An argument frequently seen on sites like Spectrum is that …

Comment on EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN by David Read.

An argument frequently seen on sites like Spectrum is that Ellen White is not “inerrant” and therefore she could have been wrong about origins. I’m sorry, but this is simply not a good faith argument. It is a contemptible deception. There is a huge difference between admitting that Ellen White, like the Bible, was “inerrant” and then saying, “well, then she could have been wrong about origins but still inspired.”

That’s like saying “Abraham Lincoln was generally a good president, he was just wrong about freeing the slaves and wrong about forcing the South to stay in the Union.” Or, “Martin Luther King was a good man generally, but he was just mistaken in his enthusiasm for civil rights.” Or, to stay with Lincoln theme, “Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” Isn’t it obvious how absurd this line of argument is?

Ellen White’s commitment to the Sabbath and the literal creation week that is the biblical rationale for the Sabbath was absolute, and it was a huge part of her ministry and life’s work. It is simply impossible to believe that she was inspired by God if she promoted such a radically wrong view of our origins. If she was so terribly wrong in her scores and probably hundreds of statements about origins, then someone or something other than God was in control of her ministry. And someone or something other than God is in control of so-called “Adventists” who would try to deny that.

David Read Also Commented

EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN
Like Sean, I’m unwilling to judge anyone for being seduced by Darwinian science. There’s a great deal of internal logic and consistency to the Darwinian worldview, and it is supported by a great many scientists and an enormous body of scientific literature.

Likewise, I’m not willing to impugn the motives of those who want Adventism to accommodate Darwinism. The liberal Protestant denominations have all more or less made their peace with Darwinism, so there is a great deal of precedent for what the Seventh-day Darwinians are trying to get the Adventist Church to do.

Where I am willing to morally condemn is when the Seventh-day Darwinians (1) deny what they are doing, or (2) pretend that what they want is not new and revolutionary, and a comprehensive break with traditional Adventism and the writings of Ellen White. It is completely beyond cavil that Adventists have always been YEC/YLC creationists, meaning that we have taught that the creation of life on earth was accomplished in six literal days, just a few thousand years ago. The writings of Ellen White are volumnious and very clear on this topic, and to reject her view on this topic is equivalent to denying that she was a true prophet of God. She wrote with full knowledge of Darwinism and Lyellism (long-ages geology) and she explicitly rejected both. Given her unflagging committment to the YEC viewpoint, there is simply no way she could actually have been inspired by God if this viewpoint is wrong.

And yet we frequently see the Seventh-day Darwinians not only failing to come to grips with how their enthusiasm for Darwinism would utterly destroy the prophetic authority of Ellen White, but actually quoting this or that odd passage from Ellen White. This is simply a base and unworthy form of deception; it should be condemned as evil, in the strongest possible terms, and people who engage in this sort of deception should be disfellowshipped and, if they are denominational employees, fired. The Seventh-day Darwinians need to acknowledge that they want to jettison the traditional Adventist scriptural hermeneutic, and that they do not believe Ellen White was inpsired. If they will do that, at least we can have the debate within an atmosphere of openness, honesty, and integrity.

In other words, I am not willing to condemn people who believe they have found the truth about origins and want to share their newfound truth with the larger church. But I am perfectly willing to morally condemn those who want to lie, cheat, and steal to advance their point of view.


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.