Comment on Creationist students find little support from LSU by Pastor Randy Brehms.
I am not sure if everyone is aware, but the colleges and universities are not accountable to any of the local conference administrations. While the presidents of those conferences sit on the board, they are answerable only to the “Board of Trustees” and the Union Conference President, who is elected not by the grass roots members, but by a selection of “Union Conference Delegates” We need to find out who our delegates are, and preasure them to elect administrators that will deal with problem forthrightly. I like Ricardo Grahm and Ron Wisby, but the responsibility ultimately lies on their desks, not the desk of the General Conference. There is a chain of command here that must put blame where it belongs. The education departments have long defended curriculums that inclde literature, and science that Ellen White would find offensive, and inappropriate. Why is it that you think that she has been shelved by so many pastors. It cuts across their path, and it is easier to nuetralize her than it is ask God’s Holy Spirit for strength and resolve to conform with what she has written. The vitriol expressed by some who also write on Atoday is evidence that the church has more “progressives” in control than they have Joshuas and Calebs.
Table of Contents
Pastor Randy Brehms Also Commented
Creationist students find little support from LSU
While it may be true “I happen to know several LSU students who in the past were NOT taught about evolution, and after leaving school and being confronted with the overwhelming scientific evidence for it, they felt they had been deliberately deceived and betrayed by the school and by the church, and actually lost their faith in God as a result.â€ The statement “overwhelming evidence” tells this person is an evolutionist. The evidence ISN’T OVERWHELMING” it is merely evidence for which there is contradictory evidence that is just as valid, and universally dismissed, and ignored by Evolutionary Scientists (so called. Teaching an adequate knowledge of what is out there is far different from teaching “It” as the preferred world view. That is betrayal of the highest form. A question that most evolutionists don’t want to tackle is; where did the matter come from that constituted the big bank? at that point most evolutionists wax mystical. Evolution it does not explain origin of the matter that was involed in the Big Bank (so called), it merely is man’s attempt at explaing what already exists, and at some point they can’t go back any further, thus the linear accelerator over in Switzerland. The reason for constructing that accelerator was to try and duplicate the same circumstances that created the “Big Bang” where did the original colliding atoms come from? I prefer the big bang where God said it, and bang it came into being! Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusionary. what about that, do the progressives not understand? One is the truth, the other is a lie, you can’t straddle the fence. Deistic Evolution just tries to describe a powerless God.
Recent Comments by Pastor Randy Brehms
Adventist Review defends its article
While I applaud the over all tenor of the Adventist Review Article, it still had that political tone of double speak that appears to tell those reading what they want to hear. This has been a problem with the denomination for a number of years. For instance you can read â€œAdventists Believe 27 Fundamental Beliefsâ€ On the subject of â€œThe Nature of Christâ€ those who believe in a pre-lapsarian position can read it and say â€œPraise the Lord they finally got it rightâ€, and those you take a post-lapsarian position can read it and say â€œPraise the Lord they finally got it right!â€ somebody didn’t get it. . . because surely it can’t support both positions when they are diametrically opposed to one another. unless there is double speak!
There is so much tension on this issue it seems the Review took the safest position and that was to make both sides feel as if they came away with something. While there is support for the six day creation week in the article, they imply that this whole brew-ha-ha is the result of a retired professor or â€œprofessor emeritusâ€ who is not currently in the active teaching mode. This seems like a smoke screen. The professor that Louie Bishop had a problem with was one who was not retired, but had graduated at or around the same time I was at Southwestern Adventist University putting his age far below retirement. It is this kind of â€œaccidentalâ€ omission that makes people who “know” wonder exactly what the â€œAdventist Reviewâ€ is trying to do. This is not a small omission, because the teacher Louie was struggling with has actually authored articles in secular digests that declare his beliefs. When there can be total accountability and transparency then perhaps it will build greater trust in the â€œAdventist Reviewâ€