Homeschooling Discussions


This topic is locked.

Search

Sonlight calls Ken Ham "Pope Ham" !

Sonlight calls Ken Ham "Pope Ham" !

I used to be a Sonlighter. I am glad I'm ot anymore.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/07/03/cofounder-of-sonlight-calls-me-pope-ham/

re: Sonlight calls Ken Ham "Pope Ham" !

That does not affect my view of Ken Ham in any way. It simply reveals their (the editors of Sonlight) heart. I wonder if they realize that?

This post was edited on Jul 03, 2013 03:47 PM

re: Sonlight calls Ken Ham "Pope Ham" !

While I think it was inappropriate to call Ham, "Pope Ham," I agree with the rest of the quote by Sonlight. Now wait before you gang up on me, hear me out...then gang up on me. LOL.

Let me start out by saying I think young-earth creationism offers the best theory for the evidence we have.

The problem I have always had with Ken Ham is the strident tone he takes. Every single AiG book includes the Gospel in it which I thought was great until I realized my children and many others were coming to associate dinosaurs in Eden with the Gospel. When I had to make my children understand that a person who thinks the world is millions of years old can still be a Christian, I realized just how deeply those books were influencing their understanding of the Gospel. While he claims that this isn't a salvation issue, it is a gospel issue. WHAT? There is no difference. Basically he is turning YE creationism into a doctrine of primary important. In this regard, I agree with Sonlight and completely disagree with Ken Ham.

According to AiG and Ken Ham, one's young earth creationism beliefs are always tied to a "correct" interpretation of Scripture. If you don't interpret Scripture the way Ken Ham does, then you are not taking the Bible literally or you are a liberal or you are throwing out Scripture or you are corrupting young minds or you question the authority of Scripture...

Ken Ham and AiG constantly make old earth creationists feel like they are a "less-than" Christians. In my opinion, that is simply wrong. The real theological issue is "Did God create the world?" The Bible tells us without a doubt that YES, God did. But how long he took to do it just isn't there.

Perfectly respectable, orthodox (small o for those of you who think I'm talking about Eastern Orthodox) Christian disagree. Even our church fathers disagreed on this issue. There is the 24hr view, the Day-age theory, the framework theory, Young-Earth, Old-Earth. We should never ever divide over a secondary issue so I wish Ken Ham would stop taking a verbal cleaver to everyone who disagrees with him on what he claims is not a "salvation issue". If a Christian falls within the...

God created the world.
Adam and Eve were REAL people.
The Fall really happened.

Then theologically they are on solid ground and completely believe in the authority of Scripture. The Gospel is about what Christ did on our behalf and not about one particular interpretation of Genesis 1.

re: Sonlight calls Ken Ham "Pope Ham" !

I'll add that I've never found a better commentary on what our attitude should be regarding the various views on creation than that found in the forward of the book, "Genesis Debate."

The forward is only about two pages long and I highly recommend it. It is available in the sample at Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Debate-Three-Views-Creation/dp/0970224508#reader_0970224508

Edited to add that we love and use AiG resources, but with everything we are careful in HOW we use them.

This post was edited on Jul 03, 2013 04:12 PM

re: Sonlight calls Ken Ham "Pope Ham" !

To be clear, Ken Ham has not made Creation a salvation issue. He has made that very clear.

I don't see a "strident" tone in his books. What I see there is a clear concern for the Body of Christ, because unBiblical beliefs have invaded the church and seminaries for so many years (close to a century) and have thus caused real decay in the church first, which has affected our culture in a serious way.

I do agree with every point he made in his book The Lie. There is a strong Biblical foundation for every point there. IMHO, when it was published in 1987, it was clearly prophetic because everything he foresaw has indeed come to pass. Sadly so.


fixed a typo

This post was edited on Jul 03, 2013 04:14 PM

re: Sonlight calls Ken Ham "Pope Ham" !

I made it clear that he says it isn't a salvation issue. He states it is a Gospel issue. Can you define the difference between a "salvation issue" and a "gospel issue"? I genuinely curious. Or has Ham defined it somewhere?

I think we need to fight evolution and naturalism and not our fellow OE believers. That's my opinion. The real issue is about God as the origin of the universe or natural causes.

Edited to add that I don't find strident tones in his books. I find it on his blog and his Facebook page. I disagree with things in his book but his tone is definitely modulated once it has gone through editing. LOL.

This post was edited on Jul 03, 2013 04:19 PM

re: Sonlight calls Ken Ham "Pope Ham" !

I don't recall that particular statement, pottersclay. If he has said that, I would think there is clarification at his website. I encourage you to email them there; I've always received swift replies to questions I've asked about their materials.

re: Sonlight calls Ken Ham "Pope Ham" !

Good idea. And here's the quote from the article. Ken Ham is actually quoting from an article of his in Answers in Genesis. It is towards the bottom of the article..

"The point I want to make again that I’ve made in churches many times over the past thirty-five years is that, although Christian acceptance of millions of years or evolution is not a salvation issue, it is a gospel issue, and it is an authority issue.

It is a gospel issue because the evolution of life on earth over millions of years would mean sin is not the cause of death, disease, suffering, or bloodshed. It means sin is not the cause of the groaning world described in Romans 8:22. And it means God—not man’s sin—is responsible for death, disease, and suffering!"

For some reason he always seems to think that if you don't believe in YE, then you don't believe that the Fall was real or that death was brought into the world through the Fall. ALL OE creationists simply make a distinction between death in nature/animals (not made in the image of God) and the physical and spiritual death of mankind (made in the image of God) that resulted from The Fall.

Anyway, I'm not at all questioning Ken Ham's character or his beliefs regarding YE.



This post was edited on Jul 03, 2013 04:26 PM

12345678910...Last

This topic is locked.

Search


Return to Homeschooling Discussions