Do people like Ken Ham help or hurt Christian evangelization?

Sayre

Veteran
Sep 21, 2013
2,519
65
✟18,216.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What you are really asking is what truths can we know?
The truth about man is in the Church, of course. Anything that contradicts that, that ultimately denies Church teaching, MUST be false.

Can ultimate faith be placed in human science for absolute knowledge of truth? No. Good natural science admits that its knowledge is always changing, always being modified. We are now so far from the truths of natural science of two and three thousand years ago that most of what was certain has been junked. - from the Four Elements to the terracentric understandings are now admitted to be useless. Bleeding patients for their health, certain medical knowledge of two hundred years ago is admitted bunk in our time. Our own view from our own perspective is far too truncated. If we were left, or limited, to the natural sciences we would truly have to admit, like Socrates, that we can know nothing.

Only in humility of submitting to an Authority wiser than us can we know anything at all. The Church does not pretend to speak with final authority on details of the natural world - the temporal knowledge (when it is right and true) that IS the realm of science; but we can certainly say what we are certain is not true.

And lest you think I and others are "against" science; I say that we only admit that the natural sciences must assume their proper place in the hierarchies of human knowledge; that they must be subject to true philosophy and theology, and are conducted in the light of some philosophy and theology, which in our time are nearly all gone wrong.

Hey...

I'm not sure if this was for me or for someone else, but the shoe fits, so I'll wear it anyway :).

You said "The Church does not pretend to speak with final authority on details of the natural world" and I agree. I do believe in some scientific theories you appear not to believe, but I think we agree that Jesus is the Creator and that God has sovereignty over nature - is that enough alignment?

I don't think that science is the final authority... I don't think it has ANY authority over spiritual matters. But I do think it points quite strongly towards that particular scientific theory.

I'm not sure what to do or think about the ECF's interpretation of Genesis, because they did not have the body of evidence we have to put Genesis in context.

Anyway, I'm a bit conscious that I'm not here to debate against EO's, but to learn from them, and the evolution is quite a contentious topic... so if you don't mind, I might pull back from the topic for a while and just observe.

Blessings.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,491.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Hey...

I'm not sure if this was for me or for someone else, but the shoe fits, so I'll wear it anyway :).

You said "The Church does not pretend to speak with final authority on details of the natural world" and I agree. I do believe in some scientific theories you appear not to believe, but I think we agree that Jesus is the Creator and that God has sovereignty over nature - is that enough alignment?

I don't think that science is the final authority... I don't think it has ANY authority over spiritual matters. But I do think it points quite strongly towards that particular scientific theory.

I'm not sure what to do or think about the ECF's interpretation of Genesis, because they did not have the body of evidence we have to put Genesis in context.

Anyway, I'm a bit conscious that I'm not here to debate against EO's, but to learn from them, and the evolution is quite a contentious topic... so if you don't mind, I might pull back from the topic for a while and just observe.

Blessings.
No problem, and thanks!
But when you say "The ECF's did not have the body of evidence..." you are saying that Christian doctrine is a changeable thing, and implying that scientific learning can change it. As a matter of fact, I think it DOES change it, not because it is (ostensibly) scientific, but because it is produced and reproduced within a Fallen mindset, generally under assumptions that do not admit God in general. The dominant paradigm is scientific rationalism, backed by materialism.

So if the particular scientific theory popular today really DOES mean that there could have been no Fall, what does the rational person who trusts the science do? He abandons the Faith, and logically so. It is the believer who trusts the science to be as or more authoritative than the ECF's - after all, today's science has quite a body of evidence - who winds up irrationally holding onto both propositions - that man Fell from an ideal state AND that he was evolving from a lower state into a higher and better one at the same time. There are paradoxes, and then there are mutually exclusive propositions. I see this to be the latter.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure what to do or think about the ECF's interpretation of Genesis, because they did not have the body of evidence we have to put Genesis in context.

very true, but I would just point out that the Church Fathers drew near to, and had deep communion with, the One who is the only one who has seen it all from the beginning, and current saints (even those after Darwin) who followed the same path also have the same message as the ECFs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The Church Fathers did not specifically speak about evolution obviously but they did talk about nature... I think Gregory Of Nyssa talked about the laws of nature.
And I am not sure all would take the Genesis story in its literal sense.
Very true - in many respects, one can go both ways when it comes to the issue of evolution and seeing what the Early Church has advocated on it....as they advocated for both symbolic and literal interpretations and allowed for progression of time impacting things (As noted before here and here when the issue came up )
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
First, let me apologize to any young earthers who may read this. I don't mean to offend you, but I just can't hang...

Basically Ken follows the Christian tradition of asking people to accept his claims on faith. However, his claims (to ME, anyway) are ridiculous. I won't go into that debate, but to ask people to disbelieve all science and to believe HIS interpretation of the bible, saying the earth is 6000 years old is tough to take. My church (and I BELIEVE the EOC) teach that Genesis should or can be taken to be an alliteration.

It seems to me that to ask people to believe something with so much proof against it based on a limited interpretation can actually hurt the cause of evangelization.

But then, I bet they said the same thing when the apostles talked about the resurrection.
It really does seem like a Civil War on the issue when you address it.

From a Protestant perspective, Pastor Larry provides a much-needed reminder that "literalism" doesn't interpret Scripture in the literal sense (i.e. according to its intended meaning). Proper interpretation requires understanding the historical-cultural context. Bio Logos also had some excellent responses on the issue.... as well as "The Geo Christian" (coming at things from an Old Earth perspective). John Walton also noted well how neither Nye nor Ham got the Bible fully accurate when the debate occurred - more also at Take the Bible More Seriously Than Ken Ham: Interpretation Matters

Moreover, Fr. Richard Rohr has noted some intriguing dynamics when it comes to the ways that Christ was meant to bridge the gap between science and religion...

Fr. Richard Rohr - Cosmic Christ - YouTube


And as N.T Wright has noted well, Being faithful to the Text (i.e. the Bible, Genesis, etc.) means not forcing it to become a one-dimensional answer book for culturally-conditioned questions.[/URL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7L3NHVlsQ
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The Church Fathers did not specifically speak about evolution obviously but they did talk about nature... I think Gregory Of Nyssa talked about the laws of nature.
And I am not sure all would take the Genesis story in its literal sense.

well, yeah, they did not since Darwin had not come along yet. some pagans had some kind of evolutionary belief (although not what Darwing suggested). what the ECFs did affirm was the Genesis account as given. even St John Chrysostom I believe said that the reason plant life was created before the sun, was to show that life comes from God. plants around with no sun is hard to gel with a Darwinian view of evolution before the Fall.
 
Upvote 0

David Waffen

Great American
Apr 29, 2004
697
41
45
The greatest nation on Earth
✟1,060.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
First, let me apologize to any young earthers who may read this. I don't mean to offend you, but I just can't hang...

Basically Ken follows the Christian tradition of asking people to accept his claims on faith. However, his claims (to ME, anyway) are ridiculous. I won't go into that debate, but to ask people to disbelieve all science and to believe HIS interpretation of the bible, saying the earth is 6000 years old is tough to take. My church (and I BELIEVE the EOC) teach that Genesis should or can be taken to be an alliteration.
It seems to me that to ask people to believe something with so much proof against it based on a limited interpretation can actually hurt the cause of evangelization.

But then, I bet they said the same thing when the apostles talked about the resurrection.
For many of us, he is simply telling the truth!
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Hey Ozpen,

welcome to TAW :) :clap::wave:

Interesting question.
Thanks for the welcome. It seems that Baptistic folks like myself are welcome here to interact.

Do you think that Scripture (affirmed by the church fathers) could have something substantive to say about my question: So where does one go for the truth about the origin of the universe?

Oz
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Do you think that Scripture (affirmed by the church fathers) could have something substantive to say about my question: So where does one go for the truth about the origin of the universe?

to to Him who has always been there. you go where God is. we affirm that real illumination comes from the sacramental life of the Church.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
RKO,

What I found disappointing about this post was your statement that 'his claims (to ME, anyway) are ridiculous', but you provided not one quote from the debate to support your claim.

If you are going to disagree with the content of a debate, for the sake of thoughtful Christians, would you please provide quotes to demonstrate what you are opposing?

You state: 'to ask people to disbelieve all science'. Where in the debate did Ken Ham state this? Ken Ham has been a science teacher in the Australian high school system, so I know that he is not opposed to science. This article from the Sydney Morning Herald, 'In the beginning was the debate: But there were few converts' ( February 9, 2014) stated, 'Ham first conceived of the Creation Museum as a high school science teacher in Queensland, he tells Fairfax Media in an interview before the debate'.

I hope you understand why I'm asking you to provide documentation to support your claims.

Language like, 'I just can't hang', 'asking people to accept his claims on faith', 'his claims (to ME, anyway) are ridiculous', 'I won't go into that debate', and 'it seems to me', seem to indicate you are pushing your own agenda and it is opposed to Ken Ham's creationism.

I don't support Ham's view of the earth being 6,000 years old, but your lack of evidence raises some questions for me - questions about your presuppositional bias.

Oz

First, let me apologize to any young earthers who may read this. I don't mean to offend you, but I just can't hang...

Basically Ken follows the Christian tradition of asking people to accept his claims on faith. However, his claims (to ME, anyway) are ridiculous. I won't go into that debate, but to ask people to disbelieve all science and to believe HIS interpretation of the bible, saying the earth is 6000 years old is tough to take. My church (and I BELIEVE the EOC) teach that Genesis should or can be taken to be an alliteration.
It seems to me that to ask people to believe something with so much proof against it based on a limited interpretation can actually hurt the cause of evangelization.

But then, I bet they said the same thing when the apostles talked about the resurrection.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,274.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for the welcome. It seems that Baptistic folks like myself are welcome here to interact.
There are more than a few former Baptists among our fold :)
I wasn't Baptist, but I did meet my darling wife while attending a Baptist Church :D
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
There are more than a few former Baptists among our fold :)
I wasn't Baptist, but I did meet my darling wife while attending a Baptist Church :D
That is encouraging. And I see that you're from Sydney. Are you an Aussie?
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,274.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
That is encouraging. And I see that you're from Sydney. Are you an Aussie?
Sixth generation, of Scottish and Swedish descent, although I am considered by some to be an honorary Greek. We lived in Thessaloniki for twelve and a half years after we got married.

Just noticed you are from Bundaberg. I've still got a third of a bottle of Bundy Rum in the cupboard. That's a nice drop you lot brew :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philothei
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sayre

Veteran
Sep 21, 2013
2,519
65
✟18,216.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No problem, and thanks!
But when you say "The ECF's did not have the body of evidence..." you are saying that Christian doctrine is a changeable thing, and implying that scientific learning can change it. As a matter of fact, I think it DOES change it, not because it is (ostensibly) scientific, but because it is produced and reproduced within a Fallen mindset, generally under assumptions that do not admit God in general. The dominant paradigm is scientific rationalism, backed by materialism.

So if the particular scientific theory popular today really DOES mean that there could have been no Fall, what does the rational person who trusts the science do? He abandons the Faith, and logically so. It is the believer who trusts the science to be as or more authoritative than the ECF's - after all, today's science has quite a body of evidence - who winds up irrationally holding onto both propositions - that man Fell from an ideal state AND that he was evolving from a lower state into a higher and better one at the same time. There are paradoxes, and then there are mutually exclusive propositions. I see this to be the latter.

At the end of the day, I don't consider the "ideal state" to be a physical state, and consequently, I don't see that any scientific theory can threaten that theology. The ECF's were right about the theology, but the scientific explanation (which I don't think has anywhere near as much importance) they were not educated about.

All I really need to know is that EO's are entitled to hold such an opinion.

Blessings
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
theology is not only about the soul and the spiritual world. we are not dualists - theology necessarily also involves the body and the cosmos, so there is necessarily overlap between theology and science - and therefore there will be conflicts.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,491.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
theology is not only about the soul and the spiritual world. we are not dualists - theology necessarily also involves the body and the cosmos, so there is necessarily overlap between theology and science - and therefore there will be conflicts.

That's what I would try to tell you, too. We do not consider the physical world as a thing separate from and irrelevant to the spiritual world.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
At the end of the day, I don't consider the "ideal state" to be a physical state, and consequently, I don't see that any scientific theory can threaten that theology.

the problem is Christ took on our human flesh. He said touch me after the Resurrection and ate with them. the ideal state is physical for a human, otherwise we would not be human, we would be angels.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RKO

Member
Oct 27, 2011
3,134
1,368
✟41,071.00
Faith
Catholic
RKO,

What I found disappointing about this post was your statement that 'his claims (to ME, anyway) are ridiculous', but you provided not one quote from the debate to support your claim.

If you are going to disagree with the content of a debate, for the sake of thoughtful Christians, would you please provide quotes to demonstrate what you are opposing?

You state: 'to ask people to disbelieve all science'. Where in the debate did Ken Ham state this? Ken Ham has been a science teacher in the Australian high school system, so I know that he is not opposed to science. This article from the Sydney Morning Herald, 'In the beginning was the debate: But there were few converts' ( February 9, 2014) stated, 'Ham first conceived of the Creation Museum as a high school science teacher in Queensland, he tells Fairfax Media in an interview before the debate'.

I hope you understand why I'm asking you to provide documentation to support your claims.

Language like, 'I just can't hang', 'asking people to accept his claims on faith', 'his claims (to ME, anyway) are ridiculous', 'I won't go into that debate', and 'it seems to me', seem to indicate you are pushing your own agenda and it is opposed to Ken Ham's creationism.

I don't support Ham's view of the earth being 6,000 years old, but your lack of evidence raises some questions for me - questions about your presuppositional bias.

Oz

because I felt no need to restart this debate between YEC and scientific research. I simply wanted to state that in my view, YEC is hard to believe. Feel free to ignore the thread if my presuppositions concern you.
 
Upvote 0