PS @swamidass should write an open response to Ken Ham. PS should focus on going directly at Ken Ham and AiG. Our time is now. This is where common ground can be found between Christians and Nones.
At least they don’t say that you have to believe in YEC to be saved:
Numerous other passages could be cited, but not one of them states in any way that a person has to believe in a young earth or universe to be saved.
And the list of those who cannot enter God’s kingdom, as recorded in passages like Revelation 21:8, certainly does not include “old earthers.”
Many great men of God who are now with the Lord have believed in an old earth. Some of these explained away the Bible’s clear teaching about a young earth by adopting the classic gap theory. Others accepted a day-age theory or positions such as theistic evolution, the framework hypothesis, and progressive creation.
Scripture plainly teaches that salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, with no requirement for what one believes about the age of the earth or universe.
Honestly, this article is not bad at all. Certainly there are points with which we disagree, but Ham deserves some credit for stating this clearly. I wonder how it will be received in his constituency. Depending how this plays out, I may make a comment then.
Good news that Ken Ham has endorsed the classical understanding of salvation! I felt as though I’d been in purgatory waiting for him to approve us! Hallelujah, I’m saved…
Now when I say this, people sometimes assume then that it does not matter what a Christian believes concerning the supposed millions-of-years age for the earth and universe. (It does matter very much.)
Even though it is not a salvation issue, the belief that earth history spans millions of years has very severe consequences. Let me summarize some of these. (Consequences that help to separate the real Christians from the chaff.)
The belief in millions of years does not come from Scripture, but from the fallible methods that secularists use to date the universe. (Whereas my methods and beliefs are infallible.)
As soon as you surrender the Bible’s authority in one area, you unlock a door to do the same thing in other areas. Once the door of compromise is open, even if ajar just a little, subsequent generations push the door open wider. Ultimately, this compromise has been a major contributing factor in the loss of biblical authority in our Western world. (It’s just a slippery slope from here to hell.)
(All parentheticals added by me.)
It seems like a nice title, but when you read the fine print, it’s still the same old same old. Unless you are in lockstep with Ken Ham, you are a lesser-Christian who doesn’t respect the scriptures and your compromising attitude will inevitably get you into trouble.
Thanks, but no thanks.
This is why I demand a flat earth covered by a solid dome in which the sun, moon, and stars are embedded.
Yes it is.
Ham can sound very reasonable—but then at the same conference or in yet another AIG article he will make 100% clear that those who do not agree with him on Genesis 1 are aiding Satan and doing terrible harm to the Church. On a few occasions I’ve heard him say that such people are compromisers aligned with Satan for the destruction of others and are perilously jeopardizing their spiritual status. Ham is a skilled politician and he knows how to tell his base what they wish to hear.
I would love to be wrong and to discover that Ham is turning over a new leaf. However, the article reads like “old Ham” to me.
We’re all chipping in to get you one of those. It was going to be a surprise, though. Darn.
And yet he’s not…
@Michael_Callen you are a top tier Christian to me.
It’s interesting that this applies equally whether the interpretation of the Bible’s authority in question is true or untrue. If it could be convincingly shown to be true, I don’t see why you would have to say this. Does he think his viewpoint would really become unassailable through this process? Things can collapse in one go as well as by steps. A tree burdened with dead wood may be much less steady.
Good question. Who knows what he thinks?? I don’t think that it is a strategic maneuver at all. I think that is more about creating a perceived wall of division between the wheat and the chaff. Strategically is it beneficial to claim that ratiometric or carbon dating don’t work? Most of us would say no. But there is a large cadre for whom that message resonates.