Comment on “Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic” by Robert S..
Wow, I just listened to the sermon (thanks for the 3AngelsTube link); it brought tears to my eyes! We have a real, fundamental, biblically literalistic and conservative President: praise God! I expect to see great things happen in our church. I’m already inspired to do more, much more for God.
Recent Comments by Robert S.
most Adventist creationists have no problem with the planet being older than 6,000-8,0000 years old. Itâ€™s the creation of life as described in Genesis as being 7 days that occurred 6,000-8,000 years. Whether this rock called Earth existed prior to the terra-forming is a moot point.
I agree Ethan.
An _excellent,_ albeit lengthy, argument in support of this position is given by the celebrated Adventist astronomer, Jim Burr. See http://www.heavensdeclare.org/starlight.htm
I wanted to profoundly commend you for the utmost courtesy you habitually demonstrate. You are dedicated to inquiry and intellectualism, happy to discuss and debate, yet always show a calm deference and even likable ‘niceness.’
We hold critically different philosophical views, yet I thank you for teaching me so much. I wish more would take notice. A similar thanks to men like Victor Marshall.
“If anyone says, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.” “Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling.” 1 Jn 4:20, 1 Jn 2:10
Wow, youâ€™ve got millions of other Christians figured out, too. One must either accept Ellen White as canonical or you are not a Christian and in fact are delusional.
Actually, I was rephrasing Ellen White’s words found in 5T, page 364, paragraph 1. Read it for yourself.
“…he has not accepted the truth for this time [present truth]; he is an unbeliever…”
Anyone claiming to be Christian, who has not yet accepted *present* truth, truth for *this time,* is an unbeliever.
It’s interesting that you didn’t give me any solid logic to meet my logic. I gave you a cemented Oxford definition. I gave you a biblical thought on ‘Sola Scriptura.’ I gave you an Inspired quote on evolutionary thoughts replacing pure faith. 
YOU are the one who is incorrect (Iâ€™m mimicing your language). You yourself admit that a LOT of microevolution happens and that thousands upon thousands of animal species have evolved since the flood. When you spoke of Darwinâ€™s descent in faith, it was a gradual process. His thinking about change gradually led him to reject a literal creation. You yourself read all sorts of papers about evolution and in that sense you yourself have opened the door to â€œevolutionary thinkingâ€. It was natural for me to assume your use of â€œevolutionary thinkingâ€ was the start of the process, not the end. But you used this opportunity to lecture me and tell me that I was incorrect. Iâ€™m amazed by the number of posts of yours that use the phrases â€œyou are incorrectâ€, â€œyou are mistaken,â€ â€œyou are wrongâ€ and the like.
Ummm … *cough* … uhhh … *blink* … I’m sorry sis, but I haven’t done a thing that you’ve accused me of. I have written not a word upon microevolution, darwin, reading evolution papers, etc. I think you got majorly confused: I’m your young fellow college student, not the venerable Doctor.
If you are suggesting that â€œevolutionary thinkingâ€ will cause all to lose their faith as Darwin did, your logic is totally flawed and you know exactly why.
You are incorrect. Anyone who harbors ‘evolutionary thoughts’ will not simply ‘lose their faith’ — they Already Have lost their faith — whether they know it or not. I’m not just speculating here: this is what God has told us. Read the following Inspired statement:
“The assumption that the events of the first week required thousands upon thousands of yearsâ€¦is infidelity in its most insidious and hence most dangerous formâ€¦ It is one of Satan’s devices to lead the people to accept the fables of infidelity.” CE 190
God has told us that this theory is a fable of infidelity. Anyone who believes it has surrendered his pure faith for the worst and most insidious fables of infidelity. God has said it; I believe it.
In your response, please leave Ellen White out of this unless you believe firmly she is canonical
Your Adventist infidelity is shocking. My Oxford dictionary defines the word ‘canonical’ as “sacred books officially accepted as genuine.” Of course, absolutely, Ellen White is canonical! Her books are both sacred and genuine — They are inspired by the same Spirit who inspired the Bible. If a person does not believe this, he has deceived himself into thinking He is a Christian while in fact he is simply deluded.
please leave Ellen White out of this unless you believe firmly…that â€œsola scripturaâ€ is a fallacy Adventists should avoid.
If someone honestly believes “sola scriptura” he must, of necessity, believe in the Spirit of Prophecy; the Bible tells him he must: Revelation 12:17, Revelation 19:10. The only people who have lost their faith in the Spirit of Prophecy are those who have lost their faith in Sola Scriptura.