Comment on GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation by David Read.
Sean and Kevin, I so agree with you about Ben Clausen’s remarks. They are disheartening. GRI is deeply compromised and is an ineffective witness, as I’ve said here and at other sites several times.
It is GRI’s responsibility to work on a scientifically rigorous model of earth history that is consistent with Adventist Christianity. To say that there are no such models is a abject confession that the millions spent on GRI over the decades have been wasted.
David Read Also Commented
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
But on a brighter note, it is fantastic that Ted Wilson is setting in motion the machinery to revise fundamental belief no. 6.
According to the article at Spectrum, any such revision shall be available for review at least 2 years before the GC session at which it shall be voted upon. So the FB would have to be revised within the next three years, and cannot be revised until the 2015 GC session.
And we can expect the same forces that waylaid the last statement will fight with maniacal intensity to preserve ambiguity in the language. So we can expect that in the next three years, the controversy over origins within the SDA Church will only intensify, not subside.
Recent Comments by David Read
The Reptile King
Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:
“Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”
“Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”
So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?
It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.
The Reptile King
Professor Kent says:
“I don’t do ‘orgins science.’ Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications.”
So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?
The Reptile King
Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we just closed the biology and religion departments? I’m open to that as a possible solution.
The Reptile King
Larry Geraty really did a job on LaSierra. Personally I think it is way gone, compromised beyond hope. The SDA Church should just cut its ties to LaSierra, and cut its losses.
As to the discussion on this thread, round up the usual suspects and their usual arguments.
La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
It is a remarkably fair and unbiased article, and a pretty fair summary of what was said in the recorded conversation.
