Comment on Biblical Interpretation and Credibility by Sean Pitman.
“Everywhere the eye might rest was abundance and beauty; yet Eve was deceived by the serpent, to think that there was something withheld which would make them wise, even as God. Instead of believing and confiding in God, she basely distrusted His goodness and cherished the words of Satan.
EGW, SR, p. 37-38Clearly, Eve trusted in her own judgment, having been deceived by the evidence presented to her by the serpent. She failed the simple test of trusting God’s word at face value. Ellen White could not have stated this more clearly. I repeat, Eve was DECEIVED and she DISTRUSTED.
You forgot to quote the first part of this passage that describes the fact that it was God who provided far superior evidence of who He was and His love and care for Eve than did the Serpent.
Our first parents chose to believe the words, as they thought, of a serpent; yet he had given them no tokens of his love. He had done nothing for their happiness and benefit, while God had given them everything that was good for food and pleasant to the sight.
EGW, SR, p. 37
It wasn’t for a lack of adequate evidence that Eve was deceived. She was tricked because she wanted to believe what the Serpent said despite the weight of evidence that God had provided in his own behalf. It was a problem of motivation, not evidence. If there had been a problem with having adequate evidence, it would have been unfair for God to have punished Eve. The very fact that the evidence was clear and abundant is the reason why Eve was guilty of sin… of deliberately severing what she knew was a loving relationship with the One she knew created her and had demonstrated his love for her in numerous unmistakeable ways. That is why her act was so “base” and even evil.
This isn’t God asking for obedience to his word at “face value”. This is God providing abundant evidence that his word can be trusted. He did and still does this by demonstrating who he is with abundant evidence before he asks us to trust him. He doesn’t simply show up and ask us to believe his naked claims devoid of any evidence for why we should believe that he is really God and that his word should be trusted.
For example, if God had never shown himself to Adam and Eve, had never explained how they all of a sudden showed up in the Garden of Eden, it would have been unfair for Him to suddenly speak to them in some disembodied voice and say, “Don’t eat from that tree over there.”… and then punish them if they did it anyway when someone else (like the Serpent) told them that they should eat from this tree and gave them various evidences as to why it would be good for them to do so.
Do you not see the difference between such an expectation to follow such a naked command at face value alone? – vs. a situation where abundant evidence is first provided?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Biblical Interpretation and Credibility
To All,
Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of this thread and this website. There are many hot potato issues within the Adventist Church. Other topics that are not directly related to the limited scope of this website will most likely not be posted or will be deleted. You are welcome to carry on such conversations privately via the chat group that is provided by this website.
Thank you.
Educate Truth Staff
Biblical Interpretation and Credibility
@Bill Sorensen:
Everything anyone does outside of Christ is sin. Even honest mistakes made by the angels of heaven are “forgiven†by virtue of their relationship with Christ.
Yes, it could be called “sin†in a comprehensive and generic application. In the bible “sin†has many aspects and defined in application in many ways.
Don’t you think that Jesus may have accidentally stepped on someone’s foot, or accidentally bumped into someone, while on this Earth while subject to limited knowledge as we are subject? Did Jesus “sin” when making such honest mistakes?
Your problem is that you define “sin” as any and all mistakes – even an angel accidentally stepping on his friend’s foot would be sinful or evil according to you. And, it seems, as if such “sins” will continue on for eternity in Heaven due to a lack of perfect knowledge.
What then makes the sin of eating the forbidden fruit so different? Adam and Eve were created “in Christ”, just as unfallen angels are. Why then did their sin cause them to be removed from their garden home and place them in the need of the sacrificial suffering and death of Jesus on the cross? Why wouldn’t an angel accidentally stepping on his friend’s foot require the same actions on the part of God?
What you don’t seem to understand is that there are different types of mistakes or “sins” if you want to call them all by the same word. Certain mistakes are not sins against one’s conscience and are therefore not moral wrongs and do not lead to a lost relationship with God – i.e., they do not lead to death.
The difference between accidental mistakes and deliberate sins against one’s neighbor is that accidents are not sins against one’s conscience; against God. Therefore, they do not lead to a loss of one’s relationship with God. Deliberate sins against one’s neighbor, on the other hand, do lead to a loss of relationship with both one’s neighbor and with God.
It is for this reason that sins against one’s conscience are in a whole different class altogether from truly honest accidental mistakes. The conscience is what defines the morality of an individual – what defines true obedience and/or rebellion against God or “sin” – i.e., true iniquity.
You know, at this point I’m not sure if there is anything further I can share with you on this topic that will help you see the difference between honest mistakes and true moral sins? I think you’ve made your position look pretty silly by now. I don’t think very many people are going to find it very difficult to see the difference between accidentally stepping on someone’s foot vs. what Adam and Eve did in eating the forbidden fruit.
For these reasons, comments regarding the supposed moral standing or “sinfulness” of those who hold to opposing doctrinal perspectives from me or you or anyone else contributing to comments in this forum will not be posted. While we disagree with what certain staff members have done and are doing at LSU, and think that these individuals should either resign or be removed from their positions as paid representatives of the Adventist Church within our schools, we do not judge their moral standing before God.
There will be no further discussion along these lines.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Biblical Interpretation and Credibility
@Bill Sorensen:
Even your angel in heaven illustration will not support the idea that Gabriel is innocent and/or not guilty. It just means forgiveness is a natural result of ignorance. It is a spiritual faux pau. Not unlike a simular incident in this world where you might bump into someone by accident and say, “Oh, excuse me, I didn’t see you there.â€
Oh, but are such errors sinful? – in the same sense that they would require the blood of Jesus for atonement? Why wouldn’t such errors be classified in the same manner with the sin of eating the forbidden fruit? – which did require the blood of Jesus for atonement?
The issue is pardon, or no pardon. Not, guilty or not guilty. People are pardoned because they are guilty, and we don’t plead innocence before God just because we didn’t know better.
You’re mistaken. People have successfully used the argument of ignorance with God many times. – Gen. 20:3-7 NIV.
Ignorance means that one has not sinned against one’s conscience. A deliberate sin against one’s own conscience, against what one knew to be right, is what demanded the blood of Jesus for atonement.
According to your view, sin will always continue in Heaven for ever and ever. As long as we are subject to imperfect knowledge, accidents will happen – even in Heaven. While we will no doubt apologize for these accidence, they will not be classified as moral “sins”.
Note that Mrs. White and the Bible both point out that moral sin will not arise a second time in God’s universe.
Never will evil again be manifest. Says the word of God: “Affliction shall not rise up the second time.” Nahum 1:9.
EGW, GC, p. 504
This situation would be impossible given your view of sin and your misunderstanding as to what makes sin so evil.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
