LOL..oh no...I know you were not speaking about me as much as I was saying my end of FB wasn't like that. However, I have heard the Ken Ham FB was going crazy. I also heard Ken Ham put it out there on FB while others were not making it public. Yeah, I suppose I was waiting for the "those morons". lol. Glad you brought it up though...it challenged me to see it objectively and not as someone who does agree with him.
Guess it depends. I'm not talking about KJV or not either. It goes back to the early church. Things like slavery were promoted as Biblical. Just look at the story of Huck Finn. He thought he was going to hell because he helped out a slave. The Earth was believed to be flat based on the Bible. How many were branded heretical for teaching the Earth was round. Sometimes interpretations have been incorrect. I'm not saying evolution is correct. Not at all, but we should show some grace in positions that do not impact the Gospel of salvation in Christ alone.
LOL...oh my...I deleted that post because it was so off track and after thinking about it...it didn't apply. lol. As soon as the thought hit I thought, "I hope Embassy didn't see it yet!" LOL. I knew it was off track...lol. My mouth and fingers love to go all "ken ham" don't they? Oh that was bad...good thing I'm not famous or I'd be the one stirring up the controversy.
I see a couple of issues with this. It's my understanding from what I've read that the convention in Ohio requires an agreement to not criticize another presenter/ curriculum by name. Mr. Ham openly criticized Enns by name while in Greenville. This action made the convention board nervous. My understanding is that the convention board tried to get this agreement from Ken Ham since Enns was also going to be there. Ham refused to agree. The board withdrew his invitation. I take a big issue with publicly calling someone out or pointing out their "errors" in public. Especially when calling their salvation into question at the same time. You don't publicly try to shame someone into agreeing with you. Ken Ham did mention Peter Enns by name in one of his five talks at an earlier South Carolina convention in Greenville organized by Mr. Dean. Ken showed two video clips of Dr. Enns, done in the context of showing how some modern Christian speakers are compromising God’s Word in Genesis. Ken did say that Dr. Enns was also speaking at the conference and had connections to another convention speaker, Susan Wise Bauer. In another talk about a common Christian viewpoint that compromises Genesis, Ken briefly mentioned that one of the speakers at this convention took that view. I got this directly from Ken Ham's website. After much prayer and deliberation over the weekend, Great Homeschool Convention's Advisory Board has unanimously decided to disinvite Ken and AIG from all future conventions, including the Cincinnati convention next week. The Board believes this to be the Lord's will for our convention and searched the Scriptures for the mind of the Lord and the leadership of the Holy Spirit before arriving at this decision. From the same website/blog. So my issue or question here is this, is Ken Ham calling into doubt that the board prayerfully and was Spirit lead to take this action? It comes across to me like anyone who says anything against AiG/Ken Ham can't possibly be a Christian if they're a Christian at all. Sorry but to me this was very poorly handled and does nothing to help my opinion of Ken Ham. In case you're wondering, I am a young earther. But that doesn't make me a "better" person or Christian. And it shouldn't determine anyone elses "status" either. Sorry this was so long! Marty
I do not think Ken Ham questioned anyone's salvation. But I am not out to defend him. You are right...old or new earther has nothing to do with being a better Christian. However, let me also point out that Enns has views that are just plain against the Bible. His old or new world stance is not the only thing. That still is not to say Ham should have called him out in that fashion.
I don't know anything about Enns so I can't say one way or the other about him. I somehow ended up on the AiG mailing list and get the newsletter about once a month. In the newsletter, it has gotten to the point that dh says, "Who badmouthed Ham this time?" It's 6 or 8 pages with half being ads and the rest being "who said what about us" now.
What an interesting discussion. I have no clue what went on. Now I need to research. Should I be embarrassed to say I have no clue who Enns is? I'm in my own little world over here I guess. lol
I'm glad I'm having this discussion as I am ignorant! lol. Geesh..."who said that about us"...that is childish and arrogant.
This is the first I have read about this, and I didn't read other's comments. The world is attacking true Christians at every turn. anyone who stands up for the REAL truth is ridiculed. Didn't Jesus tell us this very thing would happen? Persecution. This was on the AiG website: We should also add that many months before Ken spoke, AiG made it quite clear to the leader of this convention that we speak against those who compromise Scripture, including those who might be speaking at his convention. I agree with this statement. We are supposed to stand up for the truth and declare false teachers when we encounter them! This was in their email to Ken Ham, as taken from AiG website: One of the core values of our convention is that we believe that good people can disagree and still be good people. We believe that Christians do not need to personally question the integrity, the intelligence, or the salvation of other Christians when debating Biblical issues. "Good" people all over the world are on their way to hell! The Bible is God's Word! If a "Christian" is following/teaching something that is anti-scriptural, we are SUPPOSE to point it out! We cannot expect unsaved people to behave like they are saved, but if someone claims Christ, we have a responsibility to correct them if they are in error! I, personally, would boycott these conventions that kicked him out. If he is pointing out false teachings unashamedly, good for him! That takes courage and apparently he is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.
Thank you Carrie! I have read this entire thread and I have been waiting to see a response like this. False teaching must be exposed and Mr Ham has risked his reputation and his business to do this. I may be considered narrow minded or intolerant, but I agree with his stance on this issue. Dr Enns teaching is absolutely not biblical and must be called out.
heartsathome...I do love your post and agree. I also agree that the convention is not strictly for conservative views or a particular brand of religion so I do understand why some were upset and how they thought it was out of line. Yet, I do not think Ken Ham should have been kicked out and I still don't think he said anything wrong. Maybe he could have presented the ideas he was against instead of naming names...but I also can't say naming names is a bad thing. At any rate, I can't stand Enns and I am happy someone brought to light the false doctrine in his teachings. I put a lot of thought into this and I tried to see the other side and the logic...and while I still see the logic...I can't help but think Ken Ham stood up for the Word and Enns is spreading a sea of lies. So, I agree with Ken Ham...but does that make this all right? No. The whole thing is messed up. I think said what he said full well knowing the risk. Now, I read an article about the vendors and I do NOT think anyone should boycott them. They all had their place and bought their area long before this took place. From my understanding some of the smaller vendors who make their living off of this and the bulk of their income from these conventions have too much invested to back out. Many have had to put so much into inventory that they will loose far too much not to go forward. Let's not take this out on the little guy here...they did not make this decision. I think it would be unfair to judge a vendor for remaining at that convention. Many are saying vendors that remain should be boycotted...I disagree.
The good news or Gospel of Jesus Christ is NOT what a person believes about Genesis. It isn't anything to do with how a person believes God created the world. This is not an issue dealing with salvation. The Bible defines the Gospel. It says it is Christ's death for our sins, his burial and resurrection, and appearance to people.
Again, I agree here. My gut and heart is taking this side. I tried to be "reasonable"...I tried to be logical...and I do see some good points yet this mirrors my heart.
Even Ken Ham said this had nothing to do with salvation. He did not question Enns salvation. I do. Sorry...but I do. However, Ken Ham specifically said that he was not questioning salvation but doctrine. I personally wonder how one can be saved and think Jesus erred and think all screwed up things over Adams fall...or not fall.
I haven't read all the responses, but I have followed this whole situation with interest. I am a Christian who had never heard of either Peter Enns or Ken Ham until now. As I understand it from reading posts from Susan Wise Bauer, Jay Wile, and Ken Ham, Ham did indeed make comments about a fellow presenter at a convention. As Meghan noted, Ham has been making negative comments about Enns on his blog and about Bauer because her company publishes some of his work. Jay Wile stood up for Enns being allowed to be a Christian with a difference of opinion and he seems to be under attack now too. I am a Christian who believes the Genesis account of the Bible, but I've never really even thought much about the whole Young Earth/Old Earth debate. I probably disagree with most of Enns' Biblical teaching, but I agree with Embassy that parents should get to choose what they teach their children. Ken Ham may be a wonderful Christian man and teacher, but after my first encounter with his FB and blog comments, I don't have much respect for him. If you have an invited speaker at your convention who is posting negative comments about not one, but three other speakers at the convention, wouldn't you feel obligated to do something? I agree that it's a sad situation all the way around.
Anyone care to know my opinion?...(crickets chirping)....No?...well, uh, then I'll just share it with the potato chip bag sitting here in front of me.... Aside from whether or not I think this has been handled appropriately by either side, to me this falls under shaking the dust from your feet and moving on. This particular convention said they are not interested in him being there. So be it. They are in charge of their house, so to speak, and they have closed the door to Mr. Ham. He has said his peace and should chalk it up as a place that has not welcomed his message. I happen to agree with him doctrinally; however, I also recognize when God closes a door or a chapter in my life. He is still getting his message out there. And really, for the sake of the message, it is by far more widely known through Ham's absense from the convention than if he had been allowed to participate. Praise the Lord in all trials. He sees the big picture and we do not.
Ok, I agree with Carrie. But I also agree with Brooke. I think if someone has certain principles, truths, if you will, they have an OBLIGATION Biblically to point out the flaws in other's lies. They have a responsibility to other believers to be blunt about it. But at the same time, Brooke has the right of it at this point. I think Ham was wronged, no matter how blunt he was. But it is over. Let it be over.
