Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of "$25" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 13,837
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,089
Posts52,582
Members949
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,837
Tom 3,875
chestnutmare 3,042
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,803
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 24
Pilgrim 21
John_C 3
Recent Posts
Video Making the Rounds
by Pilgrim. Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:49 PM
The Truth Behind the Pope's Encyclical on So-Called Climate Change
by ATulipNotADaisy. Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:31 AM
Threats from Democrats
by Tom. Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:47 PM
Real Repentance ~ Charles Spurgeon
by Pilgrim. Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:24 AM
Real Repentance ~ Charles Spurgeon
by Rick Bates. Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:07 PM
Republican and the Poor
by John_C. Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:28 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Young Earth/Old Earth does. Which view is right? #16318
Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:43 PM
Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:43 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 227
USA
4Ever_Learning Offline OP
Enthusiast
4Ever_Learning  Offline OP
Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 227
USA
I was watching an episode of John Ankerberg this past Sunday night and he had as his guest the known Progressive Creationist, Hugh Ross. Although I enjoyed most of what he was saying I took issue with his view about the universe being billions of year old and what have you.
Does the bible teach a young Earth or can it be possible that the Earth is really millions of years old as Dr.Ross contends that it is? also, what did the early Church reformers believe concerning the creation of our world? Did they believe in a literal six day creation as opposed to the idea that each day may have been a thousand years long?
I myself do not fully understand the explanations of scientist like Dr. Ross and take the bible as it says, ...and the morning and evening were the first day, etc,etc,... I would like to know what others think though.

Thanks.


Σεσυς ις Λορδ
Re: Young Earth/Old Earth does. Which view is right? [Re: 4Ever_Learning] #16319
Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:04 PM
Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:04 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 85
Gremantown, TN
jfschultz Offline
Member
jfschultz  Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 85
Gremantown, TN
From what I have read the issue when the Westminster Divines met issue was whether the creation was "in the space of six days" (from Calvin's commentary on Gen 1:5), or the Augustin's position that the six days were figurative and the actual creation was a single instantaneous divine act. Going with a six day creation, I guess that would make the Westminster Divines the old earthers of the 17th Century.


Soli Deo Gloria
John Schultz
[Linked Image]
Re: Young Earth/Old Earth does. Which view is right? [Re: jfschultz] #16320
Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:12 PM
Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:12 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
The Great White North, Eh!
Henry Offline
Enthusiast
Henry  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
The Great White North, Eh!
Hugh Ross is a heretic. Sound a little legalistic? Go read Romans 5. Death came by Adam. A real Adam. There was no death before him. The billions of years picture requires death long before Adam. This completely undoes Paul's Christiology. There's no way around it.

For more info, read: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/rc/intro.asp


(Latin phrase goes here.)
Re: Young Earth/Old Earth does. Which view is right? [Re: Henry] #16321
Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:45 AM
Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:45 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Canyon Country, CA
fredman Offline
Addict
fredman  Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Canyon Country, CA
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, one of the resident contributors to Answers in Genesis, has just completed a rather extensive rebutal book to Hugh Ross and his dubious apologetics. It is called Refuting Compromise and is available through the AiG website. Dr. Sarfati is an engaging writer and in my opinion, devastates Ross's nonsensical views of Genesis. One of the saddest elements to Dr. Ross, is that he has the tendency to radically mis-state the evidence for his case and often exceeds his area of competence in specialized fields of study. There have been occasions when he out right lies in his research he presents.
Most people are intimidated by the man because he is a "doctor" and dogmatically speaks with what appears to be much authority. His cockiness is never challenged, so Christians are often unsure how to approach the guy, even though they know he is wrong.
Usually, those Christian authors, apologists, and theologians, like Ankerberg, who wish to appear as a meaningful, intelligent Christian in the eyes of the skeptical world, tend to latch onto Ross's long-age creationism. Dr. Ross comes across as sophisticated, and not as a wild-eyed John Brown like fundamentalist randomly spouting off Bible verses, pounding a pulpit, and condemning all those satanic inspired "signtists."
One of the more amusing Hugh Ross moments on Ankerberg's program was the debate Ankerberg set up between Ross and the young earth, fundamentalist apologist Kent Hovind, known as Dr. Dino. Hovind is something of a goofball, and for Ankerberg to match him up with Ross was sort of like matching up the local Church league softball champions against the Los Angeles Dodgers. It was profoundly embarrassing. Hovind displayed the classic "deer caught in the headlights" expression through out the discussion, and his attempt to provide thoughtful responses to the best of his ability that his little evidentialist heart could muster, was noble, but to no avail.
I think if Ankerberg wants to have a serious debate on this subject with Ross participating, he has to get either Sarfati, or Ken Ham, or even both. It is just being dishonest to simply build strawmen against the young earth proponents and tear them down.

If you hit the AiG site, do a search on Hugh Ross, and it should pull up several articles.

Fred


"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
Re: Young Earth/Old Earth does. Which view is righ [Re: fredman] #16322
Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:48 PM
Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:48 PM
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 31
St. Louis, Missouri
onefear Offline
Newbie
onefear  Offline
Newbie
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 31
St. Louis, Missouri
Either view is acceptable in the PCA, whose short answer is, "We don't know." Its 28th General Assembly resolved as follows: That since historically in Reformed theology there has been a diversity of views of the creation days among highly resected theologicans, and, since the PCA has from its inception allowed a diversity, that the Assembly affirm that such diversity as covered in this report is acceptable as long as the full historicity of the creation account is accepted.

The detailed report of the Creation Study Committee discusses all the various views and their history and can be found here.

Blessings,
Clay

Re: Young Earth/Old Earth does. Which view is right? [Re: fredman] #16323
Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:39 AM
Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:39 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
The Great White North, Eh!
Henry Offline
Enthusiast
Henry  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
The Great White North, Eh!
Much better answer then mine, Fred. I was in a rush...


(Latin phrase goes here.)
Re: Young Earth/Old Earth does. Which view is right? [Re: Henry] #16324
Wed Jul 28, 2004 1:10 PM
Wed Jul 28, 2004 1:10 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Canyon Country, CA
fredman Offline
Addict
fredman  Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Canyon Country, CA
I just did a review of Dr. Sarfati's book I mentioned in my post up above. It is on line here for anyone interested -

Refuting Compromise Review

Fred
"Shameless self promoter"


"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
Re: Young Earth/Old Earth does. Which view is right? [Re: fredman] #16325
Fri Jul 30, 2004 12:11 AM
Fri Jul 30, 2004 12:11 AM
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 416
Virginia
Reformation Monk Offline
Addict
Reformation Monk  Offline
Addict
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 416
Virginia
I vote for 6 day creation! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/peace.gif" alt="" />

I've been a new earth creationist for a while now and I have to admit I have a blast sharing that view in my church. It's funny to see people struggling with that concept. But I'm used to being thought of as strange by now.

Dave.


Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - Galatians 2:16
Re: Young Earth/Old Earth does. Which view is right? [Re: fredman] #16326
Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:40 AM
Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:40 AM
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Illinois
janean Offline
Enthusiast
janean  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Illinois
Hi Fred--

Thanks a lot for the reference to the Refuting Compromise book. Sounds like Hugh Ross bugs you to. A couple of years ago I started questioning this issue - creation v. progressive creationism and skimming through a couple of Ross's books. Seems like something's wrong to me with where he's coming from and I have deep reservations about his materials. Then it bothered me too that leaders like John Ankerberg, Ravi Zacharias, and Norman Geisler (who I like a lot of their materials) apparently beleive in progressive creationism. I have wanted to read up more on this whole issue. Now I'm going to add that book from Sarfati to my long, long list of books and articles to read also. I have always just beleived more or less in the literal creation story and theologically it doesn't seem to make sense if there was death before Adam. What bothers me is why are there so many Christian leaders like those listed above that are apparently not believing this?? And even some good Christian friends I have say well it doesn't really matter which creation story you believe, etc. etc. But it does!! I started thinking then which one do we teach to our children if it doesn't matter? (this is what really got me thinking about the whole thing).
Again thank you very much. This site continues to be such a valuable source for me and I really appreciate it.

Re: Young Earth/Old Earth does. Which view is right? [Re: fredman] #16327
Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:47 AM
Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:47 AM
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Illinois
janean Offline
Enthusiast
janean  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Illinois
I heard that debate too a couple of years ago. Yes you pegged Kent Hovind correctly - his "deer in the headlights" reaction to Hugh Ross. That was exactly my thought when I heard it. I actually emailed Ken Ham at Answers in Genesis and asked him why he won't debate Hugh Ross. He did respond to me and didn't seem interested in ever debating Hugh Ross. Sounded like Ken Ham maybe doesn't like debates. Well I thought there has to be someone better than Kent Hovind.

Have you ever heard a good debate on this issue?? If so could you tell me if there is a resource available somewhere??

Janean

Re: Young Earth/Old Earth does. Which view is right? [Re: janean] #16328
Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:10 AM
Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:10 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Canyon Country, CA
fredman Offline
Addict
fredman  Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Canyon Country, CA


Quote
What bothers me is why are there so many Christian leaders like those listed above that are apparently not believing this??


(Fred) That is a difficult question to answer, because it is hard to judge the intentions of one's heart. My guess is at least two fold:

First, the majority of Hugh Ross supporters tend toward a classic, evidentialist approach to apologetics. They have a set of foundational assumptions that drive their thinking. For instance, these evidentialists seem to operate from the notion that the heart and reason of men are separated into two categories. The issue for Christian belief is for a sinner to honestly take their reason (which is understood to be not necessarily affected by sin) and apply it to the heart in order for the person to believe the gospel and be saved. The problem, however, is that the Bible never makes those category distinctions between man's reasoning and his heart. Out of his sinful heart flows sinful reasoning. The two are co-related.
Also, the evidentialist apologetics of progressive creationists assume that nature and science are neutral, so that any person can study these things and discover the truth about them. Because science produces truth, all truth is considered God's truth, so according to Ross, big bang cosmologists see the universe as billions of years old, objective "science" cannot be wrong because it is God's truth, and it is concluded that these scientists reached that number for the age of the universe from researching, neutrally true evidence. The problem with Ross's acceptance of this approach, however, is the fact that much of the "science" he depends upon to feed his progressive creationism is theoritical in nature. It really isn't based upon objective, true science. These so-called scientists have to interpret what they are observing, and they will interpret such evidence from a sinful heart that shapes their darkened reason that helps them to suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness. Ross erroneously believes these guys are telling us the truth about their science because science is assumed to be near infallible.

Secondly, I believe these Progressive Creationist/ Hugh Ross supporters suffer from embarrassment with regards to classic fundamentalist Christians who have approached the issue of evolution/creation and science with an attitude of ignorance. In some respects, I agree with them. I am equally embarrassed by the way Christians have handled themselves regarding this debate, because they respond with buffoonish ignorance that only dishonors Christ. The progressive creationist views the position of a young earth creationist with contempt, because it is considered unsophisticated; one that is a left over from the dominance of fundamentalists who strained the boundaries of credulity in their desperation to explain away the science that is showing the idea of a 6, 24 hour creation week as being an unrealistic interpretation of scripture. In fact, Ross's newest book "It is just a matter of days" addresses this idea.


Quote
Have you ever heard a good debate on this issue?? If so could you tell me if there is a resource available somewhere??


(Fred) I am not aware of any major debates. Back in 2001, Ross contacted my pastor, John MacArthur, to see if he would be willing to moderate a debate between his supporters and the AiG folks. Ross wrongly assumed John didn't have an opinion on the book of Genesis and was surprised to learn that John was a biblical 6 literal days creationist when one of the associate pastors wrote him back. The associate further explained that John disagreed with Ross's beliefs and found them to be unbiblical. Ross, in his typical "woe is me I am being persecuted" fashion, went to print with a newsletter or supporter letter telling how John is going around calling him a false teacher. Though John would agree that he teaches false things about Genesis, it has never been a campaign on the part of GTY or Grace Church to attack Ross in such a manner. He was exaggerating the facts, which is something he is notorious for doing. In fact, any disagreement with his position is taken as a full assault on his Christian character. Ross is under the opinion that his viewpoint is just an alternative take on the book of Genesis, and should not be a point of contention between believers. Progressive creationism falls into one of those categories like the question of whether it was really the spirit of Samuel that came back from the dead in 1 Sam. 28, or whether it was a demon impersonating Samuel. I don't see it as that simple. Ross's viewpoint totally disrupts any meaningful understanding of God's word. He brings to bear upon it an erroneous, outside hermeneutic that reinterprets the Bible. That is something that Christians just cannot "debate vigorously, but not divide over" to quote the BAM man, Hank Hanegraff (A supposed YEC, but friendly support of Ross).

As to why Ken Ham or Jonathan Sarfati won't debate, I don't know their reasoning. I sort of wish they would. However, this is taken from one of Sarfati's responses to the question:

Quote
Why don't you set up a debate in an appropriate neutral forum such as the Ankerberg program or James Dobson's program?

Well, if such a rare species as a neutral forum can be found, I hope that it's preserved for posterity. Ankerberg and Dobson are hardly neutral but blatantly pro-Ross. I have demonstrated Ankerberg's constant partiality in my analysis of the Ross-Hovind debate on his show that was aired in October it was more of a Ross+Ankerberg tag team against Hovind. Dobson has also often hosted Ross on his show, but his producers call Ken Ham "divisive and dogmatic," and thus will not have him on the program. Neither did Ankerberg bother to contact AiG although it is one of the leading creationist organisations in the world. And for what it's worth, AiG USA is in negotiations with Dr. Ross about a possible forum.

Anyway, I can't understand the huge attraction of debates. As I pointed out, AiG has frequently dealt with Ross's public statements, while Ross generally ignores what we say and keeps on misrepresenting our arguments. The propositions taught by both sides are what's important, not whether they are made face-to-face. Debates tend to emphasize personalities more than the issues.


Fred


"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
Re: Young Earth/Old Earth does. Which view is right? [Re: janean] #16329
Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:01 PM
Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:01 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


I agree with you as well. I know Ken Ham and he is very busy. He is great in debating people with the scriptures and using logic. Dr. Sarfati would do a better job, only because he is a sciencetist and Ken would blow him away with scriptural arguments. I remember this one thing that Ken says: He said if someone believes in the old earth therory they have to admit that something outside the Bible is influencing their thinking because if you take the Bible as your only source of truth then you are going to be a young earth creationist. I am concerned with anyone giving a reply to your question and not using scripture for reasoning but what a certian denomination believes! Let's stick to the scriptures as best we can understand them.

Re: Young Earth/Old Earth does. Which view is right? [Re: fredman] #16330
Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:01 PM
Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:01 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,875
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,875
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Some debates actually make it look like the person who is wrong look like the one in the right. This can happen because of many factors, such as persuasiveness not necessarily based on facts.
I have even heard people who to the person who isn't in the habit of checking facts say things in such a way that seem to put anything the opponent says into question. Thus rendering them at a huge disadvantage, regardless of whether or not their material is factual or not.
Case and point, is James Dobson on Donahue on the subject of spanking. Even though Donahue agreed to a list of stipulations that Dobson asked for in order to go on the show. Donahue lied and arranged to have him ganged up against. The results made it look to the average watcher like Dobson was just a behind the times ignoramus who taught people to hurt their children.
This was neither fair nor truthful, but never the less effective.

Tom

Re: Young Earth/Old Earth does. Which view is right? [Re: Tom] #16331
Fri Aug 13, 2004 8:46 AM
Fri Aug 13, 2004 8:46 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
The Great White North, Eh!
Henry Offline
Enthusiast
Henry  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
The Great White North, Eh!
Quote
Ross's viewpoint totally disrupts any meaningful understanding of God's word. He brings to bear upon it an erroneous, outside hermeneutic that reinterprets the Bible.


Well put, and quite kind. I've just started "Refuting Compromise," and am not sure how hard Sarfati comes down on Ross, but I tend to see this issue in the light of taking these principals Ross introduces and carrying them to their furthest logical conclusion- which leads to an entire redefinition, and thus an eradication, of Biblical Christianity. I fully realize that most who subscribe to Ross' viewpoins, and perhaps even Ross himself, haven't done this in their minds (although I've watched it in a few), but it just shows how ignorant we are of the Bible, and how little we care about truth, in our time.

Last edited by Henry; Fri Aug 13, 2004 9:02 AM.

(Latin phrase goes here.)

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 64 guests, and 78 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulOR, godrulez, Wood, David Clarke, CharlieFry
949 Registered Users
Shout Box
October
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
1,147,244 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.051s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 2.9464 MB (Peak: 3.2575 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2020-10-21 19:29:23 UTC