Aineo
In the last thread, you were very strongly negative on Ross's science, and you later apologized and said you may have been wrong. You have not, until your most recent post, admitted you may be wrong about your accusation of Ross's supposed "word of faith" doctrines.
You have posted a long post on exegesis on the day/age controversy, which is not what I asked you about, or what you accused Ross of, so I will take it that you formally retract your statements made about Ross on that score.
I now assume that you hold that a proper understanding of the day/age issue is vital to your ability to be a true Christian? The only thing your most recent post did, was rehash the issues over whether its proper exegesis to consider the earth old, or young. I must then gather that you believe this to be a salvational issue?
I asked this question of Tuppence as well, and she has ignored it, but since the accusation was "suspect theology" that you had originally classified as so poor you would have nothing to do with him, and in fact you denounced him like you have Benny Hinn and the Word of Faith movement. You also said that he may have added to the PCA doctrines, and implied that he had done so in a manner befitting true heresy(sorry, my paraphrase again, but I think it was accurate of your sentiment). Do you still hold to this? Do you now acknowledge that his theological doctrines, although different on the day/age issue, are probably very similar to yours if you hold to the PCA doctrines? Do you still judge this man so harshly?
As I said to Tuppence, I will be glad to debate the issue of the day/age controversy and its biblical exegesis, but I did not intend this thread to be on that topic, unless you hold that to be a salvational issue. Originally, you were much more convinced that he was apostate due to this word of faith accusation, now is it soley on the day/age issue?