Archivedbad theology of Dr Ross.I scanned it rather quickly. It is nothing new. I was on that side once, remember? It depends on reinterpreting a number of things, as all day-agers must. God knows how to communicate, twohumble. And He has done it quite well in the Bible and also preserved that communication quite well in the Bible. But I am not interested in the day/age nonsense here. The title of this thread is about Dr. Ross' bad theology. And although that includes his stance on Genesis, it goes far beyond it. It goes to the very purpose of the Incarnation itself. There can't be anything more central to Christian doctrine than that! Is death part of 'very good'? Yes or no. As far as the salvation of anyone, that's up to God. But I do know that in Romans 1, it says the anger of God is being poured out on those who suppress the truth! It says that creation itself attests to certain qualities of God, so that no man has an excuse. That used to frighten me for myself. Now it frightens me for others. But God judges the heart. For those who are following this and who are interested, a good short essay on the heresy of Ross' 'dual revelation' is here: http://www.geocities.com/asterisktom/hu ... alrev.html This is NOT to say that creation does not declare the Creator, or even the fact that the outline of the Gospel itself was not in the original understanding of the Zodiac (please see http://www.ldolphin.org/zodiac/index.html if you are interested in this subject). Ross is not referring to either of these things, but to the idea that man's interpretation of natural data holds equal footing with the Bible as a source of revelation. The MINUTE we depend on man's understanding of something, and that understanding contradicts a simple, straightforward reading of the Bible, then what man thinks he understands to be true is wrong. And twisting the clear, straightforward reading of the Bible does not make it become any less wrong. In the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, (JETS 42/2 (June 1999, pp 305-373) William Craig, research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, has an article entitled "Hugh Ross's Extra-Dimensional Deity," in which he examines Ross's ideas about God, which include God being subject to time! The heresy of Ross's declarations about God are online in this article here: http://www.ldolphin.org/craig/ Here is a page, with important links at the bottom, which deals with Ross's heresies APART FROM HIS STAND ON CREATION/EVOLUTION. http://www.cultureshocksolution.org/pub ... eretic.htm Please follow the links at the bottom (the "SpiritSt/BillDonahue links are no longer operational). Dr. Danny Faulkner, astronomer, has also tried to warn people about Ross: Ross’s general sloppiness in handling Scripture was greatly demonstrated by an address that he recently gave at Dallas Theological Seminary. In that address he stated: ‘Therefore it allows me to make an interesting paraphrase of John 3:16, if you’ll permit—‘For God so loved the human race that He went to the expense of building a hundred billion trillion stars and carefully shaped and crafted them for sixteen billion years so that at this brief moment in time we could all have a nice place to live.’’15 Anyone even remotely familiar with John 3:16 is struck by the glaring omissions of this paraphrase. No mention is made of such important terms as ‘only begotten (Greek monogenes = unique, special)’ ‘Son’, ‘believe’, ‘not perish’, and ‘everlasting life’. This is either blasphemy to the point of heresy or gross carelessness of the first rank. It is almost inconceivable that Ross really believes this, so one must conclude that he was shooting from the hip. Assuming that that is the case, then it appears that Ross is guilty of dealing with Scripture in a cavalier manner, which is precisely my point. Ross has received a virtual free ride from many pastors and apologists despite these sorts of outrageous views, primarily because these Christian leaders have been intimidated by his scientific pronouncements. But his science is full of errors, contrary to what many believe. His sloppy handling of Scripture and manner of gross overstatement are unfortunately his method of operation in science as well. from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4149.asp Jon Covey exposes Ross's shortcomings in his own field of astronomy here: http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/A ... nants.html Finally, although I have purposely avoided links to the many Answers in Genesis articles by Ham criticizing Ross, this one by Safarti is excellent, as it not only includes the creation/evolution question but also Ross' inability to deal with the Hebrew language and other matters of his theology: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4128.asp twohumble, I know you will not read these. They are for the others who are following this thread. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame