Comment on Lawrence Geraty, Fritz Guy, and the Framing of Fundamental Belief #6 by John.
Regarding the question whether in its currently worded form does FB6 represent the official position of the Seventh-day Adventist church, we need to remembeer that in General Conference session, 2010, the delegates voted to affirm “A Response to an Affirmation of Creation.” andalso voted that a reformulated FB6 in 2015 should be voted which reflects the contents of “A Response to an Affirmation of Creation.” Importantly, the content of “A Response . . .” rejects the notion that life forms have been on earth on earth for millions of years, and at the dame time “A Response . . . ” affirms a global flood, thus strongly rejecting progressive creation and theistic evolution. Happily, this means that until 2015 we have an officially voted General conference interpretation of the current wording of FB6 which interpretation, as noted above, does not support the teaching of macroevoltion in our schools as the position of the SDA church regarding earth history.
John Also Commented
Lawrence Geraty, Fritz Guy, and the Framing of Fundamental Belief #6
Thank you, Ken, for your kind evaluation of my remarks, and for your sound explanation of the time period to which your perspectives pertained.
Recent Comments by John
Jay Gallimore comments on evolution conflict
This thoughtful assessment by Jay Gallimore is encouraging and on target. It seems to me that at Atlanta, the Holy Spirit gently took the hands of Ted Wilson and placed them onto the helm of the ship,His church,and turned it directly into the looming iceberg, in response to the heavenly command, “meet it!” As never before, this is a time for the continuing expression of genuine Holy-Spirit-promted inter-family love, prayer, respect, dialogue, and patience. As guided by God, in the end, only good and healing can flow from such decisions taken at Atlanta. May God give me and each of us the living faith needed at such a time.
One reason why the debate about origins is relevant
Well said, Roger, this is part of the big picture puzzle of which David Read speaks so well. I am very concerned about the approach taken by Steve at the moment. Perhaps we can expand the response by Jesus to Steve and to all of us before the time of the ultimate judgment along the following lines. I begin by quoting what Steve says:
Jesus saves me because I have a trusting, committed relation with him. [So far so good.] I simply do not believe on the Day of Judgment I will find myself standing before Jesus to hear him say, â€œI know you loved me with all your heart and to the best of your ability; I know you took every opportunity to draw close to me; I know you cared for the unlovable, but [now we need to let Jesus speak more fully]:
â€œBut, and I say this with a broken heart, because you did not believe in six recent literal 24 our days of Creation, about which I lovingly and repeatedly told you about in the Scriptures, and which idea was not new to you but you had studied about it all your life, and the Holy Spirit had keep prompting you to believe this truth all your life, but you rejected His sweet voice to the end, you, and I say this with tears in my voice, cannot enter into eternal life. Why? Steve, I am the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). This means that I and my teachings are one which means that to reject what I say is to reject me. To not trust what I say, is to not trust in me. To not love and accept what I say is to not love me, and not to be in committed relationship with me.
â€œAll those individuals, Steve, who enter my kingdom, accept gladly, happily and eagerly whatsoever I have taught and have commanded them in both the Old and New Testaments (Matt 28:20). This includes my teaching about a six day creation, and the fact that I created humans both male and female at the beginning (Matt 19:4-6), even on the sixth day of Creation (Gen 1:27, and amplified in Gen 2:7, 15-18, 21-25).
â€œI would love to welcome you into the kingdom, but if you were to come into my kingdom, and if you do not believe in a six day recent creation, you would need to change your mind and believe in my teaching about a six day creation, which, unfortunately, it seems you will not do, and which I neither can nor will force you to do because I respect your freedom. So I say this weeping, it is not I who have rejected you–if your absolute, ultimate, and final life position remains that you continue to disbelieve me in my teaching about a six day creation–it is you who have rejected me, my beloved Steve, whom I adore beyond words. Nevertheless, [before the Day of Judgment] I hold out hope to you, and invite you to believe my words. If you love me, please believe and obey me (John 14:15)â€
Perhaps we can imaging Jesus gently and with tears saying something like this to all of us human individuals before the final day of judgment?
“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
Well said, Yolanda. I join you in a renewed committment to being about our Father’s business. The merciful and faithful Creator is moving with a strong arm. With Zacharias, we can continue to say, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel” (Luke 1;67).
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
The moving of the Holy Spirit in this vote is to be praised. The compassionate Creator is honored. Significantly, by this Holy-Spirit-led-vote by the world Seventh-day Adventist Church in General Conference session, the Holy Spirit has just publically endorsed to the world the historical, literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. With Zecharias, we can say, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel” (Luke 1:68).
Clifford Goldstein: Seventh-day Darwinians, Redux
Goldstein is correct. Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on Natural Evil, is indeed must reading for all in this discussion. His points are on target. Moreover, the authors start with a death-free eschatology in their theodicy without which they admit that they would have no answer for current natural evil in this Earth. However, in order to accomplish this starting point, they must grant a degree of univosity to biblical eschatological texts which they do not grant to biblical protologial texts. Unfortunately, the authors cannot treat Genesis 1-11 as history because they have accepted as true the macro-evolutionary deep-time model of earth history.
It is a pleasure to read the results of Goldstein’s close reading of this most important book.