A little-known history about Belief 6
By Educate Truth Staff
This forty-eight slide presentation briefly outlines the history of fundamental belief six. It sheds light on why La Sierra University can accept Belief 6 and still continue to endorse long ages of life on earth. It is also noteworthy that two of LSU’s previous presidents were key players in the wording of Belief 6.
Belief 6 needs to be amended in General Conference Session as soon as possible to reflect the four historic Adventist landmarks on creation which are recently affirmed in “A Response to an Affirmation of Creation.” After seeing this presentation you’ll see why.
March 17, 2010
Regardless of any future – additional changes – Church employees are already required to uphold the voted and confirmed doctrines of the Seventh-DAY Adventist church to the extent that their employment requires them to speak on one of those doctrines.
So for a tiny example – you cannot hold the office of President of our Conference, or Union, or Division and go around bashing the doctrine on the Trinity.
This has come as a bit of a surprise to some of our evolutionist friends – but even so – we have had that particular practice for quite some time.
That does not mean that the small splinter factions that hold to one view or another – are being asked to go somewhere else – but they are never asked to promote “anti-Trinitarian” views from the pulpit or from Church office where a statement on that doctrine is to be expected.
Not all that surprising then — that our stand on the issue of Christ our Creator in Belief #6 is “no change” from our position on the Trinity.
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)
March 18, 2010
Indeed a number of our Fundamental Beliefs have associated with them “someone who differs” – be it the Trinity or Creation or …
Suppose we do away with all of that – (since your question brings up the what-if scenario sandbox anyway) and we actually only have 1 voted doctrine. That doctrine is “thou shalt not insist that something is true – if it is not popular”? In other words as long as “Someone objects” to a given doctrine — then that doctrine cannot be voted denominationally as something we as a church stand for.
That surely solves the problem of the “7 billion” because there could be nothing we hold as true – that anyone might object to.
However we would run into the problem that the church that approves ALL views stands for nothing. And as it turns out – we already HAVE a “Unitarian Universalist” denomination filling that “All-views welcomed” role.
But even so – if we did that, we would have our universities competing to be the “best public university that SDA tuition, tithe and offering dollars can buy” and we would have our churches striving to be the “best Unitarian Universalist congregation that an all-views-welcomed open door policy can generate”.
Our new guiding principles would be very careful to never advance beyond a warm-fuzzy statement something like this -
Since there is already a group today staking out that territory – we need not imagine what a church like that would be like — we can already see it in real life.
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)
March 18, 2010
@BobRyan:
Hi Bob Ryan,
Again you are completely speculating (and not even a good speculation). Those quotes are about the leaders of this church. You prove my point even further by stating over and over that the 27 FB is always the book to ‘unify’ on. This is all that you say every time. What a shame. Don’t you want to unify on what the Bible says? Again the 27 FB is confusion. Our pioneers were right when they said people would look to books like these (creeds) for insight, etc… I’m sorry that you cannot see this.
God Bless,
David R. David R.(Quote)
March 19, 2010
@David R.:
Hi Bob Ryan,
Again you are completely speculating (and not even a good speculation).
Speculating about what?
David R. Said:
Those quotes are about the leaders of this church.
My reference was to members of the church that were off on wild tangents – everything under the sun — all of them claiming “my view is from the Bible”.
Ellen White was very clear that chaos of that order was not pleasing at all to God.
1. I always argue that the 27 FB are confirmed established Bible doctrine defended and proven “sola scriptura”. And remember, the evolutionist case is NOT a Bible argument. Nobody is coming here saying “I studied my Bible and suddenly found out that Moses was a darwinist”
2. I always argue that “tearing down” what has been established is not a funny kind of “progress”. However let’s keep this in context – our evolutoinist friends are NOT making a Bible case here!
This is not a case of being closed off to some “better form of exegesis” – these guys can’t get away from the Bible fast enough or long enough. Just watch guys like Evr Taylor scamper off every time the Bible or Ellen White comes up.
In this particular example – there really is no “counter” coming from the standpoint of inspired text – authored by God.
That is a straw man imagining that the 27 FB are simply random statements on doctrine – instead of the sola-scriptura grounded Bible doctrines that they are.
Every Baptist, Methodist, Branch Davidian and JW on the planet claims that their views are nothing but “what the Bible teaches”. That claim alone is not sufficient to make anything they say “valid”. At some point they have to MAKE Their case.
And as we keep pointing out here (and you keep ignoring for some reason) the evolutionists are not even TRYING to make a Bible case.
That is a matter of subjective opinion on your part. you are welcome to it.
If you have a Bible point you want to make showing the 27 FB to be wrong – that would be a different thing altogether.
I have shown that wild diversity in doctrine was NOT approved by Ellen White or the SDA leadership.
I will now show just how far this 28FB idea was embedded in 19th century SDA leadership.
BobRyan(Quote)
March 19, 2010
For those who would use the FBs (or any other thing) to separate brethren, advocating, in its purest form, disfellowshipping those who do not believe given doctrines, what do you have to say regarding these scriptures?
(Mouse over each to view the text.)
Matthew 13:24-30, NKJV
(Note: the tares were allowed to grow with the wheat until the harvest. Matthew 13:30, NKJV)
Matthew 13:37-42, NKJV
(Note: the angels are the ones who gather out those who offend. Matthew 13:40-41, NKJV)
Matthew 13:47-50, NKJV
(Note: the separation happens at the end of the age. Matthew 13:49, NKJV) Ray Dickinson(Quote)
March 19, 2010
These texts have to do with Church efforts to control those outside of the Church or to remove all who are sinful from the Church. In other words, the Church should never think to take on civil powers of government to enforce its views on society at large. Also, the Church should not think to remove all who are sinful from the Church or there would be nobody left inside the Church. However, the Church can and must control its own internal government with careful effort and discipline that entails the use of specifically defined boundaries or requirements for official paid representation. In other words, the Church cannot tolerate open, deliberate, decided rebellion of its own leaders and paid representatives against its very clearly stated goals and ideals. There is a big difference between keeping and working with the sinful who are trying to change and improve compared to trying to work with the openly rebellious who feel no need for change or improvement…
Consider the advise of Paul to the Corinthians in this regard:
In this passage Paul is not suggesting that all of us who are sinful have no place in the Church. That isn’t what he is saying at all or else none of us could step on even the parking lot of the local Church. What Paul is saying is that the Church organization must make judgments regarding those who are openly in opposition against the stated positions of the Church in various moral and even governmental issues.
Those who are openly rebelling against the order and government of the Church organization, an organization that Paul claims was Divinely appointed, need to be removed from at least their paid positions of official Church representation (and Paul uses even stronger language than this). If they see no need for help or a change in their ideas, and they are directly and decidedly undermining the stated ideals of the Church, despite sincere efforts to turn them aside from their course of opposition, they simply cannot be maintained in leadership positions within the Church.
People like this are not coming to the Church to gain any sort of help to overcome what they know are defects in their ideas or characters. The Church’s doors should always be open to all those who are actually coming to the hospital for help with what they know are their own sicknesses. However, the Church cannot accommodate those in leadership positions who see no need to change their views or actions; views and actions that are directly opposed to the clearly stated ideals and goals of the Church organization.
In fact, no organization could long tolerate a complete lack of true internal governmental control and discipline without an eventual meltdown of the organization into complete anarchy and chaos…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman, M.D.(Quote)
March 19, 2010
you have nicely equivocated between “not paying to promote error” and “disfellowship”.
1.No text in your list deals with the problem of paying professors to teach heresy.
2. Conference after conference has been held in an effort to patiently explain to the evolutionist evangelists that they are in error.
3. So since you ask that we look into the counsel we get from the Gospel of Matthew on this subject — (Matt 18 in this case) would mean that we now must disfellowship them — and this is not a direction that most of those who object to evolutionism on this web site have ventured into – but now that you point to the book of Matthew. When we combine the Matt 18 process details with the fact of the faith and sciences conferences in 2003-2005 designed to confront evolutionist with the information about the bible denying position they were taking “in the nicest” way imaginable — I guess we have exhausted a key ” Matt 18 step before disfellowship” that you have asked us to look into.
My guess is that this is a case of backfiring in regard to your intent.
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)
March 19, 2010
These texts have to do with Church efforts to control those outside of the Church or to remove all who are sinful from the Church. In other words, the Church should never think to take on civil powers of government to enforce its views on society at large. Also, the Church should not think to remove all who are sinful from the Church or there would be nobody left inside the Church. However, the Church can and must control its own internal government with careful effort and discipline that entails the use of specifically defined boundaries or requirements for official paid representation. In other words, the Church cannot tolerate open, deliberate, decided rebellion of its own leaders and paid representatives against its very clearly stated goals and ideals. There is a big difference between keeping and working with the sinful who are trying to change and improve compared to trying to work with the openly rebellious who feel no need for change or improvement…
Consider the advise of Paul to the Corinthians in this regard:
In this passage Paul is not suggesting that all of us who are sinful have no place in the Church. That isn’t what he is saying at all or else none of us could step on even the parking lot of the local Church. What Paul is saying is that the Church organization must make judgments regarding those who are openly in opposition against the stated positions of the Church in various moral and even governmental issues.
Those who are openly rebelling against the order and government of the Church organization, an organization that Paul claims was Divinely appointed, need to be removed from at least their paid positions of official Church representation (and Paul uses even stronger language than this). If they see no need for help or a change in their ideas, and they are directly and decidedly undermining the stated ideals of the Church, despite sincere efforts to turn them aside from their course of opposition, they simply cannot be maintained in leadership positions within the Church.
People like this are not coming to the Church to gain any sort of help to overcome what they know are defects in their ideas or characters. The Church’s doors should always be open to all those who are actually coming to the hospital for help with what they know are their own sicknesses. However, the Church cannot accommodate those in leadership positions who see no need to change their views or actions; views and actions that are directly opposed to the clearly stated ideals and goals of the Church organization.
In fact, no organization could long tolerate a complete lack of true internal governmental control and discipline without an eventual meltdown of the organization into complete anarchy and chaos…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman, M.D.(Quote)
March 19, 2010
When we look at the hover text that appears in response to the mouse-over event as you suggest above for Matt 13:37-42, we find the explicit statement “the field is the world” – but you have positioned this as “the field is the church” such that the church is not “allowed” to remove the leaven as in the 1Cor 5 case where Paul insists that the leven of sin be removed in the form of Church discipline that expells a member of the church who is in sin.
As Sean pointed out already – the Matt 13 text deals with the world and clearly God “is not willing” (and obviously the Church “is not able”) to remove the wicked from the world prior to the 2nd coming.
Thus the only context for the church taking action is seen in Matt 18 and 1Cor 5… and sure enough – the church is actually told to take action — long before the 2nd coming.
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)
March 19, 2010
Note the following comments from Mrs. White in this regard:
Note that there is a very clear difference between judging open rebellion against the standards of the Church and judging motive or supposedly hidden sins… a very big difference…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman, M.D.(Quote)
March 19, 2010
Ray’s comments here illustrate a good point regarding the list of reasons presented for opposition to the actions being suggested by this web site.
1. Some people actually want to evangelize for evolutionism and so they oppose this web site. (Obviously Ray is not one of those).
2. Some people personally prefer not to “believe in” evolutionism – but they have many other items on the liberal-agenda list and so they want a push for more “plurality” and less focus on our Fundamental Beliefs. This topic then appeals to a part of their agenda – and so while not actually believing in evolutionism themselves – they defend it as a valid form of Adventism (as if that made any sense at all).
3. Ray points out the existence of a third form of opposition – which comes from those who strongly oppose evolution, agree with the Bible on creation – but for whatever reason they do not believe that the church discipline doctrine that we see in Matt 18 and 1Cor 5 should be considered valid — and opt instead of extending the Matt 13 teaching on the fact that the world has wicked people in it until the 2nd coming – means that the church should not engage in the Matt 18 and 1Cor 5 form of action.
They also view the 28 FB as a “creed” the kind of which they suppose that the early Adventists of the 19th century (including Ellen White) would strongly oppose.
My guess is that Ray’s oppositon to evolutionism would include removing teachers from paid positions that advocate evolutionism – but would not include removing them from the books of the Adventist Church.
===========================
I have not been arguing that we should remove them from membership in the church so far. But in responding to Ray’s point – as I look at the texts involved – I am starting to wonder if maybe I should not be urging for disfellowship in the case of those who have indeed gone through the Matt 18 steps – being confronted by church leaders with the error of their position and who still choose to promote it.
Still thinking about that one.
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)
March 19, 2010
Don’t Judge Me:
Some might also find the comments of Samuel Pipim very interesting regarding the very common yet self-contradictory “Don’t judge me” philosophy of the popular post-modern culture.
http://drpipim.org/seminar-handouts-contemporaryissues-101/122-dont-judge-me-the-gospel-of-tolerance.html
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman, M.D.(Quote)
March 19, 2010
Ray Dickinson states:
Why do we need the authority of the church to define our beliefs, when we have Jesus’ authority?!
In light of Ray’s understandable concern, all of us in the discussion of the needed amendment of FB6 can take courage at the extraordinarily significant preamble to our statement of Fundamental Beliefs voted in 1980. Its powerful language shows that our statements are not creedal, can be revised, and that the Bible is our only creed:
“Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understaning of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.”
In view of this valuable preamble, it is important to note that in 2004 the Holy Spirit led the General Conference Executive Committee to vote clearer language, than now exists in FB6, by which to express the church’s understanding of the teaching of the Bible on this key biblical truth. Placing this helpful, Bible-honoring language into FB6 at a General Conference session is actually encouraged by the preamble of the church’s statement of beliefs. Doing so would not only bring honor to God in the church’s witness to the world regarding origins, but would also enable church members, students, teachers, administrators in the church’s schools and church structure to understand more clearly, endorse and support the the Holy Spirit-guided position of the church on origins. John(Quote)
March 19, 2010
Good points Sean. Thank you. Ray Dickinson(Quote)
March 20, 2010
You’re welcome Ray. Thank you for your thoughtful questions…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman, M.D.(Quote)
March 21, 2010
George,
You have also asked several times for an explanation regarding why a six-day Creation is said to be so important to the gospel. You wonder why do we not simply emphasize that humanity is sinful and that Jesus’ death on the cross saves us. In other words, you seem to be asking what does a six-day Creation have to do with these central facts of the gospel?
The following consideration is only one among several which have been of assistance to me in grasping why a six-day Creation is vitally important to the gospel. If the claim that life has been on earth for millions of years truly reflects earth history, then a six-day Creation cannot be a true earth history model, and the fossilerous geologic column indeed has taken millions of years to form. This would mean, of course, that human beings have allegedly made their appearance only recenlty in earth history. Above all, if the long age of life on earth model is true, this would show that life and death have been going on for millions of years before the existence of humans and before the first human sin. If this consequence is true, human sin in this case is no longer responsible for death either for humans or for the lower creatures. However, the Bible clearly teaches in Genesis 2-3; Romans 5 and 8 that by one man sin entered the world and death by sin. Even the lower creatures, that cannot sin, were subjected to corruption or to death not of their own will but by the Creator (Romans 8:20-23) because of the first human sin. Thus, accoridng to the Bible there should not be death in the animal kingdom or in the geologic column before the sin of Adam and Eve. But the geologic column, if interepreted by conventional geology, counters this biblical truth by having animals and even proto humans dying for millions of years before the first human sin.
Now, if physical death exits before human sin, what effect does this have upon the gospel, i.e., upon the substitutionary atonement, upon the cross of Christ, upon the heart of the gosepl? Nigel Cameron pinpoints the effect which death before sin has upon the gospel. He states that were Adam from the beginning under the effects of the curse of physical death as implied in evolutionary theory and in theistic evolution, “this overthwors the sin-death causality, and in so doing pulls the rug from under the feet of the evangeilical understanding of the atonement” (Nigel Cameron, EVOLUTION AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE [Greenwood, South Dak: Attic Press, 1983], p. 60).
Cameron is indicating that if true, long ages of life on earth before the sin of Adam and Eve show that death is not the wage of sin. However, that death is the wage of sin is the biblical foundation of the substitutionary atonemetn. This means that if the geologic column indeed shows that death is not the wage of sin, then the geologic column, interpreted conventionally, implies that the death of Christ is not the wage of sin and that, therefore, the blood of Christ no longer forgives sins. This means, George, that we have no gospel if death has been around for millions of years before human sin because there allegedly is no six-day Creation. How does a six-day Creation enter the picture with hope?
The answer is that a six-day Creation places the first appearance of death after the first human sin, thus rendering the death of Christ indeed the wage of sin. This means that with a six-day Creation the blood of Christ does indeed still forgive our sins. This shows how that without a six-day Creaiton we have no gospel, but how that with a six-day Creation we the gospel. This helps me to see why a six-day Creaiton is so important to the gospel. I hope, George, that you find it useful as well.
One additional point. The conclusion above also shows why a global Flood is so important in any acount of a recent six-day Creation model of earth history and how the Flood is important to the gospel. In ways that continue to be studied, many stata, not all, were deposited during the global Flood, thus accounting for the deposition of basic portions of the column during the Flood, and, thereby, making possible a recent, six-day Creation. In this fashion the Flood safeguards the gospel, because without the Flood, death would exist in the geologic column before the first human sin. But with a Flood the basic column with its death is formed after the first human sin, thereby preserving the essential sin-death causality, which, as notd above, is the basis of the biblical, evangelical understanding of a Calvary able to forgive sins. john(Quote)
March 21, 2010
The spiritual truths espoused in the Bible are intimately tied with its historicity. Shane Hilde(Quote)
May 31, 2010
Dr Pitman
I appreciate that you hold strongly to a straight reading of scripture. It is easy to claim that you are consistent in your straight reading of scripture but a little more difficult to deliver. According to your premise I presume then that you as an MD will frequently diagnose devil possession as described in Mark 9:14 and Luke 9:37. Here the signs of spirit possession are very clear as is the appropriate treatment. If you hold to this treatment as described by Jesus then I think your argument is at least consistent though I think you a fool. If you do, as I suspect, use anticonvulsants to treat what the Bible describes as spirit possession then you yourself are performing something other than a straight reading of scripture. Furthermore you are using a naturalistic interpretation and explanation in your medical practice. Something that you condemn in those that would read Genesis and see it as an inspired document meant to teach us something about the creator but not meant to be a exhaustive in describing mechanism.
I do not know anything about you expect as much as I can glean from your public writings. I am afraid they strike me as altogether more negative and destructive than I would expect of someone claiming to have accepted the Grace of God and following the admonition of Jesus in Matthew 13:24. pauluc(Quote)
May 31, 2010
@pauluc:
Again I have to say it is refreshing the way the “all for evolutionism” group is willing to come up front and say that they really don’t know what the Bible teaches – and then show us how being in that position is so necessary to accepting evolutionism as the right answer for the doctrine on origins.
(Of course they do believe the wild myth that “birds come from reptiles” so not sure how much of that should have been a surprise above).
but here are a few hints for the Bible students.
1. Scripture indicates that some cases are physical sickness and others were demon possession. There is no detail in scripture to give you “signs” for which is which – as if people have some kind of neon sign above their head when it is sickness vs demon possession. But the Pauluc comments above appear to be “unninformed” on that point.
2. It is instructive that the “take the Bible as it reads” is considered to be “foolish” by a certain group of “all-for-evolutionism” evangelists.
This is helpful for the general reader as well – because it tells them just how far this “don’t believe what you find in the Bible” argument goes. And the fact that it does NOT stop with the first two chapters of Genesis! No nor even the first 7 chapters of Genesis!
3. In the 3SG91 statement – we are told that theistic evolutionism is “infidelity in disguise” because it is preached by those who pretend to believe – or as Pauluc stated it “read Genesis and see it as an inspired document meant to teach us something about the creator but not meant to be a exhaustive in describing mechanism” – where “not meant to be a exhaustive in describing mechanism” is meant as a euphamism for “not meant to be trusted as a reliable record of past events”.
Again – these statements by the all-for-evolutionism group are very instructive for the unbiased objective reader that wants to know just how far down that evolution-rabbithole goes.
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)
June 13, 2010
@BobRyan:
Whoosh! There it goes. Completely missed that point. Perhaps I should try to spell it out a bit more simply.
1] When we in 2010 see exactly the same events as described in Mark/Luke almost every fundamentalist/literalist would take the child to seek medical attention and expect a naturalistic explanation and diagnosis and a treatment based on current evidence based medical practice.
2] This knowledge base was not available at the time of Jesus. There was no other explanation for any remarkable healing other than the actions of God.
3] You may be able to tell what is spirit possession and what is illness but I do not believe I could and am not aware of any scriptural passage that gives that information. Please could you tell me.
4] I cannot see any different between the event now and at the time of Jesus except in the interpretation. The unexplained at the time of Christ was considered of the Devil or the spirit realm. Now we would seek in the first instance a naturalistic interpretation and treatment.
5] If you insist on interpreting physical illness such as epilepsy as the work of the Devil and treat by pray and fasting I would indeed consider you foolish and indeed so might the law of the land in filing criminal negligence charges against you.
6] Whether we care to admit it or not we live in a world where most everything in our lives is based on naturalistic mechanisms yet we pretend we live in a world that is altogether what it was 4000 years ago. We pretend we have nothing to learn and nothing to unlearn.
7] I should not have to spell out the implication for a reading of Genesis 1 and 2.
It is remarkable that you should know without question that I am from the “all for evolutionism group” whatever that may mean.
Some of us are acutely aware of our ignorance of what the bible is really saying and of science and the immensity of existing scientific knowledge and do not have the luxury of an intrinsic knowledge of every answer. We simply cling to what we do know, the saving Grace of God and the love, acceptance and fellowship of a community of saints who long for the coming Kingdom and practice kingdom principles daily. Unfortunately I do not see the call from this site for a purging of the Church as consistent with the teachings of Jesus or the apostles.
Do you take Acts 5 or Matt 13:24-27 literally? Cannot the Church now like the early Church accept variance of opinion on major issues? Do you have the hubris to suggest you are the harvesters at the end of time and have the role of rooting out the “weeds”? pauluc(Quote)
June 13, 2010
What we are doing here in the last days is diminishing the power of God through modern science. And this so called Theistic evolution is the ultimate put down of God, it’s saying we worship a very weak God, one who took millions of years of mistakes to Create man in His own image. One whose idea of “it was good” was a cave man grunting around a fire while gnawing on the thighbone of some creature that he had killed with a rock. Evolution I can understand, Creationism I believe, but Theistic evolution is just plain blasphemy. It’s an insult to God and Jesus. It’s saying that man essentially created himself with a weak gods help. Richard Sherwin(Quote)
June 13, 2010
“It is remarkable that you should know without question that I am from the ‘all for evolutionism group’ whatever that may mean.”
Pauluc, this is an exceedingly frequent ploy, especially Bob, to discredit others whose views differ. I’m a young-earth creationist myself, but I have been continually told otherwise. Actually, Bob would be loathe to admit it, but he himself is a Seventh-day Darwinist. See my posts at FORMER LSU PRESIDENT DENOUNCES… Professor Kent(Quote)
June 13, 2010
Sorry…my posts are at DR. GERATY CLARIFIES HIS “CHALLENGE” TO LITERAL 6-DAY CREATIONISM. Professor Kent(Quote)
June 13, 2010
It seems that the further we get away from the Spirit of Prophecy and the Bible the closer we get to accepting man made theories as truth. [edit]
If our church truly believes in “Sola Scriptura” then the teacher who is the “rotten apple in the barrel” needs to be given a janitorial job in place of continuing to “spoil the barrel”. If it does not accept the Bible only, then I for one shall renounce my association with the Seventh-Day Adventist church and refuse to hand out church literature or promote the Seventh-Day Adventist church as God’s remnant church in the future. [edit] Don Ludgate(Quote)
June 14, 2010
I am still amazed that the good people of Educate TRuth seems to ignore the truth. What? Are you folks so blinded that you can’t see through Goldstiens’s tricky? Coming out of the Catholic Chuch myslef this is tradtional”Bait and Switch.” Wake up people. Wake up! Wake Up.
Have any of you ever heard of the Dialectic thinking?
Now i know you guys are not going to print this comment either, but who ever is redaing it is now responsilbe and will have to ansewr to Almighty God. I pray you all get serious about the church of God and call a spade a spade. You see it is because of lpeopel like you all who are afrid to take a decisiev stand for truth, for God and would rather parley with the enemy. My God where are the real man of God? No wonder the Lortd Himself says he will soon take the reighns of this church back into His own hands. Those to whom He entrusted the guidianship of the church have betrayed their trust. So the word is that He would soon come and remove our CANDLESTICK OUT OF ITS PLACE. WE ARE LOST- AND IT APPERS THAT Truth Educate is not willing nor wanting to lay the plum line down. May God have mercy on your souls. Bengman Stubbs(Quote)
June 14, 2010
Don, You’re correct in saying we should not “promote” our SDA Church if it does not support the Bible. This type of apostasy is not happening everywhere, but out here in California, it is rampant! Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
June 14, 2010
@pauluc:
First of all – cudos to those who are arguing for the inclusion of the evolutionist doctrine on origins out of a self-proclaimed position of ignorance about what the Bible says.
At least we can all see that same problem with their argument.
There is a “happy fiction” that to reprove error is to be “divisive” or “less than loving”.
Christ firmly reproved error in Matt 23.
Paul firmly reproved error in 1Cor 5
And though Geraty imagines that neither Genesis 1-2:3 nor the Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 – are written well enough to support God’s summary of Genesis 1 ( given in Ex 20:8-11 stating that the creation of all life on earth takes place in 6 literal days), and though he apparently promoted that fiction while at LSU, the burden of proof rests with those who argue against the straightforward exegetically sound rendering of the text – as apparently Geraty would perfer to do.
As for remaining neutral on this point -
“I have been shown that the most signal victories and the most fearful defeats have been on the turn of minutes. God requires promptness of action. Delays, doubtings, hesitation, and indecision frequently give the enemy every advantage. My brother, you need to reform. The timing of things may tell much in favor of truth. Victories are frequently lost through delays. There will be crises in this cause. Prompt and decisive action at the right time will gain glorious triumphs, while delay and neglect will result in great failures and positive dishonor to God. Rapid movements at the critical moment often disarm the enemy, and he is disappointed and vanquished, for he had expected time to lay plans and work by artifice.”
{3T 497.4}
Many of us are inclined to stick with the teaching of Paul in Titus 1 and 1Cor 5 on this point of correcting error that arises within the church.
Christ was pretty direct on that point in Matt 23 – and I think the other quotes given above indicate a “direct approach”.
BTW – Question on Doctrines pg 44 and 45 has an interesting perspective on this idea as well. Might want to read it when you get a minute.
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)
June 15, 2010
@BobRyan:
OK you would like a direct approach. First some chastisement and then some comment that I unfortunately have not much hope you will read or comprehend despite your protestations that you are interested in educating truth.
1] You show a gross inability to parse the meaning of a simple comment on a blog so I am not surprised you are unable to provide any sound and convincing exegesis of scripture. A failure to understand the nature of inspiration of either the bible or inspired writers such as EG White is really the basis for the lack of any comprehension of a non-literalist understanding of scripture.
2] If you had parsed my comment properly you would recognise that I was not suggesting I was totally ignorant of the content of scripture nor of the writings of Ellen White but I am aware that there is much much more to scripture than is ascertained by your hokey and beloved plain reading. This is an inspired document that I believe was written by men as they were moved by the very spirit of God. It is the message of God written by human hands. It was written in a time and place with a primary audience and to gloss over this is to fail to even attempt to understand the plain meaning let alone the nuances of what is there.
3] Lets get down to specifics. I believe that you and Darwin would totally agree on a number of critical points. At least Major Pitman would appear to do so in that he suggests that evolution is a process that is continuing to occur and a mechanism that he sees as the the explanation for the diversity of species that exist in the post-deluge world today.
This question of the origins and source of the vast diversity seen in the worlds extant creatures was precisely the point that Wallace and Darwin sought to answer in the early 19th century. To understand Darwin you must have context and a minimal grasp of history. After Carl Linnaeus began a systematic classification of species in the 18 century there was a rapid expansion of the number of recognized species. Much of this was achieved through travel and exploration and it is not surprising that both Wallace in his travels to Borneo and Darwin with his voyage on the Beagle to the Gallapagos were in the first instance primarily concerned with documenting diversity and collecting specimens.
In doing so one could not help but ask the question where did this diversity come from? By the time of Darwin and Wallaces description of natural selection, the idea of fixity of species and the possiblity of all the existing species on the earth having been housed for 6 months on an ark as rendered in detail by Kircher was in serious doubt. Not surprisingly some mechanism of continuous creation was proposed by Aggaziz at that time. The alternative however was that there was some natural mechanism for the creation of new species from pre-existing species.
Why a natural mechanism? I might ask you and Pitman the same question. Which do you prefer? God is continually miraculously creating new species for the last 4000 years to occupy all the ecological niches on the earth since all of the lifeform on the earth were taken on an ark and would likely be insufficient to account for the present species? Or there has been diversity of lifeforms albeit within strict boundaries or kinds over that period of time from a limited number of ancestors.
Why if you choose the second option do you then criticize Darwin and Wallace and the majority of life scientists since then for taking that same option?
The second point that should be stressed that influences this decision is the argument from the rest of science including physics and astronomy. The nature of the heavenly bodies had been described by natural law and understandable predictable forces from Newton onwards. If miracles were no longer needed to describe the nature of mechanics and astronomy why should not the natural living world be subject to the same laws?
Just as you would for the sake of parsimony accept a natural cause for the diversity of life after the Ark, there is no need to invoke miracles when you can explain the world in terms of natural processes. This is the magasteria of science the explanation of the physical world by natural process. As a Christian I would readily claim that there are limits to this endeavour but it is foolish to pretend it has no explanatory role. I refer back to my earlier comments on epilepsy natural explanation and the spirit world.
Up to this point from what I can glean from Major Pitmans publications he believes that micro-evolutionary processed have been responsible for much of the diversity we see in the world today. I can only assume you agree with him. If so you and Darwin would then totally agree on both mechanism and process for his primary observations and explanations.
I freely admit that where you would disagree is on the limits of that process. You would arbitarily and without any compelling evidence suggest that there is some magical limit to the ability of natural mechanisms to make changes in life forms. Darwin saw no reason for any limits on this process and suggested that the same process that gave rise to the myriad extant species could in fact be the same process that lead to diversification of all living species from some distant common ancestors.
The ark and deluge account however does have some problems without significant miraculous interventions. These include 1] the nature of genetic bottlenecks and the minimal population required to avoid extinction which is significantly more than 2 or seven. 2] The issue of biogeogrphic diversity and dispersion.
I personally think that a literalist must invoke a 3rd universal post-flood creation to be compatible with the geology and distribution of life we see now. I am surprised that this is not recorded in the bible. Perhaps taking a plain reading we are not to assume this third creation but that does create problems as we would then have no alternative to the slippery slope of 4000 years of hyper-evolution. pauluc(Quote)
June 15, 2010
@pauluc:
I do not believe that Darwinian-style evolution is responsible for the phenotypic variation that has taken place since the Noachian flood. Rather, I believe that such rapid variation was made possible because of pre-loaded or pre-existing information within the gene pools of living things. Mendalian variation is a well-known example of the potential of pre-loaded information to produce very rapid phenotypic variation.
Darwin saw no reason for any limits to RM/NS because Darwin didn’t have the information we have today. There are very clear limits to evolutionary progress based on RM/NS. If you think otherwise, please show me an example of evolution in action producing any qualitatively novel system of function which requires at least 1000 specifically arranged amino acids at minimum to work (single or multi-protein system). As far as I’ve been able to tell, there are no such examples. Why not?
The answer is because of an exponential decline in the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence space with each step up the ladder of functional complexity. As this ratio declines exponentially, the average time necessary for RMs to find the next beneficial sequence via a random search of sequence space increases exponentially as well…
This is the basic problem for the evolutionary mechanism of RM/NS in a nutshell. It just doesn’t work beyond very low levels of functional complexity even given trillions upon trillions of years of time.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman(Quote)
June 15, 2010
Skipping forward to some point where Pauluc might have content in his post…
Nope – not there yet. Surely there is some point at which Pauluc makes a point in that post… fastforwarding… please wait.
I will admit thatin your prior claim to be ignorant of scripture – you had a bit more credibility as demonstrated in your post. I was inclined to believe you having demonstrated the point beyond reasonable doubt.
After all – you said…
And as of this point in your post – you have given no reason at all for us to doubt your word regarding what you apparently claim not to know about the Bible or inspiration.
No question about that. Darwin admitted that there is no way to marry the Bible to Darwinism.
1. Irish Wolf Hound -> Chihuahua … variation within a static genome (static in terms of coding genes present – not coding genes activated) — over a very short period of time.
2. hint: Not the act of God in making the variations.
3. This does nothing for your opening “I said I was ignorant” of the Bible but then hopefully “not really”?? –
You miss two key points.
1. Darwin postulated long ages of time between the origin of the first cell to the origin of man – ages the he had no way to mashup into scripture.
2. Darwin’s natural selection proposed a method entirely foreign to “God spoke” and “evening and morning where the 5th day”.
Thus just stating the obvious at this point.
A nice fiction. At no point did newtonian physics of Darwin’s day predict how the universe formed or how the solar system came into being. The fiction that knowing the inverse square law for energy somehow “negated the Bible” on God forming the sun on day 4 – is a persuit of a rabbit trail that can hardly be taken seriously.
Obviously the acceptance of the Bible has never required that we ignore the fact that “weeds grow in the yard” nor did it stop Christian scientist from inventing the radio, flight, calculus … though some evolutionist like to imagine an “either-or-fallacy” that would do just that.
Ok so the obvious point is reached.
But the alchemists “birds come from reptiles no matter what the Bible says to the contrary” is the point you are still dancing around… and it is THE point of the LSU doctrine on origins.
At what point does the text of Genesis say “and so a world wide flood just so-happened. It was not a direct act of God – rather it is something that just occurs on its own from time to time”.
What did I miss??
The “proof by puzzle” argument against the Bible that is of the form “yes – but how did God do…” is a pointless exercise if the conclusion is “I refuse to Believe the Word of God on subject-A until I know what God knows about this topic”.
Everyone sees it.
Why is this point so difficult for our evolutionist friends and those that suppose that evolutionism is just a great “big tent idea”??
At this point 3SG 90-91 is “instructive” to the unbiased objective reader that also accepts the Ex 20:8-11 tieback to Genesis 1:2-2:3.
in Christ,
Bob BobRyan(Quote)
June 15, 2010
@Sean Pitman:
“I believe that such rapid variation was made possible because of pre-loaded or pre-existing information within the gene pools of living things”.
1] I think you better explain the science behind that statement to me as I am just a simple scientist with a PhD in immunogenetics and I have never read anything about this in the scientific literature.
What is the precise mechanism for this? By way of background I presume in your 10 years of intense study on this topic you have become aware of some of the issues in population genetics and the critical effect of population size on survival?
Lets imagine we have 2 animals on the Ark.
Lets just pretend that they have the extremely unlikely fortune or design to be heterozygous at every loci.
That make 4 possible alternatives in the population for a gene.
Lets pretend that the mRNA and ncRNA world of regulation and SNP do not exist to make it simple.
Lets also pretend that crossover events are much much more frequent than currently observed.
Lets just image for one moment that the immune response genes with 4 alleles in the total population can effectively respond to the myriad of insults they are likely to encounter in a new expanding biosphere.
Do you seriously expect us to believe that these 4 alleles allow enough variation to respond to the other similarly highly variable organisms that fulfil this same criteria of huge genetic potential?
2] Perhaps you are thinking that there is gene duplication and expansion of the repertoire through multiple different copies of each of homologous genes and there has been loss of much of these since the flood? Is that the scenario you are proposing?
3] Indeed gene families as you will know are important components of the genome but you are running a risk here as I am usually told by experts such as yourself that random mutation is the only basis for evolution and this mechanism of genetic evolution through gene duplication and independent selection cannot occur or account for any variation or new genetic information. You of course would have to make an exception and suggest that it cannot occur except when it does by God’s hand.
4] Perhaps if you really were a scientist you could test this hypothesis. How would you do it. Perhaps you could take a bristle cone pine that was alive at the time of the flood and take some DNA and test its genome directly? You can get a total genomic sequence for about $4000 so I sure the readers on this site would contribute a few dollars to perform this critical test.
6] Maybe that wouldnt work for any of a number of reasons but perhaps you could compare pollen from the Greenland ice cores? According to your model the pollen in the deep cores would be older and those more than 4000 years old [wherever you might decide that is since you probably do not accept any of the ice core data] would have great genetic variations. Indeed according to your model they would have maybe 20x the genetic variation to compensate for the small population size. This is assuming that the minimal viable population size is around 30-35 as it is at present.
7] Maybe you dont think plants would be worth looking at since you may think that they would have survived by some mechanism outside the ark. I have heard you on 3ABN indicating that there was terrible destruction and the foundations of the deep were broken up and that the Devil feared for his very life so perhaps it was no simple flooding of a delta so I am inclined to the view that plants perhaps only survived in the ark.
5] Alternatively if you think this is not a good experiment you could take some DNA from an animal that died at the time of the flood. T Rex is obviously a candidate as you are again on video as saying that Mary Schweitzers data really does suggest that they were very recently present on the earth I can only presume less that 6000 years ago. That should give good DNA samples but I do note that there has been no sequencable DNA and Schweitzer et al are arguing against the odds for collagen sequence. So failing that the Mastadon that was also used as the comparator in her 2009 paper did at least fulfill the criteria set by others that were very critical of her work and suggested that the protein sequence data is bogus. That does seem to have some DNA.
6] In passing I am not sure if you actually believe in an ice age or when it might have occurred within your 6000 year history but there are DNA samples have been obtained from other specimens preserved in ice. Even Tyrol man may be a candidate.
According to your model you predict that there will be great genetic variation in the pre flood animals probably as a result of genetic engineering by the great antedeluvian minds. Do you think that the genetic engineering may have left some fingerprints in the sequence? Since your site is really dedicated to that task how do you propose that this design will be detected and what experiments are you planning to do in order to test it?
This is great fun! Complete stream of consciousness I can see why you like your role as crusader against infidels. We can say whatever comes into our minds and those that know no better will give us accolades for holding firm against modernity. A real scientist however proposes an explanation and a model that is testable and is honest enough to actually test it.
What you have proposed is testable. Do you have the integrity to actually test it? If you do not feel strongly about this particular model then perhaps you can propose a bit more explicit one that is testable. Until you do this it is just so much “lets pretend” and not at all science however you may dress it up.
You can have any religious conviction you want but as soon as you propose some biological mechanism you are fair game for scientific enquiry and experimental invalidation.
I would predict that your model is incorrect and that no matter where you look in the ice cores or in ancient animal remains as far back as you look and have extractable DNA you will get sequence that fits a phylogenetic analysis that is consistent with extant material. In contrast your prediction, unless you are so weazly as to resile from your stated position is that somewhere in the genomic history of life there is a point where there is great genetic potential. Do you really believe this and are you prepared to do an experiment.
Pre-emptively, since I expect you to say I should the one to take on the experimental proof, I would state that I do not have the time or resources to do such an experiment and do not consider that it is any more likely that you are correct in this than that the myriad fringe medical cures I hear of every day are likely to withstand scrutiny. pauluc(Quote)
June 15, 2010
@BobRyan:
Thank you
I think this has been a illuminating experience for me even if I have achieved nothing. It is so alien to both the academic environment I live in and my church fellowship. In one I have rigour of thought and a willingness to learn and in the other I experience people who accept the Grace of God and are interesting in knowing what the scripture mean in a post modern world and what the fellowship of the body of Christ means in practice. There is no greater that for Christians than understanding the meaning of pre-emptive grace and its consequent ethic.
I am accomplishing nothing here and find neither of these characteristics. I apologize if I have offended in my responses and in trying to maintain some integrity in the dialogue.
Now you can tear me to shreds as you are doing to those in the Church educational institutes that you cannot fathom. I remember with great sorrow the 1980′s and the loss of so many Godly people from the SDA community and am braced again for the same outcome.
Christian regards pauluc(Quote)
June 15, 2010
Pauluc, grace be unto you! Geanna Dane(Quote)