Comment on Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation by Faith.
I agree with Sean, we need the rewording. You will never convince anyone who does not want to be convinced that the six-day creation came to pass on six literal days if they don’t want to be convinced. This exercise is to make our church’s stand absolutely clear. The truth should be stated and the chips can fall where they may.
Frankly, like Sean, I don’t see why anyone would oppose the rewording unless it foils their attempts to marry truth with error.
And, yes, David, I think the original wording was clear enough for anyone who wants to believe the truth about Creation; however, making it even more iron-clad won’t hurt any honest soul.
Just my two-bits’ worth.
Faith Also Commented
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
And you are correct, Sean, PK must consider where his influence is going–for God or against Him.
Actually, Sean, in most points I agree with you. Of course we live in free countries and, technically, the church could vote out any and all of our fundamental beliefs–if God allowed it–which I don’t believe He ever will. We have been told in SOP that the church will go through to the end, and I know that without God’s protecting hand over it, it would have fallen long ere this. I simply don’t want to even countenance such a possibility. To me, to voice it gives the possibility credence. It’s like opening Pandora’s box, which should be kept firmly closed. Perhaps you think I am being silly, but that is the way I feel.
Sean Pitman: My statement that the church needs to be either hot or cold is largely tongue-in-cheek, largely rhetorical of course.
Well, Sean, I totally agree with the statement that the church should be either hot or cold–Christ himself said that–whether rhetorical or not. Of course, hopefully the church will be hot rather than cold. In my opinion, we collectively need to wake up and quit being so politically correct; we need to know what we believe and stand firmly and openly for it. If we weren’t waffling in the wind so much, maybe we could actually get the work done and go Home.
The main problem seems to be that so many of us have our sights set on the world. If Heaven is our Home, then we need to set our sights much higher, don’t you think? We need to quit striving for the world’s acceptance and worry more about God’s acceptance.
In a nut shell, that is the problem with the LSU profs. They are thirsting for worldly acceptance. They are now so hardened in their thought processes, that they don’t seem to care a fig for what God wants, they just want to fit in with the world. They are now apparently convinced that the world is teaching truth and God is teaching a lie. That is the fruit of chasing after the world. The SDA educational system should be firmly founded on God and His Word–instead the more highly educated ones, who should be the shepherds to the flock, are leading the lambs astray. That is so sad.
I applaud your site for bringing this to the attention of the average SDA. It is absolutely appalling, and the situation calls for much prayer as well as much faith and action. While most of us are powerless to do anything to change this situation, God is not. He will act at His appointed time. In the meantime, we need to continue to sound the alarm and continue to plead with God on behalf of our beloved church.
God Bless you, Sean, as well as all the rest of you on this site who are standing for truth.
Have a good day.
“If, on the other hand, the Adventist Church decides, as an organization, that the concept of a literal 6-day creation week really isn’t all that “fundamental” to the primary mission of the church, then it should make this new position crystal clear to all of its constituents.” – Sean Pitman
I’m sorry, Sean, but I don’t think there should even be another “hand”. If there is, then we leave ourselves open to people like Fritz Guy and Lawrence Geraty to make our rules for us–the very thing you (and I) are opposed to. The SDA church was founded on God-given truths and there should be no allowance made for a vote by members of the church to change even one of our beliefs. To do so would be to destroy our church from within…the very thing Satan is trying to do.
This should be considered sacred ground and there should not be allowed even a hint of the possibility that this could happen.
There are certainly things that can come under a voting process–but not the fundamental beliefs of the church. Anyone who doesn’t believe them should find another church, not destroy ours.
Recent Comments by Faith
After reading your comment above, I must say PK isn’t the only one in that boat.I would make some comment as to how I really feel about you, but I know Sean will only delete it and you won’t benefit from my insight anyway–seeing as Sean is more concerned about other people’s feelings than you seem to be.
How you have the nerve to come to this website and call us all a bunch of morons (which is really what you are doing) is beyond me. You and your cronies are the ones drowning in error. Anyone who dares to accept man’s opinions over the Bible or SOP isn’t to be trusted to define truth for anyone.
Too straight-forward in my comment? Trust me, I have restrained myself admirably. If you only knew….
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Further to my comment on skeptism and our professors, I’ve got to tell you that I found Prof Kent to be extremely annoying in his comments on EGW. He seems to think that she is an embarrassment to the church when she speaks on Science.
Personally I find people who dis her to be the embarrassment to the church. I really don’t see how they dare to contradict and mock God’s prophet. By doing this they undermine a lot of our church’s beliefs to outsiders as well as church members. God will hold them accountable for that.
Furthermore, David’s unpublished manuscript plus other books I have read on archaeology have reported skeletons of the type that EGW mentions. Also found were artifacts such as huge iron bedsteads made for and buried with kings of huge stature.
Just because you haven’t done your research, PK, don’t jump to the conclusion the evidence isn’t there. It’s there, all right, and you make yourself look a little foolish for not knowing about it.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
David Read said:
“Ellen White’s statements about larger antediluvian life forms are well attested with regard to many different types of flora and fauna. They’re not even controversial…
As you know, I took advantage of your kind offer and I read your manuscript as well as I purchased 3 of your books, one for me, one for my sisters, and one for the church library. It took me a week to finish the book, and I and my sisters are very impressed with it. My one sister calls it “one incredible book”. It has answered a lot of the questions we had on the subject of evolution vs creation science, and, yes, I believe we (you and I and my sisters) are on the same page in our beliefs. We have immensely enjoyed discussing the various aspects of the subject as we read. It makes perfect sense to us.
I still have a couple of questions–new ones will probably always keep popping up–but I would say you have covered the subject admirably. Thanks so much for this book.
I agree with Elder Wilson, this is something every Adventist should read. In my opinion it should be used as required reading for science courses. It is exactly the way I would want science courses in the universities to treat the Creation/evolution debate in the classroom. And if the professors at LSU and the other SDA institutions would do this we wouldn’t be constantly losing our young people and, for that matter, our professors, to skeptisism.
Thank God someone has the courage to publish the truth and expose error.
God Bless you, David.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Hi Sean and Bill,
I am wondering if the difference of opinion here is due to varying definitions of the word ‘science’. As we all know there is true science and there is worldly psuedo-science.
If Bill’s understanding of ‘science’ in this case is actually worldly psuedo-science, then he is correct in not wanting any truth to be compromised with it.
From Sean’s post, I believe he is referring to true science, which is definitely part of our beliefs on origins and is well supported by the Bible and SOP, as Sean admirably demonstrated.
Not having seen the exhibit myself, I cannot comment on whether or not they are mixing psuedo-science into it. (Perhaps a few of you posters out there can see the exhibit and report back to us.) Knowing the general philosophy of SAU, I would be surprised if they did.
Their goal is “to provide scientific evidence that substantiates the Bible’s account of creation.” Sounds good to me.
They also say: “Religion and science don’t need to be at odds.” And that is true when you are referring to true science, which I believe they are.
However, I do understand Bill’s reaction in that these days when people use the word ‘science’ without qualification it so often means evolutionary pseudoscience, that we tend to be suspicious.
I think, Bill, that in this case we don’t need to worry. I believe SAU’s heart is in the right place and I am so glad that at least one of our institutions is willing to stand up and be counted on the side of Creation, even though they will probably draw much criticism from the ‘scientific’ community as well as from the TEs in their own church.
God bless them for their fidelity to Him. And may God strengthen them to meet the onslaught that is most likely to follow, is my prayer for them.
It was me that asked that question.
I must admit that I am absolutely mind-boggled at your reply. I totally agree with what Sean has posted above.
Frankly, Ron, I don’t understand your reasoning. You post more than one comment regarding your father’s death which seems to be bitter and blaming toward God for allowing such a thing to happen. Yet, you affirm Eve’s choice that brought the entire world into sin. Without that sin, there would have been no death in this world. We would have been born into a perfect world where happiness reigns supreme (because, of course, God reigns supreme).
A world where perfect children would be born painlessly and never be sick or hurt themselves; where father’s and sons (or anyone else, for that matter) would never be parted by death; a place without war or accidents or anything that would hurt or maim; a place where you could trust your fellow man to be honest with you; a world without fear; a world where we could communicate with God and the angels face-to-face. I’m sorry–I don’t understand how that is not the most desirable of existences.
Let’s look at this for just a moment. What did we gain by acquiring the knowledge of evil? We learned what it is to be sick–to see little babies born with cancer live short, little lives of suffering. We see pain and death everywhere we look–horrific accidents, natural disasters, young mothers dying in childbirth, young fathers dying in war. We see cruelty, poverty, selfishness, immorality, dishonesty, and fear. In short, it is a dog-eat-dog existence.
And not only man has paid for that original sin; the rest of creation has not escaped the marks of it either. We see one animal hunt and kill another for food. We see the earth being literally destroyed by pollution. And this is just the tip of the iceberg–I can’t possibly list here all the “benefits” of the knowledge of evil.
So you think that the knowledge of sin is so desirable? I can’t see why. I wish I had never heard of it, and I am deeply sorry Adam and Eve did what they did.
Ron: I am actually a partaker of the Divine Nature, having wisdom and knowing good from evil.
So are you trying to say here that Satan was right, that we do become like gods by knowing evil? Perish the thought!