# Should Reformed Christians support Ken Ham?



## Marcus417

Since watching the Ken Ham debate a question about Ken Ham and like-minded ministries have popped up in my head. I feel personally that the biggest problem in Evangelical Christianity today is the Pelagianism that is running rampant within it. Michael Horton describes American Christianity as being the "Heirs of Charles Finney" and I believe I saw this on display in the Ham-Nye debate. Christianity has shifted from a reformed view that fallen man is incapable of saving himself and only through the grace of God can a sinner be brought miraculously to salvation to a belief that salvation is simply man's philosophical assent to certain theological positions and choosing to live a moral life.

If you read through Ham's website the underlying soteriology is that if someone can be convinced of young earth creationism then they will believe in Jesus and they will be saved. It is a simple choice between Creation and Evolution and if we can just present the case for YEC rationally enough then people will believe. This is pelagianism at its finest.

I see Ken Ham's whole ministry as the antithesis to reformed theology and its underlying message is salvation comes from believing philosophical assertions and behaving morally, which is completely man-centered. I believe this worldview is far more dangerous to the church than the materialism of the New Atheism.

With Love,
Marcus


----------



## Sylvanus

I'm not entirely sure this is accurate. Can you provide some specific examples that you've seen on the site? I think they certainly believe the YEC model is the biblical one, but I doubt they are hyper-creationists...where you must assent to certain beliefs before you can become a Christian.


----------



## Sylvanus

The Gospel of Jesus Christ - Answers in Genesis

The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

These seem pretty decent to me.

And specifically to your point: "The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge."

and 

"Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Savior, Lord, and God."


----------



## arapahoepark

I don't see why not. However, the Creation Museum is open on Sundays....


----------



## Scott1

Answers in Genesis does good work for the church and for the "world."

I'm not aware of any basis to believe that it advocates one can know the person and work of Jesus Christ through general revelation (Creation), as one can through special revelation (Scripture).

While the theology is not on the caliber of reformed, which would emphasize certain attributes of God made known through general revelation, it does witness to that fact. The fourth commandment, that is a point of growth, I suspect this individual would be approachable and teachable on that point. A charitable assumption, based on having the same Holy Spirit and same Savior.


----------



## Jash Comstock

I guess I'm the minority here, but his involvement with the Kirk Cameron evangelism movement seems like it does more harm than good. His speeches are often full of the prayer-pulling evangelism that is antithetical to solid theology. I'm glad to see he stands for inerrancy and conservatism, but his wildly off base theology poses a problem for me, and personally I would find my material from other sources

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Sylvanus

If by minority you mean: those who can't benefit from anyone with different theology, then yes. But if that were my standard I wouldn't be able to benefit from 90% of the apologetic stuff that I do (i.e. AiG, Creation.com, Dividing Line w/ James White (baptist), Discovery Institute (who knows), Bahnsen (theonomy), Gospel Coalition).

My advice, take what you can from things like AiG, etc., and be discerning. Test it by the Scriptures.
And unless I see some actual evidence to steer me away from any of these things, then I would probably go on using them for what they are worth.


----------



## Dearly Bought

I have some differences with AiG; the lack of Sabbath-keeping and 2nd Commandment violations at the Creation Museum are certainly to be noted. That being said, I don't recognize the criticism being offered above. Please provide evidence of this purported Pelagianism.


----------



## Pergamum

Marcus417 said:


> Since watching the Ken Ham debate a question about Ken Ham and like-minded ministries have popped up in my head. I feel personally that the biggest problem in Evangelical Christianity today is the Pelagianism that is running rampant within it. Michael Horton describes American Christianity as being the "Heirs of Charles Finney" and I believe I saw this on display in the Ham-Nye debate. Christianity has shifted from a reformed view that fallen man is incapable of saving himself and only through the grace of God can a sinner be brought miraculously to salvation to a belief that salvation is simply man's philosophical assent to certain theological positions and choosing to live a moral life.
> 
> If you read through Ham's website the underlying soteriology is that if someone can be convinced of young earth creationism then they will believe in Jesus and they will be saved. It is a simple choice between Creation and Evolution and if we can just present the case for YEC rationally enough then people will believe. This is pelagianism at its finest.
> 
> I see Ken Ham's whole ministry as the antithesis to reformed theology and its underlying message is salvation comes from believing philosophical assertions and behaving morally, which is completely man-centered. I believe this worldview is far more dangerous to the church than the materialism of the New Atheism.
> 
> With Love,
> Marcus



You wrote:



> I see Ken Ham's whole ministry as the antithesis to reformed theology...



Please prove your point. I believe he is doing a great service to the Church.


----------



## MW

When you have a "ministry" that is primarily concerned with "creation" it is obviously going to fail to focus on that message which ought to be characteristic and central to biblical ministry.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo

armourbearer said:


> When you have a "ministry" that is primarily concerned with "creation" it is obviously going to fail to focus on that message which ought to be characteristic and central to biblical ministry.



Matthew beat me to it.

It may be an interesting learning and teaching activity, but I don't see it as a ministry.

I admit to not following the latest Creationist websites, but I do know many who are thrilled with the idea of convincing people of creationism who are not particularly concerned with the far more basic issue: we are sinners facing Judgment and have no hope outside of plain faith in Christ.

One man I know spends all his time "evangelizing" the creationist view, loves to ridicule secular scientists, yet rarely even goes to church. He lives in open sin--yet it almost seems he is hoping that his "work for the kingdom" will somehow save him. That scares me because it reminds me of Jehu in 2 Kings 10:16.

Heb 11:3: Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 

Do we really need empirical "research" to understand this?


----------



## Jash Comstock

Pergamum said:


> Marcus417 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since watching the Ken Ham debate a question about Ken Ham and like-minded ministries have popped up in my head. I feel personally that the biggest problem in Evangelical Christianity today is the Pelagianism that is running rampant within it. Michael Horton describes American Christianity as being the "Heirs of Charles Finney" and I believe I saw this on display in the Ham-Nye debate. Christianity has shifted from a reformed view that fallen man is incapable of saving himself and only through the grace of God can a sinner be brought miraculously to salvation to a belief that salvation is simply man's philosophical assent to certain theological positions and choosing to live a moral life.
> 
> If you read through Ham's website the underlying soteriology is that if someone can be convinced of young earth creationism then they will believe in Jesus and they will be saved. It is a simple choice between Creation and Evolution and if we can just present the case for YEC rationally enough then people will believe. This is pelagianism at its finest.
> 
> I see Ken Ham's whole ministry as the antithesis to reformed theology and its underlying message is salvation comes from believing philosophical assertions and behaving morally, which is completely man-centered. I believe this worldview is far more dangerous to the church than the materialism of the New Atheism.
> 
> With Love,
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see Ken Ham's whole ministry as the antithesis to reformed theology...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please prove your point. I believe he is doing a great service to the Church.
Click to expand...


Ken Ham's ministry isn't only about Creationism. He also has a huge evangelical ministry distributing "how to witness" videos with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. These videos are prominent amongst some fundamentalist dispensationalist independent baptist circles. This is what I meant by "antithetical to reformed theology". His concept of evangelism is the kind of prayer-pulling which does more harm than good. I don't find fault with his Answers in Genesis (though sometimes they also promote a low view of grace) but I do find fault with the dispensational pressure filled evangelism that him and his associates promote.


----------



## Pergamum

Here are two very good books by Ham:

Amazon.com: Already Gone eBook: Todd Hillard, Britt Beemer, Ken Ham: Kindle Store

http://www.amazon.com/Already-Compromised-Ken-Ham-ebook/dp/B004ZL9UVA/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1397013259&sr=8-3&keywords=ken+ham+already+gone

and here is a book about the truth of the bible: Amazon.com: Demolishing Supposed Bible Contradictions Volume 1 eBook: Ken Ham: Kindle Store

For somebody not doing real "ministry" he seems awful diligent in defending the Scriptures.


----------



## Free Christian

Luke 9 v 50.


----------



## ProtestantBankie

It is not a ministry. It is an organisation devoted to the pursuit of science and understanding.

It merely has to arm itself with an apologetic wing


----------



## earl40

ProtestantBankie said:


> It is not a ministry. It is an organisation devoted to the pursuit of science and understanding.
> 
> It merely has to arm itself with an apologetic wing



Still wondering if he called it a bussiness would that be OK with those of us here?


----------



## Marcus417

VictorBravo said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have a "ministry" that is primarily concerned with "creation" it is obviously going to fail to focus on that message which ought to be characteristic and central to biblical ministry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew beat me to it.
> 
> It may be an interesting learning and teaching activity, but I don't see it as a ministry.
> 
> I admit to not following the latest Creationist websites, but I do know many who are thrilled with the idea of convincing people of creationism who are not particularly concerned with the far more basic issue: we are sinners facing Judgment and have no hope outside of plain faith in Christ.
> 
> One man I know spends all his time "evangelizing" the creationist view, loves to ridicule secular scientists, yet rarely even goes to church. He lives in open sin--yet it almost seems he is hoping that his "work for the kingdom" will somehow save him. That scares me because it reminds me of Jehu in 2 Kings 10:16.
> 
> Heb 11:3: Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
> 
> Do we really need empirical "research" to understand this?
Click to expand...


This was what I was getting at put more eloquently then I could I put it. Christ does not seem to be at the center of his ministry at all. 
A general reply to the forum

Its not about his Ham's view on Creation or whether or not AiG's statement of faith is orthodox. I know from growing up back hills Free Will Baptists that you can easily be within the realm of orthodoxy in your statement of faith but far from orthodoxy in your practice. 

We have a bunch of back orders of Ham's creation magazine at the college where I work and his Answers in Genesis books as well. As I read he his feedback section in his his magazine there are several testimonials where people are saying things like "I understood now that evolution is false and am a Christian because of you now." They are very graceless testimonials. If many people's takeaway from Ham is that all you have to do to be a Christian is reject creationism then shouldn't that be cause for concern? 

I would levy the same charges against BioLogos (especially since the Ham-Nye debate) and many Old Earth Websites too. If Christ and Christ crucified is not always at the center of our preaching, apologetic, or any other form of ministry we take up then WE are at the center and it becomes about our glory in winning an argument. 

People have this misinformed view that the "Evolutionists" that Ham is always railing against reject Christianity because of Evolution. I am a chemical engineering student and I have talked to many non-believing science students and once you truly engage them you realize that 90% of the time evolution/creation is never the real reason they give for their unbelief. Most of the time its because they see Christianity as a religion of rules void of grace. The only thing they ever hear about Christianity is Creation/Evolution people yelling about evolution. That is a far cry from preaching what has been received (1 Corinthians 15).


----------



## Scott1

The organization's web site is up front about what they are. They do not claim to be a church, but an apologetics ministry.

Granted, the term "ministry" is overused in our time and we would define it more precisely, but they are not claiming to be something they are not.

And granted, para church must be clear it in no way replaces the church. And there are problems with the way para churches operate.... all that granted.

I appreciate the curriculum they offer home school for the sciences. And for church based study resources. It certainly is needed in the mix of godless, baseless in scientific reason teaching that is taught as "fact." 

In one way, this apologetics ministry plays a supportive role to the church so the church does not have to spend undue time debating in the "scientific" realm. While the church can speak "truth to power," in form of, e.g. Creation to 'evolution' (they are not even agreed what the evolution is from, let alone where it is going), that is an extraordinary role.

Answers in Genesis plays a part in helping keep that role extraordinary. Not a perfect part, but an imperfect, and important one.

And we have no reason to doubt the Christian profession of the brothers who risk their careers and reputations on defending this (essential) aspect of truth. 

Biblical truth.





> Answers in Genesis web site
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/good-news
> 
> Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe)....
> 
> For an elaboration of AiG’s presuppositional thrust check out our Get Answers section—for example, learn how the Bible offers the best explanation of the world’s geology, anthropology, and astronomy. Also, for information on the issues we deal with and which ones we don’t, see Where Do We Draw the Line?
> 
> 
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/mission
> Goal
> 
> To support the church in fulfilling its commission


----------



## Scott1

Reformed theology is not separatist.

There are certainly grounds for separation, but it is also tranformational, in the sense of extending God's Kingdom to the whole order of man. Not that that will be completely attained here, but it is, at least part of a back-and-forth as Christianity advance, recedes, advances upon all the cultures of men. (I'm not arguing this from a postmillennial view because I'm not quite there).

Reformed theology, on the whole is not dominated by culture transformation, but I think it is fair to say it leans that way. Perhaps only slightly, maybe a 51/49% leaning. But when we look at what Mr. Calvin did for Geneva, how can we conclude otherwise? 

Apologetics organizations like this one help in that.


----------



## Scott1

> AIG "Statement of Faith"
> 
> The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.



Reformed theology would state this much better.



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Of Holy Scripture
> 
> ....
> 
> X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]



We might add.... including, of course, the Doctrines of Creator and Creation.


----------



## Sylvanus

VictorBravo said:


> Do we really need empirical "research" to understand this?



For those who like science and research, it's nice to have sites that have done research on things like this. What is the lesson to take from this? "Don't get into science kids, just read Heb 11:3 and let it go"


----------



## VictorBravo

Sylvanus said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we really need empirical "research" to understand this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those who like science and research, it's nice to have sites that have done research on things like this. What is the lesson to take from this? "Don't get into science kids, just read Heb 11:3 and let it go"
Click to expand...


I hope one would not take that as a lesson. For my own part, I am an avid practitioner of empirical research. I used to make my living conducting experiments and running statistical analyses of field plot results. Even now I'm an inveterate record keeper and experimenter. I spend a fair amount of my spare time reading physics, chemistry, and astronomy journals. God gave us minds and senses to measure and categorize his Creation, which, from the proper perspective, glorifies him. Indeed, one of the first tasks of unfallen Adam was to develop a taxonomy of creation.

My only point is that we should not base our faith on empirical observation, nor should we try to convince others through empiricism to come to faith. I've been around long enough to know that one's "solid scientific study" can become a relic of foolishness in light of further empirical studies.


----------



## Sylvanus

VictorBravo said:


> My only point is that we should not base our faith on empirical observation, nor should we try to convince others through empiricism to come to faith. I've been around long enough to know that one's "solid scientific study" can become a relic of foolishness in light of further empirical studies.



I agree. Thanks.


----------



## AThornquist

Jash Comstock said:


> I'm glad to see he stands for inerrancy and conservatism, but *his wildly off base theology* poses a problem for me, and personally I would find my material from other sources



lol. Agree or disagree with the man, but claiming he has "wildly off base theology" is a little silly. There is as much difference among PB members as there is with many of us and Ken Ham. 

I count the man a blessing for giving his life to promote God's Word and the Gospel. Sadly, I think some Christians would be happier if he was locked in a seminary library and spent the rest of his life learning a more precise Reformed Theology than to continue his "imperfect" outreach to strengthen the Church and reach the world.


----------



## Free Christian

With the never ending onslaught in media and the likes ramming evolution down peoples throats, from documentaries to kids programs even signs in national parks saying how many millions of years the feature before you took to form, its nice to know some out there are batting for creation and presenting to those who would otherwise not be any the wiser that there is an option, creation by an Intelligent God.


----------



## Sensus Divinitas

Jash Comstock said:


> Ken Ham's ministry isn't only about Creationism. He also has a huge evangelical ministry distributing "how to witness" videos with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. These videos are prominent amongst some fundamentalist dispensationalist independent baptist circles. This is what I meant by "antithetical to reformed theology". His concept of evangelism is the kind of prayer-pulling which does more harm than good. I don't find fault with his Answers in Genesis (though sometimes they also promote a low view of grace) but I do find fault with the dispensational pressure filled evangelism that him and his associates promote.



I'm fairly familiar with the evangelism methodologies employed by people like Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. While there may be plenty to disagree with concerning their theology or evangelistic methodologies, I don't think characterizing it as "prayer-pulling" is accurate. In fact, if you actually listen to them their methodology is fairly simple: give the law followed by the gospel. They don't (at least as I've observed) tell people to "accept Jesus into your heart" or anything similar.


----------



## Steve Curtis




----------



## Eoghan

One of the problems is defining words. When a liberal says they believe in God do they necessarily mean a Creator God? When contemplating who God is one of the first things I would say is Creator. To that extent Ken Ham is asserting the Biblical definition of God which is lacking. He is also willing to tackle the heresy of evolution. With one or two caveats I support him.


----------



## Miss Marple

I am exceedingly grateful for Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis and think they are very worthy of support. A winsome man who has worked tirelessly to defend the truth of God's Word in a specific area that was sorely needed.


----------



## MW

Obviously "doing some good" is better than doing no good and much better than doing evil, but it is not the criterion by which "ministry" is to be approved and supported. Bring Scriptural qualifications to bear on these so-called "ministries" and they are obviously found wanting. They should not be called "ministries" and they certainly should not claim your support and take away precious resources from the true church as she seeks to fulfil the great commission.

If one decides to patronise them as commercial enterprises, that is somewhat different.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

I think they do awesome work. I was blessed by the conference they did in Houston recently. Dr. Lisle spoke at my church twice that week:

Science Confirms Creationism | SermonAudio.com

The Ultimate Proof for Creation | SermonAudio.com

He brought some real insight. He like a Bahnsen that knows science. He was skilled in science, philosophy and the Bible. It was an excellent combination that many don't have. I was impressed with how well he understood presuppositional apologetics. Their ministry is especially helpful in talking with people who come from a naturalistic worldview. Additionally, as a homeschool father I found many great resources to use with my kids. Since naturalistic atheism is the main worldview I run into on campuses, it's helpful to have someone who is working to dismantle the core of the belief, which is the big bang and evolution.


----------



## Worddoer

I could not disagree more. You need to provide some very specific reasons for your assertions. I wonder if you have given enough consideration to the seriousness of division within the body. I believe in standing for the truth and am entirely supportive of separation when it is appropriate. However, separation is a serious matter and deserves the most serious of consideration before we act on it. Unbiblical separation, after all, is no less sinful than Pelagianism. Finally, it is highly inappropriate to mention Ken Ham and Pelagianism in the same critique. Anyone familiar with Ham's ministry knows better.


----------



## Jash Comstock

I realize that I expressed some unhelpful sentiments and I would like to apologize for that. I let my previous experience with some circles semi-affiliated with Ken Ham (I.e. strong proponents of his programs) to discolor my opinion. I also expressed some unverified statements. I feel the need to apologize for the way I answered the OP's question, and my subsequent comments as well.


----------



## Edward

Worddoer said:


> I could not disagree more. You need to provide some very specific reasons for your assertions.



It might be more useful if you identified who or with what you are disagreeing. the references to Pelagianism suggest you are interacting with the original post. But clarity could be helpful.


----------



## arapahoepark

Worddoer said:


> I could not disagree more. You need to provide some very specific reasons for your assertions. I wonder if you have given enough consideration to the seriousness of division within the body. I believe in standing for the truth and am entirely supportive of separation when it is appropriate. However, separation is a serious matter and deserves the most serious of consideration before we act on it. Unbiblical separation, after all, is no less sinful than Pelagianism. Finally, it is highly inappropriate to mention Ken Ham and Pelagianism in the same critique. Anyone familiar with Ham's ministry knows better.


I have to ask, which response are you disagreeing woth?


----------



## augustacarguy

Worddoer said:


> I could not disagree more. You need to provide some very specific reasons for your assertions. I wonder if you have given enough consideration to the seriousness of division within the body. I believe in standing for the truth and am entirely supportive of separation when it is appropriate. However, separation is a serious matter and deserves the most serious of consideration before we act on it. Unbiblical separation, after all, is no less sinful than Pelagianism. Finally, it is highly inappropriate to mention Ken Ham and Pelagianism in the same critique. Anyone familiar with Ham's ministry knows better.



I agree!


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

I think we have all learned here that we must use caution when utilizing the label "ministry," as ministry is a function of the Church.

We have also observed that caution ought to be exercised with “support” of organizations not under the authority of a church body, especially our own, such that it does not undermine the support we are to give to our own churches. We must remember that we should not develop a “moral obligation” to support them, as this would be binding our conscience to something scripture does not bind our conscience to do, which would be idolatry. This is not to say one cannot take joy in supporting an organization outside of the Church at all. It is a matter of knowing and honoring our priorities in stewardship.

For those that do support AIG, either financially, by patronage, or verbally, they certainly should consider the duty of warning others of the 4th and 2nd commandment violations by AIG. It may also be wise to vocalize the concern to the leadership of AIG. 

That being said, I find AIG to be a refreshing relief from many other “creation science” institutions that do not guard up against foolish, unbalanced, rash, knee-jerk, unscientific approaches passed off as fact.

The question arises, when a group of scientists/experts organize under an institution not under the authority of the Church, for the purpose of combating prevalent unscriptural teaching that attempts to undermine Christianity in the culture: 
1)	of what capacity “may” we support them, 
2)	of what obligations and responsibilities do we take on “if” we decide to support them, 
3)	what is the relationship between the organization and the Church local/abroad, 
4)	of what language do we use to speak of the organization so as not to confuse others as to their authority and position.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

It may also supprise some that my oldest son acquired and read a copy of M'Cries Life of John Knox from AIG. They also have some banner of truth as well as other reformed publications that many who patronize them may never have been exposed to.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Very well said, Ben.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

When I was there the last time at the Creation Museum the bookstore had a myriad of "Creation" centered books, DVD's, etc... but the only shelf devoted to what I would term "doctrinal" books was almost exclusively Banner of Truth titles. I purchased a book by J.C. Ryle there.


----------



## whirlingmerc

My understanding is that Ken Ham is somewhat reformed in personal views and My understanding is that AIG is a presupposition apologetic ministry, a position defended by Jason Lisle (when he was there)

Some of the people associated with it go to arminean, not pelagian churches like Nazarene but they work together but I do not hear heavy arminianism or pelagianism when I listen to their material


----------



## whirlingmerc

I would like it better if AIG's 7 C's of history phrase and song 
creation, corruption, catastrophe, confusion Christ and the cross inserted covenants generously somehow, skipping from babble to Christ seems to need some rethinking


----------



## whirlingmerc

I do have a problem with the death before the fall view which many old earth reformed people take.... seems problematic


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

"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. 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. Even though it is not a salvation issue, the belief that earth history spans millions of years has very severe consequences."


_The New Answers Book 4_, Ken Ham, General Ediror, (2013-09-05). Master Books.


----------



## MW

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Even though it is not a salvation issue, the belief that earth history spans millions of years has very severe consequences."



Although it is disclaimed as a salvation issue, if one probes further it will eventually come out that one's interpretation of Genesis will have an ill effect on how one understands the whole Bible, including the doctrine of salvation.

Creation science is not presuppositionalism; it is evidentialism with a bias.


----------



## whirlingmerc

armourbearer said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though it is not a salvation issue, the belief that earth history spans millions of years has very severe consequences."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although it is disclaimed as a salvation issue, if one probes further it will eventually come out that one's interpretation of Genesis will have an ill effect on how one understands the whole Bible, including the doctrine of salvation.
> 
> Creation science is not presuppositionalism; it is evidentialism with a bias.
Click to expand...



Well... no... a creationist can be either. A presuppositional apologetic can argue from consistency to invalidate world views and use evidence to that end. I think Doug Wison describes presuppositional apologetic like driving a demolition derby and being the last car standing

Saying something is not a salvation issue might be more correctly stated as it might not be a salvation issue. John Gerstner says if disbelieves something because ultimately one disbelieves the word of God, that's a serious problem. so.... it depends.... people have various positions for various reasons.... one might disagree over an honest different in their best understanding of how to interpret a passage without it necessarily being a salvation issue


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

whirlingmerc said:


> one might disagree over an honest different in their best understanding of how to interpret a passage without it necessarily being a salvation issue



But in this instance, we are not talking about a particular passage, but an interpretation that has direct bearing on if one believes Adam to be a literal or figurative person, the garden of eden to be a real place in history/space/time on earth, a talking serpent, the origin of man etc; which all hit original sin, the covenant of works, federal headship of adam, etc.


----------



## MW

whirlingmerc said:


> Well... no... a creationist can be either.



A creationist must be a presuppositionalist (Heb. 11:3), but a creation scientist is bound to give inductive evidence for his belief in creation and is therefore evidentialist at heart. When he insists that his inductive science must be right because it is based on the facts of special revelation he is only introducing bias into his scientific approach.



whirlingmerc said:


> A presuppositional apologetic can argue from consistency to invalidate world views and use evidence to that end.



When a creation scientist uses "presuppositional" arguments he is manufacturing evidence to arrive at a preconceived conclusion. That is not invalidating a worldview; it is distorting facts.


----------



## ZackF

armourbearer said:


> whirlingmerc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well... no... a creationist can be either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A creationist must be a presuppositionalist (Heb. 11:3), but a creation scientist is bound to give inductive evidence for his belief in creation and is therefore evidentialist at heart. When he insists that his inductive science must be right because it is based on the facts of special revelation he is only introducing bias into his scientific approach.
> 
> 
> 
> whirlingmerc said:
> 
> 
> 
> A presuppositional apologetic can argue from consistency to invalidate world views and use evidence to that end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a creation scientist uses "presuppositional" arguments he is manufacturing evidence to arrive at a preconceived conclusion. That is not invalidating a worldview; it is distorting facts.
Click to expand...


There are those on this list that have revisited and changed their evolutionary/"old earth" positions based on a literal Biblical chronology and not from natural evidence. Many also attribute these changes in belief to ongoing sanctification and faith in God's word. Do you not believe the natural world produces corroborating evidence?


----------



## MW

KS_Presby said:


> There are those on this list that have revisited and changed their evolutionary/"old earth" positions based on a literal Biblical chronology and not from natural evidence. Many also attribute these changes in belief to ongoing sanctification and faith in God's word. Do you not believe the natural world produces corroborating evidence?



It is good to see folk believing the truth for the truth's sake. But let's be honest about why we believe creation and why we view the world the way we do. Inventing a new science to function in the same way that old science functions in an unbelieving worldview is not the way to go. If evidence corroborates creation, that is to be accepted. At the same time, if evidence conflicts with creation, that is to be accepted too.


----------



## ZackF

armourbearer said:


> KS_Presby said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are those on this list that have revisited and changed their evolutionary/"old earth" positions based on a literal Biblical chronology and not from natural evidence. Many also attribute these changes in belief to ongoing sanctification and faith in God's word. Do you not believe the natural world produces corroborating evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to see folk believing the truth for the truth's sake. But let's be honest about why we believe creation and why we view the world the way we do. Inventing a new science to function in the same way that old science functions in an unbelieving worldview is not the way to go. If evidence corroborates creation, that is to be accepted. At the same time, if evidence conflicts with creation, that is to be accepted too.
Click to expand...



As a man who has struggled with this subject for nearly two decades, your position is the most intriguing I've read. Do you have any particular posts or other links I could read that explain your position in more depth?

With Much Appreciation,


----------



## VictorBravo

armourbearer said:


> It is good to see folk believing the truth for the truth's sake. But let's be honest about why we believe creation and why we view the world the way we do. Inventing a new science to function in the same way that old science functions in an unbelieving worldview is not the way to go. If evidence corroborates creation, that is to be accepted. At the same time, if evidence conflicts with creation, that is to be accepted too.



I've come to a similar conclusion a number of years ago, but I might have a twist on it.

I think it is perfectly legitimate to be a scientist and be a believer in God's creation account. And I draw that conclusion directly from Genesis itself. One of Adam's first tasks was to observe Creation and develop a taxonomy. He was called to observe and distinguish the animals. Implicitly, he was required to develop a taxonomy of plants, too. He was doing what a true scientist ought to do.

The twist is this: in our role as observers and learners of God's Creation, we are obligated to take it as we see it, and yet, through faith, we are to always understand how the world came about (Hebrews 11:3 again).

So the upshot is our scientific endeavors can be applied to what we observe now and may be used to develop empirically derived predictions of physical behavior based upon what we observe to be consistent, but we cannot take present observations back to develop conclusions about the distant past, any more than Adam could look at his surroundings and try to develop a physical model for how it all came to be.

That's where I think Creation Science goes astray--it is trying to force a view of current observations back in time, and this is solely based upon a preconceived notion. That is not being a scientist, and that isn't what Adam was doing either.


----------



## itsreed

Victor, do you believe Evolution Science similarly goes astray?

"trying to force a view of current observations back in time, and this is solely based upon a preconceived notion. That is not being a scientist, and that isn't what Adam was doing either."


----------



## VictorBravo

itsreed said:


> Victor, do you believe Evolution Science similarly goes astray?



Sure. And on its own terms, as well. 

Look at how they apply teleology. "There is no purpose..." Yet the evolutionary scientist will often assume an evolutionary "purpose" and force it onto his investigations.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

*After Eden - Answers in Genesis

Just sayin' *


----------



## MW

KS_Presby said:


> Do you have any particular posts or other links I could read that explain your position in more depth?



There have been a few threads on this. Some which come to mind are General Revelation interpreting Special, Geocentricity, and Science as an Human Construct.


----------



## MW

VictorBravo said:


> So the upshot is our scientific endeavors can be applied to what we observe now and may be used to develop empirically derived predictions of physical behavior based upon what we observe to be consistent, but we cannot take present observations back to develop conclusions about the distant past, any more than Adam could look at his surroundings and try to develop a physical model for how it all came to be.



Exactly. Anyone who accepts the classic distinction between creation and providence should have no difficulty with this.


----------



## ZackF

armourbearer said:


> KS_Presby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any particular posts or other links I could read that explain your position in more depth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been a few threads on this. Some which come to mind are General Revelation interpreting Special, Geocentricity, and Science as an Human Construct.
Click to expand...



Thank you!


----------



## Free Christian

I like that there are scientists out there teaching along with their work, creation. Before I became Christian I believed in God, sort of, but also in evolution. When I became Christian I knew that the evolution story must be wrong and so rejected it. But my rejection was a bit wacko. I believed the fossils were false and all made up, that scientists were being lead by Satan to make these fossils up to deceive people into following evolution. Many others think this way too. How else could I explain their existence in rock layers? (not a question here just a comment) But as years went by I read about others who had the actual answers, many who were well renowned doctors, scientists, biologists and so on. Who were also Christian. I now had, along with the actual witness of the true Gospel of Christ, a not at all wacko explanation to fossil records and so called evolution. Before I had the true Gospel but had no decent come back to the often asked questions with the old age earth, fossil records and ape men. I have noticed less of the laugh you off effect when you are able to answer those who ask evolution questions like "well how do you explain ape men fossils?" and so on. 
I do agree that the Gospel is the ONLY means by which a man is saved and that teaching creation is not on its own.
Its God who calls and saves, not science, creation teaching or anything else. Does me now having some decent come backs now mean the difference between someone hearing me speak of Jesus in being lost or saved? Ultimately no.
But we are to sow. Why, if it is only God who calls and saves? Because we are told to.
What seeds? The seeds of the Gospel, but is there other ways we can sow? Some we may never know the end effects of? I think yes.
Sometimes just the person knowing we are a Christian and by our life witness in situations, some by speaking the Word, some by a person going to a church for a funeral and hearing the Minister, some by a Bible left in a hotel room or hospital ward, along with countless other ways.
And some by hearing of a wonderful Creator Who through/by His only Begotten Son Created the world we live in with in some cases some explanations for some of those wonderful things we see today.


----------



## Afterthought

VictorBravo said:


> So the upshot is our scientific endeavors can be applied to what we observe now and may be used to develop empirically derived predictions of physical behavior based upon what we observe to be consistent, but we cannot take present observations back to develop conclusions about the distant past, any more than Adam could look at his surroundings and try to develop a physical model for how it all came to be.


Would you distinguish this from the distinction between "historical/origins" science and "operations" science that creation scientists like to use? If so, how?



armourbearer said:


> There have been a few threads on this. Some which come to mind are General Revelation interpreting Special, Geocentricity, and Science as an Human Construct.


And, alas! That last one locked before I was done. There may be a fourth thread upcoming.




armourbearer said:


> A creationist must be a presuppositionalist (Heb. 11:3), but a creation scientist is bound to give inductive evidence for his belief in creation and is therefore evidentialist at heart. When he insists that his inductive science must be right because it is based on the facts of special revelation he is only introducing bias into his scientific approach.


The creation scientist might say in response something like (1) They are following Van Til: the facts of "origins" science are being interpreted in the way God has interpreted them already (i.e., special revelation is being used to interpret these facts). (2) "Origins" science is speculative anyway, so we have no other choice than to use our own ideas or to use God's ideas written in Scripture. (3) Non-Christians share with us facts that science seeks to explain. But we Christians have additional facts we are willing to use in our scientific endeavors: those of special revelation. Wouldn't we make more progress in science and be more likely to explain the facts in the correct and true manner by using all this extra information that we have at our disposal than we would if we merely stuck with the facts outside of special revelation to explain scientific facts?



armourbearer said:


> When a creation scientist uses "presuppositional" arguments he is manufacturing evidence to arrive at a preconceived conclusion. That is not invalidating a worldview; it is distorting facts.


Could you explain a little more how this is so? As I mentioned under (1) above, the creation scientist might admit that the facts are deliberately being interpreted within the framework of Scripture and say that there is no problem with this because we are interpreting facts according to and within God's interpretation of them (hence they would say they are being presuppositional in their arguments). They might also add that (4) all facts and evidence must be interpreted in a framework; of themselves the facts and evidence don't lead anywhere; so Christians should use the Scriptures to interpret them.


----------



## au5t1n

Afterthought said:


> And, alas! That last one locked before I was done. There may be a fourth thread upcoming.



Sweet! 



Afterthought said:


> (3) Non-Christians share with us facts that science seeks to explain. But we Christians have additional facts we are willing to use in our scientific endeavors: those of special revelation. Wouldn't we make more progress in science and be more likely to explain the facts in the correct and true manner by using all this extra information that we have at our disposal than we would if we merely stuck with the facts outside of special revelation to explain scientific facts?



This puts into words a lingering confusion I've always had when these discussions come up, but which I haven't known how to put into words.


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> Wouldn't we make more progress in science and be more likely to explain the facts in the correct and true manner by using all this extra information that we have at our disposal than we would if we merely stuck with the facts outside of special revelation to explain scientific facts?



One of the first qualifications on the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture is that it is limited to God's glory, man's salvation, faith and life (WCF 1.6). It does not extend to scientific principles, methods, and facts. The scientist who turns to Scripture for these is essentially putting them into Scripture before he takes them out. He is merely using the Scripture to dye his preconceived ideas with a colour of divinity.



Afterthought said:


> Could you explain a little more how this is so?



Presuppositonalism applies to that which is necessary as a precondition for belief in certain kinds of facts. The facts themselves cannot be turned into a system of belief that is accepted as a presupposition. The self-attesting God of Scripture is a necessary presupposition. This requires us to begin with Scriptural authority; it does not predetermine a certain doctrine is true because it is presupposed to be taught in Scripture. One must still undertake the process of interpreting Scripture.

If he is a scientist let him hypothesise, develop his ideas, bring them to the test, draw his conclusions, and be open to to have them falsified. But if he is a creationist let him stand on the unchanging truth of creation as a fact of special revelation which can never be contradicted. He should not use the facts of revelation to invest his science with the quality of divine, absolute, unchanging truth.


----------



## MW

au5t1n said:


> a fact like, "There was a worldwide flood," or even, "The earth is at rest."



These are derived from the interpretation of Scripture. Scripture itself says nothing about how this might be established on empirical grounds. Hence it is irrelevant to appeal to Scripture as teaching these in support of an empirical investigation. It is merely assumed that a worldwide flood must have left some "trace" of its effect in geological terms, and then when some resemblance to this is found it is merely assumed that this is the "trace" which establishes the wordwide flood actually happened. This is not science, and it is no wonder men of common sense take it less than seriously.


----------



## au5t1n

armourbearer said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fact like, "There was a worldwide flood," or even, "The earth is at rest."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are derived from the interpretation of Scripture. Scripture itself says nothing about how this might be established on empirical grounds. Hence it is irrelevant to appeal to Scripture as teaching these in support of an empirical investigation. It is merely assumed that a worldwide flood must have left some "trace" of its effect in geological terms, and then when some resemblance to this is found it is merely assumed that this is the "trace" which establishes the wordwide flood actually happened. This is not science, and it is no wonder men of common sense take it less than seriously.
Click to expand...


I want to apologize because before I saw your response, I deleted the post you quoted here - a bad habit of mine which I am trying to get rid of, though obviously less than successfully just now. After re-reading my post and thinking about things some more, I realized I could answer my own question by carefully distinguishing things that differ, and thus didn't really need to ask you to spend more time answering. Sorry about that. Nevertheless, your response is helpful, so thank you.


----------



## MW

No problem, Austin. I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify.


----------



## Afterthought

Thank you, Mr. Winzer. That is very helpful. And thank you, Austin for asking your own question. I have two further questions.



armourbearer said:


> One of the first qualifications on the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture is that it is limited to God's glory, man's salvation, faith and life (WCF 1.6). It does not extend to scientific principles, methods, and facts. The scientist who turns to Scripture for these is essentially putting them into Scripture before he takes them out. He is merely using the Scripture to dye his preconceived ideas with a colour of divinity.


It seems you are separating "scientific fact" from "truth that corresponds to reality"? When the Scriptures speak on an area that intersects with science, then the facts the Scriptures speak to are things we ought to believe. So either there are scientific facts in the Scriptures, or scientific facts do not have the quality of truth? (Unless you merely distinguish between facts that are absolutely true, and facts that are probably true? But probable truth is where we're left with induction of any sort, and the Scriptures do say some things about facts we could have learned by induction.)



armourbearer said:


> These are derived from the interpretation of Scripture. Scripture itself says nothing about how this might be established on empirical grounds. Hence it is irrelevant to appeal to Scripture as teaching these in support of an empirical investigation. It is merely assumed that a worldwide flood must have left some "trace" of its effect in geological terms, and then when some resemblance to this is found it is merely assumed that this is the "trace" which establishes the wordwide flood actually happened. This is not science, and it is no wonder men of common sense take it less than seriously.


Would you say that some miracles and things spoken of in Scripture that affect the physical world might not necessarily leave a "trace" of their effect? Or simply that although a "trace" might necessarily be left, the Scriptures do not give enough information on what kind of "trace" might be left, and so there is no necessity that the "trace" might be understood, found, or confirmed according to the frameworks of our sciences?


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> It seems you are separating "scientific fact" from "truth that corresponds to reality"? When the Scriptures speak on an area that intersects with science, then the facts the Scriptures speak to are things we ought to believe. So either there are scientific facts in the Scriptures, or scientific facts do not have the quality of truth? (Unless you merely distinguish between facts that are absolutely true, and facts that are probably true? But probable truth is where we're left with induction of any sort, and the Scriptures do say some things about facts we could have learned by induction.)



A scientific fact is a fact of science; it corresponds with the way science verifies its facts. It verifies its facts empirically. It does not verify its facts by an intuitive appeal to an infallible book of scientific record.

There are facts recorded in Scripture which have not been derived by a scientific process but are divinely revealed as facts which are beyond the mind of man to find out. Creation is one of them. It is not a scientific fact because it has not been derived through the scientific process. There is no way of empirically verifying it.



Afterthought said:


> Would you say that some miracles and things spoken of in Scripture that affect the physical world might not necessarily leave a "trace" of their effect? Or simply that although a "trace" might necessarily be left, the Scriptures do not give enough information on what kind of "trace" might be left, and so there is no necessity that the "trace" might be understood, found, or confirmed according to the frameworks of our sciences?



I don't believe the investigation of "traces" is legitimate. The events recorded in Scripture are recorded for the benefit of faith, not to satisfy intellectual curiosity. The moment we begin with the intellectual curiosity we have lost the point of why these things happened and were recorded for us.


----------



## au5t1n

Here's a question that's occurred to me while thinking about this conversation this morning. I think we all acknowledge that the heavenly bodies we observe are the same God created on day four. How is identifying something we observe with something described in the creation account substantially different than seeing historical "traces"? It seems that if we completely decouple biblical accounts from the world we observe, we'll end up unable even to identify the remnants of the temple as the same building Jesus walked in, or even the heavenly bodies as those God created. How are those examples different than traces of a global flood, other than being much easier to identify with certainty? 

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW

au5t1n said:


> How are those examples different than traces of a global flood, other than being much easier to identify with certainty?



I think you may have answered your own question. We identify these things because they are taught with clarity and certainty. The Scripture obviously intended to speak of them. There is no attempt to enforce on the Scripture a theory the Scripture never intended to teach.


----------



## au5t1n

armourbearer said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are those examples different than traces of a global flood, other than being much easier to identify with certainty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you may have answered your own question. We identify these things because they are taught with clarity and certainty. The Scripture obviously intended to speak of them. There is no attempt to enforce on the Scripture a theory the Scripture never intended to teach.
Click to expand...


That makes sense and has cleared a lot of things up for me.


----------



## Afterthought

This has been quite helpful.



armourbearer said:


> There are facts recorded in Scripture which have not been derived by a scientific process but are divinely revealed as facts which are beyond the mind of man to find out. Creation is one of them. It is not a scientific fact because it has not been derived through the scientific process. There is no way of empirically verifying it.


But of course, there are facts recorded in scripture that can be derived by a scientific process, right? .....Like geocentrism? Or that the sky can be red?



armourbearer said:


> I think you may have answered your own question. We identify these things because they are taught with clarity and certainty. The Scripture obviously intended to speak of them. There is no attempt to enforce on the Scripture a theory the Scripture never intended to teach.


Is the main concern with mixing Scripture with science a matter of what Scripture teaches on with clarity? So if it did teach about Noah's Flood leaving traces with clarity and certainty (and also intended to speak of these traces?), would these be facts empirical science would have to take into consideration in order to interpret Creation through the lens of Scripture? Or, like geocentrism, would science still be allowed to go along its own way and still be considered as interpreting Creation by the framework of Scripture?


----------



## DMcFadden

Reading through the various comments, many of them extremely erudite, leaves me wondering how many of the critics have actually read much of Ham's stuff or spent significant time on the AiG website. There is a pervasive tendentiousness to much of the critique that rings extremely hollow to me.

Ham is probably not qualified to become a member of the PB; nor would he claim to be a Westminster confessionalist. The bookstore in his Creation Museum does push Pilgrim's Progress and a variety of books by Puritan authors and orthodox writers such as Spurgeon. Ham has rejected evidential apologetics in favor of presuppositional apologetics and does not try to build his case upon what so many "creation" organizations have seen as their stock in trade. When I toured the place a few years ago, one of their top speakers told me that the core staff members were all reading Reformed presuppositional authors. And, while I do not consider AiG a "church" or anything like it, it serves the Christian community well, in my opinion. Christian publishing houses are not churches either, but the orthodox ones do some very good work serving us.

Ham's central point seems to be that Genesis contains the seedplot for most of the doctrine found in the Bible. If we compromise away the truth of it, there will be nothing left when we get to the NT. Yet, when faced with a Bible that teaches one thing and prevailing science that teaches another, people will attempt to find harmony somehow. Generally, they have been willing to modify, temporize, and relativize the Bible in the face of "science." During my college years, professors (none of them creationists) attempted to explain that you could be a theistic evolutionist as long as you maintained belief in an historical Adam and Eve. Now, more "honest" (or at least more consistent) scholars such as Enns are arguing against the need for a historical Adam on the sensible enough grounds that theistic evolutionary presuppositions neither require nor easily allow for Adam. Ham sensed this direction before people like Enns or Biologos put it into print and has devoted his life to warning Christians against making peace with science on the basis of conceding Christian truth.

Most of Ham's own stuff has more to do with presuppositions and the perspectival way in which everyone comes to a body of "facts." Facts are neither bare nor self-attesting. The framework in which we locate them and the narrative we create using them, speaks loudly about our own presuppositions. He mainly focuses on the fact that if you employ atheistic presuppositions, you will interpret facts in an atheistic manner. If you begin with the self revelation of God in the Bible, you will approach the same facts and reach a different conclusion.

He has shown repeatedly that the narratives of the evolutionists are neither neat nor tidy. They contain myriads of self-refuting contrary "facts" that do not support the evolutionary conclusions. Helium diffusion, for instance, mitigates against anything longer than 100,000, it does not comport well with billions of years of history. Yet, zircon crystals have such unexplained Helium contrary to the radiodating methods that would make them ancient indeed. Radioactive C-14 in "ancient" diamonds proves problematic due to the extremely short half life of 5,730 years for the element. These are treated in an exemplary manner by Ham, they are not his mainstay. He uses these examples to demonstrate how assumptions hostile to God can be so strong that the proponents dismiss that which does not fit their interpretations.

Ham devotes most of his time to arguing that the self-revelation of God in the Bible is reasonable and reliable and that the alternatives are self-refuting. He argues that if you tell people that the Bible says A, then they go to college and hear that the truth is Non A, the bright ones will leave the faith entirely. And, if you concede that the Bible isn't really to be believed or taken seriously on its own terms, but science is, you will set people up for a great falling away. 

Is this "reformed?" No, he is not setting himself up as an exemplar of being anything other than an apologetics outreach majoring in science issues for the broad evangelical community. But, as one who has been asked to speak as a guest lecturer to several high school classes on issues of science and faith tomorrow, I am extremely grateful for Ken Ham.


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> Is this "reformed?" No.



Then why would Reformed Christians support it? It is not reformed apologetics; it is not reformed ministry; it simply is not reformed.


----------



## DMcFadden

Why make use of AiG stuff? Probably for the same reason that many reformed people read and cite C.S. Lewis: he is helpful on a number of important points.


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> Why make use of AiG stuff? Probably for the same reason that many reformed people read and cite C.S. Lewis: he is helpful on a number of important points.



I wouldn't have thought "reading and citing" constitutes "supporting a ministry."


----------



## Afterthought

Mr. Winzer, do you have any responses to my post?


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> But of course, there are facts recorded in scripture that can be derived by a scientific process, right? .....Like geocentrism? Or that the sky can be red?



Raymond, I think we have already established that they are "derived" by different criteria and are "facts" of a different order because of the inductive approach and the openness to being overturned.



Afterthought said:


> Is the main concern with mixing Scripture with science a matter of what Scripture teaches on with clarity?



Mostly. We begin with the divine authority of Scripture, the certainty of the truths it embodies, and the vitality of those truths for salvation and eternal life. With all due respect to the sciences, they pale into insignificance in comparison. The study of Scripture undoubtedly draws on these sciences at a variety of points but it is always as handmaids that they are employed. Such handmids should be kept in their place serving at the queen's table, and not exalted to sit and dine with her.


----------



## Pilgrim Pastor

Dearly Bought said:


> I have some differences with AiG; the lack of Sabbath-keeping and 2nd Commandment violations at the Creation Museum are certainly to be noted. That being said, I don't recognize the criticism being offered above. Please provide evidence of this purported Pelagianism.



How does AiG break the Second Commandment?


----------



## DMcFadden

armourbearer said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why make use of AiG stuff? Probably for the same reason that many reformed people read and cite C.S. Lewis: he is helpful on a number of important points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't have thought "reading and citing" constitutes "supporting a ministry."
Click to expand...


Sorry for the lack of clarity. For me "reading and citing" is what I mean when I ask "Why make use of AiG stuff?" When I read and cite something it is the same to me as "making use of" it.


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford

Ken Ham has been an encouragement to the church to recognize the importance of the Genesis record as basic to the Christian faith. I have benefited from the material at Answers in Genesis. Sadly, Ham also permits the use of false pictures of Christ that are promoted by his organization. Such pictures undermine the Christian faith.

Westminster Larger Catechism:

"Question 109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment? Answer: [...] the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature: Whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; [...]"


----------



## Steve Curtis

armourbearer said:


> I wouldn't have thought "reading and citing" constitutes "supporting a ministry."


It certainly could, if the ministry is supported through the sale of resources (as AiG is). I'm not sure how Lewis' estate is constituted, but if you are buying the book you are "reading and citing," you are supporting (or at least funding) something/body. In this way, I have certainly "supported" AiG and will likely continue to do so.


----------



## Scott1

Mr. Ham plays a valuable and important role in Christian apologetics, boldly going where many of us are afraid to go. Though imperfect (I was not aware the Creation museum is open on Sunday, for example), he is being attacked not because of his organization's sundry Ten Commandment violations, but because he stands for the biblical Creation account of the Book of Genesis. From which, many of our foundational principles as Christians flow.

My suggestion is, while approaching Mr. Ham privately, as a brother, about an area he, like many, need to grow in, e.g. the Sabbath, also encourage this brother as he is trying to withstand the onslaught of the enemy, disguised as the wisdom of this world (I Cor. 3:19).

We ought all be thankful for his public stance in that regard.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

I own and have read all of Mr. Ham's Answer Books and other materials. I also regularly review and use content at his organization's web site, finding the content to be well done and informative. I also subscribe to the quarterly magazine. As noted, there are some issues with his walk of faith, e.g., sabbath violations and second commandment violations, both regrettable. Like us all, he is a work in progress and we should pray he come to a greater understanding of these issues. I have contacted the organization with a request to Mr. Ham that he consider these issues. To date, no response received.


----------



## MW

kainos01 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't have thought "reading and citing" constitutes "supporting a ministry."
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly could, if the ministry is supported through the sale of resources (as AiG is). I'm not sure how Lewis' estate is constituted, but if you are buying the book you are "reading and citing," you are supporting (or at least funding) something/body. In this way, I have certainly "supported" AiG and will likely continue to do so.
Click to expand...


That would be regarded as patronising a commercial enterprise not supporting a ministry.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> Raymond, I think we have already established that they are "derived" by different criteria and are "facts" of a different order because of the inductive approach and the openness to being overturned.


I was thinking along the lines that some truths can be established both by Scripture and by reason. So some truths might be established both by Scripture and science? But I think I may be getting what you are saying. Even the facts of Scripture that intersect with empirical science are not revealed for the purpose of science but for other matters, and those facts are revealed as infallible truths rather than uncertain facts resulting from an inductive method. (This differs from natural revelation because natural revelation is still "revelation.") Or, as you put it, they are "facts" of a different order.

However, isn't all truth God's truth? That is, though they may be facts of a different order, the facts the Scriptures reveal have the quality of truth, and this quality does not vary whether the fact is found in Scripture or derived from science or pure reason. Related to this question: If scientific facts do not have a quality of truth, what quality do they have? Provisional truth? Not truth, but merely useful models, i.e., an instrumentalist view of science rather than realist? And another related to it: Does evidence for a position guarantee its truth, or probable truth? (I seem to recall a note by Van Asselt in his _Reformed thought on Freedom_ mentioning something about Protestants rejecting the belief that evidence for a position means the position is true, or probably true--I don't recall which exactly--because certainty of knowledge is distinct from knowledge itself)

This is sometimes a point brought up by Creation scientists to support their view of mixing Scripture and science, but I think beyond this point, I may be veering off topic, so I'll hear your response and leave the discussion here for this thread.


----------



## ZackF

armourbearer said:


> kainos01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't have thought "reading and citing" constitutes "supporting a ministry."
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly could, if the ministry is supported through the sale of resources (as AiG is). I'm not sure how Lewis' estate is constituted, but if you are buying the book you are "reading and citing," you are supporting (or at least funding) something/body. In this way, I have certainly "supported" AiG and will likely continue to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be regarded as patronising a commercial enterprise not supporting a ministry.
Click to expand...


Exactly as it most often necessary to purchase a copy of a work for the purposes of refuting it.


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> (I seem to recall a note by Van Asselt in his _Reformed thought on Freedom_ mentioning something about Protestants rejecting the belief that evidence for a position means the position is true, or probably true--I don't recall which exactly--because certainty of knowledge is distinct from knowledge itself)



Raymond, I feel I'd just be repeating myself on the other points but this particular line of inquiry might contribute positively if you could enlarge/clarify. It sounds right that there would be an objection to mixing probability and certainty. Do you have a page reference or context, and I will look it up?


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> Raymond, I feel I'd just be repeating myself on the other points but this particular line of inquiry might contribute positively if you could enlarge/clarify. It sounds right that there would be an objection to mixing probability and certainty. Do you have a page reference or context, and I will look it up?


I still don't understand how empirical facts are related to truth, but sure. I believe it was in the section on the discussion of de Moor's thought. Edit: May be too late to add this, but it was in a footnote.

I might be somewhat on the wrong track, but I thought of applying that line of inquiry to this matter because it is often said, "How could the science be wrong, since there is so much evidence for it? We must be advancing and getting a better approximation of reality because of all the evidence that supports it!" Creation scientists will then distinguish between historical and operational science when making this sort of claim to qualify what they mean by "true science" when they say, "all truth is God's truth, so the Scriptures and true science do not contradict" (that's why they reject geocentrism). So the question is related to the subject matter. In addition, if all science can do is provide evidence, then it can only provide certainty or uncertainty of a position, rather than truth. That both helps clarify the nature of scientific facts in contrast to the nature of Scriptural facts and speaks to those who wish to say "God's truth" includes scientific facts, because on this view, strictly speaking, scientific facts provide probability, not necessarily truth and possibly (not sure on this last part) not even an approximation to truth.

The only danger here that I can see is that we might no longer be able to say we _know_ our mother is our mother because we only have evidence supporting that belief and so only probability.

Further, though I am less certain on this part (in part because reason is often seen as being more capable of arriving at truth than systematic empirical study), as I've reflected on these matters, I've noticed how the authority of the philosophers is contrasted with the authority of Scriptures within the Scriptures, and I've thought about how tempting a neo-Platonic philosophy must have been for early Christians with some philosophical background. They would have been tempted for the same reason: "There's so much evidence! How could it be false?" But this line of inquiry stops that sort of thinking from being allowed to control the interpretation of the Scriptures. And that would be the case now too, for those who believe things that our latest science has no evidence for and much evidence against. The difference between then and now would be that the nature of the evidence has switched from more philosophical to more empirical.

And finally, as I noted in a previous thread, there may be some assumptions that I am making that are keeping me from understanding what you are probably explaining very clearly. I thought this might be one of the assumptions that I was not consciously or unconsciously making, so I thought I'd ask about it in this context.


----------



## MW

Raymond, I will look up the reference to De Moor. He was a good systematiser.

Usually the phrase "all truth is God's truth" or "all truth is of God" relates to the fact that believers do not have a monopoly on the truth but that it may be known and taught by unbelievers also, at least on an empirical level. If anything this is working against the kind of assumption made by creation-scientists, especially since the phrase directly refers to natural and moral truths.

Why are you not sure of the relationship of empirical facts to truth? Isn't it enough to say that the facts are true in an empirical sense, which has its use for the here and now?


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> Usually the phrase "all truth is God's truth" or "all truth is of God" relates to the fact that believers do not have a monopoloy on the truth but that it may be known and taught by unbelievers also, at least on an empirical level. If anything this is working against the kind of assumption made by creation-scientists, especially since the phrase directly refers to natural and moral truths.


I did not know that is what the phrase referred to. Very helpful! I had simply taken the phrase to mean that truth cannot contradict itself regardless of how it is derived.



armourbearer said:


> Why are you not sure of the relationship of empirical facts to truth? Isn't it enough to say that the facts are true in an empirical sense, which has its use for the here and now?


The part that confuses me is what "true in an empirical sense" means. I can see the use for the here and now. I can also understand that "true in an empirical sense" means facts derived in an empirical manner. But when one speaks of a fact (e.g., Does an electron exist in reality? Does the earth go around the sun? Is this rock X years old? Do objects obey Newton's laws? Are the stars small or are they distant?), it seems to me it is either (a) true (or approximately true), and so corresponds to reality, (b) false, and so does not correspond to reality, or (c) something that does not have a truth value, in which case, how can it be called a fact? I suppose there is also (d) "provisionally true," which means hold the fact to be true or approximately true until proven otherwise.

There are different, standard views of how unobservable empirical facts relate to reality (it is agreed by most that observables directly or approximately correspond to reality). Realists say they directly or approximately correspond to reality. Instrumentalists say they do not necessarily correspond to reality in an ontological manner, but they do correspond in a functional manner (i.e., they allow us to make predictions) and that's all we can know.

When saying something is "true in an empirical sense," it seems like the presupposed view is somewhere between realists and instrumentalists (except applied to both observables and unobservables), but I'm not exactly sure where. On the one hand, we want to say our senses give us knowledge and our reasoning abilities are functional. But on the other hand, "empirical facts" are being treated as less than actually true (or approximately true) because of the facts being probabilistic and open to change. If they are less than actually true (or approximately true), then they cannot be bringing knowledge, which calls into question our sensory and reasoning abilities.

The best I can do to make sense of "true in an empirical sense" is to take an instrumentalist view of the matter that nevertheless acknowledges that our models do describe reality, although there may be another, equally valid way to describe reality (by connecting it to reality in this manner, it seems to me this view can handle the standard realist objection of how models can make successful predictions if what they describe in ontology and equations do not exist in reality). Yet, in our conversations, it sometimes seems like you take empirical facts as being more than just models (and with good reason I think, because if induction cannot bring knowledge, then we know basically nothing and are reduced to opinions), and then I get confused again about how empirical facts relate to truth.

I hope that helps clarify. I'll give it another go at explanation if it does not.


Edit: Perhaps a more succinct way of explaining where I am stuck is that either something is "true in an empirical sense," i.e., aligns with the data, experiment, and critical observations, or it does not. If it does not, then it is false, i.e., does not correspond with reality. If it does, then either it directly or approximately corresponds with reality or it does not. If it does, then it has the qualities of truth, and so however else facts of Scripture and empirical facts differ, they both are equal in having the qualities of truth, and so the objection from the Creation scientist (or OEC or TE, I suppose) stands. However, this seems to make empirical facts too absolute and universal, which is a problem since they are probabilistic, open to change, relative to other empirical facts, and seen from our finite point of view.

So suppose they do not directly or approximately correspond with reality. Then it seems we cannot trust our sensory and reasoning abilities to arrive at knowledge of objects (e.g., whether objects exist) by the scientific method. Furthermore, the reasoning of empirical science (from hypothesis to testing hypothesis) is used in everyday life, so everything we know by induction or abduction (such as that our mother is our mother) is only opinion, not knowledge. This conclusion is problematic because we should be able to trust our senses and reasoning ability to some degree because of basic beliefs. Gordon Clark might say that this skeptical conclusion only applies to empirical science because the aim of science is too precise and indirect for it to be strictly true, but it seems to me this doesn't address the reasons I discussed in this paragraph that the skeptical conclusion would apply everywhere.


----------



## au5t1n

DMcFadden said:


> Reading through the various comments, many of them extremely erudite, leaves me wondering how many of the critics have actually read much of Ham's stuff or spent significant time on the AiG website. There is a pervasive tendentiousness to much of the critique that rings extremely hollow to me.



I can see validity to much of the criticism here - particularly Mr. Bottomly's and Rev. Winzer's, not the OP's accusation of Pelagianism, which I thought was rather out of nowhere. Yet I have benefited much from AiG. I was struggling with evolution as a teenager, and reading some of the articles on AiG's website helped convince me of the importance of letting Scripture say what it says and not using science to modify it. I was not convinced of this by AiG's "creation science," but by their points about the infallibility of Scripture. So I think it is fair for Rev. Winzer et al. to make valid criticisms, and yet I don't think it is being said that nobody has ever benefited from AiG.

In retrospect, I could wish I had been exposed to reformed theology and presuppositional apologetics first, instead of having to go back and re-lay some of the foundation of my creation views after coming to reformed convictions, yet this is the way it occurred in God's providence, and I'm thankful for the role AiG played. Acknowledging some good does not entail being silent about necessary criticisms. The "creation science" aspects of ministries like AiG that are being criticized here have, indeed, caused much unnecessary confusion (for evidence, see the Ham vs Nye debate), and I think it is fair game for folks to point these issues out.


----------



## Free Christian

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I have contacted the organization with a request to Mr. Ham that he consider these issues. To date, no response received.


 I did similar in regards to John MacArthur using images of the "shroud of Turin" on a CD cover years ago. Seriously, he used the ridiculously false image from that on a CD cover!


----------



## MichaelNZ

With regard to the Creation Museum and the 4th Commandment violations, we don't know if the people who staff it on Sundays are paid or not. They could be volunteers. Would strict Sabbatarians have a problem with a Christian volunteering at the Creation Museum on a Sunday (i.e. working there for no pay) so that people can see something edifying to their faith on the Lord's Day? After all, it is a religious organisation dedicated to the spread of the Gospel and helping Christians give a response to the hope that is within them. 

That being said, if I lived nearby it ( which I wish I did), I wouldn't volunteer there without first consulting my pastor.


----------



## Scott1

MichaelNZ said:


> With regard to the Creation Museum and the 4th Commandment violations, we don't know if the people who staff it on Sundays are paid or not. They could be volunteers. Would strict Sabbatarians have a problem with a Christian volunteering at the Creation Museum on a Sunday (i.e. working there for no pay) so that people can see something edifying to their faith on the Lord's Day? After all, it is a religious organisation dedicated to the spread of the Gospel and helping Christians give a response to the hope that is within them.
> 
> That being said, if I lived nearby it ( which I wish I did), I wouldn't volunteer there without first consulting my pastor.



We are WAY off topic now. Moderators feel free to delete these posts.

The fourth commandment is to work six, rest one from the ordinary work and play of the other six days so one might prioritize the worship of God all day. That includes public and private worship (corporate, and family and individual). Resting from even activities like volunteering at the museum, however noble its purpose might be.

Seeing something edifying on the Lord's Day?
The Lord's Day is focused on God's Word and His Ways, through worship and fellowship incidental to that worship.
We "see" edifying things through the ordinary means of grace, the Word, the sacraments, prayer, and the Lord's Day especially is for that. Not volunteering for the museum.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

MichaelNZ said:


> With regard to the Creation Museum and the 4th Commandment violations, we don't know if the people who staff it on Sundays are paid or not. They could be volunteers.



Even if this were the case, I am sure they are still charging admission, and so they are still doing business on the Sabbath.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Ken Ham had a split with his former Australia ministry AIG Australia [now CMI] which caused quite a stir. He now associates with the Australian creationist John MacKay who caused a former division in the Australian ministry Regarding John Mackay - creation.com. I am not sure to what extent both divisions have been dealt with Biblically, but the scars certainly remain.


----------



## Scott1

Stephen L Smith said:


> Ken Ham had a split with his former Australia ministry AIG Australia [now CMI] which caused quite a stir. He now associates with the Australian creationist John MacKay who caused a former division in the Australian ministry Regarding John Mackay - creation.com. I am not sure to what extent both divisions have been dealt with Biblically, but the scars certainly remain.



Was this something that was offered for mediation by the Christian mediation group, Peacemaker Ministries?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott1 said:


> Was this something that was offered for mediation by the Christian mediation group, Peacemaker Ministries?


Yes I understand this did happen. But ultimately no resolution. It seems to me now that AIG and CMI compete against each other and do not sell each others books!


----------



## DMcFadden

Lamentable . . . unfortunately all too common.

Denominations . . . church organizations . . . former pastoral staff team members . . . special purpose organizations dealing with Bible smuggling, creation apologetics, world relief, Bible translation, you name it.

Too common and way too embarrassing.


----------



## MichaelNZ

Bill The Baptist said:


> MichaelNZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to the Creation Museum and the 4th Commandment violations, we don't know if the people who staff it on Sundays are paid or not. They could be volunteers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if this were the case, I am sure they are still charging admission, and so they are still doing business on the Sabbath.
Click to expand...


I didn't think of that. Yes, I don't think charging admission on the Lord's Day is right.


----------

