Category Archives: Jesus Christ

Christmas Carols or Climate Carols?

Well Advent is here and to make Christmas Green, some Green  (which type of green?) have written some Green Christmas Carols. They are from Christian Climate Action who were the ones who climbed onto commuter trains as part of their contribution to Extinction Rebellion in London.

I will not comment on them and let readers make up their own minds.

Image may contain: text

And an Advent Sunday service outside Horse Hill oil well in Surrey

No photo description available.

Alternative Carols for Christmas

And the words

https://christianclimateaction.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/alternative-christmas-carols.pdf?sfns=mo

 

Christian Climate Action Manchester
Salford Hub

climatecarols
Alternative Christmas carols and songs
Words ‘refurnished’ by Grace Thomas

Ding Dong Merrily on High
Ding dong merrily on high
The temperature is rising
With all the carbon in the sky
It isn’t that surprising
Fa-la-la…..
Our lifestyles are excessive ( x2)
E’en so here below, below,
The life on earth is dying
And “Io, io, io!”
The future’s terrifying
Fa-la-la…..
Pray you, dutifully go
And partake in truth telling
May you beautifully show
Concern for this, our dwelling
Fa-la-la…..

Silent Night
Silent night, holy night!
All are quiet, to the plight
On the TV, little is said
Of the crisis up ahead
Put our heads in the sand
Put our heads in the sand
Silent night, holy night!
Children quake at the sight.
Those in power show little concern
Fossil fuels continue to burn
When will voices be heard?
When will voices be heard?
Silent night, holy night!
May the world see the light.
Share the wisdom, start to act
And respond to science and fact
For the sake of this earth
For the sake of this earth

Hark the Herald
Hark the herald rebels sing!
Let the sound of protest ring
East to West, and every child
Old and young are reconciled
Joyful, all ye nations, rise
Join the peaceful rebel cries
With th’ angelic host proclaim
Life can never be the same
Hark, the herald rebels sing
Let the sound of protest ring
For too long we have ignored
The great earth we all adore
Now the time has come for all
To respond to this great call
In our shared humanity
Hail the great calamity
Silent can we be no more
Rise as one, we all must soar
Hark, the herald rebels sing!
Let the sound of protest ring

Hail, The earth in all its grace
Hail! The beauty in this place
Light and life we strive to see
In bio-diversity
Join together, sing as one
Till our work is fully done
Till we’re taken seriously
In this stark emergency
Hark, the herald rebels sing!
Let the sound of protest ring

12 years of crisis
On the first year of crisis, inaction gave to me
A forest without any trees
On the second year of crisis, inaction gave to me
Two hurricanes
And a forest without any trees
On the third year of crisis, inaction gave to me
Three heatwaves, two hurricanes and a forest without any trees
On the fourth year of crisis, inaction gave to me
Four crop failures, three heatwaves, two hurricanes and a forest without any trees.
On the fifth year of crisis, inaction gave to me
Five rising seas.
Four crop failures, three heatwaves, two hurricanes and a forest without any trees.
On the sixth year of crisis, inaction gave to me
Six nations starving.
Five rising seas.
Four crop failures, three heatwaves, two hurricanes and a forest without any trees

On the seventh year of crisis, inaction gave to me
Seven flood disasters, six nations starving.
Five rising seas.
Four crop failures, three heatwaves, two hurricanes and a forest without any trees
On the eighth year of crisis, inaction gave to me
Eight coral die-offs, seven flood disasters, six nations starving.
Five rising seas.
Four crop failures, three heatwaves, two hurricanes and a forest without any trees
On the ninth year of crisis, inaction gave to me
Nine glaciers dwindling, eight coral die-offs, seven flood disasters, six nations starving.
Five rising seas.
Four crop failures, three heatwaves, two hurricanes and a forest without any trees
On the tenth year of crisis, inaction gave to me
Ten displaced peoples, nine glaciers dwindling, eight coral die-offs, seven flood disasters, six
nations starving.
Five rising seas.
Four crop failures, three heatwaves, two hurricanes and a forest without any trees
On the eleventh year of crisis, inaction gave to me
Eleven wildfires raging, ten displaced peoples, nine glaciers dwindling, eight coral die-offs,
seven flood disasters, six nations starving.

Five rising seas.
Four crop failures, three heatwaves, two hurricanes and a forest without any trees
On the twelfth year of crisis, inaction gave to me,
(sing slowly) No turning back (pause)
Eleven wildfires raging, ten displaced peoples, nine glaciers dwindling, eight coral die-offs,
seven flood disasters, six nations starving.
Five rising seas.
Four crop failures, three heatwaves, two hurricanes and a forest without any trees

Once in Sweden’s capital city
Once in Sweden’s capital city
Stood a lowly girl on strike
Climate breakdown was her worry
World inaction she disliked
Strong she stood, placard in hand
With a message for her land.
It took time, for all to listen
To the worries she conveyed
Some did sneer, scorn with derision
Undermined the points she made
Resolute, she did persist
Unwilling to be dismissed
And the eyes of many opened
To the science that she shared
Children gathered in accordance
To show all, that they, too cared
And she leads the movement on
Worldwide voices speaking as one

O come all ye faithful
O come all ye faithful
Active and defiant
O come ye, oh come ye
And take a stand
Come and behold this
Climate crisis
O come let us demand change
O come let us demand change
Oh come let us demand change
For the world
Sing choirs of protests
Sing in exultation
Sing all ye citizens of this great world
Treasure creation
Let us now preserve it
O come let us demand change….

We wish for a greener Christmas
We wish for a greener Christmas
We wish for a greener Christmas
We wish for a greener Christmas
And a low carbon year
Sad tidings we bring
To you and your kin
We wish for a greener Christmas
And a low carbon year
We all want meaningful action
We all want meaningful action
We all want meaningful action
So bring some out here
We won’t stop until we’ve got some
We won’t stop until we’ve got some
We won’t stop until we’ve got some
So bring some out here
We wish for a greener Christmas….

If all that is too much, then they could have sung  aversion of

O christmas Tree

christmastree

frackingcarol

My own comments.

The last O Christmas Tree was written as a joke and a parody, but the others are in all seriousness which has me worried.

I can see the point of parody, but not twisting Carols for ideological ideas however sincerely held.  There is something about the self-righteousness and virtue signalling of climate activists which gets me.

 

There are better ways of caring for the planet.

Holy Communion with the Devil at Cirencester

Yup, that’s it! When you go to Cirencester Parish Church you take communion with the Devil.

Cirencester is the capitol of the Cotswolds and an ancient market town going back to Roman times. We often stop there returning from the tumuli around Stonehenge. The centre of the town is the massive parish church dedicated to John the Baptist, which is apt considering the funding of the tower.

P1020607

A vast medieval  church like indicates one thing; WOOL. The wealth of England in the middle Ages was built on wool whether in the Cotswolds or the Yorkshire Dales. Many wool merchants became the equivalent of billionaires, but the downside was that the sheep munched all the wild flowers.

The chancel is the oldest part of the church. Construction started around 1115. It was widened in about 1180. The east window dates from around 1300. The original stained glass of the east window has long since disappeared and it is now filled with fifteenth century glass from other parts of the church in a patchwork quilt of glass with the Devil taking centrestage.

P1020599P1020600

To the north of the chancel is St. Catherine’s Chapel which dates from around 1150. It contains a wall painting of St. Christopher carrying the Christ Child, and vaulting given by Abbot John Hakebourne in 1508.

The nave was completely rebuilt between 1515 and 1530 and is a remarkable example of late perpendicular gothic architecture.

The tower is fifteenth century and remarkable for the large buttresses which shore it up at its junction with the nave. It was built with blood money as Henry IV gave money for it to say thanks for the heads of Richard II’s half brothers, which were sent to Henry on a platter  (or should have been, noting its dedication), after being beheaded in the market place outside the church.  And so construction began soon after the 1399/1400  “rebellion”, which was part of the Wars of the Roses.

The great south porch which adjoins the market place was built around 1500 at the expense of Alice Avening.

Oddly the nave was built last of all and so making one building connecting tower and nave, which is the highest of any English church, but not cathedral. (The downside today are the horrendous heating bills.)

P1020597P1020604

The vista is vast and I cannot think of a more massive parish church.

P1020605

The view down the aisle from the tower is impressive with a verger and churchwarden in the foreground. And thanks to the warden for giving me a guided tour.

P1020606

Walking down the aisle you see the rood screen with the altar, reredos and east window beyond.

P1020595

Now let’s say you are at a communion service and have come down the aisle to receive communion , the body and blood of Christ. Once through the rood screen, you see the the alter, which is rather large and not the plain wooden table of the Reformation.

P1020594

If you are from Garstang like us and irreligiously looking at the crazy east window you will see the arms of wool merchant Mr Garstang who’d moved south from Garstang to make his fortune. But your mind should be on higher things.

P1020590

A few steps more and you have a closer view of the alter and very ornate Victorian reredos, surprisingly not in wood.

P1020592

Then before you kneel at the altar rail, there is a devilish face looking at you from the east window. Yes, it is the devil seeking those who he/it can lead astray.

P1020592

Yes, it looks almost mischievous, but we know that sin, or whatever it is that makes us do wrong, humorously leads us in the wrong direction.

P1020593

At this point it is best to kneel and immediately the Devil has gone. As we receive the fortifying bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ , the devil is overcome as the early church thought. This is best seen as Jesus though the cross defeating evil and forgiving us and then through his rising again opening the way to a new life.

As Paul wrote to the wayward church in Corinth

The Institution of the Lord’s Supper

23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for[g] you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

and in Paul’s letter to the Colossians

 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.

21 And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled[j] in his fleshly body[k] through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him— 23 provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven. I, Paul, became a servant of this gospel.

I hope all who worship at Cirencester find this a great aid to their faith and trust in Jesus Christ.

For me it made a very serious point on the human condition and its solution in a rather jokey way.

Perhaps we need more jesters explaining the gospel of Christ and fewer showmen and pretend academics.

Do we need to take Jesus to our urban areas? | Psephizo

This is an interesting blog about Anglican ministry in urban estates by one of my bishops, Philip North of Burnley.

I always appreciate what Philip does as a bishop and what he says, but whether I always agree is a different matter. Here he is at our excellent confirmation earlier this year

P1000074.JPG

This is a blog by another priest questioning aspects of a recent article in the Church Times

To me he overstates the case that Jesus has  a “Bias to the Poor” – here implicitly referering to Bishop David Sheppard’s book of the 1980s. I would argue Jesus has a bias to all rich and poor as Ian Paul makes clear

Philip goes on to question the assumptions that we make, observing that ‘Jesus centred his ministry on the poor’ and that ‘a Church run for the most part by relatively wealthy graduates’ is bound to fail in these contexts. I am not sure that these claims are convincing. Reading through Luke’s gospel this year, and commenting on the Sunday lectionary readings, I have been struck not so much by Jesus’ ministry centring on the poor, as Jesus engaging with rich and poor, central and marginal, leaders and ordinary people. To be sure, Luke mentions the poor, marginalised and the ‘sinners’ more emphatically than perhaps the other Synoptic gospels do—but he also mentions the wealthy, the religious and those committed to traditional piety more clearly than others. Luke’s point is that the poor are not excluded from the gospel by being poor (as many thought then, and we appear also to think today)—but that is because no-one is excluded.

The affluent and powerful has as much need of the Gospel as anyone and also have the influence in society to change things

Read the blog and the Church Times article and make your own mind up.

The most important question is how the churches take the love of Christ to our whole population

Source: Do we need to take Jesus to our urban areas? | Psephizo

Can a Christian believe the earth is billions of years old?

For nearly sixty years now Young Earth Creationists have been trying to convince the world that the earth is only a few thousand years old and evolution never happened.

Science Confirms The Bible

The book which started it all.

The_Genesis_Flood

Most stop short of saying that if you accept deep time and evolution you cannot be a Christian. However, I’ve been told that many times.

The result is that Creationists, and especially Ken Ham have been successful in convincing both Christian and non-Christian that to be a Christian you must believe in a young earth.

Ham and other believe there were dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden.

Image result for ken ham image51gBlHMEfwL__SS500_

I prefer this!

Featured Image -- 5288

Recently Ken Ham has been asking this question and then answering it

Can a person believe in an old earth and an old universe (millions or billions of years in age) and be a Christian?

It’s was on Facebook on 28th September 2019, with the following introduction and a web reference.

https://www.facebook.com/BiblicalCreation/

and

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/does-the-gospel-depend-on-a-young-earth/?fbclid=IwAR0T1vGnkR6NLHSBl6aJrdjhJp23ow5ChqEAb6q7QG37Jy2reHIR2uM6FCY

 

“If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”
~Romans 10:9

Numerous other passages could be cited, but not one of them states in any way that a person has to believe in a young earth or universe to be saved.

And the list of those who cannot enter God’s kingdom, as recorded in passages like Revelation 21:8, certainly does not include “old earthers.”

Even though it is not a salvation issue, the belief that earth history spans millions of years has very severe consequences. […] The point is, believing in a young earth won’t ultimately affect one’s salvation, but it sure does affect the beliefs of those that person influences concerning how to approach Scripture. We believe that such compromise in the Church with millions of years and Darwinian evolution has greatly contributed to the loss of the Christian foundation in the culture.

https://answersingenesis.org/…/does-the-gospel-depend-on-a…/

Image may contain: text

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/does-the-gospel-depend-on-a-young-earth/?utm_source=articlesmedia&utm_medium=email&utm_content=1-banner-cta&utm_campaign=20190928&mc_cid=3778e71b84&mc_eid=e396ad77f1

So here it it in its full glory and unexpurgated.

I’ve included it all and put my comments in quotation form

like this. Anything in a grey background is yours truly.

Chapter 1

Does the Gospel Depend on a Young Earth?

by Ken Ham on September 28, 2019

 

Can a person believe in an old earth and an old universe (millions or billions of years in age) and be a Christian?

A typical Ham question where the answer is “yes” but really “no”.

First of all, let’s consider three verses that sum up the gospel and salvation. 1 Corinthians 15:17 says, “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!” Jesus said in John 3:3, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Romans 10:9 clearly explains, “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Numerous other passages could be cited, but not one of them states in any way that a person has to believe in a young earth or universe to be saved.

I think I second him on this

And the list of those who cannot enter God’s kingdom, as recorded in passages like Revelation 21:8, certainly does not include “old earthers.”

 

Elsewhere we can find more as in Galatians 5 vs 20

Many great men of God who are now with the Lord have believed in an old earth.

This is rather patronising to say the least. In fact it is most since geologists started hammering the earth.

 

Some of these explained away the Bible’s clear teaching about a young earth by adopting the classic gap theory. Others accepted a day-age theory

What Ham doesn’t seem to realise is that these interpretations of Genesis weren’t “made up” to make geological time palatable , but go back hundreds of years earlier and right back to the early Fathers.

See my chapter in Myth and Geology, Geol soc Special Publications 273 2007.

sp273-39

 

or positions such as theistic evolution, the framework hypothesis, and progressive creation.

This is rather sweeping and dismissive of the many who have considered Genesis in the light of science

My chapter (in English from Streitfall Evolution

Evolution and religion in Britain from 1859 to

Scripture plainly teaches that salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, with no requirement for what one believes about the age of the earth or universe.

In many ways I agree with that, but Christians can put others off beleif in Christ by holding silly beliefs themselves or rejecting science. St Augustine sums it up

Augsutine

Now when I say this, people sometimes assume then that it does not matter what a Christian believes concerning the supposed millions-of-years age for the earth and universe.

 

Now we are getting to it! I disagree with Ham as rejecting “billions-of-years” makes the Gospel absurd. I find this rather duplicitous  as the diagram shows what Ham really thinks as his honest answer is that you cannot.

Image may contain: text

 

Even though it is not a salvation issue, the belief that earth history spans millions of years has very severe consequences.

Having softened his readers up, he nows let rip.

Let me summarize some of these.

Authority Issue

The belief in millions of years does not come from Scripture, but from the fallible methods that secularists use to date the universe.

 

As the Bible was written some 2 to 3 thousand years ago, this is not surprising. Neither do the following come from Scripture; heliocentrism, genetics, DNA, periodic table, but according to Paul in I Corinthians 15 seeds actaully die before they germinate. That is simply untrue!!

To attempt to fit millions of years into the Bible, you have to invent a gap of time that almost all Bible scholars agree the text does not allow — at least from a hermeneutical perspective.

Here Ham is alluding to the Gap Theory, which suggests a gap of time between the initial creation in vs1 and the final re-ordering in vs2, which was the most common view of conservative evangelicals up to about 1970 to accommodate geological time. Here Ham implies it was invented/concocted as an adhoc response to deep time.

That is not the case. Some in the early church held it. In fact before 1800 most western Christians reckon God first created chaos and then later re-ordered it after a period of time. Before geology opinions differed on the duration of Chaos. Ussher nobly allowed a few hours, but others allowed much more. Thus in 1801 Thomas Chalmers took this “Chaos-Restitution” interpretation and allowed most geological time to be in this period of Chaos.

Hence it was not invented but an old interpretation modified. OK it was rejected by most in later years.

Or you have to reinterpret the days of creation as long periods of time (even though they are obviously ordinary days in the context of Genesis 1).

 

Again this is not another invention but a modification of an ancient interpretation which was held by some in the early church. It was not as widely held as the Chaos-Restitution

See my chapter in Myth and Geology and also this paper in The Evangelical Quarterly

Genesis of Ray

In other words, you have to add a concept (millions of years) from outside Scripture into God’s Word. This approach puts man’s fallible ideas in authority over God’s Word.

Sorry, Ken. You misrepresented this “alternative” views and failed to acknowledge they were common before any geologist wielded his hammer.

As soon as you surrender the Bible’s authority in one area, you unlock a door to do the same thing in other areas.

Ken would do well to read John Calvin on accommodation in his commentary on Genesis, on chapter one!! Here Calvin stresses the Bible is about God and not scientific detail. In other words

the Bible tells you how to get to heaven

Not how the heavens go.

Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe

Once the door of compromise is open, even if ajar just a little, subsequent generations push the door open wider. Ultimately, this compromise has been a major contributing factor in the loss of biblical authority in our Western world.

Ken loves the word compromise, possibly because it puts those he disagrees with in a bad light. It implies we all lack integrity, which is very offensive

It is not compromise, but striving to understand the world around us in the light of Scripture.

The Church should heed the warning of Proverbs 30:6: “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

Not a kindly remark. One should not weaponise the Word of God.

Contradiction Issue

A Christian’s belief in millions of years totally contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. Here are just three examples:

Thorns. Fossil thorns are found in rock layers that secularists believe to be hundreds of millions of years old, so supposedly they existed millions of years before man. However, the Bible makes it clear that thorns came into existence after the Curse: “Then to Adam He said, ‘Because. . . you have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, “You shall not eat of it”: Cursed is the ground for your sake. . . . Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you’ ” (Genesis 3:17–18).

Nope. Gen 3. 18 does not say thorns came into existence at the so-called Curse.

Disease. The fossil remains of animals, said by evolutionists to be millions of years old, show evidence of diseases (like cancer, brain tumors, and arthritis). Thus, such diseases supposedly existed millions of years before sin. Yet Scripture teaches that after God finished creating everything and placed man at the pinnacle of creation, He described the creation as “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Certainly calling cancer and brain tumors “very good” does not fit with Scripture and the character of God.

It’s odd that Christians in previous centuries did not have this problem with “very good”. Why should “very good” mean the absence of death?

Diet. The Bible clearly teaches in Genesis 1:29–30 that Adam and Eve and the animals were all vegetarian before sin entered the world. However, we find fossils with lots of evidence showing that animals were eating each other — supposedly millions of years before man and thus before sin.

To be pedantic this does not preclude meat in one’s diet.

  Death Issue

Romans 8:22 makes it clear that the whole creation is groaning as a result of the Fall — the entrance of sin. One reason for this groaning is death — the death of living creatures, both animals and man. Death is described as an enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26), which will trouble creation until one day it is thrown into the lake of fire.

Th is is eisegesis on eisegesis. Paul is not clear at this point – hence the diversity of opinion among commentators. Paul neither says or implies “One reason for this groaning is death”.

Romans 5:12 and other passages make it obvious that physical death of man (and really, death in general) entered the once-perfect creation because of man’s sin. However, if a person believes that the fossil record arose over millions of years, then death, disease, suffering, carnivorous activity, and thorns existed millions of years before sin.

 

Again Ken his selecting his preferred interpretation.

The first death was in the Garden of Eden when God killed an animal as the first blood sacrifice (Genesis 3:21) — a picture of what was to come in Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, who would take away the sin of the world. Jesus Christ stepped into history to pay the penalty of sin — to conquer our enemy, death.

 

This depends how you consider Genesis 3, but nowhere does it say animals did not die before this point. Most importantly it does not say god offered a sacrifice to make those clothes. This is ingenuous.

By dying on a Cross and being raised from the dead, Jesus conquered death and paid the penalty for sin. Although millions of years of death before sin is not a salvation issue per se, I personally believe that it is really an attack on Jesus’ work on the Cross.

Well, this is not an argument, but what he personally believes! It is better to follow Scripture and look to all commentators to see how we should understand it. One person’s personal views do not count for much.

Recognizing that Christ’s work on the Cross defeated our enemy, death, is crucial to understanding the good news of the gospel: “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

Far more important is to see that through the cross Christ forgives us and that the resurrection opens the way for new life.  (Could write much more here.)

Rooted in Genesis

All biblical doctrines, including the gospel itself, are ultimately rooted in the first book of the Bible.

This is universal Christian belief.

  • Marriage consists of one man and one woman for life (Genesis 2:24).

I won’t challenge this as the ideal, but it is a pity many Creationists don’t follow it!!

.However you read Genesis, sin started with humans

  • From the beginning God promised a Messiah to save us (Genesis 3:15).

Not all Christians accept this “bruised heel” argument

Genesis 3 16-19 does not actually say this. It is a popular interpretation which owes to John Milton than the Bible

paradiselost

Not the best biblical passage on this!!

I think all Christians would agree, but prefer to look elsewhere in the Bible and especially Jesus’ teachings.

Agreed. I reject the views of Creationists in Apartheid South Africa and the Confederate States who used Genesis to support racism.

 

False Claims

The New York Times on November 25, 2007, published an article on the modern biblical creation movement. The Creation Museum/Answers in Genesis received a few mentions in the article. However, I wanted to deal with one statement in the article that the writer, Hanna Rosin, stated concerning the Creation Museum:

The museum sends the message that belief in a young earth is the only way to salvation. The failure to understand Genesis is literally “undermining the entire word of God,” Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis, says in a video. The collapse of Christianity believed to result from that failure is drawn out in a series of exhibits: school shootings, gay marriage, drugs, porn, and pregnant teens. At the same time, it presents biblical literalism as perfectly defensible science.

“Note particularly the statement: “belief in a young earth is the only way to salvation.” Had the writer done just a little bit of homework, she would have found that not to be true! Even if Christians believe in an old earth (and even theistic evolution), they would know that such a statement is absolutely false.

 The Creation Museum avoids saying this explicitly, but it is implied in everything Ham, AIG and the Creation Museum say.

The Bible makes it clear that, concerning Jesus Christ, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). When the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:30 asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul and Silas (in verse 31) replied, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

He’s on stronger ground here, but reflects standard Christian belief

In Ephesians 2:8–9 we are clearly told “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” And Jesus Christ stated “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’ ” (John 14:6).

Creation Museum/Answers in Genesis Teachings

As one walks through the Creation Museum, nowhere does it even suggest that “belief in a young earth is the only way to salvation.”

Not so, Maybe it does not state it, but the whole approach of the Creation Musuem and AIG, not only suggests it, but makes it to be the only conclusion.

In fact, in the theater where the climax of the 7 C’s walk-through occurs, people watch a program called The Last Adam. This is one of the most powerful presentations of the gospel I have ever seen. This program clearly sets out the way of salvation — and it has nothing to do with believing in a young earth.

As I often tell people in my lectures, Romans 10:9 states “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” By confessing “Jesus is Lord,” one is confessing that Christ is to be Lord of one’s life — which means repenting of sin and acknowledging who Christ is. The Bible DOES NOT state, “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead — AND BELIEVE IN A YOUNG EARTH — you will be saved”!

You protest too much!!

Concluding Remarks

So it should be obvious to anyone, even our opponents, that this statement in the New York Times is absolutely false. Sadly, I have seen similar statements in other press articles — and it seems no matter what we write in website articles, or how often we answer this outlandish accusation, many in the press continue to disseminate this false accusation, and one has to wonder if it is a deliberate attempt to alienate AiG from the mainstream church!

I was not aware that AIG was part of the mainstream churches !

I believe that one of the reasons writers such as Hanna Rosin make such statements is that AiG is very bold in presenting authoritatively what the Bible clearly states. People sometimes misconstrue such authority in the way Hanna Rosin has. It is also interesting that people who don’t agree with us often get very emotional about how authoritatively we present the biblical creation view — they dogmatically insist we can’t be so dogmatic in what we present! It’s okay for them to be dogmatic about what they believe, and dogmatic about what we shouldn’t believe, but we can’t be!

In my lectures, I explain to people that believing in an old earth won’t keep people out of heaven if they are truly “born again” as the Bible defines “born again.” Then I’m asked, “Then why does AiG make an issue of the age of the earth — particularly a young age?” The answer is that our emphasis is on the authority of Scripture. The idea of millions of years does NOT come from the Bible; it comes from man’s fallible, assumption-based dating methods.

Here we go again. The false questioning of anything connected to geological or cosmological dating.

That has been dealt with so many times.

 

If one uses such fallible dating methods to reinterpret Genesis (e.g., the days of creation), then one is unlocking a door, so to speak, to teach others that they don’t have to take the Bible as written (e.g., Genesis is historical narrative) at the beginning — so why should one take it as written elsewhere (e.g., the bodily Resurrection of Christ). If one has to accept what secular scientists

i.e atheistic scientists. Ken will not admit how many Christian scienitsts have been involved in all this old age stuff, whether those geologists like Sedgwick and Buckland

buckland

 

in the early 19th century or Fr leMaitre, the Belgian astrophysicist and priest who put forward the idea of a Big Bang.

Featured Image -- 11353

say about the age of the earth, evolution, etc., then why not reinterpret the Resurrection of Christ? After all, no secular scientist accepts that a human being can be raised from the dead, so maybe the Resurrection should be reinterpreted to mean just “spiritual resurrection.”

This is plain deceptive as he wishes to imply all non-creationist scientists are atheistic and deny the resurrection.

Perhaps he has not heard of Francis Collins,

250px-Francis_Collins_official_portrait

Sir John Polkinghorne and a whole galaxy of greater and lesser scientists throughout the world , who see no conflict between faith in the resurrection of Jesus and acceptance of the vast age of the universe, and those things which go along with it.

The point is, believing in a young earth won’t ultimately affect one’s salvation, but it sure does affect the beliefs of those that person influences concerning how to approach Scripture. We believe that such compromise in the Church with millions of years and Darwinian evolution has greatly contributed to the loss of the Christian foundation in the culture.

You have not proved your point!!

However you have shown  that you are prepared to misrepresent other Christians, history  and science to make your claim.

Your approach is deficient both in the Ninth Commandment and our Lord’s Second great commandment and rather replete with what Paul warns us about in Galatians 5 vs16-21

I think I prefer Adam Sedgwick’s ways two hundred years ago. We should do the same today . Here it is;

sedgwick

 

Advice for Young-Earth Creationists

This reblog of a Canadian theologian is a quick 10 points on why Young Earth Creationists need to check their understanding of the Bible and creation.

Caution Creationists3

It is a response to Ken Ham on Premier Christian Radio. I feel Premier seem to prefer the nutty extremes rather than the more moderate, hence will to much air time of Ham and exorcise a cat Mackay.

Image result for ken ham imageAnswers magazine, Oct-Dec 2014 issue

It is very brief and more a list of pullet points. Each needs expanding and explaining.

168946_477433586556_727651556_6500443_8206770_n

Comments

On pt5 evidence that the earth is more than 6000 years old goes back 350 years to the time of Lhwyd and Ray in the visits to Snowdonia. here’s John Ray

300px-John_Ray_from_NPG

6. is very serious. an insistence on YEC is liable to destroy the faith of many Christians, as people are given the choice of Christ or science.

315500_393800870693304_2100848630_n

7. comparing style of YEC to opposition to Galileo is the weakest. In Galileo’s time it was not crystal clear that geo-centrism was wrong, and it took over a century after Copernicus published in 1543 for most educated people to be convinced. Those who opposed heliocentrism were well-informed which is more than we can say for YEC. YEC is science -denying not new science questioning. The two are different.

8 on animal suffering and natural evil is the biggest question of the lot…………

 

But on the whole a useful summary and my strictures wont affect many !!

storehouse-300x165

Finally, a good read

2876

In light of Ken’s Ham-fisted performance on “Unbelievable,” here are a few tips for young-earth creationists: Your literal interpretation of …

Source: Advice for Young-Earth Creationists