Kent Hovind

[_Rick_C]

Some time back I had seen the Kent Hovind link on The Narrow Path's digitalministries link. But I had never gone to it till about a month or so ago. A friend of mine had recommended Hovind to me so I went to check him out. Since that time I have read a lot by and about him, including the Wikipedia article and articles from his and other sites. I've listened to several of his lectures, read at least two of his debates, and listened to three debates he participated in. In short, I've done a fair amount of research on Kent Hovind and, in particular, with regard to what his beliefs are (Young Earth Creationist).

For the purposes of this thread I don't want to go into Hovind's legal problems. Hovind's theology is what I want to discuss. Nor do I want to debate and/or discuss the various "Views of Creation" that Christians of differing persuations have, here. (My view is under construction and I don't think there is a "name" for it, that I know of...which is beside the point). At any rate....

Excerpted from the debate at this link (typed in by me):
Kent Hovind (Young Earth Creationist) V. John Callahan (Theistic Evolutionist)

Question to Hovind:
Can a person believe in evolution and be saved?

Hovind's answer:
A qualified, Yes...You don't go to Hell because you believe in evolution. You go to Hell because you are a sinner. Now there are some people who haven't arrived at the top of the mountain of truth yet...[who say they] believe in God, but I am not convinced it is the God of the Bible. I don't know who's saved and who's not...the [Theistic Evolution] position he [John Callahan] takes makes me real nervous for his salvation, as it does with others who take this position because when they say the word 'God' they are not talking about the God of the Bible -- that's for sure. Osama Bin Laden uses the word 'God' quite often. He's not talking about the same God I worship...Yes, I suppose you could believe in evolution. Yes, I think you could but you would be awfully embarrassed when you get to heaven...If they [Theistic Evolutionists] go to heaven at all they are going to be really upset.

Am I the only person confused here?

Yes, I suppose you could believe in evolution. Yes, I think you could but you would be awfully embarrassed when you get to heaven...If they [Theistic Evolutionists] go to heaven at all they are going to be really upset.

I've never read anything in the Bible that says people will be upset about anything whatever upon arrivial in heaven.

Rick

PS, I just edited out my errors, Jan. 4, at 12:25am

[Guest]

Being a Young Earther myself (as of now), I do not feel that Kent Hovind's arguments are representative of young earthers. He says a lot that has been disproven, and admitted to be so by young earthers.

I prefer Answers in Genesis.

As for his comments above. I think that he, like many Christians, is so wrapped up in a periphery issue, that he thinks that salvation may be wrapped up in it as well. Many Calvinists seem to be this way. (no offense Calvies, but it's true on the internet anyway). I am not sure why he wouldn't be saved though. But he will recieve a stricter judgement for being a teacher.

God bless,

[Guest]

I'm no big fan of his work, but I don't doubt his core theology. The stuff about not knowing who is saved, I think, isn't taken the way he intended it.

For instance, I know that those who believe in Christ are saved. I just don't know who *really* believes in Christ. I know the category, but I haven't been given the knowledge of any individual's salvation or damnation.

I think that's what he was saying.

About the "mountain of truth" thing, I don't think it's a Gnostic thing, any more than if I said, "I'm not sure Mormons can be saved, because they're not worshipping the right God." Ditto for JWs, Muslims, etc. Faith is required, but faith in whom?

[Guest]

Rick,

The digitalministries.us site is not affiliated with this ministry. It belongs to a friend of mine, Tom Curran, who has a lot of my recordings and posts them with my permission. We link from our site to his because lots of people at our site are looking for more mp3s of the type that are at our site. Tom's tastes in other teachers are not identical to mine, so I would advise our people to exercise discernment. I do not particularly endorse any of the other speakers that his site links to.

I think you may be being too harsh in your interpretation of Mr. Hovind's statements. I am not a real fan of his ministry, though I would identify with the young-earth camp as well. I don't think that Hovind's quoted statement is heterodox. I would paraphrase it as follows (these are not necessarily my sentiments, but those which I take to be Kent Hovind's, as expressed in the cited paragraph):

"I believe a person may be saved in spite of his belief in theistic evolution, because our salvation is not directly dependant upon our interpretations of Genesis 1. I believe, however, that it is a grave error to interpret Genesis 1 other than literally, and those who do so will be in for a rude awakening when they discover in heaven that they have taught error on this matter. None of us have reached full comprehension of all biblical truth, so we should allow that many who know Christ, but are mistaken on other issues, will be with us in heaven. That does not mean, however, that there are no negative consequences for believing what is untrue about creation." (Kent Hovind, as I would paraphrase him).

[_Rick_C]

Derek, HNY,

Being a Young Earther myself (as of now), I do not feel that Kent Hovind's arguments are representative of young earthers. He says a lot that has been disproven, and admitted to be so by young earthers.

I prefer Answers in Genesis.

I'm sure you would agree that Hovind's views aren't representative of all YEC's (Young Earth Creationists). As you point out, there are various camps within YEC, such as AiG (Answers in Genesis).

As for his comments above. I think that he, like many Christians, is so wrapped up in a periphery issue, that he thinks that salvation may be wrapped up in it as well. Many Calvinists seem to be this way. (no offense Calvies, but it's true on the internet anyway). I am not sure why he wouldn't be saved though. But he will recieve a stricter judgement for being a teacher.

I want to reiterate that I can't be the judge of Hovind's salvation. I cannot say he isn't a Christian. However, he has stated that evolution is Satanic. So far, I haven't found anything Hovind has said to show that he regards Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution as being truly saved. Thanx Derek.
Rick

[_Rick_C]

Seth, HNY,

I'm no big fan of his work, but I don't doubt his core theology. The stuff about not knowing who is saved, I think, isn't taken the way he intended it.

For instance, I know that those who believe in Christ are saved. I just don't know who *really* believes in Christ. I know the category, but I haven't been given the knowledge of any individual's salvation or damnation.

I think that's what he was saying.

Perhaps he is. I just can't quite see it.

Thanx for your reply.
Rick

[_Rick_C]

Steve, HNY to you too,

The digitalministries.us site is not affiliated with this ministry. It belongs to a friend of mine, Tom Curran, who has a lot of my recordings and posts them with my permission. We link from our site to his because lots of people at our site are looking for more mp3s of the type that are at our site. Tom's tastes in other teachers are not identical to mine, so I would advise our people to exercise discernment. I do not particularly endorse any of the other speakers that his site links to.

I was aware that digitalministries.us was at least in part a "complimentary" site to TNP.com. I also knew that you didn't endorse all of the teachers on Tom Curran's site. E.g., Alistair Begg, the Calvinist who also endorses John Owen (who had a very very low view of Arminians), etc. At the same time Begg teaches a lot of things all Christians would agree on.

So as you (always) say, finding truth is a matter of discernment; that we all should examine our own beliefs and the beliefs of others, based on the Bible.

I think you may be being too harsh in your interpretation of Mr. Hovind's statements. I am not a real fan of his ministry, though I would identify with the young-earth camp as well. I don't think that Hovind's quoted statement is heterodox. I would paraphrase it as follows (these are not necessarily my sentiments, but those which I take to be Kent Hovind's, as expressed in the cited paragraph):

"I believe a person may be saved in spite of his belief in theistic evolution, because our salvation is not directly dependant upon our interpretations of Genesis 1. I believe, however, that it is a grave error to interpret Genesis 1 other than literally, and those who do so will be in for a rude awakening when they discover in heaven that they have taught error on this matter. None of us have reached full comprehension of all biblical truth, so we should allow that many who know Christ, but are mistaken on other issues, will be with us in heaven. That does not mean, however, that there are no negative consequences for believing what is untrue about creation." (Kent Hovind, as I would paraphrase him).

Had Hovind stated things this way, well, he would have. I can't quite "exegete" him to be saying things this way. It would be better for everyone concerned if Hovind would be clear in his statements. But he isn't. So I started this thread...Thanx, Steve.
Rick

[_Rick_C]

Okay.

I re-listened to the debate and tried to see it "with Steve Gregg glasses on."

Maybe I misunderstood some of what Hovind says. On the "mountain of truth" thing I think he may have been joking....(???)....

At any rate, Hovind's use of Ad Hominem is just too much for me.
And, I suppose, enough said.
Thanx for the replies folks.
Rick

[_Rick_C]

I've listened to this twice:

Kent Hovind Versus Hugh Ross Debate

Here are exerpts:

(The discussion has been on the Big Bang).

Ross: I'm claiming that the Big Bang is a design, a divinely designed process.

Hovind: Okay, I would say that a God that would have to use a Big Bang and billons of years to get us here is a retarded God and I certainly would not worship Him. I want a God that would get it get it right, first time. My God did it right in six days. He did not have to practise.

Ross: Well, I mean, it sounds like to me you're saying that if He took any time at all He would be less than the God of the Bible. You would agree that God did take some time?

Hovind: I agree He took six days. It said He took six days. And there's hundreds of references to the seventh day and to sabbath day. Your position is so unscriptural on this. You put death before sin. Uh, I just don't know how you can read your Bible and come to these conclusions and, you know, still say that you love the Lord.

Moderatror: And say you love the Lord? Now HOLD IT!

Hovind: Well, I've read the Bible, I don't know, probably a hundred times and I taught high school science for fifteen years. I'm sure no world's expert on this. But I will stick by my guns and say the obvious plain reading of Scripture is a six day creation, about six or seven thousand years ago.

Moderator: Doctor Hovind, I'm going to ask you to withdraw the comment about how anybody could love the Lord and disagree with you....

Hovind: No, no, no, I know. I didn't say they couldn't love the Lord and disagree with me. I said I don't know see how you could hold the position that God would use billions and billions of years to get us here which is not what is revealed in the Bible. Why would God not say that so clearly in the Word? I mean, give the Bible to a ten year old and say read this and he's going to come up with a six day creation.

Ross: Well again, I've already stated my point that there are lots of people who've done just that and do come up with a conclusion of six consecutive long periods of time. [Ross had mentioned earlier that throughout history Christians have done this, including some Early Fathers of the Church].

Closing question by someone named Kathy: A lot of years ago I went to a very small, very conservative Bible college... We learned literal twenty-four hour Creation, etc., and were told all the reasons why at that time was referred to the 'Day-Age Theory' was, you know, we couldn't hold to that. As I got older and met people who held to that position I...It's a very simplistic question, genetlemen, but, When it comes to the outward living of everday Christian life, does it make a difference which one of those views we hold?

Ross: I would say it makes no difference at all. It's not one of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.

Hovind: I guess I would say it makes a big difference because it certainly sheds doubt on the ability of God to simply write a book that anyone could read and understand. The obvious teaching of Scripture is six days, about six thousand years ago. And so I think it would make a person question parts of the Bible and, 'Man, do I have to get someone to help me interpret this?'

Bold, mine, to show Hovind lying (right in front of God & everybody).....
Need I say more?
Rick

[Guest]

Hi Rick C.,
It seems to me that Kent was not saying that anyone who holds to an old earth view could not love the Lord. It looks like he is speaking directly about putting death before sin. I happened to agree with Dr. Hovind on the debate between young earth and old earth. However I agree with Steve's position that death in Genesis is in reference to human death. Dr. Hovind sees death in a general sense of all living creatures.

Overall, I would say that Dr. Hovind has done good work for the kingdom of God. He seems to be a dedicated Christian, and wants to defend the bible against those who seek to undermine the faith of Christians through the teaching of evolution. I have listened to most of Dr. Hovind's teachings and found areas of agreement and disagreement. If you listen to all of what he has to say you will find that he believes that there are good Christians on both sides of the isle. However, he is teaching what he believes and I can accept him as a brother even if he is wrong on some points.

I think now we should pray for him and his family, for the hardships they are going through. He will be paying a heavy price for standing up for his beliefs, and I pray as Christians we can stand with him in prayer regardless of how we view his position on young earth creation.

Robin