@Ken: Does it take ‘human reasoning’ to understand God’s Truth? …

Comment on Educate Truth’s purpose and goals by Sean Pitman.

@Ken:

Does it take ‘human reasoning’ to understand God’s Truth? Who decides what is God’s Truth? Ultimately if it is God, then no man, or woman, has that franchise, right?

You’re exactly right Ken. At least in my opinion we humans have no option but to use “human reasoning” to decide what is and what is not most likely “true”. We cannot use God’s reasoning because we aren’t God – obviously. We can’t even use the reasoning ability of another person who seems to be more gifted at reasoning and understanding. We can only use what God has given us as individuals. Even when we decided that a particular source of information is most likely from God, such as the Bible, we must use human reasoning and empirical evidence to come to this conclusion – if we wish to be rational that is.

Some claim that rational human-level reasoning, based on empirical evidence, is not needed because God reveals the truth to us through the Holy Spirit. Many of my LDS friends believe this way. If this is how God generally works, however, there would be no need for scientific investigation or empirical evidence of any kind whatsoever. The Holy Spirit would just tell us everything that is true without any need for personal investigation or struggle to study out and investigate the empirical evidences and clues that God has left in our way.

I don’t know about you, but I have never experienced any direct revelation as to the authority of the Bible by the Holy Spirit which I can easily distinguish from a vague case of indigestion. I’ve never had an angel appear to me either to tell me, directly, that the Bible is true. However, God has not left me empty handed. He has given me abundant evidence of the trustworthiness and Divine origin of the Bible in the form of empirical evidences that I can and have searched out and studied for myself; evidences that have the potential to appeal to the rational candid mind; evidences that are generally available to everyone who is so inclined to also investigate and rationally evaluate with the same rational abilities and mental power that God has given to me (often to an even higher level of giftedness).

Now, God may indeed condescend to help or “inspire” our natural reasoning abilities with thoughts and impressions that are beyond ourselves – granted. Yet, we are still left with what we are – our humanness. God does not expect us to be more than human in our faith or understanding. What He expects from us is for us to honestly and sincerely use the natural gifts that He has given to us as best as we are able according to the Law of Love, the “Royal Law”, that He has written on the hearts of all mankind.

For example, it is apparent from the Educate Truth website that there are fundamental differences of opinion, even among SDA YEC’s, on biblical interpretation. Take Sean’s espoused Royal Law of Love, which would result in good men, irrespective of belief, ending up in heaven.

Many of you disagree with that position. So what is God’ Truth on that issue and who decides? You, me, Sean, others, God?

Good point. God is on trial here just as much and more so than the rest of us. Questions regarding God’s management of the universe are what brought all of us to this point. We ourselves have to determine if God is in fact who He claims to be. This determination also requires us to use our human-level God-given reasoning abilities (ironically).

After all, we are told that in the final judgment when God is judged, every knee will bow and every tongue confess, “Righteous and true are your judgments, you King of Saints.” (Romans 14:11 NIV and Revelation 15:3)

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
@Ken:

I would like to know however why he disagrees with Ben Clausen’s findings on the age of the earth. Sean, what is your scientific basis for doing so?

There are numerous evidences in geology, fossils, and even genetics that demand a recent catastrophic model of origins for all life on Earth. This evidence, I believe, significantly outweighs the evidences that those like Ben Clausen find so troubling and so difficult…

I’m not saying that there aren’t unanswered questions from the young-life perspective. There are many. However, I do not believe that these questions trump the much greater weight of evidence that we do have and do understand.

For further details of many of these evidence, please visit my website, listed below…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
@BobRyan:

Those positions need to be easy for the visitor to find.

That’s why there are subheadings at the top of the home page and all other pages with titles like “Evidence, Testimony, La Sierra, Letters” etc. There is also a history section for new visitors, and now this summary of the purpose of this website. I think the information is pretty easy to find as it is. But, if you wish to make things even easier, by writing up your own summary article or something like that, please do…

As far as removed comments from certain postings, you’ll have to talk to Shane about that…

Also, now that Louie Bishop and some of the other students at LSU who were helping us gather current information on their classroom experience are not longer at LSU, we need more students or other source of direct information on the LSU campus. We have some ideas and some new sources of on-campus information, but any other ideas in this regard would be helpful as we attempt to trace the corrective or non-corrective actions of LSU over time…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Thanks for the summary Shane. Very well done. I think you should add this post to the “New Visitors” section…

Just one caveat regarding this particular statement of yours:

More important than all of these is that the Bible find its place as the ultimate authority on all it touches upon within the classroom. For me, this is the bottom line of the controversy. What is informing our science? – Shane Hilde

I think it is a mistake to contrast science with religion as if one is different or inherently superior to the other. Useful scientific reasoning and true religion are, or at least should be and can be, one in the same thing since both have the same Source.

All scientific hypotheses and theories, and all other forms of empirically-based beliefs, require leaps of faith beyond that which can be absolutely known – – as do all religious beliefs. There is no inherent difference here. And, both science and religion can be based on the solid weight of empirical evidence – to the same degree.

Because of this I propose that a belief in the Bible as the ultimate authority is worthless (as a solid basis for a leap of faith in the trustworthiness of the Christian Gospel Message of hope) unless it has good solid empirical reasons to back it up. Without a solid empirical basis, I see no rational reason to promote the Bible as more authoritative in comparison to the multitude of competing options available – to include the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, the Talmud, and even the apologetic arguments of mainstream scientists.

As Mrs. White put it:

God is the foundation of everything. All true science is in harmony with His works; all true education leads to obedience to His government. Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high, and explores new depths; but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation. Ignorance may seek to support false views of God by appeals to science, but the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. We are thus led to adore the Creator and to have an intelligent trust in His word.

– Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 115

In other words, science and empirical reasoning are not the enemies of true religion – but its base. These are gifts of God which, rightly used with sincere motives and an earnest heart, are the only rational options we have to appreciate God and worship Him in the “intelligent” and thoughtful manner that He wants us to realize – a religion that goes beyond mere emotion.

In short, emotion and faith need to follow the mind, not the other way around. God appeals to the mind first. After this, faith is increased and emotion follows. Consider, after all, the question of if the disciples of Jesus had more or less faith in Him as the Christ before or after His resurrection? Consider then that faith follows evidence. If there is no empirically-appealing evidence, none at all, there is no solid basis for faith or a truly comforting hope in the future that drives out all fear…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

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.