(UPDATE - there is also this one "Six Days - Don't call us Young Earth Creationists")
I listened to (watched) this yesterday with the kids and our eldest daughter's friend, who recently was saved out of a sort of semi-religious agnosticism, wherein he accepted the theory of evolution. WOW. FANTASTIC stuff. I've seen Ken Ham's whole DVD series, but this was still a little like drinking from a fire hose... in a good way. He covers all the objections (both pro and con) to the willingness to compromise on the 6-24hr day young earth understanding... and he fits it all in a fairly short presentation.
I would heartily reccomend it to be shown to every church that is interested in communicating Biblical truth. It's just 45 minutes, lays out the case for insisting on a literal 6 - 24-hour-day creation AND young earth in the church - this is really not as 'negotiable' as we are often led to believe. I've always known that from my youngest days, mostly thanks to my late father... this in spite of having evolution foisted on me by my LCA/ELCA Sunday School teachers.
So many many churches are willing to compromise on this that I find it incredibly grievous. (cough cough John Piper, Tim Keller, Peter Enns...) There is NO biblical case for any sort of death before sin. NONE. In fact if people would just read Scripture, the plain meaning is very clear on this that death came into the world through sin (Romans 5) - not just to man (Romans 8). Just as it is with the Bondage of the Will and God's sovereignty in salvation. If people would just believe the Word of God, and didn't spend all this time rationalizing in their own preconceived notions, they would have to come to realize the "free will" argument is not found in Scripture, but the opposite definitely is. Just as literal 6-24 hour days and no death (animal or human) before sin is also in Scripture.
How can any serious pastor believe that death and a rotting corpse of an animal, flies, decay, and carrion, were part of "IT WAS VERY GOOD"? Give me a break. That's ludicrous. The only reason to believe it is because of the faulty science that tells us the fossil record indicates millions of years of death. How can any serious pastor think this is not that important? Our own ex pastor Todd Ertsgaard tried to get one lady to stop showing the Answers In Genesis series because it was "superfluous information" or some such nonsense (never mind that it was the single most popular class ever offered, even when offered REPEATEDLY, and people were raving about it and thanking her for it constantly taking DVD's home to watch again -- with the exception of a few intellectual elites.) Well, I hope he has changed his tune but judging from his messages available online at rfcov.org, he has not changed one iota except maybe gotten a few more gray hairs.
as Al Mohler so astutely observed in his presentation at Ligonier "Why Does the Universe Look So Old?" (emphasis added)
It’s important for us to remember our accountability in that narrative, because this raises some central questions—two in particular. The first is the historicity of Adam. In Romans 5:12 we read, “Therefore just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin and so death spread to all men because man sinned.” Paul bases his understanding of human sinfulness and of Adam’s headship over the human race on a historical Adam. A historical fall. Adam may be—indeed I believe really is—the most pressing question: the historicity of Adam and Eve and the historicity of the fall. An old earth understanding has serious complications because the old earth is not merely understood to be old. The inference that it is old is based upon certain evidences that also tell a story. The fossils are telling a story. And the story they are telling is of millions and indeed billions of years of creation before the arrival of Adam. But the scientific consensus of the meaning of that evidence goes far beyond that to suggesting that there were hominids and pre-hominids and there were hundreds of thousands of hominids and there were, well let’s put it this way. It is possible to hold under an old age understanding to a historical Adam, to the special creation of humanity, but it requires an arbitrary intervention of God into a very long process, billions of years in which at some point God acts unilaterally to create Adam and Eve. Eve out of Adam. (40:06)and
We need to recognize that disaster ensues when the book of nature or general revelation is used in some way to trump scripture and special revelation. And that is the very origin of this discussion. We would not be having this discussion today. This would not be one of those tough questions Christians ask, if these questions were not being posed to us by those who assume that general revelation and indeed the book of nature is presenting to us something in terms of compelling evidence, compelling evidence that is so forceful and credible that we’re going to have to reconstruct and re-envision our understanding of the biblical text.And especially, if you're trying to make nice with the skeptics/intellectual elites, or you yourself are or even were once skeptical because of the so called "evidence," so you assume everyone else must be too:
We need to think more deeply about this. The BioLogos website has just even in recent days focused its attention on the direct rejection of biblical inerrancy. Understanding that any rendering of the bible as inerrant makes the acceptance of theistic evolution impossible. Certainly implausible. Kenton Sparks writing on that website suggests that, intellectually, evangelicalism has painted itself into a corner—that we have put ourselves into an intellectual cul-de-sac with our understanding of biblical inerrancy. He suggests that the Bible indeed should be recognized as containing historical, theological and moral error. Peter Enns, one of the most frequent contributors to the site, suggests that we have to come to the understanding that, when it comes to many of the scientific claims, historical claims, the writers of scriptures were plainly wrong.
Karl Giberson, Eastern Nazarene University, says this “clearly the historicity of Adam and Eve and their fall from grace are hard to reconcile with natural history.” He says this, “One could believe for example that at some point” - this dismisses the kind of Stott theory now just so you hear, what I want you to understand from this is that holding to this doesn’t even give you any advantage. In other words, if you’re trying to make peace with the modern secular mind and you’re trying to meet the intellectual elites halfway, guess what? They won’t meet you halfway. Listen to this: “One could believe, for example, that at some point in evolutionary history God ‘chose’ two people from a group of evolving humans, gave them his image, and put them in Eden, which they promptly corrupted by sinning. But this solution is unsatisfactory, artificial, and certainly not what the writer of Genesis intended.”(source: Transcript Video)
That’s not said by someone who’s defending the book of Genesis, but rather the theory of evolution, and trying to remove the possibility of the very kinds of things that some who identify themselves as evangelicals are trying to claim. An old earth understanding is very difficult to reconcile with a historical Adam as presented not only in terms of Genesis, but in terms of Romans. It requires an arbitrary claim that God created Adam as a special act of his creation and it entangles a good many difficulties in terms of both exegeses and a redemptive historical understanding of scripture.
In other words, if people would just quit asking "Hath God indeed said....?"
Frankly I would be FAR more concerned about an elder in place having this position than about an elder struggling with moral sin. Absolutely. I don't think I could accept an elder that doesn't trust God's word. To me it's as bad as saying "all those miracles didn't really happen like Scripture says they did, the Bible is just to give us instructions on how to live a good moral life."
This video is wonderful stuff. I even got teary eyed there watching it with the kids. I Love Ken Ham's zeal and stand for the truth! I love his willingness even to confront those at the SAME CONFERENCE with him, and letting the chips fall where they may. May the Lord strengthen him to continue doing so. And may the Lord strengthen other speakers and teachers to take up the same sort of approach against the various errors of their peers.
"For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete." 2 Cor 10:3-6