Page 3 of 13

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:50 pm
by Jac3510
RickD wrote: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.
Hmm . . . unfortunately, there's no way anybody can really evaluate whether or not YECs have done what you accused them of, then, is there? :(

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:02 pm
by RickD
Jac3510 wrote:
RickD wrote: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.
Hmm . . . unfortunately, there's no way anybody can really evaluate whether or not YECs have done what you accused them of, then, is there? :(
If it's really that important, and you need to know, you could start by googling Hugh Ross. That's how I did it. I wasn't saying anyone specific, just a general observation. There are more than a few people that disagree with Ross, so it shouldn't be too difficult if someone really wanted to search. It wasn't just YECs. It was other people too. You have to understand, I probably leaned towards a YEC view at the time, so I wasn't looking to rip YEC, but just to find the truth wherever it lead.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:08 pm
by Canuckster1127
Jac3510 wrote:So, I've gone through every word of your links, Bart. I was expecting something much stronger, although I can see where you (and I) could take some exceptions. Specifically:
Italics mine. Claiming an undermining of the authority of Scripture, which is a basis of our knowledge of salvation, ties the concepts together.
No it doesn't. That's an overstatement on its face. Do you really think that people who deny the inerrancy of Scripture can't believe the Gospel?

That's not to say that undermining the authority of Scripture isn't important. Indeed, it is! That's not to say that people who don't believe in the authority of Scripture will have just an easy a time of believing the Gospel. Indeed, they won't! Yet you can't say that just because Hamm believes that Ross is undermining the authority of Scripture that he is questioning his salvation, or that of any OEC for that matter.
Equating Ross with driving young people away from Church is making a clear statement as to the soteriological impact of and OEC position.
No it doesn't. Do you believe that people can only be saved if they are in the church? But even if I were to concede your point, that still doesn't mean that Hamm is questioning Ross' or any other OECs salvation. It would, at worst, mean that he believes that OEC makes it harder for people to believe the Gospel, but that's not at all the same thing as the commonly tossed around argument, "Hamm and other YECs have argued that OECs aren't even Christian!"
italics mine
As above, just because Ham claims that someone is compromising the faith doesn't mean he is questioning their salvation.
Did, and same as the previous statement. It was an interesting read, though, and it makes me far more cautious of Ross' credibility in general, especially the comments on Hebrew (in which I have had formal training). I find it interesting, too, that Ross' statement about YEC being divisive is ignored, even as people here get mad when YECs claim OEC is divisive . . .
AIG Newsletter from 2003. Note that Ross is referred to and equated as "an enemy"
An enemy doesn't necessarily mean a non-Christian. I think the word is too strong, but insofar as OEC promotes the idea that there was death before the Fall, it does have soteriological ramifications. Are they enough to undermine the Gospel? I don't think so (although, I absolutely think so when it comes to theistic evolution as it denies the historicity of Adam and Eve). But does it have ramifications? Obviously, yes, because it implies that Jesus didn't conquer death, but rather only human death. I know you don't like systematic theology, but that statement will have reverberations in a lot of places.
Infers that Ross is not presenting the gospel.
No it doesn't. AiG does two different things: they combat what they see to be compromise and they also present the Gospel. You are reading too much into that.
General statement against all OEC as "spiritual fornicators"
Funny, I don't see them called spiritual fornicators anywhere in that article. In fact, that phrase isn't used anywhere in the article, despite your putting it in quotation marks. The most direct comment you get is this:

"I believe Satan has used the same trick on the church today, as many Christian leaders have committed a form of 'spiritual fornication' in compromising with the world and thus have undermined the authority of the Word of the living God."

Saying someone has committed a form of spiritual fornication is not saying that they are a spiritual fornicator. If you read the article, you'll see he makes a very consistent point (whether you agree on not is another issue) that relates back to Balaam. Just as Israel compromised their beliefs and worshiped false gods (thus, the spiritual fornication), the NT church was doing the same; in an analogous way, the modern church is compromising her beliefs, not in worshiping a false god, but in rejecting the authority of Scripture and placing in its stead modern science.

Does that mean that he is questioning their salvation? No, it doesn't. For my part, I wouldn't use that analogy, because it can be taken entirely too far, as Rich did (see below), and I'm sure many others as well. There's nothing wrong with drawing a comparison between the results of compromising your beliefs with the results of Israel compromising her beliefs, but it is probably excessive to use the phrase "form of spiritual fornication."

In any case, the very fact that Ham, here, points to Rev 2:14 proves that he isn't questioning Ross' and others' salvation, as the church there wasn't in danger of Hell, but rather in danger of being disciplined by God.
Quote from Rich Deem with regard to these elements
Way, way overblown. Ham never implied OECs "worship another god." That's absurd. Further, connecting OEC with the doctrine of Balaam in no way implies that OECs "are unrighteous and destined for hell." Again, the church in Rev 2:14 was not destined for hell. This statement alone makes me question Rich's understanding of the Gospel far more than anything his OECism would. Does he really believe those in the church of Pergamos was going to hell? Does he think, then, we can lose our salvation? That implies we have to do something to KEEP it.
Pretty clear inference, isn't it?
Yes, but the inference is clearly not that OECs are on the road to Hell. Did you read the article as you asked me to? He had just said:
  • Is division always wrong? Jesus said in Luke 12:51 'Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on Earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:' When you shine the light of God's Word in a dark world there must of necessity be some division.
Ham is talking about the necessity of division in the church, not about whether or not some in the church are going to go to Hell for their beliefs on the origin of the earth. He even admits that Matt 7 is in the context of salvation, which his discussion is not. His point is that OEC leads to destruction, not to Hell. He is using Matt 7 and the narrow road to illustrate that.
Here's a quote from Hovind, before he started serving his sentence for Tax Fraud, in which he call Ross and several other major leaders of the OEC movement "Heretics".
Hovind doesn't call Ross a heretic anywhere. He says some of his ideas, in his opinion, are heretical. I've said the same about things I disagree with here. Does that mean I am questioning the salvation of those people I am disagreeing with?
Video of Hovind in which he refers to Ross as a cult leader and a heretic.
Watched the entire video. I must have missed it. Can you point me to when he said this? I notice he said the OEC view requires a "guru," but that's hardly the same thing as a cult-leader.
By Danny Faulkner at AIG Read the entire article. Here's the conclusion.
Faulkner questions Ross' competence in the article, not his salvation. It is a matter of objective data. Are we not allowed to question people's ability to understand the data they are using in making their arguments? I would be very interested in Ross' response to these charges, beyond, "Well, I'm an astronomer." The MACHOs and peppered moths gaffes are particularly embarrassing, and from the other article referencing Faulkner you linked, so is the issue of trigonometric parallax.
Click on "JohnHagee is a heretic". This is the same teaching that Ross promotes and so the same conclusion would be present.
Again, the argument is that death before the fall is heretical because it undermines the Gospel. That does not, however, mean that Hovind is saying Ross, or Hagee for that matter, is not saved.
End note 1 with a quote from Hamm that I was unable to link to, leading me to believe it's been taken down.
Good, because the quote, as you have it, is an overstatement. See below:
Overall quote is direct from Greg Moore. Inside the quote marks are direct from Ken Ham from Ken Ham, “The god of an old earth: Does the Bible teach that disease, bloodshed, violence and pain have always been 'part of life'?”, Answers in Genesis, <www.answersingenesis.org /creation/v21/i4/oldearth.asp> (Nov. 2, 2005)
Much like Rich stated:
  • the claim that the God of creation would lie to us with a false history of the universe, is a direct attack on the righteous character of God and cannot be tolerated within the Church! The God who would deceive His creatures with lies is not the God of the Bible.
Ham was honest enough to take his attack down. Now, let's see Deem be just as honorable.
I could go on. Those who want to see the multiple places that Ross and OECs in general are accused of being heretics and apostate need only to google on the web and in blogs. I've focused on Hamm with a few references from Hovind for good measure. As is often the case words are measured and guarded to provide plausible deniability. There's enough here though to show the clear statements and inferences.
If this is the best--or worst, depending on how you look at it--that you've seen, then I'm hardly impressed with the claim. I can offer many quotes of Ross and OECs arguing that YEC pushes people out of the church (you took exception to Ham arguing for that), that the God of YEC isn't the God of the Bible, that equate YECs with the destructive approaches of those who condemned Galileo, and that YECs ought to be run out of the church. You should try to clean up your own camp's divisiveness before complaining about Ham and others.
I'll let you have the last word Jac. I think a reasonable person can read through the original materials placed up here and determine on their own as to the inferences and implications made here and decide if your responses excuse or adequately defend them.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:11 pm
by DannyM
Jac3510 wrote: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.
Come on Jac, claiming Ross is "undermining the authority of scripture" is arrogant and provocative language by anyone's standards. It is also unnecessary when directed at a fellow Christian.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:34 pm
by Jac3510
Canuckster wrote:I'll let you have the last word Jac. I think a reasonable person can read through the original materials placed up here and determine on their own as to the inferences and implications made here and decide if your responses excuse or adequately defend them.
Yes, they can. But with all due respect, when you take half as much offense at OEC divisiveness as you to YEC's, it will make it a lot easier to take this objection seriously.
Danny wrote:Come on Jac, claiming Ross is "undermining the authority of scripture" is arrogant and provocative language by anyone's standards. It is also unnecessary when directed at a fellow Christian.
Sometimes it is necessary, Danny. I don't think Ross is undermining the authority of Scripture on the same basis Ham does. As I said above, the idea of animal death before the Fall doesn't have to undermine the Gospel, although it does have ramifications that need to be considered (although holding to human death before the Fall would). But consider those Christians who deny the historicity of Adam and Eve. They ARE undermining the authority of Scripture. I don't care of they are really Christians or not.

Where I think Ross goes down this road is his belief that nature is the 67th book of Scripture. That literally raises general revelation to be on par with special revelation, or, to put it the other way, lowers special revelation to the level of general. That view literally does undermine the authority of Scripture in that it lets our interpretation of general revelation (aka, science) trump the plain meaning of the text.

I have a major, major problem with that. Many don't, but that's part of the compromising that AiG is always complaining about.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:45 pm
by Dazed and Confused
RickD wrote:
Dazed and Confused wrote:
RickD wrote: 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.
Really, that would be cool if he did, but I have never heard anything myself. And I do run in Calvary circles. If you think of were you heard it let me know. Thanx.

*As far as I know Chuck Smith Jr. is an old earth guy. But I couldn't tell you his exact stance.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:56 pm
by zoegirl
A simple search of the articles found on AiG's webiste on Hugh Ross reveals over 400 articles all with misinformation, misrepresentations, and divisive language. All attack Ross, in the simple 20-25 minute search I just did I found only one reference to a disclaimer that AiG is not attacking his Christianity. Everything else (including the article with the disclaimer) went on the attack.

The posts are arrogant, with many postings about how great his own materials are at bringing to Christ (I wonder how many he himself has been instrumental in keeping from Christ) and many end with a plea for money.

A search at reasons reveal quite a different tone. The articles focus on the data. Search for "Answers in genesis" and you find a mere 9 that discuss the problems in some article or data presented specifically at AiG. Far less divisive, the articles focus mainly on the data and conclusions, with far fewer direct jabs. A wider search of Young Earth creationism brings more results, of course, but again show a far more academic and thoughtful tone.

Jac, it seems like you want your cake and eat it too. You want to claim that OEC are just as divisive and defend Hamm yet, when shown how harsh Hamm';s language is, you then claim that sometimes it is necessary. If that is true, then certainly we can claim that too (although the language is hardly the same). You can't claim offense and then justify the offender. Seems rather wimpy. Either both camps get to go on the offensive or both should be equally nice. As it stands, they are not equally divisive.

The readers' certainly can judge for themselves the tone of each of the websites. ICR, AiG, Reasons certainly can bear up to the comparisons.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:58 pm
by Canuckster1127
I will make one addendum to what I wrote earlier.

The article by Ken Ham in which he makes the comments I quoted and conjectured might have been taken down, in fact was not. Here it is on the AIG site. Apparently the link I had previously was either changed, or I attempted incorrectly.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... dearth.asp
The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death.
There's no doubt — the god of an old earth destroys the Gospel.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:59 pm
by RickD
Dazed and Confused wrote:
RickD wrote:
Dazed and Confused wrote:
RickD wrote: 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.
Really, that would be cool if he did, but I have never heard anything myself. And I do run in Calvary circles. If you think of were you heard it let me know. Thanx.

*As far as I know Chuck Smith Jr. is an old earth guy. But I couldn't tell you his exact stance.
I think it had something to do with one of Ross' books. Maybe A Matter of Days. Go to Reasons.org, and under search, type chuck smith. If that is the same Chuck Smith. It lists Chuck Smith Jr.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:04 pm
by Dazed and Confused
RickD wrote: I think it had something to do with one of Ross' books. Maybe A Matter of Days. Go to Reasons.org, and under search, type chuck smith. If that is the same Chuck Smith. It lists Chuck Smith Jr.
This would be what I would have expected. Chuck Smith Jr. had his Calvary Chapel status revoked. Too many doctrinal differences. Chuck Smith Sr. and Chuck Smith Jr. are still close, and Chuck Sr. has reaffirmed his support of his son and his stance as a Christian.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:18 pm
by RickD
Dazed and Confused wrote:
RickD wrote: I think it had something to do with one of Ross' books. Maybe A Matter of Days. Go to Reasons.org, and under search, type chuck smith. If that is the same Chuck Smith. It lists Chuck Smith Jr.
This would be what I would have expected. Chuck Smith Jr. had his Calvary Chapel status revoked. Too many doctrinal differences. Chuck Smith Sr. and Chuck Smith Jr. are still close, and Chuck Sr. has reaffirmed his support of his son and his stance as a Christian.
Are the doctrinal differences related to the Gospel or Atonement of Christ?

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:28 pm
by RickD
Canuckster1127 wrote:I will make one addendum to what I wrote earlier.

The article by Ken Ham in which he makes the comments I quoted and conjectured might have been taken down, in fact was not. Here it is on the AIG site. Apparently the link I had previously was either changed, or I attempted incorrectly.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... dearth.asp
The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death.
There's no doubt — the god of an old earth destroys the Gospel.
WOW! I have not seen this before. Thanks Bart. I wonder if there are any prominent OECs who say "the god of a young earth cannot be the God of the Bible". or "There's no doubt-the god of a young earth destroys the Gospel".

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:42 pm
by Canuckster1127
RickD wrote:
Canuckster1127 wrote:I will make one addendum to what I wrote earlier.

The article by Ken Ham in which he makes the comments I quoted and conjectured might have been taken down, in fact was not. Here it is on the AIG site. Apparently the link I had previously was either changed, or I attempted incorrectly.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... dearth.asp
The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death.
There's no doubt — the god of an old earth destroys the Gospel.
WOW! I have not seen this before. Thanks Bart. I wonder if there are any prominent OECs who say "the god of a young earth cannot be the God of the Bible". or "There's no doubt-the god of a young earth destroys the Gospel".
None that I'm aware of. The furthest I've gone is to note that those YEC proponents who go so far as to refuse admission to their churches of OEC proponents, who barr OEC proponents from any form of leadership and who directly or by strong inference communicate that an OEC proponent cannot be saved, is in my opinion at that point qualified to be categorized as a cult. I stand by that. It's a relatively small group within the whole of the YEC movement and usually overlaps with other issues such as KJV only which is to my knowledge invariably YEC.

Ken Hamm wrote this 11 years ago and based on the date it has remained on the AIG site since then so I have to believe that he has had a great deal of time and feedback to modify or remove it. I have to conclude then, that he believes this.

I'd venture to discuss it with him, but AIG doesn't provide a public forum such as this for the possibility of a discussion of that nature.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:06 pm
by Canuckster1127
Yes, they can. But with all due respect, when you take half as much offense at OEC divisiveness as you to YEC's, it will make it a lot easier to take this objection seriously.
Please feel free to demonstrate it if you wish.

I tend to agree with the statement that you appear to want your cake and eat it too, Jac. On the one hand, you object to this OEC "divisiveness" which on at least one occassion you've refused to identify and in effect asked us to take your word for it.

OECers, myself included, can and do overstate issues no doubt. I'm not aware of denominations that exclude YECers from membership or any form of leadership. I'm not aware of professors in seminaries who have been removed from office and professionally black-balled by OEC movements. If you are, it shouldn't be difficult to present.

You appear to want to believe that because some evidence on a chat board (which again, most YEC organizations don't provide) is the equivilent of these issues and that it's just as prevelant in OEC as in YEC. I disagree and I believe there's and overwhelming amount of evidence to support that, both in volume and in the degree stated.

Now you may state, and I believe you do, that those elements are not fairly representative of all YECers. Fair enough. I've said the same. In terms of the elements of YEC that go to extremes in this direction however, it's far more common in YEC circles than in OEC to my observation and I've been on the YEC side in the past so that's not just pure speculation on my part.

I can certainly understand an objection on you part or many YECers part as to any suggestion that OECers are perfect or are never uncharitable. Extending it to the degree that you appear to want to that it is in fact as prevelant in OEC as YEC is another matter entirely however. It's not simply an all or nothing proposition.

Ham and Hovind are hardly the most extreme cases that can be found, but they're certainly among the most vocal and the most cited and quoted by many from the YEC position. You may attempt to rationalize and modify it if you wish. I guarantee you that there are many in the YEC movement who pick up on these little inferences and who amplify them and I can name personally people whose careers and families have been decimated by the actions that have been taken within denominatation, quite recently.

That's just simply fact and if you wish to show me otherwise and demonstrate not only the presence but the scope of impact and influence in the same spheres then please feel free.

Re: Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:22 pm
by zoegirl
ken hamm wrote: Recently, in having an obvious dig at the ministry of Answers in Genesis, a person said, “the gospel doesn't rise or fall on the days of creation.” My answer was, “That's true—it doesn't. But does the gospel rise or fall on the authority of Scripture? And does the authority of Scripture rise or fall on the days of creation?”
while slippery, this seems pretty clear transitions to me. The Gospel rises and falls on the authority of scripture and if you believe in OEC then you are not subscribing to the biblical authority and this causing the fall of the Gospel. He may like to claim that salvation doesn't rest of age of the earth, but it's clear that he views it falling with the belief in OEC.
ken wrote: The point I want to make is that it is faith in Christ that saves someone—not whether a person believes in a young or old earth, or whether the days of creation in Genesis are long periods of time. Romans 10:9 makes it very clear that salvation is tied to faith in Christ, not the days of creation or the age of the earth.

However, another important point we make is that when a person believes in millions of years and then reinterprets the days of creation to be long periods of time, they are undermining the very authority from which they get the message of the gospel—they are undermining the authority of the Word of God by taking man's fallible ideas on the age of the earth and using this to change the clear meaning of the Word of God: it is an authority issue.
Slippery again. Of course salvation rests on Christ, but mess with the age issue and you trample on that foundation upon which it rests.
ken wrote: I must admit I get tired of the people who misquote or misrepresent what we state concerning a person who is a Christian and who believes in an old earth. For instance, a retired medical doctor (who now homeschools her children) on her website stated:

Ken Ham essentially said that a person who does not believe in Young-Earth Creationism can't be a Christian since they don't believe the Bible. domesticadventure.blogspot.com/2009/01/evolution-creation-wheres-truth.html

Well, Ken Ham has never said and doesn't say anything of the sort! As I said above, nowhere in the Bible is salvation tied to the age of the earth. But it is about time that compromising Christians understand that they have contributed to the loss of biblical authority in this nation and thus helped open the door to the secularization of the culture. And a friendly warning to homeschool parents—if you teach this compromised position to your children, be prepared for the great possibility they will open the door of compromise wider and get on that all-too-familiar slippery slide of unbelief.
again, slipperier and slipperier....he goes to such great lengths to excuse himself from damning Collins (and Ross in other posts) with one hand while damning him over and over again with the other. With friends like these.....(thanks but no thanks Ken)

So parents, heaven help you if you want your children to even think about possibilitites, you will be responsible for leading them to their eternal damnation of unbelief. This type of fear tactics is what really annoys me. God's word can stand the scrutiny.

Pure and simple: Ham may like to distance himself from actually saying the words....he does everybody but.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -woefully/