Comment on Open letter to General Conference by Eugene Shubert.
Rich Constantinescu: Ella Simmons: â€œEllen White says, and we must hold on to this, that education and redemption are one. If our schools are not thoroughly and uniquely Seventh-day Adventist they should not exist. We have no reason for them other than that they are thoroughly Seventh-day Adventist. Then that indicates that in order to give Seventh-day Adventist education we need, we have an imperative for, Seventh-day Adventist â€“ committed, practicing, Seventh-day Adventist â€“ faculty, leadership and staff. We have all been in a position in which individuals have been hired into our schools who have not been Seventh-day Adventist. We appreciate our colleagues, but either they betray themselves as good Christians by teaching what we believe if theyâ€™re not Seventh-day Adventist, or they will betray us by teaching something other than Seventh-day Adventist belief in our schools.
These remarks are representative of the entire panel response about those who teach evolution, spiritualism and pantheism in Seventh-day Adventist institutions. It is always implied that we’re talking about non-Seventh-day Adventists. However, in all the cases that I know about, the false teachers are professing Seventh-day Adventists in good standing with their local Seventh-day Adventist church.
It is clear from Genesis to Revelation that academics and spirituality are one. The divisions that you hear about, that we read about are false. They are work â€“ a tool of â€“ the devil. Clearly. I could go on and on but maybe I should let someone else have a point on this. We have a responsibility to make our schools, all of them everywhere, thoroughly Seventh-day Adventist.â€ Ella Simmons â€“ General VP, General Conference (01:04:16 â€“ 01:05:53) (emphasis supplied).
I have never heard the Adventist evolutionists, spiritualists and pantheists, assert anything about their messages as not being spiritual. The fact that they introduce their respective gospels as “scientific problems” is not an argument proving that these Adventists have divorced their science from “spirituality.”
Ms. Simmons said what the imaginary division is. Derived from what is transcribed above, the enemy tries to separate academics and spirituality. Education and redemption are one, hence the declaration by Ms. Simmons these divisions are untrue and the work of Satan. (e.g. a course doesnâ€™t deal with beliefs, but with science.)
I don’t believe that Sister White was addressing evolution when she said that true education and the science of salvation are indistinguishable.
Eugene Shubert Also Commented
I believe that people who do this are bearing false witness. (Using SOP rather than facts as proof.)
I never claimed that The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism is a proof of anything.
The LSU issue is clear and specific, but generalizations about the entire denomination is going to far.
Where do you think Sister White stepped over the line?
A good example is you changing (or expanding) the definition of pantheism in order to use a Spirit of Prophecy quote.
My definition of pantheism as it pertains to its modern-day resurgence in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the example set forth by John Harvey Kellogg.
But I could cite numerous other examples, like your lists of sins in the church within sentences that state authoritatively that the â€˜vast majorityâ€™ of SDAs believe or practice them.
I never said that the â€˜vast majorityâ€™ of SDAs believe or practice pantheism and spiritualism, only that God imputes the doctrines of demons to the whole church because pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism and pantheism are protected and tolerated in the Church by the hierarchy.
If you have valid complaints about specific issues, then you donâ€™t need to exaggerate or stretch things to make a point.
I’m not exaggerating.
“The message to the Laodicean church reveals our condition as a people.” RH, Dec. 15, 1904.
Is that helpful or harmful?
Open letter to General Conference
Korah and his companions opposed Moses, just as the modern-day subversives challenge the Spirit of prophecy. The parallel is perfect and there is no point in denying it.
Recent Comments by Eugene Shubert
… the LSU evolutionists are employing a â€œfoxhole mentalityâ€ among their student devotees â€“ convincing them that it is â€œus against the rest of the Adventist church and against Adventist administrators that simply pay lip service to Bible creationâ€.
That is essentially correct. There are two sides to every issue. The dispute here is between science and the Bible. The scientists believe that science should be taught in science class. The opinionated non-scientists that reject science and have no clue what it is, are content with either replacing science with pseudo-science or just getting rid of the teaching of science permanently.
Since you have offerred no response to points raised â€“ the point remains.in Christ,Bob
I already presented the mathematical response: “The odds for any particular sequence of 100 flips of a coin is 1/2^100, which is not zero.”
Do you agree or disagree with the mathematics?
The rest of your attempt to articulate a thought about science is barely intelligible. If you wish to be understood, please write with precision in a scientifically discernible form. I do not understand lowbrow diction. Please learn and use the universal language of science.
Eugene, Now we know your true ambitions!
No, that part isn’t clear. But we do know your rank and the rank of your associates in The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism.
In the case of the coin flip we have 100 very likely events (50/50) in sequence and by adding the statistics of â€œsequenceâ€ to the probability â€“ we get â€œNILâ€.
You’re speaking gibberish. â€œNILâ€ means “nothing; naught; zero.” The odds for any particular sequence of 100 flips of a coin is 1/2^100, which is not zero. And your expressed method of computation, “by adding the statistics of `sequence’ to the probability” is unabashed gibberish and demonstrates that you have absolutely no understanding of the science of probability theory.
You obviously feel great peace when unbelievers curse God because of your willful stupidity.
Are you proud of being a contributing influence that justifies unbelievers in their rejection of Christ?
Eugene so it is only scientists who can have the truth? Science is now superseding the Bible? Are you listening to what you are saying? You are saying that science is God!
It is as Steven Weinberg has said: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
In other words, “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Ro 2:24).
So grow up and stop practicing deceit.