"This doctrine of six day creation was ... the consensus of the theologians, ministers and elders at the Westminster Assembly"

On “We believe that God has called …. “

• I get excited when some “believes God calls him” to something the New Testament mandates like:
  • Taking the gospel to the nations (missions) OR
  • Church planting
• I find it folly to claim God called one to build roadside novelty architecture

You see that this blog is used to “keep beating a drum”. I think you misunderstand the purpose of filings. You have an opinion about Ham’s Ark. If God has called you to buy a peg or to support it in some other way - go for it. I think that pointing out the folly actually “edifies the body of Christ”!

For anyone who would like to celebrate “Bless be the Tie that Binds”, I suggest you visit us here in Minnesota

“Taking the gospel to the nations (missions)” — EXACTLY what Ham believes he is doing by opening these venues. Bring unbelievers into the venue and presenting them with the gospel. You do not believe that its wise - fine, that is your opinion. I don’t know if the ark is wise or not, because it has not been fully built yet and I have not gone to check it out. I also didn’t know enough about the creation museum to form an opinion, so I went, saw it, and formed an opinion. Nowhere did I suggest anyone should “buy a peg” or anything. I do not consider myself an apologist for Ken Ham or AiG. I am calling into question the idea of using a blog in such a way where a brother is unknowingly, but publicly mocked. It just doesn’t sound very New Testament to me.

[Darrell Post] It just doesn’t sound very New Testament to me.

Well let’s get New Testament. God made the Apostle Paul the “chief architect” of the church: 1 Corinthians 3:10, “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder (ἀρχιτέκτων (note the transliteration (architektōn) which looks very much like the word “architect” ), I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon”

Questions:

• Why didn’t Paul build Arks?
• Why in the entire history of the church (with peaks such as the Reformation) no one thought building an ark was the way to witness?
• Ham should be warned: “take heed how he buildeth thereupon”

Darrell,

I see your point. I would have more sympathy for it but for two reasons: first of all, some believe that Hamm does more harm than good. Speaking for myself, I am wary about exposing a lot of his teaching to my children. I think using shoddy science to try to prove Creationism is a mistake because what will happen when that shoddy science is disproved? It is better in my opinion to just teach Creationism as a matter of faith.

The second thing is Hamm is always blasting away at Christians who don’t believe just like him. If anyone should be able to take some criticism, it is Hamm. You might want to express your concerns to Hamm because he is more guilty of using a public platform to blast other Christians than anyone here for sure.

Other “God called me” to programs:

• Jim Bakker’s Heritage USA
• Oral Robert’s 900-foot-tall Jesus who told him to build City of Faith Medical and Research Center,
• Kent Hovind’s Dinosaur Adventure Land

Fool me once … shame on you … Fool me twice … shame on me!

For those who think that Answers in Genesis promotes “shoddy science” or think that if you use AiG materials you will “have no clue that if they abandon 6-day creation they have a host of other Scriptural problems” - well, I would simply say that I do not think you are actually familiar with Answers in Genesis or their materials. As to the first claim, AiG utilizes world-class scientists and scholars in their resources and presentations. As to the second claim, it sounds like you are actually on the same side as AiG, but simply have not taken the effort to investigate the materials you are criticizing.

I suggest you read Ken Ham’s book, Already Gone.

If you believe in Biblical creationism but don’t like AiG’s approach or don’t want to use their materials for whatever reason, that’s fine. Just make sure your criticisms are rooted in facts - especially if you count yourself on the same team.

For what it’s worth, Dr. John Whitcomb is an ardent supporter of the Ark Encounter project.

God’s Blessings!

So some consider Ken Hamm confrontational? Big deal. Jesus was confrontational. If we are going to share the gospel in this day and time, we must all be confrontational. Perhaps if over the years Christians had been more confrontational our once-great country wouldn’t be going down the drain today and headed toward hell in a hand basket. And for someone to accuse AIG of using shoddy science? the only conclusion one can then come to is that person hasn’t researched the website and their beliefs and doctrinal statements. I have absolutely no problem with Ken Hamm blasting so-called Christians who deny the Biblical account of creation and who promote some sort of evolution. To promote any form of evolution is to promote satan’s agenda. I know this first-hand; I used to believe in the gap theory. If I can’t take God at His word, that He created everything in 6 days, then I can’t believe anything else recorded in His written word. It’s either all true or if any part of is a lie, then it’s all a lie. There’s no middle ground.

Only one M in Ham,

and

“Speaking for myself, I am wary about exposing a lot of his teaching to my children.”

The teaching of Ken Ham is rooted in the gospel and the authority of the Scriptures. I assume you wouldn’t mind teaching those things to your children. Please see my comments above about what is on display at the creation museum.

“Why didn’t Paul build Arks?”

Paul also didn’t build Bible colleges, Seminaries, and Christian camps. Probably he never preached in a church with rows of padded pews either. These are things called tools. And right or wrong, Ken Ham believes a life-sized ark is a way to draw people in to give them the gospel and present an alternative message as to origins. I for one get a little confused by the modern generation of fundamentalists. They cry out for new and dynamic ways of doing things, rather than the same-old stuff, and so along comes Ken Ham and he does something bold and different, and is mocked for it by the same people.

After seeing the quality of the creation museum, I am more than willing to wait and see what he does with the ark, and then pass judgment on its usefulness to the cause of Christ. If, after I attend, I find it was not designed with any missional purpose, and the gospel was not clearly presented, and it seemed to accomplish little, then I will form a negative opinion about it.

“Other “God called me” to programs:”

Your comparisons seem hardly fair, and again, I have always viewed the language “God called me” simply as an expression that recognizes God’s role in accomplishing ministry fruit through you the tool. Some might build a Christian Camp that God can use, others might build a college campus that God can use, and others might build a center that specifically highlights the book of Genesis so as to get people to think about origins and the fact that life has meaning when God is brought to mind as Creator of all things.

But again, the primary reason I began posting on this thread at all was my heartfelt desire to see the love of Christ displayed in the way we speak of brothers in Christ, and the specific ministry that God has burdened their hearts to pursue. We are all different and have a variety of talents and abilities, and even when we find ourselves having a different view, and find disagreement with the choices other believers make, we always need to remember that God might just use the things you consider foolish to accomplish great things.

“The second thing is Hamm is always blasting away at Christians who don’t believe just like him.”

If Ken Ham has inappropriately and publicly commented negatively about brothers in Christ without their knowledge, then he is just as accountable for those words as any posted here against him. I don’t know everything he has ever said, and he like all of us is not perfect, but a work in progress. As I said, I am not his apologist. I would just like to see the grace of Christ at work in the words posted here.

Well, a few thoughts. First of all, I remember when Hovind’s shoddy science was taken at face value by conservative Christians. Not just Hovind either. There was plenty of junk science used to try to prove creationism.

Secondly, depending on what survey you read, between 95% and 99.9% of all scientists do not believe in creationism. They consider it unscientific. Paul says AiG has world-class scientists. I am not sure who has labeled them world-class but for sure, not the mainstream scientific community. I think it a bit naive to believe that Ham’s handful of scientists is just smarter than the overwhelming majority. I suspect that in 20 years, people will look at their theories the same way Ham looks at Hovind’s theories.

So, I am very comfortable saying that man’s understanding of science in 2013 is not compatible with creationism. I see little point in trying to force the issue as various creationists including Ham have tried to do for the past few decades.

I am a creationist but not because of Ham’s attempts to make science compatible with creationism. I don’t think he or his team is capable of that though ultimately, his underlying premise is correct. No, I am a creationist because of faith and I think that is a far safer approach.

“Paul says Hovind has world-class scientists”

Paul said AiG has world-class scientists, NOT Hovind.

“I am very comfortable saying that man’s understanding of science in 2013 is not compatible with creationism.”

I believe we all, Ken Ham included, agree that this is a true statement. And again, if you visited the Creation Museum, you would see first hand that Ham’s approach starts with the Scriptures, and presents the gospel, and the museum ends with the Last Adam, Christ.

There are many things we do not need, but are blessings. We do not need video projectors, organs, hymnals, or kindles. But they can be great blessings.

IMO, AIG is a great blessing. Do we NEED a museum to know God create the heavens and earth in 6 days? No. But does the museum help us stop and consider how he did this and how this contrast with what secular humanism teaches? Yes. Does it answer questions that may help satisfy us? Sometimes. Do we need to have those questions answered? No. But is it a blessing? Yes.

I don’t get enthused with words like “sufficient” or “adequate.” Sorry. How many of us are content with sufficient food, adequate housing, or a workable vehicle? Some of us are, but most of us prefer much more than the minimum. I don’t know what to call this, but “psychological stinginess” might be the best term.

I don’t agree with so much of the condescending reasoning I am reading.

Interact with these Ken Ham statements about the Ark … not the museum

• “the building of a full-size Ark can stand as a reminder to the world of salvation”
• “an Ark would also stand as a warning of coming judgment—to condemn those who reject God’s clear Word”
• “Yes. It’s time! It’s the right time to rebuild Noah’s Ark. We believe that God has called AiG to construct an Ark according to the dimensions in the Bible, to remind people of the truth of God’s Word and call them to salvation”

So is the Ark a God-directed necessity like Ham claims?

Jim, I have to tell you that I am uncomfortable with how Ken manipulated Genesis truth in that article to raise money. And yet Ed, I would like to take a trek from Idaho in the church van to visit the museum for the first time. If the ark were finished, I would even step inside of it and take a gander.

Sidenotes:

****One of the most stinging attacks that I have ever read against AiG came from a Jew.

http://www.amazon.com/Among-Creationists-Dispatches-Anti-Evolutionist-F…

****One of the most brilliant creationist biologists in America that I have read is named Todd Wood

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/

[Jim]

Interact with these Ken Ham statements about the Ark … not the museum

• “the building of a full-size Ark can stand as a reminder to the world of salvation”
• “an Ark would also stand as a warning of coming judgment—to condemn those who reject God’s clear Word”
• “Yes. It’s time! It’s the right time to rebuild Noah’s Ark. We believe that God has called AiG to construct an Ark according to the dimensions in the Bible, to remind people of the truth of God’s Word and call them to salvation”

So is the Ark a God-directed necessity like Ham claims?

[Darrell Post]

“The author did not need a Creation Museum”

…a week cannot go by on SI that there is not at least one swipe at Ken Ham and AiG. There was a thread last week opened regarding the ark encounter, just for the purpose of belittling it. Now this swipe…But I do not understand how it benefits the body of Christ to use a public forum like this to just keep beating on a brother…It would be wrong for me to bring up their names only for the purpose of belittling them or attempting to encourage others to do the same. After all, God might very well use such ministries, and accomplish eternal fruit, while I am instead throwing rotten tomatoes…

Given that the AIG mention you cite from this thread is merely presented as one example (along with a CS textbook) of the whole of creation science, it seems to me that the point was to commend the rigorous and exclusive use of scripture over against what may be seen as reverse engineered attempts to prove the scriptures. Science evolves. CS will evolve. Science that “proves” creation today will be tossed tomorrow in favor of a better model. I don’t think that process does much at all to justify the Words that were once spoken.

Also, it’s interesting, I think, the kind of language categorized as a swipe vs. that used in an exhortation to love the brethren.

And speaking of language, it seems to me that it is the real divide here. The Creation Museum is primarily image based (yes, I’ve been there) as would be the new Ark. The article referenced in the OP, is, obviously, primarily word based. Can we judge one of those as better and more proper? Might we even judge one of those as approaching impropriety?