Page 11 of 13

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:07 am
by Jac3510
Gman wrote:No it does NOT... Jesus did not resurrect into a physical body of flesh and bone... Again, you are just reading into it.

:shock:

"39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." - Luke 24:39

Denying the physical resurrection of Jesus is a serious matter. You say Jesus did not resurrect into a body of flesh and bone, when Jesus explicitly says He did. Since this is absolutely foundational, I'll leave off the rest of your post until you clarify your words here.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:22 pm
by Jac3510
DnC,

The only point I was trying to make with you is that you should think twice before you start labeling YECs negatively because they label you negatively. It's rather hypocritcal and judgmental.

Beyond that, I fully admit that Ham accuses OECs of making God a liar. I have no problem with that any more than I have a problem with OECs saying that YECs make God a liar. At least one of us is. He has never, however, as far as I have seen and asked for here, said YECs are not saved nor even implied anything any differently. That charge gets tossed around here forever without proof.

As far as OECs making such claims, I've linked to them on the main site. To take but one example, Rich says that the YEC appearance of age argument makes God a liar to such an extent that the "god" portrayed by the appearance of age view isn't even the God of the Bible, and that this heresy is so severe that it not be tolerated within the church (he says that complete with underlines!).

Finally, concerning Ham and making money on his series, I'm glad you are capable of judging his intentions. I, for one, have a difficult enough time judging my own.

I've made my points on this. You can say whatever you like or not. I just wanted to offer you that for your consideration, and for those who read your charges.

God bless

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:34 pm
by Kurieuo
Jac3510 wrote:Beyond that, I fully admit that Ham accuses OECs of making God a liar. I have no problem with that any more than I have a problem with OECs saying that YECs make God a liar.
I have a problem with anyone who questions another's faith based on YEC or OEC. My Dad had a collection of YEC tapes with Ken Ham on. I've also seen in video clips how Ken Ham preaches in churches. I have also seen how "Dr. Dino" behaves in debates. I have never ever seen an OEC Day-Age person act in the same manner. Likewise, I have seen well-manners YEC people, and some like good 'ol Felgar who use to help moderate these boards. However, the likes Dr Dino and Ken Ham seriously question whether you are truly Christian if you're not YEC and believe in death before the fall.

You might find my "OEC Day-Age testimony" if you will in some posts on the board ages ago (search for "ken ham" and "kurieuo" I'm sure it will turn it up). However, prior to any real theological and scientific undertaking in my life, I weakly held to an understanding that the days in Genesis represented long periods of time. It made the most sense for me. That is, until I listened to Ken Ham tapes. In it, Ken Ham explicitly preached that if you do not believe the days in Genesis are anything other than normal 24 hour days, then you don't have faith in Jesus. At the time I was young, and thought well he's the pastor so he'd know, and didn't think anything further of "my own interpretation". That is, until I stumbled across the GodandScience.org website.

What Ken Ham did and does is just wrong. I'd have a problem if it were OEC Day-Age. Now I see a lot of mockery and smugness on both sides, including at these boards. I believe you are right - Day-Age are often smug in to treating YECs as stupid (and I encourage everyone Day-Age to read over their own posts). YECs however often have a spiritual smugness and challenge the sincerity of the faith of a Christian who believes differently to them. Given the Evangelical Council of Biblical Inerrancy actually endorsed both views as scripturally consistent, along with various Christian denominations which I've seen Canuckster post links to, I say believe what you want to here. It doesn't make one any more or less of a Christian.

Now I have very strong defended and argued against the YEC position and for the Day-Age. Perhaps Ken Ham's questioning my own once upon a time adds some incentive. To be honest, I think YEC is a stumbling block for many non-Christians, and Christians alike when infact it only came to be heavily endorsed I believe via the popular Scofield Reference Bible.

Now I recall reading somewhere by you, that I bullied YEC people who came to the board. To defend myself, I admit to banning YECs in the past, however I have only ever laid down the law when they began tearing into the Christianity of other believers. I do also recall a Day-Age person being banned for the same reason, however quite frankly, whether it is because GodandScience.org takes the Day-Age position, I find normally only find the YEC believers questioning the spiritualulity sincerity of faith in Christian's who do not believe in 24 hour days. Just search for "Hugh Ross" on AiG's site and see what gets turned up. Do a search for "Ken Ham" on RTB's site and see what comes up.

Now all my old posts remain for anyone who wishes to search for and read over them. I have always tried to leave personal attacks aside and play the issue. In return, these YEC people you mentioned being bullied, actually changed their position and noted it was because of the arguments, scriptural and otherwise, that I put forward. I am sure I can dig up a post if I try. This says to me I was not only fair in my discussions with such people all those years ago, but the arguments for Day-Age are very strong. I dedicated soo much time to in the past debating the YEC/OEC Day-Age positions, that I barely touch the debate today. However, despite such debates getting heated, I always attempted to play the issue.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:37 pm
by Dazed and Confused
Jac3510 wrote:DnC,

The only point I was trying to make with you is that you should think twice before you start labeling YECs negatively because they label you negatively. It's rather hypocritcal and judgmental.
Maybe you should try and tell this to Ken and Kent, and see how that goes over. :ewink:
Beyond that, I fully admit that Ham accuses OECs of making God a liar. I have no problem with that any more than I have a problem with OECs saying that YECs make God a liar.
Then why would you have a problem with me stating that a few of the YEC's proponents have no honor because of this very thing? Then you call me a hypocrite and judgmental, yet you don't really care. Your like shifting sand. What is worse calling someone a liar or stating that they have no honor? Ken and Kent have no honor for the baloney and cheese sandwiches they dish out.
As far as OECs making such claims, I've linked to them on the main site. To take but one example, Rich says that the YEC appearance of age argument makes God a liar to such an extent that the "god" portrayed by the appearance of age view isn't even the God of the Bible, and that this heresy is so severe that it not be tolerated within the church (he says that complete with underlines!).
You can't equate this to being the same thing, so I'll ask you "who did Rich specifically call a liar?" Was it Ken Ham, Dr. Dino, Fred Flintstone.....who?
Finally, concerning Ham and making money on his series, I'm glad you are capable of judging his intentions. I, for one, have a difficult enough time judging my own.
I'm not capable of knowing Ham's intentions, however he makes them fairly obvious nonetheless.
I've made my points on this. You can say whatever you like or not. I just wanted to offer you that for your consideration, and for those who read your charges.
After several posting on this subject with you, it turns out that some of my chargers are actually against you. You like to twist things out of context and now you don't want to address them. I was betting dollars to donuts that you would bail out on me, and now I'm going to go and get a bear claw. Anyways if you want a rainbow sprinkle then you can find one here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 135#p78034 :wave:

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:50 pm
by Gman
Jac3510 wrote:
Gman wrote:No it does NOT... Jesus did not resurrect into a physical body of flesh and bone... Again, you are just reading into it.

:shock:

"39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." - Luke 24:39

Denying the physical resurrection of Jesus is a serious matter. You say Jesus did not resurrect into a body of flesh and bone, when Jesus explicitly says He did. Since this is absolutely foundational, I'll leave off the rest of your post until you clarify your words here.
Did I say that? And what about 1 Corinthians 15:44? I don't think anyone wouldn't believe that Christ's resurrection was physical in that sense, but it being a body of flesh and blood would be another, or appearing to be. It was his "gloried" body which is physical but probably nothing like our own flesh and bone bodies which can't transform themselves like his.

In fact, I actually believe that our spirit is physical.. It might not weigh as much as our physical bodies, but it does have some physical properties. Perhaps it has some electrical properties, but I'm not sure..

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:36 pm
by Jac3510
Gman wrote:Did I say that?
I quoted you verbatim.
And what about 1 Corinthians 15:44? I don't think anyone wouldn't believe that Christ's resurrection was physical in that sense, but it being a body of flesh and blood would be another, or appearing to be. It was his "gloried" body which is physical but probably nothing like our own flesh and bone bodies which can't transform themselves like his.
What about it? You said that Christ didn't resurrect in a physical body of flesh and blood. Jesus says He did and demonstrated it. What the heck do you mean by "appearing to be"? And what do you mean by "nothing like our own flesh"? If it is "nothing" like our bodies, how could Jesus compare His flesh and bone to ours?
In fact, I actually believe that our spirit is physical.. It might not weigh as much as our physical bodies, but it does have some physical properties. Perhaps it has some electrical properties, but I'm not sure..
That's bizarre, but more to the point, it undermines your argument. If the spirit is physical, then spiritual death is physical death.

I really need you to clarify what you are talking about, because I have no idea how you can say that Jesus rose with a body of flesh and blood and that His body is nothing like our own; I see no way how you can say that He rose with a body of flesh and blood and that body was not physical--is flesh and blood not physical? The idea that He only "appeared" to be flesh sounds a lot like docetism.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:50 pm
by Jac3510
Kurieuo wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:Beyond that, I fully admit that Ham accuses OECs of making God a liar. I have no problem with that any more than I have a problem with OECs saying that YECs make God a liar.
I have a problem with anyone who questions another's faith based on YEC or OEC. My Dad had a collection of YEC tapes with Ken Ham on. I've also seen in video clips how Ken Ham preaches in churches. I have also seen how "Dr. Dino" behaves in debates. I have never ever seen an OEC Day-Age person act in the same manner. Likewise, I have seen well-manners YEC people, and some like good 'ol Felgar who use to help moderate these boards. However, the likes Dr Dino and Ken Ham seriously question whether you are truly Christian if you're not YEC and believe in death before the fall.

You might find my "OEC Day-Age testimony" if you will in some posts on the board ages ago (search for "ken ham" and "kurieuo" I'm sure it will turn it up). However, prior to any real theological and scientific undertaking in my life, I weakly held to an understanding that the days in Genesis represented long periods of time. It made the most sense for me. That is, until I listened to Ken Ham tapes. In it, Ken Ham explicitly preached that if you do not believe the days in Genesis are anything other than normal 24 hour days, then you don't have faith in Jesus. At the time I was young, and thought well he's the pastor so he'd know, and didn't think anything further of "my own interpretation". That is, until I stumbled across the GodandScience.org website.

What Ken Ham did and does is just wrong. I'd have a problem if it were OEC Day-Age. Now I see a lot of mockery and smugness on both sides, including at these boards. I believe you are right - Day-Age are often smug in to treating YECs as stupid (and I encourage everyone Day-Age to read over their own posts). YECs however often have a spiritual smugness and challenge the sincerity of the faith of a Christian who believes differently to them. Given the Evangelical Council of Biblical Inerrancy actually endorsed both views as scripturally consistent, along with various Christian denominations which I've seen Canuckster post links to, I say believe what you want to here. It doesn't make one any more or less of a Christian.

Now I have very strong defended and argued against the YEC position and for the Day-Age. Perhaps Ken Ham's questioning my own once upon a time adds some incentive. To be honest, I think YEC is a stumbling block for many non-Christians, and Christians alike when infact it only came to be heavily endorsed I believe via the popular Scofield Reference Bible.

Now I recall reading somewhere by you, that I bullied YEC people who came to the board. To defend myself, I admit to banning YECs in the past, however I have only ever laid down the law when they began tearing into the Christianity of other believers. I do also recall a Day-Age person being banned for the same reason, however quite frankly, whether it is because GodandScience.org takes the Day-Age position, I find normally only find the YEC believers questioning the spiritualulity sincerity of faith in Christian's who do not believe in 24 hour days. Just search for "Hugh Ross" on AiG's site and see what gets turned up. Do a search for "Ken Ham" on RTB's site and see what comes up.

Now all my old posts remain for anyone who wishes to search for and read over them. I have always tried to leave personal attacks aside and play the issue. In return, these YEC people you mentioned being bullied, actually changed their position and noted it was because of the arguments, scriptural and otherwise, that I put forward. I am sure I can dig up a post if I try. This says to me I was not only fair in my discussions with such people all those years ago, but the arguments for Day-Age are very strong. I dedicated soo much time to in the past debating the YEC/OEC Day-Age positions, that I barely touch the debate today. However, despite such debates getting heated, I always attempted to play the issue.
I'll ask you for exactly the same thing I asked Bart: give me quotes where Ham questions anyone's salvation for being OEC. All I get is quotes of him saying that they are making God a liar, that the God of OEC isn't the same as the God of the Bible (which is nothing Rich hasn't said), or that OEC undermines Scripture, which is something I've heard you all say before. None of that equates to questioning someone's salvation. I've even read Rich go so far as to say that YEC makes it difficult to believe the Gospel, and that He rejected God as YEC understands Him of being unworthy of worship.

Regarding your experience when you were much younger, given the fact that you had little to no theological or scientific training, would you be willing to concede the possibility that you may have misunderstood him or taken his valid points to a conclusion he didn't intend?

I just cannot believe that you people are so ready to condemn him. The judgmental attitude is appalling.

As far as the YEC-was-only-popular-because-of-Scofield, that's just historically false, much like the common claim around here that the day-age view goes back to the CFs. it doesn't. NO CHURCH FATHER EVER HELD TO THE DAYAGE VIEW, not Augustine, not Origen, not anyone. What they did hold to was either instantaneous creation (by those who read the Bible allegorically, which you claim not to do) or six solar days. The latter has been the traditional position through church history. It was the uniform position of all the Reformers, especially of the Westminster Divines.

I'll tell you like I told Danny: the reason I finally decided to put my foot down on this is that I got tired of watching this board misrepresent YEC and slander its proponents. I am under absolutely no illusion that I will ever change any of the regular posters' minds. That's not my intention. But you and I both know that these boards are read very frequently by others, and I'm just not going to let this go unchallenged anymore.

Is it an issue of salvation? Of course not. But it most certainly is an issue that has extreme importance on how we read and understand the Bible in general, which has a direct impact on how we understand our Christianity as a whole. Just consider me your resident YEC proponent. I consider you all brothers in Christ with whom I agree on all the essentials--the Trinity, the Gospel, the identity of Christ, etc.--but those who read these discussions are going to get the other side of the argument, and I'm going to do my best to help people see that this whole "OECs are they nice guys and YECs are the mean divisive ones" is plain slander, nothing more, and nothing less.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:02 pm
by Jac3510
Dazed and Confused wrote:After several posting on this subject with you, it turns out that some of my chargers are actually against you. You like to twist things out of context and now you don't want to address them. I was betting dollars to donuts that you would bail out on me, and now I'm going to go and get a bear claw. Anyways if you want a rainbow sprinkle then you can find one here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 135#p78034 :wave:
Why in the world would you think that I would bail? I've been here longer than anyone except Kurieuo. I'll be here for years to come.

As far as me not addressing something or taking something out of context, if you want to make such a general charge, I ask that you give me something more specific. What did you want responded to that I didn't? What did I take out of context? As I've said before, assertions arguments do not make. If all we have to do is make broad, general attacks on people, then there isn't much room for conversation, is there?

I don't suppose I should be surprised, given your entire tone of this discussion, though . . . you take it upon yourself to judge a Christian brother as dishonorable and then go on to slander him. If that's your tactic, then you can have your "debate."

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:04 pm
by Gman
Jac3510 wrote: I quoted you verbatim.
Well you obviously didn't understand..
Jac3510 wrote:What about it? You said that Christ didn't resurrect in a physical body of flesh and blood. Jesus says He did and demonstrated it. What the heck do you mean by "appearing to be"? And what do you mean by "nothing like our own flesh"? If it is "nothing" like our bodies, how could Jesus compare His flesh and bone to ours?
Demonstrated what? What the heck do you mean by saying he had flesh and blood? Christ said... "a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you SEE I have." - Luke 24:39. As they SAW what he had.. Not that what it was..

But nonetheless this body was indeed, in fact, physical.. How, I'm not sure...
Jac3510 wrote:That's bizarre, but more to the point, it undermines your argument. If the spirit is physical, then spiritual death is physical death.

I really need you to clarify what you are talking about, because I have no idea how you can say that Jesus rose with a body of flesh and blood and that His body is nothing like our own; I see no way how you can say that He rose with a body of flesh and blood and that body was not physical--is flesh and blood not physical? The idea that He only "appeared" to be flesh sounds a lot like docetism.
Ah... No Jac.. Spiritual death meaning in spiritual separation from God... The spirit is always a spirit whether it is in heaven or hell..

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:52 pm
by Kurieuo
Jac3510 wrote:Regarding your experience when you were much younger, given the fact that you had little to no theological or scientific training, would you be willing to concede the possibility that you may have misunderstood him or taken his valid points to a conclusion he didn't intend?
No, it impacted me as I was revulsed by his judgement that my faith in Christ was not sincere and strong. He was quite clear. I don't have to prove it to you to be justified on this. I know what I heard.
Jac3510 wrote:I just cannot believe that you people are so ready to condemn him. The judgmental attitude is appalling.
Way to turn it around Jac. You're a great rhetorician, I'll give you that, but this is just being blatently obvious.

Condemn? Judge, perhaps, but there is nothing wrong with judging the attitudes of those who profess to follow Christ. We are infact encouraged in Scripture to do so. Those who do not profess Christ though we are to leave to God.
Jac wrote:NO CHURCH FATHER EVER HELD TO THE DAYAGE VIEW, not Augustine, not Origen, not anyone. What they did hold to was either instantaneous creation (by those who read the Bible allegorically, which you claim not to do) or six solar days.
You seem to be over-reaching here, and ignoring the thread Canuckster started with quotes. A thread you yourself have replied within. I myself have also previously posted on this board re: what such persons have written. The issue was quite open for them.

Have you also read over Canuckster's post linking to the Report of the Creation Study Committee (Presbyterian Church in America). They observe:
One class of interpreters tends to interpret the days figuratively or allegorically (e.g., Origen and Augustine), while another class interprets the days as normal calendar days (e.g., Basil, Ambrose, Bede and Calvin). From the early church, however, the views of Origen, Basil, Augustine and Bede seem to have had the greatest influence on later thinking. While they vary in their interpretation of the days, all recognize the difficulty presented by the creation of the sun on the fourth day.
Also Canuckster's other post linking to the Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation which says:
Committed, as the Seminary is, to the inerrancy of Scripture and standing in the Augustinian and Reformed theological tradition, the precise chronological duration of the six days of creation has never been regarded by the Seminary's Board or Faculty as a matter on which the Scriptures themselves speak with decisive clarity. The Seminary has always held that an exegetical judgement on this precise issue has never of itself been regarded as a test of Christian orthodoxy or confessional fidelity, until some have sought to make it such in the modern period. In effect, to hold such a position would be to disenfranchise from Augustinian and Reformed orthodoxy some who have, in fact, by God's grace, served as its greatest defenders and pillars.

Augustine, himself, as is well known, states in connection with the days of Genesis 1, "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive."(1)

Anselm may be read to follow this lead in his supposition that "the 'days' of Moses' account ... are not to be equated with the days in which we live.
Interesting though, given your repulsion of Calvin, you would find a lot in common with him on this issue since he believed them to be normal days. But it is also interesting therefore, given their respect of Calvin, that the Westminster concludes on this issue stating:
The Westminster Confession's doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (1:7) goes hand in hand with its inspiration, infallibility, and authority. Yet it implies that not all parts of the Scriptures are equally clear or full. Here we must follow Calvin's great motto that where God makes an end of teaching, we should make an end of trying to be wise. With Augustine and E. J. Young, the revered teacher of our senior faculty members, we recognize that the exegetical question of the length of the days of Genesis 1 may be an issue which cannot be, and therefore is not intended by God to be, answered in dogmatic terms. To insist that it must comes dangerously close to demanding from God revelation which he has not been pleased to bestow upon us, and responding to a threat to the biblical world view with weapons that are not crafted from the words which have proceeded out of the mouth of God.
Moving onto your next challenge...
Jac wrote:I'll tell you like I told Danny: the reason I finally decided to put my foot down on this is that I got tired of watching this board misrepresent YEC and slander its proponents. I am under absolutely no illusion that I will ever change any of the regular posters' minds. That's not my intention. But you and I both know that these boards are read very frequently by others, and I'm just not going to let this go unchallenged anymore.
Perhaps I have missed posts in my absense, but when I actively participated in this debate, there was no misrepresentation or slandering of YECs. If there was, it was policed like everything else according the the discussion guidelines.

I debated Felgar on this issue and it was quite civil. He represented YEC quite well. As have a great deal many other YEC posters who visited this board. In fact, they put forward very complex issues which I really had to think hard on. I believe prevous YEC posters have quite adequately represented their position. In fact, between all the posts on this board, probably just about every issue that can be touched between YEC and OEC Day-Age has probably been discussed. I'm sorry you feel other YECs in the past were not as well equipped to deal with the challenges Day-Age proponents offer like you believe you can.

Furthermore, I am also strongly insulted by your slanderous accusations that the owner and moderators purposely misrepresent YECs on this board. On a personal level, going back to the very beginning on this new board we both moderated, I think you know better Jac that it is not this way at all. Take some time out to examine closely the implications what you are saying here Jac on those who run the board. I don't think this is being fair at all, and it is poor taste in rhetoric if it is being used as such.
Jac wrote:Is it an issue of salvation? Of course not. But it most certainly is an issue that has extreme importance on how we read and understand the Bible in general, which has a direct impact on how we understand our Christianity as a whole. Just consider me your resident YEC proponent. I consider you all brothers in Christ with whom I agree on all the essentials--the Trinity, the Gospel, the identity of Christ, etc.--but those who read these discussions are going to get the other side of the argument, and I'm going to do my best to help people see that this whole "OECs are they nice guys and YECs are the mean divisive ones" is plain slander, nothing more, and nothing less.
I agree with you here Jac on the importance of the issue.

I'm sorry you so easily disregard the negative experiences of many Day-Age proponents with YEC. It happens both ways, I know. But given the majority of us here are I guess Day-Age in position, obviously the experiences are more flavoured against YEC. That said, the issue is not won or lost based on character, or character assassination. You can be a Hitler and still be more correct on one particular truth than say Mother Teresa. Someone's character has absolutely no bearing on valid and sound arguments or what is true.

I am also sorry you believe all that has happened to YEC on this board is one-sided slander; that you don't see the positive interactions between fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who accept each other regardless of differences in belief on creation. People like Felgar, Kmart, bizzt, Strix, Jbuza, myself and many others who accepted one another in Christ regardless of our creation position.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:30 am
by RickD
Jac3510 wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:Beyond that, I fully admit that Ham accuses OECs of making God a liar. I have no problem with that any more than I have a problem with OECs saying that YECs make God a liar.
I have a problem with anyone who questions another's faith based on YEC or OEC. My Dad had a collection of YEC tapes with Ken Ham on. I've also seen in video clips how Ken Ham preaches in churches. I have also seen how "Dr. Dino" behaves in debates. I have never ever seen an OEC Day-Age person act in the same manner. Likewise, I have seen well-manners YEC people, and some like good 'ol Felgar who use to help moderate these boards. However, the likes Dr Dino and Ken Ham seriously question whether you are truly Christian if you're not YEC and believe in death before the fall.

You might find my "OEC Day-Age testimony" if you will in some posts on the board ages ago (search for "ken ham" and "kurieuo" I'm sure it will turn it up). However, prior to any real theological and scientific undertaking in my life, I weakly held to an understanding that the days in Genesis represented long periods of time. It made the most sense for me. That is, until I listened to Ken Ham tapes. In it, Ken Ham explicitly preached that if you do not believe the days in Genesis are anything other than normal 24 hour days, then you don't have faith in Jesus. At the time I was young, and thought well he's the pastor so he'd know, and didn't think anything further of "my own interpretation". That is, until I stumbled across the GodandScience.org website.

What Ken Ham did and does is just wrong. I'd have a problem if it were OEC Day-Age. Now I see a lot of mockery and smugness on both sides, including at these boards. I believe you are right - Day-Age are often smug in to treating YECs as stupid (and I encourage everyone Day-Age to read over their own posts). YECs however often have a spiritual smugness and challenge the sincerity of the faith of a Christian who believes differently to them. Given the Evangelical Council of Biblical Inerrancy actually endorsed both views as scripturally consistent, along with various Christian denominations which I've seen Canuckster post links to, I say believe what you want to here. It doesn't make one any more or less of a Christian.

Now I have very strong defended and argued against the YEC position and for the Day-Age. Perhaps Ken Ham's questioning my own once upon a time adds some incentive. To be honest, I think YEC is a stumbling block for many non-Christians, and Christians alike when infact it only came to be heavily endorsed I believe via the popular Scofield Reference Bible.

Now I recall reading somewhere by you, that I bullied YEC people who came to the board. To defend myself, I admit to banning YECs in the past, however I have only ever laid down the law when they began tearing into the Christianity of other believers. I do also recall a Day-Age person being banned for the same reason, however quite frankly, whether it is because GodandScience.org takes the Day-Age position, I find normally only find the YEC believers questioning the spiritualulity sincerity of faith in Christian's who do not believe in 24 hour days. Just search for "Hugh Ross" on AiG's site and see what gets turned up. Do a search for "Ken Ham" on RTB's site and see what comes up.

Now all my old posts remain for anyone who wishes to search for and read over them. I have always tried to leave personal attacks aside and play the issue. In return, these YEC people you mentioned being bullied, actually changed their position and noted it was because of the arguments, scriptural and otherwise, that I put forward. I am sure I can dig up a post if I try. This says to me I was not only fair in my discussions with such people all those years ago, but the arguments for Day-Age are very strong. I dedicated soo much time to in the past debating the YEC/OEC Day-Age positions, that I barely touch the debate today. However, despite such debates getting heated, I always attempted to play the issue.
I'll ask you for exactly the same thing I asked Bart: give me quotes where Ham questions anyone's salvation for being OEC. All I get is quotes of him saying that they are making God a liar, that the God of OEC isn't the same as the God of the Bible (which is nothing Rich hasn't said), or that OEC undermines Scripture, which is something I've heard you all say before. None of that equates to questioning someone's salvation. I've even read Rich go so far as to say that YEC makes it difficult to believe the Gospel, and that He rejected God as YEC understands Him of being unworthy of worship.

Regarding your experience when you were much younger, given the fact that you had little to no theological or scientific training, would you be willing to concede the possibility that you may have misunderstood him or taken his valid points to a conclusion he didn't intend?

I just cannot believe that you people are so ready to condemn him. The judgmental attitude is appalling.

As far as the YEC-was-only-popular-because-of-Scofield, that's just historically false, much like the common claim around here that the day-age view goes back to the CFs. it doesn't. NO CHURCH FATHER EVER HELD TO THE DAYAGE VIEW, not Augustine, not Origen, not anyone. What they did hold to was either instantaneous creation (by those who read the Bible allegorically, which you claim not to do) or six solar days. The latter has been the traditional position through church history. It was the uniform position of all the Reformers, especially of the Westminster Divines.

I'll tell you like I told Danny: the reason I finally decided to put my foot down on this is that I got tired of watching this board misrepresent YEC and slander its proponents. I am under absolutely no illusion that I will ever change any of the regular posters' minds. That's not my intention. But you and I both know that these boards are read very frequently by others, and I'm just not going to let this go unchallenged anymore.

Is it an issue of salvation? Of course not. But it most certainly is an issue that has extreme importance on how we read and understand the Bible in general, which has a direct impact on how we understand our Christianity as a whole. Just consider me your resident YEC proponent. I consider you all brothers in Christ with whom I agree on all the essentials--the Trinity, the Gospel, the identity of Christ, etc.--but those who read these discussions are going to get the other side of the argument, and I'm going to do my best to help people see that this whole "OECs are they nice guys and YECs are the mean divisive ones" is plain slander, nothing more, and nothing less.
Jac, I just watched part of the debate on you tube with Ham and Ross. Ham said that belief in animal death before Adam's sin undermines the doctrine of atonement, and undermines the Word of God. When asked by Ankerberg if belief in billions of years means that someone can't be saved, Ham said obviously not in Ross' case. So, at least in that debate, Ham believes Ross is saved. I don't remember Ham ever actually saying someone can't be saved if he believes in billions of years, just that by believing in death of animals before man's sin, that undermines the authority of the Word of God. I can't speak for what Kurieuo has heard Ham say in the past. In my mind, OEC/YEC doesn't have a bearing on salvation as far as believing one or the other. The only place where I see a potential problem is with the unsaved who study science,(astronomy, geology) who really know their science, and throw out the Bible completely because some well meaning Christian tries to convince them that the Universe is 6,000 years old.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:12 pm
by Dazed and Confused
Jac3510 wrote:Why in the world would you think that I would bail? I've been here longer than anyone except Kurieuo. I'll be here for years to come.
I wasn't suggesting that you were going to leave this forum, just conversing with me. Mainly because you stated, "I've made my points on this. You can say whatever you like or not. I just wanted to offer you that for your consideration, and for those who read your charges." and this sounds like closure to me. And then there's the fact that you didn't really didn't address much of my prior post. If you want to stay engaged then cool, iron sharpens iron. But from what I could tell you hit the eject button and now you want to cry wolf.
As far as me not addressing something or taking something out of context, if you want to make such a general charge, I ask that you give me something more specific. What did you want responded to that I didn't? What did I take out of context? As I've said before, assertions arguments do not make. If all we have to do is make broad, general attacks on people, then there isn't much room for conversation, is there?
I've made numerous specific declarations concerning your taking me out of context, so why act so mystified? Again your like shifting sand and I lose more trust in your replies as this continues.
I don't suppose I should be surprised, given your entire tone of this discussion, though . . . you take it upon yourself to judge a Christian brother as dishonorable and then go on to slander him.
Really, what tone would that be? This is like when you accused me of being angry, yet never provided any reason when asked to do so. Just because I have an opinion doesn't imply anger, as I said several times before "you twist things out of context to fit your agenda."
If that's your tactic, then you can have your "debate."
I wasn't debating anyone here about this topic, you just happen to chime in on one of my post. The only tactic I've used is calling you out on your distortions, which you refuse to acknowledge and just play ignorant. But hey if you change your mind you can start by addressing these two post. If not then I'm sure everyone else here well be that much happier for it. :amen:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 135#p78034
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 150#p78167

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:32 pm
by Kurieuo
RickD wrote:Jac, I just watched part of the debate on you tube with Ham and Ross. Ham said that belief in animal death before Adam's sin undermines the doctrine of atonement, and undermines the Word of God. When asked by Ankerberg if belief in billions of years means that someone can't be saved, Ham said obviously not in Ross' case. So, at least in that debate, Ham believes Ross is saved. I don't remember Ham ever actually saying someone can't be saved if he believes in billions of years, just that by believing in death of animals before man's sin, that undermines the authority of the Word of God. I can't speak for what Kurieuo has heard Ham say in the past. In my mind, OEC/YEC doesn't have a bearing on salvation as far as believing one or the other. The only place where I see a potential problem is with the unsaved who study science,(astronomy, geology) who really know their science, and throw out the Bible completely because some well meaning Christian tries to convince them that the Universe is 6,000 years old.
Thanks for adding that RickD.

Although I don't see this matters to the discussion, except where perhaps my character is being attacked as being dishonest or misleading, however Ross actually believes in death before the fall. Therefore, Ham would believe Ross isn't saved, right Rick?

Perhaps by saying "obviously not in Ross' case" Ham was actually meaning, "obviously not in Ross' [position]" (since Ross believes in billions of years).

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:50 pm
by Kurieuo
RickD, not sure if you came across it but here is a transcript of another debate, this one between Jason Lisle and Hugh Ross.

It was wrong of Ham to challenge the faith of Christians in Christ from the pulpit based on not accepting his view of creation. But, many words fall off the lip of a person when talking on the spot that if challenged and really pushed they would correct given further reflection... however, Lisle also a YEC says in that debate:
Lisle wrote:Yeah, you know I would say that it's not a salvation issue; however, it is foundational to the salvation issue. In other words, the gospel is founded on Genesis if you think about it. I mean Jesus Christ is a descendant of Adam. Now there are people who are, there are actually people who are evolutionists—now I'm not saying that; I know that Dr Ross is not one—but there are people who are evolutionists who don't believe in Adam and Eve and yet they still try to believe Scripture.

And although you can be saved, you can't be saved and be logically consistent with a position like that. And so I would say that it is crucially important that we believe what God has written in His word, in His Word in Genesis. You know if God said 6 days, but we're not going to believe 6 days, well God said salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. Well, are we going to believe that?
While I obviously disagree with Lisle on creation, I can readily affirm with him that while a foundational issue, ones position on creation is not one of salvation. I'd further add ones position on creation is also not an issue of lesser or greater faith.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:09 pm
by Jac3510
Gman wrote:Well you obviously didn't understand..
Then feel free to clarify, because you stated that Jesus didn't rise to a body of flesh and bone, something that you are still defending.
Demonstrated what? What the heck do you mean by saying he had flesh and blood? Christ said... "a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you SEE I have." - Luke 24:39. As they SAW what he had.. Not that what it was..

But nonetheless this body was indeed, in fact, physical.. How, I'm not sure...
What do you mean, you aren't sure how? Something is either physical or it isn't. And am I to understand you as arguing that Jesus didn't REALLY have flesh and bones . . . that He was just commenting that the disciples THOUGHT He had flesh and bones? Is that REALLY your position, Gman? I would hate to obviously not understand again.
Ah... No Jac.. Spiritual death meaning in spiritual separation from God... The spirit is always a spirit whether it is in heaven or hell..
Now THIS is what I obviously don't understand. If the spirit is physical as you have said, then how can you distinguish between physical and spiritual death? If one part of my body does--say, my right kidney--is that a different kind of death than physical death? What if my hand or eye or liver dies? Is that something other than physical death? If the spirit is just another part of the body, like the heart or brain, how is its death not also physical?

In any case, bottom line: was Jesus raised with a physical body of flesh and blood or not?
Kurieuo wrote:No, it impacted me as I was revulsed by his judgement that my faith in Christ was not sincere and strong. He was quite clear. I don't have to prove it to you to be justified on this. I know what I heard.
And you are so convinced of this despite your admission that you had no theological training? You are really not willing to admit that you might have misunderstood what he heard? And you have no evidence beyond your own memory to back your position? So you are really basing your argument here on the memory of encounter with a nuanced theological position that you were theologically ill-equipped to process?

If so, you are very right that you can't be justified on that--at least not to me. Perhaps that's enough for you, but I have always thought you were one who required more evidence for a position than that.
Way to turn it around Jac. You're a great rhetorician, I'll give you that, but this is just being blatently obvious.

Condemn? Judge, perhaps, but there is nothing wrong with judging the attitudes of those who profess to follow Christ. We are infact encouraged in Scripture to do so. Those who do not profess Christ though we are to leave to God.
You know, this is the second time that I can remember that you have pulled this card--talking about debate tactics. I've had no training of any kind in rhetoric, Kurieuo. Perhaps you have. Perhaps you are trying to make a rhetorical attempt to draw attention away from the substantive point I am making and turn the attention on me and my character. That appears to me to be a veiled ad hominem. That's hardly appropriate, my friend, and, I believe, in direct violation of the board rules . . .

As far as condemning vs. judging, I'll accept your distinction, and I'll tell you the same thing I told DnC. If you believe you have the right to judge another Christian, that's between you and God. If you believe that you have the ability to judge another man's motives, then you have reached a stage in your spiritual growth that is superior to me in every way I can imagine. As I said before, in all honesty, I have great difficulty at times knowing my own motives.

So while you may believe that God tells us to judge others, I believe that Jesus told us not to judge one another, and that Paul echoed that statement, reminding us that he doesn't even judge himself. If someone is doing something that I think is in fundamental violation of Scripture--such as becoming the judge of another when there is only One Judge--I'll certainly point it out, but what that person does then is up to God. It certainly isn't my place to condemn, or judge . . .
You seem to be over-reaching here, and ignoring the thread Canuckster started with quotes. A thread you yourself have replied within. I myself have also previously posted on this board re: what such persons have written. The issue was quite open for them.

Have you also read over Canuckster's post linking to the Report of the Creation Study Committee (Presbyterian Church in America). They observe:
One class of interpreters tends to interpret the days figuratively or allegorically (e.g., Origen and Augustine), while another class interprets the days as normal calendar days (e.g., Basil, Ambrose, Bede and Calvin). From the early church, however, the views of Origen, Basil, Augustine and Bede seem to have had the greatest influence on later thinking. While they vary in their interpretation of the days, all recognize the difficulty presented by the creation of the sun on the fourth day.
Also Canuckster's other post linking to the Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation which says:
Committed, as the Seminary is, to the inerrancy of Scripture and standing in the Augustinian and Reformed theological tradition, the precise chronological duration of the six days of creation has never been regarded by the Seminary's Board or Faculty as a matter on which the Scriptures themselves speak with decisive clarity. The Seminary has always held that an exegetical judgement on this precise issue has never of itself been regarded as a test of Christian orthodoxy or confessional fidelity, until some have sought to make it such in the modern period. In effect, to hold such a position would be to disenfranchise from Augustinian and Reformed orthodoxy some who have, in fact, by God's grace, served as its greatest defenders and pillars.

Augustine, himself, as is well known, states in connection with the days of Genesis 1, "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive."(1)

Anselm may be read to follow this lead in his supposition that "the 'days' of Moses' account ... are not to be equated with the days in which we live.
Interesting though, given your repulsion of Calvin, you would find a lot in common with him on this issue since he believed them to be normal days. But it is also interesting therefore, given their respect of Calvin, that the Westminster concludes on this issue stating:
The Westminster Confession's doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (1:7) goes hand in hand with its inspiration, infallibility, and authority. Yet it implies that not all parts of the Scriptures are equally clear or full. Here we must follow Calvin's great motto that where God makes an end of teaching, we should make an end of trying to be wise. With Augustine and E. J. Young, the revered teacher of our senior faculty members, we recognize that the exegetical question of the length of the days of Genesis 1 may be an issue which cannot be, and therefore is not intended by God to be, answered in dogmatic terms. To insist that it must comes dangerously close to demanding from God revelation which he has not been pleased to bestow upon us, and responding to a threat to the biblical world view with weapons that are not crafted from the words which have proceeded out of the mouth of God.
Did you read the thread you linked to, that I responded in, Kurieuo? Honestly, did you actually read it? Because if you had, you would note that I have already responded to all of this before.

I have never argued that all of the CFs or the Westminster Divines took the days of Gen 1 as being 24 hour days. What I did say, and what you have posted only supports, is that all of those who adopted a literal, as opposed to an allegorical, hermeneutic, took the days to be 24 hours, and that no one held to a day-age view. Not one. Augustine and Origen and the other allegorists held to instantaneous creation, with Augustine expressly repudiating the idea that God created over eons of time. The possibility that the days of Gen 1 could be long eons of time in a literal sense of yom, as the current Day-Age theory supposes, first appeared after the advent of modern geology. Exactly the same is true concerning the Divines.

Again, were there in history non-24 hour day views? Yes. But all of them had one thing in common: they took the text allegorically. No one who claimed to take Gen 1 literally thought to take the yomim of Gen 1 as eons until very recently. Now, if you want to argue that Gen 1 should not be taken literally, then you are well within the stream of historical Christian interpretation. As I understand your position, though, you believe, rightly, the text should be taken literally, and you argue that eons of time is the literal, intended meaning. In making that argument, you are completely outside the stream of historical Christian interpretation.

Does that make you wrong? Of course not. But it does and should give us pause to examine the hermeneutical motive in taking such a reading. Why, we should ask, have we only just now come to such a view in the two thousand years of church history?
Perhaps I have missed posts in my absense, but when I actively participated in this debate, there was no misrepresentation or slandering of YECs. If there was, it was policed like everything else according the the discussion guidelines.

I debated Felgar on this issue and it was quite civil. He represented YEC quite well. As have a great deal many other YEC posters who visited this board. In fact, they put forward very complex issues which I really had to think hard on. I believe prevous YEC posters have quite adequately represented their position. In fact, between all the posts on this board, probably just about every issue that can be touched between YEC and OEC Day-Age has probably been discussed. I'm sorry you feel other YECs in the past were not as well equipped to deal with the challenges Day-Age proponents offer like you believe you can.

Furthermore, I am also strongly insulted by your slanderous accusations that the owner and moderators purposely misrepresent YECs on this board. On a personal level, going back to the very beginning on this new board we both moderated, I think you know better Jac that it is not this way at all. Take some time out to examine closely the implications what you are saying here Jac on those who run the board. I don't think this is being fair at all, and it is poor taste in rhetoric if it is being used as such.
First, have I ever said that no YEC before me was "as well equipped to deal with the challenges of Day-age proponents offer like" me? Have I actually said that, Kurieuo? I don't believe so. I don't believe I've ever said anything about the quality of YEC posters before me. I've simply pointed out that I've been watching many of these accusations go unchallenged in many contexts for quite some time and that enough is enough.

If, then, I've said that the YECs who came before me were unqualified, please quote me so that I can publicly retract and apologize. If not, I am asking you to retract and or this statement, as it has implies something very negative about my character. You police other people when they attack other Christian's character . . . what about yourself?

Second, you thankfully have nothing to be insulted about. I was not referring to you when I said that YECs were being slandered. I was specifically referring to DnC, which is something I have said directly to him already. I'll assume you have not been reading the conversation between he and I and so missed that part. Specifically, I am objecting to his saying that Ham has said that a person isn't saved if they don't believe in YEC. That is a flat lie. I am asking you, as a moderator, to police such actions as consistent with this board's purpose. Unless he can post a direct statement by Ham stating as such, which is still forthcoming, he has made a deeply offensive, unevidenced assertion.

If, then, you feel my rhetoric is strong (there's that word again . . . why are you trying to cast my substantive arguments in terms of mere rhetoric?), may I suggest reading me more carefully to see if perhaps you have not misunderstood what I am saying? For my part, I will try to make my own statements still more pointed so as to try to avoid people coming to improper generalizations that I did not intend and certainly do not believe, as you have drawn from my words here.
I agree with you here Jac on the importance of the issue.

I'm sorry you so easily disregard the negative experiences of many Day-Age proponents with YEC. It happens both ways, I know. But given the majority of us here are I guess Day-Age in position, obviously the experiences are more flavoured against YEC. That said, the issue is not won or lost based on character, or character assassination. You can be a Hitler and still be more correct on one particular truth than say Mother Teresa. Someone's character has absolutely no bearing on valid and sound arguments or what is true.

I am also sorry you believe all that has happened to YEC on this board is one-sided slander; that you don't see the positive interactions between fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who accept each other regardless of differences in belief on creation. People like Felgar, Kmart, bizzt, Strix, Jbuza, myself and many others who accepted one another in Christ regardless of our creation position.
I've never disregarded them, Kurieuo. I have been trying to get you people to see that it goes both ways. You and others repeatedly point out the heinous sins of Ham and Hovind, using them to paint YEC in general with a divisive brush--all while paying lip service to the occasional polite YEC--and then imply, if not outright state, that no such statements come from OEC. I'm demonstrating that it DOES come from your side. I'm saying nothing about what comes from mine. I'm sure you will admit that you know nothing of my correspondence between AiG and myself, so don't assume that I am being one sided, Kurieuo.

As I'm sure you agree, two wrongs don't make a right. If you really do believe that YEC is as divisive as you claim, the last thing you should be doing is engaging in such behavior yourself, and still less should you allow it to go on on the boards generally.

For what it is worth, I find it instructive that the public proponents of YEC aren't here anymore, the ones you have had such positive interactions with . . . I hope you can come to see that I'm not defending YEC when they are in the moral wrong. I am telling you, as a brother in Christ, that returning evil for evil is hardly the appropriate Christian response. Pretending like OEC is clean on this matter is intellectually dishonest. When you are willing to disavow Deem for saying that YECs who promote the appearance of age should not be tolerated within the church and that their god is not the God of the Bible as firmly as you do Ham and Hovind, I'll be far more inclined to take your arguments against them as being objective.

More to respond to in this thread, I know, but it is now late, and I have to be up very early.

God bless