Comment on EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN by Michael Farris.

Shannon and others:

Michael: I did not say that we should allow evolution in our schools etc. . . You are using a common argument style to eggagerate and imply thing the other person did not say to make them look bad.

I wrote quite a bit and you really have not. I have made my position quite clear. You did not make your position clear [in regards to evolution]; at least not in the post that I responded to, where you mentioned my name. However, you did clearly come through with the same message that you are again giving above. What I wrote in response to your initial message warrants repeating. However, I clearly did not convince you with any of my prior messages and your reasoning is not compelling to me either. Nonetheless, lets reasoning together more.

Where to begin?

You mention Ezekiel but do not point out the passages you have mind. Ezekiel is a big book with many messages within. When Paul is admonishing Timothy, he says more than what you imply. Also, keep in mind that when Paul is discussing fatherly appeal to the elderly, he is not talking about rebuking men who are openly in rebellion against the truth. Paul is very clear about how to deal with open apostasy (1 Corinthians 5:1-13). He states: “I wrote to you in my epistles not to keep company with sexually immoral people… But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner–not even to eat with such a person” (1 Cor. 5:9,11 NKJV). What do you say to this? Paul is very specific about how to deal with believers who are walking contrary to the truth (sounds like an oxymoron). And it is an oxymoron, which is why they are to be removed from the fellowship of believers. Paul is softer in his treatment of unbelievers (1 Cor. 5:10). This is because they do not have the oracles of God.

Those subscribing to evolutionary theory while claiming the name of Christ is equivalently diabolical. Evolution is a “doctrine of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). Do not tell me I’m exaggerating to make you look bad. I’m emphasizing this point, to emphasize the fact that a rebuke is more than called for. We do not need to play patty cake with those who are worshiping the devil by spreading his doctrines in the church. In fact, Paul makes it clear that a work of judgment is to be done in the church with brethren who are walking in contradiction to the law of God: “For what have I to do with judging those who are outside [non-believers]? Do you not judge those who are inside [believers]? But those who are outside [non-believers] God judges. Therefore, put away from yourselves the evil person” (1 Cor. 5:12-13 NKJV). According to Scriptures, (@ Sean) we are to be able to discern if their is an “evil person” in our midst. This does not mean we can read the heart. But their are some sins that are obvious and when this is the case, we are in biblical jurisdiction to act accordingly.

Again, Paul does not suggest that we are to sit down and be fatherly or motherly or patient with an open rebel in the church. We are not “to keep company” with them. The apostle said: “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

Going back to the epistles to Timothy. Paul is not suggesting that if an old man is walking obstinately and in open rebellion to God that we are to be fatherly to him. Is that what you think the Scriptures teach? Were there not old men among Israel when God sent Elijah? Is the Elijah message not what is to bring the shaking in our church? What about the prophet that God sent to Eli because of how awful his awful parenting? Elie allowed his “corrupt” and “worthless” sons to work in the Sanctuary. The record is very clear: “Now Eli was very old, and he heard everything his sons did to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of meeting” (1 Samuel 2:22 NKJV). Guess what? Eli received a firm rebuke from “a man of God,” where he learned that his family would be cut off because of how he lightly esteemed God and therefore God lightly esteemed him (1 Samuel 2:27-36).

Listen, Paul makes it clear in the chapter where he talks about the treatment of the elderly: “Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear” (1 Tim. 5:20 NKJV). Considering Eli and parenting, we should also consider the requirements laid out for those who were to be overseers and deacons. Some of the qualifications include: “blameless… sober minded….of good behavior, hospitable… one who rules his own house well, having children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Tim. 3:2-5 NKJV). The issue of parenting, if it were actually enforced today, would undoubtedly condemn the vast amount of people from offices of leadership in our church. Our church has become a bastion for the psychological society, where we excuse poor parenting, and have adopted godless theories from the junk science of psychology.

Anyone who knows about the history of evolution, knows that it arose first from among the phrenologists, who set out to redefine parenting. Psychiatrists and psychologists are their modern day equivalent. If you don’t believe me, you can read in the preface of Darwin’s Origin of Species, where he admits that he was influenced by a work called the Vestiges of Creation–this was a phrenological work. Long before Darwin came on the scene, phrenologists were the ones who were heavily involved in comparative anatomy and what would come to be associated with Darwin as evolution. This is significant when considering that Ellen White warned that Satan’s efforts would be characterized by the sciences of the mind near the close of probation: “The sciences of phrenology, psychology, and mesmerism are the channel through which he comes more directly to this generation and works with that power which is to characterize his efforts near the close of probation” (1T 290). The sciences of the mind and and the doctrine of evolution are the products of spiritualism. They are “doctrines of demons.”

Unfortunately, Adventism is not surrounded by the students of history that we once were. Satan has utilized this ignorance to his advantage. Listen Shannon, I’m willing to be reasoned with from the Scriptures and the counsels of Ellen White. But from everything I’ve studied (thus far) leads me to conclude that it is our responsibility to remove open apostasy from our midst. And this includes rebuke. Everything I have shared in all my previous messages shows this from the Scriptures. I am baffled by how both you and Sean express so much concern over what I and a few others on here have written. If we were to compare the weight of evidence as revealed in our messages, it is clear that you do not have much to offer, other than some concerns about judging and not being able to read motives (as Sean likes to continuous emphasize). By uttering this mantra over an over without the support of the scriptures is not very convincing.

I’m willing to concede that we must be loving and patient with all our brethren. We have all fallen short of the grace of God. However, I’m not willing to give the message that you and Sean are offering in the face of apostasy, under the banner of “we can’t read motives.” This has nothing to do with the blatant rebellion under topic. It serves to obfuscate the issue of Seventh-day Adventists in leadership positions who are subscribing to “doctrines of demons.” It is a form of slippery double speak. Even Paul states in the letter just discussed: “Some men’s sins are clearly evident, preceding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later” (1 Tim. 5:24 NKJV).

Listen, if you are against people who believe in evolution teaching in our schools or holding church offices, then what is it that we should do? Lets assume I’m wrong. Let’s say we are not to rebuke or judge these men/women in the name of not knowing their motives. Or rather, that we don’t call these men “evil” or “wicked” or any of the names freely used in the Scriptures to describe people who reject the plain truths of God. This is clearly very important to both you and Dr. Sean Pitman, whom you have said you agree with. Make no mistake, I have no authority in our church and everything I’m saying amounts to nothing, as far as our leadership is concerned. I’m not on the SDA payroll. In fact, I know many who are on SDA payroll who speak the same way both of you do. Perhaps I’m just spinning my wheels and pontificating about things that I see in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. Notwithstanding all this, what exactly are you saying we should do about these evolutionist and those who subscribe to it?

But if there is a place for rebuke in the Scriptures and calling sin by its right name, or identifying “evil men” as “evil men,” (as the Scriptures plainly reveal) then what are you both getting at? Is it simply that we need to be careful? Is this the sum of all the resistance I’m receiving from both of you? Don’t call men “evil men” who are in SDA leadership and concurrently teaching evolution? Because we don’t know their “motives”?

Finally Shannon, when you say that my quoting of Scripture “does not mean too much,” it makes me shudder; this spirit is right on par with the defense you’ve been making. In contrast, I say that you not quoting from Scripture to prove your points speaks volumes. It is our duty to appeal to the Scripture as Protestant Christians. Perhaps you should consider reading or re-reading the chapter in the Great Controversy called “The Scriptures a Safeguard.” In it Ellen White writes: “But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms…. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support” (Great Controversy 595).

I don’t know what you were trying to say in your last sentence, but I assume you meant “demagogues”? If that is what you think of everything that I’ve written or the others have written, then so be it. The least you can do, is point out where I’m being a demagogue instead offering it as a veiled rebuke. If I misunderstand you on this point, then sorry for the confusion. When all is said and done, it sounds like we all agree that these men should be removed from office.?.? Yes, we have some strong disagreements, but not on this point.?.?

Michael Farris Also Commented

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Linkedin

email

Print