Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism

It has been clear for much of Lawrence Geraty’s distinguished career that he never really did support the “fundamentalist” interpretation of the Genesis account as clearly referring to six literal days of creation.  Beyond this, he has not considered such a fundamental doctrinal belief to be all that important to the SDA Church.  Even so, he claims to have hired LSU professors that he thought would support the Church and “Creationism” (though clearly not the Church’s literal 6-day Creationism – gotta watch out for the slick language around here).  Dr. Geraty has told me personally [Sean Pitman], twice now in public forum, that all LSU professors are “creationists” and believe in God.  The problem here, of course, is not that the LSU professors are atheistic or that they do not believe in some form of creation, but that they do not believe in the specific type of Creation that the SDA Church supports – i.e., the literal 6-day Creation Week ( Link ).

Please review Dr. Geraty’s original comments and subsequent clarification:

There is More to the La Sierra Story
By Lawrence Geraty

Lawrence Geraty

Since I have been retired from La Sierra University for three years, I’m not in the middle of things any more, though Gillian and I still live in the community, help out where we can, and continue to know and observe what is going on. While I’m sure LSU and some of its professors have made mistakes and have learned many lessons from the latest fuss, this action by the Michigan Conference is astounding to me.

LSU continues to be a sound, loyal Seventh-day Adventist institution where victories for Christ happen every day. I wish its critics would also circulate the fact that enrollment (including in biology) is at an all time high. It continues to send out student missionaries and baptize students (the latest group this last weekend), defend the church and stand for truth around the world, including in many professional settings where the Michigan Conference would not be recognized nor have a voice, etc.

I believe the tea party movement and radical right-wing politics is affecting our beloved church, not only in belief but in tactics that have no place among Christians. If you care about Truth, I suggest you dig a bit deeper than either Shane Hilde or the Michigan Conference have done.

Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.

Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference. Since when is salvation by correct knowledge anyway?

I don’t mean to take sides or get anyone upset; I just wanted you to know there is a much larger picture out there with forces at work that are disrupting the unity of the church–and that the force is not one or two professors at LSU whose views are being dealt with constructively by LSU’s administration in whom you can continue to have every confidence.

*****
[emphasis added]


Lawrence Geraty is president emeritus of La Sierra University. In 2007, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger named him to the California Postsecondary Education Commission.

_______________
Dr. Geraty clarifies his position:

Excerpts from letters sent to Steve Billiter dated June 1, 2010:

First of all, I accept and support the wording of our Sixth Fundamental Belief because it uses the words of Scripture to which we can all give affirmation. Second of all, I personally presume that Genesis 1 refers to an ordinary week, but since it does not say that explicitly, I am glad to give those interpreters who wish to interpret it differently the freedom to do so. In other words, I support the evangelistic outreach of the church that is inclusive, rather than exclusive. If a believer affirms the doctrine of creation, I’m all for including him or her in the fellowship without making him or her interpret Genesis 1 exactly as I or others wish to interpret it.

When it comes to the integration of faith and science, there are difficulties we may not be able to resolve before the Second Coming, nor is it necessary to do so. Ellen White counsels us to use both science and Scripture, rightly interpreted, to reach our best understanding of truth. Since scientific theory is changing and developing rapidly with new evidence all the time, I am willing to be patient“but then I am not a scientist so these things are not the pressing issues for me that they apparently are for Educate Truth and its supporters.

I am not challenging the literal 6-day creation week. I am just challenging that that is the only way to understand the Biblical text. It is also slander to say that I hired professors to teach at LSU that I specifically knew would undermine the Church’s “˜fundamental” understanding on a literal creation week. There is no evidence for that and it is contrary to all I did to make sure we had professors who were supportive of the SDA Church and creationism.

Larry Geraty

____

Note:

Here are the presidents of LSU since it became an independent institution:

Fritz Guy:  1990 -1993

Lawrence Geraty:  1993-2008

Randall Wisbey:  2008-present

LSU Science professors hired under Dr. Geraty:

Larry McCloskey:  Full professor and biology department chair in 1996

Lee Grismer:  Biology faculty member since 1994

http://www.lasierra.edu/departments/biology/faculty.html

_____________________

Both strongly promote(d) the evolutionary story of origins in their science classrooms as the true story of origins and discount the SDA notion of a literal creation week as clearly mistaken from a scientific perspective.

Dr. Geraty had to know of the evolutionary views of these men during the time they worked under his watch.  While they may have added a theistic twist to this Darwinian story, they by no means support the SDA perspective of a literal 6-day creation week at LSU. Dr. McCloskey, in particular, was promoting the evolutionary story long before when he was at Walla Walla College (now WWU), convincing many students to abandon their belief in the SDA view of a literal creation week.  The suggestion that Dr. Geraty really did not know about this before Dr. McCloskey was hired by LSU is hard to accept.

It is also interesting that Dr. Geraty claims not to challenge the literal nature of the 6-day creation week himself while at the same time referring to those who do hold to the importance of such as view as “radical right-wing tea-party fundamentalists.”  One could hardly be blamed for misunderstanding Dr. Geraty’s true position given such dramatic statements in seeming contradiction.

In this light, consider Dr. Geraty’s statements in apparent support of Prof. Ervin Taylor who argues for the reliability of mainstream radiocarbon dating interpretations (which Dr. Taylor presents as clearly falsifying the SDA notion of a literal creation week in recent history) – see Link.  Dr. Geraty has also directly challenged the world-wide nature of the Noachian Flood, arguing that the author(s) of Genesis are most likely talking about a local flood.  In the book, “Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives” Dr. Geraty writes:

Was the Genesis flood worldwide? There is no evidence for that as of now, but it certainly covered the world known to the author…  It is the opinion of most experts, and little reasonable doubt remains (although some would dispute this) that the events of Genesis 6-8 must have taken place within a limited though indeed a vast area, covering not the entire globe, but the scene of the human story of the previous chapters.

Dr. Geraty stands here in direct and very open opposition to the doctrinal position of the SDA Church on this issue.  He also, at the same time, challenges the SDA understanding of the inspiration of Mrs. White who clearly claims that she was shown by God that the Noachian Flood was indeed world-wide in nature and was responsible for the formation of much of the geologic an fossil records…

It is also rather difficult to ignore the impression that Dr. Geraty strongly favors the “progressive” movement within the Church.  When former General Conference Vice-President Richard Hammill became a “progressive creationist”, turning his back on the fundamental SDA doctrine of a literal 6-day creation week, Dr. Geraty seemed to be very pleased indeed as he introduced Hammill with the following words of praise:  “I could hardly have imagined inviting our speaker to share his testimony on his journey as a progressive believer.  But to his credit, he is one of the few converts to Adventism that I know who, after his retirement, has truly made a transition to a progressive faith.” ( Link )

I don’t know about you, but it seems to me like someone is trying to straddle a fence…

Share on Facebook5Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

344 thoughts on “Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism

  1. Geraty is correct in noting that salvation is not based on knowledge of the truth, but on a Love of the truth (thank God). However, a solid hope in the “good news” of the Gospel is indeed based on knowledge. Sure, even though the heathen who have never heard of Jesus or the Gospel message can be saved according to the Royal Law of Love, they will have missed out on an opportunity to have a better and more hopeful and fulfilled life here and now.

    The SDA Church is all about spreading this hopeful Gospel message to those who are struggling in this life – to give some solid encouragement and a reality of a bright literal future in store for us all.

    Part of this Gospel message involves highlighting the Creative Power of God in His original creation of our world. This evident Creative Power is also used as a basis for God’s ability and promise to recreate this planet back to its original idealic state once this Great Controversy comes to an end – without having to wait for millions and billions of years for the very painful mechanism of “survival of the fittest” to do the job…

    Dr. Geraty forgets that the founding fathers and mothers of this SDA Church were very much believers in and supporters of a literal creation week – in the face of strong Darwinist teachings of the day. Mrs. White in particular wrote very strongly against the Darwinian notions of the need for millions of years of evolutionary progress on this planet. She claimed that she was shown in vision that the creation week described in the Genesis account was like any other week we know today. She even wrote an entire chapter in Patriarchs and Prophets entitled, “The Literal Week” in which she carefully explains the reality and importance of the literal creation week.

    In short, I thank Dr. Geraty for his honesty and forthrightness regarding his views on this issue. It helps to clarify positions. However, it also helps to clarify the reason why LSU is in the state that it is in – in open rebellion against the clearly stated position of the SDA Church, as a body, on this foundational pillar of the SDA faith.

    This decided long-standing rebellion against the Church must be addressed in an equally decided manner – and soon. This has been going on far too long, several decades now, to be ignored any longer. What do we, as the SDA Church, really stand for as “fundamental”? What do we really want to teach our own children in our own schools as “the present truth” for our day?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    P.S. As far as Dr. Geraty’s comment that:

    “…A seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”…

    Please refer to the following interesting comments by James Barr, late Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford:

    “Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”

    Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated 23 April 1984.

    James Barr also takes conservative evangelicals to task for insisting on a literal interpretation of Scripture but then abandoning it when it comes to the creation story in Genesis. Barr explains, in his work entitled Fundamentalism that,

    “as the scientific approach came to have more and more assent from fundamentalists themselves, they shifted their interpretation of the Bible passage from literal to non-literal in order to save… the inerrancy of the Bible. In order to avoid the consequence of an errant Bible, the fundamentalist “has tried every possible direction of interpretation other than the literal.” Yet, Barr rightly continues by noting that “in fact the only natural exegesis is a literal one, in the sense that this is what the author meant.”
    – James Barr, Fundamentalism, Philadelphia, PA: Westminster 1977, p. 42

    Some criticize my use of this quotation because Barr did not believe in the historicity of Genesis. But, that is precisely why his statement is so interesting: he believed the author(s) of Genesis got it wrong. With no need to try to harmonize Genesis with anything, because he did not see it as carrying any authority, Barr was free to state the clear intention of the author. This contrasts with some ‘evangelical’ theologians who try to retain some sense of authority without actually believing it says much, if anything, about history…

    View Comment
  2. In February 2009 a creation seminar at LSU was presented by Sean Pitman and organized by one student. Larry Geraty, Fritz Guy and Brian Bull were in attendance to check in on creation actually being promoted at LSU. Larry Geraty was overheard to say (paraphrase): “This is just one student, this is no big deal.”

    God does think this is a big deal! Larry Geraty thank you for showing which side you are on. It is unfortunate you weren’t as transparent before you were hired at any of your denominational postions.

    View Comment
  3. C.D. Brooks was asked at an evangelistic meeting if what we don’t know can’t hurt us. He replied that he buried a man six months previous who died of a cancer he didn’t know that he had.

    What we don’t know can indeed hurt us.

    My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

    Hosea 4:6

    Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

    Jeremiah 9:23-24

    My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
    So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
    Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
    If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
    Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.

    Proverbs 2:1-5

    But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    2 Timothy 3:13-17

    As Sean mentioned,

    And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

    2 Thessalonians 2:10-12

    It matters very much what we believe and teach, according to Scriptures. To some Christians, not so much.
    God bless,

    Rich

    View Comment
  4. This dear brother is tragically misguided! First of all, can someone tell me what the love of Christ has to do with evolution? If the Biblical creation story is to be replaced by the Darwinian model of origins, the brutal, merciless process of natural selection becomes both the norm and the ultimate good in the saga of life. Where is the love of Jesus in such a paradigm? How do grace and mercy fit into such a concept?

    What is clear yet again is how closely related such issues as creation and evolution are, at least in Adventism, to the continuing controversy over salvation. The engine and core rationale behind theological liberalism in the church is the idea that what we believe–and how we live–will not affect our eternal destiny. Now we see so blatantly revealed the connection of this false doctrine of cheap grace to the devaluation of truth now evident in our midst.

    How does this brother handle such Biblical passages as the following?

    “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee” (Hosea 4:6).

    “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (II Thess. 2:13).

    “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine: continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (I Tim. 4:16).

    These passages stand in sharp contrast with the popular illusion among us that doctrinal belief is not a salvation issue. According to the above verses, it most assuredly is!

    Praise God for the courage of the Michigan Conference and its president, Elder Jay Gallimore! The church stands in dire need of men like Josiah, Ezra, and Nehemiah who will stand without compromise for the faith once delivered to the saints.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson

    View Comment
  5. We need thousands more loyal bible believing SDA’s to come out of the closet and take a public stand. Liberals have inserted themselves into the church with considerable support by many denominational leaders.

    Larry Geraty has been a leading apostate influence in the church for decades. [edit] But he has been employed by the SDA denomination in the past and not a few others as well.

    Spectrum and A-today were “born” out of the Ford era and should be identified as non-supporting ministries of bible Adventism. Yet I assume both will have a booth at the GC sessions where it is implied they are viable supporting ministries of Adventism.

    And the idea we can seperate knowledge from love is absurd. [edit]

    While it is certainly possible for an individual to know truth and the bible and even the gospel and not respond. But it is equally evident that you can not biblically respond nor love, without a knowledge of the truth. You can not “love” what you don’t know. And to claim we are saved by love and not by knowledge is nothing but double talk that is not supported by scripture.

    “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” Hosea

    And this means spiritual enlightenment. Geraty is a new age dispensationalist and his spiritualistic ideas should be exposed for what they are. It is an antinomian attack on the bible with the idea some spiritual enlightenment trascends the written word of God. Or that love has taken the place of the law.

    We must understand that love has no true viable definition apart from the written word. Man in harmony with the devil has endeavored to define love in his own convoluted imagination ever since sin began in the world and originated in heaven by Lucifer.

    We need some clear defined spiritual discernment in the church today to avoid the final deception and delusion of the devil. A biblical understanding of law and gospel has been lacking for years and again, as Solomon has well said, “The curse causeless shall not come.”

    Keep the bible faith

    Bill Sorensen

    View Comment
  6. @Bill Sorensen:

    While it is certainly possible for an individual to know truth and the bible and even the gospel and not respond. But it is equally evident that you can not biblically respond nor love, without a knowledge of the truth. You can not “love” what you don’t know. And to claim we are saved by love and not by knowledge is nothing but double talk that is not supported by scripture.

    While it is an obvious truism that you cannot love what you do not know, God has told us that we all know Him for He has placed His Law within our hearts. – Jeremiah 31:31-34

    The point is that even the heathen can be saved if they live according to the Law of Love – the Royal Law that has in fact been written on the hearts of all mankind (even for those who have never heard the name of Jesus or the Gospel stories).

    Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. – Romans 2:14-16

    See also key comments from Mrs. White in this regard:

    “Wherever there is an impulse of love and sympathy, wherever the heart reaches out to bless and uplift others, there is revealed the working of God’s Holy Spirit. In the depths of heathenism, men who have had no knowledge of the written law of God, who have never even heard the name of Christ, have been kind to His servants, protecting them at the risk of their own lives. Their acts show the working of a divine power. The Holy Spirit has implanted the grace of Christ in the heart of the savage, quickening his sympathies contrary to his nature, contrary to his education. The ‘Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world’ (John 1:9), is shining in his soul; and this light, if heeded, will guide his feet to the kingdom of God.”

    Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 385. “God’s test of the heathen, who have not the light, and of those living where the knowledge of truth and light has been abundant, is altogether different. He accepts from those in heathen lands a phase of righteousness which does not satisfy Him when offered by those of Christian lands. He does not require much where much has not been bestowed.”—Manuscript 130, 1899, cited in SDABC, vol. 5, p. 1121.

    Such things should given us even greater respect and love for God who does not expect more from us than we could ever know. He takes into account our background and limited experience and only judges us on our conscious understanding and acceptance or rejection of what we know to be true…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  7. @Kevin Paulson:

    The engine and core rationale behind theological liberalism in the church is the idea that what we believe–and how we live–will not affect our eternal destiny. Now we see so blatantly revealed the connection of this false doctrine of cheap grace to the devaluation of truth now evident in our midst.

    How does this brother handle such Biblical passages as the following?

    “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee” (Hosea 4:6).

    “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (II Thess. 2:13).

    “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine: continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (I Tim. 4:16).

    These passages stand in sharp contrast with the popular illusion among us that doctrinal belief is not a salvation issue. According to the above verses, it most assuredly is!

    As already noted above, doctrinal understanding and belief is not directly a salvational issue. Many people will be saved in heaven who never knew anything about the creation week, the life and death of Jesus, or even His existence, or anything else about the Great Controversy or the Gospel Story. They will be saved according to how they lived compared to the Law of Love that was written upon their hearts by the Divine finger of God.

    However, this doesn’t mean that a correct doctrinal understanding is not important. It is. Doctrines have the power to make our lives better and more tolerable here and now… and to lead to a closer walk with God and a stronger hope. This in turn has the power to give us increased strength to walk hand-in-hand with God without letting go… which indirectly plays into our salvation.

    So, when Hosea aruges that God people are dying for a lack of knowledge, it doesn’t neccessarily mean an eternal death. In order to die the eternal death, true knowledge must first be understood to be true, consciously, and then deliberately rejected in favor of what one knows to be darkness. Only then is a person unsavable. How so? Because, a deliberate reject of the light means that no further light will be able to convince or change a person from their love of darkness. There simply isn’t anything more that God can do for such a person. Such are left to their chosen insanity… an insanity which ends in oblivion.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  8. I am sure that the delegates at the GC session would be quite surprised to learn that “a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation…” is an “extra-biblical interpretation” cooked up by the Michigan conference and Educate Truth; and, that fundamental belief #6 is composed so as to accomodate ‘Adventists’ who believe that “a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation…” is “extra-biblical.” Or, that those who feel compelled to uphold “a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation…” as biblically essential for Adventists, are to be compared to ‘tea-party’ extremists, disrupters of the unity of the church, and ‘salvation by knowledgers.’

    Adventist theologians who gain their degrees from centers of ‘higher criticism’ (such as Geraty’s Harvard) should be held suspect, rather than being promoted as preeminent representatives of the best Adventism has to offer.

    Geraty’s grotesque rhetoric may sound pleasing to his Southern California cronies – but it should only produce outrage among even the most accommodating and moderate of Biblical Adventists.

    View Comment
  9. @Bill Sorensen:
    Ah yes, Spectrum magazine, I know a pastor right down the street where I used to live who demonized Walter Veith in front of 300 people at an adventist institution using “evidence” from Spectrum’s website. Talk about violating Exodus 20:16
    I think the majority of posters over at spectrum should do some studying on 2 Timothy Ch3

    View Comment
  10. Well, I see some of you want to run to an exception to the rule and claim bible knowledge is not salvational.

    A few heathen can and will be in heaven because they have understood the principles of God’s law and kingdom by way of nature. To try to build a theological argument on this exception to the rule and ignore huge portions of the bible to sustain it is hardly commendable.

    Moses is in heaven. Will you conclude that all believers who die are now in heaven?

    While nature and other means of grace are used by God to communicate Himself to mankind, it is the bible that is the ultimate means of grace God uses to communicate His will and the plan of salvation. The Holy Spirit writes the law on our heart by way of the atonement of the cross. People are not converted through nature as a rule. Nor is the law written on the heart by way of nature in general.

    The preaching of the bible by way of law and gospel is the means the Holy Spirit uses so the law is written on the heart.

    Christanity is not “hocus-pocus” nor does God use this method to “change” people. New born babies begin to learn something of God and His kingdom by way of their parents. And their parents have been influenced by Christanity and society in general. Thus, it is by moral influence the law is written on the heart. And yes, all are accountable for what they know and what they can know.

    The final line is this, we must never imply that knowledge or a lack of it is irrelevant to salvation. And to appeal to the fact that some have a limited knowledge without the bible and can still be saved and then imply bible knowledge is not necessary for salvation is faulty reasoning.

    Never use an exception to the rule to build a consistent doctrine.

    Keep the faith

    Bill Sorensen

    View Comment
  11. @Bill Sorensen:

    Never use an exception to the rule to build a consistent doctrine.

    I dare say that the majority of people in Heaven someday will not have had much if any exposure to or understanding of the life of Jesus or the Gospel stories. Certainly there will be a very small minority of people in Heaven who will have ever had the doctrinal light that we as Seventh-day Adventists have been privilaged to know about God. Yet, this lack of knowledge of all of what we now know and hold to be doctrinally important will not keep the vast majority of those who came before out of Heaven nor will it block those who do not yet honestly understand these doctrinal points who are alive today.

    This is a very good thing. If salvation where in fact based on a full understanding of God and all the truths involved in the Great Controversy none of us could be saved. It is good to have such an understanding, but knowledge clearly does not have, by itself, the power to save. After all, Satan has far more knowledge than all of us put together. The problem is that he doesn’t love the Truth. He doesn’t like what he knows is in fact true. That is why he is unsavable. Truth just doesn’t do it for him.

    This is not an exception to the rule. The fact is that the bibical authors themselves say that the Law of God has been written on the hearts of all mankind – not just a few who have heard the Gospel. The Law is supernaturally written on the heart from early childhood. Even children know, without being taught, inherently the basics about what is right and wrong. This is why they try to hide what they are doing when they know that it is wrong…

    This reflects back to the promise made by God in the Garden of Eden to put “enmity” between mankind and Satan – a Divine gift to humanity to know, inherently, good from evil.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  12. How kind of God to send these things to arouse His people!

    5T 707 God will arouse His people; if other means fail, heresies will come in among them, which will sift them, separating the chaff from the wheat. The Lord calls upon all who believe His word to awake out of sleep.

    How helpful to know that these disbelieving administrators and teachers have been anointed by God for a special work. Elijah was commissioned to anoint Elisha, Jehu, and Hazael. Hazael, king of Syria, was to administer punishment upon the unfaithful northern kingdom. That is a story that has instruction for us today, for we are told, “these men are Hazaels to prove a scourge to our people.” It is interesting to examine the context of this statement. What men are the modern Hazaels anointed as a scourge to our people?

    5T 79.1 There is a spirit of opposition to the plain word of God and to the testimony of His Spirit. There is a spirit of idolatrous exaltation of mere human reason above the revealed wisdom of God.

    5T 79.2 There are men among us in responsible positions who hold that the opinions of a few conceited philosophers, so called, are more to be trusted than the truth of the Bible, or the testimonies of the Holy Spirit.

    5T 79.3 God has shown me that these men are Hazaels to prove a scourge to our people. They are wise above what is written. This unbelief of the very truths of God’s word because human judgment cannot comprehend the mysteries of His work is found in every district, in all ranks of society. It is taught in most of our schools and comes into the lessons of the nurseries. Thousands who profess to be Christians give heed to lying spirits. Everywhere the spirit of darkness in the garb of religion will confront you.

    This is a time that should bring us hope and courage. Though the scourge is here, God is sending the necessary chastisements to us. This is a time for earnest self-examination and prayer. This is a time for us to draw close to the Lord. The battle is His. We claim the promise, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten.” This necessary chastening at the hand of God is the ultimate proof of His love. Though it gives Him pain to have to cause us pain, He administers the discipline until we are broken in humility and contrition. I pray that this chastening proves restorative for me.

    View Comment
  13. Dr. Geraty said, “I wish its critics would also circulate the fact that enrollment (including in biology) is at an all time high.”

    That statement reveals the source of the problem: “If you lower the standard in order to secure popularity and an increase of numbers, and then make this increase a cause of rejoicing, you show great blindness. If numbers were evidence of success, Satan might claim the pre-eminence; for in this world his followers are largely in the majority” (5T 31).

    Poor man, he is simply blind. Treat him with the gentle tenderness his condition demands. He is not alone. Unfortunately, all of us share the problem.

    How accurate is the diagnosis of Jesus of all of our condition today: “Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked” (Rev 3:17).

    Lord, give me the eye-salve that can restore my sight.

    View Comment
  14. Sean said…..
    “Even children know, without being taught, inherently the basics about what is right and wrong. This is why they try to hide what they are doing when they know that it is wrong…”

    Well, Sean, you are wrong. Children know nothing about right and/or wrong unless they are taught.

    While I appreciate your effort and defense of bible truth concerning creation vs. evolution, you apparently do not comprehend the issue of original sin. Were it not for the prevenient grace of the Holy Spirit working through the children’s parents and other elements of society, they would have no awareness of right or wrong.

    “The wicked are estranged from the womb, the go astray speaking lies as soon as they are born.” Ps. 58

    “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?” Jer. 17

    “Ye must be born again” must seem trivial to those who lack an understanding of sin and its effect on all of Adam’s children.

    The children in every family are to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Evil propensities are to be controlled, evil tempers subdued; and the children are to be instructed that they are the Lord’s property, bought with His own precious blood, and that they cannot live a life of pleasure and vanity, have their own will and carry out their own ideas, and yet be numbered among the children of God. The children are to be instructed with kindness and patience. . . . Let the parents teach them of the love of God in such a way that it will be a pleasant theme in the family circle, and let the church take upon them the responsibility of feeding the lambs as well as the sheep of the flock. {CG 42.1}

    It requires skill and patient effort to mold the young in the right manner. Especially do children who have come into the world burdened with a heritage of evil, the direct results of the sins of their parents, need the most careful culture to develop and strengthen their moral and intellectual faculties. And the responsibility of the parents is heavy indeed. Evil tendencies are to be carefully restrained and tenderly rebuked; the mind is to be stimulated in favor of the right. The child should be encouraged in attempting to govern himself. And all this is to be done judiciously, or the purpose desired will be frustrated. {CG 228.2}

    Parents have a more serious charge than they imagine. The inheritance of children is that of sin. Sin has separated them from God. Jesus gave His life that He might unite the broken links to God. As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death. But Christ steps in and passes over the ground where Adam fell, enduring every test in man’s behalf. . . . Christ’s perfect example and the grace of God are given him to enable him to train his sons and daughters to be sons and daughters of God. It is by teaching them, line upon line, precept upon precept, how to give the heart
    476
    and will up to Christ that Satan’s power is broken. {CG 475.3}

    Children have no inherent knowledge of right and wrong. That the Holy Spirit works through God’s ordained means of grace including their parents, is clear, not only from the bible, but affirmed and supported by EGW.

    Bill Sorensen

    View Comment
  15. @Bill Sorensen:

    Sean said…..
    “Even children know, without being taught, inherently the basics about what is right and wrong. This is why they try to hide what they are doing when they know that it is wrong…”

    Well, Sean, you are wrong. Children know nothing about right and/or wrong unless they are taught.

    While we are all born in a state of separation from God, with a propensity to do evil, we are also all born with a conscience… an inherent knowledge of what is right and wrong. If we did not have this inherent knowledge of right and wrong, we could not be guilty of sin (John 9:41). Sin is a deliberate transgression against what we know is right. If we did not already know what was right, we couldn’t transgress against our conscience.

    It is not we who give a conscience to our children. That is strictly God’s doing. We may help to refine the conscience, but the conscience is none-the-less a gift of God.

    The fact that you think God is willing to exclude those who do not understand or who may not have even heard various doctrines that SDAs hold dear is ridiculous. You cannot possibly think that God would be so unfair as to exclude, much less punish, anyone simply because he/she did not and could not possibly have known some doctrine – like the state of the dead or the literal six-day creation week. Such a notion is absolutely ludicrous.

    Do you know how many people you would exclude from Heaven using such knowledge-based criteria? Do you? You do realize that some of the greatest Christian reformers in history, like Martin Luther for example, did not recognize the importance of the Seventh-day Sabbath (or several other SDA doctrines for that matter). Is Martin Luther therefore lost? Please… think just a little bit about what you are saying… your criteria exclude everyone from God’s grace – even you! You don’t know nearly enough about God’s Truth as you think you do. Satan knows far more than you know. Why then is he not savable while you and I are? – being far more ignorant of Truth?

    Doctrinal knowledge does NOT save a person. This is very very clear from a straight reading of the Bible and of the writings of Mrs. White. It is the love of truth that saves a person – not just the knowledge of the truth itself.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  16. Dr. Geraty said, “I wish its critics would also circulate the fact that enrollment (including in biology) is at an all time high.”That statement reveals the source of the problem: “If you lower the standard in order to secure popularity and an increase of numbers, and then make this increase a cause of rejoicing, you show great blindness. If numbers were evidence of success, Satan might claim the pre-eminence; for in this world his followers are largely in the majority” (5T 31).Poor man, he is simply blind. Treat him with the gentle tenderness his condition demands. He is not alone. Unfortunately, all of us share the problem.How accurate is the diagnosis of Jesus of all of our condition today: “Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked” (Rev 3:17).Lord, give me the eye-salve that can restore my sight.  (Quote)

    Phil, I disagree with you about Geraty. He is not blind–he knows exactly what he is saying and doing. He is a major public supporter of other secular humanist ideas such as “gay marriage.” Geraty knows what this is about, and he in sticking to his humanistic ideas, despite what he knows about God’s Truth. But, you are right about him not being alone. We have many others just like him here in our SDA Church in California

    View Comment
  17. So, Geraty doesn’t want to take sides? He’s already on the side of LSU, as he was one of the major reasons we have this debacle in the first place. He “led” LSU for several years, and if the profs were “making mistakes” HE should have done something. Well, as we can all see, Geraty did nothing, as Wisbey is currently doing.

    View Comment
  18. This unfolding drama never ceases to amaze me! There are several common themes that are particularly surprising. There is the common theme among those who agree with what LSU is doing that those who don’t agree with them are mean-spirited and unChristian. I’ve been following this with some care and for the most part I don’t see it. Since when is it mean-spirited to believe that employees are obligated to support their employer?

    It is not up to anyone but God to judge the eternal salvation of anyone, but that is not at all equivalent to judging who is right for employment. The employer does have this right.

    Clearly, what is going on here is more painful to face than many of us have been willing to admit before now. There are two “churches” within the church. The liberal “church within the church” is no longer a minority in some places, and it is no longer safe to assume that it does not involve at the very least a significant minority of leadership in some Conferences. The employees of LSU don’t buy our “you must be loyal to your boss” arguments simply because from their point of view they ARE being loyal to their boss. The lack of decided action on the part of anyone with real jurisdiction over them gives some credence to their viewpoint. Until their Board of Trustees does something substantive to stop this they will continue to have some reason to feel justified in their current course.

    Because the supporters of LSU’s form of “progressive adventism” feel so firmly that someone has their back, their openness is my other source of complete surprise. While LSU’s public statements have largely dodged the issue, Dr. Garrety is completely open in his denial of what heretofore has been accepted Adventist doctrine! I never thought I’d see the day!

    The sad fact is that within the SDA church we have a clash between two mutually exclusive and antagonistic world-views. Those of us who wish our institutions to be loyal to what seems to us the clear teaching of Scripture cannot even relate to the arguments of Dr. Garrety. I suspect that he feels the same about mine. The arguments he gives in favor of LSU could equally well be given in favor of the Salvation Army. While I have immense respect for their work, I still believe that I must help the world not only be merciful, but also to understand present truth for present peril.

    No matter how hard we try to deal with this “one problem,” it is becoming increasingly clear that ultimately this will be decided on a much bigger playing field. As we all know, while this is perhaps the most shocking, it is only one of many examples where the two “churches within a church” are diametrically opposed. I understand and agree that any reform movement must start somewhere, but this can only really be settled on a more global scale. What is really happening here is a struggle to decide which paradigm will be dominant in the church of the future.

    The one thing that keeps me joyful is the knowledge that no on can compel the conscience. No matter what happens politically I am still able to read my Bible and believe. I know that God still rules and He can take care of me and His church. What hurts me most are the impressionable young minds that in the meantime are being turned from the God for Whom “all things are possible.”

    Our prayers must be constant.

    Sincerely, and with no thought of mean-spiritedness,

    Pastor George Hilton, PhD

    View Comment
  19. The real issue in the creation/evolution debate is not the existence of God. The real issue is the nature of God. To think of evolution as basically atheistic is to misunderstand the uniqueness of evolution. Evolution was not designed as a general attack against theism. It was designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible is clearly revealed through the doctrine of creation. Obviously, if a person is an atheist, it would be normal for him to also be an evolutionist. But evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with atheism. An evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible. The gods allowed by evolution are private, subjective, and artificial. They bother no one and make no absolute ethical demands. However, the God of the Bible is the Creator, Sustainer, Savior, and Judge. All are responsible to Him. He has an agenda that conflicts with that of the sinful humans. For man to be created in the image of God is very awesome. For God to be created in the image of man is very comfortable.

    Marvin L Lubenow
    Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, Baker, 1992, p. 188-189.

    View Comment
  20. Ron, blindness is not my diagnosis, that is diagnosis of the Great Physician. Throughout history blindness in Israel has been its great problem. Of the ~22 recorded healings of Jesus, 5 were for blindness. On the cross Jesus pitied the blindness of the Jews when He said, “They know not what they do.”

    Sadly, like the Jews crucifying Jesus, these men do not know what they are doing. Though they call darkness light and light darkness, they are deceived. Many prefer the darkness to light (John 3:19). They truly believe they are representing God. They serve as a beacon of warning for the areas in our own lives where we may be blind.

    1888 930.3 Satan will come in through every avenue that is left unguarded, to blind minds as to the true and vital interests that are at stake for this time. If he can becloud the minds of our responsible men, the leaven will work. They will not see nor understand the workings of God any more than did the Jews in the days when the greatest blessings were within their reach. By their impenitence, self-confidence, and self-righteousness, they were closing the door to their peace. They were closing the door to their only hope, because they were unwilling to accept of God’s way and submit their minds and hearts to the light of truth.

    Of course, the greatest blindness is the blindness of closing our eyes to the truth.

    RH 12/23/1890 Those who love their own way, who worship their idols of opinion, and do not love God and obey his word, will continue to walk in darkness. O, how terrible is unbelief! As well let light be poured upon the blind, as to present truth to these souls; the one cannot see, and the other will not see.

    View Comment
  21. Sean, this is not a thread about original sin and its implications and effects on the human family. In my opinion, you not only have a limited view of sin, this limited view also gives you a limited view of the atonement.

    But I would say this in response to your “theory”. If we are not culpable because we are ignorant, then what need is there for grace in light of our ignorance?

    Here is what you said…..”Sin is a deliberate transgression against what we know is right. If we did not already know what was right, we couldn’t transgress against our conscience.”

    This is a limited view of sin. “Sin is transgression of the law”. I don’t care if “your conscience” is aware of what is right or wrong. When you transgress the law, you are sinning. To limit sin to simply what you know is a faulty theology. I think you are confused.

    And you said this about what you think my view is….”
    Doctrinal knowledge does NOT save a person. This is very very clear from a straight reading of the Bible and of the writings of Mrs. White. It is the love of truth that saves a person – not just the knowledge of the truth itself.”

    At no time have I suggested that knowledge alone can save anyone. I have stated that unless a person responds to truth under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they can not be saved. Your view implies that knowledge plays no part in salvation. And in this, you support Geraty who implied the same thing. Knowledge and love both play a part along with faith and obedience.

    Our discussion proves that all truth is comprehended in every aspect of truth. So that one truth embraces all truth and one error eventually embraces all error.

    None the less, we might agree that some error by way of ignorance in the framework of truth, is far better than some truth in a framework of error.

    So that Protestantism that clings to the bible while holding some immature or even faulty ideas, is far better than Romanism that may advocate some aspects of truth while abandoning the bible and opting for church authority. The bible will eventually eliminate all error. And Romanism will eventually eliminate all truth.

    Thus we cling to the creation story vs. evolution while Rome embraces some aspects of evolution and rejects the clear biblical narative. And Geraty embraces Romanism and the spirit of Rome by way of human conjecture and science in opposition to the clear revelation of scripture.

    We don’t want his spirit influencing our children in their education process, nor anyone else who embraces his spirit of rebellion to be teaching in our schools.

    Again, we are grateful to those who have “come out of the closet” as it were and are voicing their opposition to the evil that has and is coming more and more into Adventism by this Satanic liberal spirit that warps the gospel from its biblical context and attacks the bible and the law of God.

    Keep the faith

    Bill Sorensen

    View Comment
  22. [LSU] continues to send out student missionaries and baptize students (the latest group this last weekend), defend the church and stand for truth around the world ….

    Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.

    It would appear that Geraty just called evolution over long ages “truth.” Does not Geraty realize that such sentiments coming from a former university president amount to treason? And if Geraty holds such views, how then can he properly head up LLBN? Should he not resign from that position until he can conscientiously endorse the biblical view of creation?

    Christ indeed said they will know us by our love. But how is it love to deny the truth of God’s declaration that He created the world in 6 actual days just thousands of years ago? How is it love to promote what Jesus testified was the most dangerous form of infidelity? How is it love to refuse to believe the One whom you claim to love?

    View Comment
  23. @Bill Sorensen:

    But I would say this in response to your “theory”. If we are not culpable because we are ignorant, then what need is there for grace in light of our ignorance?

    But we are not ignorant of one vital truth. As I’ve already noted for you several times: God has written the Royal Law on the hearts of us all. Therefore, we are judged according to how we act relative to this Law that He has placed in our hearts. If He had not written this law on our hearts, and given us a conscience to know between right and wrong, we could not be accused of deliberate rebellion – for how can someone rebel against something that isn’t known?

    Sinners are rebels precisely because they did know what was right in their hearts, but rejected to follow that still small voice of the Holy Spirit speaking to all hearts… In other words, they rebelled against their conscience… against the voice of God.

    Here is what you said….. “Sin is a deliberate transgression against what we know is right. If we did not already know what was right, we couldn’t transgress against our conscience.” – Sean Pitman

    This is a limited view of sin. “Sin is transgression of the law”. I don’t care if “your conscience” is aware of what is right or wrong. When you transgress the law, you are sinning. To limit sin to simply what you know is a faulty theology. I think you are confused.

    Sin is indeed “transgression of the law”. And, what is the law? It the law not “love to God and love to man”? Is it not true that “he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law”? – Romans 13:8. Even if a person does not know the name of Jesus or the stories of the Gospel, is it not possible for that person to listed to the Holy Spirit’s voice even though this voice isn’t directly recognized for what it is? Is it not true that in serving the “least of these brothers of Jesus” one is in reality serving Jesus directly? – Matthew 15:40.

    I’m just going by what the Bible says and what is reasonable to anyone with a fair mind. How can someone be held responsible for what they honestly did not know? What if God had not told Adam and Eve that they were forbidden to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Would they have been guilty of sin for having eaten of it? Of course not. It is only because they were told not to do it and knew that in doing it they were rejecting all that God had done for them that it was a sin, or rebellion against God, when they did it.

    Likewise, there are many holy people throughout history that did not know of many of the doctrinal truths that you and I now know about. They did not observe the Seventh-day Sabbath rest that we have been blest with. However, because they lived up to the light that they did know about, God overlooks their ignorance in those areas that they didn’t know about and does not consider their transgression of His Sabbath day in ignorance to be a deliberate rebellion against Him – or sin on their part.

    God does in fact “wink” at honest ignorance – Acts 17:30. But, He does not wink at deliberate rebellion against what we know is true and right.

    At no time have I suggested that knowledge alone can save anyone. I have stated that unless a person responds to truth under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they can not be saved. Your view implies that knowledge plays no part in salvation. And in this, you support Geraty who implied the same thing. Knowledge and love both play a part along with faith and obedience.

    I didn’t say that knowledge played no part in salvation. Knowledge does play a part, but a very limited part – an indirect part. I specifically said that knowledge, by itself, doesn’t save anyone nor does the lack of knowledge make anyone lost in and of itself. Salvation is entirely based on motive, on the love of true knowledge, what little one might have of it. Salvation is not based on the correct understanding of the literal 6-day creation week for example. There are many people who do not understand this very hopeful truth who will be saved because of their love for their fellow man.

    When we come before the judgment, God is not going to ask us how much we know, what doctrines we got right and which ones we didn’t. He is going to ask us if we loved our neighbor as ourselves? As you did it to the least of these my brothers, you did it to me. – Matthew 25:40.

    He who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. Romans 13:8.

    This is true even though one may not have known the actual name of Jesus or the stories of the Gospel or any of the SDA doctrinal beliefs. If a man or woman in a heathen land who never knew about Jesus showed love to their fellow human beings they have shown evidence that the Holy Spirit is within and that they are living according to the only really important Law, the Royal Law, that God Himself wrote upon the hearts of all.

    None the less, we might agree that some error by way of ignorance in the framework of truth, is far better than some truth in a framework of error.

    It is better, no doubt, but it isn’t the basis of salvation. Some truth, even if held in the framework of error will save a person who is doing the best he/she can given what little is known.

    Again, it is the love of truth that saves, however little that truth may be and however great the errors may be. It is the love of truth and the desire to know more truth that saves.

    So that Protestantism that clings to the bible while holding some immature or even faulty ideas, is far better than Romanism that may advocate some aspects of truth while abandoning the bible and opting for church authority. The bible will eventually eliminate all error. And Romanism will eventually eliminate all truth.

    This is not entirely correct. There are still, today, very sincere Catholics who simply do not know the “truth” as we know it. They are in fact living according to the best light that they do understand. They are loving to their neighbors and would give you or me the shirt off their backs or their very last dime if we really needed it. Such are holy before God and their honest ignorance on doctrinal issues, to include ignorance regarding the true value of the Bible, will not be held against them.

    Remember, there have been millions of people who never saw or even heard of the Bible who were loving and kind toward their neighbors – who even sacrificed their very lives in love for strangers. “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” – John 15:13.

    Thus we cling to the creation story vs. evolution while Rome embraces some aspects of evolution and rejects the clear biblical narative. And Geraty embraces Romanism and the spirit of Rome by way of human conjecture and science in opposition to the clear revelation of scripture.

    The revelation is certainly clear to you and me. However, you cannot know the heart of another. You cannot judge the heart of Dr. Geraty or what he really does know and understand. It is a terrible mistake to presume to step into God’s place and make a moral judgment on another because you think it impossible that this person could be honestly confused on some doctrinal issue. It is better to leave all judgments of the heart up to God and not accuse anyone of deliberate sin or evil simply because they do not understand some point of doctrine like you understand it.

    We don’t want his spirit influencing our children in their education process, nor anyone else who embraces his spirit of rebellion to be teaching in our schools.

    I agree that Dr. Geraty’s ideas have no place in our schools. However, that isn’t the same thing as suggesting that Dr. Geraty is clearly living in sin or is somehow clearly evil because he doesn’t understand an important doctrine as I understand it. That judgment is God’s alone because only God can correctly judge the heart. You’re just looking on the outward appearance of the man. You really don’t know his heart as God knows it. 1 Samuel 16:7

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  24. Phil, Geraty has a long education in biblical principles, and he has rejected many of them, as we can see from his own words. This is not “blindness.” When individuals reject God’s Truth in favor of humanistic ideas, as Geraty and many other SDA’s have done, they have simply chosen to follow error. I fail to see any “blindness.”

    View Comment
  25. @Ron Stone M.D.:

    Phil, Geraty has a long education in biblical principles, and he has rejected many of them, as we can see from his own words. This is not “blindness.” When individuals reject God’s Truth in favor of humanistic ideas, as Geraty and many other SDA’s have done, they have simply chosen to follow error. I fail to see any “blindness.”

    You and I may not understand how it could be possible for anyone to be so blind to what seems so obvious to us, but I propose to you that you cannot accurately judge such things. Only God can accurately judge the heart and truly know the motive. It seems amazing to me that the disciples of Jesus didn’t understand much of anything that He was so clearly telling them for years. They were blind to the obvious. But, Jesus did not reject them. He was patient with them because He knew their hearts and loved them despite their seemingly amazing blindness to the obvious.

    You simply do not know nearly enough to judge Dr. Geraty on a moral level. Any further posts to such an effect, suggesting that Dr. Geraty or anyone else on the opposite side of this issue are clearly sinful, evil, or otherwise morally corrupt, will be blocked. They may be clearly wrong, but that isn’t the same thing as being clearly sinful because of their misunderstanding of seemingly obvious doctrinal truths. Again, any further posts alone these lines will be blocked…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  26. Sean, The words and terms you used were not used by me. I simply stated the facts that Geraty has had a longstanding education and training in biblical truths, and he espouses the oppposite. You say he’s “blind” but I say he has very good vision of what he wants to see, as do the others at LSU which we are chastising!

    View Comment
  27. @Ron Stone M.D.:

    You say he’s “blind” but I say he has very good vision of what he wants to see, as do the others at LSU which we are chastising!

    What I said is that I don’t know if Dr. Geraty is or is not honestly blind to the truth and neither do you. You have no idea if he is or is not in deliberate rebellion against what he knows in his heart to be true. Only God knows the answer to that question. Therefore, until God makes His definitive judgments known, I prefer to assume the best regarding the motives of others when it comes to such doctrinal issues…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  28. Wow! I never thought the church would be debating such a basic Biblical truth as a literal 7 day creation week and I never thought we would see leaders like Lawrence Geraty betray the truth. How are we to stand for the Sabbath in these last days if we can’t even agree upon the Biblical creation account? How can such educated men and women be so blind to clear Biblical teachings?

    I will never send my kids to LSU until this is resolved and I grew up not far from this university.

    View Comment
  29. Brian, I too never thought we would see some of our so called Christian leaders attacking the very foundation of Christianity. It’s sad that this is happening within the church, and sadder still that nothing is being done to correct it.

    View Comment
  30. My question is this: Why has nothing been done about this situation before now? To my understanding this has been going on for quite some time. It is an outrage.

    View Comment
  31. @Ron Stone M.D.: Blindness versus darkness

    Many people do not understand the difference between being in darkness and being in blindness. Turning on the light differentiates between those who respond to light (sight) and those who do not respond to light (blindness). Everyone gropes around in the darkness, but only the blind grope around in the full light of the day.

    In the Bible, light is the symbol for truth (Ps 43:3). The world around is in darkness (Isa 60:2). When the light shines (i.e., truth from the Bible is presented) and we cannot OR will not respond, the problem is not simply darkness, it is blindness. There is light (truth) in the church, but when we fail to respond to this light (truth) by bringing our lives into conformity with the light whether it is from neglecting OR rejecting the truth, we are said to be blind, that is, not responsive to truth. More light cannot solve this problem. The problem of the Jewish leaders was called blindness 5 times by Christ in the woes pronounced on the Jewish nation (Matt 23:16, 17, 19, 24, 26). It is important to understand that wilful rejection of truth is blindness (Hardness of heart, deafness, and foolishness are all Biblical “synonyms” for blindness).

    Sometimes rejection of truth is because of the manner of its presentation. “When the theory of the truth is repeated without its sacred influence being felt upon the soul of the speaker, it has no force upon the hearers, but is rejected as error, the speaker making himself responsible for the loss of souls” (4T 441).

    Sight is the biblical symbol for love for the truth (2 Thes 2:9). When we accept God’s gift of love for the truth we have been healed of blindness. Our eyes are said to be open. (Eph 4:18).

    Blindness has a number of symptoms: Some examples include:
    1. The blind have to rely on feelings to guide them (Deut 28:29; Isa 59:10).
    2. The blind have to rely on others to guide them (Job 29:15). The blind are not capable of determining whether or not they have a good guide and often choose blind guides (Matt 15:14; Joh 12:35).
    3. The blind do not see imminent danger and fail to warn others of coming danger (Prov 4:19; Isa 56:10).
    4. The blind may mistake their imaginary mental ideas with actually seeing. (Joh 9:39-41; Isa 50:11; Luke 11:35).
    5. They do not recognize the light of good coming (Jer 17:6).

    There are a number of causes for blindness mentioned in Scripture. Some examples include:
    1. A bribe/”gift” blinds (Ex 23:8; Deut 16:19; 1Sam 12:3).
    2. Prolonged darkness, like the cave dwelling fish (1 Joh 2:11).
    3. Blindfold/Vail (Lu 24:64; 2 Cor 3:14).
    4. Congenital causes (John 9:20).
    5. Ignorance (Eph 4:18).
    6. Lack of the qualities of the eight qualities founded on faith described by Peter (1 Pet 1:9).
    7. Judgment of God (Acts 13:11).

    The leaders in “progressive” Adventism have all the Biblically diagnostic signs and symptoms of blindness. But so do all of us. Only God can heal our blindness. This is not a small or unimportant matter. For this healing we must cry out like blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:47). We must have the eyesalve prescribed in Rev 3:18. Our prayer should be, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law” (Ps 119:18).

    View Comment
  32. That Dr. Geraty and La Sierra doubts the prophetic ministry of Ellen White is also no longer in dispute. Note the following from Chapter 6 of Patriarchs and Prophets:

    Like the Sabbath, the week originated at creation, and it has been preserved and brought down to us through Bible history. God Himself measured off the first week as a sample for successive weeks to the close of time. Like every other, it consisted of seven literal days. Six days were employed in the work of creation; upon the seventh, God rested, and He then blessed this day and set it apart as a day of rest for man.

    In the law given from Sinai, God recognized the week, and the facts upon which it is based. After giving the command, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” and specifying what shall be done on the six days, and what shall not be done on the seventh, He states the reason for thus observing the week, by pointing back to His own example: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Exodus 20:8-11. This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the days of creation to be literal. The first six days of each week are given to man for labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. On the seventh day man is to refrain from labor, in commemoration of the Creator’s rest.

    But the assumption that the events of the first week required thousands upon thousands of years, strikes directly at the foundation of the fourth commandment. It represents the Creator as commanding men to observe the week of literal days in commemoration of vast, indefinite periods. This is unlike His method of dealing with His creatures. It makes indefinite and obscure that which He has made very plain. It is infidelity in its most insidious and hence most dangerous form; its real character is so disguised that it is held and taught by many who profess to believe the Bible. [p. 112]

    View Comment
  33. George Hilton says, “Clearly, what is going on here is more painful to face than many of us have been willing to admit before now. There are two “churches” within the church. The liberal “church within the church” is no longer a minority in some places, and it is no longer safe to assume that it does not involve at the very least a significant minority of leadership in some Conferences. The employees of LSU don’t buy our “you must be loyal to your boss” arguments simply because from their point of view they ARE being loyal to their boss. The lack of decided action on the part of anyone with real jurisdiction over them gives some credence to their viewpoint.”

    George, I have come to exactly the same conclusion over the past few days, and recently said so on the Spectrum site. But you said it better and more eloquently than I ever could have.

    I have wanted to believe that the Seventh-day Darwinians are a tiny minority within the church. I have wanted to believe that those self-identified Adventists who reject the traditional Adventist high view of Scripture and who reject the prophetic authority of Ellen White were a very small minority. But given the outpouring of support for LaSierra–a completely unrepentant LaSierra–this view is no longer tenable. The fact is that the liberal “church within a church” is very large. It may well be close to a majority in the Southern California Conference, and almost certainly is a majority in the Southeastern California Conference.

    There are those who have objected that the action of the Michigan Conference threatens church unity, but the truth is that this entire LaSierra controversy has exposed–not created but exposed–a profound, utterly unbridgeable disunity. There is no hope of reconciliation, because there is no common authority to appeal to; the liberal church within the church does not read Scripture as the traditionalists do and does not recognize the prophetic authority of Ellen White. To what common authority could either faction appeal to settle our disputes?

    This is a very depressing epiphany, but it is always better to know the truth than not know it.

    View Comment
  34. It is clear from the Spectrum web site that a number of Adventists still think the real issue is that EducateTruth wants to falsely accuse LSU of teaching evolution.

    Educate truth needs an “evidence that LSU favors evolution” summary section with links to the firsthand evidence from videos, press releases, LSU teachers, students defending their right to promote evolution (even if they do it has comments as in the case with Erv Taylor’s positions) are compiled and the reader simply clicks on the underlying link to see the evidence for each line item listed.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  35. @Kim Goldstein:

    My question is this: Why has nothing been done about this situation before now? To my understanding this has been going on for quite some time. It is an outrage.

    Kim –

    In fact a 1994 survey of SDA collegiate science professors showed that we had a serious problem – as AToday likes to remind us.

    The 2003-2005 faith and science conferences also produced surveys showing the problem to be real and substantive.

    When this thing surfaced at Walla Walla the GC president directed the Union president to solve the problem – and the result was that some of the pro-evolution professors at Walla Walla transferred to LSU.

    This thing is massive – it is much larger than the Kellogg issue because even our Universities that hold to the right view on Creation – are obligated to at least inform students about the details of the evolution scheme so that they can be conversant on the topic in the outside world. That was not a problem that we had with Kellogg’s “Living Temple”.

    I submitted an article to the Review explaining this in detail – but I doubt they will publish it.

    BTW – Mayda says hi.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  36. I once was in a dialog with Larry Geraty about the Coffee shop at LSU. As the then president he aptly defended the Coffee shop as being a necessary and beneficial element of LSU. In following his reasoning I guess if I thought I came from a monkey or a mollusk I would need some kind of neuropsychological obtundation. LOL

    View Comment
  37. I realize the Genesis account in verses 1,2 may leave one wondering that something might have been here with an evolved origin: I think this quote from Ellen White makes it clear that all things were created in 6 days that humans can observe or see:

    “If they had obeyed this commandment, they would have worshiped God, as they looked at the sun that rules the day, and the moon which rules the night. Everything in nature,–the tints and coloring that he has given to every opening bud and every blooming flower, the lofty tree, the grass that clothes the earth in its green mantle, would have spoken to the soul, bidding us to remember God and the commandment in which he says that he created all these in six days and rested on the seventh day, and hallowed the Sabbath day which he had made. He blessed man, and gave the Sabbath to him to be observed as a memorial of his creative power. But Satan has come in, and shown himself the decided enemy of man, and he seeks to make of none effect the work of God, and get in every conceivable thing of human origination, to hide God and his glory from our sight. The man of sin, it is declared in Daniel, “shall think to change times and laws,” And is not this very work done now? Is he not seeking to change times and laws? {RH, April 15, 1890 par. 11}

    “He set apart that special day for man to rest from his labor, that, as he should look upon the earth beneath and the heavens above, he might reflect that God made all these in six days and rested upon the seventh; and that, as he should behold the tangible proofs of God’s infinite wisdom, his heart might be filled with love and reverence for his Maker.” {2T 582.3}

    I think these along with the Genesis account, and the wording of the fourth commandment shoots down the evolution of a primoridal mass before the beginning of the 6 days of creation.

    View Comment
  38. Geraty mentioned that he wishes LSU’s critics would “circulate the fact that enrollment (including in biology) is at an all time high, it continues to send out student missionaries and baptize students (the latest group this last weekend), defend the church and stand for truth around the world.” This information has already been widely publicized by LSU.

    Also, it is not my goal to advertise all the good things that are going on at LSU, nor is it my intention to publicize all the things that are wrong with LSU. My entire focus is on the promotion of the theory of evolution over the church’s official position. I was a student at LSU, so I am well aware of all the things Geraty mentioned. All these wonderful things don’t change the fact that there are at least four biology professors who are using their classrooms to proselytize their students with an evolutionary world view. So all the good things about LSU are irrelevant to this issue.

    Geraty said: “I believe the tea party movement and radical right-wing politics is affecting our beloved church, not only in belief but in tactics that have no place among Christians.”

    Since I am solely responsible for the creation of Educate Truth, the tactics that Geraty refers to, I assume, are a reference to what I’ve been trying to accomplish through the website. I’m not involved in the politics of our nation. I can say with absolute certainty that the tea party movement and radical right-wing politics had no bearing on my actions. LSU’s irresponsibility had everything to do with it.

    Geraty said: “If you care about Truth, I suggest you dig a bit deeper than either Shane Hilde or the Michigan Conference have done.”

    Geraty suggests that if people are interested in truth that they should dig deeper than what I have done. To what truth is he referring to? The truth about what is going on at LSU? Is he suggesting that if people dig deeper they’ll find out that everything I’ve been saying isn’t true? I took the class. I have the hard evidence. The truth is as I’ve been stating it for the past year.

    Geraty said: “Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”

    I agree with him here, but fail to see how this applies to the current issue. I’m not questioning their [LSU professors] love for Christ, salvation, etc. For me, this issue has everything to do with representation. I’m not trying to disfellowship them or call into question their relationship with God. These are all red herring issues. I’m not concerned about these issues as I am their misrepresentation of the church’s position on creation.

    Geraty said: “Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation.”

    This isn’t about just anyone’s preference. This about the church’s stance on creation. I know Geraty and some others had a significant influence with the wording of FB #6. Despite his efforts to make that belief more pluralistic, he cannot deny what the historic stand of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been. We have always read the days in Genesis to be literal consecutive days and that this creation week occurred about 6,000 years ago. Sure there have been those that have disagreed with this understanding, but this has been the consensus since our beginning. I believe the language of the Bible is incredibly clear on this point. But if the language wasn’t explicit enough, God made it even more clear through a vision he gave Ellen White: “I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week” (Spiritual Gifts Vol. III, p. 90). God affirmed our understanding of Genesis.

    Geraty said: “I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference. Since when is salvation by correct knowledge anyway?”

    Geraty has falsely attributed this “extra-biblical interpretation” to the Michigan Conference. It is the official position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, despite whatever his intentions were to make the language vague enough to allow other views. The implied meaning remains and has always been six literal days in the recent past. Once again this isn’t necessarily about salvation. This is a straw man attack. I’ve certainly never claimed people are saved by what they believe about Genesis. There will be many atheists and theistic evolutionists in heaven. What does this have to do with the issue? Nothing. It’s not one that I’ve ever broached on my website.

    Geraty said: “I just wanted you to know there is a much larger picture out there with forces at work that are disrupting the unity of the church–and that the force is not one or two professors at LSU whose views are being dealt with constructively by LSU’s administration in whom you can continue to have every confidence.”

    There are certainly forces at work disrupting the unity of our church. Geraty and I will disagree on what those forces are though. I find it ironic that he accuses me of being divisive when all I’ve done is ask that LSU be supportive of our belief in a recent, six-day creation. There are at least four professors who undermine the church’s position actively. Geraty is right about it not being just a few professors; its the administration of LSU too. He claims their views are being dealt with constructively. That’s good to hear, because as of today LSU hasn’t publicized any action to directly address the promotion of the theory of evolution. The recent revelation that their flagship class, designed to address this issue, was not only not promoting the church’s position but undermining it as well, further erodes my confidence in LSU’s administration.

    I believe God created the heaven and earth in six days about 6,000 years ago. I believe this is and has been the consensus of our church since its conception.

    View Comment
  39. I have no problem with SDA students learning ABOUT the religious belief of Naturalism and it’s evolutionism. It is just as important to know this as to learn about any other religious belief so that one knows how to deal with it and not get lost in the many pathways. One reason why this is a problem today is that not enough about the religious nature of Naturalism and evolutionism has been taught so that when our students are exposed to it, they become confused.

    Ellen White was right when but 5 years after Darwin published “Origin of the species,” she wrote that the problem was all about faith. Do you believe in the religious views of naturalism or the religious views of Creationism? Science itself is not the problem. What was not really understood until the 20th century, with Popper and Khun, was that all science is done within a paradigm and that the interpretations within one paradigm were incompatible with interpretations within another paradigm.

    View Comment
  40. Geraty’s statement is very helpful in clearing the air and now we know exactly where he stands. All we need now is a similar statement from LSU Biology staff, the University President and the Chairman of the Board and we will know exactly who we need to replace. (If there was any doubt.)

    This situation would be laughable if it wasn’t so very sad and disappointing.

    View Comment
  41. 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

    View Comment
  42. It is obvious that LSU is not going to deal with the issue. It is also very apparent that individuals like Dr. Larry Geraty does not believe the way that Seventh-day Adventists believe. No one is expecting or requiring him to do so. He is retired. The damage he has done is in the past. Dr. Ron Wisby now has the responsibility of putting an end to this profound breach in academic ethics. For too long the progressives in the “Adventist Church” and it’s educational system have used the cry of “academic freedom” as a cloak to pull over betrayal and subterfuge. I have repeatedly said Academic Freedom is not the issue here. It’s loyalty to the employer who pays you every month. Now if you don’t want to work for LSU, or the Seventh-day Adventist Church you can have all the academic freedom you want. You just do not have a right to teach my children your academically free ideas of evolution that at its very base disposes of the Seventh day Sabbath. Upon what do you now base that belief on? Continued employment by the Seventh-day Adventist Church ethically means you teach what is in agreement with that organization or go somewhere else. I really don’t care where you go, but anywhere but in one of our educational institutions. Why is so hard to understand. I think the “progressives” in the church are angry that they have been discovered, and true their science classes may be more popular than ever, but is popularity a sign that they are teaching truth? And another commentator has it exactly right. There is no room for both groups within the church. They have different fundamental beliefs and sources of authority, and it makes the two groups mutually exclusive. It is time to cease the debate, and the professor who teach material as the preferred world view contrary to #6 of our fundamental beliefs either leave voluntarily, or be summarily dismissed.

    View Comment
  43. I think this quote from Ellen White makes it clear that all things were created in 6 days that humans can observe or see:

    See, this is where the 6th fundamental belief goes wrong. It doesn’t stick with the Bible, but imposes on the Bible an interpretation that comes from Mrs. White.

    We need to do away with ALL the “fundamental beliefs”, and go back to the Bible. The minute the Adventist church abandoned the Bible as the only rule of faith, we ran afoul of the curse in Revelation against adding to God’s word.

    View Comment
  44. Study more deeply, Mr. Geraty? Do I need to go beyond a thus saith the Lord in Genesis?

    LSU is, I believe, a microcosm of so much theological error that exists in Adventism education today. If some of the evolution promoting profs were appointed during Geraty’s tenure was the LSU Board merely a rubber stamp? In the interests of transparency I firmly believe we need to know much more about the appointment practices of all our colleges and universities.

    View Comment
  45. @Ron: How does FB #6 not stick with the Bible? Exactly what is being imposed on the Bible from Ellen White?

    The Bible clearly teaches that God made the heaven and earth in six days and rested the seventh. Ellen White is not the final authority on Genesis. God merely affirmed what Genesis already states quite plainly through Ellen White in vision. I don’t have any problem with what she says God showed her in vision because it affirms what the Bible already says. There is no contradiction.

    View Comment
  46. Excuse me, but both Wisbey’s and Geraty’s letters sound so “Californian”. I grew up and was educated through college in the golden state and after living half my life on the other side of the U.S., have begun to understand the fuzzy thinking that permeates Californian society–especially as it relates to black and white statements of reality.

    Of course California does not have a monopoly on fuzzy thinking, but the prevailing society of inclusiveness fostered in California makes it very difficult to ever state that there are any absolute positions to take–except that there are NO absolute positions that can be taken.

    The sad results of such thinking is intolerance for those who believe that there is absolute truth.

    View Comment
  47. Thank you Shane; we have used Ellen White as back up or ancillary proof, but we should always put the Bible first. I used Ellen White in my blog to affirm what we believe as stated in the Bible. EGW states it in unequivical language that what we observe and see in heaven and earth was created in six litteral days. If we as Adventists beleive in something other than a six litteral days of creation we also have to abandon our faith that God gave us the Spirit of Prophecy.

    View Comment
  48. To whom it may concern: I think it is a disgrace what our universities have become. Not just LSU but Avondale College in Australia. Carries the same opinion. Satan is working mightily. But God will prevail…
    If one discounts any of God’s word, and teaches differently, God will hold them accountable..
    Just look at what His word says:

    Gen 1:1 In the beginning H7225 God H430 created H1254 (H853) the heaven H8064 and the earth.H776
    Gen 1:2 And the earth H776 was H1961 without form,H8414 and void;H922 and darkness H2822 was upon H5921 the face H6440 of the deep.H8415 And the Spirit H7307 of God H430 moved H7363 upon H5921 the face H6440 of the waters.H4325
    Gen 1:3 And God H430 said,H559 Let there be H1961 light:H216 and there was H1961 light.H216
    Gen 1:4 And God H430 saw H7200 (H853) the light,H216 that H3588 it was good:H2896 and God H430 divided H914 H996 the light H216 from H996 the darkness.H2822
    Gen 1:5 And God H430 called H7121 the light H216 Day,H3117 and the darkness H2822 he called H7121 Night.H3915 And the evening H6153 ( ereb) ערב and the morningH1242 (bôqer) בּקר were H1961 the first H259 day.H3117
    And this was recorded for each day of The Creation Week.
    When is our Leaders going to clean Gods teaching houses?
    LeRoy Jackson

    View Comment
  49. WOW – where to start? First, ditto to Pastor Randy Brehms’ and Brian Howlands’ comments above.
    And kudos to the Michigan conference for the stand they have taken.
    Maybe we do need a pope to interpret for us?? If “regular” people cannot read the Bible and understand that when it says the evening and the morning were one day and really means it, then we have no basis for keeping the Seventh-day Sabbath, because who knows how long that really is anyway? So what exactly is a Seventh-day Adventist?
    Extra-Biblical???? I am not the one putting a different meaning on what the Bible says. It says 7 – day/night days, and that is what I believe.
    And if creation is not seven literal, historical, consecutive, contiguous 24 hour days, then how should we understand Noah’s 40 days and 40 nights, and what does that do to all the time prophecies in the Bible, and how do we really know how old anyone in the Bible was if a day could be millions of years? If perhaps the Biblical account of creation could be called ambiguous (which I don’t believe it does, not for one nanosecond, or million years (whichever is less??!!)), I think Ellen White ( as Adventists we DO believe her, right?) makes it quite plain as well.
    As for me, call me a “fundamentalist tea-party extremist”, but I choose to believe what the Bible says, and I don’t need a university degree to try and make it say something else. What ever happened to faith like a child???
    Believing in human reason above divine revelation? I think it’s called the end days.
    God help us all.

    View Comment
  50. @Sean Pitman:

    Sean: Your argument that you “do not know if Dr. Geraty is or is not honestly blind to the truth…” is true. However, whereas you ascertion that “you have not idea if he is or is not in deliberate rebellion against what he knows in his heart to be true. Only God knows the answer to that question” is true, if we take it to its logical conclusion, then we have no business discussing his comments here or seeking action against LSU administrators and some faculty – we might as well let God be the judge and deal with it! That would be irresponsible of us. Although we cannot know people’s hearts, we can see their actions and respond accordingly. For example, what would you do if a church elder commits adultery? Does the fact that since we cannot determine whether he “knows in his heart” that adultery is wrong, we should not call it sin and disciple him? I respect your desire to not make this a forum for judging others, but that is what is going on in the various responses posted here. In my opinion, Dr. Geraty has been in high positions within the church, he understands the fundamental doctrines of the church and his choice to disregard these clear doctrines, especially in his latest statement amounts to rebellion.

    View Comment
  51. I’m curious to know how many missionaries LSU sends out, and do they also teach evolution and an evolution-based gospel which is basically nothing more than visions of self-improvement with God playing the role of cheerleader.

    View Comment
  52. @David Read:

    Sigh! I thanks for Dr. Mills comments on Hazael. I hope that we will be awakened from complacency and realize that we will soon be betrayed by those who are within our ranks. The end is here, let us “watch and pray” and start looking up for our “salvation draweth nigh.”

    View Comment
  53. This is not surprising in the least. Unfortunately Geraty’s position is the norm in our colleges even if it isn’t taught as openly as at La Sierra.
    As I noted in another post I had lunch close to 15 years ago with the then president of La Sierra and he mocked the very idea of the Biblical creation account. Incidentally, it was NOT Geraty. This is something that has been going on for years and years and quite frankly it has been allowed by leadership who have either been sympathetic of it or too cowardly to stand up, period!
    I went to CUC in Canada and even though the professors had had their hands slapped a couple of years before I arrived they were still very clearly teaching origins with a decided evolutionary bias. When I was at Southwestern we got a tour of the paleontology department and some comments by the professor who hosted us made it clear that he wanted us to be clear that there are “several legitimate theories” on origins.
    Sadly, I do not have a great deal of confidence that our “leaders” are going to suddenly exhibit some courage and integrity any time soon.
    I have to laugh at Geraty’s ridiculous comments about the Tea Party! What a joke! While groups like AToday and Spectrum have for years used the disgusting tactics championed by Saul Alinsky without any criticism those who stand for truth are now thrown in with what those on the left most despise.
    Specrum and everyone involved with it are an absolute disgrace and it is long past time they were exposed for the anti-Adventists that they are! They are cowards who hide behind a facade of “concern” while undermining everything that makes Adventism Adventism.
    They are little children who are too afraid to step outside of the Adventist bubble so they try and shape the church into their anti-Christian, anti-Adventist, humanistic worldview. They are simply too scared to totally break free of the church they actually despise. What sad, sad little people. It must be a miserable existence.

    View Comment
  54. Shane said…..

    “I believe God created the heaven and earth in six days about 6,000 years ago. I believe this is and has been the consensus of our church since its conception.”

    After reading your post, Shane, am I to conclude you don’t believe it is salvational as to what we believe on this subject?

    If not, who cares which side you are on? And for that matter, who cares what the church teaches or stands for on this issue?

    And why would the church formulate any confession of faith if that confession was not salvational?

    This is what you said……”I’ve certainly never claimed people are saved by what they believe about Genesis. There will be many atheists and theistic evolutionists in heaven. What does this have to do with the issue? Nothing. It’s not one that I’ve ever broached on my website.”

    I find this an incredible statement by one who would even challenge the issue.
    Your whole position is nothing but duplicity and your arguments are worthless. Again, I would ask, “Why are you involved at all?”

    As a SDA, I don’t need a “Philadelphia lawyer” to defend my faith nor challenge any ministry within my church. Like A-today and Spectrum, you are simply a “clearing house” for any and all opinions with no conviction of right or wrong in the context of the morality of either position.

    It’s a poor excuse to open and have a discussion. Your sole argument is this, “If you work for a person, you should represent your employer.”

    While the statement is valid in its own context, it is hardly the real and final issue of creation vs. evolution at LSU. Hopefully, I have mis-understood your position. If so, please correct my conclusion.

    Bill Sorensen

    View Comment
  55. Once more history repeats.

    It is possible that Shane Hilde and associates did not completely understand what they were doing when they started this website to meet the spiritualist teaching of evolution head on. The conversation is much wider than I, for one, anticipated; and many are revealing where they really stand. This revelation will continue as many make their voices heard or, out of moral cowardice, refuse to be counted on the side of (Seventh-day Adventist historical) right.

    I thank Phil Mills for the very relevant quote shared above; it truly is a time for self-examination in every professedly believing heart, to see if we are truly in the faith “once delivered.”

    I am thankful that comments on this forum are well-moderated and for the most part stick to the point. I want to share a quote that has really spoken to me in personal controversies past, it is one that I think supports us in working to correct known wrongs within our institutions, but also reminds us that the Master will not leave us to work all alone. May He protect us from the calamitous scourge of spiritualistic teachings, which no doubt have not yet reached the full accomplishment the devil designs they should have.

    “Things will go wrong because of unconsecrated workers. You may shed tears over the result of this; but don’t worry. The blessed Master has all His work from end to end under His masterly supervision. All He asks is that the workers shall come to Him for their orders, and obey His directions. Everything–our churches, our missions, our Sabbath schools, our institutions–is carried upon His divine heart. Why worry? The intense longing to see the church a living and shining light as God designs it shall be, must be tempered with entire trust in God.” –R&H, Nov. 14, 1893. {ChS 243.1}

    View Comment
  56. So well said Bill Sorenson. While it may be argued that a knowledge of God, and a measure of the Holy Spirit is given to every man, it must also be recognized that this inner testimony is a very ‘still small voice’ which can be and is so universally drowned out by the clamour of prevailing culture. Truth is essential to restore and amplifiy the voice to the testimony of the Spirit of God in the souls of men and women, so that that message of God is heard “with a loud voice” saying, “Fear God…worship Him that made heaven and earth” That same voice the spoke the worlds into existence says, “come unto me all ye that labour (for spiritual peace) and I will give you rest. Surely Dr Geraty is sufficiently Prescient to realize that if the words of Genesis regarding creation are not to be taken literally, then the words of scripture regarding the efficacy of the blood of Christ and the offer of eternal life may by equally subject to doubt. May heaven help and protect the church from such “leadership”.

    View Comment
  57. The Law of God goes hand in hand with his mercy and love. The Law is a transcript of His Character. He changes not. Is this not very clear in Psalms 85:10 Mercy and truth are met together: rightousness and peace have kissed each other. At the cross where Jesus gave His life which was a life of perfect obedience to the law of God His father who He Loved to obey. The Sabbath day is a memorial to the creation and redemption of all people. Evolution is not nor ever will be compatiable to the word of God. It does away with the Creator God. Did not Jesus say if you love me keep my commandents? John 15:10 says “If you keep my commandents ye shall abide in my love:even as I have kept my Father’s commandents and abide in his love. The Sabbath is centeral to the creation because it points us to who God is. The creator of all things. Those who choose not to believe in creation of six days ending on the Seventh as the Sabbath day deny God and there own true identiy. The Sabbath as we know will be the point of contention in the very near furture. Sabbath Points to the Creator God. We as a people have the message to call people back to worship the Creator God and Glorify Him. Sad in deed is all this trouble but it is a sign that God is shifting His people. Who will stand for the Lord? May we all choose to be faithful to the Lord our Maker and Redeemer. Let us hasten the day of His return.

    View Comment
  58. Barr is saying less than it may seem. Indeed, the quote from Barr provided by Sean Pitman does not contradict anything Geraty says, as far as I can tell. What Barr notes is uncontroversial is that the intentions of the authors were to state certain facts. Whether these intentions determine the meaning of the text, as proponents of literal meaning urge, is something over which scholars heavily disagree, as Barr well knows. Note that in his book Fundamentalism Barr refers to both Meredith Kline and Gordon Wenham, neither of whom endorse a literal reading of Genesis. Since Barr presumably didn’t forget about these theologians in the seven years between his book and his letter, he clearly sees that fundamental agreement over authorial intentions does not produce fundamental agreement over the primary meaning of the text. When Geraty says that the literal creation week is not in the Bible, we should interpret him not as denying Barr’s claim, but as claiming that the question of whether the primary meaning of the text should be identified with the literal meaning is one that individuals should be permitted to determine for themselves.

    View Comment
  59. Bob Burke, You are correct too. Geraty did allow this to continue however, and his sympathy towards evolution was probably a factor in why he was chosen to continue as the leader of this humanistic philosophy at LSU. Who did they choose when Geraty left? Another who supports evolution–Randall Wisbey! Do you see a pattern?

    View Comment
  60. Mr.Geraty was surprised at the reaction to the teaching of evolution at LSU because the scientific, if not the whole of the intelligentsia in Southern California go along with it. They have accepted man’s science (which was developed in the first place to get rid of God) as opposed to God’s revelation as to how He did it. They certainly don’t want the intelligentsia from the worldly universities to accuse them of believing in myths.

    It is amusing that people that don’t agree with holding to the faith, call on love and acceptance as being more important than clinging to “thus saith the Lord”.

    I think the investigation should go on over to LLU as my aunt leaned, and accepted, the Gap Theory from her Sabbath School class there.
    Paula Nixon

    View Comment
  61. If the 6 – 24-hour – day Creation account is incorrect, then the last part of the 4th Commandment is incorrect and the quote of that part in the 1st angel’s message of Revelation 14 is a mis-quote. Further, if all this about the Sabbath and Creation is incorrect, we do not know what the Seal of God is and the Seventh-day Adventist teaching of the Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast are also incorrect. In addition, our teaching of the “sealing in the foreheads of God’s servants” in Revelation 7 is also incorrect.
    Interestingly, the 1st angel was carrying to Planet Earth the “Everlasting Gospel,” which, according to the Apostle Paul is the “power of God unto salvation,” and that 1st angel ended his message by quoting part of the 4th Commandment of Exodus 20.

    View Comment
  62. Hopefully, I have mis-understood your position. If so, please correct my conclusion.

    You have misunderstood my position. Do you claim people are saved by their interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2? In other words, are we saved by correct doctrine? I don’t believe we are. The reason I believe this issue is so important is because the creation story is foundational to all that we know is true. It is the reason for the gospel. Correct doctrine does not save you, but incorrect doctrine can potentially cause you to be lost.

    View Comment
  63. @Tom Owiti:

    In my opinion, Dr. Geraty has been in high positions within the church, he understands the fundamental doctrines of the church and his choice to disregard these clear doctrines, especially in his latest statement amounts to rebellion.

    Dr. Geraty is rebelling against the standards of the SDA Church, but he may not be in rebellion against his conscience. He may still be honestly confused. I think he may in fact sincerely believe that the doctrinal position of the SDA Church on a literal creation week is truly mistaken.

    I don’t think he is necessarily going against his conscience here and therefore may not be guilty of a moral wrong before God. While he can and should be judged as being in or out of line with Church doctrine as a paid representative of the Church (and should be let go for his views as currently expressed), we should not think to judge him in regard to his own conscience before God – something only God Himself can rightly judge regarding a true understanding of such doctrinal issues…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  64. The dis-belief of a literal creation week dismantles the entire Christianity and diminishes God’s claims of Creatorship. It strikes at the very root of the Gospel. This is a very serious departure from Biblical truth that have its origins not from the true Source of Light.

    View Comment
  65. Progressives in the church… it is important that we begin to see that the King of the South, Egypt, is fully alive in the church, not just Babylon.

    View Comment
  66. @Brad:

    Whether these intentions determine the meaning of the text, as proponents of literal meaning urge, is something over which scholars heavily disagree, as Barr well knows.

    So, the authors didn’t realize what they themselves were writing? Only we in this modern age have figured out the real symbolic meaning to what the authors themselves believed to be a true description of real historical events? – Sort of the “Darwin is God’s greatest prophet” sort of thing?

    Come on now. Is it not much more straight forward, if one is a believer in the conclusions of modern mainstream scientists, to simply do what Barr did and simply conclude that the biblical authors got it wrong?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  67. Shane’s comment…..

    First, I said…..

    “Hopefully, I have mis-understood your position. If so, please correct my conclusion.”

    And Shane responded…..

    “You have misunderstood my position. Do you claim people are saved by their interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2? In other words, are we saved by correct doctrine? I don’t believe we are.”

    Well, Shane, of course we are “saved” by having a correct doctrine. Anything else is blatantly absurd. Your postion would have us believe it matters not what we believe.

    1. Does it matter if we know who Jesus is?

    2. Does it matter if we understand the atonement and its implication?

    3. Does it matter if we understand the law and the necessity of obedience?

    4. And finally, how will you know if Satan’s impersonation of Christ is the real thing or not? How do you know who the antichrist is?

    5. How do you even know if you believe the real and true gospel?

    No, Shane, your theory is a man centered religion whereby man judges himself and formulates his own theology based on whatever he assumes is a reliable source of information. So, according to you, whether he believes the bible or not is not relevant.

    According to you, a proper understanding of truth has no relevance to salvation.

    I suggest you need to carefully re-think your present position and see the final implications of what you have stated.

    Knowledge saves. Not because it can merit heaven or make an atonement for sin. But because without knowledge, we would not even know of our need for salvation nor the means God has ordained to make salvation possible and then communicate the reality to us.

    Neither would we be culpable for what we believed nor be stimulated to seek truth as a certain reality. We must understand that man “saves himself”. Not by earning or making an atonement for his sin. But by accepting his moral accountability to know God and respond to the bible gospel when it is presented under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

    While we may sing, “Jesus saves”, this must be understood in an overall biblical framework of salvation. Nothing should be interpreted in a vacuum. The essence of bible Adventism is to remind believers and unbelievers alike of a final judgment where each individual will be investigated and examined to determine if and how he has responded to bible truth.

    Without a doubt, and to be sure, “knowledge saves.”

    1. God the Father saves.
    2. Jesus saves.
    3. The Holy Spirit saves.
    4. And finally, the believer saves himself by responding to God’s plan.

    Keep the faith

    Bill Sorensen

    View Comment
  68. @Bill Sorensen: What matters is what Christ did on the cross and his continued intersession on our behalf. Rejecting truth once it has been presented to you is entirely different then never knowing it. There will be people who do not know who Jesus was, will not knowing anything about the atonement, or the gospel. How will they be judged? According to God’s law. I can answer yes to questions 1-3 and the answer to 3 and 4 is the Bible. You’re misunderstanding me still. I’m not suggesting a proper understanding of truth has no relevance to salvation. I thought I had made that clear in my last post.

    View Comment
  69. How in the world did this man become president of LSU in the past? Who hired him and let him in the doors? We need to look deeper. This man has been sent as a piece of dynamyte from satan to blow one of our pillars to pieces and try and destroy it. We need to stand stronger now more than ever, who here reading this can feel it, can almost hear the trumpet, We are right on the edge, right there! We must not stop praying, he is a wolf come to steal the sheep, but Jesus said, THEY WHO ARE MINE KNOW MY VOICE,NOONE CAN TAKE THEM FROM ME(PARAPHRASED) AMEN!

    View Comment
  70. With Larry Geraty involvement with FB#6 thirty years ago this naturalistic
    crusade has been going on at least that long. Who on the board, administration, attorneys (Kent Hansen) or other affiliated people have had long tenures of service during this 30 year period? A seven point questionaire about creation beliefs developed by Educate Truth should be presented to each board member, administration or affiliated person and see who responds. Some will and others can be encouraged. Develop it online. We need to find out who is behind the curtain!

    View Comment
  71. If the Church truly believed, it´s universities would be teaching healthful living and natural healing, and we would still be operating sanitariums instead of five-star hospitals. Our doctors would be healing folks through prayer and water treatments instead of drugs and chemo. Children would be sent to school at 8 or 10, if at all, and would learn bread-making before music, and gardening before geography. Mothers would stay home until their children were in high school, and fathers would teach their children lessons from the Bible. Young people would focus on volunteer work and building up a savings account before considering marriage.

    Modern medicine is entirely based on evolutionary theories; modern educational practices are based on the Prussian model of the perfectability of Man; and the disruption of the family assumes that we are not even as faithful as some of the lower species.

    All this fundamentalist talk will do nothing to restore spiritual values because, generally speaking, it is just the pot calling the kettle black. Jesus made it plain that the pharisees (fundamentalists) were just as bad as the sadducees (liberals), and that the only way to salvation was through repentance. Now, if no one can find anything to repent of, then we´d all better go home and pray for our opponents because I´m sure there is some truth and much error on either side. –Kathleen

    View Comment
  72. Doctrinal knowledge does NOT save a person. This is very very clear from a straight reading of the Bible and of the writings of Mrs. White. It is the love of truth that saves a person – not just the knowledge of the truth itself.

    Doctrinal knowledge ALONE does not save a person. But the person who understands and rejects true doctrine for their own wisdom rejects the Spirit of God. They do NOT love the truth. To be a ‘professor’ in our denomination, one may be neither ignorant, nor standing in rejection of the Word.

    View Comment
  73. Shane, you continue to appeal to the fact that some will be in heaven who did not have the same advantages we have. And as I said, these are exceptions to the overall plan of salvation.

    None the less, as David has well said, “The heavens declare the glory of God…….”
    and “There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.”

    There will be no “heathen” in heaven who did not discern a creator God. This is the first and essential revelation of truth. What’s more, even heathen societies and cultures have some knowledge of truth as it has been passed on from generation to generation.

    And yes, they have in many ways warped truth. None the less, some have discerned the living God by way of these various means of grace.

    They are not utterly ignorant of the true God. And how they have responded to this knowledge is certainly salvational.

    There will be no atheists in heaven. You can not respond to the true God if you believe there is none. The first and last test of faith is concerning the creator God and our relationship to him. So, no evolutionist will be in heaven. Assuming of course, they really believe in evolution and its implications.

    People have held erroneous ideas in the past and were not and are not necessarily shut out of heaven. Why? Because they did not make their erroneous ideas the center of their faith. In other words, they did not try to defend their errors against truth. They simply believed errors without any dynamic application of it to Christanity.

    But when error is challenged by truth, truth must win out and error must be abandon. You can not continue in error and defend it by claiming it is true, or by saying, “It is not salvational”. The words of Jesus are clear.
    “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Matt. 4

    Dr. Geraty is not ignorant of what he is doing, nor the position he has taken. Nor are others who hold his view as well. Only God knows if and when they can or will repent. But we need not patronize them with the idea they are ignorant and don’t better. They have abandon the bible, and they well know it.

    Bill Sorensen

    View Comment
  74. @Sean Pitman: Sean, I believe you are wrong, we can not tell people on here not too say it how they see it. I believe the evidence is clear, he made his choices knowing what he was doing compared to what he knew he was suppose to be doing. If he repents, then yes God will take care of that and we may not know the outcome as yet, as for now, buisness needs to be taken care of in a biblical way. What would Jesus do? What would EG white say,or John the babtist, what would he have said?

    View Comment
  75. Modern medicine is entirely based on evolutionary theories

    You couldn’t be more wrong. If evolutionary theory were true, you wouldn’t even see the advancement of medicine at all. There wouldn’t even be medicine. Science wouldn’t even exist if evolution were true.

    View Comment
  76. Dr. Geraty’s assertion that the Genesis account of creation does not provide for 6 contiguous 24-hour days is a serious error. Does not the Genesis account, following each day, clearly specify that it was the “morning and evening” of that particular day? There is no way to come up with any other time span but a 6-day (7-day) creation week. This is clearly spelled out in Genesis, and one would hope that this distinguished university President will return to serious Bible study, and experience a true conversion. After all, if the Genesis account is not true, what else in the Bible is also not true?

    The conversions and baptisms Dr. Geraty refers to must be called into question, if those same students are adhering to evolutionary theories taught in the classrooms. Why would students follow Christ, if He was not truly God, and did not create us and redeem us in the first place.

    I can agree that this is a “fundamental” teaching, and those adhering to a Genesis creation should proudly wear the label of “fundamentalists”. What it has to do with the Tea Party movement should not be under consideration. Although there are many good people in the Tea Party movement, many do not adhere to a Creator God, much less a soon-coming God. Apparently, Dr. Geraty does not either, since he is critical of the decision of the Michigan Conference, along with other “fundamentalists”.

    In sharp contrast to Dr. Geraty’s insistence on conversions and baptisms at LSU, I know a student who was a 5th generation SDA, and graduated during Dr. Geraty’s tenure. He now adheres to Darwinian evolution as fact, not just theory. He does not consider himself a Christian, and is even more critical of true Christians than Dr. Geraty now is.

    My advice to Christians is: DO NOT SEND YOUR CHILDREN TO LSU.

    My advice to Dr. Geraty is: Please re-read Genesis. Accept Jesus as your Saviour.

    View Comment
  77. @Sean Pitman: Dr. Geraty is rebelling against the standards of the SDA Church, but he may not be in rebellion against his conscience. That is an oxymoron. Common! He knew it, I know he knew it.The kettle is black.

    View Comment
  78. @Ron:

    See, this is where the 6th fundamental belief goes wrong. It doesn’t stick with the Bible, but imposes on the Bible an interpretation that comes from Mrs. White.We need to do away with ALL the “fundamental beliefs”, and go back to the Bible. The minute the Adventist church abandoned the Bible as the only rule of faith, we ran afoul of the curse in Revelation against adding to God’s word.  (Quote)

    Since you provide not one iota of evidence that Fundamental Belief #6 (or #-anything) does not hold up to a sola scriptura review of it, your recommendation cannot be taken seriously – by the serious Bible student.

    To challenge our doctrines – means you have to know enough about the Bible to show that the doctrines are in error. This is a huge problem for evolutionists.

    In the mean time – we DO know the Bible well enough to establish a solid “Sola Scriptura” basis for them. And so far – they stand!

    But evolutionism by contrast – not only flunks the test of scripture – it directly contradicts and otherwise undermines over half a dozen SDA Fundamental beliefs!

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  79. @Linda:

    You write that science “was developed in the first place to get rid of God”. No academic historian of science believes this, and many believe the reverse. For a sample, see the following paper, which argues that the reformation emphasis on literal interpretation in fact encouraged the development of modern science: http://works.bepress.com/peter_harrison/7/

    @Sean:

    It might be more straightforward to take Barr’s position, but all Geraty needs to make his point is the claim that there can be reasonable disagreement on matters of interpretation. Moreover, this claim is perfectly compatible with Barr’s quote.

    @Shane:

    You write: “Science wouldn’t even exist if evolution were true”. Why do you believe this?

    View Comment
  80. just finished listening to David Asscherick’s sermon “The Hinge of our Faith.” It is absolutely wonderful. Is there any way I could get a DVD copy of it?

    View Comment
  81. @Bill Sorensen:

    Dr. Geraty is not ignorant of what he is doing, nor the position he has taken. Nor are others who hold his view as well. Only God knows if and when they can or will repent. But we need not patronize them with the idea they are ignorant and don’t know better. They have abandon the bible, and they well know it.

    You are stepping into God’s territory here – a very presumptuous move on your part. The only thing you know for sure is that Dr. Geraty has abandoned the SDA interpretation of the Bible – an interpretation which you and I happen to share. However, neither one of us know if Geraty has done this in deliberate rebellion against his conscience. Only God knows Dr. Geraty’s heart.

    Also, in your suggestion that “no atheists will be in heaven” you shut out some of the greatest servants to humanity that have ever lived. For example, consider Raoul Wallenberg. Wallenberg was a Swedish diplomat who worked in Budapest, Hungary, during World War II to rescue Jews from the Holocaust. He saved tens of thousands of lives at great risk to his own life – a life which he ended up loosing at the end of the War when he was captured by the Russians who executed him (secretly).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Wallenberg

    Despite the fact that Wallenberg sacrificed himself for the welfare of others, even of strangers, he did not have a proper conception of God and was an admitted atheist. I also have friends who are atheists who would not think twice about giving me the shirt off their back if I was in trouble.

    Remember, you don’t have to know that God exists or really understand much about Him in order to recognize the working of the Holy Spirit in the heart and following what you know internally is true regarding one’s duty to one’s fellow man. In showing love to one’s brother, especially if that brother is a stranger, one is in fact reflecting a love that only comes from the throne of God. Such a one who reveals no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends, even strangers, will not be refused by God even though he was an “atheist” in this life. He/she will simply be a very surprised atheist in Heaven someday when God explains who He really is and clear up all their misconceptions and erroneous views about Him and his existence.

    I’m sorry Bill, but you need to realize that the love of God is looking to save as many as will have Him – not to condemn for an honest and sincere lack of knowledge or correct understanding of doctrinal issues. Anyone who would welcome new light if it were understood will be saved. Only those who would only reject all light that could be offered will be lost.

    You and I simply do not know, in this life, who does and who does not have a heart that is in fact open to God’s light regarding such doctrinal issues – which God will reveal in His own good time. Such moral judgments should therefore be reserved for God alone…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  82. It is true what Geraty says regarding this issue. It is between the right and left in the denomination. But this is only the tip of the ice berg confronting the church. Ellen White is another, homosexuality another, and the list goes on. Subscribe to Spectrum and you will see them all sooner or later. Will we become just another protestant denomination with great schools, nice people and no unique (peculiar) message? Remember Yale, Harvard and a host of other schools started out as religious institutions. After all La Sierra is a “UNIVERSITY” and academic freedom is much more important than any fundamental belief according to Geraty and the biology department. Do we hit the ice berg full steam ahead or try to go around it? Those attending the deliberations in Atlanta will have to address this issue and others to keep the church afloat. Pray for them and for our church. Praise God there are those willing to take a stand. Could this be the beginning of the shaking?

    View Comment
  83. You write: “Science wouldn’t even exist if evolution were true”. Why do you believe this?

    Assuming an evolutionary model for origins, why would we expect laws of logic to exist? or even uniformity in the universe (not to be confused with uniformitarianism)?

    Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

    View Comment
  84. I would encourage all our members to view the movie “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” by Ben Stein. It’s now on DVD. It will educated you on what is going on with the education of Americans as a whole and add a new perspective to this debate.

    Sincerely,

    Jennifer Kessler

    View Comment
  85. Mister Geraty:

    The “tea bag crowd”? Are you kidding me? What in the world does that have to do with anything?

    Praise God for Shane Hilde, Educate Truth, AND the Michigan Conference! Praise God you are no longer LSU President.

    Our church has a responsibility to purge this heresy out of its midst. May conference after conference follow suit. The arrogance of LSU in this matter is astounding!

    Mister Geraty America is a free country and God gives us free will. You are free to believe what you wish. If a literal 6 day creation week is too “faith-based” for you, please go start your own church, and take all who choose to believe in evolution with you.

    It’s time for the church to take a stand. If your conference has any courage they should identify your apostasy for what it is and promptly ask you to recant or be disfellowshipped. Creation is a non-negotiable.

    If you’d like to stay, take Bible studies, learn Adventist doctrine, be baptized (or re-baptized) then I’m sure the church would welcome you back with open arms. But don’t pretend you – or any other proponent of evolution – is a Seventh-day Adventist. Sorry. Creation is a foundational, BIBLICAL doctrine. Accept it or exercise your freedom. There are many non-SDA churches who believe as you do. You’d have no difficulty at all finding one.

    May God have mercy on your soul for the harm you’ve done to so many young people whom you’ve influenced to doubt the Word of God! May God forgive the church for being so weak and vacillating in this matter. Something should have been done long ago.

    We are truly living in the time foretold when “everything that CAN be shaken, WILL be shaken”. Sorry. This can’t!

    View Comment
  86. My wife attended LSU in the mid 60’s and our youngest daughter graduated in 2005, so we are somewhat acquainted with LSU. Having graduated from Walla Walla University, it was then known that one acquires a spouse there, go to LSU to have fun and go to PUC to get an education.

    As I have read the various comments on this issue, Jonathan Taylor’s comments need to be reemphasized. If one truly believes in the evolutionary creation, which day are we still in now? It appears some people will be dead before they pass on from one day to the next! Why would God give the ten commandments where it states that one is to work for six days and then rest on the 7th “evolutionary” day? Possibly some people are born on the seventh evolutionary day, therefore are perfectly content in accepting welfare benefits all of their life! They feel God has told them legitimately to “rest” and if they were to work they would be breaking the fourth commandments.

    It appears that some of our presidential leadership, have not taken many scientific courses themselves. Does Lawrance Geraty use the Catholic Bible in interpreting the Sabbath commandment?

    View Comment
  87. Shane and Sean, What a day! If anyone reads this message (after all the others posted today), they will be very tired. God bless you for your balance. Satan no doubt wants to get us all sidetracked with trying to straighten each other out. With all due respect to Bill Sorensen, why not press together on the areas of agreement?

    View Comment
  88. Larry Geraty has been a leading apostate influence in the church for decades. [edit] But he has been employed by the SDA denomination in the past and not a few others as well.(Bill Sorenson)

    Amen Bill, its long past time for the church to get a reality check; paying church administrators good money to cast discredit on the Bible makes no sense to me at all. Surely Geraty’s positions and views were known when he was hired; precisely because he was the man the school board wanted. [edit]

    And yes Rich, I still pay my tithes and offerings to solid independent ministries, such as Back to Enoch, or Amazing Facts, (no Cosmic Conflict) and It is Written during their Rome campaign; so please spare me your 10 cent lecture. My money will NOT go to conferences in apostasy who pay the salaries of men like Geraty and Wiseby, or some of these local churches that are experts in teaching the surrounding community how to break the Sabbath. I do pay into the good local church I attend and will be joining-designating the money stays there.

    Many Backsliders Will Return.–When the storm of persecution really breaks upon us, the true sheep will hear the true Shepherd’s voice. Self-denying efforts will be put forth to save the lost, and many who have strayed from the fold will come back to follow the great Shepherd. The people of God will draw together, and present to the enemy a united front. . . . The love of Christ, the love of our brethren, will testify to the world that we have been with Jesus and learned of Him. Then will the message of the third angel swell to a loud cry, and the whole earth will be lightened with the glory of the Lord.–Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 401. (1900) {Ev 693.2}

    View Comment
  89. @Shane Hilde: So Shane – By our own definition – Are you rejecting the plain written truth by Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to write that in six (literal) days the Lord made heaven and earth and the sea and the fountains of waters and rest on the Seventh day? The same (literal) days of which we get the fundamental belief that Sabbath begins at sundown on the preparation day and ends at sundown on Sabbath and the first day of the week begins, ie., the evening and the morning were the first day, etc. ? If we don’t believe that the Lord created the world in six literal days and rested the Sabbath Day of which he also created:

    Then we can explain away Sabbath keeping which has been attacked by Satan to change times and laws, because how do we know which day is the Sabbath, or can any day be the Sabbath day or I can make the Sabbath any day I want to make it.

    Then we are serving a god that is not of order (notice I did not capitalize god), but a god that is a god of disorder and a liar.

    Then we have no grounds to worship God as the creator, because His own Word is unreliable, which has been a ploy of the Devil against God from the beginning in heaven and on earth, as the Liar and the father of it.

    Then we have no grounds to call people that are walking in darkness, keeping the false day of worship, Sunday, to come out of her (false church) my people, to worship God, the Creator, who made heaven and earth and the sea and the fountains of waters of the first of the three angels message, on His Holy Day as a end time message to an end time people who will receive the mark of the beast if they do not come out.

    Then we cease to exist as a church of bible prophecy that calls a rebellious world to obedience to the Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier, and Glorifier and our message will be no different than the plethora of Protestant churches that litters the landscape of our broke society and world.

    Then the Sabbath ceases to be a sign between God and his people, because there is no biblical basis in which it is identified and time of which it is to be kept and so we are all lost, no one is keeping the day holy as memorial to the God who sanctifies us.

    Then the understanding of the literal day and prophetic days in the book of Daniel and Revelation becomes obscured and again attacks another fundamental belief of the Sanctuary and the investigative Judgment. If creation days are not literal days then the 2300 days are measureable days and better yet cannot mean literal years, so there is not a correct understanding of the Ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, the bitter disappointment of Rev 10 and the SDA church of prophecy breaks down. Again another attack of the Devil, who goes to make war with the remnant of her seed, who keeps the commandments and have the testimony of Jesus, or the Spirit of Prophecy.

    Then Daniels prophecy of the 70wks= 490 years for Israel, the 69 wks=483yrs to anoint Jesus, the middle of the week = 3½ years of Jesus ministry and be cut off, His death, was not measureable time, so are we to conclude that Jesus was not the Messiah of bible prophecy and the Israel was not cut off in 34AD and the Gospel did not go to the Gentiles?

    What I am saying that a fundamental understanding of a literal day has vast complication and implications upon our faith as Seventh-Day Adventist. We would have to cease calling ourselves Seventh-Day Adventist, because the 7th day, as any other day of the creation is believed to not be properly identified. Again ultimately, that is a poly of the Devil to get us to believe the lie.

    I would encourage you and anyone else who is critical of the fundamental teachings of the SDA church that are sound biblical teachings to read EGW – Early Writings on the Firm Platform – chapter 62, pages 259 and 260, where she quotes an angel of the Lord.

    “I saw a company who stood well guarded and firm, giving no countenance to those who would unsettle the established faith of the body. God looked upon them with approbation. I was shown three steps— the first, second, and third angels’ messages. Said my accompanying angel, “Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin of these messages. The true understanding of these messages is of vital importance. [259] The destiny of souls hangs upon the manner in which they are received.” I was again brought down through these messages, and saw how dearly the people of God had purchased their experience. It had been obtained through much suffering and severe conflict. God had led them along step by step, until He had placed them upon a solid, immovable platform. I saw individuals approach the platform and examine the foundation. Some with rejoicing immediately stepped upon it. Others commenced to find fault with the foundation. They wished improvements made, and then the platform would be more perfect, and the people much happier. Some stepped off the platform to examine it and declared it to be laid wrong. But I saw that nearly all stood firm upon the platform and exhorted those who had stepped off to cease their complaints; for God was the Master Builder, and they were fighting against Him. They recounted the wonderful work of God, which had led them to the firm platform, and in union raised their eyes to heaven and with a loud voice glorified God. This affected some of those who had complained and left the platform, and they with humble look again stepped upon it.”

    I pray you and all those who have stepped off will hear the exhortation and will step back on.
    God Bless –
    Pastor Ron

    View Comment
  90. Shane, one slight change the lord did make heaven and earth, but I misquoted that he did it in six days, it was creation here on earth that was six days that did not included heaven. Sorry for the bleep.

    View Comment
  91. Wow, I find it funny how a bunch of Adventists are running around calling belief in creation a non-negotiable when we have a university teaching evolution, and teachers at most of our colleges teaching evolution.

    View Comment
  92. The fact is that the liberal “church within a church” is very large. It may well be close to a majority in the Southern California Conference, and almost certainly is a majority in the Southeastern California Conference.(David Read)

    How very true David. I suppose its just bad form and bad manners to use the real word for liberal/progressives; and that word is simply:”tares.” I think they may have tipped the numbers balance in their favor as this EGW statement seems to say:

    Ordeal of the Sifting Time.–Satan will work his miracles to deceive; he will set up his power as supreme. The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out–the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place. None but those who have been overcoming by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony will be found with the loyal and true, without spot or stain of sin, without guile in their mouths. . . . The remnant that purify their souls by obeying the truth gather strength from the trying process, exhibiting the beauty of holiness amid the surrounding apostasy (Letter 55, 1886). {7BC 911.6}

    This prophecy also suggests it will get worse, before it gets better.

    Says the great deceiver: “We must watch those who are calling the attention of the people to the Sabbath of Jehovah; they will lead many to see the claims of the law of God; and the same light which reveals the true Sabbath, reveals also the ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and shows that the last work for man’s salvation is now going forward. Hold the minds of the people in darkness till that work is ended, and we shall secure the world and the church also. {4SP 337.2}

    “The Sabbath is the great question which is to decide the destiny of souls. We must exalt the Sabbath of our creating. We have caused it to be accepted by both worldlings and church-members; now the church must be led to unite with the world
    338
    in its support. We must work by signs and wonders to blind their eyes to the truth, and lead them to lay aside reason and the fear of God, and follow custom and tradition. {4SP 337.3}

    “I will influence popular ministers to turn the attention of their hearers from the commandments of God. That which the Scriptures declare to be a perfect law of liberty shall be represented as a yoke of bondage. The people accept their ministers’ explanations of Scripture, and do not investigate for themselves. Therefore by working through the ministers, I can control the people according to my will. {4SP 338.1}

    All apostasy and sin will manifest it self in Sabbathbreaking to one degree or another, as we can see what the real goal of the enemy of souls really is.

    View Comment
  93. @Shane:

    You write: “Science wouldn’t even exist if evolution were true”. Why do you believe this? (Brad)

    I think he means that false science would rule the day which is no science.

    View Comment

Comments are closed.