David, you’d best make a distinction between the first advent …

Comment on The Sabbath’s relevance to the debate about origins by David Read.

David, you’d best make a distinction between the first advent and the second. All Christians believe in the first advent, i.e., that Jesus Christ was God incarnate, come to earth, some 2000 years ago. Seventh-day Adventists give special emphasis to the second advent or seond coming, and particularly the nearness of the second advent as indicated by the now on-going investigative judgment in heaven. A pre-advent judgment is necessary because God will resurrect the saved dead (and the saved living will meet them in the sky, and go to heaven with them) at the time of the second advent. So it is the second Advent that is signified by the term “Adventist” in the name “Seventh-day Adventist.”

The overwhelmingly miraculous nature of the resurrection of the dead and other aspects of the 2nd advent/2nd coming/parousia are not consistent with the small, withered god of the theistic evolutionist, but then the “Seventh-day” part of our identity is more obviously inconsistent with long-ages evolutionism.

Recent Comments by David Read

The Reptile King
Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:

“Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”

“Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”

So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?

It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.

The Reptile King
Professor Kent says:

“I don’t do ‘orgins science.’ Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications.”

So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?

The Reptile King
Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we just closed the biology and religion departments? I’m open to that as a possible solution.

The Reptile King
Larry Geraty really did a job on LaSierra. Personally I think it is way gone, compromised beyond hope. The SDA Church should just cut its ties to LaSierra, and cut its losses.

As to the discussion on this thread, round up the usual suspects and their usual arguments.

La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
It is a remarkably fair and unbiased article, and a pretty fair summary of what was said in the recorded conversation.