invoke. What his motives are with regard to his YEC beliefs are between him and God. His actions as a public leader give reasonable cause to be cautious in attempting to defend him as an example, as your statement did when tied to what you were responding to, of YEC motives. If you wanted to be more clear in your response that you were referring to all YEC leadership in general and not in the context which you responded you could have clarified that in your original statement or in your response. If you wish to continue to defend it, be my guest. I have not difficulty discussing Hovind as he stands on his own in terms of his credibility and representation of the cause of Christ. There are false teachers and it's a part of the function of the body of Christ to point them out and avoid them. Ultimate judgement is up to God. Discernment and care with the body are perfectly valid and even commanded.

Is it your belief that it isn't possible or even plausible that on an individual case by case basis that all public leaders in YEC could have motives involved other than pure scriptural beliefs? Wherever there is power, money, fame and influence and yes, even within churches, and religious organizations, that's something to be aware of. I've already stated that those elements do not correspond to YEC (or OEC for that manner) as exclusive or even in my mind more likely in one instance as opposed to the other, although I think there's a larger population on the YEC side and if there were more evidence of that there it would be by virtue of the population differential.

I don't see the compartmentalization with Hovind that you wish to see. I think it's entirely possible in his case that motives other than pure scriptural ones were at work with him. Whether they were there at the start or came over time with the temptation of money or power is arguable. That's up to God to determine in the end. However, I certainly, even if I were inclined in the direction of YEC wouldn't provide 1 cent of support to his organization based on what I know now and further what was evident even before this became evident. Other YEC proponents have said similar things to their credit.

Hovind and Hamm are referred to here many times because they are the most vocal and the most influential. You know as well as I do that many of the posts we receive here, particularly with regard to Hamm and AIG come from there and are either linked or in some cases just cut and pasted up without attribution. Richard Deem is quoted here and Hugh Ross because they are the same within our movement.

It's certainly not a moderation issue for us here to not make those references or to invoke a counter of how often who does what.

It's frustrating to have public moral failures in leadership associated with one's particular position or movement. Believe me, I understand that. I went to Oral Roberts University remember? If you have difficulty remembering issues directly tied to that University and the Charismatic movement I can offer you far more there in terms of public examples than I can think of in YEC (although almost all of them would be YEC as well, but that is far less relevant than it would be in Hovinds case.) So what? I don't believe Hovind is representative of all YEC leadership nor do I believe that his failings necessarily tied to his YEC position. I'm not going to let a comment pass that specifically refers to him however to pass in terms of not questioning motives where he is involved.

I've searched Hamm's statements in the past with regard to questioning Ross' salvation. It's been a while but I'll look them up again. Some of them are cached in google, because, and I see this to Hamm's credit, AIG has edited some of those original comments out, no doubt on second thought. Those are extreme cases, but if you wish to deny that OEC proponents are questioned in this regard more than YEC from the other direction, I can simply state that you're mistaken in that perception.

I'll follow up more later.

blessings,

bart

I stand by what I said and now I'm repeating myself so the value of this conversation is diminishing.

The good news is that God is your judge, not me. He's also Hovind's judge rather than you. I'm sure everyone is glad that He gets it right every time. I'm just thinking about the whole log/speck thing.

I didn't raise Hamm and Hovind. Others did. You responded in a manner inclusive of Hamm and Hovind and I responded as I did with reasonable cause as to why Hovind would be a poor example to invoke. What his motives are with regard to his YEC beliefs are between him and God. His actions as a public leader give reasonable cause to be cautious in attempting to defend him as an example, as your statement did when tied to what you were responding to, of YEC motives.

No, you didn't read me correctly. I took the original statement as questioning ALL YEC motivation, remember? You are the one who corrected me and pointed out that Hovind and Hamm were particularly in view. I went on to talk about Hovind, but only as he was discussed separately. Thus, far from join Hovind with all YECs, I originally--perhaps wrongly--had separated them.

If you wanted to be more clear in your response that you were referring to all YEC leadership in general and not in the context which you responded you could have clarified that in your original statement or in your response.

Funny . . . you are the one who corrected me in the first place when I did take the entire conversation as referring to all YEC leadership in general. Since you obviously knew what I was talking about, I'm not sure how I could have been any clearer.

If you wish to continue to defend it, be my guest. I have not difficulty discussing Hovind as he stands on his own in terms of his credibility and representation of the cause of Christ. There are false teachers and it's a part of the function of the body of Christ to point them out and avoid them. Ultimate judgement is up to God. Discernment and care with the body are perfectly valid and even commanded.

There are false teachers, but we judge them as false based on their doctrine, not based on their motivation, or haven't you read Phil 1:15-18.

If you can show me where Hovind denies the Gospel, I'll stand with you in calling him a false teacher. Until you do, I suggest you be VERY careful about leveling such criticism. That's a very heavy charge to make to put it politely. If you really think that the consequences of his political views make him the kind of false teacher the Bible condemns, then we are at a very, very fundamental impasse.

Is it your belief that it isn't possible or even plausible that on an individual case by case basis that all public leaders in YEC could have motives involved other than pure scriptural beliefs?

Obviously not. But as it relates to Hovind, I don't think the evidence you have provided is NEARLY strong enough to justify so radical a charge as you are making. I can only hope that you are in possession of a lot more information than I am.

I don't see the compartmentalization with Hovind that you wish to see. I think it's entirely possible in his case that motives other than pure scriptural ones were at work with him. Whether they were there at the start or came over time with the temptation of money or power is arguable. That's up to God to determine in the end. However, I certainly, even if I were inclined in the direction of YEC wouldn't provide 1 cent of support to his organization based on what I know now and further what was evident even before this became evident. Other YEC proponents have said similar things to their credit.

I really hope you have a lot more to go on than it is POSSIBLE that he had bad motives. Sure, it is POSSIBLE. It is also POSSIBLE that I'm an atheist here just trying to make stupid arguments to tick everyone off. It's POSSIBLE that you are. The question is on what basis to we believe what we actually do. Here you are condemning a brother in Christ who preaches the Gospel on a regular basis--or, at least did--because he went to jail for tax fraud--which he basically dared the government to do anyway!--and therefore take him to be a false teacher? I'm sorry, but that is nowhere near strong enough to hold such a strong position to me.

Hovind and Hamm are referred to here many times because they are the most vocal and the most influential. You know as well as I do that many of the posts we receive here, particularly with regard to Hamm and AIG come from there and are either linked or in some cases just cut and pasted up without attribution. Richard Deem is quoted here and Hugh Ross because they are the same within our movement.

Its one thing if supporters bring them up. But if you acknowledge that there are more sophisticated and better statements of YEC than coming from either of them, it is dishonest to attack them in denying YEC, regardless of how influential they are. That's just an ad populum fallacy . . . a lot of people like them, therefore, that position is the one that needs to be considered! Blah.

It's certainly not a moderation issue for us here to not make those references or to invoke a counter of how often who does what.

Wait . . . you REALLY believe it is not against the purpose of the board to call professing Christians covert atheists? You don't see that as a personal attack? You don't see that as inflammatory, bad mannerism, or against the grain of the board purpose?!? You REALLY think we should be allowed to point to orthodox people who disagree with and say such nasty things about them on an explicitly Christian board? Is that Rich's position?

It's frustrating to have public moral failures in leadership associated with one's particular position or movement. Believe me, I understand that. I went to Oral Roberts University remember? If you have difficulty remembering issues directly tied to that University and the Charismatic movement I can offer you far more there in terms of public examples than I can think of in YEC (although almost all of them would be YEC as well, but that is far less relevant than it would be in Hovinds case.) So what? I don't believe Hovind is representative of all YEC leadership nor do I believe that his failings necessarily tied to his YEC position. I'm not going to let a comment pass that specifically refers to him however to pass in terms of not questioning motives where he is involved.

You assume Hovind made a public moral failure. I've made the case he made an imprudent, foolish failure. There was nothing immoral about his tax-evasion, being based, as it was, on his attempt to use the money he oversaw in the most God-honoring way possible. Perhaps he was wrong legally and even biblically, but there is a huge difference in someone avoiding their taxes because they are greedy and someone proclaiming publically that they won't pay because they think they are unjust.

I've searched Hamm's statements in the past with regard to questioning Ross' salvation. It's been a while but I'll look them up again. Some of them are cached in google, because, and I see this to Hamm's credit, AIG has edited some of those original comments out, no doubt on second thought. Those are extreme cases, but if you wish to deny that OEC proponents are questioned in this regard more than YEC from the other direction, I can simply state that you're mistaken in that perception.

Looking forward to them.

Statements Hamm has made publically about Ross.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... authority/

"

Hugh Ross is known in Christian circles for compromising secular ideas, such as the big bang, billions of years, etc., with the Bible and reinterpreting the clear language of Genesis. He is one of the leading compromisers in the church today—sadly popularizing beliefs that undermine the authority of Scripture."

Italics mine. Claiming an undermining of the authority of Scripture, which is a basis of our knowledge of salvation, ties the concepts together.

Such compromise that comes from Hugh Ross and his organization is what leads young people to walk away from the church.

Equating Ross with driving young people away from Church is making a clear statement as to the soteriological impact of and OEC position.

If you have never seen this debate and would like to know what compromisers like Hugh Ross and Walt Kaiser teach, then I encourage you to obtain the entire set

italics mine

What Hugh Ross really means by the “67th book of the Bible” is taking man's fallible interpretation of the universe (big bang, billions of years, etc.) and reinterpreting Genesis to fit with this. Equating the God-breathed (inspired) infallible written Word of God, with man's fallible interpretation of nature is shocking compromise that attacks biblical authority.

http://creationontheweb.info/hugh-ross- ... e-gauntlet Refer to the entire web page.

http://siefkerbiblestudies.com/newsletter.htm AIG Newsletter from 2003. Note that Ross is referred to and equated as "an enemy"

There's a serious problem in the church that I must bring to your attention. Many in the church think of the 'world' (e.g. the secular humanists) as the 'enemy' of God's Word and the gospel. But as you know, a part of AiG's mission is to help bring reformation to the church, and so it is imperative that we often deal with the 'enemy from within.

The attack from within is actually more dangerous and destructive than from the outside. You see, it's an attack on Biblical authority from those who claim to be biblical! Sadly, many Christian leaders are compromising the infallible Word by mixing in man's fallible interpretation of the world.

Because of certain recent events, I believe I must warn you that the deadly compromise teachings of an organization promoting what is called 'progressive creationism' are, like cancer, spreading slowly through the church.

Paul gave a warning in Acts 20:28-30, which we need to apply even today:

“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples…”

P.S. The 'enemy within' is undermining the authority of the Word. We appreciate your ongoing help in combating compromise and presenting the gospel.

Infers that Ross is not presenting the gospel.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... balaam.asp General statement against all OEC as "spiritual fornicators" Quote from Rich Deem with regard to these elements

"Implying that old earth creationists worship another God is tantamount to claiming we are non-believers. Likewise, accusing us of the “doctrine of Balaam” implies, according to the New Testament writers, that we are unrighteous and destined for hell."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... narrow.asp Read the entire article. Key quote at end after citing Ross and other compromisers.

In Matthew 7:13—14, in the context of salvation, Jesus presents the picture of a wide gate opening into a broad road leading to destruction, yet favoured by the majority. He instructs his followers to choose the small gate and the narrow road leading to life, a road which few are on. I often think of these words when I see the way in which so many in the church are rushing headlong to destructive compromise with the world on these crucial, foundational issues. Standing for the truth of Scripture is always the 'narrow road.'

Which road are you really on?

Pretty clear inference, isn't it?

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".

http://ldolphin.org/hovind-ross.html

I believe Dr. Ross is a sincere man who is convinced he must blend scripture with the theories currently being taught in science class. As any discerning Christian should know, sincerity and being a nice man has nothing to do with having correct doctrine. Some of the prophets of Baal were probably nice people also. Some of Dr. Ross's doctrine is heretical in my opinion (and the opinion of scores of other Christians) and needs to be exposed before it does further damage to the body of Christ. Rom. 3:4 "yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;"

Many major ministries have endorsed (to varying degrees) Dr. Ross such as:
Bill Bright -- Campus Crusade for Christ
R.C. Sproul -- Ligonier Ministries
Norman Geisler -- Southern Evangelical Seminary
Harold Lindsell -- former editor of Christianity Today
Don Richardson -- author of Peace Child and Eternity in Their Heart
Ralph D. Winter -- US Center for World Mission
Earl Radmacher -- former president of Western Conservative Baptist Seminary
Walter Kaiser -- Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and editor of Christianity Today
Stan Oakes -- Christian Leadership Ministries, Campus Crusade for Christ
Jim Barney -- InterVarsity Christian Fellowship of Canada
Ted Martin -- International School of Theology, Campus Crusade for Christ
John Ankerberg -- The John Ankerberg Show
James Dobson - Focus on the Family
Scores of pastors and leaders of churches across America

The fact that so many Christians have been taken in by Dr. Ross's obviously unscriptural teachings is a sad indicator of how the evolution propaganda of the last 200 years has infiltrated modern Christianity. To refute the many doctrinal errors of Dr. Ross in detail would require a huge book and others have already done this job well so I will only reprint some of their comments adding a few thoughts of my own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNzGFgxQzeI Video of Hovind in which he refers to Ross as a cult leader and a heretic.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/hugh_ross.asp By Danny Faulkner at AIG Read the entire article. Here's the conclusion.

Dishonesty or incompetence? It is difficult to say. While I cannot decide which explanation best characterizes Ross, I am very concerned with his inability to correctly handle factual information. On many occasions Ross has greatly bungled information. On other occasions he has appeared to have a total disregard for the truth. Some have found that when Ross is informed of his gaffes, he blithely goes on as if he never heard the criticism. There seems to be no accountability. Ross frequently overstates his arguments. There are very serious problems with his biblical studies and questions about his scientific competence. I hope that the issues raised here will cause those who entertain Ross's teachings to re-examine his pronouncements. Contrary to what many believe, Ross's case is riddled with errors. Those who agree with his approach to Genesis should be embarrassed with the extent of his sloppy work.

http://www.archive.org/details/JohnHagee Click on "JohnHagee is a heretic". This is the same teaching that Ross promotes and so the same conclusion would be present.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rel ... 2196/posts End note 1 with a quote from Hamm that I was unable to link to, leading me to believe it's been taken down.

“the god of an old earth cannot be the God of the Bible” and “the god of an old earth destroys the Gospel,” he is accusing old-earth creationists of heresy.

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)

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.

Jac3510 wrote:

I would like to know what motivates these people's dogmatic views.

The same thing that motivates Ross' and his supporters' dogmatic views: fidelity to Scripture. You have studied the text and have come to the firm conclusion that the Bible teaches OEC. We have studied the text and have come to the firm conclusion that the Bible teaches YEC.

Why would you think our motivation is any different from yours?

I"m sorry Jac. I think I may have started something I didn't intend. I don't know why I typed "a lot of YECs". I don't even know a lot of YECs. I should have typed "some". The ones I am referring to are Ham, Hovind, and a couple others. My point was about the ones who hold to a dogmatic view about creation, when this subject doesn't have a bearing on the Gospel. Being dogmatic about the Gospel is different. I just wonder why they are so dogmatic and are quick to call heretic when someone disagrees with their interpretation. Again, I'm sorry if I started an argument because of my mistake. And Jac, I have not come to the "firm conclusion" that the Bible teaches OEC. I just think OEC makes more sense. I'm open to changing my mind one way or the other if I find reason to. Do you think Ham or Hovind would be that open? That's my point.

Dazed and Confused wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Theistic Evolution on a broad definition can fall under a category of Old Earth Creationism.
Hugh Ross is regularly called a theistic evolutionist by young earth creationists. It's a "guilt by association" type argument on their part I believe. If they can tie the word "evolutionist" to him then they translate things from a debate on facts to one of emotional issues in my opinion.

This is still messing with my head for I have a great amount of respect for the gentlemen who made the reference. Thanks for the confirmation, that's what I figured.

Who is the person who made the comment? Is it someone I may be familiar with?

It's the tone Ken Ham sets against OEC's that bothers me. When I saw him speak he stated something to the effect of "those that don't believe in a six day creation account need to repent for calling God a liar". This is rather excessive in my opinion. I used to live in Wisconsin and all of my friends there were YEC's and follow both AIG and Dr. Dino ministries. Needless to say I had to keep my views on creation a secret, mostly because it seems to bring division. However I did tell one brother and he told me I was putting science over scripture, sounds familiar. Anyways there dear friends, but it appears that Ken & Kent did have a major influence on their attitudes towards this topic. And I'm still in the closet.

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.

http://creationontheweb.info/hugh-ross- ... e-gauntlet Refer to the entire web page.

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.

Dazed and Confused wrote:It's the tone Ken Ham sets against OEC's that bothers me. When I saw him speak he stated something to the effect of "those that don't believe in a six day creation account need to repent for calling God a liar". This is rather excessive in my opinion. I used to live in Wisconsin and all of my friends there were YEC's and follow both AIG and Dr. Dino ministries. Needless to say I had to keep my views on creation a secret, mostly because it seems to bring division. However I did tell one brother and he told me I was putting science over scripture, sounds familiar. Anyways there dear friends, but it appears that Ken & Kent did have a major influence on their attitudes towards this topic. And I'm still in the closet.

When I have found critique about Ross, a lot of what I have seen and read, seems to be making false assumptions about what Ross believes. When I read the critiques, I checked to see that what was said to be Ross' views were actually his views. In my search, people seem to say what Ross says without actually listening to Ross himself or looking at his website. As far as what you said about the tone of Ken Ham, that tone is one of the things that got me to start to question Ham's creation beliefs. I think the way someone presents his beliefs, says just as much as the beliefs themselves in certain instances.

RickD wrote:

Dazed and Confused wrote:It's the tone Ken Ham sets against OEC's that bothers me. When I saw him speak he stated something to the effect of "those that don't believe in a six day creation account need to repent for calling God a liar". This is rather excessive in my opinion. I used to live in Wisconsin and all of my friends there were YEC's and follow both AIG and Dr. Dino ministries. Needless to say I had to keep my views on creation a secret, mostly because it seems to bring division. However I did tell one brother and he told me I was putting science over scripture, sounds familiar. Anyways there dear friends, but it appears that Ken & Kent did have a major influence on their attitudes towards this topic. And I'm still in the closet.

When I have found critique about Ross, a lot of what I have seen and read, seems to be making false assumptions about what Ross believes. When I read the critiques, I checked to see that what was said to be Ross' views were actually his views. In my search, people seem to say what Ross says without actually listening to Ross himself or looking at his website. As far as what you said about the tone of Ken Ham, that tone is one of the things that got me to start to question Ham's creation beliefs. I think the way someone presents his beliefs, says just as much as the beliefs themselves in certain instances.

Can you give some examples of some of those critiques about Ross where people attribute to him beliefs he doesn't hold/amke false assumptions about what he does believe, Rick?

RickD wrote:

Dazed and Confused wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Theistic Evolution on a broad definition can fall under a category of Old Earth Creationism.
Hugh Ross is regularly called a theistic evolutionist by young earth creationists. It's a "guilt by association" type argument on their part I believe. If they can tie the word "evolutionist" to him then they translate things from a debate on facts to one of emotional issues in my opinion.

This is still messing with my head for I have a great amount of respect for the gentlemen who made the reference. Thanks for the confirmation, that's what I figured.

Who is the person who made the comment? Is it someone I may be familiar with?

I heard it on Pastors Perspective a Calvary Chapel radio show. Both Ken Ham and Kent Hovind have an extremely strong influence within Calvary circles.

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:

Dazed and Confused wrote:It's the tone Ken Ham sets against OEC's that bothers me. When I saw him speak he stated something to the effect of "those that don't believe in a six day creation account need to repent for calling God a liar". This is rather excessive in my opinion. I used to live in Wisconsin and all of my friends there were YEC's and follow both AIG and Dr. Dino ministries. Needless to say I had to keep my views on creation a secret, mostly because it seems to bring division. However I did tell one brother and he told me I was putting science over scripture, sounds familiar. Anyways there dear friends, but it appears that Ken & Kent did have a major influence on their attitudes towards this topic. And I'm still in the closet.

When I have found critique about Ross, a lot of what I have seen and read, seems to be making false assumptions about what Ross believes. When I read the critiques, I checked to see that what was said to be Ross' views were actually his views. In my search, people seem to say what Ross says without actually listening to Ross himself or looking at his website. As far as what you said about the tone of Ken Ham, that tone is one of the things that got me to start to question Ham's creation beliefs. I think the way someone presents his beliefs, says just as much as the beliefs themselves in certain instances.

Can you give some examples of some of those critiques about Ross where people attribute to him beliefs he doesn't hold/amke false assumptions about what he does believe, Rick?

No, sorry Jac. Just various things I've found while looking online. I didn't remember anything specific because at the time, I was researching Ross and OEC, not the critiques themselves. The things I read, lead me to do my own search into Ross and OEC, and to see for myself what Ross and other OECs actually believe. I had never heard of any other creation "models" besides YEC, so this OEC model that Ross talked about really got me searching.

Dazed and Confused wrote:

RickD wrote:

Dazed and Confused wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Theistic Evolution on a broad definition can fall under a category of Old Earth Creationism.
Hugh Ross is regularly called a theistic evolutionist by young earth creationists. It's a "guilt by association" type argument on their part I believe. If they can tie the word "evolutionist" to him then they translate things from a debate on facts to one of emotional issues in my opinion.

This is still messing with my head for I have a great amount of respect for the gentlemen who made the reference. Thanks for the confirmation, that's what I figured.

Who is the person who made the comment? Is it someone I may be familiar with?

I heard it on Pastors Perspective a Calvary Chapel radio show. Both Ken Ham and Kent Hovind have an extremely strong influence within Calvary circles.

Is Chuck Smith part of that Calvary circle? I think he has talked positively about Ross.