Christian Character: Refuting Alleged Shortcomings

Christian Character

How should a Christian respond when the deck is stacked against him?

After watching Ken Ham debating Dr. Hugh Ross I felt sick! Mr. Ham was sarcastic and rude. He would not continue a point when Ross proved him(HAM) inaccurate.(example interpretation of big bang) Ham would jump to another subject. Ham’s response to Ross was not even child like because when I was in high school, 14 year old children had more courtesy to opposing views than does Ham. Ham does NOT display the FRUIT of the spirit with his fellow Christians.

Ham reminds me of Al Gore debating George Bush. Gore made a fool of himself and “your leader” is doing the same thing. I am disgusted in my fellow brother in Christ, Ken Ham. I would be embarrassed to let any of my unsaved family members watch him. I’m not even talking about the issues of old earth, new earth. I saw no love, no patience, no temperance no joy, no long suffering, no kindness, no warmth from Ken Ham. Ham acts like he is representing Islam. Do you really believe we as Christians are to behave the way Ham does towards our brothers in Christ who name Jesus our only way of salvation?

I witness to the world everyday of my life the message of salvation through our LORD JESUS CHRIST and the beauty of his creation.When I see a fellow brother in Christ like Ham act the way he does it actually makes me feel sick.Ham is destroying himself.My advice to Ham, grow up and act like a child of God and learn to communicate intelligently not emotionally.Emotions are no substitute for education. I have no problem with you posting this on your website.

Your brother in Christ. Peter Hart

Dear Peter,

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. I noticed the harsh tone you took right from the start, particularly at Ken Ham with regards to the recent debate on the John Ankerberg Show. Virtually all the feedback we received from this debate has been supportive of Mr. Ham and Dr. Jason Lisle and their stance and composure as Christians. So I have opted to respond via the Challenge Riposte method in light of the challenges presented. I am inserting comments below, and though they are direct, they are still said with respect.

I just want to encourage you all at Answers in Genesis. Just before Christmas one of the young men who belongs to our congregation was saved from his sin and came to trust in Jesus. At a membership class the other night he said that he used to believe in evolution because that left his week-ends free. He realised that evolution would allow him to please himself without reference to God. However, he could not get away from the fact that God exists. I had been preaching from Genesis 1–11, he had been coming to the services and not just doing his own thing and God had been speaking to him. Now his thirst for the Bible is amazing to see. For our upcoming communion service he has chosen the hymn, “What a wonderful change in my life has been wrought”. It just shows that in many cases people believe in evolution not because it’s right or persuasive, but simply because it allows them to continue in their own sinful lifestyle. I have pointed this chap in the direction of your website since you assert the Bible’s validity and truthfulness from the very first verse. Keep up the good work. God bless you.

Stephen Neilly
N. Ireland

After watching Ken Ham debating Dr. Hugh Ross I felt sick!

Actually, it was Dr. Walt Kaiser and Dr. Hugh Ross with help from fellow old-earther Dr. John Ankerberg against Dr. Jason Lisle and Ken Ham. It was basically 3 against 2 by human standards and the impartial moderator, Dr Ankerberg, was indeed showing his bias by cutting off Ken Ham 51 times while cutting off Dr. Ross only once.

Dr Ankerberg further showed his bias by allowing Dr. Kaiser and Dr. Ross to speak 63% (nearly 2/3) of the debate time and allowing Dr. Lisle and Mr. Ham only 37% (nearly 1/3) of the time.

On top of that, the questions were developed by the old-earthers so that they could ask questions they wanted in an effort to avoid their problem areas. Mr. Ham and Dr. Lisle knew these things before they went into the debate, but like Paul going into Mars Hill/Areopagus in Acts 17, things were stacked against them, and yet God was with them.

Mr. Ham was sarcastic and rude.

Where exactly? Actually, Dr. Ankerberg thanked Mr. Ham and Dr. Lisle for not being sarcastic, rude, etc.—he even said that the way they acted was a model for Christians to follow (Dr. Lisle can verify he said such things).

For those readers who think the claim of Ken being rude and sarcastic is true, they can watch the debate for themselves to verify this claim is bogus. To order, see The Great Debate on Science and the Bible in our bookstore.

Interestingly, some might say your email is rude, sarcastic and not exhibiting the fruit of the spirit in your hostile attitude towards Mr. Ham. I suggest Luke 6:42.

He would not continue a point when Ross proved him (HAM) inaccurate.(example interpretation of big bang) Ham would jump to another subject.

Be more specific—how did he prove Mr. Ham wrong? This vague claim does not allow for a reasoned response; we need something of substance to discuss.

Ham’s response to Ross was not even child like because when I was in high school, 14 year old children had more courtesy to opposing views than does Ham. Ham does NOT display the FRUIT of the spirit with his fellow Christians.

What did Mr. Ham say that was rude etc.? When you agreed to the Feedback Rules, you agreed to send substantiation for such claims and so far you haven’t. Why did you break the rules you agreed to?

Ham reminds me of Al Gore debating George Bush. Gore made a fool of himself and “your leader” is doing the same thing.

Christ is our leader and Christ doesn’t make a fool of himself. Mr. Ham and Dr. Lisle both did an exceptional job with the little time they were given.

I am disgusted in my fellow brother in Christ, Ken Ham. I would be embarrassed to let any of my unsaved family members watch him.

We would hope you wouldn’t be embarrassed by the answers Mr. Ham and Dr. Lisle give to the poor theology touted by old-earth creationism such as adding the secular belief in big bang, death before sin, etc. to the Bible.

This is usually what happens when people don’t like the answer they hear—they want to censor it from getting to people who may actually listen.

I’m not even talking about the issues of old earth, new earth. I saw no love, no patience, no temperance no joy, no long suffering, no kindness, no warmth from Ken Ham.

When Elijah was taunting the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:27), and Jesus was insulting the Sadducees and Pharisees (Matthew 22, Mark 2:25, etc.), where were these things? Perhaps you forget, there is a time for everything (Ecclesiastes 3:1) and a debate is a time for Challenge Riposte and both sides know it.

Besides, where did the others show this? Recall that Dr. Ankerberg cut off Mr. Ham 51 times. Where was the patience, temperance, joy, longsuffering, kindness, warmth and love then?

Mr. Ham and Dr. Lisle were extremely patient, longsuffering, temperate, etc. while allowing the old earth camp to take 2/3 of the debate time. Perhaps you should reevaluate . . . .

Ham acts like he is representing Islam.

Was Mr. Ham arguing against the Bible and against the gospel? Strange that you would insinuate this, since Mr. Ham and Dr. Lisle were defending the Bible alone as authoritative against one who has openly claimed that the Bible is not the only thing authoritative.

Special 5-day program launched to train the next generation of creation scientists

A vital new program aimed at “Training a New Generation of Creation Research Scientists” is being held this summer, sponsored jointly by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Society for the Advancement of Creation Science. This first-of-its-kind workshop will be held on the campus of Mississippi State University from July 16–21, 2006.

This special workshop is intended for Christian undergraduate and graduate students—and faculty—in fields of science who wish to become more confident in defending a biblical creationist worldview in their research and teaching. Thoroughly scientific in its approach, this program will identify current and hoped-for research that will impact the culture for Christ and defend the literal historical account of the book of Genesis.

Ken Ham, AiG–USA president, is encouraging science students and faculty to look into this specially designed program: “We need more scientists and science teachers who are equipped to defend the Bible from its very first verse, and who will show that science confirms the validity of the Bible. I invite you to look into this special program that is cohosted by the leading creation research group in the world: ICR.”

Modestly priced and featuring a world-class faculty, the schedule and registration details can be found at www.msstate.edu/org/sacs. Please forward this website to any science student or professor whom you think may be interested.

Dr. Ross has made the claim in his book [Ross, H.N., Creation and Time, Navpress, Colorado Springs, p. 56, 1994] that the “facts of nature” are likened unto the 67^th book of the Bible. He has reiterated this. If you read the Charisma article more recently [He Sees God in the Stars, Andy Butcher, Charisma June 2003, p. 40], you’ll find that he still agrees with this principle of adding to Scripture. So in reality, Dr. Ross’s theology is closer to that of Islam, which likewise claims to have additions to the Scriptures with the Qur’an and hadith.

With Dr. Ross openly adding the “facts of nature” to the Bible, this opens up another major theological problem. If the “facts of nature” really are part of the Bible, God’s Word, then God would have cursed His own Word (Genesis 3:17, Romans 8:20–21). This is illogical. Also, God says that heaven and earth will pass away but His words will never pass away in Luke 21:33. If God’s Word will never pass away, then how is it then that nature and its facts will pass away, if they are part of God’s Word?

Do you really believe we as Christians are to behave the way Ham does towards our brothers in Christ who name Jesus our only way of salvation?

You still haven’t given a specific example of Mr Ham’s alleged rudeness. Saying it several times will not help your case. A debate is for iron-sharpening-iron purposes in the same way Paul opposed Peter because Peter was clearly in the wrong (Galatians 2:11). In this case, Dr. Ross and Dr. Kaiser (and Dr. Ankerberg) are taking the secular belief of the big bang and trying to twist the Scriptures to allow the big bang into the Bible. This is clearly wrong.

What if someone was trying to take the secular belief that there is no Virgin Birth and reinterpret the gospel accounts to say Jesus did have an earthly father? This belittles God by belittling what the Holy Spirit wrote. The issue is trust—do you trust what a perfect God says, who eyewitnessed what He did in the past, or do you trust imperfect people, who in many cases despise God and were not there to eyewitness the past. Please see A Young Earth—It’s Not the Issue!.

Like Paul’s hope for Peter, we hope and pray that Dr. Ross and Dr. Kaiser (and Dr. Ankerberg) will learn to trust the Bible with what it says, and stop taking these secular beliefs and adding them to the Bible.

I witness to the world everyday of my life the message of salvation through our LORD JESUS CHRIST and the beauty of his creation.

I want to commend you for witnessing but the creation only has a remnant of beauty since the Curse due to sin. Watch someone die of cancer, ask a crime victim how they felt after being attacked, etc. and you will realize the world isn’t pure beauty but under a curse of death and suffering.

When I see a fellow brother in Christ like Ham act the way he does it actually makes me feel sick.Ham is destroying himself.My advice to Ham, grow up and act like a child of God and learn to communicate intelligently not emotionally.

Again you still haven’t given a single example of Mr. Ham’s rudeness and sarcasm. Where did Mr. Ham and Dr. Lisle not communicate intelligently?