Comment on LSU forms faith in evolution by Victor Marshall.
@BobRyan:
First I heard of ‘Grace Place.’ I don’t see anything remotely resembling any trappings of Adventism there at all. Only Sunday Services. BBQ Pork dinner on Thursday. Annual Easter Egg Hunt on a Saturday this year. A special Hungry Men’s breakfast with sausage on a Saturday morning. Young adult college Bible study group with coffee. They affirm the National Association of Evangelicals Statement of Faith. I would say they are trying their darndest to be anything but Adventist if they once were.
Clay Peck shares his testimony, ‘My Journey Out of Legalism’ which chronicles his having been raised as an Adventist – only to later make a journey out of Adventism, disavowing its theology. He begins his story by saying some nice things about Adventists – however, the details of the story soon become filled with a profoundly negative and biased view of the Adventist church.
He relates how he was fired as an Adventist pastor in 1997 after being interrogated by professors at Andrews for his lack of orthodoxy. This was also the year a number of ‘Evangelical’ Adventist pastors were likewise fired. It was at this time that Grace Place became ‘interdenominational.’ In 1998 He began to preach things contrary to Adventist Theology(Covenant Theology) and Grace Place separated more formally from the denomination. It was then that many members decided to return to the Adventist church. I would have to say that your news is a little dated Bob. Over 10 years old I’d say.
Mr. Peck says that, “Grace Place was never an official Adventist church. We were called an “experiment.†We were an experimental outreach project to reach out to former and inactive Adventists.” I’m reminded of the Colton SDA church many years ago that was lauded for its phenomenal numerical growth – comprised mostly of disenfranchised or disillusioned Adventists in Southern California.
Now how does all this apply to the discussion here on educate truth?
Often those who are raised in the Adventist church end up trying to effect a radical reformation of its theology or rebel completely against its beliefs in response to a pharisaeical form of Adventism. My contention is that many of those raised in the church are given a warped and unbalanced view of the true principles of Adventism and of God. Our church contains a preponderance of wackos and legalists of the worst sort. These spiritually destructive members are responsible for driving many people away from the Adventist church. Those who have been traumatized by a pharisaeical/legalistic misrepresentation of the everlasting gospel will seek refuge within a fellowship offering an inordinate emphasis on grace, for healing.
On the other side of the coin our movement is a ‘holiness’ movement in the truer sense of the word. The carnal nature rebels against such a biblical emphasis and will gravitate toward an inordinate emphasis on grace for carnal refuge.
Once again, what does this have to do with educate truth? I believe that the backdrop to professing Adventists embracing liberal theology, higher criticism and theistic evolution is an unbalanced response to a destructive form of Adventism. As a result, many Adventists (especially those raised in the church), reach out for a more ‘open-minded,’ ‘compassionate,’ ‘relevant,’ and ‘transparent,’ form of Adventism. In doing so they often become willing to throw the Adventist baby out with the dirty Adventist bath water.
Those of us who would characterize ourselves as ‘conservative and orthodox’ Adventists, should search our hearts as to whether we have ever contributed to this dilemma in spirit, if not in word.
“The strongest argument in favor of the gospel is a loving and lovable Christian.”–TSS 115, 116.
Victor Marshall Also Commented
Eugene Shubert:
That’s a very clever way to condemn my opinion. You are imputing to me the empty boasts of the Intelligent Design movement, which is big on claims but has no results. When it comes to theology, science is the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. I have bookfulls of new results that agree with this science. Those are my qualifications. You should have cited those links.
Surely you are not denying these revelatory credentials I quote from your web site. These would of course be the most preeminent qualifications in any field.
Eugene Shubert: Do you have a degree in a scientific field Bob?
Eugene, since you are preeminently qualified in things scientific, I will also here post your self-proclaimed qualifications in another very important field:
“…my credentials really are unbelievable. By faith and prophetic understanding, I suppose that I have been appointed to bring about the fulfillment of William Miller’s dream… The second half of the dream foretells an experience fulfilled largely by me…â€
“I believe that I had a revelatory experience somewhat comparable to the Apostle Paul and William Miller… At the end of those 3 incredible weeks I had all of Daniel and Revelation figured out… I was supernaturally driven to study the book of Daniel and was in a constant state of being continually overwhelmed by revelation. At the end of it I was a Bible scholar that had all of Daniel and Revelation figured out.â€
“I can not be accused of bias. For those who understand my notes I think it’s obvious that the conclusions I came to were given to me by God… God has given me incredible new light that answers the greatest theological riddles in Adventism:…†– Eugene Shubert ‘The New William Miller’
LSU forms faith in evolution
Shane,
If this anonymous person really is an LSU student – then several observations might be in order.
1. They probably are responding to ‘rumorous mis-characterizations’ of educatetruth’s claims without having digested the material on this site.
2. If number one is true, then this uninformed and somewhat naive person (who claims to be quite devoted to the Adventist cause) probably deserves a little less harsh treatment than has been offered by Shane and Bob.
3. Since this ‘students’ comments seem to be so far off the beam and so easily nullified by proponents of the educate truth stand – what would prohibit a ‘well-meaning’ educatetruth advocate (except Christian conscience) from foisting a fabricated straw-man onto this site for everyone to knock down – seeing as how it is anonymous?
4. If on the other hand some ‘well-meaning’ LSU administrator or biology professor had posted this ‘anonymously.’ I suspect it might have been a little more polished and purposeful.
Taking jabs at even anonymous students probably doesn’t serve the educatetruth cause well.
Recent Comments by Victor Marshall
Last Thursdayism
“The deepest students of science are constrained to recognize in nature the working of infinite power. But to man’s unaided reason, nature’s teaching cannot but be contradictory and disappointing. Only in the light of revelation can it be read aright, ‘Through faith we understand.’Heb.11:3” – Ed.134
Last Thursdayism
Farewell
As if all of your previous statements were not enough – here you come with this outrageous statement:
But I do deny that the Bible is the final authority. I don’t think that it is the final authority.
I think it is plain enough now for all to see that the founding scientist of EducateTruth, who has vigorously been seeking to have LSU tow the orthodox Adventist line – is himself heterodox when it comes to the most foundational of Adventist beliefs!
Not only have you equated science with faith, you have supplanted Biblical authority with scientific authority. Isn’t this exactly in essence what theistic evolutionists do?! Is it possible that one who incessantly declares others to be ‘blind’ would himself be blind to his own hypocritical presuppositions?
Seventh-day Adventists are ‘people of the book.’ They claim the Protestant principle of ‘Sola Scriptura’ as the very foundation of their faith. You are not a Sola Scripturist. By your own standard, if you were employed by the Adventist church, you yourself should consider employment elsewhere.
This is indeed a most grave and serious ironic twist.
If the issues are not yet clear enough I will here quote one of the denominations most preeminently orthodox theologians. You will find that his clear and definitive statements are diametrically opposed to your own:
“A fundamental principle set forth by Scripture concerning itself is that the Bible alone is the final norm of truth, the primary and absolute source of authority, the ultimate court of appeal, in all areas of doctrine and practice… The principle of sola Scriptura implies two corollaries: the primacy and the sufficiency of Scripture….”
“Paul likewise rejects human “knowledge†(KJV “scienceâ€; Greek gnÅsis) as the final authority (1 Tim 6:20). Both OT and NT writers point out that since the Fall in Eden, nature has become depraved (Gen 3:17-18; Rom 8:20-21) and no longer perfectly reflects truth. Nature, rightly understood, is in harmony with God’s written revelation in Scripture (see Ps 19:1-6 [revelation of God in nature] and vv. 7-11 [revelation of the Lord in Scripture]); but as a limited and broken source of knowledge about God and reality, it must be held subservient to, and interpreted by, the final authority of Scripture (Rom 1:20-23; 2:14-16; 3:1-2).”
“2. The Sufficiency of Scripture. The principle of sola Scriptura implies the further corollary of the sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible stands alone as the unerring guide to truth; it is sufficient to make one wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15). It is the standard by which all doctrine and experience must be tested (2 Tim 3:16-17; Ps 119:105; Prov 30:5, 6; Isa 8:20; John 17:17; Acts 17:11; 2 Thess 3:14; Heb 4:12). Scripture thus provides the framework, the divine perspective, the foundational principles, for every branch of knowledge and experience. All additional knowledge and experience, or revelation, must build upon and remain faithful to, the all-sufficient foundation of Scripture. The sufficiency of Scripture is not just in the sense of material sufficiency, i.e., that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Adventists also believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture, i.e., that the Bible alone is sufficient in clarity so that no external source is required to rightly interpret it.”
“Adventists maintain the rallying cry of the Reformation–sola Scriptura, the Bible and the Bible only as the final norm for truth. All other sources of knowledge and experience must be tested by this unerring standard. The appropriate human response must be one of total surrender to the ultimate authority of the word of God (Isa 66:2).” – Richard M. Davidson, ‘Interpreting Scripture According to the Scriptures:Toward an understanding of Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics.’ BRI
Not only do you seem diametrically opposed to foundational Adventist theology. You also appear (for all intents and purposes) to be fundamentally opposed to the purposes and goals of EducateTruth itself.
“4. More important than all of these is that the Bible find its place as the ultimate authority on all it touches upon within the classroom…… The bottom line of this controversy is not about creation vs. evolution, but authority. Does the Bible inform our science or does science inform the Bible? This question lies at the heart of this controversy.†– Shane Hilde
In light of this further unfortunate irony – perhaps you should seek employment on another web site.
I encourage you to reexamine the basis for you faith and prayerfully surrender it to the Word of God – not scientific reason.
“When we come to the Bible, reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself, and heart and intellect must bow before the great I AM.” (SC 110).
Last Thursdayism
@Bill Sorensen:
More “sure†than what? More sure than Peter’s testimony. Peter’s testimony is helpful and helps us believe that Jesus is the Messiah. But even Peter’s testimony is not adequate to affirm Jesus and who He is. We must necessarily turn to “Moses and the prophets†and validate Jesus as the Messiah based on their testimony.
Simply put, Moses is the final authority in all matters of doctrine and faith. If it is not in harmony with Moses, it is false. And this includes Jesus and His ministry.
Very good Bill.
I like to look at it this way as well. Moses said that, “at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” We have the two witnesses of the Old and New Testaments – each one establishes the testimony of the other – both are further established by a third witness – the Holy Spirit. These three witnesses are sufficient to establish truth.
The bible affirming itself as the final authority is the same as God affirming His own authority.
Another interesting parallel passage in the Bible is, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself.” In this passage we have the concept that God is a sufficient witness for Himself. Of course, in a sense, He is also actually three witnesses isn’t He!
Last Thursdayism
@Bill Sorensen:
The bible presents its own evidence. It is self affirming.
If you deny the bible is the final authority on its on self affirmations, then you are simply not a bible Christian.
The bible does not try to “prove†everything. Something are simply stated as a fact. Especially things that are not “proveable†by science and/or human experience.
Science and human experience may be helpful, but they are not the final word and it is a mistake to try to affirm every jot and tittle of scriptual teaching by such “proofâ€.
Well stated Bro. Sorenson.
