Wisbey says that, “The focus is all on this word …

Comment on Wisbey talks about LSU and what he wants you to know by Victor Marshall.

Wisbey says that, “The focus is all on this word open. We are committed to be a place where we have open minds, open hands, and open hearts.”

Openness is the motto and spirit of liberalism and the post-modern age. Committed liberals are open to just about anything. Some influential educated liberal Adventists – particularly in (Southern and southeastern California conferences) are “open” to theistic evolution as a reasonable explanation of origins, open to higher-criticism as a valid way of interpreting the scriptures, open to homosexuality as a reasonable expression of human sexuality, and on and on.
This is mostly an Anglo-American/European phenomenon. No wonder the delegate from Netherlands (one of the most liberal nations on earth) would want to move LSU to their land. The ravages of secular-humanistic liberalism among the churches of the Anglo-American/European world are plain for all to see. Within a relatively short time England would become Islamic – a partial response to the degeneracy and religious hypocrisy that extreme ‘christian’ liberalism has produced.

The constant cry from this ilk is that Adventists should be more open-minded, not so closed-minded and bigoted. We should be open to allowing others the freedom to express and explore unorthodox explanations. We should be open to non-traditional ways of viewing religious belief and practice – even beliefs and practices that seem radically opposed to what we are accustomed to.

The problem with this approach is that we are a Scripture and Spirit of Prophecy based movement. We are a movement based upon inspiration. This means that we believe that God has spoken to the human race in a definitive way such that His Word can be understood and followed implicitly. We believe that by its very nature such a revelation contains certain non-negotiables and that the revelation of God to the human race is not meant to be forever open-ended and malleable. The very nature of Christianity and the Adventist movement contain clear elements of exclusivity. To maintain the level of openness that post-modern, liberal Adventists envision – the exclusive nature of inspiration must be reinterpreted. The authority of inspiration must be questioned and challenged. The exclusive truths of inspiration must be reduced to an open-ended denominator.

Finally, isn’t it interesting that Donna Richards (two time delegate from SECC) would say that, ‘We have experienced quite a bit of consternation about that belief (#6) in the recent past and present.’ And that she was very glad to see Ted Wilson reaffirm our position on this belief.

LSU is the source of her consternation of course. Contrary to Wisbey’s statement that, ‘La Sierra is a place of great faithfulness.’ there has been much unfaithfulness there when it comes to many of our foundational beliefs – resulting in much consternation among the faithful.

Victor Marshall Also Commented

Wisbey talks about LSU and what he wants you to know
Sean, I wonder if this website can institute some type of sign in and private messaging system. That might help people clarify among each other rather than find this forum the only place to communicate. I’ve often wished I could just message someone. Christiane

[We’re working on it but haven’t come up with a good solution yet. Let me know if you think of anything along these lines. – sp]


Wisbey talks about LSU and what he wants you to know
@Timothy:

You mean the website blacksda, not regional conferences in general I’m assuming?


Wisbey talks about LSU and what he wants you to know
@Geanna Dane:

Um, many conservatives–myself included–appreciate the concepts of openness and inclusiveness. I thought the lack of “openness” was a huge complaint about LSU. And now it is the “mantra of most liberals”?  

I don’t know of any so-called ‘conservative’ Adventists who would countenance, or entertain the arguments in favor of theistic evolution, for a nano-second – something that you have done here consistently.

God is indeed open and inclusive when it comes to the invitation for salvation:

“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” – Rev.22:17

He is not so open and inclusive when specifying many categories and criteria that could exclusively disqualify a person from receiving this offered salvation – as evidenced in this very same chapter of Revelation:

“For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, AND WHOEVER LOVES AND MAKES A LIE.”

You are misusing the term ‘conservative’ – as well as mixing the different meanings of the word, ‘open.’ For instance: Being ‘open’ to every wind of doctrine, is considerably different than refusing to be open (or honest and transparent) about believing in every wind of doctrine.

Being ‘open’ to the lie of theistic evolution, is considerably different from not being ‘open’ or transparent about believing in said lie.

Lying about how one stands with the lie of evolution, while at the same time promoting the lie of evolution (in a lying way), would certainly seem to meet God’s exclusionary category above.


Recent Comments by Victor Marshall

Last Thursdayism
“The deepest students of science are constrained to recognize in nature the working of infinite power. But to man’s unaided reason, nature’s teaching cannot but be contradictory and disappointing. Only in the light of revelation can it be read aright, ‘Through faith we understand.’Heb.11:3” – Ed.134


Last Thursdayism
Farewell


Last Thursdayism
@Sean Pitman:

As if all of your previous statements were not enough – here you come with this outrageous statement:

But I do deny that the Bible is the final authority. I don’t think that it is the final authority.

I think it is plain enough now for all to see that the founding scientist of EducateTruth, who has vigorously been seeking to have LSU tow the orthodox Adventist line – is himself heterodox when it comes to the most foundational of Adventist beliefs!
Not only have you equated science with faith, you have supplanted Biblical authority with scientific authority. Isn’t this exactly in essence what theistic evolutionists do?! Is it possible that one who incessantly declares others to be ‘blind’ would himself be blind to his own hypocritical presuppositions?

Seventh-day Adventists are ‘people of the book.’ They claim the Protestant principle of ‘Sola Scriptura’ as the very foundation of their faith. You are not a Sola Scripturist. By your own standard, if you were employed by the Adventist church, you yourself should consider employment elsewhere.
This is indeed a most grave and serious ironic twist.

If the issues are not yet clear enough I will here quote one of the denominations most preeminently orthodox theologians. You will find that his clear and definitive statements are diametrically opposed to your own:

“A fundamental principle set forth by Scripture concerning itself is that the Bible alone is the final norm of truth, the primary and absolute source of authority, the ultimate court of appeal, in all areas of doctrine and practice… The principle of sola Scriptura implies two corollaries: the primacy and the sufficiency of Scripture….”

“Paul likewise rejects human “knowledge” (KJV “science”; Greek gnōsis) as the final authority (1 Tim 6:20). Both OT and NT writers point out that since the Fall in Eden, nature has become depraved (Gen 3:17-18; Rom 8:20-21) and no longer perfectly reflects truth. Nature, rightly understood, is in harmony with God’s written revelation in Scripture (see Ps 19:1-6 [revelation of God in nature] and vv. 7-11 [revelation of the Lord in Scripture]); but as a limited and broken source of knowledge about God and reality, it must be held subservient to, and interpreted by, the final authority of Scripture (Rom 1:20-23; 2:14-16; 3:1-2).”

“2. The Sufficiency of Scripture. The principle of sola Scriptura implies the further corollary of the sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible stands alone as the unerring guide to truth; it is sufficient to make one wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15). It is the standard by which all doctrine and experience must be tested (2 Tim 3:16-17; Ps 119:105; Prov 30:5, 6; Isa 8:20; John 17:17; Acts 17:11; 2 Thess 3:14; Heb 4:12). Scripture thus provides the framework, the divine perspective, the foundational principles, for every branch of knowledge and experience. All additional knowledge and experience, or revelation, must build upon and remain faithful to, the all-sufficient foundation of Scripture. The sufficiency of Scripture is not just in the sense of material sufficiency, i.e., that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Adventists also believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture, i.e., that the Bible alone is sufficient in clarity so that no external source is required to rightly interpret it.”

“Adventists maintain the rallying cry of the Reformation–sola Scriptura, the Bible and the Bible only as the final norm for truth. All other sources of knowledge and experience must be tested by this unerring standard. The appropriate human response must be one of total surrender to the ultimate authority of the word of God (Isa 66:2).” – Richard M. Davidson, ‘Interpreting Scripture According to the Scriptures:Toward an understanding of Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics.’ BRI

Not only do you seem diametrically opposed to foundational Adventist theology. You also appear (for all intents and purposes) to be fundamentally opposed to the purposes and goals of EducateTruth itself.

“4. More important than all of these is that the Bible find its place as the ultimate authority on all it touches upon within the classroom…… The bottom line of this controversy is not about creation vs. evolution, but authority. Does the Bible inform our science or does science inform the Bible? This question lies at the heart of this controversy.” – Shane Hilde

In light of this further unfortunate irony – perhaps you should seek employment on another web site.

I encourage you to reexamine the basis for you faith and prayerfully surrender it to the Word of God – not scientific reason.

“When we come to the Bible, reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself, and heart and intellect must bow before the great I AM.” (SC 110).


Last Thursdayism
@Bill Sorensen:

More “sure” than what? More sure than Peter’s testimony. Peter’s testimony is helpful and helps us believe that Jesus is the Messiah. But even Peter’s testimony is not adequate to affirm Jesus and who He is. We must necessarily turn to “Moses and the prophets” and validate Jesus as the Messiah based on their testimony.

Simply put, Moses is the final authority in all matters of doctrine and faith. If it is not in harmony with Moses, it is false. And this includes Jesus and His ministry.

Very good Bill.
I like to look at it this way as well. Moses said that, “at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” We have the two witnesses of the Old and New Testaments – each one establishes the testimony of the other – both are further established by a third witness – the Holy Spirit. These three witnesses are sufficient to establish truth.

The bible affirming itself as the final authority is the same as God affirming His own authority.

Another interesting parallel passage in the Bible is, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself.” In this passage we have the concept that God is a sufficient witness for Himself. Of course, in a sense, He is also actually three witnesses isn’t He!


Last Thursdayism
@Bill Sorensen:

The bible presents its own evidence. It is self affirming.

If you deny the bible is the final authority on its on self affirmations, then you are simply not a bible Christian.

The bible does not try to “prove” everything. Something are simply stated as a fact. Especially things that are not “proveable” by science and/or human experience.

Science and human experience may be helpful, but they are not the final word and it is a mistake to try to affirm every jot and tittle of scriptual teaching by such “proof”.

Well stated Bro. Sorenson.