From the Desk of Brian Fulthorp: the A/G and Ken Ham’s Dogma

I never could stand Ken Ham’s dogma that required believers to affirm his view alone of Creation in order to be truly saved or have the truth.  Such a view being required is shortsighted at best, and the strawman arguments put up by Ham and institutions such as Bob Jones University in their curriculum against their version or interpretation of the Gap Theory or any other plausible explanation of the Genesis narratives are in a word, asinine, since they do not adequately describe the minutiae of differing expressions of those theories.  BJU does not get the Gap Theory right or do it justice at all.  Their explanation is vastly oversimplified.

It reminds me of certain denominations who want to be so blasted dogmatic with a certain translations, or water baptism, or Spirit baptism, or other requirements that they place on the list of required beliefs for salvation.  Thank God we are only required to believe in Jesus Christ and the shedding of his blood for our sins.  That’s it.  Nothing else, including your interpretation on secondary issues like theories of creation, is required for salvation to be secure.  Nothing else can save you. 

Granted, this does not mean we disaffirm the account of Creation as accurate.  In fact the A/G position paper that was recently accepted and to which Ken Ham makes reference does NOTHING to undermine the authority of Scripture. Instead, it allows an openness in the denomination for allowing differing viewpoints to peacefully coexist in a forum of ideas, enriching our fellowship as we sharpen each other as iron sharpens iron, and as we learn from each other. 

Were Ken Ham’s dogma enforced among all evangelicals, it would function like a philosophical gag order and stifle the liberty we have in the Assemblies to disagree over the secondary matters, causing us to have religious and philosophical restrictions, which I as a minister would not tolerate at all.  The 16 Fundamental Truths are binding enough.

And now let the rambling cease.

Now, if only we could get some input from Kent Hovind on the matter.


2 responses to this post.

  1. David,

    Very, very, very, very, good words here


  2. By all means, please put it up on your blog, if you dare.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: