Here are some things I googled on his beliefs.
"
To accomplish this harmonization of the Bible and science, Ross has embraced much of what modern science has to say about origins. In short, Ross supports the big bang theory, the 4.6 Ga (1 Ga = 109 years) age of the earth, and virtually all of what establishment paleontology claims about the history of life on earth including the order of appearance of different groups. In fairness to Ross, it should be emphasized that he does reject the concept of biological evolution, opting instead for progressive creation.
Ross argues that science alone can drive men to the correct understanding of our origin and hence see the necessity of a Creator.
...Van Bebber and Taylor have reported on the questionable biblical teachings of Ross.10 While this work has alerted some to Ross’s theological problems, many in the church resist that message, primarily because they are convinced that Ross has overpowering scientific arguments for an old earth and universe to which the Bible must be accommodated. Of course, accommodating the Bible to science is the exact opposite of what many intend, but this is what I have observed.
... Ross has expanded the dual revelation theory to the point of likening nature to the sixty-seventh book of the Bible."
The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross - creation.com
Basically, I do not respect folks that trust man more than God and His word.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. And I agree that we should we respect and obey the Lord more than men (as Peter said in Acts 5:29 as an example of one of numerous places in the Scriptures with this theme).
To me, what I see happening is a feud between Young Earth Creationists (YEC) and Old Earth Creationists (OEC). No doubt that the YEC have been the main doctrine for most of the history of Christianity, although some could point out exceptions. And so your quotes are from those that hold the YEC viewpoint and are reluctant to give up their viewpoint. They feel that it is a betrayal of their faith in the Scriptures and thus a betrayal to Christ. And hopefully no sincere Christian would want to lead a fellow believer towards a crisis of faith unless it were well warranted, which I don't believe is the case concerning science.
After your response, I was curious and so read some of your responses to previous posts and think that I understand your perspective a little better. I could probably not say anything more eloquently than other posters have done to try to sway you into an OEC perspective. And I do not believe that OEC beliefs or YEC beliefs or something in between is critical to salvation. So I would hope to stand in unison of basic Christian faith with those with all perspectives and trust that the Lord will bring us all to a better understanding of the Truth in His good time as He would have us know it.
I will share an essay below that I wrote on this subject for a Christian men's group that I am a part of, which explains my take as well as anything, with the understanding that others may not agree. But hopefully some people can gain something from it.
Thanks again for sharing your perspective and may the Lord bless us all as we strive to serve, love and know Him better as we grow in the unity of the church for which Christ prayed in John 17.
Young Earth Creationism - A Cultural Perspective
What’s Going On
What is Young Earth Creationism (YEC)? In short, the most commonly held YEC perspective is the belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth was created by direct acts of God less than 10,000 years ago. It is primarily based on the belief that the Lord created the Earth in six 24 hour days, and secondarily that the genealogical account in Genesis 11 is a fairly complete description of the history of mankind. Although not universally accepted throughout Christian history, YEC has been the most popular view, espoused by numerous theologians (e.g., Calvin and Luther) and other luminaries of culture (e.g., Shakespeare), with the result that most of the teaching literature in Christian churches have either explicitly or implicitly been taught from this perspective. In our current society, it is upheld by organizations like the
Institute for Creation Research and
Answers in Genesis. Historically this view saw renewed interest in the 20th century as a way to reject the tenets of evolution. Polls between 1982 and 2014 show between 40% and 47% of adults in the USA are inclined to agree with this view.
Both Sides Now
Are there any
negative repercussions of this perspective? The biggest negative aspect to this perspective is that it is in strong contradiction with many currently accepted scientific models, such as those in geology, astronomy, cosmology, biology, anthropology and botany, among others. As a result, it is difficult for those with a YEC perspective to have meaningful dialog with experts in these fields (or most of their students), because the YEC perspective must assume many unusual circumstances or yet to be determined theories for which there is not yet much experimental evidence. As such, those who support YEC are often ridiculed as being ignorant, unreasonable and/or pseudo-scientific. Recent attempts to bring the YEC perspective into the schools has failed due to this reputation.
And what are some of the
advantages of embracing a YEC perspective?
- Since YEC has been the most common belief system in the Christian church for much of its recent history, then it certainly has a familiarity and comfort factor in its favor
- It also can be seen by many to provide a test of faithfulness to the Scriptures versus a worldly culture (as exemplified by consequences of a pure belief in a Godless evolution)
- Along with being more familiar and vetted, to hold other positions can bring up other questions that have not been well explored from a Christian standpoint (e.g., what was the relationship between God and man or God and the rest of creation for the long period before the Scriptures were given?).
- What happens when there is a conflict between scientific and Biblical accounts that is difficult to reconcile? Are we setting ourselves up for crises of faith?
- If we try to integrate scientific understanding with Bible knowledge, what about the greater complexity of scientific theories versus the stories and teachings of the Bible? How can we sort through the truths of scientific theories proposed by atheists or agnostics if they have not been well explained from a Scriptural perspective?
- YEC challenges many of the true weaknesses of the evolutionary viewpoint
Let It Be
First of all, probably the most important point to make about any scientific perspective is that it is not a critical matter concerning salvation. If mankind was created 6,000 years or 100,000 years ago, the message of salvation through Jesus Christ is still the central theme of the Gospel.
God is the ultimate creator and has given us the Scriptures and nature. Man tries to make sense of these spiritual and physical realities through theology and science. But theological and scientific understanding can change over time. These changes in man's understanding do not alter the reality behind Scripture or nature, only our understanding of it. So our theology can change as long as it is based on Scripture and our science can change as long as it continues to be based on nature. A good example of this change in perspective was Galileo and the Catholic Church.
So concerning dialog within the Christian community about these subjects, we can remember the Scripture's admonition to speak with humility and gentleness (Ephesians 4:2). I believe that another passage that could be applicable for this situation is from Romans 14:5-6, 14:13 (ESV), where instead of days of the week we could think about our perspective about creation.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God…. 13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
The Times They are a Changin'
A final thought concerns speaking of these matters to those outside of the Christian faith. Many proponents of YEC take the stand that to reject their interpretation is a slippery slope to rejecting belief in the inerrancy of the Bible and that it could even lead to a disbelief in Christ. The corollary could then be made that to accept Christ means that one would have to accept YEC and thus reject many of the current theories in the sciences. I would suggest that we be careful about this attitude and just as we do not want to put a stumbling block in the way of a brother in Christ, we should also not put a stumbling block in the way of someone outside of the church.
So I would like to suggest having the understanding that alternatives to YEC that are held by sincere, Bible-believing Christians. In this way, if someone should ask us about whether one has to reject current scientific theories to become a Christian, we can honestly say that there are viable alternatives to YEC that are consistent with most of the current theories of science as well as still consistent with the Scriptures, and that science should not be stumbling block to anyone for further examination of the Scriptures and obedience to Christ.
