Dear Robert S: Let me thank …

Comment on GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation by Kevin Paulson.

Dear Robert S:

Let me thank you for your excellent argument on this fallacious comparison between the open advocacy of evolution on an Adventist campus and a person who struggles with overeating. At exactly what point the latter occurs is rarely the same for different people. But your point is devastating about what it would mean to hire a teacher who advocated gluttony. That is the proper parallel to the issue being addressed on this Web site.

It is rapidly becoming clear that those seeking to justify the denial of our faith at the hands of so-called scholars will stop at nothing to fabricate arguments in their defense, no matter how absurd.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Kevin Paulson Also Commented

GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Dear Ken:

You asked about Ben Clausen. I was deeply ashamed of the statements he made during the debate at the GC on the creation resolution. And if in fact he is not prepared to defend the scientific credibility of a literal six-day creation as taught by inspired writings, the Geosciemce Research Institute–and the church which sponsors that Institute–would be far better served without him.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Dear Ken:

The only definition of God’s compassion that I acknowledge is the one found in God’s Word. We cannot take our own standard of compassion and apply it to what Inspiration says. Rather, we must define our own standards of compassion and morality by the counsel of Inspiration.

Inspiration is clear that the will of God as revealed in its pages is knowable by finite man and must be applied by God’s servants to the faith community (see II Thess. 3:14-15; I Tim. 1:3). The testimony of Biblical history is that the will of God as proclaimed by His prophets and written in the Sacred Pages was understandable by finite beings, and that the latter were held accountable–by man as well as God–for their response to the same.

Let us beware of defining “humility” as ambiguity of conviction. This is a false form of humility not found in the Word of God. I like what Ellen White says on this point:

“Skepticism and unbelief are not humility. Implicit belief in Christ’s word is true humility, true self-surrender” (DA 535).

Elsewhere she writes of the contrast between the style of teaching Jesus used, which exuded authority, with that of the rabbis in His day who made the Bible seem unclear and equivocal:

“But while His teaching was simple, He spoke as one having authority. This characteristic set His teaching in contrast with that of all others. The rabbis spoke with doubt and hesitancy, as if the Scriptures might be interpreted to mean one thing or exactly the opposite. The hearers were daily involved in greater uncertainty” (DA 253).

It is fascinating how so many associate the mindset of the Jews in Christ’s day with inflexible dogmatism. It would seem the above statement portrays the Jews who rejected Jesus in a very different light–one with which today’s “progressive” Adventists might find more harmony than they realize!

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Dear Geanna:

You give every evidence of being an intelligent person, yet you make comments which demonstrate substantial ignorance of Biblical themes and history. Certainly you know that while death was the penalty for violating the Sabbath commandment, and other commandments also, in ancient Israel’s theocracy, that God has not authorized such a mandate for His church today. But this hardly means that the church is not to exercise discipline toward members who stray from Bible truth or morality. Laboring with the erring, public censure, as well as removal from employment and/or membership, are the Biblical means whereby the church is to deal with problems such as those we are addressing in this context (see II Thess. 3:14-15; I Tim. 1:3). But the difference between what God expected of His ancient theocracy and what is expected of His church today, is very clear in the writings of Inspiration.

Again I urge you to consider the logic of your thinking and where it will lead if you are consistent with your arguments. You seem very clearly to be saying that because the church contains one–indeed, many–types of sinners, that therefore we can’t discipline anyone or we will all be thrown out. Surely you recognize the peril in such reasoning. Using this logic, we could argue for the retention of pedophiles, wife beaters, and members of the Ku Klux Klan in the church. After all, we’re all sinners, so if one sin excludes a person from the fellowship of faith, what about all the other sins that remain unrebuked?

There is a big difference between dealing with one who by voice or pen espouses error of belief, such as theistic evolution, and one who indulges a sin such as overeating. In the latter case, God alone is often the determiner of when and how one has indulged in this regard. This is not to diminish the egregious nature of the sin of gluttony, which as you say Ellen White is very clear about. But the fact remains that regarding certain sins, only God can determine when wrong has been committed because only He knows when innocent pleasure gives way to harmful indulgence. That is a far, far cry from one who teaches false doctrine, which can be determined simply by comparing a person’s statements to the written counsel of God.

You also appear to have partaken of that foolish spirit which says that reaching the world with the gospel is somehow more important than keeping the church consistent and faithful within its own ranks. But the secret to true evangelistic success is revival and reformation INSIDE the church. That is the purpose of this Web site, as well as the agenda of our new General Conference president. And godly church members everywhere praise the Lord for the faithful witness of those who have dared to speak up for truth in this context.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


Recent Comments by Kevin Paulson

NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
To all participants in the present discussion:

If we’re going to address the issue of how the origins debate should be handled in the public schools, I think we should recognize from the outset that this is most different from the basic question raised by this Web site, which of course is the question of whether theories of origins contrary to Scripture, the Spirit of Prophecy writings, and fundamental Adventist beliefs should be promoted in a Seventh-day Adventist classroom or pulpit.

As a strong Biblical conservative, I am constrained both to support the Genesis creation account as well as the separation of church and state. Seventh-day Adventists have historically supported both on strict Bible grounds. As strongly as I oppose within the church the teaching of ideas and practices which contradict God’s written counsel, I oppose with equal strength the efforts of certain Christian to impose Christian teachings and personal values through civil law.

With this in mind, I believe the best approach to origins in a public school classroom is a modified version of a proposal advanced by the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, very much a devout evolutionist. Gould argued that the teaching of creationism did in fact belong in the teaching of science in public schools, but that it should be covered specifically when addressing the history of scientific thought. I would take this further than Gould and say evolution belongs in that section also.

Technically, as I see this discussion, neither creation nor evolution constitutes strict science, as science requires both observation and experimentation, and no one was present when the natural world came into existence. Science can be summoned to support both theories, but at the bottom line, both concepts invariably lead away from science into the realm of philosophy and faith.

As with other issues of theology and morality which at times enter the public square, it has long been my conviction that the objective evidence supporting the Biblical worldview is sufficiently decisive that the spurs of civil coercion need not be used to promote it to the larger society. The Christian community has sufficient resources and a massive popular presence in our culture, and these should be utilized to set before the public the evidence supporting the claims of the Bible and the Christian faith. Most of all, Christians need to focus less on impacting society through politics and more on impacting their neighbors and society in general through the power of a godly Christian example. From my experience, even the most secular minds have trouble gainsaying the power of the latter.

Finally, I think Phil Brantley needs to define a bit more carefully what he means by “mainstream,” when he says creationism is not a “mainstream” view. Does he mean mainstream in terms of accepted scientific thought, or does he refer to popular opinion? If the latter is considered, it might help to note that every poll I have seen indicates a large percentage (often a majority) of the American public at least, holds to a view of origins closer to Genesis than to Darwin.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
Perhaps it helps to remember that while Aaron was a facilitator, Moses was a watchman. The latter are the sort of leaders God seeks in a time of crisis such as this.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda
Dear “Professor Kent”:

You seem to forget, once again, that neither Christ, His love, His forgiveness, nor His cross would be necessary if Darwinian macro-evolution is the story of humanity’s origins.

And once again you give evidence of your embrace of the false dichotomy so popular in modern and postmodern Adventism between “Christ” and the “doctrines.” You insist that correct doctrine will save no one. And you are wrong. Over and over again, in Holy Scripture, truth is declared to be the means of salvation (Hosea 4:6; Matt. 4:4; John 8:31; II Thess. 2:13; I Tim. 4:16). Such truth must be internalized within the heart, to be sure, but it is still the means by which God saves men and women.

You cannot separate Jesus from a literal understanding of the early chapters of Genesis, since repeatedly He made clear in His teachings that He took these events literally. The same holds true for the other New Testament authors. You cannot have the Gospel and evolution too. You cannot embrace Jesus and relegate the Genesis Flood to mythic or mere literary status. It is impossible.

The longer this discussion proceeds, the clearer it will be that you and all others who think as you do are in the wrong church. It is tragic you insist on putting yourself through the needless pain and agony of living a lie.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda
Though I had briefly reviewed the letter from Jason and Janelle Shives some days ago, tonight was the first time I actually sat down to read the entire document. It is a masterful though tragic account of a most disturbing situation.

I have known Jason Shives for some time, and have admired him for his courage in standing for truth. He and I share a common experience in having both served as president of the Loma Linda University student body.

What is needed is a grassroots movement of godly students like Jason and Janelle, who will not sit and listen quietly to the perversion of truth in Adventist classrooms. Leaders with the courage to act are needed, most assuredly, but when a groundswell of concern from the young becomes evident, they can act with the awareness that the rising generaiton does not, after all, wish to see the church’s teachings trashed, as the liberals devoutly believe.

If the Bible means anything at all, revival and reformation involve drastic changes in the faith and practice of a community which for a time has departed from the written counsel of God. In the Bible story, this has generally meant the removal of unfaithful personnel from positions of influence and leadership. Most assuredly this must happen in contemporary Adventism. If it means closing departments or even institutions until we can staff them with faithful teachers, we must be prepared to do this.

Let us keep in particular our new General Conference President in our prayers, as the task of guiding the denominational ship of state rests to a large degree in his hands.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


An apology to PUC
Dear Karl:

I truly appreciate your clarity and your speaking from the heart as you have. PUC is my alma mater also. And the things you have described I have heard described by a number of credible eyewitnesses. This climate of doctrinal indifference and postmodern spirituality, in which any and all viewpoints are given equal value (except of course those actually challenging the undergirding mindset of these folks), is a scandal of unapralleled proportions.

You are so right about constituents and school administrators turning a blind eye. I can only hope this is now starting to change, with the agitation of those like the organizers of this Web site, and the tone set by our new General Conference President.

I truly believe, however, that the real root of this tragedy is not so much postmodernism as those popular theories of salvation in modern Adventism which have devalued the necessity of correct doctrine and practical holiness. Once salvation is seen to be secure apart from correct belief and a godly life, once we accept the lie that error and sin are the unavoidable companions of even the sanctified believer, it became inevitable that erroneous worldviews and sinful practices would become less and less offensive in the church.

We need a thorough revival and a thorough reformation, and a consequently thorough cleansing of the ranks. I have been studying lately the Bible stories of revival and reformation in the faith community. Believe me, the process was never a feel-good, everybody-come-together-unconditionally type of event. False worship was destroyed. Wrong practices were condemned and expelled from the camp. Apart from such real-life consequences, these cherished words become just another empty slogan.

Thanks again, Karl, for your candor.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson