Comment on An appeal to our leadership by Cheng.
As good as it sounds, I don’t think we should spend so much time trying to “defend the Biblical worldview in the framework of science” because if science itself is not true, then we have already destroyed ourselves in depending upon it.
Many times, E.G. White was inspired to write upon this topic stating that science is NOT above the Bible because it’s faulty. Here are several quotes:
“…human science cannot search out the secrets of the Most High.” {2MCP 742.1}
“We are dependent on the Bible for a knowledge of the early history of our world, of the creation of man, and of his fall. Remove the Word of God, and what can we expect but to be left to fables and conjectures and to that enfeebling of the intellect which is the sure result of entertaining error.” {2MCP 742.2}
“We need the authentic history of the origin of the earth, of the fall of Lucifer, and of the introduction of sin into the world. Without the Bible, we should be bewildered by false theories. The mind would be subjected to the tyranny of superstition and falsehood. But, having in our possession an authentic history of the beginning of the world, we need not hamper ourselves with human conjectures and unreliable theories.” {2MCP 742.3}
“These persons [who disbelieve the Genesis account] have lost the simplicity of faith. There should be a settled belief in the divine authority of God’s Holy Word. The Bible is not to be tested by men’s ideas of science. Human knowledge is an unreliable guide.” {2MCP 743.1}
“We need to guard continually against the sophistry in regard to geology and other branches of science falsely so called, which have not one semblance of truth. The theories of great men need to be carefully sifted of the slightest trace of infidel suggestions. One tiny seed sown by teachers in our schools, if received by the students, will raise a harvest of unbelief.” {2MCP 743.2}
“Human knowledge of both material and spiritual things is partial and imperfect; therefore many are unable to harmonize their views of science with Scripture statements. Many accept mere theories and speculations as scientific facts, and they think that God’s Word is to be tested by the teachings of “science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20). The Creator and His works are beyond their comprehension; and because they cannot explain these by natural laws, Bible history is regarded as unreliable. Those who doubt the reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments too often go a step further and doubt the existence of God and attribute infinite power to nature. Having let go their anchor, they are left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity.” {2MCP 697.1}
“Let us go to the Word of God for guidance. Let us seek for a “Thus saith the Lord.” We have had enough of human methods. A mind trained only in worldly science will fail to understand the things of God; but the same mind, converted and sanctified, will see the divine power in the Word. Only the mind and heart cleansed by the sanctification of the Spirit can discern heavenly things.” {2MCP 697.2}
“He who has a knowledge of God and His word has a settled faith in the divinity of the Holy Scriptures. He does not test the Bible by man’s ideas of science. He brings these ideas to the test of the unerring standard. He knows that God’s word is truth, and truth can never contradict itself; whatever in the teaching of so-called science contradicts the truth of God’s revelation is mere human guesswork.” {2MCP 699.2}
“…even the greatest minds, if not guided by the Word of God in their research, become bewildered in their attempts to investigate the relations of science and revelation.” {2MCP 702.3}
“Science! Christ could have opened door after door of science. He could have revealed to men treasures of science on which they might have feasted to the present time. But knowing that this knowledge would have been appropriated to unholy uses, He did not open the door.” {2MCP 702.4}
“There are men who think they have made wonderful discoveries in science. They quote the opinions of learned men as though they considered them infallible and teach the deductions of science as truths that cannot be controverted. And the Word of God, which is given as a lamp to the feet of the world-weary traveler, is judged by this standard, and pronounced wanting.” {3SM 306.2}
“The Bible is not to be tested by men’s idea of science, but science is to be brought to the test of this unerring standard. When the Bible makes statements of facts in nature, science may be compared with the Written Word, and a correct understanding of both will always prove them to be in harmony. One does not contradict the other. All truth, whether in nature or revelation, agrees.” {3SM 307.3}
“Men of science think that with their enlarged conceptions they can comprehend the wisdom of God, that which He has done or can do. The idea largely prevails that He is bounded and restricted by His own laws…While they think they are gaining everything, they are chasing bubbles, and losing precious opportunities to become acquainted with God. They do not believe in the supernatural, not realizing that the Author of nature’s laws can work above those laws.” {3SM 308.4}
— I think that Mrs. White makes it clear not to try and separate true science from true religion. But the problem is that too many of us have put science on a special level. A lot of this comes from just western society’s views on science and its exaltation of human science. But we should not lose focus on the gospel that saving power of faith in Christ.
Thoughts,
Cheng
Table of Contents
Recent Comments by Cheng
Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
What I am finding these days is that people refuse to take intellectual responsibility (moral as well). When one makes an argument, one must back that claim in the career as well as life. Or else what happens is hypocrisy which is a non-verbal fallacy. One cannot claim macro-evolution, and then attempt harmonizing his/her viewpoint with the God of the Bible without re-interpreting the Bible or God Himself. It’s a child-known fact, friends.
A non-Christian friend in the social sciences once testified about evolution saying: “I’m not Christian, but I know the cruelty of evolution. I choose NOT to believe because I do not agree with its main principles. It leaves behind the lowest, poorest, and neglected within society, of which, I must support in my career.”
It was interesting for me to hear this line from an eastern shamanist. Now I do believe I have more in common with this shamanist than a theistic evolutionist. It’s because this shamanist is applying her belief and outlook upon life to her everyday living. She is taking intellectual responsibility and social responsibility for her belief system. For someone who believes in macro-evolution, the mere belief on the surface is one thing, but for some reason, application of the principles within everyday life seems to be a problem. For example, if God allows evolution to sort out the imperfections of organisms, then I shouldn’t really have to make an effort to sort out my own imperfections right? God has automatically started the evolutionary engine to do these things for me. Or is my effort a product of evolutionary processes? If this is so, then others’ lack of effort can be called evolutionary malfunction. But where is the standard point of relativity or reference for this declaration?
In other words, macro-evolution is the argument for incompleteness. It becomes the science of unscientific matter. It can be called the never-ending void. If one wants to embrace these things in life, then by all means, dive into macro-evolution without reserve.
But if completeness, conclusiveness, and absolution are more feasible to a person, then obviously macro evolution makes no sense. The debate is finished friends. There’s no need to call anyone names or labels. Choose a principle in life and live by it. Otherwise, one is a hypocrite to society and a disgraceful being.
Perhaps the best synonym for theistic evolution is the science of hypocrisy.
It’s about authority
@David Read:
Yes I know, but I was more trying to illustrate a point about believing in something. Belief takes action and investment (as in the case of Danny Shelton). If we are so certain that a 6-day literal creation CANNOT be the only interpretation, why don’t we just step out and back it up like we believe it? Or if we are confused on the subject, why don’t we just admit it, and ask for prayer and support from our Adventist brethren?
Basically, I’m throwing out a challenge to all those who are not willing to believe in the literal 6-day creation account. In the same way Elijah told the false prophets manifest their faith in Baal, I would like to have those who do not uphold the traditional SDA/Biblical doctrines to come forward onto the platform. Why hide if you believe it’s the truth? What is more crucial and edifying than exposing the error of the church?
Is my drift not being caught here?
Oh well, it’s just a challenge that most aren’t willing to take up. Why? Because there is no love of the truth present. Only a desire for validating “my own personal interpretation” as always in the post-modern human mind.
It’s about authority
What funny is that about 10 months ago, I had a few doubts about educatetruth.com, and I was hoping that most of the findings concerning LSU’s evolutionary teaching would be exaggerated.
Boy was I mistaken. The exaggeration could not be overstated.
Now I have noticed that a lot of people keep wondering why evolutionary professors and faculty refuse to leave LSU. I give my two cents from experience in always going through public school:
The issue is pride.
By leaving voluntarily, these professors and faculty members will symbolically be succumbing to defeat. In their own minds, they cannot allow such a thing to happen because it would prick their status. Remember that many folks build reputations not upon prayer, but prestige and achievement.
How anyone can see through the foggy curtain is easy. Whenever someone truly believes in something as truth, they don’t need a salary to convince them. They don’t need external influences (besides God Himself) to fully cement this undiscovered truth. A mere website forum full of human criticism wouldn’t be able to stop them in their endeavors.
Here are some examples of what I am talking about:
* 3ABN – Danny Shelton believed that God told him to begin broadcasting a 24/7 TV station. So he went forward with it and now we have 3ABN all around the world.
* Noah – He received a message about an upcoming worldwide flood. He believed it and preached for 120 years despite the rest of the world deeming him “nuts.” And we know the rest of the story…
* Moses – He was called to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, the most powerful kingdom on earth, despite being the laughing stock of Pharaoh. And we know the rest of the story…
* Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego – All believed that true worship did not constitute worshiping a golden image. They stood up and stood their ground despite the king’s anger and attempt to kill them.
My point is this: Wisbey, Greer, and anyone else who does not agree with a literal 6-day creation-why don’t you start an independent ministry teaching your supposedly “true” & “scientific” doctrines? If what you teach is truth, then how can anyone even begin to fight it? Wouldn’t God bless it and multiply it without the help of a doctrinally “wrong” institution such as the SDA Church? I hope I’m making sense here.
If the SDA doctrines are supposedly wrong on creation, why would you want to associate yourself with the church? Or better yet, why would you use an educational institution of the church as your platform? This would be the equivalent of me going into a university of the society of Jesus, becoming a converted Jesuit, and then preaching the Protestant Reformation as valid. This is like trying to somehow find the best measurement for taste involving a mixture of orange juice and whole milk.
LSU – please cut to the chase and stop cutting the cheese.
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
Um, excuse me but salvation is by accepting correct knowledge if and when it is available. If correct knowledge is available and I say “wait a minute, I’ll interpret it differently,” then I am refusing correct knowledge…. right?
Knowledge of good and evil did not save or help Adam and Eve in the beginning. Only the knowledge of a loving God who would provide the Seed to redeem them in the future could open up the avenue to salvation on condition that they accepted this by faith.
Is having faith in incorrect knowledge going to affect our salvation? Of course. The Bible has tons of examples concerning this. God distinguished between Elijah and the false prophets concerning correct worship. Jesus distinguished between the Pharisee and publican concerning true justification and presumption. With the right knowledge concerning the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot survived with his two daughters. With an incorrect interpretation of Old Testament prophecies, the Jewish leaders could not see Jesus as the Messiah.
Excuse me on this one, but I can’t help but be a bit rude and blunt. When has the Seventh-day Adventist Church ever built any principles on anything other than “correct” knowledge since its existence?
May God have mercy on us all.
Cheng
LSU promotes acceptance of homosexuality but not creation
By the way – any update on the constituency meeting held last week at LSU?Apparently the participants were sworn to secrecy – but knowing the way the Adventist Church works, we’ll hear leaks and rumors until the final story comes out after the fact.
I don’t understand why there is so much secrecy… if someone believes something, they shouldn’t hide it right? The fact that they are hiding it reveals that their view of the consequences of being open with it will be negative. Secrecy is supposed to be only used in terms of confidentiality. As a Seventh-day Adventist institution, our doctrines are never meant to be confidential.
So my reasoning is this: even if you believe in evolution, stop trying to stay half-way in the creation science boat. It’s like being a vegan in public, but being a carnivore in secret.
The thing that irks me most is that LSU faculty members refuse to be clear about their positions. It’s a simple matter of being for evolution or literal divine creation. Why can’t this SDA school take a simple stand upon an issue which has already been stood upon by its supporters since the beginning of the Adventist Church?
Why doesn’t LSU come out with a public statement that addresses and explains their view on Creation?
I start it for them:
As a Seventh-day Adventist institution of higher learning, LSU believes the following concerning the Genesis account of creation:
1) God created . . . . . . . . . .
2) The time frame was . . . . . . . . . . . .
3) We confirm that the Genesis account in chapter 1 is . . . . . . . . . .
——— I hope this helps LSU begin it’s long overdue process of official public clarification ———
Cheng
