Answers in Genesis Banned from Convention

[stephen]

FOUNDER OF ANSWERS IN GENESIS BANNED FROM HOME SCHOOLERS CONVENTION

Ken Ham, the man behind the Creation Museum and the future Ark Encounter amusement park, has been disinvited from a homeschool convention in Cincinnati next week because he made "ungodly, and mean-spirited" comments about another speaker, according to the convention's organizers.

Ham also will be excluded from future conventions, according to a statement by Brennan Dean of Great Homeschool Conventions.

"The board believes that Ken's public criticism of the convention itself and other speakers at our convention require him to surrender the spiritual privilege of addressing our homeschool audience," Dean said in the statement.

At issue are criticisms by Ham of Peter Enns of the Biologos Foundation, who has said the fall of Adam and Eve can be construed as a symbolic story of Israel's beginnings, rather than a literal description of human beginnings.

On his blog and in other statements, Ham takes issue with this view and Enns' homeschool curriculum.

"In fact," Ham wrote in a recent blog post, "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."

Founder of Creation Museum banned from convention | Latest Local, State News | Kentucky.com

 

[David777]

Hello Stephen.

Peter Enns does not understand that scripture is not a result of human will. Scripture is God breathed.

How does Peter Enns know that Adam and Eve never existed?

This is not what the Genesis text states.

Peter Enns view is an opinion, this opinion has no evidence on which to support itself. Why offer a groundless opinion.

Peter Enns would be strongly advised to offer an apology and a retraction of the opinion.

 

[Christ4Ever]

"Someone needs to stand against the compromise that is pouring into the church from many directions," Ham

Agree with Ham! If the type of comments made by Enns are the norm within this convention then the "spiritual privilege" mentioned is not of God!

 

[Iceman]

Enns is absolutely correct in his position.

For thousands of years the church has not considered Adam and Eve to be the definitive account of the universe.

Chrisitian theologians as early as Origen and Augustine warn against how we moderns naively treat the Genesis stories. As well as early Jewish interpreters such as Philo.

It is a sheer abomination, and does violence to the text, that we moderns think we can take a scripture out of the context of how it was written, away from the other ANE texts, and read it with no appreciation of the how Scripture has been used throughout the history of the Christian church.

The Genesis account is not about how the Earth was formed, but about the story of Israel, and God's relationship with humanity. Ham and his ilk need to be opposed.

 

[TheAristocrat]

I've read a lot of information from Answers in Genesis, and I honestly have never encountered anything like that account of Adam and Eve! If it's true, then I am totally against it, but that is not to say that there is not very important learning resources there, because, to be quite frank, it's a very integral area that most Christians are ignorant of and one which makes them easy prey to the many attacks on the legitimacy of the Bible, of Christianity in it's entirety.

 

[stephen]

Peter Enns does not understand that scripture is not a result of human will. Scripture is God breathed.

How does Peter Enns know that Adam and Eve never existed?

This is not what the Genesis text states.

Peter Enns view is an opinion, this opinion has no evidence on which to support itself. Why offer a groundless opinion.

Peter Enns would be strongly advised to offer an apology and a retraction of the opinion.

Thanks for your thoughts David with which I wholly agree.

 

[stephen]

Enns is absolutely correct in his position.

For thousands of years the church has not considered Adam and Eve to be the definitive account of the universe.

Chrisitian theologians as early as Origen and Augustine warn against how we moderns naively treat the Genesis stories. As well as early Jewish interpreters such as Philo.

It is a sheer abomination, and does violence to the text, that we moderns think we can take a scripture out of the context of how it was written, away from the other ANE texts, and read it with no appreciation of the how Scripture has been used throughout the history of the Christian church.

The Genesis account is not about how the Earth was formed, but about the story of Israel, and God's relationship with humanity. Ham and his ilk need to be opposed.

Looking at your profile I am pleased to discover that you are a Christian brother. I have not responded before but I have seen you around. I take this opportunity to welcome you as a fellow servant of the Master. I welcome you here at T.J.

I'm a theology student training for ordination. My favourite theologians include Tom Wright, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Karl Barth. Obviously theology is a big part of not only my life, but how I view things. Aside from that though I enjoy cycling, hanging with mates, movies and games. I'm a pretty open guy, feel free to ask me anything.

You have good intentions and you are an intelligent man, life is before you and I wish you well.

When you mention Aussey I think of 'Hillsong Church' I think of Brian Houston and the great congregation he has gathered to his ministry.

Do you plan to follow his life changing pattern of gospel preaching in Australia?

 

[Christ4Ever]

Adam Fact or Fiction

For those who agree with Enns' position of Adam as being symbolic. My question then is why the genealogy not in the OT, but NT which includes Adam? Unless you believe that the lineage is purely symbolic? The fact in the article says that Enns actually said "can be construed as symbolic...." even he doesn't close the door to Adam's existence. I'll go with NT scripture below in believing in Adam's existence as more than a representation for Israeli. You're welcome to introduce Israeli in place of Adam for the below verses. Don't really know how you'd make it work without truly changing the meaning of said scriptures. Then again, in many churches today adjusting scripture to accommodate the folks seems to be a rather common practice. Join that club, but I don’t need my ears scratched nor will I scratch anyone else’s. I accept the word of God. Don’t always understand it, but I accept it.
Luke 3:18 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Cor 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
1 Tim 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2 Tim 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

 

[Iceman]

Looking at your profile I am pleased to discover that you are a Christian brother. I have not responded before but I have seen you around. I take this opportunity to welcome you as a fellow servant of the Master. I welcome you here at T.J.

thank you brother.

You have good intentions and you are an intelligent man, life is before you and I wish you well.

again thank you. And may the peace of the Lord our God be upon you my friend.

When you mention Aussey I think of 'Hillsong Church' I think of Brian Houston and the great congregation he has gathered to his ministry.

Do you plan to follow his life changing pattern of gospel preaching in Australia?

Here I feel the rebuttal question welling up inside me 'what makes the congregation of Hillsong great?'

You're probably not aware of the issues surrounding Hillsong, and other Sydney churches like the Anglican Arch-Diocese (which all follow a Hillsong model of church) which I won't get into here, suffice to say I have my concerns and criticisms about those ecclesiologies.

But directly to the question now, I do already. My theology and studies are not the focus of my calling, but a necessary and important part of the greater call of ministry I, and the tradition I am a part of, discern that God has placed on my life.

The question is though, what does that mean to you? You've clearly asked for a reason.by affirming my dedication to he Gospel, do you have a specific gospel in mind that I then need to check all the boxes for?

 

[David777]

Biologos?

Is this what the BioLogos Foundation adheres to.

BioLogos represents the harmony of science and faith. It addresses the central themes of science and religion and emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life. To communicate this message to the general public and add to the ongoing dialog.

I thought science still had not arrived at any real explanation for the origin of life. Just a deeply flawed theory called Evolution.

As for the origins of the universe. Yet again mankind is dreaming if scientists think a Big Bang Theory will be adequate.

Science knows very little about ORIGINS.

I must say in defence of Science, it has certainly manufactured many more questions than it ever really answered.

It took me years to understand the Bible.

The Bible contains the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ the alpha and the omega.

Jesus Christ is the origin of all. This is not a theory.

 

[stephen]

thank you brother.
again thank you. And may the peace of the Lord our God be upon you my friend.



Here I feel the rebuttal question welling up inside me 'what makes the congregation of Hillsong great?'

You're probably not aware of the issues surrounding Hillsong, and other Sydney churches like the Anglican Arch-Diocese (which all follow a Hillsong model of church) which I won't get into here, suffice to say I have my concerns and criticisms about those ecclesiologies.

But directly to the question now, I do already. My theology and studies are not the focus of my calling, but a necessary and important part of the greater call of ministry I, and the tradition I am a part of, discern that God has placed on my life.

The question is, what does that mean to you? You've clearly asked for a reason.by affirming my dedication to he Gospel, do you have a specific gospel in mind that I then need to check all the boxes for?

You're probably not aware of the issues surrounding Hillsong, and other Sydney churches like the Anglican Arch-Diocese (which all follow a Hillsong model of church) which I won't get into here, suffice to say I have my concerns and criticisms about those ecclesiologies.

As you say I am not aware...But I hear what you are saying in this regard.

But directly to the question now, I do already. My theology and studies are not the focus of my calling, but a necessary and important part of the greater call of ministry I, and the tradition I am a part of, discern that God has placed on my life.

Indeed. The call of God comes first in life and ministry. Secondary is the preparation to fulfill the call. Saul of Tarsus falling from his horse, blinded by the light when meeting the Master, spent years in confinement with Jesus, before he emerged as the Apostle "born out of due time."

The question is though, what does that mean to you? You've clearly asked for a reason.by affirming my dedication to he Gospel, do you have a specific gospel in mind that I then need to check all the boxes for?

Dear Friend and servant of Jesus, my question is not theological though such is important, my question is personal. Christianity is a personal thing. Jesus said "Ye must be born again" Jn ch.3. I am anxious to know that you have met Him. I feel for your success.

 

[David777]

Dear Stephen.

As usual Stephen, your posts are a pleasure to read.

I do not attend Hillsong, therefore I cannot comment
on Hillsong. Do know some Christians that love the music
that Hillsong generates.

I have attended a previous church that a Houston was
responsible for. This was only on one occassion.
Did not detect anything amiss.

Rather surprised at the Iceman's comments though.

It is a contempory church, a very large church at that.

I wonder whether Mr Iceman is aware that all organised
churches are faulty to some extent.

BioLogos is what I am really concerned with.

 

[Hekuran]

All churches, organised or not, are faulty. I have no doubt that Iceman is aware of that.

The interest in this thread is not so much about the substance of the disagreement - how to interpret the account of Adam and Eve - but about how we speak to, and about, those with whom we disagree.

I have yet to talk to another Christian at any length and not find a point of disagreement or tension in our understanding of the Bible. The question must be how to we deal with those gaps in agreement.

Should we break fellowship with people who have a difference of opinion on a fairly minor issue such as the interpretation of Adam and Eve (yes it is a minor issue)? I don't think so.

I have not seen the comments, but if they are ugly and mean-spirited then they are sub-Christian.

Better to humbly live by convictions and be open to correction. Not just in theology but in how we think about ourselves, others, and the world around us.

 

[Iceman]

As you say I am not aware...But I hear what you are saying in this regard.

I am glad. My desire to question what makes the mega-church model great is based on the fact that what they define as success is numbers, and not questions like discipleship or faithfulness to the Gospel. A depressingly large amount of my pastoral care time is spent helping people who have been hurt by the mega-church model. But if you're interested in understanding where I'm coming from more, I have recently written a couple of blogs on it that have been met with a huge range of response from people within Hillsong, and from people who have come from it. If you're interested, you can find it at euangelionaustralia.blogspot.com.

Indeed. The call of God comes first in life and ministry. Secondary is the preparation to fulfill the call. Saul of Tarsus falling from his horse, blinded by the light when meeting the Master, spent years in confinement with Jesus, before he emerged as the Apostle "born out of due time."

Amen brother.

Dear Friend and servant of Jesus, my question is not theological though such is important, my question is personal. Christianity is a personal thing. Jesus said "Ye must be born again" Jn ch.3. I am anxious to know that you have met Him. I feel for your success.

I am glad to say that yes, I have a relationship with the Lord. Actually the irony of the ministry I am on the path of is that originally I come from Hillsong. That is where I first encountered Jesus and that is something I always say about them. But again, suffice to say the concerns I have outway the positives they do have in my mind, and my blog is probably the better place for me to leave my reflections than here.

God bless you brother, and may the peace of the Lord be with you.