Featured Hank Hanegraaf AND Old Earth creationism

For defense of young earth creation go to Institute for Creation Research.

http://www.icr.org/

 

An old earth position is perfectly reasonable and can be defended via Scripture.

If you don't agree that's fine, but don't attempt to impugn a man's hermeneutical matrix if you do.

 

here is Ken Ham:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11606144316

 

Agree with you on old earth/Young Earth as able to be debated, as I have bigger problems with hank's eschatology, as believes he holds to pretierism views...

 

Vote right in November and perhaps you will still enjoy the freedom of speech!

 

This is a pointless thing to say, what say you about the topic of the thread?

 

I believe what Scripture teaches: God created ex nihilo all that exists in six literal days, God rested on the seventh day.

Exodus 20:11, KJV
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


Exodus 31:17, KJV
It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

If one believes in the inerrancy of Scripture it is difficult to believe anything other than a six day creation. Some shuffle their feet and bloviate about what the "day" means in Genesis 1 but in Exodus one cannot shuffle his feet and bloviate; that is if he believes in the inerrancy of Scripture and I do!

Do you?

 

I guess Hank's position has been "evolving". :laugh:


So Hank says something you disagree with and you become angry?

He was decidedly young-earth a while back.

He has had distinguished speakers from both young-earth and old-earth positions on the program.

You respected him enough to donate to his ministry, why not hear him out?

Find out what made him change his position.

You don't have to agree with him but should understand why he believes it.

There are many note-worthy speakers that don't hold the position I do on this topic and I still enjoy listening and learning from them.


Preview The Creation Answer Book [LINK] by Hank Hanegraaff.

Rob

 

Well first of all one does not have to believe in only a six day creation to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. Look up the Chicago Statement and you'll see a wider berth than you're permitting.

I do believe the world and all creation were done in six days (why it took six I have no idea, why not one...well actually I do have a clue, but anyhoo.) That said I also believe God a) creates with age so we cannot prove in any direction the age of the earth, b) there is more going on between day six and the Fall of mankind than we realize, c) the Garden is the focus of the creation epics, not so much the earth, d) there is a unique distanciation between the temporal nature of the Garden and the rest of creation.

It is unfeasible, given both the general and particular revelation we have about this event to look around and see a creation that is only 10,000 or so years old. It is evident to any reasonable observer that creation appears to be hundreds of million or billions of years old. I do, however, uphold that God could do this in six days...but also recognize the structuring of the Hebrew in the first creation account does not immediately affix a 24 period to a day.

 

Old regular...

You beat me to it! :wavey:

I was going to recommend ICR.

 

I don"t see any berth for old earth.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

A Short Statement

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Article XII.

WE AFFIRM *that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY *that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

It is unreasonable to assume that the current "laws of nature" are the same as those [if they can be called laws at that period] during creation!

 

Read the whole document, particularly articles 7 and 13 in addition to the ones you've mentioned. What is being talked about is that while the Scriptures aren't bound by science they aren't also scientific. The nature of the revelation therein is not total in terms of being an exhaustive scientific text. There is no discrepancy between old earth and inerrancy. In fact some of the better academics from an inerrantist position (that is those who define it the best) are also old earth folks.

Only a limited read of inerrancy and the text prohibits an old earth read while giving preference to a young earth. This isn't a helpful view of inerrancy though, particularly in light of other, growing, criticisms. It ends up being rather difficult to maintain theologically.

Uh, you realize how wrong this comment is. The laws of nature have been and are constant. God uses natural processes in His revelation of Himself. Thus God, being a Creator of order, utilizes such order to constrain His creation and also to guide it. If you're trying to say that the laws of nature are not constant you essentially have an arbitrary God who inflicts unusual harm onto the world for no reason and acts without care for His creation.

 

I happened to be listening to Hank's show yesterday. He went into a strange commentary on dinosaurs, about how the Theologians who state Dinosaurs and men lived together. I cannot remember the extent of the comment but he did say that dragons in hstory are not Dinosaurs. I think he was debunking those who claim dinos existed within the last 5-6 thousand years when man was around.

I heard Bob Dutko explain this very well, or at least I think so. If man and Dinos didn't live side-by-side in the recent past, then how did we get all sorts historical stories of just that? We see cave paintings depicting dinos very precisely. We have stories from Marco Polo claiming to see large dragons. There are dinos painted on shields from the dark ages. If dinos died out millions of years ago, they how did all these things appear in tthe recent past?

 

I used to listen to Hank a lot a few years back when he would defend against hereies and heretics like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland and Joel Osteen, and he still does. But as of late he seems to want to push his Preterist views almost every show. I think it sells his books. He has become more of a salesman for his publishing house than an apologist IMO.

He used to always say we can divide in non-essentials but not essential doctrines, but he seems to want to make his Eschatological view as essential IMO.

In the past I have donated funds to CRI and I have bought several books from him that were well done, but as some in here know I'm a big opponent to Rick Warren and the Purpose Driven theology. I tried to call into his show for about a month straight and could never get through, so I e-mailed CRI several times with simple questions on Warren and PD. I was very civil and simple in my questions, but I never received a reply and I sent very many e-mails. At the same time though I did continue to get snail mail from CRI wanting me to give more. I had heard from someone that Hank may even be a member of Saddleback (at the time) and that may be why he didn't reply.

If you can go back and listen to Walter Martin's broadcasts I suggest you do, it is a completely different show than what Hank does now. Hank does too much selling of his books IMO instead of helping people with Bible questions. Also I feel he goes over the head of most Christians with deep theological answers sometimes that most people will be unable to understand, especially me. lol

 

It is the same with any liberal, if something is supernatural in scripture then it must be allegory. Explain away what what is hard to accept.