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…

Please follow and like us:
5
255
37

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

  1. Professor Geraty says;
    “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”.

    While it is true that the Bible does not define a DAY as a 24-hour period, it certainly defines a DAY as evening+morning according to the Genesis chapter 1, and not a DAY equals 1,000 evenings+1,000 mornings, or 10,000 evenings+10,000 mornings. If Dr. Geraty is rejecting the evening+morning definition of one DAY in Genesis 1, then he has to be intellectually consistent and apply whatever definition of a DAY he chooses to all the time prophecies and any reference to a DAY in the Bible. For example, according to Dr. Geraty’s logic, the children of Israel sending the spies to Canaan for 40 DAYS will translate into 40 (10,000 evenings+10,000 mornings) DAYS or whatever. What an absurdity. This convoluted line of reasoning obviously if embraced, nullifies all the time prophecies in the Bible, the Sabbath and all that this remnant movement stands for. The world church will obviously not stand for this absurd interpretation of scripture so it is about time Dr. Geraty and his cohorts muster the courage and walk away from the SDA church. It seems they are behaving like the proverbial “sheep in wolves clothing” and undermining the church from within.




    0
    View Comment
  2. Wasn’t Geraty educated at Newbold? Europe rejected God’s messages thru E.G.White, so it would appear from his statement that he doesn’t believe in the Spirit of Prophecy. Even the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) believes in the literal week of creation. Won’t some leader at the General Conference step forward and have the courage to stand and put this institution back on the strait and narrow?




    0
    View Comment
  3. Professor Geraty says;
    “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”.

    We cannot truly have the love of Christ in our hearts if we cannot worship Him in full confidence that he’s not only our redeemer, but is also our Creator. If we look at the heart of the 4th Commandment (Exodus 20:8-11), there’s just absolutely no other way to slice it!–The creation week was six literal, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour days just like any other week. The 7th day Sabbath was blessed and made holy from the very beginning (Gen. 2:1-3).

    “The truth and the glory of God are inseparable; it is impossible for us, with the Bible within our reach, to honor God by erroneous opinions. Many claim that it matters not what one believes, if his life is only right. But the life is moulded by the faith. If light and truth are within our reach, and we neglect to improve the privilege of hearing and seeing it, we virtually reject it; we are choosing darkness rather than light. {GC88 597.2}
    “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” [Proverbs 16:25.] Ignorance is no excuse for error…”




    0
    View Comment
  4. For what it is worth, here is my two-cent’s worth regarding knowledge and salvation.

    First of all, knowledge is indeed a part of salvation. If it weren’t necessary, why were the disciples sent out? Why commit all the lives and money to send missionairies anywhere? Why do we have Sabbath Schools and quarterlies? Why did God preserve the Bible through all these years? Why did God command Ellen White to spend her life writing? Why did He send a message to James White to write? Why the publishing work at all?

    Without doubt knowledge is central to salvation. But it is not just the knowledge we have that counts, but the knowledge we had the opportunity to acquire as well.

    Yes, there will be people saved who never heard of the Bible, but I seriously doubt there will be any there who did not believe in some code of right or wrong, and live up to that code to the best of their abilities. Perhaps, Sean, this is what you are speaking of when you talk of the Royal law of grace? There is a fine line here between truth and error on this subject. We need to tread very carefully.

    Ellen White wrote that none will be saved by the Law, but she also says that none will enter heaven without it.

    This is a deep subject and seems to be yet another field of controversy in our church at the present time. The humanistic view that all we need do is love Jesus and each other and we will be saved is incorrect. Yet I have heard it preached from the pulpit. There is a movement that is sweeping through the church today that the Law is not necessary to salvation. This is a subtlety caused by a misinterpretation of the above statement that no one will be saved by the Law. Let none be fooled. The Law is a necessary component to salvation. And knowledge of that Law is also very necessary. That said, not everyone has the same opportunity to that knowledge. God takes that into account. In order to be saved, people must live up to whatever amount of light they have. That explains those who will go to Heaven without a complete knowledge of the truth.

    However…in Mr. Gerarty’s case, he had ample opportunity to know the truth and has chosen not to believe it. He chose to become affilliated with the worldly scientific community and seek their applause rather than stand for God’s truth. This is apparent by his actions. (“By their fruits shall ye know them.”) He betrayed the trust put in him when he was hired by LSU and he continues to betray the Lord by his present stance.

    And, God help them, he and his cohorts are responsible for the souls of those young students they have led astray by the heresy taught in the classrooms at our institutions–plural. And that goes for the leadership who stood by (and are standing by) and let it happen as well. Praise God for the stand the Michigan conference has taken. May many more follow suit.

    It is time, brothers and sisters, for us to sweep the rubbish out of our lives and out of our churches as did the priests of old. We need to root out error and return to the pure doctrine given to us by God through the pioneers of our church. This is the purpose of the shaking. Those in error will fall away and the righteous will remain. Because two cannot walk together unless they be agreed. Creation/evolution, natural/alopathic medicine, and hymns/rock music are only some of the issues we face. These will soon bring about such sharp disagreements that those who do not want to submit their wills to God’s Will will indeed leave the church. Do not be surprised nor discouraged. The church needs to be cleansed before the end work can be accomplished.




    0
    View Comment
  5. Of course I believe in evolution… On the first day light evolved. On the second day the waters above and below evolved. On the third day dry land and herbs evolved. On the fourth day the greater and lesser lights evolved. Etc. etc. and on the 2,133,060th day the false theory of evolution evolved.




    0
    View Comment
  6. @Benjamin Burkhardt:

    Ignorance is no excuse for error…

    It depends on the type of ignorance. There’s a difference between willful ignorance and honest ignorance. Honest ignorance is a very very good excuse for error. After all, if one is honestly ignorant, without ever having opportunity to know the truth or to consciously appreciate it, what other option does one have but to be ignorant? The biblical writers note that God “winks” at honest ignorance, but not at willful ignorance. And, it is God who gets to decide who has been honest and who has been willful… not us.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  7. If Dr. Geraty is rejecting the evening+morning definition of one DAY in Genesis 1, then he has to be intellectually consistent and apply whatever definition of a DAY he chooses to all the time prophecies and any reference to a DAY in the Bible.

    Michael,

    I’m sure you are well-intentioned and sincere, but your meaning is not quite clear in the part I quoted above. I think you are correct, but it sounds almost like you are saying prophetic days can have only one definition, which would be incorrect (and is not what you meant, if I interpret correctly).

    William Miller, a thorough Bible student and commended by Ellen White for his study methods, wrote a good article on the prophetic time definitions in the Bible. There are three possible uses for a “day” in prophecy, he tells us: 1) a literal day; 2) a year; and 3) a thousand years. For each of the latter there are precisely two passages which give us this definition: “each day for a year,” Numbers 14:34 & Ezekiel 4:4-6; and a day for a thousand years, Psalm 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8.

    It just so happens that the literal days were always still literal days. The spies were in Canaan forty literal days, not forty years nor forty thousand years. The forty days, we are told explicitly, were to represent forty years of wandering in the wilderness.

    Second Peter 3 is also telling us that each of the (literal) days of Creation week represent one thousand years. The days are literal days, with one evening and morning each. Yet they represent 1000 years each of time that would follow them. Remember how Adam was told that the “day” he ate the fruit he would die? He died within that “millennium” in accordance with Peter’s words. Peter specifically draws the prophetic parallel for days two, three, and seven of Creation, but we generally focus on just day seven, and think of the entire chapter as being in reference to that “day of the Lord,” i.e. the millennium.

    If our Adventist church today correctly understood the prophecy God gave through His created works in that literal Creation Week we would not be having this debate about long-age evolution. Feel free to peruse an overly-concise explanation of the prophecy here:

    http://mundall.com/erik/creation.htm

    God bless!




    0
    View Comment
  8. @Faith:

    First of all, knowledge is indeed a part of salvation. If it weren’t necessary, why were the disciples sent out? Why commit all the lives and money to send missionairies anywhere? Why do we have Sabbath Schools and quarterlies? Why did God preserve the Bible through all these years? Why did God command Ellen White to spend her life writing? Why did He send a message to James White to write? Why the publishing work at all?

    The reason why the Gospel message is important is to give people awareness and hope in what they have already been given. It is likely that a person with hope and with knowledge of a better way will have an easier time choosing the better way, but it isn’t the knowledge itself that saves a person. Knowledge has the power to give hope and a better life here and now because of that hope, but not salvation. Salvation is based on the love of the truth, not the actual finding of the truth.

    Because of this, it is possible for the heathen to be saved, as Paul himself explains, according to their conscience. In other words, if they lived according to the best light that they had available, loving the little truth that they knew, they will be saved – their consciences defending them in the Day of Judgment.

    Not also that those who came before, like the great reformers during the Dark Ages, were not aware of all the doctrinal truths that we know today. Yet, despite their lack of knowledge, they loved the truth that they did understand and will be saved because of it.

    Again, knowledge is not directly responsible for salvation – it’s all based on love regardless of the level of a person’s knowledge.

    When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory: and before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another.” Thus Christ on the Mount of Olives pictured to His disciples the scene of the great judgment day. And He represented its decision as turning upon one point. When the nations are gathered before Him, there will be but two classes, and their eternal destiny will be determined by what they have done or have neglected to do for Him in the person of the poor and the suffering…

    Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God.

    How surprised and gladdened will be the lowly among the nations, and among the heathen, to hear from the lips of the Saviour, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me”! How glad will be the heart of Infinite Love as His followers look up with surprise and joy at His words of approval!

    – Ellen White, Desire of Ages, p. 637-638

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  9. @Adventist in High School:

    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.

    While it is true that all of our universities teach the fact that belief in evolutionism “exists” and then they define what that belief is. Not all of them teach that the doctrine on origins preached in evolutionism is in fact the right doctrine on origins. And in a number of cases their science faculty have been willing to admit to this pro-creationist policy at their respective universities.

    But for the special darkness that promotes belief in evolutionism as the right answer for the doctrine on origins -well for that you need something like LSU.

    Thus a little critical thinking when it comes to some of these surface facts “all our universities teach evolution” is needed so that you are not mislead by a mere surface detail.

    But the significance of that is – that by comparison NOT all of our universities “teach the Living Temple principles” of Kellogg. That problem does not require that everyone learn the details of the error so that they can be conversant on that topic as if all the business world was sold on Kellogg’s idea and you have to know about it – to survive in business.

    Yet that is exactly the level of the problem for belief in evolutionism.

    Much – much worse.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  10. I believe that this LSU evolution issue is just the TIP OF THE ICEBERG. While at Andrews two decades ago, many of our pastors from California-based SDA universities were seriously questioning the veracity of the 2,300 day prophecy, the remnant issue, and other SDA beliefs…

    I think we need a faith-check test on ALL who want to live and cash checks from our membership.

    James Rodriguez




    0
    View Comment
  11. I understand that there is plenty of room for divergent opinions and that we need to be Berean christians and not take any one else’s word for things. I am very curious, however, to know something from those who think it possible that creation did not happen in 6 evening-morning, 24 hour time periods with a seventh evening-morning 24 hour time period for Sabbath. Where, exactly, did the 7 evening-morning 24 time period week come from if not from the Creator God during creation week?




    0
    View Comment
  12. That no one has all knowledge is correct, Sean. But to divorce knowledge from salvation like you do is wrong. No one is saved without some knowledge and the knowledge they have and how they have responded will determine their salvation. Without true knowledge, their is no true love. And in the context you are defending, we are not saved by love either. We are saved by the atonement of the cross.

    It is a false defense of Wisbey and others who embrace his error to claim we can not “judge” him or anyone else. If he will not and does not resign, isn’t it the responsibility of those over him to fire him?

    And if so, isn’t this “judging” him as unfit to hold this position? And if he is out of harmony with the church’s position, we are also “judging” him as out of harmony with God.

    As for his conscience, we are not solely judged by our conscience. Only if and when it is trained and enlightened by scripture can it be a safe guide. The church has a responsibility to “defend the faith” and seperate individuals who mis-represent it.

    So we are “judged” by the bible. This is God’s standard of judgment. If and when the church defends the bible, it defends the judgment of God. And when the church acts according to the word, it “judges” good and evil, right and wrong, and in so doing, judges individuals.

    If Wisbey and others can prove by the bible that the church has abandon scripture, then the church is “judged” by the bible on the same basis.

    Can the church make a mistake? Yes. Can individuals make a mistake? Yes. Can the bible be wrong? No. Some things are so plain in the bible, that even the wicked can and will admit what it says and see what it means. They may not accept it for themselves, but they still know it is what the bible teaches.

    God as the creator as stated in the bible is certainly one of those clear testimonies beyond misunderstanding. And the creation week is equally clear so that even the heathen could and would agree that this is what the bible teaches. They may not accept it, but will admit it.

    The only way the bible can be the final test and authority for truth is if it can be substancially understood. This is one of the issues the reformers contended for. The clarity of the bible for substancial salvational truth. So much so, that even Rome had to finally admit they were abandoning the bible for church authority over the word.

    EGW uses this prinicple in defense of the Sabbath.

    “As the controversy extends into new fields, and the minds of the people are called to God’s down-trodden law, Satan is astir. The power attending the message will only madden those who oppose it. The clergy will put forth almost superhuman efforts to shut away the light, lest it should shine upon their flocks. By every means at their command they will endeavor to suppress the discussion of these vital questions. The church appeals to the strong arm of civil power, and in this work, papists and Protestants unite. As the movement for Sunday enforcement becomes more bold and decided, the law will be invoked against commandment-keepers. They will be threatened with fines and imprisonment, and some will be offered positions of influence, and other rewards and advantages, as inducements to renounce their faith. But their steadfast answer is, “Show us from the Word of God our error,”—the same plea that was made by Luther under similar circumstances. Those who are arraigned before the courts make a strong vindication of the truth, and some who hear them are led to take their stand to keep all the commandments of God. Thus light will be brought before thousands who otherwise would know nothing of these truths.” {GC88 607.1}

    Wisbey and others are not ignorant as you suggest. Yes, they may repent and be saved. We can judge no one’s final salvation. But we can judge if they are presently in a state of rebellion and act accordingly. So your argument of ignorance is not valid.

    They must be dealt with as enlightened individuals who are in rebellion against God. We don’t consign them to hell. We simply seperate them from the church. They may repent. Only God can judge their final outcome.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  13. Professor Geraty says;
    “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”.

    Please clarify, Professor Geraty, which of your list above are you saying is/are NOT in Genesis. Could it be the only one is the “6,000 years ago?” Or are you saying none of the conditions on your list is “in Genesis?”

    What about people in the “tea party movement” do you oppose? What do you actually know about these people?

    Please clearly state your views. Are you saying you think the 7 day week that we have today is not in Genesis chapter 1? Are you saying you think the Seventh-day Sabbath is not in Genesis?

    Because you are not clear above I am left to interpret your letter to mean you actually do support the teaching of macro evolution at LSU as a equal or superior theory to the denomination’s stated interpretation of the Biblical creation record including the words of Christ. To be clear as a completely subsidized, Michigan-born son of a life-long SDA worker, I solidly support the decision of the Michigan Conference to not subsidize LSU tuition for the children of their workers. LSU will not be receiving any financial support from me or my family until they clearly repair their error in this regard. I hope and pray that all alumni also cease any financial support until LSU is on the correct course.

    I am disappointed in you.




    0
    View Comment
  14. Erik Mundall says:
    “I’m sure you are well-intentioned and sincere, but your meaning is not quite clear in the part I quoted above. I think you are correct, but it sounds almost like you are saying prophetic days can have only one definition, which would be incorrect (and is not what you meant, if I interpret correctly)”.

    Erik, sorry if I did not make myself clear from my previous posting. I am not saying prophetic days can have only one definition, not at all. I am aware of all the scriptures that you quoted in your post and I believe them wholeheartedly. My point is that, there is not even a consensus amongst those who teach this erroneous interpretation of Genesis 1 what one DAY stands for, that is, is it 1,000 days or 10,000 days?. My challenge to Professor Geraty was that if be believes one literal day in Genesis 1 means 10,000 days for instance, then by the same logic the spies who went to Cannan would have spent 40 x 10,000 days literally, which according to Numbers 14:34 will translate into 40 x 10,000 years in the wilderness, using a day equals a year prophetic interpretation. Then by the same token 2 Peter 3: 8 which reads, “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”, will translate into 1 x 10,000 days for a thousand x 10,000 years. That is the consistency I was talking about. Is it not absurd? The Genesis account has to be taken literally because it harmonizes with the rest of scripture.

    Like I said earlier, this convoluted line of reasoning obviously if embraced, nullifies all the time prophecies in the Bible, the Sabbath and all that this remnant movement stands for. Erik, I hope I have made myself clear.




    0
    View Comment
  15. @Shane You write:

    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.  

    Most philosophers believe that the truths of logic are necessary. If that is right, then whether or not evolution occurs does not make a different to their truth. Consider for example the logical truth that everything is self-identical. Suppose now that evolution is true. Does this entail that there is anything that is not self-identical? (Of course not).

    On “uniformity in the universe”, I’m not sure exactly what you mean here. But consider the fundamental laws of physics. These are the basic uniformities of the universe. Suppose that evolution is true. Does this entail that there are no such fundamental uniformities? (Of course not).

    It is important to remember that the theory of evolution is a specifically biological theory. It is not a “world view”, in the sense of providing a basic conceptual orientation on the universe in general, and it has no implications at all for the laws of logic or physics — except that it had better be consistent with them!

    For objectors to evolution, it would be nice if it could be shown to be logically impossible. But since the theorems of population genetics really are theorems, the question is not the conceptual one of whether evolution is consistent or logically possible, but the empirical one of whether or not it occurred in our universe.




    0
    View Comment
  16. @Sean Pitman:

    “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…”

    What an incredible statement. Here we have an “excuse” for any unbelief. In other words all we have to do is follow our conscience, the Bible does not matter.




    0
    View Comment
  17. @Sean Pittman

    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.

    A love of the truth first must be based on a knowledge of the truth, otherwise how do we know what to love? Then you turn around and contradict yourself with this: “However, a solid hope in the “good news” of the Gospel is indeed based on knowledge.” Which is a true statement. Quite confusing.




    0
    View Comment
  18. @Brian Howland:
    Amen Brain, what an unholy debacle. I attend a secular college and I write many articles and research papers where I refute evolution and all other blatant spiritualism. There were some lame attempts by a couple of professors to stop me but, academic freedom of speech comes into play that’s based on our first amendment rights.
    Of course there is a big difference between me attending secular schools as someone thoroughly grounded in the truth; and little children who are not yet there. Home schooling may be a viable option for some.




    0
    View Comment
  19. The Ten Commandments are built on the principle of Love. each is an application of that principle to a specific circumstance.

    We do not bear false witness against (call a liar) those we love.

    There cannot ever be any reconciliation between loving God and calling Him a liar.

    If this really is Mr Geraty’s position then he is a long way from the path of wisdom.

    Matthew 5:19 “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

    Mr Geraty has a stark choice to make, however he may like to deny that the choice exists at all.




    0
    View Comment
  20. I think we are treading on DANGEROUS grounds here. If one believes in God then one would have to believe that He is a Creator of all things and that He created the weekly cycle. How can one serve 2 masters. Either you believe in God or your don’t. If you believe in God then you HAVE to believe that He created the earth in 7 literal days. His stamp is in the 4th commandment that He is ruler of the universe. He is the creator and better watch out cause I don’t know how Geraty can stand before God and tell Him to His face that He did not create us and the world in 6 days and on the 7th He rested. SO God help him. For here I STAND along side with Martin Luther so help me God. I believe in creation, not because I was raised that way but evidence tells me otherwise that there is a Creator, sustainer for my whole life. I live because He gave me life and I did NOT evolve.




    0
    View Comment
  21. The former LSD president have a very important point in all the discussion on the website Educate Truth. Lawrence Geraty have the following point:” 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.”

    Friends – this is important what ever you believe in the 6 day creation (as I do) or not. Let not the spirit from the tea party right wing movement come among us as Gods people. We have allready have had too much of this. This is not the way truth loving people act. So should we be silent about what we see as false teachings- No, but we must learn to deal with it differently. May the Spirit of god get a place in our hearts and let us be willing to go the extra mile. Torben Nybo the ministry of Brother Torben – http://www.brothertorben.com




    0
    View Comment
  22. @Steve Billiter:

    A love of the truth first must be based on a knowledge of the truth, otherwise how do we know what to love? Then you turn around and contradict yourself with this: “However, a solid hope in the “good news” of the Gospel is indeed based on knowledge.” Which is a true statement. Quite confusing.

    All the knowledge one needs to be saved is that it is right to help a neighbor in need. If one lives according to this knowledge, loving and helping a neighbor in need, that person will be saved – regardless of if that person knows any of the doctrines of the SDA Church or has ever heard of the Bible.

    By the way, it is possible to be saved without ever having had a conscious hope of salvation while here in this life. Salvation belongs to those who love their neighbors regardless of if they realize it or not. There will be many surprised people in Heaven someday who had no clue as to the glory that awaits the righteous – those who served “the least of these” and in doing so served Jesus Himself. But, how much better to have had a conscious hope and realization of this bright future here and now?

    This is the purpose of spreading the Gospel’s “Good News” to the world… to give people hope and encouragement here and now!

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  23. I do sincerely applaud and commend Shane Hide for bringing this issue to the forefront. My prayers go up for you. The teaching of evolution and the discrediting of God’s word at La Sierra is but the tip of the iceberg of the Omega Apostasy as predicted by God’s messenger to His remnant church. His admonition to us through her is to meet it head on.
    Thanks Shane for doing God’s will.
    To the president and former president of La Sierra, the president of the GC and all the other leaders who seem to be leading God’s people into apostasy rather than to God’s kingdom, I pray that they would turn around before it is everlastingly too late. It is amazing how the defenders and supporters of this abomination in God’s church are quick to point out a lack of the love of God in those who choose to stand for the right. I ask, ‘where is their love of God in openly and boldly going against His commandments’? May I remind them of the Savior’s words, ‘If ye love me, keep my commandments’ (John 14:15)
    To teach and promote evolution is a blatant denial of God’s seventh-day Sabbath. When the Sabbath goes, so does everything else we believe as a people. If there is no Sabbath, then there is no sin, if there is no sin then we have no need for a Savior. There is no concept of sin in evolution. Since we evolve from grime to slime to monkeys then we have no moral absolutes that come from a loving God who created us and gave us the Sabbath-day as a sign between us and Him who created us. One cannot believe in evolution and at the same time claim to be a Christian. A Christian lives by faith rather than by science-so-called and men’s intellectual philosophies that are contrary to the plain teachings of Go’s word. The two are mutually exclusive and patently irreconcilable.
    My question to those who are choosing the path of evolution is, ‘what is your purpose in God’s church’?
    To the president of the Michigan Conference and it’s Executive Committee, I want to encourage you to continue to stand for the right even though the heavens fall. We are living in the last days and God will have a people who will stand for truth in the face of fierce opposition. May you continue to be numbered among those.
    We should not stop at La Sierra but let our voices be known at Andrews, Oakwood and all the other institutions that are teaching not only evolution but are leading our young people away from the word of Almighty God to the spiritual exercises of Loyola whilst denying God’s warnings to us through His prophet Ellen White. We must make our opposition known to the leadership that we oppose the parading of Vatican at our General Conference sessions. It is time for God’s people to stand up and face the Omega of Apostasy that is upon us. If not now when?
    The challenge may seem formidable; but God is on our side. He will fight with us and for us. I pray that the Kevin Paulsons of the church would continue to make it clear that the Omega will not go unanswered.
    Here we stand, we can do no other. May God help us.
    Aubrey Duncan




    0
    View Comment
  24. (reposted from Spectrum)

    Christ’s love is not a robe for doctrinal error.

    Geraty says he is against “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.”

    Then, he adds: “I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”

    The reality is that the “Michigan Conference” did NOT add this so-called “extra-Biblical interpretation.” To clarify, point number 4 of the MCEC vote states:

    “We request that the 2010 General Conference session vote a resolution affirming number 3 above, with the direction of bringing to the following GC session a statement that would serve to strengthen our fundamental belief number six. Hence, our Creation doctrine would clearly articulate our biblical view of ‘a literal, recent, six-day Creation,’ in which ‘the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week,’ as the statement affirmed by the General Conference Executive Committee in October 2004 noted.”

    [Emphasis note: “as the statement affirmed by the GC Executive Committee in Oct 2004!!”]

    (1) Geraty has unfortunately misrepresented the facts. Nowhere did the Michigan Conference even suggest “6,000 years ago.”

    (2) The MCEC statement was directly quoting the General Conference Executive Committee’s October 2004 statement, of “a literal, recent, six-day Creation,” in which “the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week.” This is basically what the MCEC is asking the 2010 GC to take up. Yet, by ignoring this fact, Geraty seems to be falsely alleging that Michigan Conference is promoting “extra-Biblical interpretation”. What Geraty is really doing, is essentially claiming that the GC Executive Committee is promoting “extra-Biblical interpretation.”

    (3) In part, Fundamental Belief number 6 states: “In six days the Lord made ‘the heavens and the earth’ and all living things upon the earth and rested on the seventh day of that week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work.”

    Geraty asserts: “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.”

    Notice what President Jan Paulsen states in his June 9, 2009 article in the Adventist Review: “Our position as a church in the matter of origins is clearly although somewhat broadly stated in our Fundamental Beliefs. This position is further amplified in a statement voted by the General Conference Executive Committee at the 2004 Annual Council [responding to ‘An Affirmation of Creation,’ submitted by the International Faith & Science Conferences]. To remind ourselves of the details of that action, I have included the wording in this appeal: ‘We strongly endorse the document’s affirmation of our historic, biblical position of belief in a literal, recent, six-day Creation. We urge that the document, accompanied by this response, be disseminated widely throughout the world Seventh-day Adventist Church, using all available communication channels and in the major languages of World membership. We affirm the Seventh-day Advenitst understanding of the historicity of Genesis 1-11: that the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week; and that the Flood was global in nature. We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins….”

    In a nutshell, Geraty is actually implying that the GC’s statement is tantamount to interpreting Fundamental Belief #6 “according to anyone’s preference.”

    (4) Thus, it appears that Geraty is really suggesting that the GC Executive Committee is “the fundamentalist wing of the church,” since it is simply their statement that the MCEC is really calling for inclusion in the current belief number 6.

    (5) Also, it seems that Geraty is basically charging the GC Executive Committee with beginning “to cut out members who have a different interpretation.”

    (6) Ultimately then, it looks like Geraty is accusing the GC Executive Committee of being one of the “forces at work that are disrupting the unity of the church.”




    0
    View Comment
  25. After reading THROUGH the abundant comments, some on-topic, others to the side, I am so motivated to write my toughts. Some others have already beat me to comment on “The Shaking,” but I’ll add a few thoughts.

    In my little country church, watching people leave the church because of an unkind remark, or others come in to take their place; watching this process increase over years, I had a concept of “Shaking” going on. Yes, Jesus will soon appear. WOW! Talking about a “church within a church” and seeing the potential–no, the fulfillment–of harm, I stand amazed at the literal fulfillment of the prophecy so many years ago, now fulfilled.

    Thank you to those who are walking away from the church in their hearts, for confirming to me the supporting truth in the writings of Ellen G. White. You have confirmed my faith! Still, I care. I am so sad to see you go, literally or mentally.

    It also reminds me of a sermon I heard years ago by Elder Frazee: The Ministry of Heresy. Every heresy that “slips by God” was allowed for a purpose: to lead His chosen to deeper study and reconfirmation of faith.
    May GOD’s name be honored here, both by believers and unbelievers. You ALL confirm the truth. In the end, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW!

    Now to the commenters: He whose faith does not make him More kind, More loving, his religion is a curse to himself and the world. WE MAY DISCUSS ISSUES, NOT PEOPLE, unless we wish to reveal our TRUE characters. No, that is not a real quote–but it is close, and holds to the concept.)

    Let’s commit to intense study and MUCH, MUCH PRAYER. Our church is shaking to the core; will our faith follow? GC needs our prayers. We want truth to prevail–now, don’t we?




    0
    View Comment
  26. Do we have to keep referring to FB#6? Didn’t I hear that Larry Gerity had something to do with the writing of that article of “faith”?

    Can’t we start talking about what the Bible teaches? Or are we well past that?




    0
    View Comment
  27. Rather than taking a position for or against evolution, it might be well for us to observe carefuly all the facts. Let’s candidly look at what evidence there is for evolution and what are some of the weaknesses of the theory of evolution. If all we do is react negatively to those who view things differently than we do, then we will never come to consensus. Those who believe in 6 days of creation 6000+ years ago need to consider that if death did not exist in Eden then the vast majority of animal species have gone through significant evolution to now prey on other animals. Even all the protective adaptation witnessed in nature witnesses to a lot of change since creation. Creationists must also explain where dinosaurs came from. Surely the meat-eating ones did not exist in Eden. Those who believe creation took place in 6 days 6000+ years ago need to come up with convincing explanations for the fossil record. Why are most mammals not found buried in older strata?

    Let’s look at the facts and seek to understand the evidence rather than argue over a theological position that may or may not be correct. Surely there is much we can agree on and concerning the rest, do more research.




    0
    View Comment
  28. Hello, These events and how degreed teachers obtained their education, Harvard in this case, reminds me of a warning written a long time ago by E.A. Sutherland titled, `Why the Protestant Churches fell,’in which he outlines how the RCC counter reformation brought in a short time most of the schools in Europe under their control and while they were not welcome in North America, the teachers, having come from schools in England, which already followed the Roman program of education, brought the ideas and couricular of the Roman inspired schools with them and implemented them at all the universities in the east from early on. Dunster was one of the early presidents of Harvard who was responsible for the type of education we were warned about later on. To me it sounded that the retired President from LSU is not widely read on the issues and probably not inclined to read other viewpoints contrary to his own outdated ones.
    That is why all our positioned appointees should pass a test on their qualifications on spiritual leadership – after all, its better to be tested here on earth than wait till judgment day. At least that is my opinion.
    I hope and pray that we have a few true leaders left.
    Hans Zwick




    0
    View Comment
  29. I believe that this LSU evolution issue is just the TIP OF THE ICEBERG.

    You hit the nail on the head; this is a much bigger and deep-rooted problem than some of us realize.




    0
    View Comment
  30. 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…

    Steve, I appreciate your comments. Geraty’s philosophy was known and was a major factor in why he was chosen. Same goes for Wisbey.




    0
    View Comment
  31. 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  

    Great movie! Probably banned from LSU!




    0
    View Comment
  32. 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…

    As a practicing Internist for over 31 years, I have never used or been taught anything regarding using evolution in any aspect of medical practice. I guess I must have “missed” something or you’re way off base in your comment!




    0
    View Comment
  33. I know that some have struggled with the tithe issue and how we can remain loyal to God in light of the LSU fiasco. How you tithe and exactly who you send tithe to is not a “cut and dried” issue. Even EGW used tithe outside the regular channels. But remember this, if you tithe any organization except the church you belong to, you have no official voice in how it is used.

    You are not a member of an independent ministry. You must simply trust that they will do the right thing. And of course, if and when you think they don’t, you can tithe somewhere else. Also, if you fail to tithe the church you belong to, you have, at least to some degree, forfeited your right to protest. Of course, refusing to tithe is a kind of protest in and of itself.

    If you feel the need to direct your tithe elsewhere, you can take comfort in these words by EGW…..

    “Sins of Priests Caused Some to Offer Own Sacrifices.–As the men of Israel witnessed the corrupt course of the priests, they thought it safer for their families not to come up to the appointed place of worship. Many went from Shiloh with their peace disturbed, their indignation aroused, until they at last determined to offer their sacrifices themselves, concluding that this would be fully as acceptable to God, as to sanction in any manner the abominations practiced in the sanctuary (ST Dec. 1. 1881). {2BC 1010.4}

    This principle shows the moral accountability of the individual over and above the organized religion of that day. How each of us deals with present church corruption will be judged by God. But to do nothing and continue with business as usual, may bring a more severe judgment by God than making a mistake in how and when and in what way you choose to protest.

    And finally, beware of damaging your own spirituality by becoming too involved with church conflicts. When and how to stand is a sensitive issue and many have ended up abandoning the faith because their spirituality could not stand the conflict.

    In the end, fear nothing from man, but fear God alone. Make your decision with much prayer and careful consideration. And then, “plunge at a venture” as James White challenged Ellen to do.

    The shaking is a reality and will certainly intensify more and more. No doubt the church will get smaller before it gets bigger. People may abandon us, this is no sign we are wrong. Will persecution come? Don’t worry about Rome, or apostate Protestantism. It will first come within the church. I have personally heard the dragon roar, and it wasn’t Rome.

    “That night I dreamed that I was in Battle Creek looking out from the side glass at the door and saw a company marching up to the house, two and two. They looked stern and determined. I knew them well and turned to open the parlor door to receive them, but thought I would look again. The scene was changed. The company now presented the appearance of a Catholic procession. One bore in his hand a cross, another a reed. And as they approached, the one carrying a reed made a circle around the house, saying three times: “This house is proscribed. The goods must be confiscated. They have spoken against our holy order.” Terror seized me, and I ran through the house, out of the north door, and found myself in the midst of a company, some of whom I knew, but I dared not speak a word to them for fear of being betrayed. I tried to seek a retired spot where I might weep and pray without meeting eager, inquisitive eyes wherever I turned. I repeated frequently: “If I could only understand this! If they will tell me what I have said or what I have done!” {1T 577.2}
    I wept and prayed much as I saw our goods confiscated. I tried to read sympathy or pity for me in the looks of those around me, and marked the countenances of several whom I thought would speak to me and comfort me if they did not fear that they would be observed by others. I made one attempt to escape from the crowd, but seeing that I was watched, I concealed my intentions. I commenced weeping aloud, and saying: “If they would only tell me what I have done or what I have said!” My husband, who was sleeping in a bed in the same room, heard me weeping aloud and awoke me. My pillow was wet with tears, and a sad depression of spirits was upon me. {1T 578.1}”

    Who does the persecuting? Historically, who were the worst enemies of truth? Why would we expect anything different today?

    Keep the faith

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  34. It seems that many times we forget what love really means. “If you love me keep my commandments.” It is simple. True love leads a person to follow the teachings of the God they love. Those were placed in the Bible. Simple. If we cannot believe what the Bible says in Genesis, how can we believe the most basic principles taught by Jesus in the Gospels? By destroying the literal teaching of creation, we run the risk of a humanists view of scripture. Thus the Bible becomes about the individual and not about the Creator. What was the original sin in Heaven? Satan wanted preeminence over Jesus and ultimately over God. Seems like evolution does the same thing. God bless and protect those who are on the forefront of the battle against heresy in our church.




    0
    View Comment
  35. Burney Culpepper, Out here in the Pacific Union Conference, we have many who have changed the words to, “If you love Me, change my commandments.” This is, supposedly, a “newer and more progressive” interpretation!




    0
    View Comment
  36. I have just been in email conversation with Dr. Geraty and he does support the literal 7 day creation week, its that he doesn’t really see the Biblical evidence for such. I believe that EducateTruth has improperly misrepresented Dr.Geraty in this manner:

    “Beyond this, he has not considered such a fundamental doctrinal belief to be all that important to the SDA Church and has hired professors to teach at LSU that he specifically knew would undermine the Church’s “fundamental” understanding on a literal creation week”

    That’s quite a statement, just how are you going to prove that? it seems to me that EducateTruth is jumping to conclusions and making unprovable assertions without the evidence. I disagree with Dr. Geraty in that I do see the solid Biblical evidence for a literal week and I sent that Bible evidence along with EGW to him, but he did not respond specifically to that. Here is the text of the two letters I received from him today, and he has not forbade me to post this here.

    “That is thoughtful of you to contact me so as not to misquote me (as the header in Educate Truth does!). 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. God bless you, too.” Larry Geraty

    In the following letter I received about 30 minutes later he states:

    “Steve: Yes, you are right that the heading misrepresents my views.
    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.
    God bless, Larry”

    It seems Dr. Geraty is just saying he leaves others free to interpret Genesis 1 just how they wish, and he personally does not make it a test of fellowship to believe in a literal 7 day week. He further states that he did his best to insure LSU had professors that were supportive of Adventist beliefs, including creationism.

    It appears to me that one must affirm all of the fundamental beliefs of the Adventist church before being accepted for membership which should include employment at our schools as a teacher.

    6. Creation:
    God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made “the heaven and the earth” and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was “very good,” declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3.)

    If Dr. Geraty by fellowship means membership, then I disagree with him, however he did not say exactly that. I still believe it is unfair for EducateTruth assign him these motives without proof:

    “Beyond this, he has not considered such a fundamental doctrinal belief to be all that important to the SDA Church and has hired professors to teach at LSU that he specifically knew would undermine the Church’s “fundamental” understanding on a literal creation week”

    I would say the burden of proof is on EducateTruth to either prove the above statement, or publish a retraction.




    0
    View Comment
  37. @Steve Billiter:

    That’s quite a statement, just how are you going to prove that?

    Remember what he said about FB #6? Let me quote it again below:

    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.

    He had a hand in the wording of FB #6, and it was his intention along with Fritz Guy to change the wording of the belief so that it was inclusive of other interpretations. How does that not undermine the church’s belief? How can you say FB #6 is so important and then be part of an effort that undermines it by legitimizing false doctrines? It would be like preaching the biblical support for Sabbath, but making the wording of the FB vague enough to allow Sunday holiness. You quoted him as saying, “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.”

    Notice what he actually says about Genesis 1:

    Second of all, I personally presume that Genesis 1 refers to an ordinary week, but since it does not say that explicitly…

    He presumes Genesis 1 is referring to an ordinary week, not I believe that what Genesis says is true. There are many Christian leaders and theologians that admit Genesis 1 is intending to communicate a literal week. They just don’t believe that it really happened. Now since Geraty was so vague with you, it’s difficult to say what he believes.

    Geraty says:

    I am not challenging the literal 6-day creation week.

    Of course he’s challenging it. He evidently doesn’t believe it’s the truth, otherwise he wouldn’t allow for false theories. You can’t say you’re not challenging something when you’re giving equal credence to views that undermine what you say you’re not challenging. Perhaps that was not his intention, but it’s what he is doing.

    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.

    Geraty is claiming he didn’t know about the beliefs of the biology professors that were hired during his years there. I suppose if he was totally ignorant of their beliefs, then he could make such a claim. What about Larry McCloskey who came to La Sierra in 1996 as the department chair? This is what McCloskey had in his syllabus for BIOL 112:

    It is vitally important for you to realize that this course—as a science course—is describing evidence from mainstream science, and is not dealing with beliefs. Some will decide they cannot “believe” the scientific evidence, and it is your right to decide. This is encouraged and supported. If you expect to be competitive in any modern science-based profession, and hope to perform well on standardized or pre-professional qualifying exams, you must simply know what the scientific evidence is, whether or not you ‘believe’ it.

    Is Geraty claiming he didn’t know about this? Geraty retired in 2006 and was president at LSU for 14 years.

    Steve, I think you’ve been snowed.




    0
    View Comment
  38. @Brother Torben Nybo:

    The former LSD president have a very important point in all the discussion on the website Educate Truth. Lawrence Geraty have the following point:” 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.”

    Friends – this is important what ever you believe in the 6 day creation (as I do) or not. Let not the spirit from the tea party right wing movement come among us as Gods people. We have allready have had too much of this. This is not the way truth loving people act. So should we be silent about what we see as false teachings- No, but we must learn to deal with it differently. May the Spirit of god get a place in our hearts and let us be willing to go the extra mile. Torben Nybo the ministry of Brother Torben – http://www.brothertorben.com Brother Torben Nybo(Quote)

    First of all – there is nothing in our 28 Fundamental Beliefs – or even on this web site that argues “Because a tea party did this – we choose to believe the Word of God over the atheist doctrines on origins found in evolutionism”.

    Nothing of the sort has ever been argued.

    So “what is the REAL reason for tea party language” coming from the pro-evolutionist in California? The answer is that they are simply appealing to their constituency and people are now simply “following the playbook” being directed by Geraty and Guy.

    So when you see references to “the big tent” or “tea party” – it is really nothing more than a few of the devotees following the lead that was set by Geraty and Fritz Guy who were making statements designed to appeal to their own followers.

    It has little or nothing to do with the discussion at hand – or whether the Bible can really be bent to the extremes that wishful-thinking evolutionists have been dreaming about in recent decades.

    Please don’t get sidetracked by their “tea party” efforts at misdirection.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  39. @Steve Billiter:

    I have just been in email conversation with Dr. Geraty and he does support the literal 7 day creation week, its that he doesn’t really see the Biblical evidence for such.

    So then… that is when you fell out of your chair and rolled on the floor laughing??

    So “Dr Geraty you believe in a literal 7 day creation week in direct opposition to what you believe the Bible says?? How did you come to this position that you now claim is not even in harmony with scripture?

    Did you have a dream a direct revelation? Are you aware of our need to test the spirits to see if they are from god?”

    Is Dr Geraty “aware” that the “SIX DAYS you shall labor…for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE…” language talks about a 7 day week?

    Is this now “news” to the leadership at LSU??

    How did we get to this sad state?

    I believe that EducateTruth has improperly misrepresented Dr.Geraty in this manner:

    “Beyond this, he has not considered such a fundamental doctrinal belief to be all that important to the SDA Church and has hired professors to teach at LSU that he specifically knew would undermine the Church’s “fundamental” understanding on a literal creation week”

    That’s quite a statement, just how are you going to prove that? it seems to me that EducateTruth is jumping to conclusions and making unprovable assertions without the evidence.

    If Geraty hired the current batch of evolutionists in the biology and religion departments – including the ones that came from Walla Walla AFTER the North Pacific Union forced them out of Walla Walla – then “he has something to answer for”.

    Geraty said:
    “That is thoughtful of you to contact me so as not to misquote me (as the header in Educate Truth does!). 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.

    Ahh – here we have Fritz Guy’s “big tent” idea.

    But also – we have a sense of confusion on whether “God” is one of those that Geraty is willing to differ with – since God himself summarized the Genesis 1-2:3 events into legal code (in Ex 20) using the very 7 day week language that Geraty claims is not proper to impose on the Genesis 1-2 text.

    Perhaps Geraty is willing to “include God along with professor Bradley” letting each of them have their own opinions on what Genesis 1-2 means – while Geraty asserts that the text specifies “no such thing” and imagines that the text simply leaves the question open 4 billion years or 7 days – not much of a difference to speak of in Geraty’s “big tent”??

    Geraty said:
    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.

    Certainly we would not fault others for failing to see things as you “wish” to see them. That is one point I think all can agree on.

    In the mean time we have “God’s wishes” in Ex 20:8-11 that hammer a 7 day week timeline on the Genesis 1-2:3 like an iron clad template.

    And we have even more clear “language” on “God’s wishes” in 3SG 91 via special revelation in that regard – spelling out the damage that is done by “wishing away” the text of Genesis 1-2 into “billions and billions of years”.

    Geraty said:

    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.

    Agreed.

    In addition we have the gap between junk-science (you know – “evolutionism”) and actual science ( you know – biology, genetics, chemistry, physics etc).

    Geraty
    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

    You reference Ellen White as if you are actually reading what she said on the subject of this debate – all the while carefully sidestepping her claim to a direct revelation from God on the subject of evolution in 3SG91 and the fact that your university is pursuing a course that she claims was shown to her as “disguised infidelity”.

    Now possibly it is “not your wish” to address any more of what she said than is convenient – nothing more than would be helpful in the rosey picture you have in mind at the moment.

    However – quoting her on the subject of real science (and not junk-science fraud or wild speculation ) and applying it to evolutionism’s doctrines on origins – is to be less-than-genuine on the point – wouldn’t you admit?

    so these things are not the pressing issues for me that they apparently are for Educate Truth and its supporters.

    How amazing that engaging in what 3SG 91 calls “disquised infidelity” is “not a pressing issue” for LSU leadership.

    it is contrary to all I did to make sure we had professors who were supportive of the SDA Church and creationism.
    God bless, Larry”

    How shocked and outrages Larry must be at this point to find that his beloved institution has taken the current “all for evoutionism” road.

    How active he must be in working with the LSU board of directors and with Ron Wisbey and with Fritz Guy trying get this thing turned around.

    How active he must be in gathering leaders together to take action so that the very thing he claims he has tried NOT to put together – does not continue to runover the work of a life time that he had previously put into LSU.

    Or is it possible that this is lip service after having already let a few horses out of the barn?

    Time continues to unveil the real story. And it is a sad story that does not fit the nice pictures that some people like to paint.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  40. Wow, what a thread! The side issue of whether Geraty is a true sinner due his recent comments is a bit silly to me. Especially when, many “pages” later, both sides are still going at it.

    It is obvious that the former LSU president takes a rather dim view of progressive truth. The obvious point that he fails to see is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is founded on a particular view of Genesis 1, and those who join her ranks must stand on the platform of revealed truth that the founders built on. If he considers the issue still up for question, he should not be an Adventist. There is nothing optional about taking Genesis 1 literally in SDA theology. (Unless you’re a “California-style” Adventist who considers the church a social construct and not a theological one. A wink to Betsy’s comment above.)




    0
    View Comment
  41. 6. Creation:
    God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made “the heaven and the earth” and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was “very good,” declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3.)

    Those who claim that a 7 day week is not mentioned in this statement above for creation week – need to tell us just how they were able to bend the text to such an extent.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  42. A note on Dr. Geraty’s clarification:

    “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.”

    However, Dr. Geraty clearly states that he did what he could “to make sure we had professors who were supportive of the SDA Church and creationism.” Please note that he does not specify biology professors (as the note at the top of the page suggests), or even science professors, but professors in general. There were many, many professors hired at La Sierra University during Dr. Geraty’s term as president, including me. We must be certain to check our facts and carefully read the sources that we use as authority for a point, lest we be guilty of slander or libel (depending on whether we are speaking or writing).

    Pax,

    David Kendall, PhD
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment
  43. @David Kendall, PhD: Notice he said those who were supportive of creationism. I think all the evolutionists at LSU would call themselves creationists. I know Erv Taylor at AToday does. I could be wrong on this next detail, but wasn’t there some debacle at WWU with McCloskey over his evolutionary views? Does anyone know why he left WWU (Walla Walla University)?




    0
    View Comment
  44. @Steve Billiter:Remember what he said about FB #6? Let me quote it again below:
    He had a hand in the wording of FB #6, and it was his intention along with Fritz Guy to change the wording of the belief so that it was inclusive of other interpretations. How does that not undermine the church’s belief? How can you say FB #6 is so important and then be part of an effort that undermines it by legitimizing false doctrines? It would be like preaching the biblical support for Sabbath, but making the wording of the FB vague enough to allow Sunday holiness. You quoted him as saying, “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.”Notice what he actually says about Genesis 1:
    He presumes Genesis 1 is referring to an ordinary week, not I believe that what Genesis says is true. There are many Christian leaders and theologians that admit Genesis 1 is intending to communicate a literal week. They just don’t believe that it really happened. Now since Geraty was so vague with you, it’s difficult to say what he believes.Geraty says:
    Of course he’s challenging it. He evidently doesn’t believe it’s the truth, otherwise he wouldn’t allow for false theories. You can’t say you’re not challenging something when you’re giving equal credence to views that undermine what you say you’re not challenging. Perhaps that was not his intention, but it’s what he is doing.
    Geraty is claiming he didn’t know about the beliefs of the biology professors that were hired during his years there. I suppose if he was totally ignorant of their beliefs, then he could make such a claim. What about Larry McCloskey who came to La Sierra in 1996 as the department chair? This is what McCloskey had in his syllabus for BIOL 112:
    Is Geraty claiming he didn’t know about this? Geraty retired in 2006 and was president at LSU for 14 years.
    Steve, I think you’ve been snowed.  

    Shane, please don’t think that I didn’t consider that possibility.I could see Dr. Geraty was mainly interested in saying he didn’t have a hand in the evolution teaching professors. I also know when someone entertains unbelief there will always be problems somewhere. I’m just saying to prove that he allowed or set up these heretical professors. In addition, I’m unaware just how much control or authority the president really has over the hiring. If he had any inkling that evolution would be taught, then as he stated, he should have done everything possible to adhere to the tenets of the church.

    And yes, he could be doing damage control now as best he can. And also note that I do not support his position, and here is what I wrote him in answer to his statement that that the literal creation week cannot be supported by the Bible:

    “Anyway, I do see evidence for a literal one week creation. BTW, are you using the KJV, AKJV, KJV2000, or the RV? I’ve done extensive studies on Bible versions and manuscripts, and there are many problems. Remember Dr. Ford and his IJ apostasy? He still promotes the liberal Bible versions that support more or less his position.”

    Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.(KJV) (Clearly a 24 hour day here)

    Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
    (same thing, that’s 48 hours total)

    Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
    (that 73 hours, 3 days)

    Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
    (that 96 hours, 4 days)

    Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
    (120 hours, or 5 days)

    Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (that’s now 144 hours, or 6 days)

    Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
    Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (Now it’s a total of 168 hours and 7 days)

    So we now have the week, a literal 7 day week consisting of 7 24 hour days that is totally God’s creation and not dependant on movements of the sun, rotation, or any of that. I fail to see where it could possibly be any longer time periods, where it would destroy the week and the Sabbath. Ellen White agrees.

    Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have, however, led to supposed conflict between science and revelation; and in the effort to restore harmony, interpretations of Scripture have been adopted that undermine and destroy the force of the word of God. Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed, were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos; and in order to accommodate the Bible to this supposed revelation of science, the days of creation are assumed to have been vast, indefinite periods, covering thousands or even millions of years. {Ed 128.2}

    Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled for. The Bible record is in harmony with itself and with the teaching of nature. Of the first day employed in the work of creation is given the record, “The evening and the morning were the first day.” Genesis 1:5. And the same in substance is said of each of the first six days of creation week. Each of these periods Inspiration declares to have been a day consisting of evening and morning, like every other day since that time. In regard to the work of creation itself the divine testimony is, “He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Psalm 33:9. With Him who could thus call into existence unnumbered worlds, how long a time would be required for the evolution of the earth from chaos? In order to account for His works, must we do violence to His word? {Ed 129.1}

    It is true that remains found in the earth testify to the existence of men, animals, and plants much larger than any now known. These are regarded as proving the existence of vegetable and animal life prior to the time of the Mosaic record. But concerning these things Bible history furnishes ample explanation. Before the Flood the development of vegetable and animal life was immeasurably superior to that which has since been known. At the Flood the surface of the earth was broken up, marked changes took place, and in the re-formation of the earth’s crust were preserved many evidences of the life previously existing. The vast forests buried in the earth at the time of the Flood, and since changed to coal, form the extensive coal fields, and yield the supplies of oil that minister to our comfort and convenience today. These things, as they are brought to light, are so many witnesses mutely testifying to the truth of the word of God. {Ed 129.2}

    In addition, I note this quote especially:

    The many contradictory opinions in regard to what the Bible teaches do not arise from any obscurity in the book itself, but from blindness and prejudice on the part of interpreters. Men ignore the plain statements of the Bible to follow their own perverted reason. Priding themselves on their intellectual attainments, they overlook the simplicity of truth; they forsake the fountain of living waters to drink of the poisonous stream of error.–Review and Herald, Jan. 27, 1885. {CSW 23.2}

    So this is my answer to those who reject the plain statements of the Bible. And also please note that I also said that he did not respond at all to my evidence.




    0
    View Comment
  45. Shane,

    I took classes from McCloskey at WWC (now WWU). He was insistent that life on this planet has existed for a minimum of 12,000 years based on his studies of core drillings on the sea corals and upon various other “evidence.” Apparently, the corals add regular layers of calcium deposits in much the same manner as trees add rings. The coral layers were marred by certain major events in history, such as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which put radioactive material into the environment in that year. These aberrations, apparently, exactly line up to the known historical years for those events based on the count of the coral layers. And McCloskey claimed that the 12,000 years’ worth of coral layers indicate life on this planet goes back at least that far. (Nevermind that God didn’t create seeds only, but the full-grown trees whose biological age would match their size just as Adam’s biological age would have matched his mature form.)

    During the same time period that I was at WWC, several students became atheists. Some from my class, who were very intelligent and had been brought up in good Adventist homes. Other courses besides those of the biological sciences share the blame, including some of the courses in the honors program. McCloskey was the professor with the strongest leanings toward evolution. Most of the professors in the biology department, from my perspective, were firm creationists. One of the other professors did seem to favor the ideas of mainstream science, but I would still consider him a creationist.

    In any case, sometime after I graduated, the Upper Columbia Conference was apprised of certain aspects of the education at WWC and the effect it was having upon the students, including turning out some atheists, and the UCC was much displeased. Elder Jere Patzer, then president of UCC, most certainly addressed the issues with the Union, and some changes were made. I do not believe staff changes were ever publicized, and the situation was handled quietly.

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  46. @: Notice he said those who were supportive of creationism. I think all the evolutionists at LSU would call themselves creationists. ?  

    Shane,

    Are you then suggesting that all of the professors hired during Dr. Geraty’s tenure are evolutionists, regardless of their fields of specialty? As Dr. Geraty succinctly stated, “There is no evidence for that.”

    Pax,

    David Kendall, PhD
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment
  47. So then… that is when you fell out of your chair and rolled on the floor laughing??

    So “Dr Geraty you believe in a literal 7 day creation week in direct opposition to what you believe the Bible says?? How did you come to this position that you now claim is not even in harmony with scripture?

    I don’t know Bob, maybe he looked into a sheep’s liver or something! Gee, do you mean to tell me that Adventists could possibly even tell a “fib” or straddle the fence just to keep their jobs?

    If these academic administrators don’t really uphold the 28, can’t they just get higher paying jobs in a secular college? I don’t know why this is but I see heretics everywhere that still want to be called Adventists, and be members, yet they deny Ellen White usually and or they are ant-trinitarians. Honesty demands that they find another church more compatible with their beliefs.




    0
    View Comment
  48. What is really happening here is a struggle to decide which paradigm will be dominant in the church of the future…..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  

    Amen, dear brother!!
    I agree that what you point out as “a struggle to decide which paradigm will be dominant in the church of the future” is exactly what is happening. This struggle involves rebellion, and just as you point out, many young are being led away from Christ….IN the church. 🙁

    From my study of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, I can see that they have chosen another leader. It is very sad that there are so many in leadership positions that will not stand on God’s side. It is a struggle of huge proportions, much more than a simple teaching of evolution. It is what you call a “paradigm” shift away from the truth.

    God bless the Michigan Conference executive committee and all who choose to stand with God. Let us count the conferences as they take their stand with La Sierra by their silence or with God by saying so. There is no neutral position in this matter. Silence is cowardice and is contrary to God.




    0
    View Comment
  49. Taken from Spectrum’s blog:

    http://www.spectrummagazine.org/node/1705

    I wish the Adminstrators at the GC could really understand what they are asking for:

    “We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.”

    The cardinal virtue of a scientist is integrity. True scientists simply can not teach creationism convincingly if they don’t actually believe it.

    Among my teachers at Walla Walla College was Dr. McCloskey. His honesty and integrity about evolution convinced me that his insights about spiritual matters were equally authentic. Some Adventists will simply never be strong creationists. Those adventists need role models such as Dr. McCloskey and others who are not afraid of being openly Christian and openly agnostic about origins.

    If the church can allow members to become soldiers in the army or marines and train (and even actually) kill people, then surely we can be equally open about the scientists in our midst.

    Martin S
    Posted by: Martin Schratt (not verified) | 20 June 2009 at 3:41




    0
    View Comment

  50. Tricks of Language

    @David Kendall, PhD:

    However, Dr. Geraty clearly states that he did what he could “to make sure we had professors who were supportive of the SDA Church and creationism.”

    Dr. Geraty does not think it important to distinguish between a “progressive creationist” (one who believes that God created slowly over millions of years using evolutionary mechanisms) vs. a creationist who believes that God created all life on this planet in just six literal days.

    Dr. Geraty loves to use such language as you note here to misdirect people. It is actually very deceptive in the way he uses it – in my opinion. He tells people that everyone at LSU supports the SDA Church and the Church’s statement of Fundamental Belief #6 (on creation). People assume, then, that there really is no problem.

    Geraty must know that his language is deceptive because most people do not understand that he allows for a significant re-interpretation of the language of FB#6 beyond what most SDAs understand it to say. He allows for interpretations of the “days” of creation to be symbolic, representative of long indefinite periods of time, but does not make this position clear when he uses the word “creationist”. Only people who already know him and his views on this topic really understand what he is actually saying.

    In my view, such subtle spins on language, using words that mean one thing to you but something very different to the one in front of you, is a form of deception – a deception consistently practiced by Dr. Geraty. Could he simply not realize that he is deceiving people with his choice of words? I guess anything is possible, but it is difficult to imagine how he doesn’t really know what he is doing or that he is unaware that he is really tricking people with the words that he chooses.

    Why not just be straight-up about what you believe? Why not put all the cards on the table face up on this issue? Why the need for subtly and tricks of language? I just don’t think it’s right. We, as members and parents in the Church, deserve much more open transparency than this from any organization that takes on the name “A Seventh-day Adventist Institution”…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  51. Sean, You’re absolutely correct in calling Geraty “deceptive.” You and the rest of us know he does realize he is deceiving some, which is why he uses such tactics. But we’ve “got his number” as you have plainly stated!




    0
    View Comment
  52. Sean Pitman copied this to EducateTruth

    http://www.spectrummagazine.org/node/1705

    Among my teachers at Walla Walla College was Dr. McCloskey. His honesty and integrity about evolution convinced me that his insights about spiritual matters were equally authentic. Some Adventists will simply never be strong creationists. Those adventists need role models such as Dr. McCloskey and others who are not afraid of being openly Christian and openly agnostic about origins.

    First of all – have we seen any evidence at all the Professor Bradley’s in-the-tank position for evolutoinism – and not promoting creationism at all – is “unlike” McCloskey at LSU??

    Is McCloskey really “agnostic about origins” such that he teaches Creaetionism with equal enthusiasm as evolutionism’s doctrines on origins??

    Is that really what is going on there – or is this yet another example of putting a deceptively rosey face on an otherwise unpleasant picture?

    (Not that I am for the equal-validity solution – I just doubt that McCloskey’s actual lectures give equal time and support on this subject).

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  53. Shane,Are you then suggesting that all of the professors hired during Dr. Geraty’s tenure are evolutionists, regardless of their fields of specialty?As Dr. Geraty succinctly stated, “There is no evidence for that.”Pax,David Kendall, PhD
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University  

    What does it matter if 95% of the professors hired were Bible-believing creationists? What does that have to do with the fact that professors who were hired to teach a particular subject were hired knowing that said professors did not believe what the Bible teaches about the subject?




    0
    View Comment
  54. @Lawrence Geraty, I can understand now why LSU is off track.

    Sir, I am sorry but there is no liberal, or conservative SDA, that is a myth. We either accept SDA as it is or we don’t belong. Nor is there a ‘fundamentalist wing of the church’, we either accept the bible or we don’t. Sir, we (SDA) believe the Bible is the only Truth, and you have many doubts about that which means you are in the wrong church.




    0
    View Comment
  55. We don’t need language tricks here. Nor do we need further insinuations that the Bible is an ambiguous document open to contradictory interpretations. Either we believe what the Bible explictly says about six literal, consecutive, 24-hour days of creation, followed by a seventh 24-hour day of divinely-commanded rest, or we do not.

    Both the Bible’s salvation narrative and the meaning of the seventh-day Sabbath are at stake here. And with it the Bible-based message of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

    It is as simple as that.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson




    0
    View Comment
  56. Dr. Geraty says, “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 6000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist right wing of the church would like to see it there.”

    I could say a lot about this sentence, but I will limit my comment to one point. This is an illustration of the double-speak that is so common among so-called “scholars” in our midst. At first read I assumed he was talking about the whole literal 6-day creation when he says it is NOT in the Bible. (I would strongle challenge that, and I would ask him to kindly show me HOW it is NOT there!). But then I see that he could say he only meant that the “6000 years ago” part is not in Genesis, which is true. Genesis does not say specifically that creation happened 6000 years ago.

    So I see here very possibly a deliberate attempt at deception.




    0
    View Comment
  57. Dear Friends,

    I am rejoicing in this controversy over the Biblical creation view vs the “progressive” view. Many who would otherwise have remained asleep in Zion are waking up and God is preparing them and many others for His final thrust to take the 3 angels message to the world. Just remember that there is no righteousness in the fight for truth but that the fight for truth should be a result of our receiving His righteousness. Continue to stay on the wall Brother Shane.

    YBIC,

    John




    0
    View Comment
  58. 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.  

    PS. Shane, I just realised that you may have acquired these views from Sye TenBruggencate’s website http://proofthatgodexists.org/ (or from the organisation Creation Science Evangelism, where Eric Hovind makes liberal use of them). Here’s what the argument seems to be:

    1. The laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and unchanging.
    2. God is immaterial, universal, and unchanging.
    3. Therefore, the existence of laws of logic is incompatible with the non-existence of God.

    The argument is invalid. Here’s another argument with the same form, to make this clear:

    1. I have a heart.
    2. You have a heart.
    3. Therefore, I couldn’t exist without you.

    If you think there’s a better argument to be found in the neighbourhood, I would be interested in hearing it.




    0
    View Comment
  59. Forgive my ignorance,in what way is LSU an independant institution? Does that mean it is no longer owned by the church? Is that true of our other institutions? How and why did this happen? If it is not owned by the church, why is there any flap about not paying subsidy to workers sending their children there?




    0
    View Comment
  60. Sometimes I think we lose the simple facts by being to absorbed in the (higher education)How can we explaing away the (and the evening and morning were the 1st,2nd et al)?
    May God guide us all.




    0
    View Comment
  61. @Brad: No, I actually I got them from Jason Lysle from Answers in Genesis. I’ll have to think about the first line of reasoning you proposed, but I think it’s missing a premise.

    In the first argument you gave, it is assumed that space, time, and matter are dependent on the existence of God. If that premise is true, then the conclusion would logically follow.

    However, in your example, you’re comparing two humans. Just because we each have a heart does not mean were dependent on each other. I think you were trying to show that and I agree.

    You never explained how laws of laws of logic would exist in an evolutionary world view. We know why they exist in a Christian world view–God.

    How does a big bang create immaterial, universal, unchanging laws? How about absolute morality? You can’t have absolute morality without God? Anything else is relative.

    Laws of logic are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities which govern all possible conceptual relationships. Laws of logic are contingent upon the biblical God. Not because they necessarily share the same qualities, but because if the attributes of the laws of logic existed independent of the existence of God then in one sense they would be God. But all this doesn’t explain how order comes from disorder, law from chaos, logic from irrationality.




    0
    View Comment
  62. If one does not believe in a literal seven-day model then we give tremendous credence to non-Sabbath keeping Christians who argue that the seventh-day Sabbath was intended for the Jews. Keeping any “seventh-day” would still be honoring creation since it is no longer a weekly anniversary; rather it is a random memorial of the act of creation.

    I have a graduating Academy senior and two more teens in Academy. I have told them each starting last year that they can choose Adventist college/university to attend excluding La Sierra.




    0
    View Comment
  63. Larry Geraty brings up slander for what is said about him? How about God, writing with His own finger in Exodus 20, creating in six days and resting the seventh, and having His created beings question and modify what He said,
    just because they can’t see it from the science. Accousations of slander imply
    judgement, a court room, a mediator and judge. Vindication of a almighty God is coming soon. Evolution does not vindicate God, theistic or otherwise!




    0
    View Comment
  64. Sometimes I think we lose the simple facts by being to absorbed in the (higher education)How can we explaing away the (and the evening and morning were the 1st,2nd et al)?May God guide us all.  (Quote)

    Bob Roe, How do humanists explain that away? Very simple. God knew we were too stupid to understand how He “really” created the world,so he humored us and gave us an “allegorical” explanation, so we could wait until modern times for others to “clue us” as to the real story!




    0
    View Comment
  65. Geraty’s remark that he has been “slandered” is pure baloney. He should have known the philosophy’s of those hired and if they were fully supportive of SDA doctrines. Isn’t that his job, or at least someone “under” him to review and document. Or does LSU just hire “anybody” they want, without regards to their philosophical leanings?




    0
    View Comment
  66. To Bobryan:
    I do still stand by everything I wrote in the spectrum blog entry. It has been a while since I had Dr. McCloskey as a teacher, I think most of the quarter I had with him was about taxonomy. However I can assure you that he made no assertions as to how he believed life came into existence. While I found him to be a bit gruff at times he did not spend lecture time on teaching us anything about origins or even much about evolution.

    Martin Schrattenholzer




    0
    View Comment
  67. The future of the church is certainly at stake here, but not necessarily in the way some frame it. To me the question is this: “Will the SDA church move forward as a people of FAITH who believe that God is the Creator as the biblical story says He is, even though there may remain unanswered questions about details and mechanisms that the Hebrew mind doesn’t address in scripture?” Or “Will the SDA church move forward as a people of DOCTRINE who insist that one particular interpretation, which inserts many non-Hebraic ideas between the lines and letters of scripture, is the only acceptable understanding?”

    We must remember that faith and science are different ways of knowing, and that both are historically fickle; in both fields favored doctrines and positions compete with other ideas, both new and old, in a continuing quest for truth. I believe that “truth” is reality, which we humans can only approach in understanding and appreciation, being that we are not Gods.

    When my understanding of Adventism was built on a DOCTRINAL core, I worried and fretted about how I would resolve these different ways of knowing. Now that my understanding of Adventism is built around a FAITH core, I not only tolerate, but actually appreciate the significant aspects of uncertainty and mystery in both ways of knowing. When one reads church history or the history of science, it becomes clear that in both fields individuals have paid dearly for having the courage to express ideas that fail to conform to the current approved view, even though their views later became the accepted, better understanding and even became the new orthodoxy. Think of Martin Luther. Think of Montevideo Agassiz who first recognized the action of glaciers before the rest of the scientific community was ready to entertain the idea; he was expelled from the Academy of Science.

    Far from turning me into an atheist, the willingness to hold in tension these two different “ways of knowing” has strengthened my faith and increased my understanding of the contributions of science as well as its limitations. I also appreciate both the contributions and limitations of the biblical record. It’s also given me a strong distaste for pseudo-science, whether promoted by political parties or religious groups, driven by cherished ideology rather than by the pursuit of understanding truth/reality. And what about pseudo-theology which uses theological language and tools to promote a cherished ideology – is it any better?

    If we are to sustain a Christian/Adventist community in a scientific era, perhaps we should appreciate the wisdom of “Unity in essentials; tolerance on other matters.” As a religious community we can expect and require agreement of the issue of God as Creator, and at the same time be tolerant of diverse understandings of the details and mechanisms of creation.

    To paraphrase a friend and mentor: It’s not just that “what you don’t know can’t hurt you” is wrong; what really hurts is “what you know that isn’t so.”




    0
    View Comment
  68. False Doctrines Draw Some Away

    Science, so-called, and religion will be placed in opposition to each other because finite men do not comprehend the power and greatness of God. These words of Holy Writ were presented to me, “Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things,
    177
    to draw away disciples after them” [Acts 20:30]. This will surely be seen among the people of God.–Ev 593 (1890). {LDE 176.3}
    When the shaking comes, by the introduction of false theories, these surface readers, anchored nowhere, are like shifting sand. They slide into any position to suit the tenor of their feelings of bitterness.–TM 112 (1897). {LDE 177.1}
    Not having received the love of the truth, they will be taken in the delusions of the enemy; they will give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils and will depart from the faith.–6T 401 (1900). {LDE 177.2}
    The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the doctrine that there is no sanctuary. This is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith.–Ev 224 (1905). {LDE 177.3}




    0
    View Comment
  69. @Glenn Sackett:

    We must remember that faith and science are different ways of knowing, and that both are historically fickle; in both fields favored doctrines and positions compete with other ideas, both new and old, in a continuing quest for truth. I believe that “truth” is reality, which we humans can only approach in understanding and appreciation, being that we are not Gods.

    While it is true that we humans can only approach truth while not ever fully realizing it, it is not true that religious faith and science are inherently different ways of knowing. One’s religion and one’s science can be, and I think should be, one in the same.

    Scientific conclusions are based on leaps of faith just as religious conclusions are based on leaps of faith across gaps in knowledge that are not and cannot be completely known. The only real inherent difference between what most people consider to be “science” vs. “religion” is the topic of discussion.

    It is interesting that more and more, within modern physics at least, scientists are starting to realize that there is abundant evidence for the existence of a God behind many phenomena in the universe – or a least a very powerful and intelligent creative force that is indistinguishable by us as a God. Such conclusions obviously have religious implications. This should not be surprising since we in the SDA Church have always suggested that nature is God’s “Second Book” and that this book is consistent, if rightly understood, with the statements of the biblical authors.

    Our appreciation of the Bible itself as “the truth” can also be based on scientific evaluation and conclusions that demonstrate very high levels of predictive value when it comes to evaluating the physical world.

    In short, there is simply no need to appeal to the concept of “blind faith” alone when it comes to one’s religion… or a necessary difference between scientific and religious conclusions about the world in which we find ourselves.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  70. Evolution, by it’s very nature, proves there is no God. Taken to it’s logical end it’s impossible to reconcile a belief in God and evolution.




    0
    View Comment
  71. @Glenn Sackett:

    The future of the church is certainly at stake here, but not necessarily in the way some frame it. To me the question is this: “Will the SDA church move forward as a people of FAITH who believe that God is the Creator as the biblical story says He is, even though there may remain unanswered questions about details and mechanisms that the Hebrew mind doesn’t address in scripture?” Or “Will the SDA church move forward as a people of DOCTRINE who insist that one particular interpretation, which inserts many non-Hebraic ideas between the lines and letters of scripture, is the only acceptable understanding?”

    We must remember that faith and science are different ways of knowing, and that both are historically fickle; in both fields favored doctrines and positions compete with other ideas, both new and old, in a continuing quest for truth. I believe that “truth” is reality, which we humans can only approach in understanding and appreciation, being that we are not Gods.

    The objective unbiased reader applying a modest level of critical skills will immediately notice that the salient point around which Glenn’s entire statement turns – is merely “assumed” rather than demonstrated to have any truth to it at all.

    He says “Or “Will the SDA church move forward as a people of DOCTRINE who insist that one particular interpretation, which inserts many non-Hebraic ideas between the lines and letters of scripture, is the only acceptable understanding?” AS IF there is no eisgesis involved in “inserting darwinism” into Moses’ text – but leaving the text ASIS and letting “FOR IN SIX days the LORD MADE..” apply with perfect harmony to the six evenings and mornings of Gen 1 — is the real “stretch”.

    At some point – you would think that a Bible student in the evolutionist camp would wake up.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  72. Evolution, by it’s very nature, proves there is no God. Taken to it’s logical end it’s impossible to reconcile a belief in God and evolution.  

    Quite right, Richard. Most of the major evolutionary mouthpieces (living and dead) of today agree with you. They don’t try to hide themselves behind deceitful phrases and eloquent avoidance statements, as do LSU, Wisbey, and Geraty.




    0
    View Comment
  73. In order to truly accept evolution, one must, by definition, come up with a different system for measuring time. Millions or thousands of years are made up of individual YEARS. Years are in turn made up of months. Months are made of of days. The only concept of days known to humanity comes to them from an Omnipotent God who emphatically states that He created our heavens and earth in six days and rested on the 7th. If you disagree with that, then you need to come up with your own concept of measuring time and leave God’s standard alone. That very God of creation also allows you the freedom of choice. If you choose to disbelieve Him, that’s just fine. The Seventh-day Adventist church chooses to believe Him. For those who do not believe God, they are free to exercise the freedom of choice HE gives them, leave His church, resign from its colleges and find refuge some place else with those of like mind.




    0
    View Comment
  74. BTW, does anyone know what is going on at our college in Collonges, France? Someone on the AT website stated it has MORE problems than LSU. He didn’t give details, so I’m inquiring!




    0
    View Comment
  75. It’s just amazing to me that evolution is even being debated within the SDA church. Creation is the most basic of our beliefs, even more so that the Sabbath because on Creation does the Sabbath find it’s foundation. (The Sabbath being just one example of all the beliefs that rely on the Creation). Our church may be in much worse shape than any of us can imagine if we have sunk so low as to be debating this.




    0
    View Comment
  76. Dr. Geraty asks, Since when is salvation by correct knowledge anyway?”
    John 14:6 tells us that, “Jesus is the way the truth and the life: no man comes unto the father, but by Him.” To seperate yourself from the truth is to seperate yourself from Jesus–is the way to salvation. Our Savior always leads us to truth-which leads us closer to Him. Where does this hybrid philosophy lead you? Do you feel yourself getting closer to a Creator GOD who is inimate? Or rather does this lead you from a personal GOD who is in control? I guess those who should read this will not, but this may be a good question to ask yourself. I would also like to say, I personally found GOD trying to overdose on drugs, but isn’t there a better way to find Him? Just because GOD uses anything to bring people to Him does not mean that He is enthused about the method used.




    0
    View Comment
  77. 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 argues that the Noachian Flood was indeed world-wide in nature and was responsible for the formation of much of the geologic an fossil records…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  78. To everyone involved:

    I have been an Adventist most of my life. I had a brief period of time where I left the church and belonged nowhere. I came back to the Adventist church because there literally was no other church that followed the Bible
    truths as they are stated in the Word. I am appalled at the fact that we, as Adventists, have entertained the idea that Genesis 1 does not ‘explain’ the literal creation week. How does Mr. Lawrence Geraty explain away that God stated ‘the evening and the morning were the first day’, etc., etc.? God did not say ‘the decade and the century was the first day’, or ‘the century and the millenium’ was the first day. I would like him (Mr. Geraty) to explain that away. If he believes what I think he is saying, there are many other schools who teach that curriculum that would love to hire him on.

    I will pray for his understanding to happen and that God will impress upon him that God is much bigger than he gives him credit to be…and that God can ‘literally’ create the earth and entire universes with His word alone and doesn’t have to wait milleniums for them to evolve.

    Thank you, Shane, for being diligent and standing up for truth.

    Sandy




    0
    View Comment
  79. I have to make a correction to something I have mentioned in two other posts. I recalled having lunch with the then president of La Sierra in the late 90’s and how he condescendingly mocked the notion of a literal seven day creation week.
    It wasn’t the president of La Sierra, it was the then president of Pacific Union College. Sorry for the mix-up!
    Pastor Leddy might want to reconsider eliminating just La Sierra from his choice of schools.




    0
    View Comment
  80. When my understanding of Adventism was built on a DOCTRINAL core, I worried and fretted about how I would resolve these different ways of knowing. Now that my understanding of Adventism is built around a FAITH core, I not only tolerate, but actually appreciate the significant aspects of uncertainty and mystery in both ways of knowing….

    Far from turning me into an atheist, the willingness to hold in tension these two different “ways of knowing” has strengthened my faith and increased my understanding of the contributions of science as well as its limitations. I also appreciate both the contributions and limitations of the biblical record.

    Christian truth is BUILT ON DOCTRINE. Make no mistake about it.

    “Faith is the medium through which truth or error finds a lodging place in the mind. It is by the same act of mind that truth or error is received, but it makes a decided difference whether we believe the Word of God or the sayings of men.” Ellen White, 1SM 346.

    A “faith core” not based on a “truth”/”doctrine” core is a recipe for heresy.

    And why is it that so-called progressives have this love for “uncertainty” and “mystery” and “not knowing”? And they say things like, “I’ve finally learned to embrace the beauty of letting go of the need to have a rational faith,” and “I’ve learned to see faith and science as mutually exclusive domains, both of which I accept, and hold both in all their marvelous incompatibility.” (Those are not a direct quotes, but paraphrases of the poetic fluff you hear from “progressive” SDAs and others like them.) Surely, “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” (I realize I’m using the verse in a different way than intended, yet it stills seems poignant.)

    It’s also given me a strong distaste for pseudo-science, whether promoted by political parties or religious groups, driven by cherished ideology rather than by the pursuit of understanding truth/reality.

    What about the pseudo-science promoted by science groups? And how you can say with such certainty that the “pseudo-science” of the groups you’ve described is not driven, perhaps naively or poorly at times, by their pursuit of truth/reality? In other words, some truth is plainly revealed in the Bible; some truth is not plainly revealed in nature; and you make it sound like those who give priority to the Bible are inferior to those who give priority to science in their objectively in pursuing truth/reality.

    If we are to sustain a Christian/Adventist community in a scientific era, perhaps we should appreciate the wisdom of “Unity in essentials; tolerance on other matters.” As a religious community we can expect and require agreement of the issue of God as Creator, and at the same time be tolerant of diverse understandings of the details and mechanisms of creation.

    What is “essential”? That “God is creator”? Woo, even Satan believes that. Creationism is absolutely essential to the whole Christian worldview. The is nothing important in Christianity that is not predicated on the events of Genesis 1-6 happening just as described.

    By, “at the same time be tolerant of diverse understandings of the details and mechanisms of creation,” you mean all the different ways one can understand, “God spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast”, and “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is”? I don’t think anyone here is asking for any more precision that this.




    0
    View Comment
  81. You’re absolutely correct, Sean. Geraty’s view of the flood is in direct opposition to what the Bible actually says. He places humanistic philosophy above God’s spoken and written word. This is the type of person we had “leading” LSU!




    0
    View Comment
  82. I met Dr. Geraty for the first time today. My initial impression is that he is closer theologically to Dr. Pitman than he is to many progressive Adventists. I would suggest caution in being critical of people like him. One might end up without any allies.

    And, I’m reminded of something I posted here several weeks ago. We need to identify the core essentials and focus on those, and give people the freedom to choose what they want to believe on non-essentials. Historical Adventists are convinced a literal creation is essential. Progressive Adventists don’t think it is essential.

    We also need to remember that the SDA church in north america is not thriving. We’re losing a lot of people every year. Educational institutions are on the edge of viability. What are we missing? What is God telling us that we’re not hearing? Maybe we need to be more open to the real world that people live in.




    0
    View Comment
  83. George, Please explain how Geraty is “closer” to Sean than to secualar philosophies such as the progressives preach. Geraty does not believe in the bible’s narrative of creation. He also believes in “gay marriage” another secular humanistic philosophy.

    So, explain how he is our “ally.”




    0
    View Comment
  84. @George:

    I met Dr. Geraty for the first time today. My initial impression is that he is closer theologically to Dr. Pitman than he is to many progressive Adventists. I would suggest caution in being critical of people like him. One might end up without any allies.

    Dr. Geraty is difficult to read sometimes unless you already know him and what he really means when he uses certain words and phrases. Make no mistake about it though, he is definitely in the “progressive” camp on many issues, not the least of which are his beliefs regarding the literal creation week and the age of life on Earth…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  85. George I don’t think you can get more “core essential” than the belief which is the basis for all other beliefs. Toss out a literal Creation and you toss out the fall, therefore the need for a Savior, seems pretty essential to me.




    0
    View Comment
  86. In this post – I ask the reader to notice our emphasis on a real Authentic “account” of creation as found in Gen 1-2 and also the emphasis on the 6 DAYS of Creation week – as the very FIRST week.

    @BobRyan:

    6. Creation:
    God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made “the heaven and the earth” and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was “very good,” declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3.)

    Those who claim that a 7 day week is not mentioned in this statement above for creation week – need to tell us just how they were able to bend the text to such an extent.

    That is basically the unchanged statement FB6 – as found in both the 28FB and the 27FB.

    Prior to that we had the 22FB as published in 1931. How instructive it is to compare and contrast what the 22FB said about the Sabbath and the creation week as compared to the 27FB.

    Fundamental Belief 7 from the 22 FB of 1931

    That the fourth commandment of this unchangeable law requires the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. This holy institution is at the same time a memorial of creation and a sign of sanctification, a sign of the believer’s rest from his own works of sin, and his entrance into the rest of soul that Jesus promises to those who come to Him (Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11; 31:12-17; Hebrews 4:1-10).

    All you get is Sabbath. This holy institution is at the same time a memorial of creation – in that 1931 statement which is nothing like the detailed specificity of the 27 FB – #6 on that same point.

    Clearly the direction that belief 27FB – believ #6 was going as compared to the same belief in the 22FB – was a big step forward in specifying a real creation week.

    The intent is clear when you contrast them. The direction was an affirmation of the Genesis text as a reliable “Authentic Account” with a reliable “6 days” of work and 7th day of rest – as the FIRST week.

    (Not as the “ONLY week”)

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  87. @George:

    And, I’m reminded of something I posted here several weeks ago. We need to identify the core essentials and focus on those, and give people the freedom to choose what they want to believe on non-essentials. Historical Adventists are convinced a literal creation is essential. Progressive Adventists don’t think it is essential.

    In the book QoD page 44 – the reader is reminded that the first reason listed as grounds for dissfellowship was “1. Denial of the faith in the Fundamentals of the Gospel AND in the cardinal doctrines of the church OR teaching doctrines contrary to the same”. QoD then adds “These Fundamentals of the Gospel – or Fundamental Beliefs… are found on page 29-36 (of the Church manual). Of course this was the state of things back in the 1950’s when QoD was published.

    Today our church manual lists this as the #1 grounds for discipline

    Church manual
    Page 195
    1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the cardinal doctrines of the church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same.

    Thus there has been no change for over 50 years on the idea of using the Fundamental Beliefs as a basis for disfellowship in extreme cases.

    3SG90-91 identifies theistic evolutionism as “the worst from of infidelity” – so it gets a high score as compared to something a bit more minor.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  88. My argument is not for disfellowship language – it is that when the evolutionists start asking for a cut-and-paste pick-and-choose set of Adventist doctrine – where each man does what is right in his own eye with whatever set of doctrines are popularly voted as optional – they highlight a very very “unpleasant detail” about the specific hill they are choosing to die on.

    One that does not come up often in the discussion – out of a willingless to discuss – to dialogue – but when they start going directly to the point of “yes but what doctrines actually matter” – then this whole section of the Church manual becomes relevant to the discussion since the Manual speaks to the subject and is voted by the World Church.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  89. One stone in my sling: On day 6 of creation as well as on the day of His return, Jesus brings man miraculously out of the dust. Does the twinkling of an eye last eons? The resurrection could take a loooooong time, if Garity’s gang has its way. Your god may not be “too small,” but he’s too weak!




    0
    View Comment
  90. One stone in my sling:On day 6 of creation as well as on the day of His return, Jesus brings man miraculously out of the dust.Does the twinkling of an eye last eons?The resurrection could take a loooooong time, if Garity’s gang has its way.Your god may not be “too small,” but he’s too weak!  

    Well stated Pastor Hendron, You have an accurate view of what we face out here in our California SDA Churches and academic institutions. The Second Coming is going to take eons of time, if we believe the progressives idea of “allegory!” We gotta wait until “natural forces” recreate us all just as they did at “creation.”




    0
    View Comment
  91. @David Kendall, PhD:
    I think it is informative and provacative that Dr. Kendall PhD LSU signs off with “Pax”, latin for peace, probably best known as “Pax Romana” (Roman peace). I am reminded that our Creator said, ” Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.” Matthew 10:34 NKJ




    0
    View Comment
  92. @David Kendall, PhD:
    I think it is informative and provacative that Dr. Kendall PhD LSU signs off with “Pax”, latin for peace, probably best known as “Pax Romana” (Roman peace). I am reminded that our Creator said, ” Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.” Matthew 10:34 NKJ  

    Quite right MLB. The progressive want us to “lay off” so they can continue expounding their unbiblical ideas. Will we “lay off?” I say NO!




    0
    View Comment
  93. “Slick language” is exactly what Geraty is all about — [edit] nothing but avoidance language combined with smoke-screening. “Hey, I left LSU years ago–I don’t know what’s going on and I had nothing to do with it!”




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.