I’m enjoying Phil Brantley’s responses to Sean Pitman’s assertion that …

Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Professor Kent.

I’m enjoying Phil Brantley’s responses to Sean Pitman’s assertion that we must validate scripture through external evidence, an assertion I continue to contend is anti-SDA. He is articulating my own position far better than I could. The latest:

Phil Brantley – Sat, 05/07/2011 – 14:24

Dr. Pitman, you keep mischaracterizing my views. I have never claimed that the Bible is true and must be accepted as true without resort to any evidence. Indeed, I listed 16 lines of evidence that arise out of Scripture that are probative in establishing the truthfulness of Scripture. What I have said is that once one adopts the belief that the Bible is the Word of God, then one is not at liberty to subject the Bible to criticism by reference to external data.

You challenged me to provide evidence arising out of Scripture that provides a rational basis for faith in the truthfulness of Scripture. Your position has been that there is no such evidence and that the Bible’s truthfulness can only be verified by external data. I gave you a list of 16 lines of evidence, all of which arise out of Scripture itself. You quarrel only with No. 2–The internal consistency of doctrine and teaching over the course of hundreds of years, as reflected in the writings of numerous authors. You suggest that the Bible is no more internally consistent than the Book of Mormon, the Qur’an, or any well-written fairy tale.

Given that you have no quarrel with the other fifteen evidentiary items I list, you should concede the point: It is not “blind faith” for one to believe that the Bible is the Word of God based solely on evidence arising out of Scripture itself.

You should understand that the evidence arising out of Scripture is often more probative and powerful than external data. For example, Seventh-day Adventists believe in the truthfulness of the biblical claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. There is no external data that corroborates that claim. But the evidence arising out of Scripture consisting of Old Testament prophecies, miraculous births of Old Testament leaders, etc., provides some rationality to one’s faith that such an event occurred.

Unless you are prepared to prove every fact and claim in Scripture by reference solely to external data–a Sisyphean endeavor if there ever was one–then you are constrained to concede the point.

Will a modern, rational, candid, and intelligent mind necessarily be persuaded that the Bible is the Word of God? If that person lacks faith, the answer is no. Your effort to eliminate faith as a requisite for belief is puzzling, given the strong importance attached to faith by the biblical writers.

Professor Kent Also Commented

A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Sean Pitman:
Amen here, too!


A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Sean Pitman:

Ummm…where’s the sarcasm?


A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Ellen White on the heredity of human behavior

As Pastor Kevin Paulson, an ardent Educate Truth supporter, described eloquently (http://bit.ly/lGXi22):

We see this same principle further illustrated in the more than 200 statements where Ellen White speaks of hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil (23). These are Ellen White’s terms for what we hear today regarding the difference between nature and nurture in human development. Ellen White is clear that Jesus took our fallen hereditary tendencies, since she writes that “He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life” (24). In other words, His heredity would be a source of temptation to Himself, as it is to us. But very clearly, Jesus didn’t take our fallen cultivated tendencies to evil, since to do this would have required Him to sin.

Indeed, Ellen White assures us:

“Those who put their trust in Christ are not to be enslaved by any hereditary or cultivated habit or tendency. Instead of being held in bondage to the lower nature, they are to rule every appetite and passion. God has not left us to battle with evil in our own finite strength. Whatever may be our inherited or cultivated tendencies to wrong, we can overcome through the power that He is ready to impart.” (Amazing Grace, p. 246)

Let there be no mistake about it: Ellen White acknowledged the genetic basis of our tendencies toward sinful behavior.


Recent Comments by Professor Kent

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Nic&#032Samojluk: No wonder most creationist writers do not even try to submit their papers to such organizations.
Who wants to waste his/her time trying to enter through a door that is closed to him/her a priori?

You have no idea what you’re writing about, Nic. As it turns out, there are in fact many of us Adventists who “waste” our time publishing articles through doors that open to us a priori. Even Leonard Brand at Loma Linda, a widely recognized creationist, has published in the top geology journals. I mean the top journals in the discipline.

The myth that creationists cannot publish in mainstream science is perpetuated by people who simply do not understand the culture of science–and will remain clueless that they do not understand it even when confronted with their misunderstandings. Such is human nature.


Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Pauluc,

Your questions about conservation genetics are very insightful. I don’t understand how all these life forms were able to greatly increase in genetic diversity while simultaneously winding down and losing genetic information to mutations. Sean seems to insist that both processes happen simultaneously. I had the impression he has insisted all along that the former cannot overcome the latter. But I think you must be right: God had to intervene to alter the course of nature. However, we can probably test this empirically because there must be a signature of evidence available in the DNA. I’ll bet Sean can find the evidence for this.

I’m also glad the predators (just 2 of most such species) in the ark had enough clean animals (14 of each such species) to eat during the deluge and in the months and years after they emerged from the ark that they didn’t wipe out the vast majority of animal species through predation. Maybe they all consumed manna while in the ark and during the first few months or years afterward. Perhaps Sean can find in the literature a gene for a single digestive enzyme that is common to all predatory animals, from the lowest invertebrate to the highest vertebrate. Now that would be amazing.

Wait a minute–I remember once being told that SDA biologists like Art Chadwick believe that some animals survived on floating vegetation outside the ark. Now that would solve some of these very real problems! I wonder whether readers here would allow for this possibility. Multiple arks without walls, roof, and human caretakers.


Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit

Ellen White said, “In the days of Noah, men…many times larger than now exist, were buried, and thus preserved as an evidence to later generations that the antediluvians [presumably referring to humans] perished by a flood. God designed that the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history…”

Sean Pitman said, “All human fossils discovered so far are Tertiary or post-Flood fossils. There are no known antediluvian human fossils.”

Ellen White tells us that humans and dinosaurs (presumably referred to in the statement, “a class of very large animals which perished at the flood… mammoth animals”) lived together before the flood. Evolutionary biologists tell us that dinosaurs and humans never lived together. You’re telling us, Sean, that the fossil record supports the conclusion of evolutionists rather than that of Ellen White and the SDA Church. Many of the “very large animals which perished at the flood” are found only in fossil deposits prior to or attributed to the flood, whereas hunans occur in fossil deposits only after the flood (when their numbers were most scarce).

Should the SDA biologists, who are supposed to teach “creation science,” be fired if they teach what you have just conceded?


La Sierra Univeristy Fires Dr. Lee Greer; Signs anti-Creation Bond
For those aghast about the LSU situation and wondering what other SDA institutions have taken out bonds, hold on to your britches. You’ll be stunned when you learn (soon) how many of our other schools, and which ones in particular, have taken out these bonds. You will be amazed to learn just how many other administrators have deliberately secularized their institutions besides Randal Wisbey, presumably because they too hate the SDA Church (as David Read has put it so tactfully).

Be sure to protest equally loudly.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
@Sean Pitman:

So clearly you believe that science can explain supernatural events. Congratulations on that.