Page 13 of 13

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:35 am
by Byblos
Gman wrote:If we really want to honest with one another... No one really knows if OEC or YEC has all the 100% truth. I don't think I would ever make such a claim anyways. My belief leans with OEC, but it could be wrong too...

In hindsight, I don't think that Ken Ham would ever make such a statement as this... ;)

http://www.reasons.org/old-earth-creati ... cal-belief
And of course Jac will counter with a quote from Rich or other OECers saying nearly the same thing or that YEC makes God a liar or some such whatever. We're all guilty of this but it's just getting silly now and we all need to get past it already.

Jac,

We heard you loud and clear and understand your concerns. We're all in agreement that this kind of thing happens on both sides of the camp and that it needs to stop BY BOTH SIDES. Like I told you privately, there is a mandate of sorts from Rich himself for this site and its moderators to be more tolerant of all Christian beliefs, regardless of one's position on Genesis 1 (OEC vs YEC). If you still have an issue with what Rich said at some point please take it up with him directly. Otherwise, do know that questioning someone's salvation wrt to their stance on the age of the earth will be heavily moderated from now on. I hope this satisfies you, Jac.

Ok, weekly sermon concluded, now go off and sin no more and be true to the Gospel. :ebiggrin:

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:39 am
by DannyM
Byblos wrote:[Otherwise, do know that questioning someone's salvation wrt to their stance on the age of the earth will be heavily moderated from now on. I hope this satisfies you, Jac.

Ok, weekly sermon concluded, now go off and sin no more and be true to the Gospel. :ebiggrin:
Can I get a Amen!!

I miss Jac's presence on other topics, his philosophy etc, and think this thing is beneath us all.

Can I get another Amen!! Ooh yeah.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:44 pm
by Gman
Byblos wrote:And of course Jac will counter with a quote from Rich or other OECers saying nearly the same thing or that YEC makes God a liar or some such whatever. We're all guilty of this but it's just getting silly now and we all need to get past it already.

Jac,

We heard you loud and clear and understand your concerns. We're all in agreement that this kind of thing happens on both sides of the camp and that it needs to stop BY BOTH SIDES. Like I told you privately, there is a mandate of sorts from Rich himself for this site and its moderators to be more tolerant of all Christian beliefs, regardless of one's position on Genesis 1 (OEC vs YEC). If you still have an issue with what Rich said at some point please take it up with him directly. Otherwise, do know that questioning someone's salvation wrt to their stance on the age of the earth will be heavily moderated from now on. I hope this satisfies you, Jac.

Ok, weekly sermon concluded, now go off and sin no more and be true to the Gospel. :ebiggrin:
Yes I read the post by Rich, but I believe the response was directed more at the philosophy behind YEC.. Ken Ham and Hovind, on the other hand, have directly attacked Ross with an ad hominem calling him a "heretic." Something I have never seen Rich or Hugh do...

Just for the record... ;)

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:38 pm
by Kurieuo
Ok, I think we're done now pointing the figure at leading spokesman on boths sides. I feel a little disturbed in the spirit by this thread. It ultimately has no bearing on the truthfulness of each position, so perhaps we can just all move on?

I personally apologise for any grievance or annoyance I have caused with any of my own comments.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:23 pm
by Gman
Kurieuo wrote:Ok, I think we're done now pointing the figure at leading spokesman on boths sides. I feel a little disturbed in the spirit by this thread. It ultimately has no bearing on the truthfulness of each position, so perhaps we can just all move on?

I personally apologise for any grievance or annoyance I have caused with any of my own comments.
Agreed.. Time to move on.. ;)

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:38 pm
by Jac3510
Well, I'm glad I wasn't able to respond in the past couple of days. Byblos' last post was 100% satisfactory and covers my primary concern.

Given the goodwill from the last few posts, I am very content to let this lie. I do, however, want to make a final clarification, as prior to the goodwill, there was quite a bit of talk about rhetoric, talking loudly, being argumentative, etc. So, if I may steal a line from Obama:

"Let me be clear" ( ;) ) . . . despite how things may appear on a message board, I'm far from angry, am making no judgments, and thoroughly consider all of you brothers in Christ even as I maintain a great deal of respect for you. I hope the same can be said about me. I would like to believe that the majority of the conversations on this board are far more objective and edifying. I hope you all also understand that an objective, edifying conversation about this particular topic is very difficult to have. Perhaps it is and was wrong of me, but when when I see people make what I see to be extremely harsh and overly critical comments about our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, my response is not to correct them, but to point out that none of us have the right to make the charge. None of us are innocent in this: not YECs, not OECs, not Ham, not Ross, not Hovind, not Deem, not anyone on these boards, and certainly not me.

Let me also make this very clear: I do not have a problem with what I perceive to be OEC divisive statements. The reason I don't take this up with Rich is that I don't have a problem with those statements at all! He has every right to make them. Maybe I'm wrong in this, but I don't have a problem with anyone looking me in the eyes and telling me that I am making God a liar, or that I don't have faith, if they believe that I am ignoring or misinterpreting Scripture to suit my own theology. How could I and logically be consistent, as I firmly believe that every atheist is making God a liar by rejecting His word!

Let me be still more clear: I believe I AM making God a liar in many places. To the extent that my doctrine is wrong, I will answer for it at the judgment seat of Christ, as will all of us. Thankfully, Jesus Christ is a perfectly fair and omniscient judge, and I trust Him to judge me even more fairly than I would judge myself. For that reason, I am not making judgments against anyone,

My attempt, in all of this, was merely to point out what I see to be an intellectual inconsistency. Where my comments could have been and were taken to be more than that, I offer my apologies. My desire is simply and only for people to think before they start calling YECs names or attacking their Christian character, just as I hope--and have argued in the appropriate places with the appropriate people--that YECs should think twice before they start calling OECs names and attacking their character.

I don't expect theological unity on this side of the grave. I do expect for Christians to recognize that no one can judge but God alone. The best we can do is hold one another accountable to be consistent with what we believe to be true.

God bless, and no hard feelings.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:47 pm
by Gman
Wow... :clap:

Thank you Jac. And blessings to you too....

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:48 pm
by Dazed and Confused
Jac3510 wrote:I don't expect theological unity on this side of the grave. I do expect for Christians to recognize that no one can judge but God alone. The best we can do is hold one another accountable to be consistent with what we believe to be true.

God bless, and no hard feelings.
Thanks Jac for the thoughtful response. This was a growing experience for myself and inspires me to become more mature in Christ.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:23 pm
by dayage
Ok All,

Dr. Ross (Reasons to Believe) and Dr. Lisle (Answers in Genesis) will be debating the age of the universe on the Frank Pastore Show Wednesday 3/31/10 (5 PM, PT; 7 Central). Here is a link

http://www.kkla.com/LocalHosts/4/

Dr. Lisle had publicly agreed to debate Dr. Ross in on the Ankerberg show in front of professional Christian astronomers, but backed out. Dr. Danny Faulkner did follow through with the challenge. The group of astronomers is supposed to give their report on the evidence presented.

In front of a lay audience it is easy to say what you want, but in front of experts in the field, it's a different story.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:19 pm
by Dazed and Confused
John MacArthur posted this today on http://www.bible-prophecy-today.com/ and I thought it appropriate for this thread. The division between OEC vs. YEC became quite evident as this thread progressed and it appears that very little is going to change in the immediate future concerning the overall OEC vs. YEC controversy. But I liked what John MacArthur stated below because it really goes to the heart of the matter and I thought it was a nice way to finish up this thread. `
God did create the heavens and the earth. And there is only one document that credibly claims to be a divinely-revealed record of that creation: the book of Genesis. Unless we have a creator who left us with no information about where we came from or what our purpose is, the text of Genesis 1-2 stands for all practical purposes unchallenged as the only divinely-revealed description of creation. In other words, if there is a God who created the heavens and the earth, and if He revealed to humanity any record of that creation, Genesis is that record. If the God of Scripture did not create the heavens and the earth, then we have no real answers to anything that is truly important. Everything boils down to those two simple options.

So whether we believe the Genesis record or not makes all the difference in the world. Douglas Kelly, professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, has written on this subject with great insight. He says, "Essentially, mankind has only two choices. Either we have evolved out of the slime and can be explained only in a materialistic sense, meaning that we are made of nothing but the material, or we have been made on a heavenly pattern" (Creation and Change, 15-16).

He's right. Those are ultimately the only two options. We can either believe what Genesis says, or not. If Genesis 1:1 is true, then the universe and everything in it was created by a loving and personal God, and His purposes are clearly revealed to us in Scripture. Further, if the Genesis account is true, then we bear the stamp of God and are loved by Him — and because we are made in His image, human beings have a dignity, value, and obligation that transcends that of all other creatures. Moreover, if Genesis is true, then we not only have God's own answers to the questions of what we are here for and how we got where we are, but we also have the promise of salvation from our sin.

If Genesis is not true, however, we have no reliable answer to anything. Throw out Genesis and the authority of all Scripture is fatally compromised. That would ultimately mean that the God of the Bible simply doesn't exist. And if some other kind of creator-god does exist, he evidently doesn't care enough about his creation to provide any revelation about himself, his plan for creation, or his will for his creatures.

There are, of course, several extrabiblical accounts of creation from pagan sacred writings. But they are all mythical, fanciful, and frivolous accounts, featuring hideously ungodly gods. Those who imagine such deities exist would have to conclude that they have left us without any reason for hope, without any clear principles by which to live, without any accountability, without any answers to our most basic questions, and (most troubling of all) without any explanation or solution for the dilemma of evil.

Therefore if Genesis is untrue, we might as well assume that no God exists at all. That is precisely the assumption behind modern evolutionary theory. If true, it means that impersonal matter is the ultimate reality. Human personality and human intelligence are simply meaningless accidents produced at random by the natural processes of evolution. We have no moral accountability to any higher Being. All morality — indeed, all truth itself — is ultimately relative. In fact, truth, falsehood, goodness, and evil are all merely theoretical notions with no real meaning or significance. Nothing really matters in the vast immensity of an infinite, impersonal universe.

So if Genesis is false, nihilism is the next best option. Utter irrationality becomes the only "rational" choice. Obviously, the ramifications of our views on these things are immense. Our view of creation is the necessary starting point for our entire worldview.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:32 pm
by dayage
Hey D&C,
But I liked what John MacArthur stated below because it really goes to the heart of the matter and I thought it was a nice way to finish up this thread.
As long as by "heart of the matter" you mean naturalism vs Y.E. or O.E. creationism, OK.

But, I happen to know what he means by believing Genesis. He means believing it teaches a young (6,000 year old) creation. Of course the are other "divinely-revealed descriptions of creation," such as Job 38, Prov. 8, etc.

In case you have not seen it, the Christian astronomers have given their opinion of the earlier debate between Ross and Faulkner.
http://www.reasons.org/special-edition- ... e-universe

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:09 pm
by Dazed and Confused
dayage wrote:Hey D&C,
But I liked what John MacArthur stated below because it really goes to the heart of the matter and I thought it was a nice way to finish up this thread.
As long as by "heart of the matter" you mean naturalism vs Y.E. or O.E. creationism, OK.
;) Bingo
But, I happen to know what he means by believing Genesis. He means believing it teaches a young (6,000 year old) creation. Of course the are other "divinely-revealed descriptions of creation," such as Job 38, Prov. 8, etc.
When I first began to read his post I thought he was going to mention a YEC perspective and was surprised that he never mentioned a six day creation. Maybe John MacArthur is a Young Earth Creationist (I really have no idea), but I was stoked that he didn't bring his viewpoint to the forefront, whatever it may be. Do you think that there was something overly pervasive in the article.

The last time I heard about Proverbs 8 was when a Jehovah Witness told me it's when God first create Jesus Christ. JW's come up with some bizarre interpretations. That reminds me of another one, but I think I would rather start another thread on bizarre things that cults do and say.
In case you have not seen it, the Christian astronomers have given their opinion of the earlier debate between Ross and Faulkner.
http://www.reasons.org/special-edition- ... e-universe
Cool, thanks for the link I'll check it out later. I'm no prophet but I'm going to predict that Ross came out on top or at least the OEC stance.