[LSU] continues to send out student missionaries and baptize students …

Comment on Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism by Bob Pickle.

[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?

Bob Pickle Also Commented

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

I believe in the Bible. It suggests a young earth created in 6 literal days, though how young I do not know with conviction. If I am wrong, it doesn’t really matter because I am saved not by my knowledge on origins but my faith in the blood of Jesus. Theistic evolutionists whom many here despise have the same access to Christ’s blood, whether they are Seventh-day Adventists or not.You would abandon God if you found that science and the Bible do not match up, but I have a personal relationship with God that compels me to believe he can be trusted regardless of how reliable the “physical evidence” might be.

Think about it a bit more. We are saved by faith, that is true. We must have a relationship with Jesus. We must believe.

But generally speaking, a theistic evolutionist who knows what the Bible says has chosen (a) not to believe the passages that refer to how God created the world, (b) not to have faith in what God has revealed in the Bible about how He created everything, and (c) not to truly have a deep relationship with Christ, for how can one have a relationship with someone if one refuses to believe what that someone says?

Check out Heb. 11. Saving faith can apply to anything God says. We can’t narrow it to only faith in one specific doctrine, or to only faith in certain verses to the exclusion of other verses.


Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
Some questions for Dr. Geraty stemming from his June 1 letter(s), questions that might further clarify his position(s) and help resolve some of the controversy:

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.

A lot of evolutionists and long agers out there believe that Genesis 1 refers to an ordinary week. Does Dr. Geraty believe that God actually did create the world during an ordinary week as Genesis 1 states?

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.

Ellen White stated that to teach that the days of creation were anything other than 6 literal days is to teach a most dangerous form of infidelity. Does Dr. Geraty accept and endorse and promote this viewpoint?

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.

Is Dr. Geraty specifically saying that he tried to only hire professors that believed that God created the world in 6 actual days about 6,000 years ago and that there has been a worldwide flood since? Is this what he means by “creationism”?

What specific actions did Dr. Geraty take when he became aware that teachers were undermining faith in the accounts in Gen. 1-11? Or, was Dr. Geraty totally in the dark about what some professors were teaching?


Recent Comments by Bob Pickle

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, you above state: “… a lack of a specific statement in the GC’s Working Policy that explicitly forbids the ordination of women as pastors. As far as I’m aware, such a statement simply doesn’t exist.”

Try BA 60 10 which states: “The world Church supports nondiscrimination in employment practices and policies and upholds the principle that both men and women, without regard to race and color, shall be given full and equal opportunity within the Church to develop the knowledge and skills needed for the building up of the Church. Positions of service and responsibility (except those requiring ordination to the gospel ministry*) on all levels of church activity shall be open to all on the basis of the individual’s qualifications.”

The footnote makes clear that the exception regarding ordination to the gospel ministry is one of gender, not race or color.

Also, B 10 22: “All organizations and institutions throughout the world will recognize the authority of the General Conference Session as the highest authority of the Seventh-day Adventist Church under God.” Here we have part of the Working Policy saying that there is no higher authority under God in the Adventist Church than the sessions that voted down WO in 1990, 1995, and 2015.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, in your update you write:

Sean Pitman:
“On the other hand, it also seem clear that on the issue of ordination, in particular, that the “final authority” has been given to the Union level of governance within the church (not to the level of the General Conference) to act as a buffer against too much centralized power within the church. …

“In any case, since honest confusion remains between many honest and sincere members as well as leaders of the church, ….

There certainly is honest confusion regarding this, but I can’t see how everyone is honestly confused.

1. Local churches decide who will be members and who will not, but local churches do not have the authority to make tests of fellowship. Thus the criteria for membership is decided by the world church, while that criteria is applied to individual cases by the local church.

Similarly, though unions decide who will be ordained, they don’t unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination.

2. If unions could unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination, there would have been no reason to bring the matter to the GC Sessions of 1990 and 1995. Particularly in 1995, it seems clear that church leaders understood that without GC division authorization, unions could not approve women for ordination, and that without GC Session authorization, GC divisions could not so authorize.

3. The first I remember hearing that unions could act on their own was after Dan Jackson’s open letter of, I think, Jan. 2012. Maybe we can find this idea being promulgated prior to that date in left-wing journals, but maybe not. Since there certainly has been discussion in some circles about getting rid of unions, it seems difficult to have simultaneous promotion of the idea that we need unions so that women can be ordained.

How it comes across to me is that some want their way no matter what, and are grasping at anything they can to justify their position. For those some, I don’t think the label “honest confusion” fits. Now if they can come up with some sort of historical documentation that local churches can unilaterally determine the criteria for church membership, or that unions can unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination, OK. But I have yet to see any such documentation.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference

Nic Samojluk: Some unions have slightly departed from the traditional manner in carrying the Gospel forward, and the church has reacted by producing a plethora of documents and wasted millions of dollars in order to forbid what is nowhere forbidden in Scripture. We would be wise, I believe, in stopping this nonsense.

Hi Nic.

Seems to me that disregarding a GC Session vote is essentially forbidden in Scripture. The issue Sean is highlighting here is not WO, but rather disregarding a GC Session vote.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
@Cindy Tutsch:

Cindy Tutsch:
I find the following citation thought provoking in light of current controversies:
“It has been a necessity to organize union conferences, that the General Conference shall not exercise dictation over all the separate conferences.” EGW in 4 MR 292

Hi Cindy.

Would not this statement be talking about the GC rather than a GC Session?

In some discussions I’ve seen, it seems like some are applying counsel regarding the GC to a GC Session, which is understandable given that the names for each are almost identical. But the GC and a GC Session are quite different.

If the above quote were to be applied to a GC Session, that would be like saying that the decision of the council of Acts 15 was optional, and local churches, James, Paul, and the Judaizers could take it or leave it. That just doesn’t sound like what Acts 15 is all about.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
We have repeatedly been taught not to send tithe to offshoots, for good reason. If an entity decides to go against a GC Session vote, at what point does that entity cross a line and become an offshoot?

And if, wherever that line is, that line is crossed, why would an officer of a local church within that conference have to resign, if that local church also believes the local conference should adhere to that GC Session vote?

The situation would be different if there was a plain and clear Thus saith the Lord as justification for disregarding the GC Session vote, since the Bible is a higher authority than a GC Session.