By Sean Pitman
Some may wonder why Shane, David and I, and many others in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, are so concerned over the fact that mainstream evolutionary theories are creeping into our schools? Why is it a problem that the theory of evolution is being promoted as the true story of origins, in our schools, in direct conflict with the Church’s position on a literal 6-day creation week?  What’s the big deal? Who really cares? After all, isn’t it enough to know Jesus? Why is the Church’s stand on origins so critical? After all, as Eddie asks below, who has ever been converted from atheism to Christianity through apologetic arguments for creationism? – especially young-life creationism?
“Many Christians have lost their faith because of the empirical evidence for long ages of life on Earth. Do you know of any atheist who became a Christian because of the empirical evidence for life on Earth being less than 10,000 years old?”
First off, there aren’t that many true atheists. Only about 1.6% of Americans describe themselves as atheists and 2.4% as agnostics (we won’t even talk about ‘atheists in foxholes’). And, when people do end up referring to themselves as atheistic, in a public manner, they’re usually pretty set in their ways, having passionately made up their minds against the idea of God. Because of this, it is pretty hard to convert a self-proclaimed atheist.
Yet, I know of a number of former agnostics or atheists who became Christians due in no small part to the evidence for creation – to include the evidence for a recent arrival of life on Earth: Walter Veith, Clifford Goldstein, Rick Lanser, Jerry Bergman, and John Sanford to name a few.
Really though, such examples are meaningless when it comes to my own basis of faith and a solid hope in the future… and the faith of many who remain Christians because of the evidence in support of the Biblical account of origins.
More to the point, as you point out, many many people do in fact leave the Church because the Church is not offering them good apologetic arguments to counter the prevailing opinions of mainstream science.
Various studies, to include one reported in the book, Already Gone (by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer) and the following report, by an evolutionist, on a pole taken by the Montana Origins Research Effort (M.O.R.E.) in 2011, support your argument:
“But let’s talk about a fact that we could both agree on: People are leaving the church because of the creation vs. evolution issue. It was stated several times during the conference that 66 percent of the young people in their church were not returning after college. When polled, the number one reason for leaving was because of their religion’s stance on evolution.” (Read More…)
Obviously then, hiring scientists who promote the mainstream perspective, or offer nothing but blind faith to counter it, only exacerbates the problem. Flipping your argument around, if the Church were able to provide better empirical arguments for its position on origins, I think even you would agree that such evidence would play a big part in keeping people in the Church. After all, if they’re leaving in droves because of the empirical evidence against the Church, if this evidence is effectively countered, such an effort would obviously play a key role in keeping a great many people in the Church.
Sure, a few like you may stay in the Church in spite of the perceived weight of evidence against it or because of empirically blind faith alone. But, for many many people, blind faith arguments just aren’t good enough. They aren’t appealing to many rational people who will follow where they think the empirical evidence leads. The Church should be urgently trying to help such people, people like me, who actually need to see the weight of empirical evidence favoring the Church’s perspective as a basis for rational faith. The Church would only be contributing to the vast exodus from its own doors, especially among the youth of the Church, by failing to substantively address the arguments of mainstream scientists that are being brought against it – according to your own argument.
“Let me be transparent about my personal position: I believe in a young age of life on Earth, but not because of the empirical evidence. I see through a glass darkly and I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. Whatever happened in the past happened. Other matters are more important.”
Again, empirically blind faith must be a wonderful thing for you and others who share your view. The problem is that many like me don’t understand a faith that is not backed by empirical evidence as rational or personally meaningful. Simply choosing to believe contrary to what I understand to be the weight of empirical evidence would be, for me, a form of irrationality – kind of like living a lie.
I therefore remain in the Church because I actually see the weight of evidence as strongly favoring the Church’s fundamental goals and ideals – to include its position on origins (a position which I consider to be one of the most fundamental aspects of Adventism and Christianity at large).
This is why, if I ever became convinced of Darwinism or long-ages for life on Earth, I would leave the SDA Church and probably Christianity as well. I might still believe in a God of some kind, but certainly not the Christian-style God described in the pages of the Bible.
Obviously many people feel the same way. They simply cannot see themselves clear to be a member of any organization that is so fundamentally opposed to what they perceive to be rationally true. I, for one, strongly sympathize with this mentality and see a great need to meet the needs of this very large community – many of whom are our neighbors and close friends.
In 3SG 90-91 we find that belief in evolutionism destroys acceptance of the Bible and faith in God.
I have every reason to believe that our current SDA leadership accepts that fact (including Mark Finley)just as fully as do the conservative contributors to the EducateTruth board.
You are free of course to try and spin this into some oblique area – but the point remains.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentWho’s spinning? My “oblique area” (stomach muscle) is relaxed and stationary. Does your point remain? Let’s see:
Funny that I and others have used the
EXACT SAME BIBLICAL EXAMPLE as Mark Finley: Eve relied on her eyes and her reason, rather than God’s word, which led her astray. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Sean Pitman criticized Finley’s interpretation (http://bit.ly/lB6w2O).
I see now that you agree with me at long last: using our God-given reason should never trump accepting God’s word at face value. To exalt God’s gift of reason above God’s Word is catastrophic. That’s exactly we cannot commit to “going where the evidence leads,” which Sean insists upon. And you know it.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentAccording to my calculations, here is the current status of the great evidence-versus-faith debate:
100% evidence < Pitman + Ryan + Ken < Kent + Brantley + Hilde + Read + Eddie < 100% faith
Looks like we all fall somewhere between 100% evidence and 100% faith. Are we really that far apart?
Eddie(Quote)
View Comment@Eddie:
Where some of us are very far apart is when someone like Brantley argues that the Bible’s Divine authority should never be based on empirical evidence or even upon human reason – that the Bible should not be investigated with critical analysis to see if it really is God’s word. It should simply be accepted as such without any appeal to rational thought or empirically-based arguments.
Consider, for example, Brantley’s recent argument along these lines:
In short, if the credibility of the Bible is not to be based on reason, to what should one appeal when trying to lead others to an understanding of its Divine origin and authority?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent: You’re missing the point. Eve was not left without any evidence on which to base her faith in God’s Word. Adam and Eve were even warned about Satan:
Eve received specific warnings from the Angels about leaving Adams side:
Satan offers his own evidence while twisting what God said in order to deceive Eve.
I think the real question is, Did Eve have reason to trust God’s Word? The answer is yes. I like what Ellen White said here:
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentShane, I get the point very well from Ellen White, thank you:
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentShane, I get the point very well from Ellen White, thank you:
Sister White is clearly stating that we are to paid heed to the evidence from God’s word–the “genuine foundation” she speaks of in the statement. I’m all for “evidence” provided we prioritize the evidence from God’s word and a personal relationship ahead of all else. There is no reason to distort this position as “blind faith” and then declare it “useless.” You guys need to stop assailing faith. Pitman in particular is far too infatuated with the reason of his rational, candid mind.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI feel no need to define exactly what type of evidence God will provide. I imagine it is different for different people.
God always gives us evidence on which to base our faith.
Keep in mind that Sean is arguing primarily from the standpoint of those who do not view the Bible as their ultimate standard.
Yes, between believers we expect that from one another, but we can’t necessarily tell someone that they should take the Bible as their ultimate standard without any reason.
The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. Ultimately they will be led to our position on the Bible if they do not resist the Holy Spirit.
Evidence in the Bible, evidence outside the Bible. It makes no difference. God used extra-biblical evidence all the time in the stories of the Bible. If it confirms your faith in God, great, but you should have a reason, a firm foundation, as to why you believe what you do.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentAnd the only faith that is being assailed is a faith that has no foundation on which to rest. If you have no reason for your faith, then you have no evidence for your faith.
Ellen White speaks of experience as being a type of evidence accessable to everyone. We’re all at different places in our walk with God. My reasons for my faith might not be particularly convincing, but it’s not my job to convict you, it’s the Holy Spirit’s job, I’m just supposed to present the reasons. This is why it’s important for each of to know why we believe, to know what the evidence is for our faith.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentNice reply, Shane. Very nice.
PK
Professing Christ until the whole world hears
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentAccording to my calculations, here is the current status of the great evidence-versus-faith debate:
100% evidence < Pitman + Ryan + Ken < Kent + Brantley + Hilde + Read + Eddie < 100% faith
Looks like we all fall somewhere between 100% evidence and 100% faith. Are we really that far apart?
Eddie(Quote)
View Comment@Eddie:
Where some of us are very far apart is when someone like Brantley argues that the Bible’s Divine authority should never be based on empirical evidence or even upon human reason – that the Bible should not be investigated with critical analysis to see if it really is God’s word. It should simply be accepted as such without any appeal to rational thought or empirically-based arguments.
Consider, for example, Brantley’s recent argument along these lines:
In short, if the credibility of the Bible is not to be based on reason, to what should one appeal when trying to lead others to an understanding of its Divine origin and authority?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentUnless some of us are saying God has asked us to believe in something without any reason to trust Him, then we’re all pretty close.
Abraham did not understand why God asked him to sacrifice his son, but God gave him the evidence he needed to know that it was indeed God talking to him, and Abraham rested on past evidences of God’s faithfulness to uplift his soul.
Abraham stepped out in faith without any evidence directly that it was God speaking to him. Thus he prayed for a sign from God to confirm that it was Him. God gave him the sign. Now based on the evidence Abraham could be assured that he was not crazy, even though he still did not understand. It was the past evidence of how God dealt with him that strengthened his faith/trust in God’s command, and His promise to bless his seed through Isaac.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View Comment@Shane Hilde:
Exactly! Not even Abraham was asked to believe in the naked word of God devoid of empirical evidence that would appeal to the rational candid mind. God was not offended when Abraham asked for this evidence because without such evidence, Abraham would truly have been insane to simply follow voices in His head claiming to be the voice of God without any external empirical confirmation…
There are false spirits out there that will lie to us. These spirits must be tested. And, the only basis upon which to employ and interpret tests is our God-given human reasoning abilities.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentThat works, Eddie. LOL.
I think the first item would be 0% faith, considering the “<" symbol following it (none of us are more than 100% evidence).
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment1. I have stated repeatedly that belief in evolutionism destroys faith in the Bible. 3SG90-91 makes that same point and Finley is not on record as rejecting the 3SG90-91 point. But you seem to struggle with it at times.
2. I never argue for the either-or fallacy that you keep proposing. You insist that we either use reason or faith but never both. The 3SG 90-91 argues that reason will not allow us to believe in both evolutionism and the Bible.
How are you doing with that?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentLOL. I didn’t speak to evolutionism or 3SG90-91. So what will I be accused of next? Palm reading? Faith healing? Snake handling? Baptizing for the dead?
LOL. I’ve argued against the strict, absurd dichotomy of “blind” faith versus evidence that I never proposed. Repeatedly. How’d you miss that?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentThe question remains – how are you doing with the fact that T.E is identified as the “worst form of infidelity”?
Is this still a subject you will only deny when not avoiding?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentLOL – we can all see that you are avoiding that point – I was just trying to get you to address it.
Apparently the up front method is not working with you.
Maybe I can come at this point from some direction where you will not realize at the time that you are actually stating your belief on this subject.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI’ve stated my beliefs MANY DOZENS of times. I could continue to do so, but since you remain entrenched in the conviction that you can divine my heart and soul, and “know” for certainty that I am a liar, there is no point in restating the same things over and over for your personal entertainment and ridicule.
I wish I had your omniscience, but I wouldn’t trade you my relationship with the Living Water: “As the deer pants for streams of water, so I long for you, O Lord.”
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentYour answer to the 3SG 90-91 question appears to be yet another creative dodge…
How “unnexpected” — 😉
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentOr a cadillac?
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentIt’s funny that you never see those guys claim 100% evidence and 0% faith — but that idea keeps popping up from Kent and a few others that such is the case.
Mystifying.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan: Assigning digits, to the nth decimal, to faith and evidence? 23.4% Impressive! Rather like Ivory Soap is 99.44% pure, Obama’s approval rating as of 10;05.66 AM is 43.68%, the precision itself being 99.44% evidence of validity, or are we to receive it 100.00003% on faith? Studies show that such postings are 78.88% belittling.
oink(Quote)
View CommentI’m surprised, Sean, that you would disagree with one of the Church’s leading evangelists. That’s pretty gutsy of you.
Actually, your views are at odds with many Church leaders, pastors, and evangelists. It’s not just Mark Finley you are critical of.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentRe Oink’s quote
“Studies show that such postings are 78.88% belittling.”
Hi Oink
That was 75% amusing.
However, when it comes to calculations, I assume you don’t take exception to the Adventist biblical calculation (2300 days = 2300 years), determining that the Investigative Judgment commenced precisely on October 22, 1844?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentI’m surprised, Sean, that you would disagree with one of the Church’s leading evangelists. That’s pretty gutsy of you.
Actually, your views are at odds with many Church leaders, pastors, and evangelists. It’s not just Mark Finley you are critical of.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI was reading STEPS TO CHRIST when I encountered this familiar passage from Sister White that is used by Sean Pitman to defend his position that our faith must be based on empirical evidence and human reason:
I was startled as I continued to read the chapter, which clearly and unmistakably is all about elevating God’s word above human reason. Among the more eloquent passages:
I am appalled that the first passage from Ellen White has been misapplied by Sean Pitman and EducateTruth to elevate the “candid rational intelligent mind” above a simple “Thus saith the Lord,” and to declare evidence as the basis of our faith. Ellen White makes unmistakably clear that we are to accept the word of God much as a child does–not “blind,” but willing to accept what God tells us at face value.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentAnd here is yet another “proof” verse for elevating human reason above simple trust in God’s word; again, this is from the same chapter in STEPS TO CHRIST:
And what evidence is she speaking to? As I have pointed out before, without realizing she stated the exact same thing, here is what she writes two paragraphs later:
Again, the evidence of experience, which is strengthened by studying God’s word, trumps everything else–and this is the essence of most of Ellen White’s many remarks about the importance of evidence and an “intelligent faith.”
Sean once told me I needed to read every single word of hers in context (which I wholeheartedly agree with), and he needs to practice what he preaches by reading the entirety of this beautiful chapter from STEPS TO CHRIST.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentRe Prof Kent’s Quote
“Again, the evidence of experience, which is strengthened by studying God’s word, trumps everything else”
Hello Prof Kent
That didn’t seem to work for Harold Camping did it? Perhaps raising the reality bar with the support of empirical science, as Dr. Pitman suggests, is not such a bad thing.
Otherwise everyone gets subjected to the Harold Camping’s of the world and faith becomes a laughing stock.
For example have you compared William Miller to Harold Camping? What separates them in your mind?
And, as our friend Bob so candidly has commented upon, is there any empirical evidence to corroborate the prognostication of an Investigative Judgment commencing on October 22, 1844?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentYou miss the point Jeff. How do you go about leading someone to the point where they trust the Bible enough to abide by a “Thus saith the Lord.” You’re preaching to the choir. No is arguing this. The point is simple, God never asks us to believe without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith.
The truthfulness of God’s Word is established by testimony that appeals to our reason, and God has given ample evidence for faith in His Word. The evidence God gives us must be carefully investigated with a humble mind and a teachable spirit; and all should decide from the weight of evidence.
Since the book of nature and the book of revelation bear the impress of the same master mind, they cannot but speak in harmony.
Science brings from her research nothing that, rightly understood, conflicts with divine revelation. The book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. They make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the laws through which He works.
Those who really desire to know the truth will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith, because the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth (John 16:13).
God requires of His people faith that rests upon the weight of evidence, not upon perfect knowledge.
We should know for ourselves what constitutes Christianity, what is truth, what is the faith that we have received, what are the Bible rules–the rules given us from the highest authority. There are many who believe, without a reason on which to base their faith, without sufficient evidence as to the truth of the matter. If an idea is presented that harmonizes with their own preconceived opinions, they are all ready to accept it. They do not reason from cause to effect. Their faith has no genuine foundation, and in the time of trial they will find that they have built upon the sand. (MR Vol. 9, No. 724; Education, chapter 14 “Science and the Bible”; Mind, Character, and Personality 536)
But why should we accept God’s Word? You’re arguing from the standpoint of already assumed biblical authority. How do you arrive at that point? What did you rest your faith on? Why is the Bible true?
God always appeals to our reason. This is how he communicates with us. This is how we arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is God’s Word. Even a child has empirical evidence on which to base their trust.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentResponse:
Did he miss the point – or did he simply spin the point?
The consistency in trying to sidestep the point is impressive.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentResponse:
Now THAT is the question Kent is very focused on avoiding!
😉
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentNo, Shane, you are missing the point. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to bring people to a knowledge and conviction of God. Again, the “evidence” Ellen White speaks to is almost always that obtained from a personal relationship in Jesus and fed through study of God’s word.
Again, you cited Ellen White (in MR Vol. 9, No. 724; Education, chapter 14 “Science and the Bibleâ€; Mind, Character, and Personality 536) to show that she wants us to use evidence to persuade others. But you’re citing from a compilation. What was the original context of her remarks? I believe they came from the following:
I think the “genuine foundation” she spoke to is abundantly clear: SCRIPTURE. Yet this becomes distorted to support Pitman’s view that scripture cannot be accepted without an external test of its validity, and therefore “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence” becomes the basis for faith. You guys, Sean Pitman in particular, have repeatedly denigrated faith and trust in a simple “thus saith the Lord.” I could cite statement after statement from Sean in which he belittles the child-like faith that Ellen White commends, calling it useless.
And Bob stoops to labelling my defense of the high position and authority of scripture as “spin.” Now there’s a “candid rational intelligent mind” (Pitman’s beloved phrase) at play.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentBob, here is an Ellen White gem for you:
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentIndeed, it is the Holy Spirit that brings conviction, but we are still called always “be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).
You say the evidence cannot be external to the Bible. What exactly does that mean? How do you verify prophecy internally? How do you verify historicity of the Bible internally? How do you show that the Bible is reliable and trustworthy?
I think you’re splitting hairs now with what kind of evidence is acceptable what isn’t. What does it matter where the evidence comes from?
You might have at some time in the past, but I have yet to see you produce any reason why the Bible should be trusted. If you point to prophecy, you must point to extra biblical sources to verify the events actually took place.
You keep arguing as an insider, but what do you tell someone who is wavering bewteen the Bible and the Book of Mormon? Do you tell them they’ll just feel a conviction that the Bible is true? Faith is not based on feeling. It is based on evidence pure and simple. It matters not what kind of evidence it is. The Bible and SOP do not define what kinds of evidence are acceptable and what is not. And if they do, produce the references.
What purpose could you possibly have in alienating the Bible from reality? If the Bible has no basis in reality, how on earth can we trust it or even lead someone else to trust it?
God does not ask you to believe in something with absolutely no evidence at all. Once that trust is established we are to exercise a child-like faith, but this does not equal believing something from someone whom we do not trust.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentAt this point Kent is free to say he is in 100% agreement with that statement or to join some other SDAs who have come to this board claiming that Ellen White is wrong in her statemetns in 3SG 90-91.
Surely a direct answer one way or the other should not be that difficult.
Or would a direct answer to the question be too transparent?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
It is certainly apparent that a few posters on this board think the 3SG 90-91 statement is accurate. I don’t think that should surprise anyone.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment3SG90-91 says the EARTH is only 6,000 years old, a simple direct statement from Ellen White that Bob Ryan actually disputes.
3SG90-91 states very clearly that belief in an older earth is the worst form of infidelity, and that it leads to disbelief in scripture.
Of course Finley did not object to 3SG90-91; he objected to anyone putting human reason above a simple “thus saith the Lord,” and I agree wholeheartedly.
I’m not interested in playing games with you, Bob. The “either-or fallacy” you’re trying to pin on me was never mine, and I have written repeatedly against it, so stop twisting and manipulating and spinning and lying and accusing others of doing exactly what you enjoy doing.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentWonderful so then you will eventually answer the question.
1. Clearly I have never opposed the statement But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment.
2. Clearly I have never opposed the fact that when Ellen White uses the term “World” and “Worlds” she refers to planets with Life on them. (See her comments on Heb 1).
3. Obviously Kent has ducked this pointed question at least 3 times – tyring to side step rather than simply answering it directly.
Now that Kent claims he is no longer interested in “playing games” we look forward to a direct answer.
I never argue for the either-or fallacy that you keep proposing. You insist that we either use reason or faith but never both. The 3SG 90-91 argues that reason will not allow us to believe in both evolutionism and the Bible.
Kent – How are you doing with that?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI realize that last post was long – and may be confusing for some of those trying to make an opening for evolutionism.
Here is a shorter form of the post —
The 3SG 90-91 argues that reason will not allow us to believe in both evolutionism and the Bible.
Kent – How are you doing with that?
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI beg to differ. I defer to Phil Brantley’s eloquent defense of a rational faith that can arise from scripture alone (not that either he nor I believe that scripture alone is the only thing that can inform our faith):
I’m a bit surprised that you would sell the Bible short, Shane. I think that, deep inside, you maintain a high view of scripture. I’m concerned that you have parroted Sean Pitman so long that you now slip without thinking into his argument style and heterodox theology.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentOops! That previous statement was submitted before I was finished:
So this is what Ellen White wrote? If so, the only possible interpretation is that no matter on Earth–including the rocks–could possibly have existed for more than 20,000 years (she says “tens of thousands of years”) or even older than “about six thousand years.” Therefore any SDA (including some staunch defenders here at Educate Truth) who believes the rocks are older than “about six thousand years” is an “infidel.” Only YECs (young earth creationists) would support this statement as being true. Does that mean YLCs (young life creationists) are “infidels”?
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentKen, Mr. Camping based his conclusions on evidence far beyond what he gleaned from scripture and from his personal relationship with God. He erred by trying to interpret scripture based on external evidence, which is exactly what people here criticize the LSU faculty for doing. Ironically, these same critics insist that without validating scripture with external evidence, one’s faith is by definition as useless as belief in the Flying Spagetti Monster. Go figure.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI agree. In regards to interpretation, the Bible is its own interpretor.
There is a difference between how we interpret Scripture and whether our faith can rest on evidence. Many of the biology professors discount the biblical account due to their interpretation of nature. Rightly understood, science will never contradict the Bible because they are from the same author.
It is impossible to validate the Bible’s historicity internally. It’s spiritual claims are necessarily connected to the validity of its factual claims. If there is absolutely no way to verify any of the factual claims of the Bible, on what basis do we believe the spiritual truth claims are reliable.
There is a bounty of evidence that confirms the Bible is true. My problem with the LSU biology professors is that they don’t believe there is any evidence, thus they don’t teach it, and instead promote interpretations that undermine our beliefs.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentA DIRECT ANSWER TO WHAT? I have stated DOZENS OF TIMES that I believe that God created life in six literal days within a short-term chronology. I’ll say it again: I believe that God created life in six literal days within a short-term chronology. I’ll say it again: I believe that God created life in six literal days within a short-term chronology. It doesn’t matter how many times I say it, Bob, because you still want to portray me as a theistic evolutionist, because you treat me–your fellow brother in Christ–with utter contempt and hatred. I think you hate me because:
1. I called you out on your ignorance of science and the way you abuse others with it.
2. I called you out on the way you uncharitably taunt, ridicule, and harrass anyone who disagrees with you. Roughly half your posts have one point only, and that is to taunt me. You’re obsessed with me!
3. I oppose Educate Truth because I don’t think it is the best approach to bring about change at LSU or in the denomination as a whole. In fact, I think cyberbullying by those of your ilk is one of the most repulsive examples of Christianity I have witnessed in my lifetime.
As for the “either-or fallacy” that you insist I keep proposing, only a total, complete, stupid idiot believes that one has 100% faith or 100% evidence and nothing in between. I’ve never defended such a ludicrously stupid position, and I think you are well aware of this. Of course we must use both faith AND evidence; none of us can escape either.
As for your assertion that 3SG 90-91 argues that reason will not allow us to believe in both evolutionism and the Bible, you are completely delusional if you believe that millions of Christians who have accepted theistic evolution– Christians who have accepted it because they use their reason (often placing it ahead of faith)–have all rejected the Bible. It’s a stupid conclusion based on sheer ignorance if that’s what you believe. 3SG may argue this in your opinion, but I don’t think Ellen White would declare the faith of every single theistic evolutionist as invalid; she was not that arrogant or rude. You have elevated yourself to Godhood if you believe that YOU are qualified to tell any Church-going, Bible-thumping thesitic evolutionist (and there are MILLIONS) that they no longer believe in the Bible.
I don’t accept YEC and a literal creation week because of 3SG or because Ellen White says we should. I accept it on the basis of God’s word in scripture–Sola Scriptura.
What’s your next game? Do you wanna talk about Jesus Christ or your fanciful ideas of Professor Kent’s beliefs and character?
PK
Professing Christ until the whole world hears
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentIndeed we have “heard that”.
But that is not the question in my oft repeated question above.
My question is about your willingness to come clean on your acceptance or rejection of what the text says about Theistic Evolutionism.
I am not asking you if you ARE a T.E. I am asking about the statement that T.E. is the worst form of infidelity.
I tried to make this as short, simple and direct as possible.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentAccording to 3SG 90-91 it is not reasonable to believe in both T.E and the Bible and so T.E. is in fact the worst form of infidelity because it is infidelity pretending to actually believe the Bible.
This means that Kent must address two key points if he ever wishes to respond to the question raised by 3SG 90-91.
1. That evolutionism destroys faith in the Bible as 3SG 90-91.
2. That as such – it is then the worst form of infidelity.
Note – at no point have I said “Kent is a T.E.” when asking about Kent’s view of 3SG 90-91.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentWell let us see if it is indeed “delusional” to observe what the text says and discover that the text claims that reason dictates that belief in evolutionism destroys acceptance of the Bible.
Let us read the text – carefully to see the point clearly –
Kent seems to be bent on turning a blind eye to the statement above AS IF it did NOT make the claim it is making about the results of accepting evolutionism.
How “instructive”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI beg to differ. I defer to Phil Brantley’s eloquent defense of a rational faith that can arise from scripture alone (not that either he nor I believe that scripture alone is the only thing that can inform our faith):
I’m a bit surprised that you would sell the Bible short, Shane. I think that, deep inside, you maintain a high view of scripture. I’m concerned that you have parroted Sean Pitman so long that you now slip without thinking into his argument style and heterodox theology.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI know of many T.E.’s who are sincere believers and maintain a very close and deeply personal walk with Jesus Christ. Many such individuals would never stoop to treating fellow Christians the way you do because they have the royal law of love written on their circumcised heart. Who am I to judge that their “worst form of infidelity” disqualifies them for heaven?
Do I believe that “T.E. is the worst form of infidelity?” I don’t know. I have some difficulty believing that God would regard a sincere T.E., who loves him dearly (and there are millions), any less than a haughty, unrepent pharisee or priest who abdicated responsibility and put His son, Jesus, to death.
That’s my sincere answer. I’m ready for more taunting.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentGod help us.
Item #1 – YES, evolutionism can destroy faith in the Bible. Obviously. Does it do so for every single believer? The proof is in the millions of sincere Christians who fervently believe in the Bible. Millions.
Item #2 – I just answered that.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentRe Prof Kent’s Quote
“Ken, Mr. Camping based his conclusions on evidence far beyond what he gleaned from scripture and from his personal relationship with God. He erred by trying to interpret scripture based on external evidence,”
Hello Prof Kent
Thanks for your comments.
What external evidence? From what I have read of his convoluted, yet intriguing numerology, it seemed to be based almost entirely on his sola scriptura interpretation of the bible. Perhaps if he had looked at a seismometer or tested whether earthquakes roll through timezones like clockwork at 6 pm, he might have questioned his hermeneutics?
I suspect he thought he had a profoundly personal relationship with God. Many do but what does that mean regarding the empirical reality of the world? In Mr Camping’s case it is clear, unless from his quote below you see investigative judgment redux.
Re Harold Camping’s Quote
“Saturday was “an invisible judgment day” in which a spiritual judgment took place, he said.”
Note how eerily similar Camping’s lame apologetic is to the fashioning of the Investigative Judgment after the Great Disappointment. Hard to challenge what can’t be tested or observed.
This is why, in my agnostic view, Dr. Pitman’s work to fortify biblical versions of reality (creation, Noachian flood, etc)with empirical evidence is essential to the credibility of Adventist faith. Isn’t that why the GRI was formed?
The editors of Educate Truth make a very valid point that in order to distinguish Adventism from faiths like Mormonism, corroborating, external empirical evidence of reality is required. It is not what Adventists think, but why they think it that is key. Belief in the Bible based on circular reasoning, as Sean showed by his diagram, is no different than any other form of circular reasoning. It’s not logically sound.
Do I think Dr. Pitman’s conclusions are right regarding the weight of the evidence supporting biblical creation? No, Prof Kent, in that I share your empirical observation that the vast majority of scientific evidence points towards evolution. But I don’t think Adventists should fault him for trying to prove the opposite, rather he should be encouraged to do so. Let the empirical chips fall where they may, no matter what their current assessment.
You may be right, there may be very few qualified biologists that can teach biology within the the strict confines of FB#6. Perhaps to resolve the impasse Adventist institutions should shut down their ‘biology?’ departments and just teach biblical creationism, or ID. Personally I can’t see any problem with a religious institution teaching according to its beliefs. You just shouldn’t call creationism objective science that’s all. It’s science seen through the prism of faith. To be rational, Adventists need to admit that.
Notwithstanding that many- my friend Charles thinks that 166 years and holding qualifies as ‘soon’, Ted Wilson talks about the second advent coming ‘soon’- no one really knows do they? If events don’t happen within one’s natural lifetime is that adverb of time appropriate? Might I suggest ‘sometime’ is more apropos, to avoid being lumped into Harold’s ‘camp’ing, as it were. Please forgive that last little tidbit, that’s for my syntactical adroit friend Wes.
Well, Saturday May 21, 2011 was a remarkable Sabbath that provided much food for thought. For that I’m grateful.
Good night my friends. Be good to each other, that’s the main thing.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment1. The messianic prophecies and their fulfillment in Jesus;
These are based on external evidence, otherwise there would be no way of knowing whether they were really true.
2. The internal consistency of doctrine and teaching over the course of hundreds of years, as reflected in the writings of numerous authors;
Internal consistency is not evidence for divine revelation. Most novels have internal consistency. I think you could make the argument that this is evidence of a divine mind influencing all these writers; however, a similar argument could be made for the Book of Mormon or the Koran.
3. The sanctuary system’s typology that connects the Old Testament with the New Testament;
None of this really matters unless there really were Israelites out in the desert that built a tabernacle. I don’t understand how this shows the Bible is true. Typologies can be made up later.
4. The courage and zeal of the disciples after the crucifixion;
This only matters if Christ’s crucifixion is a historical event. I think there is some merit to this because there are four gospels and the book of Acts that attest to this historical event. I would point out though that the trustworthiness of the gospels is deeply rooted in the factual claims they make about history.
5. The candor and self-effacement reflected in the descriptions of persons and nations;
This just means the authors were more honest than other historians, but really how could I know that unless I had something to compare it with.
6. The fulfillment of some apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel, as reflected in New Testament writings;
This relies on external evidence. I think prophecy is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the trustworthiness of the Bible, but they would mean nothing if we couldn’t verify the truthfulness of the prophecies in history.
7. The numerous references in which the Scriptural writings of others are confirmed– e.g., Peter characterizes the writings of Paul as Scripture–(and why [Sean Pitman] would call this kind of affirmation “circular†escapes me);
Well this is circular reasoning. Me claiming that Sean’s writings are Scripture doesn’t make it so. It still begs the question.
8. The relative ease in differentiating Scripture from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha;
This is true, but this in now way demonstrates truthfulness. Lots of authors are easily distinguished from others. Does that mean I should trust what they say as authoritative in my life?
9. The confirmed fact that the ancient writers and their contemporaries did not always understand the meaning of what was written;
Exactly how did we confirm that?
Yikes, I need to go to bed. I can appreciate many of the evidences you’ve provided, but they certainly don’t contradict what I’m trying to argue because you’re using external evidence too. I don’t see anything wrong with that, and I don’t know why you do.
Once you have arrived at the conclusion that the Bible is God’s Word then it becomes your ultimate standard by which you judge everything because it has prove to be so accurate in everything it claims.
I can touch on the other points later, but I got to get up early.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentMany of us here are quick to apply labels as to who is an infidel (and the worst of any infidel), who is spineless, who is a thief, who is a liar, and who is a heretic, among others.
Will the “worst infidels” imaginable be in heaven one day? I have no doubt that many will. But why should that be my concern? The truth is that my sin is as great as any who question how long ago God spoke and it was: I killed Jesus. For this, I deserve to die. I have blood on my hands, and now a sentence hanging over my head.
I love the very worst infidels on this planet and I love the opportunities I have to share my faith–rather than judgments and snide labels–with them.
PK
Professing CHRIST until the whole world hears
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentWow, this is a pretty cavalier dismissal of scriptural evidence for the high regard, authority, and trustworthiness of scripture itself. Sean Pitman pulled off the same feat at Spectrum. You guys share more of your theology than I realized.
Might I remind you, Shane, of SDA Fundamental Belief #1: In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will.
Do you seriously want us to believe that God failed in providing sufficient evidence within scripture to come to God with the conviction He is real? That we have to approach God’s word as if He cannot be trusted, and therefore requires validation from elsewhere? That we cannot believe the knowledge God shared for salvation unless we find something more credible beyond God himself? I cannot imagine a source with more authority than God himself. I’ll take it; you can leave it.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentImagine Sir Franklin Facetious, a stalwart atheist and the lone survivor of an 18th century shipwreck who managed to find his way to solid ground on an isolated island. In some of the luggage that washed ashore, the atheist found a single book: the Bible.
Sir Franklin, with an abundance of time on his hand, devoured the book. Over the next few years, before he passed away from scurvy, he learned the great truths of Christ’s death and salvation, and took to heart God’s word–at face value. He believed.
And how might we characterize this sincere (albeit facetious) man’s faith? For Sean Pitman and Shane Hilde, the answer is quite appalling: the man’s faith would be “as useless as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.” Why? Because his faith was “blind” and “circular,” without external verification from “potentially falsifiable empirical data;” a faith that cannot convict the “candid, rational, intelligent mind.”
This is NOT the Seventh-day Adventist view of scripture. This is the view of two men who exalt their own reason above the reliability of God’s word. If we can’t trust God’s word, we have no reason to call him God.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentTo state the obvious…
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentObviously… and a point I have repeatedly made.
OK – so you consider that to ACCEPT what 3SG 90-91 says about T.E. — is to be unchristian.
Fine — your response “noted”.
But I would point out that with your extremely biased reaction against 3SG 90-91 you would “by definition” distort and misreprent anyone who happened to accept 3SG 90-91 as it reads.
This alone would account for much of your furry on this subject even before such a person had said anything other than “I think 3SG 90-91 is correct when it exposes the way that evolutionism undermines Christianity and therefore T.E. is the worst form of infidelity”.
Glad that you finally came out on that one.
I am not asking you to use your own less-than-infallible mind to judge – I am asking what you think of the statement in 3SG 90-91.
You clearly state that you reject it and that you consider anyone who accepts it to be unchristian and unloving.
How self-conflicted that claim when compared to your prior rant against anyone who dares to accept 3SG 90-91 on the subject of T.E.
Well at least that last conclusion was consistent with your opening rant against anyone accepting 3SG 90-91.
Of course we knew this all along – but I thought it would be helpful for all to have you come out and say it… no matter the complaining you were going to do as yo tried to avoid doing so.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIn reponse to those clear, bold positions on T.E. above we get this from Kent
You appear to ask why we should even be concerned with the warning given in 3SG 90-91 “as if” the “worst form of infidelity” should not be considered by SDAs to be that bad of a position to be in as a christian.
By contrast – for many SDAs the statement below is well worth paying attention to.
Conclusion: It appears you have not thought that solution through as thoroughly as you may have at first imagined.
BTW – When you contrast the term “world” and “planet” in Ellen White’s writing you find that her use of “World” always refers to a planet with life on it. Her use of “planet” may or may not include a planet with life on it – depending on context.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentHold on Jeff. I have no objection to someone coming to the truth like that. I believe the Holy Spirit leads and convicts people of the truth of the Bible. His personal testimony could do much in leading many many people to a faith in God’s Word; however, there will be others that require a different kind of evidence for the Bible’s truthfulness. God never asks us to believe without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith.
Ellen White said:
Notice the individual is testing God’s word. If it wrought no change in the life, then it would be useless. God invites us to test his promises and see that he is good.
Your example does nothing but bolster what I’ve been trying to say. Evidence is evidence, it matters not where it comes from and God will provide exactly what we need in order to believe. It’s different for different people. Not everyone requires the evidence from the sciences for their faith in the Bible.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentRidicule, ridicule, ridicule…incessant ridicule. In Christ’s name, no less.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentSo now we are back to the evidence derived solely from God’s word. Totally agreed, Shane; God’s word alone, however “blind” and “circular” it may be to rely solely on it, is more than sufficient to give us the hope of a bright future. Amazing! Thank you.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentTo state the obvious…
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentThe evidence is not from the Bible in this particular quotation I provided. The evidence is the “change.” That is external to the Bible. God merely provides something testable for us. If God promiese to bless you if you give a tithe, that claim means nothing unless it can be tested and verfied to be true.
Blind faith would be believing that God would bless you without any evidence at all. If no blessing occurs, and you continue to believe, you have a blind faith that is futile.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentKen, there is a LOT of biology to be learned that doesn’t really deal with the evolution-creation controversy, which is why on most if not all campuses (both SDA and non-SDA) the subject of evolution is covered briefly in only a few biology courses and more extensively in one required course on evolution (secular campuses) or origins (religious campuses). Some SDA campuses also have a course on origins designed for non-science students.
On SDA campuses most biology professors candidly present evidence for various hypotheses of origins (there are more than two), including the SDA position. Subjects covered include abiogenesis vs intelligent design, atheistic vs theistic evolution, microevolution vs macroevolution, gaps vs links in the fossil record, short-term vs long-term geological history, and local vs global extent of flooding. Students are encouraged to make up their own minds. Some professors explicitly state what they personally believe; others choose to remain neutral. Personally I believe this is a superior approach to that of secular universities in which students are presented with evidence supporting only one side.
I suspect the SDA position on origins is fairly presented in the biology program of all SDA campuses, with the possible exception of LSU. Recall that LSU’s study revealed some students claiming the SDA side was presented and some claiming it wasn’t in their biology courses. Perhaps it depended on which profs the students took classes from. I know of at least a couple of biology profs at LSU who believe in the SDA position.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentBob, do you personally accept Ellen White’s statement here that “the world is now only about six thousand years old”?
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentAgreed. Evolution has little to do with becoming a doctor, or pretty much any discipline that would utilize biology. Unless of course your dealing with a history oriented class dealing with origins.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentJeff,
First, I need to understand whay you mean by “evidence within Scripture.” The Bible makes plenty of truth claims that can be verified in reality. If nothing the Bible claims can be verified in reality, on what basis can we trust it?
I agree with this 100%, but every book has knowledge. If I buy a book that teaches me how to build a house, but once I actually start following the directions and things don’t turn out, it’s safe to assume the knowledge committed within the pages necessary for building a house is faulty. The statement of belief you refer to is regarding our view of Scripture, not how we arrived at that view.
I’ve never suggested anything of the sort. The Bible claims to be God breathed. That’s quite the claim. If we can’t test that by any means, then how do we know the claim is true? We can test many of the Bible’s historical claims, scientific claims, impact on human character claims, God’s promises, etc. Those are all things that can be verified in reality.
I’m really not understanding what you’re arguing. You attempt to rebutt me but then use the very thing you tell me I shouldn’t be using. God appeals to our reason. It’s the only way he can communicates to us.
We can believe anything we want. I didn’t say we weren’t capable of doing that, but do we have any reason or evidence for what we believe?
In order to trust the Bible, one has to have a reason to trust the Bible–able to produce some tangable evidence. This will vary from person to person. One person may not need all the scientific evidence to support their belief in a recent creation, but that doesn’t mean God hasn’t provided it.
Neither can I. How do I decide who is God though? The god of Mormonism, the Koran, or any other Holy text?
I think the weight of evidence is in favor of the God of the Bible. No other book is prophetic and can take the scrutiny and still come out on top as being trustworthy in all its claims.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentYes – because when Ellen White refers to “World” and to “other Worlds” she is always talking about a planet with life on it.
But when she talks about “planets” the context determines whether or not she means a planet with life on it or a planet that does not have life on it.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentTrue enough.
In fact there is not a single science experiment that can be done in the lab that requires the one doing the experiment to imagine “birds come from reptiles” or “birds come from plants” as they do the experiement – in order for it to work.
No not one.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentEvolution has absolutely nothing to do with becoming a physician or practicing medicine. I’ve never,ever been asked any question about evolution in any exam, either in medical school, during residency, or on the Internal Medicine Board exam.
How about you Sean? Is Pathology based on evolution?
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentBob, she specifically referred to “geologists”–not biologists. And then she specifically referred to “evidences from the earth itself”–not “evidences for life on earth.” It seems clear to me from the context of her language that Ellen White was a young earth creationist (YEC), not a young life creationist (YLC).
I’m trying to understand how you, Sean and others here at Educate Truth accept Ellen White’s literal interpretation of Genesis 1 but disagree with her on the age of the planet’s rocks. Seems a bit inconsistent.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentI’m speaking to evidence that arises solely from scripture and the influence it has on one’s mind through the Holy Spirit. I’ll make it simple with an example.
Imagine Sir Franklin Facetious, a stalwart atheist and the lone survivor of an 18th century shipwreck who managed to find his way to solid ground on an isolated island. In some of the luggage that washed ashore, the atheist found a single book: the Bible.
Sir Franklin, with an abundance of time on his hand, devoured the book. Over the next few years, before he passed away from scurvy, he learned the great truths of Christ’s death and salvation, and took to heart God’s word–at face value. He believed merely because the Bible said so.
And how might we characterize this sincere (albeit facetious) man’s beliefs? Would you agree with Sean Pitman that the man’s beliefs were “blind†and “circular†because they lacked external verification from “potentially falsifiable empirical data?†That his beliefs were based on knowledge that cannot convict the “candid, rational, intelligent mind?†That his beliefs were “as useless as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?â€
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentIf I understand you correctly, I don’t see how one could confirm the truth of the Bible unless it made claims that were testable. Listen, I’m not arguing that someone can’t come to believe in the Bible in the situation you described.
All I’ve been saying is that God never asks us to believe without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. This evidence can come from a number of sources: archeology, history, testimony, prophecy, fruition of God’s promises, a changed life, etc.
Ellen White said:
A well-ordered, well-disciplined family is something we can see for ourselves. It confirms the claims and promises of the Bible. If I asked you why you believed the Bible was trustworthy and the Word of God, and all you said was because it says so, that means nothing to the person who does not know God.
If we can show nothing for our faith in God’s words, then our faith is nothing and useless. We essentially deny the power we claim it has. A changed life is empirical data. If a particular physical or mental exercise leads to a manifest change that is consistent and lasting, we can look at that and say, “Wow, there must be something to that Bible for it to produce a change like that in someone.” Even that kind of evidence is external.
I think we’re more in agreement than you may think.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentShane, I completely agree that a changed life is the type of evidence that Ellen White often (nearly always) speaks of, if that is what you are saying. I like your quote from Ellen White and your statement, “Wow, there must be something to that Bible for it to produce a change like that in someone.”
As you might expect from my position, a sample of N = 1 (my personal life) is more than compelling for me. As empirical evidence, a datum of one would not allow a hypothesis to be statistically falsifiable, so I don’t think Sean Pitman would be happy with such “evidence” at a personal decision-making level. Nevertheless, I have believed all my life that the greatest evidence that God is real and the Bible can be trusted is what results from the personal relationship with God that develops from time spent reading scripture and in prayer. I think this is so convincing, especially given the capacity of the Holy Spirit to convict one of truth, that no external reference from historical, geological, or biological sources is necessary to confirm the validity or usefulness of one’s faith.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentSome of the world’s most successful evangelists, who take the Bible very seriously, would disagree. One such individual is Billy Graham, who has embraced theistic evolution and continues to win thousands to Christ through preaching the Bible. He once wrote this:
There are many things that destroy acceptance of the Bible; I’m not convinced that theistic evolution is the single biggest concern we need to address. I feel it is much more important to prioritize strengthening one’s personal relationship one has with Christ–starting with ourselves, and reaching out to others we can influence. And this, I’m convinced, is why evangelists like Billy Graham are so successful. Theistic evolution is not THE gamebreaker of one’s personal faith.
I reject theistic evolution personally, and its indoctrination in our Church and universities, but I wholeheartedly embrace those who accept it and still take the Bible very seriously. I would never label them “infidels” because there is little to gain by doing so. What matters most is that they know the Rock of Ages more so than the age of rocks.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentAccording to this view, we have following percentages of religious devotees who accept theistic evolution and therefore are “pretending to actually believe the Bible.”
Jews – 77%
Catholics – 58%
Orthodox – 54%
Mainline protestant – 51%
Hist. Black Protestant – 38%
Evangelical Protestants – 24%
Mormons – 22%
I don’t think we should be making use of 3SG 90-91 to belittle fellow believers by declaring their faith in God is based on “pretending” to believe in the Bible–whether in person or behind their backs, or whether they are SDA or non-SDA. The vast majority of these millions of brethren in Christ take the Bible very seriously. I don’t think Ellen White would condone such inflammatory use of her words.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentSome of the world’s most successful evangelists, who take the Bible very seriously, would disagree. One such individual is Billy Graham, who has embraced theistic evolution and continues to win thousands to Christ through preaching the Bible. He once wrote this:
There are many things that destroy acceptance of the Bible; I’m not convinced that theistic evolution is the single biggest concern we need to address. I feel it is much more important to prioritize strengthening one’s personal relationship one has with Christ–starting with ourselves, and reaching out to others we can influence. And this, I’m convinced, is why evangelists like Billy Graham are so successful. Theistic evolution is not THE gamebreaker of one’s personal faith.
I reject theistic evolution personally, and its indoctrination in our Church and universities, but I wholeheartedly embrace those who accept it and still take the Bible very seriously. I would never label them “infidels” because there is little to gain by doing so. What matters most is that they know the Rock of Ages more so than the age of rocks.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentRe Prof Kent’s Quotes
“Nevertheless, I have believed all my life that the greatest evidence that God is real and the Bible can be trusted is what results from the personal relationship with God that develops from time spent reading scripture and in prayer. I think this is so convincing, especially given the capacity of the Holy Spirit to convict one of truth, that no external reference from historical, geological, or biological sources is necessary to confirm the validity or usefulness of one’s faith.”
Hello Prof Kent
Thanks for your comments.
I have no problem with your point of view, insofar as it applies to your personal experience of God. The problem happens when we try to prescribe for others what is we subjectively experience ourselves. Then there is a need for external evidence to corroborate and compare individuals’ subjective experiences of faith to test its objective merit. Otherwise faith becomes whatever one experiences. I’m actually fine with that experiential concept.
“There are many things that destroy acceptance of the Bible; I’m not convinced that theistic evolution is the single biggest concern we need to address.”
Even though I am not a theistic evolutionist, I agree with you on this point. I don’t think any one individual, or any one method holds or can hold a franchise and how to interpret a complex text. Thus Christian tolerance should prevail, notwithstanding the diverse Christian experience. Good for you for seeing that.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentTheistic Evolutionists Need Love
One says six thousand;
another says six-hundred thousand thousand.
Some say one is
the same as one thousand.
One says 3SG
means infidelity;
one named C3PO
says “may the force be with me.”
I like a sincere TE,
and they like me.
We keep each other
good company.
We also agree
to disagree.
In a restaurant,
in a zoo,
in my home,
in a pew.
In the morning,
in the twilight,
at a ballgame,
at a fight.
I would gladly
embrace a TE;
how about you?
Can you do like me?
They lie,
they cheat!
They steal,
they deplete!
They love,
they grieve!
They pray,
they believe!
Jesus loves every TE,
just as he loves me.
Jesus died for every TE,
just as he died for me.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentRe Eddie’s Quote
“Ken, there is a LOT of biology to be learned that doesn’t really deal with the evolution-creation controversy, which is why on most if not all campuses (both SDA and non-SDA) the subject of evolution is covered briefly in only a few biology courses and more extensively in one required course on evolution (secular campuses) or origins (religious campuses). Some SDA campuses also have a course on origins designed for non-science students.”
Hi Eddie
I obviously was commenting from a point of ignorance and I appreciate your better understanding of the situation.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentTheistic Evolutionists Need Love
One says six thousand;
another says six-hundred thousand thousand.
Some say one is
the same as one thousand.
One says 3SG
means infidelity;
one named C3PO
says “may the force be with me.”
I like a sincere TE,
and they like me.
We keep each other
good company.
We also agree
to disagree.
In a restaurant,
in a zoo,
in my home,
in a pew.
In the morning,
in the twilight,
at a ballgame,
at a fight.
I would gladly
embrace a TE;
how about you?
Can you do like me?
They lie,
they cheat!
They steal,
they deplete!
They love,
they grieve!
They pray,
they believe!
Jesus loves every TE,
just as he loves me.
Jesus died for every TE,
just as he died for me.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentSome wonderful people also differed with Christ.
The “existence” of a different POV or the claim that those who differ “are nice human beings” – has never been the logical basis for determining if a given position is correct.
The point remains.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentWhoah I did not say that we do not have a huge number of Christians out there who believe in praying to the dead.
But that does not mean it makes sense for them to do it.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentProfessor Kent, your wit is too much (LOL). I think your right. We need to love the TE’s even if we disagree with them. I wish that all would come to see the need for this.
I have to say that over time I have really warmed to your defense of faith and common decency. Thank you for that. Have a blessed day!
Madeline Langmire(Quote)
View CommentIn that post we find just one small example of Kent making the “you are mean spirited and unchristian” kind of claim for anyone who dares to choose to believe that 3SG 90-91 is actually correct.
Of course in Kent’s most recent post he asserts that we are also dellusional if we think 3SG 90-91 is correct or that Darwin is correct when he himself notes that belief in evolutionism destroys faith in the Bible.
Truly instructive for the unbiased objective readers.
in Christ,
Bob
in Christ,
bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentSome wonderful people also differed with Christ.
The “existence” of a different POV or the claim that those who differ “are nice human beings” – has never been the logical basis for determining if a given position is correct.
The point remains.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThere are many issues that we can speak to – including the idea of dumping the Investigative Judgment doctrine by “some”, or the rejection of the Bible as the Word of God by “some”, or the Lev 18 issues list for which even pagan nations would be destroyed by God or…
But it just so happens that this entire site happens to be dedicated to the problem that is called in 3SG90-91 “The worst form of infidelity” within the Christian church – which is the T.E. problem.
That is not the case over there at that huge SDA discussion board – “ClubAdventist”.
http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/activetopics/7/1.html
Over there we have every topic under the sun under discussion in a fashion that is not merely the Spectrum “big-left-tent” but is in fact a true “big-tent” board.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentWhoah I did not say that we do not have a huge number of Christians out there who believe in praying to the dead.
But that does not mean it makes sense for them to do it.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentKent – your argument that if enough people sign up for it then it must make sense – is the classic “ad populum” logical fallacy.
But 3SG90-91, and even Darwin are still correct that trying to marry the Bible to belief in evolutionism is illogical and it undermines acceptance of the Bible.
We strongly affirm the fact that everyone has the free-will to believe anything they wish no matter how flawed the logic they choose to use in doing so.
But since there are a lot of SDAs that are not going to simply dismiss 3SG90-91 as some silly idea, and even more who will not turn a blind eye to the fact that even Darwin himself admitted to the problem with marrying the Bible to evolutionism.. the “everybody is doing it” opening you are trying to make for T.E. will have limited success in this context.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIn that post we find just one small example of Kent making the “you are mean spirited and unchristian” kind of claim for anyone who dares to choose to believe that 3SG 90-91 is actually correct.
Of course in Kent’s most recent post he asserts that we are also dellusional if we think 3SG 90-91 is correct or that Darwin is correct when he himself notes that belief in evolutionism destroys faith in the Bible.
Truly instructive for the unbiased objective readers.
in Christ,
Bob
in Christ,
bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentProfessor Kent never endorsed that position.
Eddie(Quote)
View Comment@Eddie:
To the contrary – his direct response to the 3SG 90-91 argument that belief in evolutionism destroys faith in the Bible is “look at all the TEs that exist out there”.
The argument is that because some group of X people are T.E. (ie. because T.E’s “exist”) then the T.E. position must not undermine faith in the Bible to the point that 3SG states.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment3SG 90-91 states the same point that Darwin stated – which that evolution (when fully understood) destroys faith in the Bible (when read for what it says).
Thus 3SG calls the T.E. position the worst form of infidelity in that it is infidelity in disguise.
Your response is of the form “yes but T.E. EXIST and it is delusional to say they do not exist”.
The argument from 3SG was never that “T.E’s do not exist”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentTheistic evolution certainly destroys faith in the Bible for some. I am not a theistic evolutionist. Professor Kent is not a theistic evolutionist. We are NOT defending theistic evolution. But whether you like it or not, there are millions of others who accept theistic evolution AND maintain their faith in the Bible. So why offend them by insisting over and over and over again that it is the “worst form of infidelity”? It doesn’t seem like a Christ-like thing to do.
For some reason you have repeatedly avoided my question in two different threads about whether you accept Ellen White’s statement that the rocks (not just life) of the Earth are only about 6,000 years old. Is it not inconsistent to (1) accept Ellen White’s statement that theistic evolution is the “worst form of infidelity” and (2) reject her unambiguous statement in the same passage that the “earth itself” is only about 6,000 years old? You are eager to criticize Professor Kent for not believing statement #1 but you have yet to affirm your belief in statement #2.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentThis is Bob Ryan’s usual tactic: mischaracterize someone’s position (known as a red herring fallacy) and label it a fallacy.
I didn’t say that theistic evolution “must make sense” because so many people “sign up for it.” I simply said that many people subscribe to it and still have faith in the Bible.
I know this must irk you greatly.
Madeline Langmire(Quote)
View CommentSorry, Madeline; should have moved your name out of the cue.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentAs has already been stated – when you find in 3SG 90-91 the fact that T.E. is the worst form of infidelity because it destroys faith in the Bible – it is not a compelling form of response to then argue “yes but TE’s exist”.
The whole point is that everyone amdits they “exist” – which is why the warning is given in the first place.
I fail to see how this is such a struggle with some of our posters here.
Surely we all see the point whether you choose to rally to the TE cause or not – the debate is not that “TEs don’t exist”.
I just don’t see how this is the difficult part of the discussion.
As much as Kent believes he is on to something in this regard – there are no posts here by anyone saying that “TEs do not exist”.
(I guess I can post this a few more times – but I thought the point was obvious even before I posted it the last time.)
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThank you, Eddie. There are two basic facts:
1. Bob Ryan insists that 3SG 90-91 claims that theistic evolution destroys faith in the Bible.
2. Millions of theistic evolutionists have a strong faith in the Bible.
I’m afraid that an immovable force has met an immovable object. Unfortunately, the author of 3SG 90-91 is not available to clarify her opinion on the matter. Fortunately, there are more important things to move on to…like dinner.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
There are many different ways to “believe in the Bible” that are completely opposed to the type of belief or faith that Mrs. White was trying to promote. Many believe that the Bible is a book of good moral instruction, but has nothing of any real value to say about the physical world. Many believe that the Bible is a collection of man’s best wisdom over the centuries, but is not actually the Word of God.
What Mrs. White was talking about is that a belief in mainstream evolutionary theories destroys a belief in the Bible as the clear Word of God on every topic it touches upon – to include the topic of origins. The evolutionary perspective undermines faith in the character of God that Ellen White understood and which the SDA Church is trying to promote. It undermines faith in the reasonableness and rationality of God – suggesting that God is willing to “command men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom.”
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentThat is the part everyone agrees with —
I find it odd that this is such a bit of news.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentYou say that as if you have either not taken the time to actually read 3SG 90-91 or as if you do not believe it says what I “insist it say” – to quote you.
So lets “look”.
Thus your point 1 is addressed “in the text itself”.
And if you read the text with some attention to detail you see that your point two is addressed “in the text” as well.
Where is the difficulty here??
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentYes, very true indeed. I never remotely suggested as much. How did you imagine this?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentIf you would pay attention to detail, 3SG 90-91 says that theistic evolution “strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.”
Where, pray tell, does it say that TE destroys faith in the Bible? You’re making quite the leap. Rejection of the 7th-day Sabbath hardly equates to rejection of the remainder of scripture.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
Rejection of the Seventh-day Sabbath because of a rejection of the clear reading of the Genesis account of origins is a rejection of the nature of inspiration of the Bible that Mrs. White (and the SDA Church) was trying to promote. Such a rejection completely changes the picture of God in one’s mind and the nature of the Bible as well as the Bible’s power to change one’s life and one’s world perspective. The Bible means something very different if it is viewed as a allegory vs. if it is viewed as literally true on those topics where the author(s) clearly intended to be taken as describing real historical events.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentThose who believe in the veracity of scripture, including you and me, recognize that some portions are allegory (to include Jesus’ parables, e.g., Lazarus and the Rich Man) and others are real historical facts. Of course, many individuals are prone to disagree on exactly which passages are literal or non-literal.
To disagree on one relatively minute section of the overall Bible does not necessarily “completely [change] the picture of God in one’s mind and the nature of the Bible as well as the Bible’s power to change one’s life and one’s world perspective.” You’re engaging hyperbole.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentThe assumption that you can destroy the book of Genesis – with God as creator and “it really does not matter” is so glaringly flawed that Darwin himself finally saw the problem.
Should we then be that surprised when God Himself confirms that the problem with such nonsense is “real” in 3SG 9-91??
Hopefully people have a better grasp of logic, reason and scripture than to go down such a rabbit trail in earnest.
Of course in an “every man is his own Bible slicer” kind of model – one man’s slice and dice of the bible is supposed to be every bit as good as another.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment