Comment on Perspectives from alleged LSU students by Victor Marshall.
David Kendall, BMus, MA: Finally, regarding the rarefied and polluted atmosphere in Riverside, I have ample opportunity to â€œvacationâ€ away as I work all over Southern California, and spend much time back home in Arizona, Taiwan (where I served as a missionary) and the Philippines (where I conduct my research and where the other half of my family lives). All of this, including my time in and around LSU has done my soul much good, by the grace of God.
Please forgive me. Apparently I made a misdiagnosis. The source of your problem now appears to be that you have fallen under the influence of a non-fundamental theologian with expertise outside of your own musical field. “I recently sat down with Dr. Fritz Guy in his office (which is near mine)… He and I both also realize… Neither he nor I… we know we are being candid… neither I nor Dr. Guy have suggested this…”
Perhaps Dr. Guy (who is an ‘expert in his respective theological field’) could speak for himself here on educate truth as to why he feels justified in challenging such fundamental pillars of the Adventist faith as heterosexual marriage and the 4th commandment (both finding their fundamental foundation in Eden).
Finally – I have never read Bachiocchi’s book on music.
I ask the question once again, which ones of the 28 do you have a problem with?
Victor Marshall Also Commented
Perspectives from alleged LSU students
Shane and Sean and Richard and Stephen and Rich and Rick and Bob et. al. Isn’t enough, enough! Please, Please can’t we just ignore the troll? After all, this is not an ordinary troll. This is a false prophet troll. This is a troll who attacks everyone who ever tries to reason with him. This is a troll who spends most of his time trying to spread slanderous lies about the church. It’s bad enough that we have this controversy at LSU going on. Why do we have to offer this church attacking troll a forum for his delusionary pontifications. I repeat – Please, Please, just ignore him!
Is this not enough of a reminder:
â€œâ€¦my credentials really are unbelievable. By faith and prophetic understanding, I suppose that I have been appointed to bring about the fulfillment of William Millerâ€™s dreamâ€¦ The second half of the dream foretells an experience fulfilled largely by meâ€¦â€
â€œI believe that I had a revelatory experience somewhat comparable to the Apostle Paul and William Millerâ€¦ At the end of those 3 incredible weeks I had all of Daniel and Revelation figured outâ€¦ 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€
â€œI can not be accused of bias. For those who understand my notes I think itâ€™s obvious that the conclusions I came to were given to me by Godâ€¦ God has given me incredible new light that answers the greatest theological riddles in Adventism:â€¦â€ â€“ Eugene Shubert â€˜The New William Millerâ€™
Perspectives from alleged LSU students
@David Kendall, BMus, MA:
Thank you for your kind and informative response. There is no excuse for my evil surmisings and sarcasm.
My apologies. Unfortunately In the midst of this grotesque controversy I can’t guarantee my behavior in the future.
I hope you understand.
David Kendall, BMus, MA: As for Adventism being pluralism (or pluralistic), one look at the worldwide demographic consistency of the denomination will answer a resounding yes.
Which one of the 28 fundamentals do you have a problem with? As a professor of music I’m sure you can appreciate what a symphony orchestra would sound like if it was so pluralistic as to depart from the sheet music and the principles of harmony and melody etc. It might sound like ‘modern’ music that seeks to reflect the glaring disharmony of our apocalyptic civilization, or – that’s right, a devilish cacaphony like the choir in heaven when Lucifer lost his moral compass and departed from the heavenly faith.
Adventism is certainly very diverse when it comes to ethnicity and cultures. You must know that the lionshare of Adventists world-wide are quite doctrinaire and intent on maintaining doctrinal purity. It is mostly in the developed/affluent Anglo-European areas where Laodiceans have the time and motivation to tamper with the ‘pillars’ of our faith – in the supposed name of diversity and inclusivism.
There are certain non-negotiables in the Adventist faith. When it comes to a literal seven-day creation there is no question as to where the world church stands (and where our colleges should stand).
Professors may cavil in their ivory towers and pockets of liberalistic and theistic thought – but their voice will never be added to the world-wide symphony of a diverse, yet unified Adventism (and rightly so).
My advise is that you take a vacation to a healthier exclusive environment. A little time away from the inclusive Adventist ghetto and the rareified/polluted atmosphere of Riverside, CA might do the soul some good.
Recent Comments by Victor Marshall
“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
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 donâ€™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 practiceâ€¦ The principle of sola Scriptura implies two corollaries: the primacy and the sufficiency of Scriptureâ€¦.”
“Paul likewise rejects human â€œknowledgeâ€ (KJV â€œscienceâ€; 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 Godâ€™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.
â€œ4. More important than all of these is that the Bible find its place as the ultimate authority on all it touches upon within the classroomâ€¦â€¦ 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.â€ – 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).
More â€œsureâ€ than what? More sure than Peterâ€™s testimony. Peterâ€™s testimony is helpful and helps us believe that Jesus is the Messiah. But even Peterâ€™s testimony is not adequate to affirm Jesus and who He is. We must necessarily turn to â€œMoses and the prophetsâ€ 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!
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 â€œproveâ€ everything. Something are simply stated as a fact. Especially things that are not â€œproveableâ€ 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 â€œproofâ€.
Well stated Bro. Sorenson.