Comment on Lawrence Geraty, Fritz Guy, and the Framing of Fundamental Belief #6 by Faith.
I don’t recall saying that we need FB#6. All I said is that FB#6 needs to be reworded to close the imaginary loopholes it contains for people determined to believe evolution which flies in the face of what is clearly written in the Bible.
As far as I am concerned the Bible tells it well enough for me. But if they are going to write it down in “plain language” for those who can’t seem to read what’s written on the pages of the Bible, then they apparently do need to carefully define every term so that no one can possibly get a false impression…even the professors.
If you have read all my posts on this page, Steve, you will see that I clearly do believe in the Bible as it reads. My question is: why did you direct this question at me in particular? By this time, I have made my views abundantly clear on this site. I believe the Bible–all of it. I place no trust in mankind for salvation. I do not accept or tolerate the new theology that has entered our church and I can’t wait for all this rubbish to be swept out of our church and get back to the true doctrines established by the Lord. Anyone who believes and truly understands the Bible has no bone to pick with me.
Faith Also Commented
Lawrence Geraty, Fritz Guy, and the Framing of Fundamental Belief #6
Thank you, Bill. I greatly needed this encouragment–especially right now.
A friend of mine recently sent me a copy of a letter to the GC regarding the teaching of spiritual formation at both Andrews and Walla Walla. I am absolutely devastated by the thought of so many young people being led astray at the very places
they went to learn in an SDA atmosphere.
I think of all the deceptions out there, spiritual formation is the worst, most Satanic one of them all. It is directed at the very people who want to be closest to the Lord–and they wind up being stolen from Him instead.
It seems that the Creation controversy is so plainly documented in the Bible that one would have to be willingly deceived. And that is bad enough. But with Spiritual Formation, sorcery is disguised as worship.
I am deeply pained at the thought of the people of God’s church being led astray by the very ones whom they should be able to trust–the ministers. The GC has sponsored these ministers to learn and teach this spiritualism at the hand of Robert Schuler’s organization. I am dumbfounded by this fact alone. But I really don’t understand why, with Ted Wilson now in charge–someone who knows this to be wrong–why, why isn’t this stopped? I consider this to be so heinous a deception, I would have stopped it the day after I was voted into office. I know it is probably not as simple as that. However, surely we should be seeing some sort of measures to put a stop to this by now.
Just like in Ellen’s dream I, too, feel like weeping–weeping for the church and the precious souls that are being lost every day over these two horrible deceptions that are running rampant through our church.
Surely there should be an education program started by the church. Surely
Elder Wilson could send out some sort of warning messages regarding these two false teachings–the Creation issue and Spiritual Formation. Surely he could warn the congregations not to listen to anyone trying to teach them meditative prayer or breath prayer, as it is sometimes called. Warn them that this meditation that is being promoted is nothing more than Transcendental meditation with a new name.
Every SDA needs to read The Omega Rebellion–this should be highlighted by the GC. Why are they not preaching this from every pulpit?
My guess is that they have been far too successful, under the former leadership, in indoctrinating the ministers with this. And now too few of the ministers will raise the warning.
I am just heart-sick over this whole thing.
However, Bill, perhaps the dream you told me about above is just what I needed to hear. I know God is still in control and that He will help us if we ask Him. And I do fully believe this church will be purified of all these false doctrines. My concern is for those who will be lost in the meantime. I guess all we can do is warn those we know and pray, pray, pray for the rest.
Thank you for your post, Bill, and a Happy New Year to you and to all on this site. I sincerly hope that this year will see a great advancement on our journey to the Kingdom.
Oh, did it come across as a suggestion? I’m sorry, I meant to make it crystal clear that heretics don’t belong on leadership committees and shouldn’t be holding leadership offices of any kind.
You seem to be labouring under the misconception that individual opinions can change church doctrine by popular vote. That isn’t how it works.
Here’s how it works:
Each church has its own beliefs and doctrines. You, as an individual, get to look at all these doctrines and go to the one that fits your “opinions” (if that’s what you want to call the doctrines you ascribe to). You do not get to join a church with doctrines that don’t match your “opinion” and try to change it till it does.
The TE belief is heretical to our church’s doctrines. TEs don’t belong in our church…and their “opinions” will certainly not change our church’s doctrines.
Is that plain enough for you?
It was not the intention nor goal of the church to support theistic evolution when this wording for #6 was created. Quite the opposite really, as the members of the GC were actually trusting these heretics to word #6 to demonstrate our belief in the six literal days of creation. For most of us, this belief is so obvious that we would not see the necessity of beating a dead horse, so to speak. These men took advantage of the trust placed in them.
So, no, the church is under no obligation to accept this nonsense just because these guys made a mess of things.
Recent Comments by Faith
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.
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.