Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Christian Answers vs Hugh Ross
- So what? How many articles written by dogmatic, ideological YECs that echo the same assertions do you think it will take to win an argument?
Rather than you simply regurgitating your ideology, I would like for you to substantively consider your own view in a critical light. Is that not what one does when they seek truth? Do they not evaluate what they believe rather than amassing a weight of echoes?
*** What one does when they follow Christ is to accept his word and know that NO ONE is above it or outside of it. They know that it is not possible to honestly follow someone whose word they do not accept. They know that we need not look any further than the Israelites that bent their knees to Baal to know that God does not share nor accept his word being reconciled with nonsense from other courses.
Why is it then that you can not take your own advice and trust in God's word instead of your ever changing shifting sands of men, struggling for a reason for their existence without God being in the equation? You accept their paradigm after all. Why is it so hard for you to accept that the word of God reigns and is infallible and you aren't? I would say that you are a fraud and a liar for claiming to know Christ and waste space attending church. You are what is wrong with the churches. Not a speck of humility.
This Christian Answers text repeats two well-worn dogmas of YECism that are wrong and bad theology.
*** If you could compare what they teach against the scriptures and prove them in error that would be one thing. As it is we both know that you can't and this statement is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.
As a matter of fact, my original motivation to write my book was to respond to the inconsistent and badtheology in the Van Bebber and Taylor book. Two points in particular I addressed are:
1. "Death always, no paradise planet"
2. "Paradise lost"
You merely repeat them as if they are axiomatic, when I have already shown these two views to be inconsistent and bad theology. (I address most of the false assertions about YEC theology that is raised by the christian answers article as well).
*** You can continue to lie by having us think that you have answered for these things but we both know that you haven't. I proved you wrong from scripture, which you ignored in typical fashion.
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- On 23 Jun 2006 at 16:12, Mark Penn wrote:
> Subject: Hugh Norman Ross, President of Reasons to Believe,And scripture is NOT subject to Man's misinterpretation?
> Inc., Pasadena, California / Born 1945 / Christian speaker and
> author / Ph.D. in astronomy, University of Toronto / Former
> Minister of Evangelism, Sierra Madre Congregational Church,
> Sierra Madre, California. Dr. Hugh Ross is a full-time speaker
> and author increasingly popular among evangelical and
> charismatic churches, schools and ministries. He has a weekly
> television program on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. He is
> currently the head of a non- denominational, worldwide ministry
> dealing with apologetics, especially Bible-science issues. He
> opposes atheistic evolutionism and teaches Progressive
> Creationism. Three beliefs listed below are particularly
> foundational to his teachings. This sheet also provides a
> partial list of other problem areas in his writings and
> lectures. Due to the relatively brief nature of this answer, in
> most cases no attempt has been made to explain why Dr. Ross
> currently supports these beliefs; nor is there space to provide
> adequate refutation. The biblical and scientific reasoning
> behind Dr. Ross's positions may be found in his various audio
> tapes, videos, pamphlets, newsletters and books, some of which
> are listed here. Some Basic Assumptions of Hugh Ross
> Billions-of-Years-Old Universe This is the central belief that
> guides much of his teachings. Again and again he states that the
> universe is billions of years old. Dr. Ross and other
> Progressive Creationists fervently believe that the size of the
> universe and various other astronomical discoveries prove this
> beyond any doubt. He rejects as nonsense all suggestions from
> science that earth and the universe could be young. [See: Hugh
> Ross, Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective
> on the Creation-Date Controversy (Colorado Springs, CO:
> NavPress, 1994); ; Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, second
> edition (Promise Publishing Co, 1991); etc.] christiananswers:
> First it is important to remember the obvious. No scientist was
> there over the billions of years in question. The Creator is
> the only one existing from the very beginning. Only He is in a
> position to know with certainty the true history and age of the
> universe. His Word to humanity is clear. The Bible indicates
> that all Creation was completed during six rotations of the
> earth. God's Word provides lists of generations between Adam and
> Jesus Christ. Even if there were a few gaps in the lists, it
> would be absurd to accept insertions of millions (or even tens
> of thousands) of years in the genealogy. Actually, the great
> majority of scientific age estimation methods indicate a young
> earth. Dr. Ross's bias is apparent in his willingness to accept
> only those scientific methods that agree with his belief in
> billions of years. In the final analysis, none of Man's
> scientific age estimation methods can be considered foolproof,
> young or old. We would prefer to stick with the testimony of the
> only eyewitness, God. Death always, no paradise planet Dr. Ross
> does not believe the Garden of Eden was free of death, suffering
> or degeneration - a world created in perfection. He believes
> that death and degeneration existed in the beginning and have
> continued for billions of years. He also teaches that neither
> the fall to sin nor the Flood resulted in significant physical
> changes in Nature. [Creation and Time, pp. 55, 65.]
> christiananswers: Paradise lost According to the Bible, death
> (both physical and spiritual) entered the world through man's
> sin (Genesis 2:17, 3:19, Romans 5:12, 6:23, I Corinthians
> 15:20-23). The Bible indicates that our world is very different
> from the one which God created and pronounced as "very good."
> The Bible clearly says animals were not created carnivorous; God
> originally commanded them to eat plants - see Genesis 1:29-30,
> etc. Because of sin, God cursed the ground and physical
> creation (Genesis 3:17). Scripture says the whole creation has
> been affected by man's sin, causing it to groan as it awaits
> freedom from bondage to decay (Romans 8:20-22). The global Flood
> judgment changed earth even more (Genesis 8:21). One day God
> will restore paradise. Once again the wolf will lie down with
> the lamb. Dual Revelation! Dr. Ross believes that Nature
> provides an accurate understanding of God and His plan for
> history. He holds the unorthodox theological view that, "The
> plan of salvation as stated in the Bible can be seen through
> observation of the universe around us." For example, he teaches
> that Job "without the aid of scriptures... discerned all the
> elements of the gospel..." Dr. Ross frequently says that Nature
> is like the "sixty-seventh book" of the Bible. Nature is "on an
> equal footing" with the written revelation of God. Dr. Ross
> states that neither is "inferior or superior" to the other. They
> are simply "different, just like the content of Ezra is distinct
> from that of Romans." [Creation and Time, p. 57] He proceeds to
> accept most of the interpretations of secular science while
> attempting to maintain the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. He
> has accused young-earth creationists of believing in "Single-
> Revelation Theology"and denying "physical reality." [The
> Fingerprint of God, second edition, (first quotation: p. 179),
> second quotation: p. 181, also see: 144-145, 163-164; Creation
> and Time , pp. 11, 41, 55-57, 123; "Hugh Ross's Apologetics Hot
> Line," Christianity Today (March 11, 1991), pp. 23; Hugh Ross,
> "Creation Days," audiotape (Pasadena, California: Reasons to
> Believe, 1990).] [Creation and Time, pp. 55, 65.]
> christiananswers: Dual Revelation, Yes. But... Ross is
> incorrect about young-earth creation scientists. Most, if not
> all, believe in Dual Revelation. To believe otherwise would
> undermine the very words of scripture. Obviously, mankind can
> learn many things about the physical laws and construction of
> God's creation. Through this, we are able to understand the
> basics of God's nature (His existence, His invisible attributes
> and His eternal power) (Romans 1:20). Dr. Ross extends Dual
> Revelationism to a dangerous extreme. The gospel cannot be
> fully discerned by Man in nature alone.
> It is important to understand that:
> (1)Nature has no speech or voice (Psalm 19:3). Therefore,
> Nature is subject to Man's misinterpretation, as the history of
> science has repeatedly demonstrated.
> (2) Man is particularly limited in his ability to know theAn old and puerile argument. Actually God has conveniently
> ancient past with certainty. We have no time machines to travel
> back and examine actual events. Secular scientists who describe
> in great detail ancient animals and environments are guessing,
> making assumptions and hypothesizing.
provided us with a time machine. He has ordained that the speed
of light would be glacially slow in terms of the sheer size of
the created universe.
> (3) The world and the universe have changed since theirWhether they do or not, the creation itself tells us what it was
> creation. The Fall and the global Flood of Noah greatly marred
> the perfection of God's creations. What we see now is different
> in many ways from what God originally created.
like a long time ago.
> (4) We humans are quite ungod-like in our abilities andMark, the father of lies has much more influence in your church
> understanding. We are sinful, finite creatures with an enormous
> inclination to believe in lies. Earth is under the dominion of
> the Father of Lies, Satan. Our understanding of this universe
> is very incomplete and fallible. Scientific opinions are often
> biased and change regularly, sometimes radically.
than he has in most science labs. And that's all I'm going to
say on that subject.
> (5) Dr. Ross even goes so far as to make the strange claimAnd why do you object to this?
> that "in addition to the words of the Bible being 'God-breathed,
> ...useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in
> righteousness,' so also are the words of God spoken through the
> work of His hands."
> [Creation and Time, p. 56.] Dr. Ross elevates the message ofIt is clear that you are not actually a Christian, but a
> creation beyond its natural limitations. On many matters, it is
> naive, pompous and exceedingly dangerous to rate sinful Man's
> incomplete and changing understanding of this degenerating
> universe as equal in clarity with the written Word of God! Such
> views have led to dreadful errors.
bibliolater who puts your sect's Holy Interpretation of scripture
well above the teachings of Jesus Christ.
And this is why the day is coming, I believe, when MOST of the
Church will declare YEC apologetics to be the work of heretics.
It's not their faith in Christ that's getting them in trouble
with those of us who represent traditional Christianity, but
their faith in sophistry and even in some outright fibs.
> ((This is by far my favorite part and the most truth ofPretty rhetoric, but MY tradition was there when Galileo was
> anything any where:)) The Bible has demonstrated its beautiful
> accuracy again and again, in contrast to the "scientific"
> pronouncements of Man which have frequently been wrong and often
> dominated by blinding bias. ((How then can 'educated' men hold
> to the scienfitic pronouncments of the day and reconcile them
> with scripture when science has NEVER shown itself to be
> infallible as the scriptures do? Do you honestly think such
> reconciliation will have no adverse effect on one's eternal
> destiny? Did God permit his word to be reconciled similarly with
> the gods of Baal or with the paganism of Balaam with no adverse
> effects? Do you honestly believe in your heart it doesn't
accused of teaching against scripture because he said the earth
1Ch 16:30 tremble before him, all the earth. The world is firmly
established; it shall never be moved.
(This was actually cited in the charges).
- In a message dated 6/24/06 12:51:50 PM Central Daylight Time,
Why is it then that you can not take your own advice and trust in God's word
instead of your ever changing shifting sands of men,
God's word on His creation is also written in His creation itself.
Mark P: struggling for a reason for their existence without God being in the
Right. Then try to explain this.... if some 80% of those who accept
evolution also believe it to be a process of creation used by God, how has He been
removed from the "equation"?
Mark P: You accept their paradigm after all. Why is it so hard for you to
accept that the word of God reigns and is infallible
Because I played that kid's game where you sit in a circle and one kid
whispers something in the ear of the kid next to them... this is done all the way
around the circle. I've seen what comes back.... it never bears ANY resemblance
to the original statement.
Oral histories (which includes the first couple thousand years of the Bible)
are subject to imperfect repetition. Translations (which the OT has undergone
at least a few times) are imperfect. Hand written copies (done for the first
couple thousand years of the written Bible) are subject to error. Finally,
languages evolve and words/usage change meaning.
If you don't believe the last one just tell me what Shakespeare meant when he
wrote: "Get thee to a nunnery."
Mark P: and you aren't?
Certainly I am. My understanding of Genesis could be 100% wrong. Do you
have the "humility" to admit as much?
Mark P: I would say that you are a fraud and a liar for claiming to know
Christ and waste space attending church. You are what is wrong with the chur
ches. Not a speck of humility.
"Not a spec of humility". Coming from Mark Penn.....
Can you admit that your literalist reading of Genesis just MIGHT be wrong?
No way. You have NO humility, Mark. You are a hypocrite and I understand
Christ has a particular dislike of hypocrites.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]