Hank Hanegraaf AND Old Earth creationism

[OldRegular]

Uh, you realize how wrong this comment is. The laws of nature have been and are constant.

So you were there at creation? Must have been fun!

I would remind you that no current law of nature allows for creation of matter/energy yet God created both!!!! In fact the most basic law of nature, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, states that the matter/energy of the universe is 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.

So you don't believe in the Divine Inspiration of Scripture? I don't believe such inspiration would be considered natural. Furthermore, to state that God never sets aside natural law denies His miracles; and what natural law accounts for the New Birth?

Have you by any chance read anything on Chaos Theory?

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 would suggest that you reread my post. I did not say that the current laws of nature are not constant. I said:

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!

 

[OldRegular]

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.

Article VII.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
WE DENY that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article XIII.

WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

I suspect that you are reading your own bias into the above articles. Article XI reads: WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

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.

Now I interpret Article 6 above to mean: it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.. Am I misreading the Article? Scripture does address Creation does it not? And Scripture does say that God created in six days and rested on the 7th.

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.

 

[percho]

John 11:9,10 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.

Gen. 1:3-5 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 24 hour period.

However!

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness upon the face of the deep.

Just what or who do you think this darkness was? How did it get here? Why was it here before the Light came on the scene? How long do you think the darkness had been here, that is on the earth?

 

[OldRegular]

However!

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness upon the face of the deep.

Just what or who do you think this darkness was? How did it get here? Why was it here before the Light came on the scene? How long do you think the darkness had been here, that is on the earth?

i really don't know. It could be that the use of the term "without form and void' may mean that the earth had not yet been formed. That is a possible meaning of void. In Genesis 1:1 we read: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The earth may be all the matter that existed at that time. The heavens may simply mean space!

Darkness and deep are more difficult. It is possible that this is just saying there was space, nothing else. I have sometimes thought that light was really the first thing that God created other than possibly empty space [And I had never really thought that far.] I say this because light is energy and under the direction of God could become matter. That conflicts somewhat with the above remarks but???

I also recall years ago something said by Charles Townes, a graduate of Furman, [formerly a Baptist College] at Greenville SC and a Nobel Prize winner in Physics. When he was asked a question about creation he simply replied 'And God said: "Let there be Light"'. Still makes sense to me.

If you can get access to The Genesis Record by Henry Morris he has some speculation on these verses.

 

[just-want-peace]

I also recall years ago something said by Charles Townes, a graduate of Furman, [formerly a Baptist College] at Greenville SC and a Nobel Prize winner in Physics. When he was asked a question about creation he simply replied 'And God said: "Let there be Light"'. Still makes sense to me.

Just think how much mis-information would never see the light (pun intended!:smilewinkgrin:) if people just really believed and accepted the above bolded!?:thumbsup:

 

[Mexdeaf]

I can think of a lot more important things to fuss about...

 

[OldRegular]

I agree with you totally brother. Hank likes to push his left field eschatology, and never once will stand up to a real scholar like a Dwight Pentecost, a John Walvoord, etc.. Do you know the website of where I can hear Walter Martins sermons brother?

Here are some authors and books that will slam Hank's eschatology anyday.

Dispensational Premillennialism
Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince (Kregel, 1969) [224.5 An24]
W. E. Blackstone, Jesus Is Coming (Revell, 1989) [232.6 B567]
D. Campbell and J. Townsend, eds., A Case for Premillennialism (Moody, 1992) [236.9 C266]
Charles Feinberg, Millennialism: The Two Major Views, 3rd ed. (Moody, 1980) [236.9 F327m]
Herman A. Hoyt, The End Times (Moody, 1969) [236 H855]
Alva McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Zondervan, 1959) [231.7 M132]
Rene Pache, The Return of Jesus Christ (Moody, 1955) [232.6 P115]
J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Zondervan, 1961) [236 P388]
Erich Sauer, From Eternity to Eternity (Eerdmans, 1954) [220.1 Sa85]
John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Dunham, 1959) [236.3 W179]
________, Major Bible Prophecies (Zondervan, 1991) [220.15 W179m]
Nathaniel West, The Thousand Years in Both Testaments (Revell, 1880) [236 W52]
Leon Wood, The Bible and Future Events (Zondervan, 1973) [236 W85]

Some of us who still hold the historic Baptist doctrine on eschatology believe that dispensationalists are the ones in "left field"!

 

[percho]

Can, no one beside myself see the Darkness in Genesis 1:2 as being Satan here on a planet which had become dead because of his sin?

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

If Adam invented death by his sin, just how was it that the Lamb was slain before Adam was created?

It appears to me that God created the first man Adam subject to death in order to send his sinless Son as a man to die for sin redeeming man and to destroy the devil, Satan, thus destroying death. Satan brought death to the earth before the first man Adam was created.

Let there be Light was the return of God on the earthly scene.

The evening, darkness, night when a man stumbles came first and the morning, Light, day when man can see to walk and not stumble followed.
The evening and the morning were the first day: 24 hours: John 11:9,10 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.

 

[Iconoclast]

Thank you so much for this. The audio quality is poor (unless I downloaded the wrong MP3 file) but I will give it a hear in a few minutes when I go take a walk). I am happy I could get a Mp3 file otherwise I may not be able to listen while I am walking.

If you go to sermonaudio and look up Ken Ham....you must go to the last page to get the full length sermons, or lectures that he has on the site..they are all really good!!!

 

[OldRegular]

Can, no one beside myself see the Darkness in Genesis 1:2 as being Satan here on a planet which had become dead because of his sin?

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

If Adam invented death by his sin, just how was it that the Lamb was slain before Adam was created?

It appears to me that God created the first man Adam subject to death in order to send his sinless Son as a man to die for sin redeeming man and to destroy the devil, Satan, thus destroying death. Satan brought death to the earth before the first man Adam was created.

Let there be Light was the return of God on the earthly scene.

The evening, darkness, night when a man stumbles came first and the morning, Light, day when man can see to walk and not stumble followed.
The evening and the morning were the first day: 24 hours: John 11:9,10 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.

That sounds like "Gap Theory" to me?? No! I don't see that at all.

 

[percho]

That sounds like "Gap Theory" to me?? No! I don't see that at all.

Do you see the darkness of verse 2 as Satan in contrast to the Light in, "Let there be light," in verses 3-5 and being the first day? Is the day/night Jesus is speaking of in John 11 a contrast of God and Satan also relative to one day a twenty four period?

Am I seeing something that is totally not relative one to the other in these two passages?

I am just asking for I don't think I have ever seen them connected with one another by anyone but I also do not think that means they are not connected?

Just looking for input from others.

Here is another thought I have had. Take this verse 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Applying that concept to the week of creation that would bring the sabbath rest of God after 6000 years and I have seen this associated by some. If that be correct then during, or at the beginning or, at the end of the fourth millennium the light of the world would have appeared.

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

See Gen. 1:14-19

Question would that light of the world have began by being:
A. And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Matt, 1:25
B. God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Acts 13:33 (and) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. Col. 1:15,18 (taking under consideration this)
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 1 Peter 1:3,4
C. Someone may would like to fill in their own.

I believe one or both took place after about 4000 years after Gen 1:3

Maybe a better question would be what began the fifth millennium, A. or B. above.

 

[OldRegular]

Do you see the darkness of verse 2 as Satan in contrast to the Light in, "Let there be light," in verses 3-5 and being the first day?

I can't believe that God would allow Satan that much control even if he existed at that time. We really have no indication as to the length of time that Adam and Eve were in the garden prior to the fall.

Here is another thought I have had. Take this verse 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I believe this is simply an indication that time as we know it does not exist with God!

 

[preachinjesus]

So you were there at creation? Must have been fun!

I would remind you that no current law of nature allows for creation of matter/energy yet God created both!!!! In fact the most basic law of nature, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, states that the matter/energy of the universe is constant.

Since creation the laws have been, and are, constant. Are you saying gravity isn't a constant?

So you don't believe in the Divine Inspiration of Scripture? I don't believe such inspiration would be considered natural. Furthermore, to state that God never sets aside natural law denies His miracles; and what natural law accounts for the New Birth?

So instead of engaging me you decide to put words into my mouth and falsify my position. That's pretty cool man.

Anybody around here will give evidence to my whole hearted support of divine inspiration of the Scriptures. I stand by it and defend it in many places outside of this little forum. Please don't call into account my theology without asking me about. I sign my ETS statement every year and have written exhaustively on this matter in both Christian and secular contexts.

You can understand miracles in light of natural laws. (BTW, I never said God can't set aside natural laws to accomplish His will) I did say God uses natural processes to bring about His plan. This is clear when one considers the various miracles in the Bible and how they exist. God does not ex nihilo create since creation, but rather uses natural processes to function in relation to His creation.

I would suggest that you reread my post. I did not say that the current laws of nature are not constant. I said:

So semantics aside, you believe the natural laws used in Creation are different than what is currently used to unify Creation today?

 

[percho]

I can't believe that God would allow Satan that much control even if he existed at that time. We really have no indication as to the length of time that Adam and Eve were in the garden prior to the fall.



I believe this is simply an indication that time as we know it does not exist with God!

Think about this.

The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

If from the foundation of the world God knew this was going to be a done thing and one of the purposes for this was the following: Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

That power of death was in his, the devil's, Satan's ability to deceive man.
He deceived the woman who had been taken from the man, she sinned and gave to her husband and he also sinned. I wonder if they ate of the fruit before or after the fulfillment of G2:24?

The very fact that the serpent deceived the woman and questioned the word of God I believe to be proof positive, if the serpent was Satan, that the sin of Satan the serpent had taken place before the sin of Adam.

Also at or at about the same time it was determined the Lamb would be slain, God, who cannot lie made a promise of the hope of eternal life.

Do you think that promise for the hope of eternal life was made for the seed of the serpent or for the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham
See Gal. 3:16-19?

 

[OldRegular]

My initial Post #12 regarding the laws of nature is as follows:

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!

But you took umbrage [Post #13] at my suggestion that current laws are not necessarily those during creation. May I say hostile Umbrage!?

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.

My further response in Post #21 is as follows:

So you were there at creation? Must have been fun!

I would remind you that no current law of nature allows for creation of matter/energy yet God created both!!!! In fact the most basic law of nature, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, states that the matter/energy of the universe is constant.

Now your response Post #33 is:

Since creation the laws have been, and are, constant. Are you saying gravity isn't a constant?

Actually I have never mentioned gravity but since you asked the question: It all depends.

http://blazelabs.com/f-u-massvariation.asp

And again:

So semantics aside, you believe the natural laws used in Creation are different than what is currently used to unify Creation today?

I am not sure one can talk about natural law in relation to creation. As I noted earlier the most basic law is that the matter/energy of the universe is constant. Obviously God spoke both into existence.

 

[Yeshua1]

you mean historical pre mil eschatology, as THAT is what my pastor personally holds too, even though majority of us as members are Dispy!

 

[OldRegular]

you mean historical pre mil eschatology, as THAT is what my pastor personally holds too, even though majority of us as members are Dispy!

Then he apparently is not doing his job!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Yeshua1]

Then he apparently is not doing his job!:smilewinkgrin:

We are all hoping that he would come around to thinking our way on this!