Comment on Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case by Ron.
@Bill Sorensen:
Bill, This was a nice discussion, but I don’t think it quite addresses the issue. At least not for me.
1. You listed many areas where people disagree. For example the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, and the protestant belief in the rapture. If so many other Christians can be in error, (according to you), then how can you be so sure that you aren’t in error as well? It seems reasonable to me to assume that we (including the whole SDA church) are probably in error as well. If it is highly likely that at least some of what we believe is in error, then is seems unwise to set up a creed that goes beyond what the Bible says.
Look at our history. At one time our major fundamental belief was that Jesus second coming was going to be Oct. 22 1844. If we were wrong in that fundamental Belief, shouldn’t we hold the rest of our “Fundamental Belief’s” lightly?
2. Remember, I am speaking as a believer now. Our stand has always been to accept the Bible as literal unless there is reason to believe it is not. At the time of Mrs. White we did not have the scientific evidence that we do now. I am beginning to wonder if the fact that, after so many years of honest trying, Genesis and Science remain irreconcilable, that may be an indication that Genesis really is a spiritual story rather than a literal one.
At least I think it should give us pause, and encourage us to be a little more charitable toward our weaker brothers.
3. I am not so certain it is possible to tell the difference between Theistic evolution and Intelligent design.
Did Bob mention that he was a designer? I’ll bet that if Bob sits down and really analyses the design process, that he will see that it is at its heart, an evolutionary process. You generally start with a rough idea of what you want, then you start tweaking it until gradually, and eventually, you have what you want. Usually you don’t start completely from scratch, but you adapt, or branch off from something you have seen or done previously.
So, as I look at the world, it appears to me that evolution is a fundamental law of the universe, even a law of Intelligent Design. Evolution describes the process rather than the Cause. And it seems to me that something so pervasive in nature, must connect somehow with the God who created nature. Part of God’s nature if you will. If God, the creator, is constantly creating, then would that not appear like evolution to us? Far from undermining belief in God, I think evolution as we see it, is evidence that God is in fact, live and well, and continuing to create.
(The main theological point of disagreement here, is whether God continues to create or whether he stopped being the creator after he created Earth. Let’s not go there.)
I think that when Mrs. White objected to Evolution, she was referring to Evolution as the Cause. What we have typically labeled “Atheistic evolution”. That was a fundamental error in early thought about evolution and I agree with Mrs. White’s objections, and Bob’s quotes, on that ground, but I am not sure her statements would apply to evolution as a process. As I read Mrs. White’s statements, it appears to me that she is objecting to skeptics using Evolution as an argument to remove God as the cause, hence her description of God sustaining and moving every atom. It does not appear that she ever conceptualized the possibility of evolution as a process. Because she never made that distinction, I don’t think her statements really address the current issues.
(Please don’t side step this question by reference to evolution requiring death. It doesn’t, and I consider that argument irrelevant, and quite frankly, intellectually insulting.)
4. Bob, et. al. object to theistic evolution. But everyone, even Bob admits to what they call “micro evolution”. (I don’t see any dividing line between evolution and micro-evolution. It is all the same as far as I can tell.) But if God is in control of the movement of every atom as Mrs. White describes, how is it that micro-evolution is not theistic evolution?
Table of Contents
Ron Also Commented
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
@Faith:
“This is utter nonsense. To cease to try to resist temptation is exactly what Satan wants, and will cost you your salvation.”
I am only speaking from personal experience. This is the way it worked in my life. I admit that it was very scary to admit defeat and stop trying. But I didn’t just stop trying. I stopped trying; I gave it to Jesus, and I stopped feeling guilty. I had the same fears as you, that Satan would take over. But that isn’t the way it worked. To my great surprise, I didn’t turn into a raving addict. In fact on that issue, pretty much nothing happened. Instead, God redirected my attention to other more important things that needed to be addressed in my life first. Then later, actually several years later, he dealt with the issue that was my first concern, and now I am pretty much free. If it turns out I am lost and deluded, then, I guess I am lost and deluded, because I wasn’t able to do it, even with Jesus “help”. I trust Jesus will do with me whatever He chooses. I am OK with that. At least, for now, I am a whole lot happier.
“neither God, nor the church are threatened: . . . How could you possibly believe such a thing? If, as you claim, you are all about the love of God, how could you stand by and see Him insulted? . . . Anyone who accepts evolution does not love God.”
First, I am not afraid for the church, because I believe Jesus won the battle at the cross. And, Mrs. White had that funny little vision about the precious gems being trampled in the barnyard. When they were picked up and washed off, they were none the worse for wear. Whether we believe truth makes a huge difference in our lives, but it doesn’t make any difference at all to truth itself. Truth is still truth whether we believe it or not, and it will out in the end.
Second, God is a “big boy”, he can take care of himself. He was reconciled to everything that happens on this earth even before he made it, so I am sure he has a plan. I am here to help where ever I can, but in the end, whatever anyone else believes is between themselves and God. I don’t see how threatening a person’s job is going to help them understand, or believe, or think more highly of God.
“I find that incredible that you would trade your salvation for the theory of a mere man.”
I have given my heart and life to God. That is all I can do. Whether I am saved or not is up to Jesus.
“How cheaply you sell it out.”
I haven’t sold out at all. In fact I am here arguing on behalf of God the best I can.
“If you accept evolution, you deny God. How can you not see it?”
I do see it. I think I understand exactly why you believe the way you do. But I see the issue in a larger context. As I have tried to explain in may other threads on this website, I do not believe there is any inherent reason that evolution and creation are incompatible. I think that is a mis-conception developed 150 years ago when the concept first appeared and that both sides of that argument are wrong. Are we bound to the misconceptions of our forefathers? Doesn’t God expect us to learn and grow with time? We have had 150 years to think about this, and our perspective has grown and changed. That is the concept of “Present Truth”.
If Elder Wilson attempts to “purify the church” by this method, he will be going against the direct, expressed command of Jesus himself. Math. 13:30.
I believe the proper way to purify the church, is to do what Sean and PaulUC are doing on another thread. Sean is compiling scientific studies that support his opinion, and he and PaulUC are having a civil debate over the merits of said studies. If enough people did that, then over time, a body of evidence would grow to the point that more people would find it convincing. I believe this is the hard work that our church has neglected to do. I don’t believe it is fair to punish individuals for an organizational failure.
(PS. I want to commend Sean for his efforts in that direction.)
There is no way to short circuit that process. Nobody will be convinced by firing biology teachers. To most people, that looks too much like the Roman Catholic church persecuting the heretics. It didn’t work for Rome, and it won’t work for SDA’s.
In fact, even if evolution is truly a heresy, just your calling it so is disrespectful of the people you are hopefully trying to win over. It is counterproductive to your true interests. That is why Jesus told us not to do it.
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Bill Sorensen: anyone holding to scripture will also hold to a 7 day literal week. It is an objective given beyond negotiation.
Bill, I am curious, Do the first 3 chapters of Genesis teach you anything else? Have you discovered any truth in those chapters that was not previously spelled out by Mrs. White?
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
BobRyan: I think I will take Paul’s advice in 1Cor 7:19, and pretty much all of Romans 6 — instead of that speculation above
I expected as much. You must be one of those rare people who has perfect control. I am not surprised that you cannot relate to the experience I described. Until you get to that spot, Mark 2:17 applies.
“I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Recent Comments by Ron
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Sean Pitman: No one is demanding that they “get out of the church”. . . . . anti-Adventist views on such a fundamental level.
You don’t see how characterizing a dedicated believer’s understanding of truth as “fundamentally anti-Adventist” would drive them out of the church?
I guess that explains why you don’t see that what you are doing here is fundamentally wrong.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Professor Kent: Nothing saddens me more than the droves who leave the Church when they learn that many of their cherished beliefs regarding this evidence don’t hold up so well to scrutiny.
I agree. I am sure that Sean and Bob don’t mean to undermine faith in God, but every time they say that it is impossible to believe in God and in science at the same time, I feel like they are telling me that any rational person must give up their belief in God, because belief in God and rationality can’t exist in the same space. Who would want to belong to that kind of a church?
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Sean Pitman: and have little if anything to do with the main point of their prophetic claims
And by analogy, this appears to be a weak point in the creation argument. Who is to decide what the main point is?
It seems entirely possible that in trying to make Gen. 1 too literal, that we are missing the whole point of the story.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Regarding falsifying the existence of God through the miraculous:
While it is true that one can’t falsify the existance of God and the Biblical miracles at a philosophical level, it seems to me that it is possible to falsify it at a practical level. For instance prayer for healing. How many families who pray for a miracle for a loved one in the Intensive Care Unit receive a miracle?
While the answer to that question doesn’t answer the question of the existence of God at a philosophical level, it does answer the question at a practical level. After 36 years of medical practice I can say definitively that at a practical level when it comes to miracles in the ICU, God does not exist. Even if a miracle happens latter today, it wouldn’t be enough to establish an expectation for the future. So at a practicle level it seems it is possible level to falsify the existence od God, or at least prove His nonintervention which seems to me to be pretty much the same thing at a functional level.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Sean Pitman:
Sean, what is your definition of “Neo-darwinism” as opposed to “Darwinism” as opposed to “evolution”?
