Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Pickle.
Gordon Engen in 1966 wrote thus on page 4 of http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/LUH/LUH19660419-V58-16.pdf
Are some in our midst working so hard on acceptance that they are willing to construe God’s Word as wonderful prose, challenging philosophy, and good literature, but not necessarily so? Do they say that the Spirit of Prophecy must take a back seat to geological theories which scientists have “proven?” Those who would do this are doing more than merely taking their fingers out of the holes in the dike. They are opening the entire series of floodgates, thus eroding the fundamental principles which set our church apart as the remnant church, keeping the commandments of God and having the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Spirit of Prophecy. Each step in this direction is followed by another until the point of no return has been passed. It may begin ever so innocently in the concept of pre-existing matter before creation, but it leads a half-step at a time to the existence of life before creation, to the doubting of the creation story as recorded, to the acceptance of creation covering long periods of time, to the various theories of evolution, to the very heart of the Sabbath question—to the concept that it’s not all necessarily so and that the Spirit of Prophecy served its purpose for a bygone age.
Engen gives as the first step in a hypothetical path toward infidelity the idea that there was pre-existing matter before creation, and it is clear from the following clause what he meant by that.
I don’t have time at the moment to keep up with this conversation, and to do research into the topic as well. So I will do the latter and post here some items, leave the catching up until maybe next week.
John Gill (1697-1771) wrote the following on Gen. 1:16 in his commentary:
[He made] the stars also; to rule by night, #Ps 136:9 not only the planets, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Venus, but the vast numbers of stars with which the heavens are bespangled, and which reflect some degree of light upon the earth; with the several constellations, some of which the Scriptures speak of, as Arcturus, Orion, Pleiades, and the chambers of the south, #Job 9:9 #Job 38:31-32 Am 5:8 though some restrain this to the five planets only.
Gill routinely gives various interpretations, often citing numerous Jewish scholars, but makes clear which interpretation he favors. Thus in the above he makes clear that he favors the thought that the stars of Gen. 1:16 include the stars of the universe. But he admits that there are those who limit those stars to the stars of our solar system.
Unfortunately, in this case, Gill does not identify who these folks are, so we have no way to know whether they include Maimonides or Rashi.
But we do know from this statement that the idea of limiting of the stars of Gen. 1:16 did not originate with me, and that it was common enough prior to 1771 (or prior to 1748 if that’s when that volume was published) to warrant inclusion by John Gill in his commentary.
At http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/FT/FT19111227-V03-46.pdf W. M. Crothers in 1911 has an article entitled, “When Was the Earth Created?” Crothers uses 8T 258-259 to attack the idea that “instead of the earth being really created, or brought into existence, during the six days of Genesis 1, God during that time only formed it into a habitable globe out of matter which he had before created and which had previously existed in elementary form and chaotic state.for untold ages.” He also cites PP 47 to show that the foundations of the earth were laid during the 6 days of creation, not previously.
These statements to the true believer in the third angel’s message, are more reliable than all the findings and theories of men; and, if thoroughly believed and remembered, will save us from being deceived into adopting error; and in harmony with them nearly all of our translators and commentators will interpret Gen.1:1 to signify the making of the earth out of nothing as a part of the six days’ work. “Beware lest any man spoil you thru philosophy and vain deceit” (Ibid.).
Looks like Crothers felt strongly about the issue.
J.N. Andrews was clear that the sun and moon were created during the creation week, but when speaking about Day 4 he would say that they “appeared” at that time. Here’s is a fuller statement by him as to what he meant:
On the fourth day God caused the sun and moon and stars to appear as light-bearers in the heavens. By this we are not to understand that these heavenly bodies were this day created; for they were doubtless included in the work of the creation of “the heaven” on the first day. As the earth during the first three days underwent a great transformation, we may reasonably conclude that a like work was carried forward in the heavenly bodies during that time. And thus, when the fourth day arrived, they were ready to be made light-bearers to the earth. (Sermons on the Sabbath and Law, p. 8)
It seems clear from the above that Andrews did not believe that the sun and moon existed as we know them today from Day 1 onward.
Bob Pickle Also Commented
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: I have already cited DA 465 and Ed 14 where “stars” is limited to objects within our solar system. Therefore, I do not understand why you would base an argument on the “stars” of Day 4 without making some sort of effort to prove that “stars” on Day 4 cannot be limited to the “stars of our solar system.”
Showing that God formed woman from Adam’s rib does not address the point that Ellen White made: God formed our world and created the earth out of nothing. After He did that, then certainly He could have formed man and the animals from something. But thus far you have not given any reason for concluding that Ellen White was not referring to creation week when she said what she did in MH and 8T.
The available texts do not leave open the question of whether the sun and moon existed before Day 4. That is an idea that comes from outside the Bible. It isn’t in the text.
You assert that Gen. 1:1 can be interpreted to mean that the sun, moon, and Jupiter existed before creation week. How so? It uses the Hebrew word for heavens, but says nothing about the sun or moon or Jupiter. It is Day 4 that explicitly says that God created the sun and moon on that day. It is Gen. 2:1 that says that the heavens were finished after creation week. Gen. 1:1 says nothing about the heavens already being finished before creation week; the verse does not use the word “finished” at all.
Did the scholars you cite arrive at their views of Gen. 1:16 solely from reading the text? Or are they trying to get the text to accommodate the conclusions of scientists that believe differently than what the text states? Two sources tell me that “made” in vs. 16 is an imperfect, not a perfect. Why then does Grudem say that an imperfect should be taken as a perfect? Is his basis for thus amending the text solely the Bible, or is it something else?
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: The post’s date isn’t important to me. I was just trying to understand what happened.
I don’t think you answered my question: “Do you think it possible that Ellen White’s 1897 statements were a rebuttal of Wilcox’s sentiments as he expressed them the following year?” She obviously was addressing some sort of ideas that had come into Adventism. If these ideas weren’t what Wilcox expressed, what were they?
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: Please read MH 414 and 8T 258 again, and see if you think those particular quotes leave the question open.
We could come up with a long list of points that Ellen White, perhaps (since there might be an unpublished letter), never personally corrected this one or that one on, so we can only take that so far. For example, some held that an atonement was made at the cross, some held that no atonement was made until Christ ascended to heaven, and some held that no atonement was made until 1844. I do not recall Ellen White rebuking proponents of two of these three contradictory positions, even though she did support one of these positions in her writings.
Do MH 414 and 8T 258 really leave the question open?
Recent Comments by Bob Pickle
The End of “Junk DNA”?
Thanks, Sean, for this informative article!
Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
While in Roosevelt, New York, August 3, 1861, different churches and families were presented before me. The different influences that have been exerted, and their discouraging results, were shown me. Satan has used as agents individuals professing to believe a part of present truth, while they were warring against a part. Such he can use more successfully than those who are at war with all our faith. His artful manner of bringing in error through partial believers in the truth, has deceived many, and distracted and scattered their faith. This is the cause of the divisions in northern Wisconsin. Some receive a part of the message, and reject another portion. Some accept the Sabbath and reject the third angel’s message; yet because they have received the Sabbath they claim the fellowship of those who believe all the present truth. Then they labor to bring others into the same dark position with themselves. They are not responsible to anyone. They have an independent faith of their own. Such are allowed to have influence, when no place should be given to them, notwithstanding their pretensions to honesty.
Erv has had decades to come into line. According to the above counsel from the Lord, “no place” should have been given him regardless of his pretensions. And it is far past time that place cease to be given him.
WASC Team Recommends Formal Notice of Concern Regarding LSU
Richard,
Either I’m misunderstanding what is allegedly going on, or you are missing the point.
If a church educational institution, such as LSU, begins to promote evolution as the true story of origins (not just teaching about evolution with an emphasis on the evidence for Biblical creation), and if the church tries therefore to rein it in, and if the WASC says the church can’t do that, then the WASC is meddling with the church’s educational mission, and what the church’s educational institutions can and cannot teach.
“They do require that the institution makes education its primary function ….”
True education or false education? If true education, then the WASC should have no problem with the church requiring LSU to stick with true education principles, and to abandon false education principles. It’s fine to require a school to teach about evolution, but requiring a school to promote evolution over creation or intelligent design is a whole different matter.
By the way, a union president should have the institution’s conformity to true education principles as his primary objective, or else he shouldn’t be chairman of the board. But I think the WASC may be opposed to this, not in favor of it, based on what is being reported.
WASC Team Recommends Formal Notice of Concern Regarding LSU
If what you have reported is accurate, then WASC isn’t doing its job, since it isn’t holding LSU accountable to principles of true education.
If these non-Adventist accrediting bodies refuse to do their job, then we may just have to go some other route. They aren’t God, after all.
Of course, one might argue that WASC’s job is to hold institutions accountable to principles of false education, not principles of true education. But who would or did give it that kind of job? And there have been non-Adventist entities and individuals that have promoted true education.
Is La Sierra University Legally Distancing Itself from the Church?
@Chris Chan:
Note that on p. 1 under Article 4 “Pacific Union” is defined as “Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.” So every time you read “Pacific Union” thereafter, it means “Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.”
That’s the legalese way of simplifying a legal document when the same person or organization is referred to multiple times throughout the document. If the other conferences are only mentioned once, it wouldn’t make sense to define a shorter term for them too.
