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.
Indeed – logic and reason dictate that conclusion so clearly that even Darwin himself “gets the point”.
Are some of our own religion and biology teachers claiming to be in more darkness on that point than Darwin?
How did it come to this?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment“worst form of infidelity” has far more implication than “infidelity to Sabbath”.
The “believing infidel” option Kent is proposing is shaky ground indeed.
The 3SG 90-94 section points to the infidel fables designed to attack the Law of God – as a special work of Satan himself.
Shall we “meet it” with the less than decisive position “the worst form of infidelity is not all that bad”??
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentMy argument, relying on facts that I have cited, is that TE does not necessarily destroy faith in the Bible. I never said it was “not all that bad” and I don’t care to get into an argument over what “not all that bad” implies.
Your habitual persistence at distortion is extraordinary.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment“‘Believing infidel’ option”??!!! Funny how anything I write gets mutated to something I don’t recognize.
This conversation just gets more and more bizarre. Some people take exception to anything I write.
Jesus died for Charles Darwin.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentThis is the part of the conversation that you actually have right.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentAs if the “Worst form of infidelity” does not actually destroy “faith in the Bible” the way Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and even Ellen White declare?
Your argument is that T.E. is not all that bad because in your mind it does not destroy faith in the Bible.
What part of that were we supposed to miss?
In the 3SG model Ellen White addresses someone who claims to “believe the Bible” not someone who does not claim to “believe”.
Details details.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThat is true.
So also “The devils believe and tremble”.
Are you just tossing out random facts?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentMy argument, relying on facts that I have cited, is that TE does not necessarily destroy faith in the Bible. I never said it was “not all that bad” and I don’t care to get into an argument over what “not all that bad” implies.
Your habitual persistence at distortion is extraordinary.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentJesus died for Richard Dawkins, and he loves Richard Dawkins no less than he loves Ted Wilson.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentThis is the part of the conversation that you actually have right.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIf Jesus loves Richard Dawkins, why do you poke fun at him and ridicule him?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI recall Jesus’ words before his side was pierced by those who refused not only to accept 3SG 90-91, but also Luke 22:69. What were those words?
Who, at the scene of the cross, engaged in ridicule and mockery?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentBy the way, Bob, who made the claim that “Creationists should not be ALLOWED to ask questions of an evolutionist in an interview format.” Who are you quoting? Your own mind?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI am pretty sure the response to that was alredy posted at this post.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/la-sierra-university-granted-window-to-show-its-faithfulness-to-church%e2%80%99s-creation-belief/comment-page-1/#comment-30417
in Christ,
Bo
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentMore misrepresentation and “spin” Kent?
My point is not that Dawkins is less than intelligent for not having an answer to the evolutonism 101 question or for wildly appealing to dark ages methods in his “questions not allowed if they come from Christian creationists” remark… my point is that evolutionism itself is flawed and that is why Dawkins did not have an answer.
My point is that Christians themselves should not be duped into supporting the claim that “Creationists should not be ALLOWED to ask questions of an evolutionist in an interview format”.
(Just stating the obvious here.)
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIf Christians wish to ask questions of an evolutionist, they should be honest and straightforward rather than devious.
(Just stating the obvious here.)
Sounds like maybe you are now contrite about your belittlement of Richard Dawkins. Duly noted.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentBy the way, Bob, who made the claim that “Creationists should not be ALLOWED to ask questions of an evolutionist in an interview format.” Who are you quoting? Your own mind?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment6/3/11
Frankly, I think Satan and all of his angels are rejoicing over all of this controversy over creation vs evolution.
Yes, what we believe about this issue is important–but that issue is NOT what our existence as a church is founded on! And that is NOT what God basis His claim to be THE God is based on.
I quote:
“When the books of Daniel and Revelation are better understood, believers will have an entirely different religious experience. They will be given such glimpses of the open gates of heaven that heart and mind will be impressed with the character that all must develop in order to realize the blessedness which is to be the reward of the pure in heart. The Lord will bless all who will seek humbly and meekly to understand that which is revealed in the Revelation. This book contains so much that is large with immortality and full of glory that all who read and search it earnestly receive the blessing to those that “hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein.” One thing will certainly be understood from the study of Revelation–that the connection between God and His people is close and decided.
“Let us give more time to the study of the Bible. We do not understand the Word as we should. The book of Revelation opens with an injunction to us to understand the instruction that it contains… When we… understand what this book means to us, there will be seen among us a great revival.†The Faith I Live By, pg. 346
“The theme of greatest importance is the third angel’s message, embracing the messages of the first and second angels. All should understand the truths contained in these messages and demonstrate them in daily life, for this is essential to salvation. We shall have to study earnestly, prayerfully, in order to understand these grand truths; and our power to learn and comprehend will be taxed to the utmost.
Prophecy the Foundation of Our Faith.-
“Ministers should present the sure word of prophecy as the FOUNDATION of the faith of Seventh-day Adventists. The prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation should be carefully studied, and in connection with them the words, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.’
“The twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew is presented to me again and again as something that is to be brought to the attention of all. We are today living in the time when the predictions of this chapter are fulfilling. Let our ministers and teachers explain these prophecies to those whom they instruct. Let them leave out of their discourses matters of minor consequence, and present the truths that will decide the destiny of Souls.†Evangelism, pgs. 196, 197.
Please Note: PROPHECY is the FOUNDATION of our faith–NOT Creation. When a person really understands and accepts the truths of prophecy, belief in the Bible and a deep love for God will automatically come. Any God that can accurately foretell what will happen thousands of years in the future and have it actually come to pass down to the slightest detail can aromatically be trusted to tell the truth about what happened in the past. We are “barking up the wrong tree,†friends and while God is keenly disappointed in us Satan and his hosts are delighted!
(I keep reminding all of us that we ARE the Laodiceans and God says if we don’t repent and change our ways He is going to “spew (us) out of His mouth!â€
Time is short (whether we believe it or not) and if we don’t “clean up our act†pretty soon we will find ourselves on the outside looking in–and that in the not to far distant future!
Lydian Belknap(Quote)
View CommentThe belief in evolutionism is a big part of his final plan – I have no doubt that he is more than a little satisfied with the results of those who have been evangelizing for faith in evolutionism both inside and outside Christian churches.
But having it creep up within our own SDA teaching institutions must be a special joy to someone.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment6-4-11
Bob Ryan: There isn’t a question in my mind but this is an extremely special joy to Satan and all of his co-workers–both human and the angels that fell with him– but I still think prophecy is the only way to convince honest hearted, thinking people where truth lies. Evolutionist and others like them can always come back with a different theory along “scientific†or “intellectual” lines that will throw many people off the track of where truth really lies but a correct understand of Biblicaloac truth.
But prophecy is an entirely different story. It is unrefutable. Things either happen the way God said they would or they don’t. And so far no one has been able to find a single instance where God said something would happen a certain way at a certain time and it didn’t happen exactly as He said it would. He stakes His whole reputation on His–and His alone–ability to foretell the future. That is completely out of the range of any fallen angel or human being–be they ever so brilliant scientists or brilliant any thing else. No one in heaven or earth has a mind like His–and no one in heaven or earth but God can tell us for sure what will happen even later on today much less tomorrow! Many people had no idea their lives would end suddenly when the recent tornados and floods hit–and many die everyday from unexpected accidents or illnesses. Not a single one of us have any assurance of “tomorrow.â€
Yes, true science is important, a gift of God for our benefit and a blessing to all of us. But, like most everything else God has given us, Satan has corrupted it and much of what is called “science†today falls into that category. And, unfortunately, many “leading SCIENTISTS†today also fall into that category. As Christians we must test EVERYTHING with a “thus saith the Lord†or we will surely end up being deceived. I totally agree with Ellen White when she says that the only thing that is going to carry anyone through the coming crisis is a thorough knowledge and understanding of the books of Daniel and Revelation. (I have a long way to go on that!) Of course, we need to be very familiar with ALL of the Bible but she points out that these two books were written especially for our time in history and we ignore them at our peril.
All of this I truly believe. I’ll ever be a “scientistâ€â€“I simply do not have a “scientific mind†nor do I claim to being even a moderately knowledgeable theologian but I do believe what I do understand and, with God’s help, want to keep growing in a knowledge of His Word.
Lydian Belknap(Quote)
View CommentSorry, the above got “submitted’ accidentally. The fist paragraph should read:
“Bob Ryan: There isn’t a question in my mind but this is an extremely special joy to Satan and all of his co-workers–both human and the angels that fell with him– but I still think prophecy is the only way to convince honest hearted, thinking people where truth lies. Evolutionist and others like them can always come back with a different theory along “scientific†or “intellectual†lines that will throw many people off the track of where truth really lies.”
(Hopefully this is all that was messed up. I shouldn’t try to write something at almost midnight!)
Lydian Belknap(Quote)
View CommentLydian – prophecy includes what Moses wrote about creation given that moses lived about 2500 years after creation. Only divine revelation via dream/vision could have given him such a clear picture of the event.
In Romans 1 Paul says that the “invisible attributes of God are clearly seen” in the things that have been made so that those with no Bible at all are “without excuse”.
In Romans 10 Paul says “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” and “then” Paul goes on to point out that the “Word of God” that everyone is “hearing” is that which is found in nature.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentBobRyan says:
Lydian – prophecy includes what Moses wrote about creation given that Moses lived about 2500 years after creation. Only divine revelation via dream/vision could have given him such a clear picture of the event.In Romans 1 Paul says that the “invisible attributes of God are clearly seen†in the things that have been made so that those with no Bible at all are “without excuseâ€.In Romans 10 Paul says “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God†and “then†Paul goes on to point out that the “Word of God†that everyone is “hearing†is that which is found in nature.in Christ,Bob
………
My Reply:
Bob, I believe you are onfusing history with prophecy
It is true God revealed these things to Moses in some way–the Bible is silent on just how and when it was done–but when God refers to using prophecy to prove He is the only true God it is my understanding that He is referring to distinct prophecies He gave to Bible prophets telling what things will happen in the FUTURE and roughly when–such as the king’s dream of the great image. Nowhere (that I have found in the Bible) does He indicate that Genesis 1 and on is considered “prophecy†that He claims only He can give. That is all stated as FACT, history, if you will–and nothing can be proven by “time†such as Daniel 2, etc. (And past history can never be called “prophecy!â€)
As I understand it, true “prophecy†has a rough date for when it was given and who it was given to and, in some cases, when it would take place. In other cases exact “dates†(as we understand them) were “indicated†but not necessarily actually “given.â€
I may be wrong, but I believe it is THESE prophecies that God points to that prove that He, and He alone, is the TRUE GOD.
Anyone can write a “history†of what he says he has done but only the true God can tell what will happen in the future and have it actually happen down to the smallest detail sometimes thousands of years later. It is THESE prophecies upon which He bases His claim to be the only true God–and to date not one has failed!
These are the prophecies we need to be giving to the whole world. If these are true (and so far none have failed) then these are the ones that will give people confidence that God is who He says He is and so give us a solid reason to believe what He said He did.
No amount of “science,†be it good or bad, can do this.
Lydian Belknap(Quote)
View CommentLydian – in Numbers 12:6 God says “IF there is a prophet among you I will make myself known to him by a dream or in a vision”.
In theory this is how Moses got supernatural divine revelation about Gen 1-2 while he was in the land of Midian (According to Patriarchs and Prophets).
I am not arguing against the use of Daniel 2 and the principle of fulfilled prophecy.
I am simply arguing in favor of the Romans 1 and Romans 10 principle that the voice of nature itself is used to convert (“faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God”) as we see in Romans 10 and the ID element of nature to convict as we see in Romans 1.
I agree with your statements about the use of predictive prophecy in convincing minds. Walter Veith is one who was convinced in part by Daniel 2.
But he also claims to have been convinced by the evidence in nature that so fully debunked his prior evolutionist beliefs.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentBob, I’m not going to argue with you but I still maintain that whatever God revealed to Moses about creation or when He did it, it was still “history” and not “prophecy.†Prophecy is a telling of the unknown FUTURE–not the past. Telling what has already happened is HISTORY–not prophecy.
Only God can reveal the future–and He stakes His claim to being the one and only true GOD by being the ONLY ONE who CAN, and does, reveal the unknown future–sometimes centuries in advance– and have it happen just exactly as He said it would–right on time and correct in every detail.
I am not running true science down. It can and should be studied–but Satan can (and does) twist it to fit his agenda whenever he can so we need to be cautious about what we accept as “fact†and what we don’t (no matter how acclaimed and famous the speaker may be.) And, although he has a far more brilliant mind than any scientist who ever lived, God has never allowed him to meddle with prophecy. As I have mentioned earlier, prophecies are what we need to be giving to the whole world. If these are true (and so far none have failed) then these are the ones that will give people confidence that God is who He says he is and so give us a solid reason to believe what He said He did.
She especially states (over and over and over again) that we should especially preach and teach the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. She says they were especially given for our time in history and that they should be thoroughly studied
and preached to our own people as well as to the world. I have over 30 pages of typewritten messages from many of her different books in which she plainly states that only those who have a thorough knowledge of these two prophetic books will finally receive the seal of God and enter in through the gates and into the city. Satan knows that and for this reason he does everything in his power to prevent them from being studied.
I have a picture that “says it all†as far as I am concerned. It is a picture of a rear view mirror on a car and it shows Jesus second coming. The caption on the mirror says “The image in the mirror is closer than it appears.â€
I believe this with all my heart. “Even so, come Lord Jesus!â€
Lydian Belknap(Quote)
View CommentLydian, I greatly appreciate your perspective, and could not agree more. And I love the message you ended with: “Even so, come Lord Jesus!” Amen to that.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment6-5-211
I don’t know where the problem is but somehow or other my messages seem to end up somewhat different from what my computer says I sent.
I know I’m getting older (so is my computer) and somewhat prone to make more mistakes so I always type my messages out on my computer first before I send them. I usually read them over several times to make sure they are at least somewhat sensible. Then I copy and paste them–and check them again before I hit the submit button. But periodically they end up being somewhat different than they looked on my computer. (I keep a copy of everything I send and copy and send it when I think it is says what I want it to say. I will add however that the “she†I referred to was EGW–and that was my mistake.)
I’m not going to resend the current one because I think folks can get my points even though they are not exactly what my computer says I sent. I will admit that I have been having a lot of problems with it ever since a tornado went through our area last month and I’m calling in the “doctor†this week to see if it can be cured or if I need to kiss it goodby and get another one. (We had no damage to our property for which we are thankful, while others not far from us were heavily damaged and even some injuries and some deaths occurred so a messed up computer is a small price to pay for what happened. )
However, I have decided to never again to send out a message at almost 2:00 A.M. I’ll wait until the next morning to do my sending. (Your time said my message was received at 10:57 P.M. but I am on the east coast and we are three hours ahead of you folks on the west coast so my time said 1:57 A.M.) Perhaps my computer was as tired as I was.
Lydian Belknap(Quote)
View CommentI believe we should be using the origin of Sin to challenge Evolution.
If it’s Evolution specifically that the Adventist Church is currently trying to oust, we should use the fact that death is an abnormal addition to our experience. Death is introduced to Adam and Eve as a new concept -along with working the land for food, and pain in childbirth- as part of the curse. Evolution relies on death as a selector, but sin relies on choice. If Sin did not exist until the pair in the garden choose something outside God’s plan, and death is a result of sin, then we’d need humans before death, which doesn’t fit with evolution. The debate about:
-how long a “day” is
-if adding up a chronology is a cogent dating technique
-interpretation of observed geology etc.
seem to be much murkier arguments than this. Sin is decidedly the purview of the church, yet we’re not using it to make this argument. Is there a reason why? (honest question)
Am I mistaken, and we do believe in pre-sin death of non-human life?
Do Adventists who believe in Evolution have a different view of the origin of sin?
to get noticed: @SeanPittman
Sean Pittman
J. Knight(Quote)
View CommentJ. Knight. I agree with you. However, I think you will find it difficult to “pin down” where sin happened with any evolutionist, SDA or not.
Most non-SDA’s simply will say “sin” is a manmade concept which has nothing to to with “God.”
The SDA’s? Well, how about some, or even one, coming on here to explain how “sin” got here.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentLet’s not forget that sin started in heaven long before mankind came into existence. So far as we know, death came into existence as a consequence of mankind’s sin.
Professor Kent
Professing Christ until the whole world hears
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 CommentBob, here is an Ellen White gem for you:
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentResponse:
Now THAT is the question Kent is very focused on avoiding!
😉
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Bible”; 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 CommentHuman brains are exquisitely responsive to the chemicals that brain cells and other cells in the body produce. These chemicals in the brain are all the products of genes. Gene regulation helps to ensure a proper balance of these chemicals, but some individuals have better regulation of the gene products than others, and the regulation of these genes can vary within an individual over time, depending on circumstances. Stress, depression, fear, aggression, psychoses, and other behaviors can be readily attributed to changes in the levels of these chemicals. Parkinson’s disorder is one of the best examples of how behavior changes dramatically with reduction in dopamine production by the substantia nigra cells of the brain. Fortunately, we have psychiatrists with an amazing arsenal of drugs that can supplement our genes when necessary, and better modulate these chemicals and, consequently, our behavior.
How could an educated person seriously believe that our behavior is 100% independent of our genes? I would bet my eyeteeth, my left kidney, and my right big toe that no Loma Linda medical school graduate would walk away from the place believing in such nonsense. Sean Pitman, who undoubtedly has expertise in sociobiology, could testify to this.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentYep – that would be a problem for Seventh-day Adventists.
We believe that our behavior is a factor of supernatural establishment of a Free-Will based model for mankind (and all intelligent life in the universe) combined with the depravity of our sinful nature that is held somewhat in check by the John 12:32 drawing of all mankind, and the John 16 convicting by the Holy Spirit where all the world is convicted of sin and righteousness and judgment.
Notice that leaves no room at all for “descended from lower life forms and still holding on to some of our old patterns first established as some other species”.
It leaves no room for “people steal because they evolved that idea over time”.
Rather – people steal because of greed, because of the sinful nature placing self above consideration for others.
While one could argue that women prefer older men who have wealth, power or influence because their primary driver is security and stability (possibly fear and seeking a protective environment)… you could also argue that men prefer young healthy women because their primary driver is physical so they are motivated less by fear and more by the desire for more toys and to satisfy physical desires.
But regardless of the natural or lower-passions as some texts describe them – what about the higher moral calling for each person to “choose”?
The first choice is “choose you this day whom you will serve” — we must choose whether or not we will accpet eternal life and the new Birth – the new creation where “old things are passed away and all things are become new”.
In the New birth, New Covenant – the Law of God is written on the tablets of the human heart.
in Christ,
Bob
in Chgri
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentAgreed. Provine argues that the entire issue of choice reduces to biochem and environment.
BobRyan(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 CommentMUCH of “Darwinism” has absolutely nothing to do with how humans make decisions or exercise their “free will.” Statements like these are meaningless.
Professor Kent(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 CommentI have a copy of Edward O. Wilson’s 1975 book “Sociobiology.” On page 550, in his chapter titled “Man: From Sociobiology to Sociology,” he wrote “Although the genes have given away MOST of their sovereignty, they maintain a CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INFLUENCE in at least the behavioral qualities that underlie variations between cultures [emphasis supplied].” That doesn’t sound like biological determinism to me.
In the Wikipedia account of “sociobiology,” several statements specifically degree with your interpretation of sociobiology:
“Sociobiology is based on the premise that SOME behaviors (both social and individual) are AT LEAST PARTLY inherited and can be affected by natural selection [emphases supplied].”
“Sociobiologists believe that human behavior, as well as nonhuman animal behavior, can be PARTLY explained as the outcome of natural selection [emphases supplied].”
Biological determinism is an extreme view often wielded as a weapon by critics of sociobiology, such as you. But as the Wikipedia account for “biological determinism” states, “Biologists sometimes regard a charge of biological determinism as a straw man, as there is currently no support for strict biological determinism in the field of genetics or development, and virtually no support among geneticists for the strong thesis of biological determinism.” Maybe there are a few scientists who promote it, but it isn’t widely accepted.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentIn 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 CommentWrong, wrong, wrong. Sociobiology is called sociobiology because it seeks to learn the biological basis of behavior; it does not seek to demonstrate genetic determinism. You need to get over this. The biological bases of behavior encompass both genetics (nature) and environment (nurture). Sociobiologists have always acknowledged this, and much of their evidence shows that your false dichotomy–it’s all one or the other–is completely bogus.
Wrong again. David, you simply don’t know what you are talking about. Period. This is a problem when a lawyer–a “controversialist,” as you have described yourself–claims to be ideally suited to teach biology and origins because a lawyer is better trained than a scientist to sort out the evidence. The problem is that a lawyer lacks depth of knowledge in science to understand the evidence to begin with. There’s a world of variation in the sexual reproduction of plants and animals that you are clueless about, and that’s why you simply can’t make appropriate inferences about sociobiology. If you were familiar, for example, with the term “ploidy,” you would understand that insects with a haplo-diploid genetic system don’t meet your supposed “fact” of paternal contribution to offspring. And…sorry to inform…this is just the tip of the iceberg for exceptions to your supposed “fact.”
No kidding. Most sociobiologists would agree with you 100%. They’ve actually written MUCH on this very topic (you have admitted that you refuse to read sociobiological literature, so you unfamiliarity is to be expecterd). Again, I don’t know how to say this nicely, but your objections to sociobiology are based more on prejudicial bias and ignorance of the discipline than anything else.
Apparently, you acknowledge the legitimacy of a major thrust of sociobiology: studying the genetic basis of behavior. But you should not overlook the fact that sociobiologists consider equally important the environmental (including cultural) influences on behavior, and study them just as fervently.
BTW, I’m glad you didn’t tell us Ellen White was not a woman of Adventist faith because she acknowledged the hereditary influences on human behavior.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentRe David’s quote
“Sean, I agree with you that free will is a strong argument for the existence of God.”
Hi David
Thanks for your comments.
Is a better argument that humans can conceive, write and speak about God? 🙂
Of course, when it comes to abstraction, elephants can paint and parrots can talk.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentYour article on why so many are leaving the church is directly related to how people understand the bible and its authority over the Christian community. More than a few have developed theories that undermine the bible and this includes some church authorities and professors.
We need to be sure we state our confession of faith in a clear and definitive way that eliminates confusion as far as possible. And how we understand the authority of the bible should have no loop holes that leave some doubts as to its position of authority.
Perhaps we “over explain” the obvious in an attempt to make clearer what needs no futher statement.
Or as it has been said, “Me thinks you protest too much.” Meaning, I doubt you really believe what you are saying yourself and are trying to convince yourself more than me.
Is that possible?
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View Comment@Bill Sorensen:
You can’t get rational people to simply accept the Bible as God’s Word just because you explain to them that the Bible makes this claim. Many other books make this claim as well, yet you don’t believe them. Why not? Your constant mantra that the Bible is self-verifying is an appeal to circular reasoning – which again does not appeal to most intelligent people.
If the Church can’t present apologetic arguments in support of the Bible’s credibility, explanations that naturally appeal to rational candid minds, it is only natural to expect honest intelligent people to look elsewhere…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentDuring several job interviews at SDA institutions nobody ever asked me specific questions regarding my views on origins. I could well be wrong, as I often am, but I suspect administrators simply assumed that if a candidate was SDA and applying for a job, their views on origins were in harmony with those of the church unless somebody within the search committee raised a red flag. Now that this issue is blown wide open, which Educate Truth can legitimately claim credit for, I’m certain the views of origins for all candidates at all SDA institutions are being properly vetted before they are offered a job. No SDA institution envies the controversy and scrutiny provoked by the LSU biology profs, so no institution wants to hire a candidate who is going to stir up a firestrom.
As for LSU, I wouldn’t assume that the highest level of administration intentionally recruited candidates who embraced theistic evolution. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the department leadership intentionally recruited such candidates. And given the fallout, I would be surprised if they continued to do so.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentSean said…..
“With regard to the Bible in particular, I think the odds that the Divine origin theory is in error are so small that I’d be willing to put my own life on the line that the Bible is in fact the true Word of God. That being said, I could still be wrong.”
I doubt in the end, Sean, that you or anyone else would be willing to put their life on the line for anything related to religion and God if there was even the slightest possibility that your foundation for faith was faulty or wrong.
I have already agreed and stated that our view of the what the bible teaches may be faulty and wrong. But that does not include its own affirmation of its own authority. If we have any reason to doubt this, then we have every reason to doubt everything else it affirms.
We start with the basic Protestant Christian assumption that the bible is infallible for its intended purpose to reveal the will of God in all His dealings with man and man’s accountability in the relationship.
This is non-negotiable and not subject to doubt or possible error.
As we study God’s will and His own self-revelation, we admit we may need to qualify and re-qualify the revelation based on the bible itself. But if and when doubt becomes a viable factor concerning the bible’s self proclaimed authority, we have just opened the door to skepticism, and unbelief simply because we can not “prove” the bible ultimately except by prophecy.
We should be grateful that in a Christian family, we have been affirmed and instructed concerning the full authority of scripture and its infallible self affirmation of its own authority.
The bible alone gives us a “first cause” that appeals to fallen man to define his origin, meaning of life, and future.
Every other religion makes man god. Such an affirmation is devastating to our self understanding and leads to ongoing frustration, confusion and finally, for many suicide.
No book compares to the bible for this reason as well as many others. And nature can not affirm that the God of the bible is the creator.
Nature can work as “the law that is a schoolmaster to lead us to scripture”.
The enigma of life is not found in nature itself. It finds its meaning in the bible. Thus, Solomon can say, “Vanity, vanity, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.”
Solomon sought a final meaning in nature and finally admitted he could find none. He could have said, “Frustration, frustration, all is frustration outside the word of God.”
At any rate, Sean, I suppose you believe the bible is the word of God. If I or others would have any concern for your way of explaining what you embrace, it is because you at least seem to imply that the bible is not a sufficient revelation of truth and must be affirmed by nature. And the implication being, if nature is not in harmony with scripture, we must challenge and change our ideas of the bible and not visa versa.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View Comment@Bill Sorensen:
If weight of rationally perceived empirical reality were not in harmony with the Bible (as it is not in harmony with the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an), it would be just as illogical to present the Bible as the Word of God as it is to present the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an as the infallible Word of God.
You yourself appeal to external empirical reality in the form of the historical sciences to support your claim to biblical authority. I do the same thing. It is just that I don’t pretend that the Bible’s credibility is dependent only upon itself. It isn’t. Many fables are internally consistent. Internal consistency simply isn’t enough to establish credibility when it comes to statements of past, present, or future empirical realities or metaphysical truths…
By the way, people put their lives on the line for a lot of things that are not absolutely known or knowable. You think you know the truth with absolute assurance, but you do not. You are actually a subjective human being and therefore you cannot know anything with absolute confidence – without any risk of error. You cannot know, with absolute certainty, that your views on the Bible’s origin and credibility are true. I know that you strongly believe that you’re right, as do I, but you can’t be absolutely certain as a subjective creature… subject to limited information and the ever-present potential for error.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentShane, these two sources of understanding are not entirely compatible. I think you are saying that the Holy Spirit must be prioritized ahead of reason. If so, I certainly agree.
Regarding your quote from Ellen White, I don’t believe she is considering an external source. Read it once again:
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentSean, here is a quote from Ellen White:
Did she err? Is she actually telling us here that the Bible must be tested by science? That we can trust human knowledge?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
Did you not read the rest of page 114 of Patriarchs and Prophets?
While Mrs. white does say that, “There should be a settled belief in the divine authority of God’s Holy Word. The Bible is not to be tested by men’s ideas of science.”, she is clearly talking about the popular notions of scientists of her own day which directly countered biblical statements of historical reality (as they do today).
On the same page (p. 114) Mrs White goes on to explain the nature of faith and science – that both are intertwined with each. One does not exist without the other.
Notice how Mrs. White describes nature and revelation has being very closely related, both having a common source and both testifying to the truth of the other as each is correctly interpreted.
She argues that the popular “science” of her day was “false science” – not a true form of rational thought or scientific investigation or understanding of the natural world:
Beyond this, on the same page (p. 114) she specifically argues that it is nature and natural laws that testify for the existence of her Author and form the basis of a rational faith in God’s existence and in the credibility of His Word:
I’m not sure how she could have been any more clear in her support of the need for a rational understanding nature and the use of empirical evidence as a rational basis for faith in God’s existence and in the credibility of the Bible.
You really need to read Mrs. White in context and not take a single sentence out of context from the many passages where she lists off many physical evidences and tells us that God intended for us to use these evidence to build our faith in the credibility of the written Word…
God does not expect us to believe without a solid basis in empirical evidence. The appearance of axe heads floating is not contrary to the hypothesis of deliberate design (as I’ve seen with my own eyes). However, the notion that American Indians are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel (as the Book of Mormon claims), is inconsistent with well-established scientific evidence.
Such statements that are so clearly contrary to seemingly definitive empirical evidence, if coming from the Bible, would certainly call its overall credibility into serious question for most intelligent candid minds… and rightly so.
It is because the Bible, unlike any other book that claims Divine authority, is so consistent with empirical evidence for its historical claims (which can be investigated in a potentially falsifiable manner) that it is able to gain a great deal of predictive value and therefore credibility with the intelligent candid mind who is honestly searching for truth.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent: I don’t believe this comment is contradictory to her many statements regarding faith and evidence. Notice she says we should be settled in our belief of the divine authority of God’s Word. We must have good reason to settle first.
In the same paragraph quoted, she says, “All truth, whether in nature or in revelation, is consistent with itself in all its manifestations.” This is why she was able to say, “Moses wrote under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and a correct theory of geology will never claim discoveries that cannot be reconciled with his statements.”
Human reasoning is a necessary tool for detecting truth; however, human reasoning has its limitations. She says the Bible should not be tested by “man’s ideas of science.” What does she mean by this?
First she makes the point that there are things we cannot understand because we are finite. She gives some examples of what men of science think:
She’s not saying Bible shouldn’t be tested at all, but it shouldn’t be tested by man’s ideas of science. She’s talking about a faulting knowledge base. While our ability to reason is by no means perfect, it’s all we have to use to detect truth. She says, “All true science is in harmony with His works” (PP 115).
If they contradict each other, one of them has to be wrong. How do we determine that? God has given us the ability to judge and weigh evidence, and most of all he has given us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.
“Faith rests on evidence,” she says (T5 68). Of the Bible she says:
In the end there is a difference between man’s ideas of science and true science.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentI suppose I might as well add to the cross-chatter between Spectrum and ET. At Spectrum, David Read wrote:
I appreciated this post from David, and the clarification of his own position.
It’s a bit disconcerting that Ellen White makes seemingly contradictory statements about the relationship between evidence and scripture. There are, of course, many forms of evidence. Perhaps someone could compile her statements on evidence to see if she is consistent at least on how she relates science (scientific evidence) specifically to the testing of scripture.
I believe that Educate Truth proponents reject this very explicit quote from Ellen White and defer instead to quotes on other forms of evidence–including the inward working of the Holy Spirit–to support their view. I suggest that context should be given more weight.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentBob, thank you so much for taking the time to post a compilation of Ms. White’s statements!
I could be wrong with my understanding, but here are my thoughts regarding each of her quotes:
3T 255.1 – I see no indication that the “evidence” she speaks to is beyond scripture, or has anything to do with science.
PP 112.3 – By “establish faith,” I don’t think she speaks to establishing or testing the validity of scripture. She is saying that God intends for us to find evidence for the antedeluvians (which, by the way, remains frustratingly elusive–where are those giant-sized men?), but she herself points out that scripture explains that which “geology alone could never fathom.” This is hardly an enthusiastic endorsement of geological evidences.
Unsourced passage (citing Ps 19:1, Rom 1:20) – She points out that nature testifies to the existence and power and greatness of God; neither she nor the scriptural passages make reference to the need to use science, empirical evidence, or human reason to establish the validity of God’s word.
CCh 93.4 – Again, what is the “evidence” she speaks to? Is it internal to scripture? Does it embrace personal experience (the Holy Spirit)? Or is it referring to science and empirical evidence (this would be quite the stretch)? This quote actually speaks to the insufficiency of our “understanding,” and points out that we should not abandon faith because of it.
UL 156.4 – This quote certainly denounces theistic evolution, which I would agree with. But it makes no recommendation to test scripture by external sources.
UL 156.6 – This passage actually condemns reliance on human intellect, philosophy, science, and naturalism. How could one reach any other conclusion?
I think you, Sean, and Shane are reading more into Ellen White’s endorsement of “evidence” than what she is really saying. None of these quotes remotely hint that we are to subject scripture to external tests of validity, particularly from science. Come on, guys, can’t you see this? I don’t mean to antagonize.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentSean said…..
“This is what science is all about, making “educated guesses” based on empirical evidence, but never enough empirical evidence to remove all possibility of error. The same can be true of a rational faith in God and His Word, the Bible…”
This is part of the present problem in dialogue, Sean.
I am aware that any human conclusion concerning what the bible teaches may be faulty. In fact, we can be quit certain that all of us have some faulty ideas about what the bible teaches. None the less, all true bible believers confess and acknowledge that the bible itself is an infallible revelation of God and His will. This is a Protestant confession of faith.
This theory can not be said about nature and science. Nature and science are a faulty revelation of God and not a final reliable source of information.
We can not study scientific revelation from nature with the assurance that there is a consistent and ongoing source of information that is not subject to error in the revelation.
We don’t make “educated guesses” as to what is true and what is not when we study the bible. Meaning what? You can study nature in its fallen condition and never come to a correct conclusion.
We can study the bible with the assurance that it is in and of itself a complete and perfect revelation of truth. If we find inconsistency in the bible, we must continue to study its messages until, by the Holy Spirit, we see the perfect flowing continuity of truth that God has designed for us to see.
This can not be said of nature.
When the reformers formulate the phrase “faith alone”, it was “the merits of Christ alone”, “justification and pardon by Christ alone” and finally “the bible alone as a sufficient and final authority to govern and enlighten the human family.”
And this confession about the bible was and is the foundation of reformation Protestantism. It is the single most important aspect of truth given to us by the reformation.
We affirm faith in the bible by its own “evidence”, namely, Prophecy. We start within the bible and look for evidence without, namely, the fulfillment of prophecy. We do not start with nature and then look to see if the bible confirms what we see nature affirm. This is a false order of finding truth.
Nature is too convoluted to be any authoritive source of final truth.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View Comment@Bill Sorensen:
What is faulty is not reality itself – regarding either the Bible or nature. What is faulty is the human ability to correctly appreciate reality – regarding the true nature of nature, the Bible, and all other forms of truth.
I believe in absolute truth. I just don’t believe in the human ability to accurately comprehend absolute truth. The best that we humans can do is approach truth without ever fully realizing it.
This means that all our beliefs, to include our belief that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, are subjective – subject to the possibility of error – to include your interpretation of history’s support of the Bible.
By the way, history was a part of nature and evidence in nature is the basis for validating history. This is why historical sciences are true sciences that use scientific methodologies. When you appeal to history as evidence of the Bible’s Divine origin, you are not truly using the Bible to confirm its own authority. You are using a reference that is external to the Bible as a form of empirical evidence that supports your interpretation or theory that the Bible has a Divine origin.
Thus, evidences in nature are what even you use to confirm your theories regarding the Bible’s meaning, origin, and credibility.
With regard to the Bible in particular, I think the odds that the Divine origin theory is in error are so small that I’d be willing to put my own life on the line that the Bible is in fact the true Word of God. That being said, I could still be wrong. The Book of Mormon or the Qur’an may actually be the true Word of God. As highly unlikely as that may seem to me at the present time, I must and I should consider this possibility.
My LDS friends, like you, refuse to even consider the possibility of error with regard to their belief that the Book of Mormon is the True Word of God – not the Bible. They will not even consider it a remote possibility that they could be wrong. No empirical evidence from history or anything else can convince them to consider the possibility of error. We need to try to avoid this trap of irrationality in our own religion…
In short, there’s a difference between the existence of absolute truth and the realization or comprehension of absolute truth…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentTithe is virtually or always used to directly “fund” the preaching of the gospel, as with pastors, evangelists,etc. I wouldn’t think our tithe was being used to pay Biology Profs to teach “evolution as fact” or even general Biology itself. Or am I wrong?
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentBobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI remain astonished at the level that Sean Pitman, Shane Hilde, and others here stoop to place science, empirical evidence, and human reason above scripture. We should all be offended by the low esteem in which these individuals regard scripture by demanding that it be subject to criticism and external validity. And they don’t stop there; they belittle those of us who take a high view of scripture, denouncing our faith as “blind,” “circular,” and “useless.”
A favorite tactic by Sean Pitman is to challenge anyone to explain how one chooses the Bible to be superior ahead of other sacred texts. The most lucid answer I have seen was posted yesterday at Spectrum Magazine by Phil Brantley, and it merits posting here as well:
The official SDA Church will NEVER embrace Educate Truth’s heterodox theology. And one day it will go out of its way to make this abundantly clear. I guarantee it.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
Phil didn’t actually answer my question, but dodged it yet again. My response is as follows:
Phil Brantley,
You listed off a number of evidences that, “support the claim that the Scripture is the Word of God.” What I find strange about your list is that you include numerous evidence that are dependent upon extra-biblical empirical information, to include historically-fulfilled prophecies and an understanding of various elements of the text that is dependent upon extra-biblical historical knowledge of the existence of people, times and places… all dependent upon the historical sciences.
Yet, you go on to explain:
It seems to me like you confuse epistemology (how we know what we know) with hermeneutics (how to interpret or determine the intended meaning of a given text). While certainly being related, and even interdependent, they aren’t the same thing.
The confusion I have with your arguments in this and other forums is that you seem to suggest that one’s epistemological conclusion that the Bible is in fact the Word of God cannot rationally “precede” one’s hermeneutic understanding of the text itself… that one must somehow definitively decide, without any question, that the Bible is the Word of God before one has actually interpreted what the author of the text was trying to say and if that interpretation does in fact match key elements of known physical reality – i.e., if what the author was in fact trying to say is most likely true or false.
For example, given your approach one could conclude, a priori that the Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an, is really the true Word of God. Then, after coming to this conclusion, one would then proceed to actually read and interpret the Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an, according to one’s pre-established epistemology that the Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an, is in fact the true Word of God. It wouldn’t matter, then, if DNA evidence showed that the American Indians really aren’t “descendants from the lost tribes of Israel”, as the Book of Mormon claims, but are, rather, descendants from an Asian background. After all, since the Book of Mormon would be “true by definition”, such DNA evidence should not effect one’s faith in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as being the Word of God – right?
This is the circular element in your argument. The very same argument could be used to simply declare any text to be the true Word of God without any means to detect if one has in fact made an error in this “by definition” or “just-so” declaration.
If no form of empirical evidence, to include historical knowledge, should have any power to change your epistemological view that the Bible is the True Word of God, then it really means nothing that you list off numerous empirically-based evidences that do in fact support this view. Your basic argument is that such evidences are not needed – that the Bible, by itself, without any reference to any such external empirical evidence or seeming reality, can stand alone as a self-evident revelation of God’s will.
In short, I’ve specifically asked you, several times now, how one can rationally determine that the Bible, and not the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an, is the the true word of God without any reference to any external empirical evidences, and you’ve yet to provide an answer to this question – or to even directly address this question. You’ve not presented any reason, that I can tell, whereby one who did not grow up as a Christian automatically believing the Bible to be God’s Word could rationally recognize the Bible as the true Word of God among many competing options all making the very same claim… without any reference or appeal to external empirical evidences of any kind.
Do you have an answer to this particular question or not?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Sean Pitman:
Sean Pitman – Sat, 05/07/2011 – 06:51
Phil Brantley,
You wrote:
The question of determining that the Bible is truly the Word of God vs. all other competing options is not at all “irrelevant” to the concept of a rational faith in the Bible as the Word of God. Your argument that the Bible is true “by definition” can be used, in the very same manner, by those upholding the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an. There is no difference, that I can tell, in your argument vs. that of my LDS friends. None at all…
It is easy to make up a fairytale or an allegory or a novel that is internally consistent with regard to prophecies, times, places, peoples, and events – none of which are literally true. Such internal consistency is not, therefore, a rational basis for belief in the literal truth of the Bible as being the Word of God when it comes to its claims regarding my own empirical reality – current or future. Such a determination of truth requires something beyond the text itself if it is to appeal to the rational candid mind.
You yourself actually cite real historical empirically-based evidence. based on historical science, as a basis for the Bible’s historical credibility when it comes to prophecies. I knew you would do this if pressed to answer the question of determining original credibility. You cannot help but do this because if prophetic statements were only verified by the Bible itself, having no basis in (or even in conflict with) known external historical reality, they would carry very little if any weight as evidences for Divine origin.
As I’ve mentioned before, this is one of the main problems with the Book of Mormon, its prophetic statements, while largely being internally consistent, conflict with known historical reality. It is for this reason that many, like me, completely dismiss the metaphysical claims of the Book of Mormon – because those claims dealing with physical reality can be so clearly falsified.
If the same is true of the Bible, how on Earth can you expect a rational person to still hold to the notion that the Bible is in fact the Word of God? – without any appeal to external empirical evidences / reality? That’s simply not a rational position in my book… and will not appeal to most candidly rational intelligent minds out there.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Sean Pitman:
Sean Pitman – Sat, 05/07/2011 – 09:08
Yakshaver,
You wrote:
Certain conclusions are indeed “non-rational” rather than “irrational” – such as a personal opinion that vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate ice cream. No “rational” explanation is needed for this preference to be “true” for the individual. The same thing is true about personal notions in the existence of a God who has never interacted with nature in a detectable way outside of the pre-established mindless “laws of nature”. Such a belief is also a “non-rational” belief or faith.
However, when someone makes specific claims regarding the existence of a God who has actually acted in real history and continues to act in a detectable manner, one has moved from the realm of non-rationality to the realm of either rationality or irrationality.
Beyond this, non-rational beliefs aren’t really all that helpful beyond the individual since there is no rational argument that could be presented to convince anyone else of one’s own non-rational opinions or beliefs. How can I convince someone who likes chocolate ice cream that vanilla ice cream is truly better tasting? As another example, as already noted, some argue that a belief in a God who does not interact in a detectable manner within nature is a non-rational belief. Well, as Richard Dawkins famously pointed out, so is a belief in the “Celestial Teapot” or the “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” All such beliefs are technically “non-rational”. Yet, while they are not exactly “irrational”, non-rational beliefs are not very convincing or compelling for those who do not already subscribe to such beliefs.
If you really want your faith to be shared in a meaningful way with other intelligent candid minds so that they are able to gain the faith and hope in the future that you have, you should be able to provide something more appealing than non-rational “reasons” for your faith (even if you aren’t being overtly irrational). You need at least a few rational reasons for your faith that are rooted in actual empirical reality. Otherwise, your non-rational faith will most likely die with you…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentTrue.
An atheist can use the H-G model of hermeneutics to pinpoint the position of the Bible saying that all life on planet earth was created in a real 7 day week less than 10,000 year ago.
Then he can use his own slant on epistemology (how we know that something is true), hammering away at the Bible position thus objectively defined. He simply uses the standard set of evolutionism’s many-storied puzzles (still waiting to be solved) to bash the clearly defined (by the H-G method) Bible postion.
(A point both Phil and Kent have tried time after time to dodge on Spectrum and elsewhere)
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIt will be interesting to see if Brantley is able to bring himself to posting his position here.
Fulfillment of prophecy is a method used in epistemology – for knowing that something “is true”. The H-G heremeneutics by contrast is merely used to objectively render the claim being made by the text. Once rendered it can then be subjected to epistemology and tested against history to see if “it is true”.
Point number 15 would be a circular argument if used to determine whether the Bible is true or not because it argues that we should presume that the Bible is true as a starting point.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Commentin Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThe school year is drawing to a close and I have a lot of deadlines to meet. I am finished sharing my thoughts and answering questions on this and other threads.
Professor Kent
Professing Christ until the whole world hears
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentThis is obvious, Bob. But where does she say that we are to elevate evidence above God’s word, or make it the foundation of our faith, as Sean insists? Surely you don’t agree with Bob. It’s clear that that Cliff Goldstein and David Read disagree with Sean.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment1. You did not make that claim about Cch 93.4 so I take this to meant that you see the point clearly from that reference.
2. While you appear to claim that the “observations in nature” mentioned in PP 112 above is not “science” many others would clearly differ with you. The parts emphasized appear to make that point for the objective unbiased reader.
We see it in italics in every way imaginable the quote is clear “will find in science an aid to understand God.”
Your “I refuse to see science in that statement” is not as compelling a response as you seem to suppose.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIf anyone wants to find out really why so many young people are leaving the SDA Church, please check out John Lomacang’s series on 3ABN “Pillars of Truth.”
Pastor Lomacang is telling it like it is, and he is not afraid of naming names and showing what’s really wrong with the progressive’s theory of dumping our SDA beliefs and infiltrating secular humanism into our schools, churches and other institutions.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View Comment“If they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, though one rose from the dead.”
In telling this story, Jesus affirms the bible’s self revelation and authority and states by way of the parable, that no outside “evidence” will convince anyone if the bible does not persuade them by its own inherent arguments.
Prophecy foretells the future of the historical process. So, yes, evidence outside the bible testifies to its validity. Namely, the historical process.
But you must start with the bible and its self affirmation and then examine history to affirm the biblical revelations.
Could we first examine history and then turn to the bible to see if it has predicted the future? Yes. None the less, the bible spoke first, and history verified its declarations.
If we study nature for the sole purpose of affirming the scriptural accounts of creation and to see in what way they may be in harmony, all is well.
But since nature, in and of itself can not specifically “prove” that God created, we must accept the biblical statements and acknowledge that nature in and of itself can not be relied upon to prove origins.
It always goes back to the “first cause”, doesn’t it?
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View Comment@Bill Sorensen:
If they reject “Moses and the prophets” they’ve rejected empirical evidence that they know is true. It is for this reason that providing additional empirical evidence, even overwhelming empirical evidence, will make no difference.
Why not? Why won’t the presentation of additional strong empirical evidence change the mind of someone who has already rejected the empirical evidence that they knew was true?
The answer is obvious. If someone has already rejected what he knew was true, his determination of truth is no longer a matter of rational thought and empirical evidence. It is now simply a matter of desire. A rejector of known truth is simply saying, “I don’t like what I know to be reality. Therefore, I will do everything to act contrary to that reality. I will deliberately rebel against what I know to be true.”
You see, for such there is nothing more that God can do or provide to convert them or change their minds. Satan and his angels are in this camp. They know far more empirical evidence than you or I will ever know on this Earth. Yet, they reject what they know to be true, not because they don’t believe it to be true, but because they don’t have a love of the truth. They hate the Truth. Therefore, they hate God. Additional evidence of the Truth isn’t going to change their minds because their minds are based on emotion, not evidence.
Your argument that “prophecy came first, history second” is irrelevant to the fact that anyone or anything claiming to be a prophet (like Joseph Smith for example) is open to empirical reality to test the prophetic words to see if they are actually reliable and credible before the prophet or prophetic text is given any kind of authority by the intelligent candid mind.
It is for this reason that we can have a pretty good idea that Joseph Smith was not a real prophet of God while Mrs. White was. It is also for this reason that we can have a very good idea that the prophetic passages in the Bible were also from God – unlike the prophecies of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon.
So, you see, even Biblical prophecies are not “self-verifying” as you have claimed. They are verified against empirical historical reality – against a form of science known as historical science.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentNice reply, Shane. Very nice.
PK
Professing Christ until the whole world hears
Professor Kent(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 CommentEddie, what a shocker. Southern Adventist University…of all places! I hope Bob Ryan does not read your post.
Whoever wrote that description for the Animal Behavior course at SAU should be fired immediately, along with anyone who currently teaches such heresy. From this point forward, we must agree that Southern’s biology program clearly is no longer SDA.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Comment