Comment on A little-known history about Belief 6 by Sean Pitman, M.D..
Lynn wrote:
Yes, there are “limits to the ambiguity that can be toleratedâ€. That, I think, is the point…those limits, I think, are and should be ambiguous.
If the limits are themselves ambiguous, then they really aren’t effective limits are they? An organization without known or effective limitations on what it does and does not stand for will not stand for long.
Being ambiguously ambiguous is even worse than being very clear about where you are or are not ambiguous as an organization. If the SDA Church really doesn’t want to take a clear position on origins, it should make this new stand very clear. It should say, “We really don’t know, as an organization, if the creation week was literal or not”.
As it currently stands, the leadership of the SDA Church makes it appear as it if stands decidedly on the side of a literal creation week and worldwide Noachian flood in recent history (except when it comes to making sure that such notions are being actively promoted in its own classrooms that is). After all, it was the members of the General Conference Executive Committee who wrote, in 20004:
1. We strongly endorse the document’s affirmation of our historic, biblical position of belief in a literal, recent, six-day Creation.
2. We urge that the document, accompanied by this response, be disseminated widely throughout the world Seventh-day Adventist Church, using all available communication channels and in the major languages of world membership.
3. We reaffirm the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the historicity of Genesis 1-11: that the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week; and that the Flood was global in nature.
4. We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.
5. We urge church leaders throughout the world to seek ways to educate members, especially young people attending non-Seventh-day Adventist schools, in the issues involved in the doctrine of creation.
6. We call on all members of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist family to proclaim and teach the church’s understanding of the biblical doctrine of Creation, living in its light, rejoicing in our status as sons and daughters of God, and praising our Lord Jesus Christ—our Creator and Redeemer.http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat55.html
Do they really believe this “affirmation” or not? Or, would they rather stand by the ambiguous language originally proposed by theistic evolutionists Fritz Guy and Lawrence Garety? One way or another, this issue is coming to a head and decided and clearly presented positions for or against ambiguity on this issue will have to be taken by the Church organization.
Thanks again for your thoughts. It was good to see you this past week.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Table of Contents
Sean Pitman, M.D. Also Commented
A little-known history about Belief 6
@Ron:
Actually, no I don’t. I do not believe that you give up any civil rights by becoming an employee. Especially that should not be the case in the Seventh-day Adventist church where we are called support Religious Liberty. How can you support Religious Liberty if it only applies out side of the church?
You confuse “Religious Liberty” with the privilege to be hired by the church or any other organization. They aren’t the same thing. You are at liberty to worship however you wish. That is your God-given civil right. You are not at liberty, on the other hand, to expect a paycheck from the church or any other organization for doing whatever you want outside of the fundamental goals and ideals of the church as an organization. That is not a God-given civil right. No organization is obliged to hire you or me. The organization itself is also free – free to pick and choose who would be most effective as a paid employee. How do you not recognize this concept?
What you are suggesting is equivalent to expecting me to send you a paycheck every month because that is your “civil right”. What would you say if I demanded a paycheck from you? – because, after all, it is my civil right that you give me money on a regular basis for doing what I do independent of your own goals or desires for how your own money is spent?
No organization can be expected to pay just anyone and everyone for their own individual efforts to promote their own unique ideas outside of those of the organization itself. Do you expect the Catholic Church to pay someone for promoting Adventism in their own schools and churches? Do you expect the Adventist Church to pay people to promote the unique elements of Catholicism in our schools and churches? – like the notion that the Virgin Mary is in heaven and is able to answer the prayers of those who ask for her help?
Come on now, what you are suggesting does not a unique organization make. You are very confused regarding the difference between truly universal civil rights and the privilege of employment by a particular organization.
How this idea isn’t simply common sense is beyond me?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
A little-known history about Belief 6
@Ron:
Sean, This statement is completely dis-ingenuous. The intent of the movement to “clarify” the 6th fundamental belief is exactly that – to impose a civil penalty on those who anything other than the most limited of interpretations.
This is like arguing that an employee of Nike who is fired for wearing and advertising Reebok shoes has just had his civil rights violated.
You don’t seem to recognize the fact that any viable organization must have the ability to create and enforce internal rules of order and government to which all who wish to freely join as paid representatives must adhere. You also don’t seem to understand that an employee of such an organization is always free to leave at will, free of any civil penalties from the US Government under which we all live.
You do realize that there is a difference between civil government (as in the US government) and the civil freedoms that government protects and the freedoms one chooses to limit for one’s own self when one joins any organization as an employee?
I’m sorry, but you’re making yourself look rather foolish here…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
A little-known history about Belief 6
@Eddie:
Out of curiosity, at what age is a person capable of accepting or rejecting Him and His offer of salvation? And what happens to a person who dies before reaching that age?
One is only judged for deliberately rejecting the offer of salvation – or for deliberately rejecting what is known to be true and good.
As far as those children who are not old enough to consciously know right from wrong, God will save them since they have not consciously rejected the right.
For example, the Bible argues that God winks or passes over our sins committed in “times of ignorance” (Acts 17:30) and argues that sin is based on a conscious understanding of right and wrong (James 4:17 and John 9:41). Also, consider the following passage in Isaiah regarding the salvation of children who have not yet been able to make their own decisions for or against God:
“But thus saith the LORD, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children.” – Isaiah 49:25
Mrs. White also specifically argues that children of believing parents will be saved:
“I know that some questioned whether the little children of even believing parents should be saved, because they have had no test of character and all must be tested and their character determined by trial. The question is asked, ‘How can little children have this test and trial?’ I answer that the faith of the believing parents covers the children” (Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 313).
Remember too that God is very partial to young children. After all, it was Jesus who asked for the children to be able to come to him and explained that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. – Mark 10:14
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman, M.D.
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
