Erik & Carl, This is not the appropriate thread for a …

Comment on Video show LSU undermining church doctrine by Shane Hilde.

Erik & Carl,

This is not the appropriate thread for a science debate. Further comments along these lines will not be posted.

Shane Hilde Also Commented

Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
John Webster says the historical-grammatical method of interpretation are “not particularly helpful,” but that the literary-critical and cultural-linguistic method “may be helpful.” The Seventh-day Adventist Church’s approach to biblical interpretation, as outlined in “Methods of Bible Study” voted by the General Conference Executive Committee in 1986, is based on the historical-grammatical method. This method recognizes the Bible as fully inspired, absolutely trustworthy, solely authoritative, and thoroughly consistent in all its parts, since it comes ultimately from one divine mind.

But in one brief comment, John Webster dismisses the historical-grammatical as “not particularly helpful.” He favors the literary-critical and cultural-linguistic method of interpretation. These methods, along with the historical-critical, assume the Bible is not fully inspired (i.e., some parts of the Bible are more inspired than others); the Bible is not fully trustworthy (because of alleged discrepancies, contradictions, and mistakes); the Bible is not absolutely authoritative in all that it teaches or touches upon (portions allegedly shaped by the personal or cultural prejudices of the writers and their times are “uninspired” and not binding on us); and because of the Bible’s many human writers, there is “diversity” in Scripture (i.e., pluralism or conflicting theologies in the Bible). All of the latter these utilize higher criticism, which in some way treat the Bible as any other human text.

Webster ends his lecture with his final punch, “I am here to show you that faith can survive. Faith can thrive….” While this is true, what he doesn’t say is that the faith he and the other speakers are presenting is not a faith in the Bible as as fully inspired, absolutely trustworthy, solely authoritative, and thoroughly consistent in all its parts.

Warren Johns asserts that the “biblical chronology is based on seven cycles–the perfect number seven–of four-hundred-ninety years each.” But instead of presenting the biblical creation week as the absolute beginning of time for earth’s history, he asks three questions: “Must we use this [biblical] chronology to determine our view of the world around us? our view of the history of biology? … or is this chronology used for a different purpose?”

He suggests Genesis 1 “tells us that God took seven days to create His temple. According to Johns, the temple or tabernacle was “always dedicated in a seven day ceremony.” So the biblical account of creation wasn’t an account of when things were created, it’s an account of when God’s temple was dedicated. He says, “[S]o you need to think in terms more of the days of creation being days of inauguration … this is the dedication of God’s temple which is the cosmos, so he could now enter and have a dwelling place. This happened in seven days.”

Johns says, “we are now viewing Genesis 1 as figurative–it’s full of symbolism–as well as having a literal time aspect.” He acknowledges seven literal days being depicted in Genesis 1, but makes it clear these “are days of inauguration and not days necessarily of initiation of the beginning.” Also, he leaves open the possibility for millions of years to have transpired on earth prior to the fall.

He recommends a book called “The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate” as way of “harmonizing science and religion.” The very first proposition of the book states: “…Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology. That is, it does not attempt to describe cosmology in modern terms or address modern questions.”

Johns clearly does not promote a recent, six-day creation. The first week of Genesis 1 “was set apart as special, but there was a lot of work that went on beforehand,” he says.

This class clearly undermines our belief in a recent, literal creation week.


Video show LSU undermining church doctrine

Fortunately, there is no video record being shared among them with great excitement as they review each sin of yours and dissect it in merriment.

There is a difference between broadcasting something done in private versus something that was done in a classroom.

They do not run to send judgmental messages to each other and to God and say, “see, this person is clearly in sin and must be removed from our midst.”

I’m not advocating these professors be removed from church membership. Having them removed from their position is entirely different than having them removed from “our midst.”

If you have the time, I recommend you read an article by Samuel Pipim “Don’t judge me!” You seem to be advocating the idea that we shouldn’t judge what is the professors are doing or teaching because we are sinners. Am I correct? I’m not super clear as to what your point was.

http://www.educatetruth.com/theological/dont-judge-me/


Video show LSU undermining church doctrine

So now what? Should I just leave the church?

If I fundamentally disagreed with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I would not be a member nor associate with it. I wouldn’t be asking people whether I should stay or go. I wouldn’t have any desire to stay except for social reasons perhaps. One of my friends no longer is with the church because of his interpretation about the natural world and the Bible. While I disagree with his worldview, he is rationally following it.

How many of the fundamental beliefs can a Seventh-day Adventist reject and still call himself a representative of the church?

I’m more concerned with members who are paid representatives who undermine the Bible and our beliefs.


Recent Comments by Shane Hilde

La Sierra University Hires Another Darwinist
ADvindicate has also published an article about LSU and Raul Diaz that expands on a few details.

http://advindicate.com/?p=2625


A little-known history about Belief 6
@Eddie: The Bible does not specify an age of accountability (to my knowledge), but the Israelites considered the age of 12 to be the turning point. I wouldn’t base a theology off of tradition though. Also, it’s not our place to judge what happens to those who have not been able to make a decision.


Perspectives from alleged LSU students
@Blodgett: Was there a comment you’d like to add?


At La Sierra, Biology Faculty Affirms Importance of Teaching About Creation in Curriculum
@David Read: And perhaps not something Christ would do. I can understand your frustration though. I’ve been on the verge of quitting this whole thing many times. I’ve been guilty of letting that frustration control and influence things I shouldn’t have said.

I have to remind myself to look at the big picture. In the end all those who are not supposed to be in the church will be sifted out. I pray I am not one of them.


Board of Trustees Addresses Curriculum Proposal
I know from talking to a couple of reporters from Press Enterprise and Inside Higher Ed that Randal Wisbey was effective in shutting down communication between any outsiders and the biology faculty. It appears he made himself the only channel of communication between the board and biology faculty.

I emailed Larry Becker about what bylaw the board members broke that was worthy of dismissal, and I have yet to hear a response from him.

I would also note that board members at other universities appear to be free to talk to the faculty.

Another interesting point. He removes three board members for trying to work on the problem and come up with a solution, and then turns around sort of embraces what they’re doing. He can’t publicly condemn it because everyone can see, whether you agree with what they wrote or not, that it’s a significant step for the faculty to be speaking to the church.

Did he forbid the document from being published? No. If you’re really excited about seeing the biology department making advancements in solving the issue, why are you removing the people who are making that happen. He never did anything like that.

What has Wisbey done to address and fix this issue? Nothing. He’s dragged it out, lied about what’s been happening, and told everyone involved to shut up or get in trouble. What on earth is he trying to do?

Who knows, he might even be a part of the underground movement to sever LSU from the church by using WASC as the big hammer. It’s obvious from one former board member, there was interest in using WASC to manipulate the situation.