Ham: "what he teaches about Genesis is not just compromising Genesis with evolution, it is outright liberal theology that totally undermines the authority of the Word of God."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/03/22/kicked-out-homescho…

I think the convention organizers messed this one up.

When I read the title to the thread and saw the link, I thought it was saying that Ham was teaching something about Genesis that was liberal theology and that’s why he was being banned from the convention. I’m glad I actually read the article to see that Ken Hamm was refering to the teaching of Peter Enns as liberal theology.

Over the years I know of several Fundamentalist ministries who have not reached out to AIG or Ken because these brothers are not “militant enough.” I would submit these guys seem pretty militant.

Straight Ahead!

jt

He http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_genesis#Legal_controversy_with_…] fights with his own . A perfect fundamentalist!

His own what? I don’t think homeschool convention organizers or Peter Enns are ‘his own’ anything.

When the ministry of “homeschooling” becomes big business with much money to make compromise seems inevitable. I have noticed a significant decline in sound biblically based home-school groups. The movement has become an eclectic collection of many folks with immensely differing motivations for homeschooling. I am not saying that all will see each point of doctrine the same but if there is no agreement as to what is truth the movement will become what we see in the world, a godless system driven by pride and greed. Rather than educating for the glory of God it will be for the glory of the individual.

[Susan R] His own what? I don’t think homeschool convention organizers or Peter Enns are ‘his own’ anything.

Then you’ll get it.

That dispute has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

I agree with Bro. Tim. Now that homeschooling statistics claim over 2 million in America alone, they are now a marketing demographic. Christians are not immune to slick advertising methods, and it’s sad when we as parents put our spiritual discernment on hold because there is shiny new homeschool catalog in the mail full of promises, or a published author/educational guru on the stage.

Slapping “Christian” on a textbook means nothing. It takes time and effort to find academically challenging and Biblically solid curriculum. Personally, I use the library for most subjects, even though I admit to drooling all over the catalogs that arrive in my mailbox this time of year. I can’t help it- I’m a nerd.

I’ve been homeschooling for over 15 years and have yet to attend a convention. Not that they aren’t helpful, and I am sure that getting to physically handle and look over educational materials is a tremendous benefit. Conventions just sound… icky.

Personally, based on what I’ve read about this, I can’t see what Ken Ham did wrong here.

[Susan R] That dispute has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Now, Susan, I was messing with Joel. He was trying to make a point about Ham’s militancy, suggesting he is fundamentalist-like, and I was pointing out that he would fit right in since he fights with his own also.

So… by now all the humour value is lost.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Don Johnson] So… by now all the humour value is lost.

That assumes it was there to begin with.

Ba-dum-dum. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-merv/groucho.gif

This conference tried to pull off a “Mars Hill Lite” kind of atmosphere. Everyone was supposed to bring in their ideas and “love” each other enough to not criticize one another. The only problem was that Ken Ham didn’t get the memo about it being Mars Hill. He thought it was Mt Carmel!

I was wondering who would go first- Ken Ham or Doug Phillips. Phillips will be right behind him soon enough.

Enns needed to be called out. The question comes down to how we do it. I don’t think Ham did it the way they are describing it- “unchristian and ungodly.”

But figuring out how we point out error is not a new discussion for Fundamentalists, is it?

Enns needed to be called out. The question comes down to how we do it. I don’t think Ham did it the way they are describing it- “unchristian and ungodly.”

It probably was an overstatement to say that he was “unchristian and ungodly,” however, Ham was abrasive when he spoke at the seminary I graduated from because The profs and many students didn’t agree with his premise that a young earth position is a fundamental of the faith. Most of them agreed with the young earth position, but were not as dogmatic as Ham.

it is a shameful sign of the tolerant or hesitant times in which we live, that profs and students cannot accept Gen. 1-3 with full confidence.

The point was that Ken Ham was abrasive. No matter what you feel towards this issue, he would have got a lot further with his audience if he had hadn’t berated them. His audience understood that both old earth and young earth positions believe in a historical Adam and Eve as the progenitors of the human race. Both positions are opposed to Naturalism. In fact most of his audience were young earthers but understood that throughout the history of the church and the history of fundamentalism (think of the original fundamentals) there has been disagreements over this issue. By the way, old earthers are still accepting Gen. 1-3 with full confidence. It just isn’t the way you interpret it. I say this as a young earther that has had many discussions with old earthers and realize that they are just as committed to the authority of the Scriptures as I am and as you are……..

[Joel Shaffer] His audience understood that both old earth and young earth positions believe in a historical Adam and Eve as the progenitors of the human race.

According to Ham, Enns does not necessarily believe in a historical Adam and Eve. Ham himself on his http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/03/15/another-comp… blog quotes Enns who says he views Adam and Eve “symbolically.” This is a gospel issue and Ham did not berate his audience. He berated someone who seems to be showing signs of apostasy.

According to Ham, Enns does not necessarily believe in a historical Adam and Eve. Ham himself on his blog quotes Enns who says he views Adam and Eve “symbolically.” This is a gospel issue and Ham did not berate his audience. He berated someone who seems to be showing signs of apostasy.

I am talking about an entirely different situation that happened at the seminary I used to attend, not what happened with the Enns situation. I understand that what Enns believes really does undermine the authority of the Scriptures. I should hope that Ham publicly apposes this position.

A previous poster accused those who hesitate to dogmatically hold to a young earth position as shameful, even though the old earth people that I was talking about still held to a historical Adam and Eve. I hope this helps clear the air.