LSU undergraduate biology bulletin

Aside from the BIOL 111A seminar class that was added fall of 2009, we have not seen any other classes that appear to present the position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church favorably. The UNST 404B class, at least last year, was exclusively dedicated to presenting the evidence for the theory of evolution. The syllabus for the UNST 404B class gives a list of reserved books. The list is quite telling. This years bulletin reveals very little about LSU’s alleged support of a recent creation.

ugradbulletin0910

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

50 thoughts on “LSU undergraduate biology bulletin

  1. It seems to be the case that neither Dr. Wisby nor the La Sierra board intend to make the necessary changes to align the curriculum of the university with Adventist teachings. This then becomes a concern of the North American Division. This case should be properly investigated and dealt with at the division level. We should not continue to allow our students to be led astray. La Sierra can separate from the Adventist system of education and teach whatever they want.

    Also, I think we should be careful what we say on this site. We all have very strong opinions to express, but we should remember, you are supposed to be an Adventist if you post on this site (who’s checking?) but everyone in the world can READ it!

    Instead of arguing with each other, we should cite real scientific evidence to support our views. We could all take an example from Michael Behe. Even though Dr. Behe is not a young earth creationist, he has become a believer in Intelligent Design just from the scientific observations he has made in his field. He used to be an evolutionist and still teaches at Lehigh University in Allentown, Pa. You can find out more on his website. He uses real scientific data to support his beliefs in his book, Darwin’s Black Box. We should do the same.




    0
    View Comment
  2. I agree – the NAD needs to be heard from. Dead silence on their part is not the outstanding leadership example that they might be imagining to themselves.

    Given Frank’s post here –
    http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/letter-to-press-enterprise-editor/comment-page-1/#comment-7508

    Showing that even Steve Daily finds the LSU actions over the past few decades to be atrocious. If even HALF of what Daily says he found as a pastor at LSU is true – the Division needs to step up to the plate with something like corrective administrative action. I can’t imagine a more egregious meltdown on their watch – that is this much of a public spectacle. How do they sleep at night??

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  3. I trust that the EducateTruth.com administration will keep the entire record of the postings on all threads of this site from the beginning and provide that record to an historical archive specializing in Adventist studies such as at Loma Linda University and at Avondale College in Australia.

    That record will be a valuable reference source for future historians of the Adventist Church to document one small aspect of how difficult it is for a denomination to mature from its populist and fundamentalist roots in light of the extremist, vocal views of small groups of arch-reactionaries with access to the internet.

    The role of the internet in allowing marginalized groups to seek to influence church administration continues. Fortunately, the activities of EducateTruth.com have obviously backfired and benefited La Sierra University (LSU). LSU enrollments are up–in the freshman class in particular–and the Department of Biology has had the largest increase in its majors in two decades.

    Sean Pitman and Shane Hilde should be encouraged to maintain EducateTruth.com so all can read the vitriolic inclinations of the supporters of its mission. Forward looking parents who want a modern, progressive Adventist education for their children are choosing LSU and students are benefiting from the increased attention to this topic. They are becoming aware that there are reactionary forces which want their church and its educational institutions to return to those dark days of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s and will stop at nothing to accomplish this. These students and their parents are choosing to be part of the right side of Adventist history—the bright side that looks to the future and the search for truth wherever it leads and rejects the repression of free and open exchange of ideas.

    For those that want to return to those dark days of Adventism and obtain their the education of their children to be in an Adventist institution that retains the ethos of Adventism’s fundamentalist past there are several institutions from which they can pick, several of which have been mentioned on this web site.

    For those who want their undergraduate education to be obtained where the light of intellectual excellence and freedom is honored and the best of a mature Adventist Christianity is honestly studied and nurtured, LSU is an excellent choice. There are several Adventist institutions where the light of modern understandings about science and religion and respect for the best in Adventism are well combined. One of them certainly is LSU and more and more parents and students are becoming aware of this.




    0
    View Comment
  4. I doubt if most Adventists even know about this situation unless they’ve had a particular connection with LSU. I knew from a Review article that the problem existed, but had no idea where until I was poking around on the internet when getting ready for the Creation Celebration Sabbath. That’s when I ran into this site.

    As for being old fashioned, God’s people have often been considered old fashioned and out of date. At times we are of course. But believing in God’s Word isn’t one of the times. How did the eye evolve over millions of years? How did the bombadier beetles hot acid evolve over millions of years? Where did the chemicals necessary for this evolution come from? Of course life changes to some extent–but Darwin’s finches were still finches (and they still are!), they didn’t change into pelicans or albatrosses.




    0
    View Comment
  5. Is Adventist education a popularity contest? Does having a good, or in this case, better enrollment mean that we are doing God’s will? How was the enrollment to get into the ark? If I remember correctly Noah didn’t have a waiting list. Even the very people that helped with the building of the ark refused to go into it.




    0
    View Comment
  6. We could all take an example from Michael Behe.Even though Dr. Behe is not a young earth creationist, he has become a believer in Intelligent Design just from the scientific observations he has made in his field.

    I believe it’s a mistake to regard Michael Behe as a credible scientist. Dr Behe is laughed at for his belief, expressed in court testimony, that astrology is a scientific theory.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178




    0
    View Comment
  7. Frankly, I’m ashamed of many of your comments because of your choice of verbiage. Many times they are crude, excessive, and very inflammatory. You have demonstrated to me that your comments are no longer welcome here because they are doing more damage than good. Please email me if you’d like to discuss this further.




    0
    View Comment
  8. @Ervin Taylor:

    Ervin Taylor says:
    December 17, 2009 I trust that the EducateTruth.com administration will keep the entire record of the postings on all threads of this site from the beginning and provide that record to an historical archive specializing in Adventist studies such as at Loma Linda University and at Avondale College in Australia.

    That record will be a valuable reference source for future historians of the Adventist Church to document one small aspect of how difficult it is for a denomination to mature from its populist and fundamentalist roots in light of the extremist, vocal views of small groups of arch-reactionaries with access to the internet.

    Now there is a cheerfully rosy post if ever I have read one.

    But on a serious note — it brings up a question repeatedly asked on this web site and never answered by our evolutionist friends.

    WHY do they imagine to themselves that Adventists that believe in the Bible are “a small group of archreactionaries”???

    Why wouldnt the standard SDA devotee to evolutionism merely suppose that he/she is in the minority and “hence” the need for him/her to try and “change” the entire denomination???

    The self-conflicted notion that that a small group that wants to “change” the entire denomination ( from it’s “populist” notion that the Bible is true ) – is somehow the majority is totally nonsensical.

    Reflecting on that glaringly obvious gap in Taylor’s opening statement is left as an exercise for unbiased objective readers.

    But it still remains to be seen if Taylor will ever address his repeated assertions that evolutionists are in the Adventist majority and Bible believing SDA Christians are in the minority within the church that he confesses “he needs to change”. The logic in his argument is for the moment — very illusive.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  9. @Ervin Taylor:

    Sean Pitman and Shane Hilde should be encouraged to maintain EducateTruth.com so all can read the vitriolic inclinations of the supporters of its mission. Forward looking parents who want a modern, progressive Adventist education for their children are choosing LSU and students are benefiting from the increased attention to this topic.

    To the contrary – IMAGINE if the educatetruth announcement went out to the world church of Adventists without the discussion available for ALL to see!

    1. The first reaction from the vast majority would be “well evolutionism broke out at one of our universities but now that it has been exposed – I am sure it will be dealt with. No need to make a fuss over such a tiny one-off freak incident. I am sure THAT PROFESSOR is being dealt with”. As they would imagine that this is just a problem with one professor who is now “exposed” so “no more problem”.

    When I mention this to people in person I find that nobody takes seriously the idea that Adventists in general are even remotely considering belief in evolutionism.

    2. The second benefit this site serves is that debates over the issues both from the aspect of inspired texts that flatly expose the problem in evolutionism, atheist evolutionist statements that expose the problems in evolutionism, the list of confirmed hoaxes and fraud history central to belief in evolutionism, the list of junk-science arguments made to defend evolutionsm, and the “sacrifice all” paradigm being adopted by evolutionist devotees — all become instantly visible on this web site!

    While that may mean nothing at all to the true devotee of evolutionism – it is subtantively “instructive” to all the unbiased objective readers.

    They are becoming aware that there are reactionary forces which want their church and its educational institutions to return to those dark days of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s and will stop at nothing to accomplish this. These students and their parents are choosing to be part of the right side of Adventist history—the bright side that looks to the future and the search for truth wherever it leads and rejects the repression of free and open exchange of ideas.

    For those that want to return to those dark days of Adventism and obtain their the education of their children to be in an Adventist institution that retains the ethos of Adventism’s fundamentalist past there are several institutions from which they can pick, several of which have been mentioned on this web site.

    That is a facinatingly imaginative fiction where the notion is that the founding of our universities “was bad”. The mission and vision given at the start by those who sacrificed to build our Adventist educational system “Was dark”. But NOW that we have a university tossing out the bible and ellen white – and tossing out critical thinking – and tossing out pure science – and adopting a fanatical devotion to evolutionism “at all costs” — well now things are BRIGHT!

    It remains to be seen whether there is any kind of reality in such a happy fiction as Taylor has spun for us in that post.

    Another feature in Taylor’s remarks is the wild notion that universities simply wander off and start their own interest mission and focus – as if the denomination does not actually own them at all.

    I find that bit of happy fiction on Taylor’s part most facinating.

    For those who want their undergraduate education to be obtained where the light of intellectual excellence and freedom is honored and the best of a mature Adventist Christianity is honestly studied and nurtured, LSU is an excellent choice. There are several Adventist institutions where the light of modern understandings about science and religion and respect for the best in Adventism are well combined. One of them certainly is LSU and more and more parents and students are becoming aware of this.

    Well one thing that Taylor does get right is that this is about Parents and students “being informed” as to what is really going on and “making a choice”.

    What he misses is that the GC and the Church itself are totally opposed to his idea of “sacrifice all for belief in evolutionism” and even more opposed to the idea that individual SDA teaching institutions simply “wander off” without any reference to their founding, their mission and the entity that “owns them”.

    Basically Taylor’s entire text is devoted to the fiction that SDA universities are simply public teaching institutions catering to whatever customer group they wish, choosing whatever mission or vision they wish and simply “wandering off” in an all-for-evolutionism mission of they “so choose”. (Which if they did in fact do that – would make them into nothing more than a public university — so why pay private school prices for public school benefits??).

    But as I said this provides all with a firsthand look at the kind of thinking that goes into the “all for evolutionism” thinking that Erv Taylor is bringing to his part in the 404B lecture series at LSU.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  10. @Shane Hilde:

    Shane Hilde says:
    December 18, 2009 @BobRyan: Agreed; however, it doesn’t matter even if the church’s position were in the minority. Until they officially change that position LSU biology department is misrepresenting the church’s position.

    You are technically correct and I think that many even among evolutionists would agree that this is a problem for our LSU staff.

    However the point is a technical one – kinda like convicting Al Capone on tax fraud and not on the bigger issue. You can use that same argument against Martin Luther saying that he should not have brought reformation ideas to his pulpit. The truth is that had he quit the church to start with and then just held “meetings in his house” he might never have launched the reformation from the church-wide platform.

    Your point is valid but it’s principle is so close to the argument “no matter how silly and irrational our ideas are — we are the ones that own the building so say whatever silly thing we tell you to say” – that even evolutionists would sign up for that being the extent of the only real opposition to what they are doing.

    It wins in that it gains the most broad spectrum support – but it does so by taking the most minimalist point of opposition to the problem.

    Notice for example that in 3SG 90-91 opposition to evolutionism and in EGW’s open opposition to pantheism her arguments were against the spiritual darkness being promoted – not “we did not pay you to say that”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  11. … — we are the ones that own the building

    I believe you are mistaken.

    Notice for example that in 3SG 90-91 opposition to evolutionism and in EGW’s open opposition to pantheism her arguments were against the spiritual darkness being promoted – not “we did not pay you to say that”.

    That’s a good point. Sister White was alarmed by the spiritual darkness being promoted in the world and within the Church. But surely you don’t want to alarm Seventh-day Adventists with the suggestion that their inaction in a religious crisis is a salvation issue and a sin that God abhors?




    0
    View Comment
  12. Regarding Ervin’s assumption that creationists are now in the minority in the SDA church, only a few months ago I would have assumed that that was stark raving lunacy. Now, well . . . he’s clearly wrong if the views of the entire world church are considered. He’s also wrong when taking into account the North American Division. But is he wrong about the Pacific Union? Probably. Or the Southeastern California Conference? Perhaps not. I’m not so sure anymore.

    Even the Southern California Conference, which is probably a bit more conservative if only because of the larger immigrant SDA community, is notoriously undisciplined. I once heard a pastor preach openly against the substitutionary atonement. Now even I, who have written a long book on creationism, consider the substitutionary atonement to be the central doctrine of Christianity, far more important than creationism. If the righteousness of Christ is not substituted for my unrighteousness, I don’t know how I’m going to be saved; if Christ’s merit cannot be substituted for my lack of merit, I have no hope of eternal life. I was completely taken aback, stunned in fact, that an Adventist pastor would stand up in the pulpit of an Adventist church and trash this central Christian belief, and obviously one endorsed by E.G. White and traditional Adventist theology. I got a recording of the sermon and sent it, along with a complaining letter, to the conference president. Nothing happened. Oh, I heard through back-channels that the President briefly talked to the pastor, but really nothing happened.

    Considering this laissez-faire attitude toward what pastors can preach from the pulpit, can it really be a surprise that professors at LaSierra believe they can, with impunity, teach Darwinism as the preferred theory of origins?




    0
    View Comment
  13. David Read: I once heard a pastor preach openly against the substitutionary atonement.Now even I, who have written a long book on creationism, consider the substitutionary atonement to be the central doctrine of Christianity, far more important than creationism. … I was completely taken aback, stunned in fact, that an Adventist pastor would stand up in the pulpit of an Adventist church and trash this central Christian belief, and obviously one endorsed by E.G. White and traditional Adventist theology.I got a recording of the sermon and sent it, along with a complaining letter, to the conference president.Nothing happened.Oh, I heard through back-channels that the President briefly talked to the pastor, but really nothing happened.

    You are lucky. In the Texas Conference, if a church member even passively resists the popular New Age message of a bloodless atonement, then the pastors and elders conspire to have that troublesome church member thrown out of church without even the semblance of a church trial.

    http://www.everythingimportant.org/dupery




    0
    View Comment
  14. @David Read:

    David Read says:
    December 18, 2009 Regarding Ervin’s assumption that creationists are now in the minority in the SDA church, only a few months ago I would have assumed that that was stark raving lunacy. Now, well . . . he’s clearly wrong if the views of the entire world church are considered. He’s also wrong when taking into account the North American Division. But is he wrong about the Pacific Union? Probably. Or the Southeastern California Conference? Perhaps not. I’m not so sure anymore.

    There is “the rub”!

    They are elected by their own constituents. If the Pacific union is heavily influenced by the SE California Conference. If the Union officials were elected precisely “because” they would not stand up for the truth in this regard… that would be a whole new ballgame. Hope fully that is not the case. Hopefully Erv Taylor and others like him that keep imagining that Bible believing Christians are “fringe minority” in the Adventist church is just a special case of self-delusion that not only has no substance in the world church or in the NAD – but also not a lick of substance in the Pacific Union or even the SE California Conference..

    I once heard a pastor preach openly against the substitutionary atonement. Now even I, who have written a long book on creationism, consider the substitutionary atonement to be the central doctrine of Christianity, far more important than creationism.

    Agreed that is a huge blunder – -someone was clearly asleep at the wheel in terms of administration oversight of that pastor. Not that uncommon on a case-by-case basis as it turns out. You can find that one-off kind of thing almost anywhere.

    I was completely taken aback, stunned in fact, that an Adventist pastor would stand up in the pulpit of an Adventist church and trash this central Christian belief, and obviously one endorsed by E.G. White and traditional Adventist theology. I got a recording of the sermon and sent it, along with a complaining letter, to the conference president. Nothing happened.

    I am truly sorry to hear that – but as I say, innaction is not that unncommon among some of the adminstrators.

    Oh, I heard through back-channels that the President briefly talked to the pastor, but really nothing happened.

    Considering this laissez-faire attitude toward what pastors can preach from the pulpit, can it really be a surprise that professors at LaSierra believe they can, with impunity, teach Darwinism as the preferred theory of origins?

    You are right about one thing – the fault lies in the failure to ensure quality in what is preached from the pulpit.

    Money-matters sermons, motivational speaker sermons, how to win friends and influence people, how to get God to bless our finances INSTEAD of dealing with actual doctrinal threats coming into the church will get you a “I did not know that was so important” reaction from church members, pastors, administrators etc

    You just gotta wonder how many sermons are being preached in the SE conference on the importance of literal acceptance of the Word of God – a literal creation week, sanctity of the family and marriage between one man and one woman, the value of human life, the importance of the gift of prophecy, the reality of the Daniel 7 judgment, the reality of hell fire, the real debt paid at the cross IN OUR place…

    If all that is simply being “tossed out the window” in a wholsale abandonment of central Gospel truths in the SE conference pulpits – well then an “LSU result” may not be so surprising.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  15. Ervin, Large numbers always determine the truth! Oh, I guess you were very mistaken. Let’s take a good look at history. Noah. Sodom and Gomorrah. Daniel and his friends. Destruction of Jerusalem and death of the Jewish people by the Romans after the Christians left. Read Matthew 7:13,14. The Bible is very clear that the smaller number of obedient people are the one’s that are saved. It is also clear that the masses are lost. Large numbers enrolling at La Sierra don’t prove anything, except that we are in the end of time. But, of course you wouldn’t believe that, because you are an enlightened progressive who knows so much more than the rest of us!




    0
    View Comment
  16. It might mean that we are not only hiring evolutionst professors at places like LSU – but other places as well.

    It might mean that we are not only turning out evolutionist graduates – but possibly we are creating evolutionist professors at the PHD level as well.

    It may mean that the SE California Conference constituency is much more skewed toward evolutionism than most Adventists might imagine.

    The more time this issue spends “in the light of day” the more will be learned.

    This thing has been allowed to “run its course” for over a decade maybe for at least 2 decades. It will be interesting to see just how far it is rooted in our schools and conferences by now.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  17. @Jonathan:
    I’ve heard that before, too, but the EGW Estate website assures its readers that EGW never said anything about whole conferences leaving the church. That is strictly folklore, albeit widely propagated folklore.

    But if it were true, a likely candidate might be the Southeastern California Conference. Remember the LaSierra biology professor who was quoted in the local paper as saying that creationists were “the lunatic fringe.” It would seem that most Adventists you run into in that conference are extremely liberal. And the situation with LaSierra’s biology faculty has been the way it is for almost a decade; Wisbey inherited this mess from Lawrence Geraty, who created it.




    0
    View Comment
  18. Ervin Taylor: Sean Pitman and Shane Hilde should be encouraged to maintain EducateTruth.com so all can read the vitriolic inclinations of the supporters of its mission. Forward looking parents who want a modern, progressive Adventist education for their children are choosing LSU and students are benefiting from the increased attention to this topic. They are becoming aware that there are reactionary forces which want their church and its educational institutions to return to those dark days of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s and will stop at nothing to accomplish this. These students and their parents are choosing to be part of the right side of Adventist history—the bright side that looks to the future and the search for truth wherever it leads and rejects the repression of free and open exchange of ideas.

    First off, supporters of both sides of this issue have gone just a bit overboard with personal attacks and pejoratives. Erv’s own AToday website is filled with angry comments and personal attacks against those who would wish to uphold the fundamental views of the organized SDA Church. LSU professors have gone public calling those who actually believe in a literal 6-day creation the “lunatic fringe” in secular journals. Erv Taylor has himself written numerous tabloid-style articles published by AToday poking personal fun at 6-day creationists and the staff of EdTruth in particular – to the point of comparing us and our tactics to the Nazis during WWII. The president of LSU, Randal Wisbey, has also gone on public record questioning the evidenciary basis for a literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis.

    Wisbey supports his theistic evolutionist professors and their right to promote Darwinism in their classrooms parroting Erv’s argument that all should be allowed to freely express their ideas, whatever they may be, on the Church’s dime.

    Certainly a free civil society is important where a free expression and exchange of ideas is a primary civil liberty. However, it is also a civil liberty for a person or an organization to freely hire only those who will accurately represent the goals and ideas of the employer. Actively countering the stated goals and requests of the employer, even if you think the employer is wrong, is stealing. It is a moral wrong. Go and work for someone who is willing to pay you for your ideas. Why steal from someone who is not willing to pay you for your particular ideas?

    The SDA Church, as an organization, has asked all pastors and teachers who are employees of the Church, to actively support the Church’s fundamental positions on doctrinal issues from pulpit and classroom – especially with regard to the Church’s stand on a literal creation week. Like it or not, this is an official stand and request of the Church as an organization. Therefore, for an paid employee of this organization to expect to get paid for directly undermining the Church’s positions is sheer audacity and morally corrupt – a robbery of the Church’s time and money…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  19. Sean Pitman M.D.:
    The SDA Church, as an organization, has asked all pastors and teachers who are employees of the Church, to actively support the Church’s fundamental positions on doctrinal issues from pulpit and classroom – especially with regard to the Church’s stand on a literal creation week. Like it or not, this is an official stand and request of the Church as an organization. Therefore, for an paid employee of this organization to expect to get paid for directly undermining the Church’s positions is sheer audacity and morally corrupt – a robbery of the Church’s time and money.

    Sean,

    I believe that you are presupposing a few false assumptions. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not a monolithic structure. The General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists does not hold title to LSU property. Those in control of LSU seek to promote evolutionism. Adventists that oppose that idea are powerless to remove evolutionism from LSU’s curriculum.




    0
    View Comment
  20. Eugene Shubert: Sean,

    I believe that you are presupposing a few false assumptions. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not a monolithic structure. The General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists does not hold title to LSU property. Those in control of LSU seek to promote evolutionism. Adventists that oppose that idea are powerless to remove evolutionism from LSU’s curriculum.

    You’re mistaken. The GC of the SDA Church owns the name “Seventh-day Adventist” and has the power to remove the use of that name from LSU as an official “SDA” institution. The GC also has the power to stop providing funds, derived from tithes and offerings, in support of LSU. The GC also has the power to put pressure on the local SDA conference and union that does own the actual property of LSU.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  21. Sean Pitman M.D.:
    The GC of the SDA Church owns the name “Seventh-day Adventist” and has the power to remove the use of that name from LSU as an official “SDA” institution. The GC also has the power to stop providing funds, derived from tithes and offerings, in support of LSU. The GC also has the power to put pressure on the local SDA conference and union that does own the actual property of LSU.

    That is correct. And their refusal to act means that the General Conference Corporation tacitly supports, approves of, and teaches evolutionism. Thus, you are defying the corporate will of the denomination.

    The fact that the General Conference Corporation contradicts itself is irrelevant. Their purpose is to maximize profits. Understandably therefore, their hesitancy is only the uncertainty of correctly estimating direct personal costs and benefits and in deciding for the current Church members and future potential customers what package of theoretical beliefs will sell the best.




    0
    View Comment
  22. Here we see the president of the GC urging that all of our universities teach Bible creationism as truth – and that our professors not serve as evangelists for the doctrines on origins taught in evolutionism.

    http://www.educatetruth.com/letters/the-advent-appeal/

    So then how does this next comment come up??

    @Eugene Shubert:

    And their refusal to act means that the General Conference Corporation tacitly supports, approves of, and teaches evolutionism. Thus, you are defying the corporate will of the denomination.

    Your argument above is stretched very thin as it must somehow imagine that Jan Paulsen not only does not speak for the denomination as President of the GC – he also does not even speak for the GC as a corporate entity even though he is it’s president!

    That is going pretty far out on a limb of your own devising.

    You are missing the not-so-subtle difference between ineffective leadership to stop some activity in a given area — vs — being an outright evangelist for the very activity they are trying to stop.

    That is a detail in the difference that most everyone here will notice.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  23. @Eugene Shubert:

    Sean,

    I believe that you are presupposing a few false assumptions. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not a monolithic structure. The General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists does not hold title to LSU property. Those in control of LSU seek to promote evolutionism. Adventists that oppose that idea are powerless to remove evolutionism from LSU’s curriculum.

    There is a certain amount of truth to that statement that cannot be ignored.

    Tithe only supports the LSU religion deparment and the deans of men and women. Plus tithe flows “up” from conferences to unions to the GC.

    The Union owns the university and my guess it that all the tithe money needed to support the religion department and two deans – easily flows up through the Pacific Union. It is not clear at all that the GC has the key to withold funds that would make much of a difference at all.

    However “I think” the Division holds direct authority over the Union. (anyone heard “a peep” out of the NAD on this??)

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  24. @Sean Pitman M.D.:

    The SDA Church, as an organization, has asked all pastors and teachers who are employees of the Church, to actively support the Church’s fundamental positions on doctrinal issues from pulpit and classroom – especially with regard to the Church’s stand on a literal creation week. Like it or not, this is an official stand and request of the Church as an organization. Therefore, for an paid employee of this organization to expect to get paid for directly undermining the Church’s positions is sheer audacity and morally corrupt – a robbery of the Church’s time and money…

    I agree.

    But it is more then simply misleading or abusing their position – it is more than “saying – DOWN – when the church paid you to say – UP” — it is taking the souls of students and sending them down the path of distrust in the Word of God – belief in junk-science – and acceptance of what Ellen White calls “the worst kind of infidelity”.

    It would be hard to imagine a more blatant form of Achan-ism. And it would be hard to imagine how the SDA church itself will escape a close review on this matter when the time comes.

    I pray that some administrator some place has the courage to stand up.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  25. BobRyan: Your argument above is stretched very thin as it must somehow imagine that Jan Paulsen not only does not speak for the denomination as President of the GC – he also does not even speak for the GC as a corporate entity even though he is it’s president! That is going pretty far out on a limb of your own devising. You are missing the not-so-subtle difference between ineffective leadership to stop some activity in a given area — vs — being an outright evangelist for the very activity they are trying to stop. That is a detail in the difference that most everyone here will notice.

    Bob,

    I genuinely don’t believe that the Lord has excused GC President Jan Paulsen just because he gave his very best ineffective response. By comparison, consider the sin of Achan. Joshua and the elders of Israel were in great affliction. They laid before the ark of God in most abject humility because the Lord was wroth with His people. They prayed and wept before God but that wasn’t good enough. So the Lord spoke to Joshua: “Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face? Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff. Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you.”

    Our present crisis demands a shaking message and I don’t believe that continuing nice-sounding platitudes toward the ultra-Darwinist Adventists at LSU could be effective or pass God’s standard of obedience for GC leaders.

    Eugene Shubert
    http://www.everythingimportant.org/dupery




    0
    View Comment
  26. Eugene Shubert:
    Bob,
    I genuinely don’t believe that the Lord has excused GC President Jan Paulsen just because he gave his very best ineffective response. By comparison, consider the sin of Achan. Joshua and the elders of Israel were in great affliction. They laid before the ark of God in most abject humility because the Lord was wroth with His people. They prayed and wept before God but that wasn’t good enough. So the Lord spoke to Joshua: “Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face? Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff. Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you.”Our present crisis demands a shaking message and I don’t believe that continuing nice-sounding platitudes toward the ultra-Darwinist Adventists at LSU could be effective or pass God’s standard of obedience for GC leaders.Eugene Shubert
    http://www.everythingimportant.org/dupery  

    I actually agree here. It is REQUIRED of the GC president, once he is informed of the situation, to act to stop the apostasy. Merely making a statement is not an acceptable action.

    However, we do not know if he is doing something that is out of the spotlight so we should not be too hasty to write him off.

    By the way, moral suasion is an effective managerial approach at times (not always).




    0
    View Comment
  27. @Eugene Shubert:

    Our present crisis demands a shaking message and I don’t believe that continuing nice-sounding platitudes toward the ultra-Darwinist Adventists at LSU could be effective or pass God’s standard of obedience for GC leaders.

    I agree that as President Paulsen is tasked with something doing more than simply making his public statements. However without having “all knowledge” about what that something is – that he is doing beyond those words – I could hardly be in a possition of accusing the very one (who at the highest administratiive level of our denomination is opposing evolution) of — tacitly supporting and, approving of, and actually teaching evolutionism.

    In your earlier post you observed that the GC does not actually ‘own’ LSU – so “influence” is more of it’s role here than administratively firing someone. Yet there “must” be some chain of command going from GC to NAD to Union of sometype. (Though this is unclear as to just how far that can go – since all of those presidents are themselves elected by their own constituents not appointed by the GC president. Just as the President of the United States cannot fire a Senator or Congressman)

    In any case – it would be nice to see some action at the Union level, because there must be some Bible believing constituents in the Pacific Union willing to make some complaint heard at the Union level.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  28. @Jonathan Smith:

    Jonathan Smith says:
    December 20, 2009 @BobRyan:
    Did Ellen White ever write about a whole conference being lost? I thought I heard that in folklore but I have found no such evidence. Any word of it?

    I am aware of rumors to that effect but I have never found that quote.

    Also I believe in David Read is correct in saying that there is a White Estate document where they address this point – saying that Ellen White never made a "whole conferences will be lost" statement.

    Still I have no idea whether a "whole conference" or even "union" will ever apostatize one day.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  29. Bob,

    In the Kellogg crisis, God said, “Neither will I be with you any more, unless you awake, and vindicate your Redeemer.” To Joshua God said, “neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you.”

    God is demanding results and speaking respectfully of demonic doctrines and continuing with the ridiculous pretense that demonic power isn’t present in the church, continually growing and seizing ever-greater control, isn’t going to cut it. I believe that this charade must end.

    The ineffectiveness of GC President Jan Paulsen and the magnitude of the problem reminds me of the time when Gozer the Traveler was terrorizing New York City and the Ghostbusters appointed their best scientist, Dr. Ray Stantz, to deal with the crisis:

    “DR RAY STANTZ: Gozer the Gozerian… good evening. As a duly designated representative of the City, County and State of New York, I order you to cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place of origin or to the nearest convenient parallel dimension.”

    Just think of me as another Dr. Peter Venkman who sarcastically said, “That oughta do it. Thanks very much, Ray.”




    0
    View Comment
  30. Eugene Shubert: The fact that the General Conference Corporation contradicts itself is irrelevant. Their purpose is to maximize profits. Understandably therefore, their hesitancy is only the uncertainty of correctly estimating direct personal costs and benefits and in deciding for the current Church members and future potential customers what package of theoretical beliefs will sell the best.

    The mysterious ‘they!’ We are ‘they!’ in this case. The constituency can address this and I believe we will. This forum is a part of this dialog process and the prayers of those concerned will lead to serious action. People should not be tearing down the ecclesia by making damning statements about certain individuals who cannot by themselves carry out anything without the constituency.

    On a smaller scale, a pastor cannot disfellowship a member without the entire congregation coming to a consensus or a vote. Pointing the finger at a pastor because a particular member is not being disciplined would be an incorrect accusation. If the membership does not see the problem, no action can be taken. The pastor must lead his membership, but cannot force their will. He must labor with the people so that they understand the need for discipline.

    The war in heaven is a good example of a necessary process. Eventually, only after God’s elect has had a chance to review the records will the final judgement happen. Since the Lord will give us a thousand years for this process, can’t we follow His lead and allow the proper Biblical steps to be taken here on earth before making the types of accusations against the brethren as you have?

    You are rushing to judge motives when you truly have no idea about motives. You are bearing false witness as you are NOT a witness to their motives. Only the Lord can see the heart. We cannot speak authoritatively when it comes to the motives of others unless we are a messenger or prophet of God. Unless you claim this office, you need to measure your words more carefully. Your thoughts on motives can only be speculative and should probably be kept to yourself. I’m sorry to be so frank, but I think many of your statements regarding individuals are seriously out of line.




    0
    View Comment
  31. Christiane Marshall:
    We cannot speak authoritatively when it comes to the motives of others unless we are a messenger or prophet of God. Unless you claim this office, you need to measure your words more carefully.

    I have not judged anyone’s motives. I have observed the visible actions of a herd and I have accurately described those actions. And my description is consistent with the writings of Sister White and an inspired dream of Steve Starman. And for those reasons, since you brought it up, yes, I’ll accept the messenger exemption.

    http://www.everythingimportant.org/SDA/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1508




    0
    View Comment
  32. Christiane Marshall:
    I think many of your statements regarding individuals are seriously out of line.

    I sincerely apologize to Gozer the Gozerian and his family for interpreting his rampage on the City of New York as an act of terrorism. Perhaps I misunderstood. I admit that I don’t know much about the spirit world. Perhaps he was only having a little innocent fun.




    0
    View Comment
  33. @Eugene Shubert:

    Eugene Shubert says:
    December 21, 2009 Bob,

    In the Kellogg crisis, God said, “Neither will I be with you any more, unless you awake, and vindicate your Redeemer.” To Joshua God said, “neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you.”

    The warning that we find in 3T 252-272 regarding the corporate guilt that came upon Israel for Achan’s sin (as well as other characteristics of Laodicea) is a serious one. No question about it.

    The church administration needs to take a careful look at those principles when dealing with evolutionism being promoted at the highest levels within a few of our teaching institutions.

    No question about that as well.

    Until the glaringly obvious problem at LSU is addressed – I recommend that parents and students find another option other than an “LSU-or-bust and try to avoid the evangelists for evolutionism currently in control of both the biology and religion departments”.

    In the mean time the church adminstrators need to address issues at the Pacific Union and LSU admin.

    In the mean time – the rest of us watch and pray , answer questions and “report the news” so that people are informed.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  34. When you say that the UNST404B course in 2009 was “exclusively dedicated to presenting the evidence for the theory of evolution,” I did not find the syllabus to be evidence of that. Based on the syllabus and book list, there seems to be an intended discussion about science and faith. This would seem fitting in a class called the Religious, Social, and Moral Aspects of Biology. In fact, I only saw one of the nine books (at least based on title) that seems to solely focus on evolutionary theory. For a student to take that capstone course, they are also using all of their learning and experience from the LSU general education program and everything they learned in their other Biology courses. The syllabus even shows in the first two core objectives for the course that students should be able to understand, discuss, and synthesize I. Scientific evidence of the natural history and evolution of life on earth…and II. The emerging dialogue between science and religion…

    I find, at least from reviewing the syllabus, that this would be a fitting capstone course for the program. I think that too many are looking at this with such a lens of bias that unless the course objective is to “make every student believe that creation is right and evolution is wrong,” then LSU must be forcing students to believe the opposite.

    Furthermore, I would certainly appreciate a link to the biology section of a bulletin from an SDA university which shows the desired level of support for a recent creation.




    0
    View Comment
  35. @Hey John: You said you didn’t think the syllabus was evidence for the UNST404B class being exclusively dedicated to presenting the theory of evolution. You suggest that because the class is intended to be a discussion about science and faith that this shows the exclusivity to evolution non-existant.

    I disagree with you. I am aware of a large movement within the evangelical world that accepts the theory of evolution. The earth and life is millions of years old. So discussions of faith and science are quite possible without giving any promotion to a recent, six-day creation.

    The presentations from the capstone class certainly do not present evidence for a recent creation. I’m hard pressed to see anything in the syllabus that suggests that a recent creation was even going to be discussed. There is always a chance that it was slipped in though. I have just emailed a friend who took that very class whether or not evidence for a recent creation was presented.

    Knowing how Bradley feels about creationism, I would wager that if it was even brought up it was not in a favorable light. I have not heard one student tell me that Greer has presented evidence for a recent creation in any of his classes; however, it’s possible he has. I have my doubts.

    Here is a link to Southwestern’s bulletin for the biology department: http://docs.swau.edu/bulletins/under09/pdfs/Biology.pdf

    I think it’s interesting that the word evolution only shows up once in their bulletin in this phrase: “to prepare students to respond intelligently to Creation/Evolution issues.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but the word appears three times in three different classes in LSU’s bulletin.

    I also know Dr. Chadwick, who works there, and his whole department is on board for a recent creation and the actually support it in the classroom.

    John, do you know of at least one professor in the LSU biology department that supports a recent creation in his/her classroom?




    0
    View Comment
  36. @John: I just heard back from my friend who took that capstone class last year and he said:

    …whenever the topic of Creation would come up (from a student not a prof. mind you) the student would be ‘attacked’ by one or both of the profs, and there was a lot of deriding, belittling, and ridiculing in their retorts to the idea of Creation. So I believe that whether or not Creation was mentioned in that class, it was not something to be taken as plausible in any shape, case, form, or fashion.

    I’ve heard from three other LSU students about the hostile environment that’s created in the classroom sometimes when they attempted to broach the subject. One professor became so upset one time he began yelling at a group of students who were creationists, telling them it was people like them that flew planes into buildings. Yes, I know who the professor is and I have multiple witnesses to this incident.

    The treatment of these students sickens me, considering they’re at an Adventist university. The professor above shouldn’t even be in the classroom.




    0
    View Comment
  37. Shane Hilde: @John:
    I’ve heard from three other LSU students about the hostile environment that’s created in the classroom sometimes when they attempted to broach the subject. One professor became so upset one time he began yelling at a group of students who were creationists, telling them it was people like them that flew planes into buildings. Yes, I know who the professor is and I have multiple witnesses to this incident.The treatment of these students sickens me, considering they’re at an Adventist university. The professor above shouldn’t even be in the classroom.  

    This is a serious matter for this professor is now likening a creationist to a terrorist. This professor should be identified publicly and hastily dismissed. Perhaps there should be even charges filed against him, for he has gone on to severely traumatising the students.

    Please do whatever is possible to legally post his name so we can up the ante. In my classrooms I have often met people who I disagreed with and I never humiliated or disrespected them (intentionally, deliberately or emotionally). Irrespective of religion, sexual orientation, creed, race, national origin or whatever distinction, every student must have the right to believe differently from others and not be subjected to such hostile and inflammatory remarks. This issue must not rest.




    0
    View Comment
  38. @Shane Hilde:

    I’ve heard from three other LSU students about the hostile environment that’s created in the classroom sometimes when they attempted to broach the subject. One professor became so upset one time he began yelling at a group of students who were creationists, telling them it was people like them that flew planes into buildings. Yes, I know who the professor is and I have multiple witnesses to this incident.

    The treatment of these students sickens me, considering they’re at an Adventist university. The professor above shouldn’t even be in the classroom.

    I am facinated by the fact that these stories surface from students at LSU – as well as a number of former LSU students that have posted on this web site atesting to the same all-for-evolutionism history at LSU (and even some ex-LSU professors have admitted to the same here) — and yet we have recent comments here by one of our pro-evolutionist posters that all the student posts on this web site – of actual LSU students – are in full support of the “in-the-tank for evolutionism” policy of the LSU biology professors.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  39. Shane, I was not in the Biology Capstone course last year, so I do appreciate you taking the time to ask some students about the actual course experience. And I agree with you that it is possible to have discussions on faith and science without promoting a recent 6-day creation. It is just as possible to discuss faith and science without promoting evolution. The difference is that you posted the syllabus as evidence that evolution is exclusively promoted. I still did not find that to be the case based upon what I found in the syllabus. If the actual course experience does not reflect the syllabus, students should bring that concern to their department chair and request that the syllabus and experience be appropriately aligned.

    I also appreciated you posting a link to the SWAU bulletin. Under “Aims of the Department” (Biology), it included “to prepare students to respond intelligently to Creation/Evolution issues.” That was the only use of “creation”. Did you find this statement to be enough evidence of support in a university bulletin of clear support and promotion of a recent creation? There was also a course listed entitled “Philosophy of Science” which is described as “A study of the philosophies and methodologies of science. Includes a review of the history of scientific and religious thought and the role each has played in the development of modern theories of origin. If you could obtain a syllabus for that course, I would appreciate reading it.

    Personally, I don’t think it is the role of a professor to “promote” anything. When I was a Biology major at LSU just a few years ago, the professors engaged us in the tools and methods biologists use to better measure, analyze, and understand the world around us today. They find more value in having us explore and test our ideas than telling use what is right and wrong. Focus was placed on the questions we ask in biology and the ways we approach searching for the answers. It was not, however, about telling us the exact answer to all of those questions. I don’t think the LSU Biology professors “promote” creation or evolution. If anything, they only promote the study of biology.

    Sometimes a professor may need feedback on improving a course experience. Sometimes there will be a student in a capstone course after a full sequence of biology courses, who submits a paper full of plagarized content pasted from a website about evolution being wrong, and blames the professor’s hatred for creationism as the reason for his/her poor grade. Either way, it is important for all of us to think carefully about the evidence presented to us and the comments presented along with them. That goes for the students and professors at LSU in terms of how Biology is taught, and for those of us reading the content on this site as well.




    0
    View Comment
  40. John: It is just as possible to discuss faith and science without promoting evolution.

    True; however, there is a great deal of evidence that strongly suggests that the theory of evolution is being promoted to the exclusion of creationism.

    John: The difference is that you posted the syllabus as evidence that evolution is exclusively promoted.

    This is what I said about the syllabus:

    The UNST 404B class, at least last year, was exclusively dedicated to presenting the evidence for the theory of evolution. The syllabus for the UNST 404B class gives a list of reserved books.

    The syllabus alone does not prove evolution was exclusively promoted. You’ll see in the sentence I used “exclusively dedicated” I was primarily referring to the presentations given in the class. All of the presentations that I have looked through (about 3) did not mention any evidence for a recent creation.

    John: If the actual course experience does not reflect the syllabus, students should bring that concern to their department chair and request that the syllabus and experience be appropriately aligned.

    As evidenced by the minority of students who have brought this to the administrations attention, students at LSU don’t appear to be overly concerned about whether or not a professor supports a recent creation. Also, those who have brought it up have been repeatedly ignored over the years. Nothing really started happening till this issue came into the public eye.

    John: That was the only use of “creation”. Did you find this statement to be enough evidence of support in a university bulletin of clear support and promotion of a recent creation?

    No. I rely on my knowledge of the professors there. All of whom are committed to a recent, six-day creation.

    John: Personally, I don’t think it is the role of a professor to “promote” anything.

    I disagree, especially in the context of a Seventh-day Adventist university.

    John: I don’t think the LSU Biology professors “promote” creation or evolution. If anything, they only promote the study of biology.

    John, when professors who personally believe in the theory of evolution teach the theory of evolution without addressing creationism, evolution is being promoted. Granted, there are biology classes that do not address the theory of evolution. Frankly, none of them have to. It is not necessary to be familiar with ToE in order to understand biology; however, I do believe it’s important that biology majors understand the theory. I can agree that their primary objective is to promote the study of biology, but within the worldview of evolutionary mechanisms.

    John: …it is important for all of us to think carefully about the evidence presented to us and the comments presented along with them. That goes for the students and professors at LSU in terms of how Biology is taught, and for those of us reading the content on this site as well.

    Agreed. It would be much easier if LSU was more forthcoming with their material instead of attempting to sequester it. If evolution is really the better theory as some of these professors say, then why is the administration not embracing it? I suspect that one reason is that the president is sympathetic to their worldview. I think its quite revealing that LSU hasn’t gone on record with any substantial statement of support for a recent creation. They haven’t even denied the allegations. And they can’t, there’s too much evidence that says otherwise.




    0
    View Comment
  41. @Ervin Taylor:

    Ervin Taylor says:
    December 17, 2009 I trust that the EducateTruth.com administration will keep the entire record of the postings on all threads of this site from the beginning and provide that record to an historical archive specializing in Adventist studies such as at Loma Linda University and at Avondale College in Australia.

    That record will be a valuable reference source for future historians of the Adventist Church to document one small aspect of how difficult it is for a denomination to mature from its populist and fundamentalist roots in light of the extremist, vocal views of small groups of arch-reactionaries with access to the internet.

    The comment above is (I believe) a good example of what passes for logic – among our evolutionist friends.

    Notice that Taylor pretends to be interested in a historic change or shift within the denomination away from our doctrinal statement and toward a more atheist evolutionist doctrine on origins. A shift where the current stated position of the denomination – as voted on by the world church — is in Taylor’s imagination someday “change” (at some unknown future point in time).

    While waiting for that change from the existing stated position – Taylor suggests that we view current acceptance of the current voted positions of the church (concerning the doctrine of origins) to be “extremist” an “arch-reactionary”. His happy fiction suggests that those in favor of the existing voted position of the church are a “small group”.

    Certainly we can all grant that Taylor-world is indeed a “happy fiction” for evolutionists hoping one day for a doctrinal “course change” in this denomination – it is still far from reality for the church membership today.

    But if you think about it — it is that same kind of “fiction for fact” thinking that leads to acceptance of evolutionism in the first place!

    How instructive then the statement by atheist evolutionist Colin Patterson that evolutionism actually “conveys ANTIKNOWLEDGE”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  42. @John:

    you posted the syllabus as evidence that evolution is exclusively promoted. I still did not find that to be the case based upon what I found in the syllabus. If the actual course experience does not reflect the syllabus, students should bring that concern to their department chair and request that the syllabus and experience be appropriately aligned.

    The article above includes this 404B link

    http://www.educatetruth.com/presentations/lee-greer-lsu-unstuhnr-404b-presentation/

    At that link we see in the slides provided – reference after reference to evol fiction claimed as “confirmed”.

    If you find something in 404B with slides stating YEC as “confirmed” and then some argument that follows – please share that with the class. We are all ears.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  43. First of all, let me say that the issue at hand is foundational to the direction and future of this Church. It is my Theological view that Darwinian Evolution, or any other variant, is completely incompatible with Biblical Christianity. I base my beliefs on the same foundation that has been fully explored by Sean Pitman, David Asscherick, David Read, and other like-minded individuals.

    I strongly agree that Seventh-day Adventists must preserve those beliefs that form the foundation of our movement. While I agree that we are the End-Time Remnant Church, I think there is more at stake than our identity as a Church. Our Identity as Children of God is being threatened. Progressive Adventists may assert that this is nonsense, and just the ramblings of fundamentalists, but Faith offers purpose to life in a way that mere culture can’t. Without a concrete belief system founded upon universal truth there can be no true faith, because there is no real substance.

    With that said, I do have a serious concern over the way some well-intentioned Adventists will attack an issue by attacking people. There is a way to handle this problem that I believe will be far more productive than combat. It is our calling to lovingly educate our church members with the truth of the gospel and the authority of God’s Word. We need to be aware of institutions that teach ideas that are incompatible with our faith, and encourage our young people to attend universities that uphold our values. In addition we need to exercise our freedom of speech and advise our leaders that we are discontent with their decisions to allow this kind of open rebellion against Adventism to continue.

    Why do we forget that we don’t have to fight God’s battles for Him? God has called us represent Jesus in all we do. If we will love our brethren unconditionally and live like we belief, the enemy will have no weapon to prevail against us. God fights for us, and for His own sovereignty. He will deal with those who would fight against Him. Do we pray for their Salvation? Do we speak kindly to them as fellow sinners in need of a redeemer? Do we assume that these are evil men and women, bent on the destruction of our way of life, or is it possible that they are as we have all been, sincerely trying to understand a sinless, infinite God with a sinful, finite mind?

    Could it be that, to a degree, we are to blame? Many of the people involved in the Progressive Adventist Movement are generational Adventists. Have we pushed them away with cold legalism and shallow doctrine taught not from the light that flows from the cross of Christ? It is true that we must all take responsibility for our own actions, but we must also be responsible for our brethren (Galatians 6:1-3). In the judgement each person will stand or fall based on the choices they made for themselves, but we we also have to give an account for those we led away from Christ by our words and actions.

    My encouragement to all who read this is to win souls for Jesus Christ by proclaiming the truth of the Gospel with boldness and in love. Put yourself aside and be like Jesus by selflessly reaching out those in need. When the truth is shining brightly the darkness is exposed for what it really is.

    Blessings to all,
    Jonathan




    0
    View Comment
  44. @Jonathan Armstrong: Jonathan, another Jonathan here 🙂

    It is good indeed to be Christlike in our response to our erring brethren. I would even say that it is necessary – a requirement.

    However, let us not believe that in every case Christlike means an avoidance of tough talk. Read Matthew 23 –

    Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
    Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
    Mat 23:16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
    Mat 23:17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
    Mat 23:19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

    And what about Jude

    Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
    Jud 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
    Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

    And there is more.

    We may be Christlike if we choose and we should choose that way. But when people stubbornly resist the truth and refuse to change their ways, they have to be rebuked sharply or even stronger action taken so that others may be saved.




    0
    View Comment
  45. Check out http://www.globalflood.org and John Baumgardner’s work on Catastrophic Plate Techtonics. Why aren’t fellow Christian Scientists at LSU looking at his work, and scrutiny of Uniformitarianism needed for the Evolutionary answer. Just remember, MicroEvolution or Adaption is what Darwin was seeing, but he extrapolated it along with others to MacroEvolution which has never been proven. Without it, the whole discussion of Origins can’t make progress.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.