The hinge of our faith

david asscherick

If lots of people and pastors make enough (sanctified) noise about this, something may actually happen. And even if something doesn’t change, since we are not the actual leaders/ policy-makers, our moral responsibility is not in changing things, but in speaking up. And the more voices the better. I don’t know how any committed SDA member, who has heard of these things, can sit idly by. Our name, our doctrines, our reason for existence, our eschatology, and even our soteriology are in being undermined. And we are paying people to do it! The irony is outweighed only by the tragedy. (New England Pastor Blog)

David Asscherick
ARISE, Director

Five years ago, David Asscherick preached a sermon titled “Creation: Father God or Mother Nature?” in which he emphasized the importance of the biblical doctrine of creation and its relation to everything else we believe to be true. The audio clip below is from that sermon.

If what David Asscherick says is true, then there is potentially much more at stake here in this great controversy at La Sierra University than just professors misrepresenting the Seventh-day Adventist Church. What is happening to the hundreds of Seventh-day Adventist youth passing through these classes?

[media id=10]

Please follow and like us:
253
37

160 thoughts on “The hinge of our faith

  1. sanctuary, or the nature of Christ, or the Trinity or Righteousness by faith

    Bob,
    Are you and Adventist? This is pretty basic Adventist history. There was a huge discussion in our early history about whether there is a literal sanctuary in heaven, or whether it was allegorical with statmentes being made about God’s throne having wheels and literally moving from one part of the sanctuary to the other part. I remember these discussions even in the 70’s;

    Then don’t you remember the Questions on doctrines controversy and whether we as Adventists really believed in the trinity. (James White wasn’t too sure). In fact, I think that is the controversy that tiggered the “Fundamental Beliefs”, so that we could prove the “Apostate Protestants” that we truely are “Christian”.

    Then we had this huge debate in the 80’s on the nature of Christ. Brinsmead, Ford, Standish and others.

    Certainly you can’t be an Adventist and not have heard about the 1888 conference with Jones and Waqner and the controvery over righteousness by faith for over 100 years.




    0
    View Comment
  2. Shannon, I am sorry I can’t answer your questions, I seem to have been shut out of the discussion. This is an example of why we need academic freedom. How are we as a church going to talk about these issues if there is no freedom?




    0
    View Comment
  3. Bob said:
    As it turns out – you are mistaken on every one of those points.

    There never was a voted statement by this denomination (The church in session) on the sanctuary, or the nature of Christ, or the Trinity or Righteousness by faith – that was ever stated to be in error by this denomination, or Ellen White.

    And there is no statement from Ellen White saying that we will have have to deny any of our fundamental doctrines.

    Perhaps someone has “suggested” these ideas to you and now you offer these “suggestions” to us – as something that you were told at one time. That is fine to report that you have heard of these “suggestions” – but historic facts do not support them.

    And Ron responds –

    @Ron:

    Bob,
    Are you and Adventist? This is pretty basic Adventist history. There was a huge discussion in our early history about whether there is a literal sanctuary in heaven, or whether it was allegorical with statmentes being made about God’s throne having wheels and literally moving from one part of the sanctuary to the other part. I remember these discussions even in the 70’s;

    Then don’t you remember the Questions on doctrines controversy and whether we as Adventists really believed in the trinity. (James White wasn’t too sure). In fact, I think that is the controversy that tiggered the “Fundamental Beliefs”, so that we could prove the “Apostate Protestants” that we truely are “Christian”.

    Then we had this huge debate in the 80’s on the nature of Christ. Brinsmead, Ford, Standish and others.

    Certainly you can’t be an Adventist and not have heard about the 1888 conference with Jones and Waqner and the controvery over righteousness by faith for over 100 years.

    My point was that not a single example that you have given is a case of the denomination voting a set of doctrinal positions (through the representatives of the church meeting in session and voting) where that position was later found to be in error and then rejected.

    Not in the case of James White’s opposition to the Trinity.

    Not in the case of various questions raised about QoD.

    Not in the case of the 1888 conference dealing with righteousness by faith.

    Not in the case of Ford, or Brimsmead or the issues on the Sanctuary.

    In other words – the evolutionist argument that we need to reject or destroy existing voted doctrinal positions for this denomination – positions that have been approved by the world church in the form of it’s representatives voting and approving them — is a “unique” request that stands out on its own.

    The evolutionists appear to be trying to mask that fact (as can be seen in some of Fritz Guy’s published statements) — AS if the Millerite-to-Adventist transition in doctrine can be bent and equivocated to the present day issue.

    But such is not the case. They are simply refusing to let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story.

    But the inconvenient facts are there all the same. And thus the “problem” that they are left with when they try that solution.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  4. Ron said –

    I’m sorry Bob, I am not following your reasoning. In the case of evolution, we Do have God/Evolution in a test tube.

    @BobRyan:

    Well there is a well kept secret if ever there was one!! Please tell us more!!This would be a game changer – that is for sure.

    Clearly the “birds came from reptiles” story telling of evolutionists is far from being observed “in a test tube”

    We have no examples of higher eukaryote life forms evolving from lower ones.

    Nada – zilch.

    Ron Responds –

    Bob, you are being sarcastic. We have had this discussion before. Here are just a few examples:

    E. Coli evolve new enzymes to metabolize citrate which they couldn’t do previously:

    Here is a lay explanation of the article (please ignore the polemical coment about creationists in the last paragraph)

    Bacteria have evolved the ability to metabolize nylon which is a man made material that does not exhist anywhere naturally.

    A good list of “bacteria coming from bacteria” in a non-eukaryote (prokaryote) context

    Here is an example of evolution in large mammals, different species such as donkeys and horses exchanging genetic material.

    Not quite the “here is where horses came from — as demonstrated in a test tube” claim that you started with now is it?

    Othaniel Marsh however had a very very good “story” about where horses came from – and as even atheist evolutionists today will admit regarding his 50 year fraud consisting of nothing more than an “arranged” fossil story –his contrived sequence is an example of one that “never happened in nature”.

    How “lamentable” then that the Smithsonian still continues to promote it.

    Hence the problem with the data vs the wild claims being made about the data.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  5. Ron, Older comments can be viewed by going down to the “Leave a Reply” box and just above that there is a link called “< Older Comments". That may be where the older entries have disappeared to.




    0
    View Comment
  6. My point was that not a single example that you have given is a case of the denomination voting a set of doctrinal positions

    You mean, Besides Righteousness by Faith in 1888?
    Bob, again it seems to me that you are being purposfully obtuse. All of the above are examples of individuals or movements in which a minority started promulgating “heretical” opinions, many of which, after considerable debate resulted in the formation of one or more of our “Fundamental Beliefs”. My point is that it was the academic freedom to explore “heresy” which allowed us to develop our “Fundamental Beliefs” in the first place. To cut off debate or discussion by coersion poisons the very field in which our church is rooted. We don’t have to be afraid of heresy, remember, from 1988 until the 1970’s Righteousness by Faith itself was heresy in the Adventist Church. It is now one of our more cherished “Fundamental Beliefs”.

    Re: The “Fundamental Beliefs”, You seem to be giving them, and the “Vote” the same authority for the Adventist church, as the Pope claims for the Catholic church. You seem to be forgetting that early Adventists saw creeds as one of the sign of Babylon and apostate protestantism for the very reason that creeds prevent the Holy Spirit from leading the church into “Present Truth”. The Fundamental Beliefs were forced onto many Adventists against their will. The reason they are called “Fundamental Beliefs” is because we were promised that they would not be used as a creed, but, here we are using them as a creed which reveals the duplicity of those who promoted the term “Fundamental Beliefs” in the first place.

    The principles you are espousing may work for other churches, Catholic and apostate protestantism, but they are directly opposed to the fundamental principles of Adventism. Mrs. White predicted the Adventist Church would be corrupted before the end, I can’t imagine any worse or fundamental corruption that makeing a creed of the “Fundamental Beliefs” or subjecting the conscience to coersion.




    0
    View Comment
  7. Clearly the “birds came from reptiles” story telling of evolutionists is far from being observed “in a test tube”
    We have no examples of higher eukaryote life forms evolving from lower ones.

    Bob, What kind of evidence would you accept?
    If the answer is none, then there really isn’t any foundation for discussion. By definition the lack of belief is irrational.

    I have given you several examples demonstrating evolution in the genetic code ranging from viruses, to bacteria, to plants to large mammals. Back in the 1800’s you could make the argument that there are distinct “species” without intermediary forms, but that argument just isn’t possible any more. Not only do we have fossils showing intermediaries at virtually every level, (including dinasaurs to birds) we can even track the changes in the DNA. We know many of the mechanisms by which these changes happen and we know that there is no qualitative difference between “micro” evolution and “Macro” evolution. If you admit to one, you can’t rationally object to the other.

    Again, labeling anything you don’t agree with as “junk science” is only name calling. It dosn’t suggest that you are a serious seeker of truth.




    0
    View Comment
  8. When Jesus said, “I have sheep in other folds.” He was not talking about theology–He was talking about people. As answered with the Samaritan woman, “Salvation is of the Jews.” That is to say that they have the truth and the messiah. He also says, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one come to the Father but through me.”

    Shannon, Just found some of the “old comments”.
    I agree with you one hundred percent that Jesus was talking about people when he said he had sheep in other folds. I also agree that SAVATION only comes through Christ, or “the Jews”, but Christ is the light that enlightens every man that comes into the world, and so, if Christ has sheep in other folds, I can’t imagine that he left them without some truth, or spiritual sustenance. According to Paul, God sends rain on the Just and the Unjust alike. I don’t think that refers only to water rain, but to Holy Spirit rain as well.




    0
    View Comment
  9. Our group of people called Seventh-day Adventist has chosen to define ourselves solely by the Bible

    Shannon,
    I know we say “the Bible and the Bible only” a lot, but the fact is, it is impossible to be a Seventh-day Adventist and only accept evidence from the Bible. At a minimum, our most fundamental understanding of the 2300 days requires historical sources to determine when the decree to rebuild Jerusalem went out. I am under the impression that that event was confirmed by science in the form of astronomy and recorded eclipses. Mrs. White used all kinds of historical works in her writing.

    Also, nature is God’s creation, I believe studying nature is as much an act of worship as studying the Bible.




    0
    View Comment
  10. Ron said –

    I’m sorry Bob, I am not following your reasoning. In the case of evolution, we Do have God/Evolution in a test tube.

    Here is an example of evolution in large mammals, different species such as donkeys and horses exchanging genetic material.

    Recall that the Evolutionist argument is “birds came from reptiles” and their argument is that “horses came from” something like a hyrax.

    But strangely enough – we have no evidence demonstrating either happening “in a test tube” nor anything remotely like it.

    Not quite the “here is where horses came from — as demonstrated in a test tube” claim that you started with now is it?

    Othaniel Marsh however had a very very good “story” about where horses came from – and as even atheist evolutionists today will admit regarding his 50 year fraud consisting of nothing more than an “arranged” fossil story –his contrived sequence is an example of one that “never happened in nature”.

    How “lamentable” then that the Smithsonian still continues to promote it.

    Hence the problem with the data vs the wild claims being made about the data.

    Followed by —

    @Ron:

    Bob, What kind of evidence would you accept?

    How about somemthing that addresses the salient points in the “birds came from reptiles” and “horses came from Hyrax” kinds of statements?

    Something that shows the Hyrax changing into a horse or shows a reptile turning into a bird “proof in a test tube” as you claimed.

    If your answer is none, then there really isn’t any foundation for discussion – which would be unfortunate for evolutionism.

    Ron said:
    By definition the lack of belief is irrational.

    Certainly that is the argument that Paul makes in Romans 1 regarding the barbarians that ignore the evidence in “the things that have been made” (Intelligent Design) that show the invisible attributes of God.

    I have given you several examples demonstrating evolution in the genetic code ranging from viruses, to bacteria

    Indeed prokaryote examples of “bacteria coming from bacteria” do not suffice to establish the salient points of a “birds came from reptiles” argument. Hint those bird/reptile claims are in reference to eukaryote systems not prokaryote and they are not limited to “reptiles come from reptiles”.

    Surely you noticed.

    , to plants to large mammals.

    You provided some large mamal examples of a horse and donkey but never address the salient point of evolutoinism which is “where did horses come from” (Unless perhaps you were trying to imply that you believe horses came from donkeys?? 😉 )

    Back in the 1800’s you could make the argument that there are distinct “species” without intermediary forms, but that argument just isn’t possible any more. Not only do we have fossils showing intermediaries at virtually every level, (including dinasaurs to birds) we can even track the changes in the DNA.

    1. Pretty hard to track in DNA regarding fossils that have no DNA remaining. Surely you noticed that.

    2. As Collin Patterson stated regarding intermediates for birds and reptiles – we have none and the arguments from the fossil record claiming this or that as an intermediate are in fact “stories easy enough to make up but they are not science”.

    Also – a hint here. I regard “not science” as junk science when people try to use it as “science proof” for something.

    Surely you would also note that detail holds up.

    Again, labeling anything you don’t agree with as “junk science” is only name calling.

    Agreed. Far from me to simply call it junk science because I don’t agree with the point. But when EVEN Atheist evolutionists themselves refer to those arguments from the fossil record for intermediates as “NOT science” I believe that an objective unbiased reader has the right to “notice the problem”.

    Surely you would agree to that point.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  11. Bob said:
    My point was that not a single example that you have given is a case of the denomination voting a set of doctrinal positions (through the representatives of the church meeting in session and voting) where that position was later found to be in error and then rejected.

    Not in the case of James White’s opposition to the Trinity.

    Not in the case of various questions raised about QoD.

    Not in the case of the 1888 conference dealing with righteousness by faith.

    Not in the case of Ford, or Brimsmead or the issues on the Sanctuary.

    In other words – the evolutionist argument that we need to reject or destroy existing voted doctrinal positions for this denomination – positions that have been approved by the world church in the form of it’s representatives voting and approving them — is a “unique” request that stands out on its own.

    The evolutionists appear to be trying to mask that fact (as can be seen in some of Fritz Guy’s published statements) — AS if the Millerite-to-Adventist transition in doctrine can be bent and equivocated to the present day issue.

    But such is not the case. They are simply refusing to let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story.

    But the inconvenient facts are there all the same. And thus the “problem” that they are left with when they try that solution.

    And Ron responded –

    @Ron:

    You mean, Besides Righteousness by Faith in 1888?
    Bob, again it seems to me that you are being purposfully obtuse. All of the above are examples of individuals or movements in which a minority started promulgating “heretical” opinions, many of which, after considerable debate resulted in the formation of one or more of our “Fundamental Beliefs”.

    Certainly that much is true. However that is a bait and switch – because your initial claim was in response to my point that we have a voted statement of the world church in session that Ellen White has stated should be taken as “having authority”.

    I argued that this is why the 28FB are given the weight of having authority (aside from the obvious point that in this case the Bible’s “SIX days you shall labor … for in SIX DAYS the Lord made” is iron clad time frame reference to Gen 1-2:3 that forces a 24 hour day).

    You argued (as does Fritz Guy) that we have historic examples of the SDA church having to reject its own voted Fundamental Beliefs as new information showed the old positions to be wrong. That was the “bait”

    But then you did the “switch” by providing a list of cases where NO VOTE of the SDA world church on doctrine is being studied and later found to be in error.

    I point out that inconvenient detail and you call it “obtuse”?? What is up with that?

    My point is that it was the academic freedom to explore “heresy” which allowed us to develop our “Fundamental Beliefs” in the first place.

    This issue is not “what can you discuss” – the professors are free to suggest their wild eyed atheist-centric ideas to any leadership group they like. But they can not preach or teach in direct opposition to the voted fundamental beliefs of the denomination and expect us to pay them to do it.

    And in this case – they flee the text of scripture at almost every opportunity in their efforts to promote the atheist centric doctrines on origins found in evolutionism – so it is not all the difficult to see that to some degree thaty “know what they are doing”.

    To cut off debate or discussion by coersion poisons the very field in which our church is rooted.

    Again – bait and switch.

    I don’t argue for cutting off debate or discussion with fellow scientists or theologians. I argue for not preaching or teaching doctrines on origins that directly undermine the voted statements of the denomination and then expecting the church to pay them for doing it.

    Ron said:

    We don’t have to be afraid of heresy, remember, from 1988 until the 1970’s Righteousness by Faith itself was heresy in the Adventist Church. It is now one of our more cherished “Fundamental Beliefs”.

    Again – a false statement.

    There never was a point where Righteousness by Faith was voted by the world church of Seventh-day Adventists to be heresy or was ever denied in any voted list of Fundamental Beliefs for this denomination.

    You seem to be doing that thing where you do not “let inconvenient details get in the way of a good story”.

    That is not the compelling form of debate and discussion as you seem to think.

    Ron said:
    Re: The “Fundamental Beliefs”, You seem to be giving them, and the “Vote” the same authority for the Adventist church, as the Pope claims for the Catholic church.

    It is understandable that the Evolutionists would be very opposed to the Fundamental Beliefs concept. But all of them are proven “sola scriptura” and here is a big hint for the unbiased objective reader: The TE argument against FB#6 is NOT “sola scriptura!!” In fact it is “anything BUT scriptura”.

    By contrast – the example you give above IS a case where the views of the organized church WERE challenged “sola scriptura” and the Bible won!

    Ron said:
    You seem to be forgetting that early Adventists saw creeds as one of the sign of Babylon and apostate protestantism for the very reason that creeds prevent the Holy Spirit from leading the church into “Present Truth”.

    As has already been noted in prior posts – the early Adventists did NOT consider their Fundamental Beliefs to be a creed, rather they considered them to be PROVEN Bible doctrine that had stood the test of time – stood up to all critical reviews in the “sola scriptura” context.

    Evolutionists offer nothing of the kind.

    Ron said:
    The Fundamental Beliefs were forced onto many Adventists against their will.

    There is a kind of “happy fiction” being tossed around by evolutionists that the Adventist denomination does not actually believe the Adventist doctrines that are voted by the denomination.

    They even imagine that only some tiny minority of Adventists believe what Adventists teach. That level of “imagination” is not helping them.

    Ron said:
    Mrs. White predicted the Adventist Church would be corrupted before the end,

    Paul says in Gal 1:6-11 that we ARE to stand on the foundations that have been established – rather than tossing them out the window. Paul says that those coming along to destroy the fundamental beliefs already laid down and established — are in gross error

    Ellen White appears to agree with Paul –

    She shows the problem with the “everybody make up whatever you like and claim it is from the Bible” approach –

    Our first conference was at Volney in Bro. Arnold’s barn. There were about thirty-five present, all that could be collected in that part of the State. There were hardly two agreed. Each was strenuous for his views, declaring that they were according to the Bible. All were anxious for an opportunity to advance their sentiments, or to preach to us.

    They were told that we had not come so great a distance to hear them, but had come to teach them the truth.

    Then she gives a list of wild crackpot errors.

    1. Bro. Arnold held that the 1000 years of Rev. xx were in the past;
    and

    2. that the 144,000 were those raised at Christ’s resurrection.

    3. And as we had the emblem of our dying Lord before us, and was about to commemorate his sufferings, Bro. A. arose and said he had no faith in what we were about to do; that the Sacrament was a continuation of the Passover, to be observed but once a year. {2SG 97.2}

    These strange differences of opinion rolled a heavy weight upon me, especially as

    4. Bro. A. spoke of the 1000 years being in the past. I knew that he was in error, and great grief pressed my spirits; for it seemed to me that God was dishonored.

    Thank God we are not left in that “every wind of doctrine quagmire”

    I fainted under the burden. Brethren Bates, Chamberlain, Gurney, Edson, and my husband, prayed for me. Some feared I was dying. But the Lord heard the prayers of his servants, and I revived. The light of Heaven rested upon me. I was soon lost to earthly things. My accompanying angel presented before me some of the errors of those present, and also the truth in contrast with their errors. That these discordant views, which they claimed to be according to the Bible, were only according to their opinion of the
    99
    Bible, and that their errors must be yielded, and they unite upon the third angel’s message. Our meeting ended victoriously. Truth gained the victory. {2SG 98.1}
    From Volney we went to Port Gibson. The meeting there was held in Bro Edson’s barn. There were those present who loved the truth, and those who were listening to and cherishing error, and were opposed to the truth. But the Lord wrought for us in power before the close of that meeting. I was again shown in vision the importance of brethren in Western New York laying their differences aside, and uniting upon Bible truth…. {2SG 99.1}

    Unity in a common faith – is critical to the success of the church. Hence the “existence” of the 28 FB – voted statements by the denomination




    0
    View Comment
  12. You quote Ellen White so well and she specifically condemned evolution.

    Shannon,
    Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not advocating for or against evolution, I am advocating for religious tolerance and academic freedom which I think are fundamental to the search for truth.

    RE: Mrs. White’s statements re: evolution, please read these carefully.

    These persons [Who disbelieve the Genesis account] have lost the simplicity of faith. There should be a settled belief in the divine authority of God’s Holy Word. The Bible is not to be tested by men’s ideas of science. (Notice she doesn’t say that our “unreliable” understanding of scripture is better than our unreliable understanding of science, but our understanding of BOTH are unreliable)Human knowledge is unreliable. Skeptics who read the Bible for the sake of caviling may, through an imperfect comprehension of either science or revelation, claim to find contradictions between them; but rightly understood, they are in perfect harmony. Moses wrote under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and a correct theory of geology will never claim discoveries that cannot be reconciled with his statements. All truth, whether in nature or in revelation, is consistent with itself in all its manifestations. PP 114 (1890)

    1. She is objecting to geology, not evolution.
    2. She is objecting to using science in a sckeptical way to undermine belief in God, not so much the findings of science itself.
    3. She insists that truth from whatever source is self consistent. She doesn’t claim one source is better than another, the real problem is “human understanding” which affects our interpretation of the Bible every bit as much as that of nature. (The Holy Spirit can help us understand nature just as well as it can help us understand the Bible)

    “our school is to take a higher position in and educational point of view than any other institution of learning, . . . . The great object in the establishment of our college was to give correct views, showing the harmony of science and Bible religion.” 4T 274 (1879)

    4. Note our schools are supposed to show the harmony, not the dominance of one over the other.

    “Young men who desire to enter the field as ministers, colporteurs, or canvassers should first receive a suitable degree of mental training as well as a special preparation for their calling. Those who are uneducated, untrained, and unrefined are not prepared to enter a field in which the powerful influences of talent and education combat the truths of God’s Word. Neither can they successfully meet the strange forms of error, religious and philosophical combined, to expose which requires a knowledge of scientific as well as Scriptural truth.” GW 81 (1915)

    5. NOTICE: SCIENCE IS TO CORRECT ERRORS RELIGIOUS AND PHILISOPHICAL COMBINED. Here is at least one place where Mrs. White states explicitly that science is to correct our understanding of scripture.




    0
    View Comment
  13. She shows the problem with the “everybody make up whatever you like and claim it is from the Bible” approach –

    Bob,
    You make my point for me. Notice the profound the variability of belief was and how the Holy Spirit worked bring out a common understanding. We don’t need to censor our members or our teachers. Also notice how the angel made the correction. It didn’t “fire” the ministers, nor demand compliance with “Fundamental Beliefs”, the angel simply presented the Bible truth which the members found convincing. I doubt Mrs. White would have been so persuasive if she had just waltzed in and fired everyone.




    0
    View Comment
  14. @Ron:

    RE: Mrs. White’s statements re: evolution, please read these carefully.

    These persons [Who disbelieve the Genesis account] have lost the simplicity of faith. There should be a settled belief in the divine authority of God’s Holy Word. The Bible is not to be tested by men’s ideas of science. (Notice she doesn’t say that our “unreliable” understanding of scripture is better than our unreliable understanding of science, but our understanding of BOTH are unreliable)

    1. She never says our Fundamental Beliefs are “unreliable”.

    2. She affirms the Fundamental Beliefs concept and warns against undermining them.

    Ellen White –

    Diverting Minds from Present Duty

    The enemy is seeking to divert the minds of our brethren and sisters from the work of preparing a people to stand in these last days. His sophistries are designed to lead minds away from the perils and duties of the hour. They estimate as nothing the light that Christ came from heaven to give John for his people. They teach that the scenes just before us are not of sufficient importance to receive special attention. They make of no effect the truth of heavenly origin, and rob the people of God of their past experience, giving them instead a false science. {RH, March 3, 1904 par. 11}

    “Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein.” {RH, March 3, 1904 par. 12}

    Let none seek to tear away the foundations of our faith,–the foundations that were laid at the beginning of our work, by prayerful study of the Word and by revelation. Upon these foundations we have been building for the last fifty years. Men may suppose that they have found a new way, and that they can lay a stronger foundation than that which has been laid. But this is a great deception. Other foundation can no man lay than that which has been laid. {RH, March 3, 1904 par. 13}

    In the past many have undertaken the building of a new faith, the establishment of new principles. But how long did their building stand?–It soon fell; for it was not founded upon the Rock. {RH, March 3, 1904 par. 14}

    Did not the first disciples have to meet the sayings of men? Did they not have to listen to false theories, and then, having done all, to stand firm, saying, “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid”? {RH, March 3, 1904 par. 15}

    So we are to hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end. Words of power have been sent by God and by Christ to this people, bringing them out from the world, point by point, into the clear light of present truth. With lips touched with holy fire, God’s servants have proclaimed the message. The divine utterance has set its seal to the genuineness of the truth proclaimed.

    {RH, March 3, 1904 par. 16}

    She does not allow for the regarding the work as unreliable or for tearing it down.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  15. early Adventists did NOT consider their Fundamental Beliefs to be a creed

    Bob, Early Adventists . . . their Fundamental Beliefs? I don’t remember the exact date, but I think the Fundamental Beliefs were voted in the late 70’s early 80’s and they have been changed since. Unless I am an “early adventist”, the early adventists didn’t have any fundamental beliefs. What they had was Bible conferences and camp meetings where they hashed out their differences via careful study, and they had a lot of disagreements along the way.

    And don’t call me an evolutionist. That is simply more name calling.




    0
    View Comment
  16. Again – we see this concept of the 28 FB defended by Ellen White even as she predicts the efforts that will come to undermine them.

    Prophecy Fulfilled

    In the proclamation of the messages, every specification of prophecy has been fulfilled. Those who were privileged to act a part in proclaiming these messages have gained an experience which is of the highest value to them; and now when we are amid the perils of these last days, when voices will be heard on every side saying, “Here is Christ,” “Here is truth”; while the burden of many is to unsettle the foundation of our faith which has led us from the churches and from the world to stand as a peculiar people in the world, like John our testimony will be borne: {1NL 61.3}

    “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;. . . that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us.” {1NL 61.4}

    I testify the things which I have seen, the things which I have heard, the things which my hands have handled of the Word of life. And this testimony I know to be of the Father and the Son. We have seen and do testify that the power of the Holy Ghost has accompanied the presentation of the truth, warning with pen and voice, and giving the messages in their order. To deny this work would be to deny the Holy Ghost, and would place us in that company who have departed from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits. {1NL 61.5}

    Confidence Assailed

    The enemy will set everything in operation to uproot the confidence of the believers in the pillars of our faith in the messages of the past, which have placed us upon the elevated platform of eternal truth, and which have established and given character to the work. The Lord God of Israel has led out His people, unfolding to them truth of heavenly origin. His voice has been heard, and is still heard, saying, Go forward from strength to strength, from grace to grace, from glory to glory. The work is strengthening and broadening, for the Lord God of Israel is the defense of His people. {1NL 61.6}

    Those who have a hold of the truth theoretically, with their fingertips as it were, who have not brought
    62
    its principles into the inner sanctuary of the soul, but have kept the vital truth in the outer court, will see nothing sacred in the past history of this people which has made them what they are, and has established them as earnest, determined, missionary workers in the world. {1NL 61.7}

    The truth for this time is precious, but those whose hearts have not been broken by falling on the rock Christ Jesus, will not see and understand what is truth. They will accept that which pleases their ideas, and will begin to manufacture another foundation than that which is laid. They will flatter their own vanity and esteem, thinking that they are capable of removing the pillars of our faith, and replacing them with pillars they have devised. {1NL 62.1}

    By contrast – the evolutionist argument is that the Pillars of our faith – the established doctrines are “unreliable”.

    @Ron:

    RE: Mrs. White’s statements re: evolution, please read these carefully.

    These persons [Who disbelieve the Genesis account] have lost the simplicity of faith. There should be a settled belief in the divine authority of God’s Holy Word. The Bible is not to be tested by men’s ideas of science. (Notice she doesn’t say that our “unreliable” understanding of scripture is better than our unreliable understanding of science, but our understanding of BOTH are unreliable)

    But that is not the same thing as actually “doing the math” as actually “showing your work” as you imagine some other view of origins might be taught in the Bible. But it is every helpful in demonstrating the fact that for evolutionism to survive – the Bible concept of origins as affirmed in our 28 FB has to be changed.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  17. @Ron:

    Bob, Early Adventists . . . their Fundamental Beliefs? I don’t remember the exact date, but I think the Fundamental Beliefs were voted in the late 70’s early 80’s and they have been changed since. Unless I am an “early adventist”, the early adventists didn’t have any fundamental beliefs. What they had was Bible conferences and camp meetings where they hashed out their differences via careful study, and they had a lot of disagreements along the way.

    Not quite.

    The 1931 voted statements were approved by a GC session and then the 1980 27 FB were also voted.

    However the point you have sidestepped is that Ellen White outlines through terms like “the Pillars of our Faith” the very concepts that the Theistic Evolutionists most need to ignore in their efforts to promote evolution and down play the 28 FB.

    Maranatha 189
    After the truth has been proclaimed as a witness to all nations, every conceivable power of evil will be set in operation, and minds will be confused by many voices crying, “Lo, here is Christ, Lo, He is there. This is the truth, I have the message from God, He has sent me with great light.” Then there will be a removing of the landmarks, and an attempt to tear down the pillars of our faith. . {Mar 189.3}

    And again in even more explicit terms

    What influence is it would lead men at this stage of our history to work in an underhand, powerful way to tear down the foundation of our faith–the foundation that was laid at the beginning of our work by prayerful study of the Word and by revelation? Upon this foundation we have been building for the past fifty years. Do you wonder that when I see the beginning of a work that
    208
    would remove some of the pillars of our faith , I have something to say? I must obey the command, “Meet it!” . . . {1SM 207.3}

    I must bear the messages of warning that God gives me to bear, and then leave with the Lord the results. I must now present the matter in all its bearings; for the people of God must not be despoiled. {1SM 208.1}

    We are God’s commandment-keeping people. For the past fifty years every phase of heresy has been brought to bear upon us, to becloud our minds regarding the teaching of the Word–especially concerning the ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and the message of Heaven for these last days, as given by the angels of the fourteenth chapter of Revelation. Messages of every order and kind have been urged upon Seventh-day Adventists, to take the place of the truth which, point by point, has been sought out by prayerful study, and testified to by the miracle-working power of the Lord. But the waymarks which have made us what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has signified through His Word and the testimony of His Spirit. He calls upon us to hold firmly, with the grip of faith, to the fundamental principles that are based upon unquestionable authority.
    210
    {1SM 208.2}

    As you know if you have looked into this at all – this is just the tip of that ice berge. It only gets worse for the argument that Ellen White rejected the concept of a 28FB document.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  18. @Ron:

    1. She is objecting to geology, not evolution.
    2. She is objecting to using science in a sckeptical way to undermine belief in God, not so much the findings of science itself.

    You say that as if you never read 3SG 90-91

    Ellen White — 3SG 90-91
    Chapter IX. – Disguised Infidelity

    I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.” God gives us the productions of his work at the close of each literal day. Each day was accounted of him a generation, because every day he generated or produced some new portion of his work. On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his work, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days. {3SG 90.1}

    When God spake his law with an audible voice from Sinai, he introduced the Sabbath by saying, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” He then declares definitely what shall be done on the six days, and what shall not be done on the seventh. He then, in giving the reason for thus observing the week, points them back to his example on the first seven days of time. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the record of creation to mean literal days. The first six days of each week are given to man in which to labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. The seventh day God has reserved as a day of rest, in commemoration of his rest during the same period of time after he had performed the work of creation in six days. {3SG 90.2}

    But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom. {3SG 91.1}

    Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old. These, to free themselves of difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God’s rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. Some eagerly receive this position, for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them. …{3SG 91.2}

    1. The reference to “infidels” and “infidel geologists” by Ellen White means — atheist and atheist geologist respectively.

    2. Disguised infidelity — refers to Christians who unwittingly embrace distinctively atheist doctrines on origins – not realizing what they are doing.

    3. Ellen White claims she was SHOWN that creation week – carried back in time to that point and shown the events.

    4. Ellen White argues that the atheist counter doctrine on origins “strikes directly” at the 4th commandment AND at the character of of God.

    5. Her claim is not only that the world was created in 6 literal days with a literal 7 day Sabbath to follow, but that this was the FIRST week on earth and that the earth is only 6000 years old. In limiting earth to anything close to 6000 years – ALL of evolutionism is dead. But worse for TEs – in coming out decidedly for all genomes created in 6 literal days of creation week – she allows for no macro evolutionism at all.

    As Bravus observes in his own response to that – “well then Ellen White was wrong” — which is the only option for the truely devoted by-faith-alone believer in evolutionism’s doctrines on origins “instead”. Other evolutionists have at times agreed with Bravus on that point — when not keeping dead silent on the subject.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  19. @Ron:

    Bob,
    You make my point for me. Notice the profound the variability of belief was and how the Holy Spirit worked bring out a common understanding. We don’t need to censor our members or our teachers. Also notice how the angel made the correction. It didn’t “fire” the ministers, nor demand compliance with “Fundamental Beliefs”, the angel simply presented the Bible truth which the members found convincing. I doubt Mrs. White would have been so persuasive if she had just waltzed in and fired everyone.

    Her 3SG 90-91 statement accusing Theistic evolutionists of the “worst kind of infidelity” is not the gentile kid-gloved reponse that you might be imagining.

    My argument has never been that we should not discuss or debate issues – my argument is that they have no right to undermine our doctrines and ask to get paid for it ESPECIALLY given the Bible-avoidance methods they use to get there.

    (you keep avoiding that point when you re-cast the issue at hand).

    As for the example – Ellen White shows a single meeting – confronting them with truth – resulted in the “united stand” on truth. I am all for those one evening events. Even the 2002 – 2004 years long events. But not this under the table dealing of evolutionism for decades at LSU, and not any form of evolutionism that resorts to the “bible is wrong evolution is right” solution. Clearly only one of them CAN be right — that we can all see clearly. The ONLY excuse for evolutionism taught in our schools is so the professors can demonstrate it’s flaws, fully inform students as to the junk-science methods it imploys and make sure they are familiar enough with the concepts so they know what true-believers in evoutionism are talking about – when they speak about it.

    But they need not worry about having an abiotic mixture pop-up as a living cell nor do they have to worry about reptiles becoming birds or the hyrax becoming a horse.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  20. I am a creationist but I object to elevating Ellen White’s words to equality with the Bible. Her comments on some scientific issues like the source of volcanos and the evils of masturbation were both naive and down right inacurate. She was a fallible human being.

    I think we are on dangerous ground when we as Adventists say “We dont just believe in the BIble, we also believe everything that Ellen White had to say.” What ever came of sola scriptura? We have always told people that all our beliefs come only from the Bible which is simply false. We have now become like the MOrmon church. I personally don’t like that and. They have their Bible, their Book of Mormon, and Doctrines and Covenents, all on equal ground. We now have the Bible and every little jot or tittle from Ellen White on equal ground. We test EVERYTHING now not just by the Bible but also by Sister White. We have made the Bible irrelevant by substituting her every word in its place whenever we can. If we cant support a statement or believe from the Bible we just go to Ellen White.

    I’m suggesting caution here as we debate the subtle meaning of every word that she says.




    0
    View Comment
  21. We have always told people that all our beliefs come only from the Bible which is simply false.

    All the SDA fundamental beliefs are from the Bible. In no way does believing God’s prophets (2 Chron. 20:20) nullify faith in Scripture just as it didn’t in the early church (Acts 21:9.)

    If we cant support a statement or believe from the Bible we just go to Ellen White.

    The Bible abundantly supports the SDA fundamental belief of a recent six-day creation. So does the Spirit of Prophecy (Rev. 19:10.)
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  22. Rich, with all due respect you are simply mistaken.

    What do we know for example about the extent of the flood? The Bible says only this in Geneses 7:18-20: “The waters…rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.”

    Although we Adventists insist the word “all” here is absolutely literal, to be consistent (which Adventists insist we are) the word “all” CAN in fact have a very limited meaning. Here are two examples.

    Genesis 3:20 “Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.” (NIV) In this case, “all” referred only to humans among the “living”.

    Genesis 8:9 “But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark.” (NIV) But from Genesis 8:5, we know that the tops of the mountains were visible 40 days before this! “The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.” (NIV) In this case “all” refered only to the area over which the dove flew.

    So clearly, from the Bible, if “water over all the surface of the earth” does not mean that water literally covered all the surface of the earth, one cannot support from the Bible that “all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered” means that water literally covered all the surface of the earth.

    There are by the way other examples in which “all” does not mean “everything”..

    THus, Adventists CANNOT defend from the Bible that every speck of land was covered by water during the flood. We MUST resort to Ellen White. Any attempt to do otherwise is dishonest and completely distorts scripture. So to say our beliefs on creation and the flood are all supported by the Bible is simply dishonest.




    0
    View Comment
  23. Geanna, I respectfully reject generalities as, “we MUST resort to Ellen White.” Adventists are among other Christians that believe in a worldwide flood.

    Sola Scriptura: the Bible is the final arbiter and the moral guide for all fundamentals in matters of conscience in our relationship to God and man.

    Sola Scriptura is not: information within the context of faithfulness to Bible principles is unwelcome such as toothbrushes which reduce bacteria will increase tooth life!
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  24. “Sola Scriptura: the Bible is the final arbiter and the moral guide for all fundamentals in matters of conscience in our relationship to God and man.” (Rich Constantinescu)

    So I’m glad we’re agreed then that Adventists who adhere to “Sola Scriptura” can properly hold a range of beliefs regarding tooth hygeine, geological history and extent of evolutiony history so long as they do not contradict scripture.




    0
    View Comment
  25. “Sola Scriptura”

    What is scripture? The Bible tells us what scripture is. To any non-Christian or critic of the Bible, getting our definition this way is like pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. To the eye of faith, the scriptures are solid ground, backed up by the words of God Himself.

    “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21)

    “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

    Based on these two texts, and others like them, scripture is defined as that which is given through a prophet by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, by definition, scripture is profitable for “doctrine.”

    Ellen White was given the office of a prophet. She was specially inspired. Judging by the sheer numbers of visions she had, the times when angels gave her the wording to use and she quoted from their lips, and by the volume of manuscripts that have come from her pen, can we truly say she was any less inspired than John or Daniel or Paul? It is the same Holy Spirit. Unless you choose to take the first text literally and say that a prophet can only be a man, there is no way of avoiding that Mrs. White was given a position equal to that of the Bible prophets. Her writings, as inspired by God, are scripture. Therefore, they are “profitable for doctrine.”

    We as Adventists refrain from basing our “fundamentals” on anything but the Bible because that is common ground among all Christian denominations, and we need to work among many who know the Bible but who do not know Mrs. White. This does not mean Mrs. White was a “lesser prophet” or that she was given her office and inspired by a “lesser spirit.” There is but one Holy Spirit!

    In this case, the doctrine we are working with in dealing with creation versus evolution is a fundamental belief. Furthermore, this debate is an internal affair (at this point), and all church members have the privilege of full acquaintance with Ellen White’s writings. Her statements supporting Creation and “true science” were given her by God for our doctrinal benefit. To neglect to use them in this discussion is to reject God’s gift and the light we might have through it.

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  26. Erik:

    Furthermore, this debate is an internal affair (at this point), and all church members have the privilege of full acquaintance with Ellen White’s writings. Her statements supporting Creation and “true science” were given her by God for our doctrinal benefit. To neglect to use them in this discussion is to reject God’s gift and the light we might have through it.

    I agree with your statement, Erik. To strengthen the Bible argument we use a modern messenger’s writings and words. To neglect to use them is to neglect a gift God has given.

    On the other hand, we do not “resort” to prophetic writings in order to prove a Bible belief that is one of the most basic and fundamental, as if there is not enough evidence in Scripture to support the topic at hand, the doctrine of creationism. To say we do is an unfounded accusation. I don’t know a single person who does. I have yet to see someone here or other places that has used such in ignorance or disbelief of Genesis 1:31, Exodus 20:8-11 and Revelation 14:7.

    The doctrine of creation is clear and prominent in Scripture thus it is simply impossible to accept Scripture as the Word of God and reject such plain statements as Psalms 33:9 and Revelation 4:11.
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  27. So clearly, from the Bible, if “water over all the surface of the earth” does not mean that water literally covered all the surface of the earth, one cannot support from the Bible that “all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered” means that water literally covered all the surface of the earth.

    The Bible says,

    And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. Genesis 7:19, 20

    There appears a distinction in these verses between the low lying areas (earth), the higher areas (high hills) and the highest areas (mountains.) I believe the Bible meant just what it said, that the earth, all the high hills and the mountains were covered consecutively at one point then the water receded in reverse order.
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  28. Unfortunately I don’t have the luxury of taking the time to read more than a small fraction of the comments posted here. However, I keep seeing comments by Bob Ryan and others talking about the reptile to bird transition.

    So, how would you expect a SDA biology professor to discuss the subject of Archaeopteryx in the classroom? Virtually all taxonomists consider it to be a bird, but it does have a number of reptilian traits which do not occur in modern birds (but are shared in other extinct birds), including teeth, slender cerebral hemispheres, free metarcarpals, claws on the forelimbs, absence of uncinate processes on the ribs, bones lacking pneumaticism (hollow), and free vertebrae in the tail. Should these traits even be mentioned, or should only the avian characters (feathers, furcula or wish bone, fusion of 2nd and 3rd metacarpals, elongated and backward-directed pubis, and hallux or hind toe) be mentioned? Can SCIENCE be used to demonstrate that it is NOT a transitional fossil?

    Or should the subject never, ever be mentioned in the classroom? After all, whenever such thorny questions are asked, there is the risk that students may lose their faith, right?

    Now then, it appears that whenever somebody here asks such questions and presents some evidence for rapid speciation, intermediates, etc., they are quickly labeled as evolutionists, so I’ll make myself crystal clear: I happen to believe in a six-day creation week less than 10,000 years ago. However, I also recognize that Archaeopteryx is merely one of several very odd reptile-like birds and bird-like reptiles that are very difficult–in my honest opinion–to explain from a creationist perspective. I would never dismiss paleontology as “junk science.” Archaeopteryx is a genuine fossil that once flew (very short distances) across our planet.




    0
    View Comment
  29. Can SCIENCE be used to demonstrate that it is NOT a transitional fossil?

    We know from Genesis 1:21 God created every winged fowl after its kind. I don’t see any reason to think Archaeopteryx would not be an ancestor of a particular kind.

    Here would be some challenges to the idea that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil:

    1. Living reptiles are cold-blooded and birds are warm-blooded (there are a few exceptions).

    2. Hip bones are very different.

    3. Avian vs. reptilian lung.

    I’m sure there are others, but this is what I found from a cursory read on Archaeopteryx. Clearly though we know from God’s word that birds did not come from reptiles as evolutionists often claim.

    I think good arguments can be made (using science) that demonstrate Archaeopteryx did not evolve from reptiles; however, the more authoritative source of information on this subject would be God’s word.

    A scientist who stands on God’s word as his ultimate authority has nothing to fear in regard apparent threats to God’s word. He may not always have an answer, but that’s absolutely no reason to give up the authority of the Bible.




    0
    View Comment
  30. @Eddie:

    Unfortunately I don’t have the luxury of taking the time to read more than a small fraction of the comments posted here. However, I keep seeing comments by Bob Ryan and others talking about the reptile to bird transition.

    So, how would you expect a SDA biology professor to discuss the subject of Archaeopteryx in the classroom? Virtually all taxonomists consider it to be a bird, but it does have a number of reptilian traits which do not occur in modern birds (but are shared in other extinct birds), including teeth, slender cerebral hemispheres, free metarcarpals, claws on the forelimbs, absence of uncinate processes on the ribs, bones lacking pneumaticism (hollow), and free vertebrae in the tail.

    1. My first response is that an SDA biology professor should try to be “at least as honest” about the facts in the case – as well known atheist evolutionists when discussing Archaeopteryx. More on this at the end of the post.

    2. Declaring Archaeopteryx to “be a bird” does nothing for the reptile to bird story — since we have nothing showing that Archaeopteryx was a reptile. It was “a true bird”.

    3. Declaring that there are no other birds with teeth is not accurate.

    4. Trying to make a claim that Archaeopteryx is the first true bird – also does not work since we have finds of other “true birds” at the same time as Archaeopteryx and we have still today flightless birds with symmetrical feathers (a likely candidate for transition to flight if ever there was one) and yet Archaeopteryx had the classic asymmetrical feathers of a bird capable of flight.

    5. The fossil record gives no “ancestor” – “Descendant” sequence for Archaeopteryx, which means that “birds came from reptiles” storytelling that appeal to the fossil record as if it is scientifically proving ancestor-descendant chain with Archaeopteryx between reptiles and birds is flatly misleading. (at best).

    Here is the Verbatim quote of Patterson (Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural Hist at the time of this letter to Sunderland) writing to Sunderland about his book on evolutionism –

    Patterson to Sunderland –

    “ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

    You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

    Note: In this case – there is nothing at all “playful” about Patterson’s honest statements to Sunderland.

    Next Patterson gets directly to the point of Archaeopteryx, the fossil record and the argument that paleontology somehow claims that the bird is a link between reptiles and real birds.

    Patterson – to Sunderland

    I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

    Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

    You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question.

    It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job

    How “instructive” it would have been had our own LSU biologists been able to master at least that modest level of objectivity when it comes to the fossil record.

    You give a list of things supposedly unique to Archaeopteryx – but are they really? Is it true that no other true birds have those same features?? (even your own reference to this indicates that you do believe that other true bird fossils are available with the same traits – so I will not list them here).

    However I would like to see the evidence for your claim that Archaeopteryx did NOT have hollow bones.

    I would never dismiss paleontology as “junk science.”

    Nor would I. Hence I have never claimed such a thing. My statement is that evolutionism is junk science – and the attempts to bend paleontology to support storytelling is a method fit for junk science – but it is the same as chemistry or genetics or cell biology – all of which are science — and are only co-opted (perhaps hijacked is a better term) by evolutoinists for the purposes of junk science stories when they find it “convenient”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  31. @Geanna Dane:

    Geanna Dane says:
    March 22, 2010 I am a creationist but I object to elevating Ellen White’s words to equality with the Bible. Her comments on some scientific issues like the source of volcanos and the evils of masturbation were both naive and down right inacurate. She was a fallible human being.

    With all due respect – May I suggest some quality time with 1Cor 12 and Numbers 12?

    The “reason” that accuracy is one of the tests of a prophet’s message is that God is not prone to “forget things” – so we tend to think of Him as being “correct”. Thus when someone says “God showed me” or “God told me” — the very next thing we do is “check” to see if what comes next is actually true. If it is not – then we have our first clue that the person speaking is not actually a prophet.

    This may seem very simple — but it is a tried and true process that has worked for thousands of years – and is till working as it turns out.

    I think we are on dangerous ground when we as Adventists say “We dont just believe in the BIble, we also believe everything that Ellen White had to say.”

    Correction. We believe everything God had to say. But we do not believe that everything Paul ever said or that Ellen White ever said – came from God — nor did they claim such a thing.

    However they DID claim that certain things they said are in fact simply a case of them reporting what God said.

    Again – this is just the basics.

    What ever came of sola scriptura? We have always told people that all our beliefs come only from the Bible which is simply false.

    That is a rather rash accusation.

    Take a look at the 28 FB and show us which ones are not established “Sola Scriptura” – if in fact you actually believe such a thing.

    I, as someone who has spent no small amount of time comparing notes with non-SDAs regarding the “Sola Scriptura” claims made for our doctrines – would be facinated to learn what that list of non-sola scriptura doctrines actually is.

    We have now become like the MOrmon church. I personally don’t like that

    Another outstanding accusation.

    But for those kinds of accusations to be accepted by the objective unbiased reader – they have to have something like “actual evidence” in support of them.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  32. I came across this really interesting data. A man named John C. Sanford who invented among other things the biolistic (“gene gun”) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization has moved from being an atheistic evolutionist to a Bible believing 6 day creationist. Seems like there ARE real biologists, REAL scientists of major note who accept the first 11 chapters of Genesis.




    0
    View Comment
  33. @Geanna Dane:

    What do we know for example about the extent of the flood? The Bible says only this in Geneses 7:18-20: “The waters…rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.”

    Although we Adventists insist the word “all” here is absolutely literal, to be consistent (which Adventists insist we are) the word “all” CAN in fact have a very limited meaning. H

    THus, Adventists CANNOT defend from the Bible that every speck of land was covered by water during the flood. We MUST resort to Ellen White. Any attempt to do otherwise is dishonest and completely distorts scripture. So to say our beliefs on creation and the flood are all supported by the Bible is simply dishonest.

    As it turns out – your accusation is in error.

    4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”

    5 And Noah did according to all that the LORD commanded him.

    6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters were on the earth.

    10 And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were on the earth.

    11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

    12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.
    13 On the very same day Noah and Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark—

    17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.

    Our first stopping point.

    1. NO text in all of scripture describes a boat on the ocean as “rising high above the earth”. There is no way to equivocate or downsize this to “local sea”.

    2. There is NO text in all of scripture where God says “I will destroy ALL living things that I have MADE” where the context is anything but global since God claims to be the maker of ALL.

    Again – no way to equovcate or downsize the language in the text.

    18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters.

    19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.

    20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

    Another stopping point.

    There is NO text in all of scripture where the phrases “all the high hills under heaven” and then “the mountains” are covered – are given a scope that is not global. No not one.

    21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.

    22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.

    23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.

    Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. 24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

    The Bible goes out of it’s way to argue that everything that breathed air on dry land — died.

    There is no text in all of scripture that mentions “all flesh – that moved on the earth” and also “All that was on dry land” where this is anything other than a reference to a global scope. No not one.

    Furthermore – Peter makes is iron clad in 2Peter 3 drawing our attention to the fact that the same world that was MADE – that was “formed out of water” is the same world that is totally destroyed by “water” and is the same world that is going to be destroyed “again” by fire.

    The wild claim that all Bible believing Christians that hold to this Bible doctrine must somehow appeal to Ellen White to accept the glaringly obvious scope provided by the text itself – stands without any support at all from scripture.

    I know why evolutionists “need” to go there – but I have no idea why a creationist would want to go there.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  34. Formerly an atheist, since the mid-1980s Sanford has looked into Theistic Evolution (1985–late 1990s), Old Earth Creation (late 1990s), and Young Earth Creation (2000–present). According to his own words, he did not fully reject Darwinian evolution until the year 2000. An advocate of intelligent design, in 2005 Sanford testified in the Kansas evolution hearings on behalf of intelligent design, during which he denied the principle of common descent and “humbly offered … that we were created by a special creation, by God.” He also stated that he believed the age of the Earth was “Between 5,000 and 100,000” years.[6] An analogy Sanford uses to illustrate alleged evidence of design is that of a car versus a junkyard: “A car is complex, but so is a junkyard. However, a car is complex in a way that is very specific — which is why it works. It requires a host of very intelligent engineers to specify its complexity, so it is a functional whole.”[7] Intelligent design proponent William Dembski touts the accomplishments of Sanford as evidence of the scientific status of intelligent design[8] and has endorsed Sanford’s book, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.[9]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford




    0
    View Comment
  35. Eddie, Shane & BobRyan:

    And now for a shameless plug: My book, “Dinosaurs –An Adventist View” discusses in depth Archaeopteryx, as well as the alleged dinosaur to bird transition, as well as the alleged mammal-like reptile to mammal transition. In fact I have a whole chapter on just these issues. Fun for the whole family!!

    The index entry for archaeopteryx states, “315-316, 328, 329, 333, 335, 497, plate 23.” And by the way, Eddie is right that Archeopteryx exhibits both avian and reptilian characteristics. It is pointless to argue otherwise.

    Available at Amazon.com or at your local ABC. If it isn’t in stock at your local ABC, please ask why.




    0
    View Comment
  36. Bob, thank you for making my point once again. You stated, “There is NO text in all of scripture where God says “I will destroy ALL living things that I have MADE” where the context is anything but global since God claims to be the maker of ALL.” You cited Genesis 7:4, which says “For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.” But we know for a fact THAT GOD DID NOT DESTROY ALL LIVING THINGS. In other words ALL was not global or literal. Obviously the term “all” is equivocal, a fact you have conveneintly ignored. The unbiased objective reader has taken notice.

    I agree with you…”no way to equovcate or downsize the language in the text.” That is, “ALL” must be interpreted with consistency and the evidence is unequivocal that the meaning of “ALL” is equivocal!

    And then you used a typical tactic on your part in moving the goalposts: “The wild claim that all Bible believing Christians that hold to this Bible doctrine must somehow appeal to Ellen White to accept the glaringly obvious scope provided by the text itself – stands without any support at all from scripture.” You made the claim. Noone else here did.

    Shane, I’m not challenging the historicty of the Bible which I accept. I’m just pointing out that many times we demand more of the Bible than is appropriate. All I’m saying is that ALL is not EVERYTHING and you guys can’t seem to admit it. I appreciated Erik’s frank admission that we have to accept Ellen White as equal authority. But noone seems willing to admit that the scripture evidence. Rich Constantinescu makes a case that I agree with in the (highly logical) progressive upward movemtent of water,, but there is ABSOLUTELLY NO scriptural requirement that the flood covered EVERY SINGLE MOUNTAIN ON EARTH. I’m sorry to be so defensive but the limits on the language are quite clear.




    0
    View Comment
  37. “Declaring that there are no other birds with teeth is not accurate.” (Bob Ryan)

    Ahem…I’d like to know of a modern bird species that has teeth.

    But, there is irony in BOb’s mistaken point for which he offers no evidence (unless he wishes to address the fossil record). Of course we are told that the reptile-to-bird transformation is impossible, but is it possible to see a bird-to-reptile transformation? How about a mutant chicken that has teeth like a crocodile? This HAS happened!!! And it happened naturally without gene manipulation by humans.. Scientists have shown that the “static genome” of one organism CAN generate unexpected traits, even very complex and obviously very new ones ((after all a bird is created and birds do not have teetH). Check out this story:

    http://www.livescience.com/animals/060222_chicken_teeth.html

    And I know, Bob will piont out that the bird had massive genetic defects and died, and that it did’nt even hatch. But the fact remains that it was a bird with a mouth full of reptilian teeth!!! And scientists can manipulate existing gene variation in chicks to create many more chicks with a mouthfull of teeth!!! This makes my point: a genome can be reaaranged too create very different structures and forms of life.




    0
    View Comment
  38. I will make one more very simple observation. If Ellen White told us that the flood did not cover ALL of the earth we would all be in agreement todaay that her statements were not inconsitent with the Bible. Okay I’m finished.




    0
    View Comment
  39. Geanna, a natural reading of the entire passage indicates that every square inch of land was covered to at least a depth of 15 cubits (or about 22 feet).

    Again, as has been pointed out, this is very far from a uniquely Adventist reading, and it is certainly not necessary to invoke Ellen White to read the passage as meaning that the water eventually covered even the mountaintops to a depth of at least 22 feet (thought by some commentators to be the displacement or draft of the ark, hence the water must have been at least this deep to allow the ark to drift over mountaintops).

    You might be interested to know that Whitcomb & Morris (not Adventists), in “The Genesis Flood” the seminal young earth creationist work of the 20th Century, address the depth of the flood on pages 1 and 2–that’s right, the first two pages of a nearly 500 page book. On page two, the quote commentator H.C. Leupold (not an Adventist) to the effect that:

    “A measure of the waters is now made by comparison with the only available standard for such waters—the mountains. They are said to have been “covered.” Not a few merely but “all the high mountains under all the heavens.” One of these expressions alone would almost necessitate the impression that the author intends to convey the idea of the absolute universality of the Flood, e. g., “all the high mountains.” Yet since “all” is known to be used in a relative sense, the writer removes all possible ambiguity by adding the phrase “under all the heavens.” A double “all” (kol) cannot allow for so relative a sense. It almost constitutes a Hebrew superlative. So we believe that the text disposes of the question of the universality of the Flood.”
    “By way of objection to this interpretation those who believe in a limited flood, which extended perhaps as far as mankind may have penetrated at that time, urge the fact that kol is used in a relative sense, as is clearly the case in passages such as Ge 41:57; Ex 9:25; 10:15; De 2:25; 1Ki 10:24. However, we still insist that this fact could overthrow a single kol, never a double kol, as our verse has it.”

    You can find Leupold’s commentary online here:
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/leupold/genesis.ix.html.

    I’m interested to know why you think it is necessary or helpful to a YEC model to have a non-universal flood. Why is this so important to you?




    0
    View Comment
  40. Geanna says,

    All I’m saying is that ALL is not EVERYTHING and you guys can’t seem to admit it.

    If we are asked to admit that the lake of fire will not cover the whole earth,

    “But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” 2 Peter 3:7

    and that Jesus’ life had sin, His mouth guile,

    “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:” 1 Peter 2:22

    then I cannot say that “all” is never “everything.” (Cf. 2 Peter 1:19, 20; Isaiah 28:10)
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  41. @Geanna Dane:

    I will make one more very simple observation. If Ellen White told us that the flood did not cover ALL of the earth we would all be in agreement todaay that her statements were not inconsitent with the Bible. Okay I’m finished.

    An interesting imaginary scenario to be sure.

    I get those imaginary scenarios from time to time from Non-SDAs who are trying to find an example of Ellen White violating one of the tests of a prophet.

    However, as I point out to our non-SDA friends, we are blessed by the inconvenient detail (for some) that imaginary scenarios are not listed in scripture as “a test of a prophet”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  42. @Geanna Dane:

    Declaring that there are no other birds with teeth is not accurate.” (Bob Ryan)

    Ahem…I’d like to know of a modern bird species that has teeth.

    But, there is irony in BOb’s mistaken point for which he offers no evidence (unless he wishes to address the fossil record). Of course we are told that the reptile-to-bird transformation is impossible, but is it possible to see a bird-to-reptile transformation? How about a mutant chicken that has teeth like a crocodile? This HAS happened!!! And it happened naturally without gene manipulation by humans.. Scientists have shown that the “static genome” of one organism CAN generate unexpected traits, even very complex and obviously very new ones ((after all a bird is created and birds do not have teetH). Check out this story:

    Indeed there have been “true birds” with teeth (not half bird half reptile fictions) – and everyone sees it in the fossil record. (Not sure why you imagine the argument that is of the form “fossils don’t exist if you are a creationist”.)

    The inconvenient detail for evolutionsits is that “C” is not an example of an intermediate step between “A” and “C”. Once we have a “true bird” we have already reached “C”.

    Just stating the obvious.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  43. Bob quoted Gen 7

    21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.

    22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.

    23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.

    The clarity on that point was expressed so many different ways in the chapter – it is no wonder that many people choose to ignore those verses altogether.

    @Geanna Dane:

    Bob, thank you for making my point once again. You stated, “There is NO text in all of scripture where God says “I will destroy ALL living things that I have MADE” where the context is anything but global since God claims to be the maker of ALL.” You cited Genesis 7:4, which says “For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”

    But we know for a fact THAT GOD DID NOT DESTROY ALL LIVING THINGS. In other words ALL was not global or literal.

    We use exegesis to let the Bible speak for itself.

    The funny thing about exegesis is that it requires that we take a both-and approach to the text not a snippet either-or solution. So when the Bible gives us the global scope — we take it literally. When the Bible says that the global scope applies to all animals on dry land that have the breath of life – we take it to be a literal global scope applying literally to all life on literal dry land that literally have the breath of life in them.

    However – IF we were to make a doctrinal argument that “required” that we ignore the fact of 21-23 that sets the limit on what was killed at the flood – we would quickly get shot down by our non-SDA friends as teaching something that simply snippets some tiny detail out of Gen 7 then tries to argue that the text is not trustworthy because it supposedly goes too far.

    The details in the text show that it applies to all life on dry land – which obviously has a global scope but cannot be stretched to include “all life in the sea”.

    Again – just stating the obvious.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  44. Geanna seems to be questioning the flood’s height on the assumption that it was a near impossibility. It is true that if the water covered Mount Everest, and did so all the way around the world, we would have billions of acre-feet of water on this planet that do not seem to be here today.

    The fact is that a period of continental movement, which caused uplifting of the mountain ranges, followed the flood, and there is little solid evidence today for the actual height of the highest mountains prior to the flood. Likewise, mountains surrounded by water tend to crumble, and even taller ones may have been undermined and submerged in the wild currents of the flood. (Consider the Grand Canyon and how it was formed by a rush of water as a great lake suddenly broke through.)

    The flood story is a part of legend in so many cultures of the world as to be nearly universal. If not all of the mountains were covered, then people and/or land animals would certainly have survived outside the ark, for they would have found refuge. But the Bible says that they all died except for those on the ark (see Gen. 7:22). If the Bible is to be believed, then one has little room here to choose which parts. If you reject that the waters covered the whole earth, then you will be forced, like a cascading line of dominoes, to reject numerous other passages in the Bible.

    This is the danger of having so-called Christian professors teaching as “fact” that which is in such stark contradiction to the Bible. McCloskey at both Walla Walla and LSU taught as fact that the earth could not possibly have been created just 6000 years ago, since there were “proofs” of the world’s age extending to at least double that. To ungrounded students, this type of “fact” might startle them into a realization that their parents had brought them up on fantasies, and that, therefore, the whole Bible was to be considered fiction. True enough, some of my classmates in college turned atheist during the school year. Can we blame the professors? Of course there are multiple factors involved, just as there are if someone commits suicide. But God will hold each one to account for his or her part in the loss of souls, and those who were in teaching positions will be especially responsible, considering their position of influence.

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  45. @Erik: If the flood was universal, all post-diluvian human bengs share a common geographic origin (perhaps mount Ararat) and so necessarily do all flood legends-unless they were invented later. So a universal flood does not imply ubiquitous flood legends and vice versa.

    Mark




    0
    View Comment
  46. @Erik: If the flood was universal, all post-diluvian human beings share a common geographic origin (perhaps mount Ararat) and so necessarily do all flood legends-unless they were invented later. So a universal flood does not imply ubiquitous flood legends and vice versa.

    Mark




    0
    View Comment
  47. “By way of objection to this interpretation those who believe in a limited flood, which extended perhaps as far as mankind may have penetrated at that time, urge the fact that kol is used in a relative sense, as is clearly the case in passages such as Ge 41:57; Ex 9:25; 10:15; De 2:25; 1Ki 10:24. However, we still insist that this fact could overthrow a single kol, never a double kol, as our verse has it.”

    Thank you for sharing this, David Read.

    The double kol is interesting. I found acouple more uses (and there are probably more)::

    I Sam 2:22 – Now Eli, who was very old, heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they slept with the women who served at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.

    So clearly Eli had the time to listen to and heard about EVERY single detail about the things his sons were doing to EVERY single individual in Israel. The double kol leaves no room for doubt.

    II Sam 3:37 – So on that day all the people and all Israel knew that the king had no part in the murder of Abner son of Ner.

    So clearly ALL of the people, if not on the planet earth certainly ALL of Isreale including infants and toddlers, knew the king had no part in the murder. The double kol leaves no room for doubt.

    Surely there is no hyperbole in the Bible.




    0
    View Comment
  48. @Mark: If all post-flood human beings were well aware of the traumatic flood they had just been through, from which they emerged the only survivors on the planet, I suppose it would have been an account that would have survived many a retelling down through the generations which followed. And, if their languages and geographic locations diverged after the flood, these same stories would certainly be found in every part of the world today, having spread out from Mt. Ararat.

    That is exactly what happened. The Bible is clear about how the various languages formed. God made them Himself when He confused the people’s languages at the Tower of Babel. That tower was being constructed with the express purpose of providing a flood-safe refuge, hence the memory and influence of the recent flood was still sharp in their minds. The Bible even tells us that during the life of Peleg, who was born about 100 years after the flood, “the earth was divided.” This is a reference to either a) the people being spread apart into separate groups throughout the earth, or b) the divisions of the continents themselves, or both. As the Tower of Babel and the division of the earth were in the same time period, it is safe to presume that all languages and peoples throughout the earth’s regions today had their start in that small collection of descendants from Noah.

    Look at this character: 船 That is the Chinese word for “boat.” The left side shows a vessel something like a canoe, while on the right side are two symbols: the two marks at the top form the number eight (å…«) in Chinese, and the square under it forms the word mouth (口). So, the word “boat” is essentially a triple-concept character in Chinese: vessel eight mouths. (See source for this information here: http://creationwiki.org/Chinese_characters_for_Noah%27s_ark.)

    There were eight people in the ark (see 1 Peter 3:20). It seems rather unlikely that the number eight would be tied to the word “boat” or “ship.” Why not 100 instead? The logical conclusion is that this originated in memory of the flood. Yet why would the Chinese know about the flood if it did not happen in China? Remember that the tallest mountains in the world are between Mt. Ararat and the “Land of God” as China was once called.

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  49. Bob,
    We are getting sidetraked, and there is too much here to respond to every point. Let me try to summarize a few points.

    1. From my perspective the real issue is, “What role does coersion play in helping or hindering the discovery of truth.” In my opinion, exploring the issue freely, even looking at and issue from the perspective of an “infadel” can only enhance the cause of truth. Truth is Truth and can never be compromised by our belief or lack of belief. Coersion of belief or consciousness is morally wrong, especially in the Adventist church which is founded on Christ, the Present Truth.

    2. Everything following is practically irrelevant.

    3. My definition of evolution: Any change in the genome that is beneficial to the organism is evolution. There is no functional difference between micro and macro evolution, it is only a matter of the quantinty of changes. The nylonase gene came into being in the last 75 years, I believe that God the eternal creator created it and I see it as an example of evolution, you seem to believe that God stopped creating and that it isn’t an example of evolution. I believe that God created nylonase, you believe he didn’t. Which of us believes in God as the Creator? I don’t think it is truely possible to believe in God as the creator and not believe in evolution.

    4. I have no problem with anything you have quoted from Mrs. White. In my opinion you are reading more into her statements than she intended.

    5. I will reiterate, your favorite quote speaks of geology and long periods of time. It says nothing about evolution.

    6. If you read the story carefully, both the Bible and Mrs. White imply a rapid form of evolution.

    7. By my reading of Mrs White, she believed that the Bible and Nature are both from the hand of God and cannot be in conflict, so any discrepancy we see means that we just don’t understand. I don’t accept the assertion that our understanding of the Bible is more reliable than our understanding of science. I acknowlege that Mrs. White makes statements that seem pro-Bible/antiiscience, but as I quoted previously, she also states explicitly that our schools are to teach science to correct our errors in theology. She could have said it the other way around, but she didn’t.

    8. Shannon, I can’t comment on pollens, that is out of my area of expertise, and it really doesn’t pertain to the issue of freedom of thought.

    9. Here is your “Bird-dinosaur”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928205415.htm

    10. The very fact that the issue generates so much controversy proves in my mind that there is enough doubt about the truth that we, especially as Adventists should be tolerant of those on the other side. We certanly shouldn’t be firing or threatening anyone.

    11. Coersion is the fundamental principle of Babylon, from Cain,Able and the tower of Babel, to the three worthies in the fiery furnace in Babylon, to Pagan Rome and the persecution of Chritians, to Papal Rome and the persecution of the Martyrs, to appostate protestantism and the Salem witch trials, to Islam and 9/11, to contemporary Adventism firing Biology teachers. Remember, Christ did NOT come to save the Righteous (those who by faith think that they are right). He ONLY came to save Sinners (those who think they don’t understand).

    12. “The Bible and the Bible only” as the only source for truth sounds nice, but has no foundation in reality.




    0
    View Comment
  50. Ron: So if there were an ultimate being who wrote a book about himself as came to earth as was quoted saying about the book that the understanding of salvation was found in its pages. In addition, his followers kept an accurate record of His live and wrote it down so you could better understand the way He though, taught and lived and added it to this book. Then, I come along and decide. Do I believe what is written in these pages or not? Is part of it correct–the first part? Then I am a Jew. If all? Then I am a Christian. If none, then maybe something else. . . I could chose to believe a man that claims to achieve a higher existence through letting go and multiple cycles of live–then I am a Buddist. Or I could choose to believe an expert in nature that tells me that he has studied rocks and listened to what other people have told him about science and believes that the world came about through evolution with or without a divine aid.

    In the end, you are choosing without a doubt to believe in the accuracy of human integrity and intelligence–which may be correct or not, but many times has been proven false as the humans involved needed something to show for their life’s work that made a big impact and turned out to be a hoax–we have that Achilles’ heal. The Christian religion has a God that witnessed of it’s books veracity in a of itself and of His own veracity in an of Himself. If you chose to trust Him, you are choosing to trust something more that human.

    With that being said, if someone tells me the way to my house is a long straight road–don’t get tired because it is so long–here are a few markers along the way to look for. That is what all the other stuff is. If James Dobson has a good devotional or Ellen White says something in line with the Bible, it is because God has blessed them with the up building of the work. You should apply the test of the prophets to everything and everyone, “if they do not speak according to the word, it is because there is no light in them.” I think the reason you argue against “Sola Scriptura” is either because you don’t understand it or that you don’t agree with it. What “Sola Scriptura” means is that the Bible is the final rule to the other works and authors and even science. If it does not agree, it has to be thrown out or I need to start to find a new religion if I are honest with myself. So far I have been comfortable with the Bible as the final say.

    Think of a government–someone has to have the final say. After much discussion and deliberation on something to happen, the final say is given by the governing body as based on the law or they make a new law adjustment. In my religion, I have chosen the governing body to be the Bible–other things can and will have input but the final analysis will come from it until the day that Christ comes or I am convinced that I am wrong.

    This is the correct definition of Sola Scriptura.

    I would like also your thoughts on Nehemiah when he told people to not buy or sell on Sabbath or they would be arrested. Or similarly when the people lost their blessing for failing to pay tithe and offering. What about Samuel disciplining Saul for not completely killing off all the Ishmalites. What about the priests of Baal with on Mt Carmel with Elijah–he didn’t just say–we’ll let you go now. At the end of several letters the apostle Paul speaks very strongly about certain individuals and having nothing to do with them. This all sounds a lot like coercion by your definition.

    The issue is this: A church should be able to maintain itself and it’s principles. There are many examples in the Bible of this. At the same time, the Bible and church as well as our country supports the individual’s right to choose and learn for himself as long as it doesn’t infringe on others within reason. This is a fine line. I believe it has been crossed and you obviously don’t. I cannot see how these teachers are not impacting students ideology significantly to their bias. As long as you agree with their bias, that is okay, if you don’t then it isn’t. Considering a lot of the parents think it is the other way, this can be misleading obviously.




    0
    View Comment
  51. RE:

    Sola Scriptura.

    Shannon, With regard to Sola Scriptura, I actually agree with it in principle, the problem comes with the application. Here are some of the problems.

    1. Interpretation: “Then, I come along and decide.”:
    Even if everyone accepts the Bible as the final authority, there is still the issue of fallible human interpretation. A case in point, you and I both read the same Bible. You think that evolution can’t be true because God is the creator. I note that God is the eternal creator, and therefore it is impossible to truely believe in God as the creator without believing in evolution (ie. ongoing creation). Who is to say which of us is right? If you appeal to the organized church’s creed, then you have already by definition sacrificed the principle of Sola Scriptura. You no longer believe in the Bible only, but the Bible plus the creed, or the Bible plus the majority opinion about what it means. In my opinion, the principle of Sola Scriptura really demands academic freedom at the individual level, and is therefore a powerful argument AGAINST firing a teacher.

    2. The Spanish inquisition: History has shown that the egotism of the majority is highly distructive and that enforcing doctrinal purity by coersion is Satanic precisely because it does violence to the individual’s conscience and reason. Using coersion by treatening a person’s job is acting on the same principle, and is dishonoring the memory of the faithful martyrs.

    3. Sources of Truth: To say that the Bible is authoritative, is not to say it is the only source of truth. There are many kinds of truth the Bible says nothing about. For example, the Bible doesn’t say anything about the speed of light, or the length of the Amazon river, or the weight of an atom, or the charge of an electron. It won’t tell you how to pronounce the word “God” in Swahili, which side of the road to drive on or how to fix your car, how to program your VCR, or how much Vitamin D is optimal for health or even something as simple as how add a column of numbers. When we say that the Bible is authoritative, we mean that it is authoritative for its intended purpose, which is to guide us spiritually.

    4. The standard for truth set by the Bible itself requires confirmation of truth by sources outside of the Bible. For example, the Bible says that a prophet should be tested by whether what he says will happen, does happen. The trouble with that is that the test is totally worthless as a test looking forward. You can’t tell if the prophet is true until the critical decision time is already past. Even if the event does take place, the source of your knowlege that validates the prophet is independant of the Bible, either through history, or personal observation. As I have pointed out before, it is impossible to arrive at the 1844 date “sola scriptura”. You have to appeal to secular history, and astronomy in particular to identify the date for the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. You might be able to be a Lutheran or a Baptist, but it is in fact impossible to be an Adventist “sola scriptura”.

    5. Nehemiah: I think Nehemiah is actually a good example of my point. How did that work for him? Did it result in people loving God and keeping the Sabbath out of thankfulness and joy? No, he only got temporary compliance thru force, but force didn’t win the hearts. Then following Nehemiah’s example, the Jewish people responded by creating more and harsher rules about the Sabbath until Jesus finally had to come and “break the Sabbath law” on purpose, just to show how wrong their approach to the Sabbath was. Then, applying the principles of Nehemiah they tried to push Jesus off a cliff. As I understand it, Jesus wants our love, not our fear. I just can’t imagine Jesus behaving this way.

    6. Trust in God: Do you really? (Not you personally, I am using the royal you) It seems to me that you are afraid of God. You are afraid that if you or your child explores a new idea (evolution) you might accidently eat of the tree of knowlege of good and evil, and that God will dam your child in the eternal lake of fire. You are so afraid that you are willing attempt coersion. Like Lilliputins in Guliver’s travels, you set stakes around God, you bind Him up and tie Him down to 28 fundamental beliefs. You presume to tell God what He can and can’t do (eg. continue to create).

    I think I have more faith in God. My God loves me enough, that he gave me a real choice. Two real choices that He is in fact OK with (God approved of both choices and both outcomes before Christ ever started the creation of our world). My God wants to live life with me and experience everything, the good and the bad with me. He never forsakes me; even if I intentionally betray Him (eg. Peter), or I turn into a Hitler or a Pol Pot, (eg. the apostle Saul), he still loves me and sticks with me. He chases after me, grabs my arm, turns me around toward him and holds me close. Even if I ultimately reject him, Christ still doesn’t leave or forsake me, Christ walks with me right into the second death. (It was the second death that Christ died on the cross wasn’t it?)

    I happen to see evidence of evolution in the Bible. I see evidence of evolution in the writings of Mrs. White. I see evidence of evolution in every particle of the physical universe, and I see evolution in the spiritual universe. I believe that evolution is a fundamental principle of the universe because Jesus is the creator, and He rose from the tomb, and He is alive, and He is still the Creator. I believe that Adventist’s generally have mis-interpreted Mrs. White’s comments about Darwin. I believe that Darwin is a great man, because he spent time worshiping God in the study of nature and opened our eyes to God’s creative power in a way that no one else ever has. Is it any wonder that his work came into prominence at the same time the 3rd angel is reminding us to remember God as the creator? Isn’t it a little ironic that the man who did the most to reveal God’s ongoing creation scientifically was most reviled by those who claim the most to believe in God as the creator?

    I used to think I was wrong, but now I’m not so sure. But that’s OK. I would rather be wrong and open to God’s leading, than to be like Judas, so certain that I know what is right, that I am willing to use force to change a mind.




    0
    View Comment
  52. @Ron:

    Shannon, With regard to Sola Scriptura, I actually agree with it in principle, the problem comes with the application. Here are some of the problems.

    1. Interpretation: “Then, I come along and decide.”:
    Even if everyone accepts the Bible as the final authority, there is still the issue of fallible human interpretation. A case in point, you and I both read the same Bible. You think that evolution can’t be true because God is the creator. I note that God is the eternal creator, and therefore it is impossible to truely believe in God as the creator without believing in evolution (ie. ongoing creation).

    Indeed we often get that argument from our Catholic brethren – telling us that that Bible can “be bent” to whatever needs of anyone who wants to use it therefore sola scriptura is not a trustworthy solution – just as you have stated above.

    But the careful student of the Bible quickly notices that there is “SIX days you shall labor…FOR IN SIX DAYS God MADE” statement in the Bible supporting Shannon’s position and there is NO “God is creator so believe in evolution” statement in scripture to support your fiction above.

    Presto! the Sola Scriptura method is seen to work instantly.

    More than that – in Acts 17:11 we see that this sola scriptura method was Sooooo trustworthy that even NON-Christians could use it to evaluate a Christian teacher of no less stature than Paul “Studying the scriptures daily TO SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so“.

    Who is to say which of us is right? If you appeal to the organized church’s creed, then you have already by definition sacrificed the principle of Sola Scriptura. You no longer believe in the Bible only, but the Bible plus the creed, or the Bible plus the majority opinion about what it means.

    Good spin – but as we see from Acts 17:11 the sola scriptura method is so objective and so “doable” that even non-Christians can use it.

    Furthermore – as Paul pointed out in Gal 1:6-11 “if WE or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you OTHER than the one you have received – let him be accursed”

    Paul argued that proven Bible doctrine does have “value” – as it turns out.

    But more specifically – the flaw in your argument is that we actually have NO evolutionist argument from the Bible supporting the wild factless claim that Moses was an evolutionist or that he taught his readers to believe in evolutionism.

    We have NO evidence from scripture or from Ellen White’s writings that God instructed prophets to promote evolutionism.

    So when it comes to a “sola scriptura” discussion – evolutionists do not even show up at the table!

    2. The Spanish inquisition: History has shown that the egotism of the majority is highly distructive and that enforcing doctrinal purity by coersion is Satanic precisely because it does violence to the individual’s conscience and reason.

    Certainly we can all agree that to force an evolutionist professor to stop believing evolutionism by torturing him (as was the case of the inquisition) is out of the question. If said evolutionist wants to pedal his atheist-centric doctrines or origins and get someone to pay him to do it – let him go to the public university where people actually WANT to pay him to do that very thing.

    He need not seek to undermine the institutions of those who do not CHOOSE to pay him to do such a thing.

    Using coersion by treatening a person’s job is acting on the same principle, and is dishonoring the memory of the faithful martyrs.

    That is called the “fallacy of equivocation” my friend. You have equivocated between the acts of torture in the dark ages – vs the act of telling someone that they cannot force parents and students to PAY THEM to cram error down the student’s throat – but must go to some institution that WANTS to pay them to do that very thing rather than hijack the funds and resources of institutions that do NOT CHOOSE to embrace error.

    Otherwise Calvinists, Catholics, Hindus could all DEMAND that we PAY them to come to our schools and teach their views or else accuse us of engagin in “the inquisition”.

    Clearly there is a reason that your model above is called “the fallacy of equivocation”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  53. @Ron:

    3. Sources of Truth: To say that the Bible is authoritative, is not to say it is the only source of truth.

    True.

    The Bible says that GOD is the source of truth “When HE the Spirit of TRUTH comes HE will guide you into all truth” John 16.

    So not only do we see “Truth” in what the Bible says – “SIX days you shall labor…for in SIX days the Lord MADE”

    We also see “truth” in what God told his prophets even outside the Bible where Ellen White says God showed her the creation week and where she says that theistic evolutionism is in fact the “worst form of infidelity” 3SG 90-91.

    WE also see “truth” in nature for as Paul said in Romans 1 “they are without excuse for the invisible attributes of God are clearly seen through the things that have been made”

    Thus our study of the “things that have been MADE by God” is a companion and confirming avenue of “truth” with the Bible.

    There are many kinds of truth the Bible says nothing about. For example, the Bible doesn’t say anything about the speed of light, or the length of the Amazon river

    Indeed. It says that God created light Gen 1 and that God made the seas etc Ex 20:8-11, Rev 14:7 … and then when we study “the things that have been made” we gain additional detail.

    4. The standard for truth set by the Bible itself requires confirmation of truth by sources outside of the Bible. For example, the Bible says that a prophet should be tested by whether what he says will happen, does happen. The trouble with that is that the test is totally worthless as a test looking forward. You can’t tell if the prophet is true until the critical decision time is already past. Even if the event does take place, the source of your knowlege that validates the prophet is independant of the Bible, either through history, or personal observation.

    You have just presented us with classic “bait and switch”. Again – something that critical thinking will instantly pick up on, and a classic method in the science of propaganda. You started out with the claim that the BIBLE is to be tested using outside information – but then you provide an example where a self-proclaimed PROPHET is to be tested by events outside the Bible.

    Ron
    As I have pointed out before, it is impossible to arrive at the 1844 date “sola scriptura”. You have to appeal to secular history, and astronomy in particular to identify the date for the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. You might be able to be a Lutheran or a Baptist, but it is in fact impossible to be an Adventist “sola scriptura”.

    wrong.

    In that fallacy you have switched the meaning of sola scriptura to wooden structure that does not in fact exist. Sola scriptura is the argument that all doctrine is to be tested by the Bible.

    hint – even Baptists and Lutherans use the 490 prophecy of Dan 9 to point to the affirming events of Christ showing that he is the promised Messiah.

    No Bible scholars argue that the act of demonstrating that Bible predictions have come true – is a violation “sola scriptura” principles. No – not even Martin Luther made such a wild claim.

    5. Nehemiah: I think Nehemiah is actually a good example of my point. How did that work for him? Did it result in people loving God and keeping the Sabbath out of thankfulness and joy? No, he only got temporary compliance thru force, but force didn’t win the hearts. Then following Nehemiah’s example, the Jewish people responded by creating more and harsher rules about the Sabbath until Jesus finally had to come and “break the Sabbath law” on purpose, just to show how wrong their approach to the Sabbath was.

    Your appeal to fiction seems to be endless.

    1. Christ never broke the Sabbath. You are simply taking on the role of the Pharisees to make that accusation against Christ. In fact Gal 4 states that Christ was “born under the law” and perfectly fulfilled it.

    2. The error of the Jews was not due to a reformer like Nehemiah coming in and making the needed reforms within a theocracy. Your wild claim is akin to blaiming God for the presence of witches in Israel – since God made the law that they were to be put to death.

    The paucity of logic in your argument is astounding.

    Then, applying the principles of Nehemiah they tried to push Jesus off a cliff. As I understand it, Jesus wants our love, not our fear. I just can’t imagine Jesus behaving this way.

    1. Jesus said “whom I love I rebuke”.

    2. Jesus said “fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul in fiery hell” Matt 10

    3. Jesus said that the one who tries to bend and break the word of God and “teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the Kingdom of heaven”.

    4. Jesus said “think not that I have come to bring peace – I came not to bring peace but a sword”.

    5. Paul said in Titus 1 that those who come from inside the church teaching false doctrine (BTW that would include those who teach “the worst kind of infidelity”) “must be silenced” with a compelling Bible based response to their wild fictions.

    Your argument that the church should pay no attention to the attacks from within – attacks against fundamental basic Bible doctrine, is without Bible support.

    As God told Ellen White – “to remain neutral or do nothing in a time of spiritual crisis” is regarded by God as the worst kind of hostility against God. And yet you appear to even advocate it!

    6. Trust in God: Do you really? (Not you personally, I am using the royal you) It seems to me that you are afraid of God. You are afraid that if you or your child explores a new idea (evolution) you might accidently eat of the tree of knowlege of good and evil, and that God will dam your child in the eternal lake of fire.

    All heresy is at some point “a new idea” be it Satan worship or whatever. Nobody condemns something because “it is a new idea”. You might as well have argued “the argument for evolution is conveyed in words – people should not avoid words”. You are trying to hide evolutionism under a rock — your shell game is not working the way you seemed to have at first imagined.

    My God loves me enough, that he gave me a real choice.

    True. you can choose to believe the Bible and be saved and walk with God or you can choose to undermine trust in the Bible and be lead down a path of self-deception.

    Even if I ultimately reject him, Christ still doesn’t leave or forsake me, Christ walks with me right into the second death. (It was the second death that Christ died on the cross wasn’t it?)

    God says “O WHY will you die – as I live says the Lord I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked”. If your claim is that God does not enjoy watching you choose a course that leads to the suffering and torment in fire and brimstone of the 2nd death – you are correct.

    But that is sorry comfort to those who choose the 2nd death.

    Ron

    I happen to see evidence of evolution in the Bible.

    We get that sometimes from our evolutionist friends – but what we SEE them do is ‘run away” whenever the Bible basis for creation is brought up.

    So their wild claim appears to have no substance at all to it.

    I see evidence of evolution in the writings of Mrs. White.

    Well we can all agree that in 3SG 90-91 we see evidence that Ellen White actually WROTE ON that very subject – calling the wild notions about birds coming from reptiles and long ages of evolution “the worst form of infidelity”.

    So I think we can all agree that you see evolution mentioned in her writings.

    I believe that Adventist’s generally have mis-interpreted Mrs. White’s comments about Darwin.

    And I believe that evolutionists on this very board have argued that “Ellen White was wrong” when confronted with the very direct statements that she makes on the subject of evolution in 3SG 90-91.

    I leave it as an exercise for the reader to look into that.

    I believe that Darwin is a great man, because he spent time worshiping God in the study of nature and opened our eyes to God’s creative power in a way that no one else ever has. Is it any wonder that his work came into prominence at the same time the 3rd angel is reminding us to remember God as the creator? Isn’t it a little ironic that the man who did the most to reveal God’s ongoing creation scientifically was most reviled by those who claim the most to believe in God as the creator?

    I “believe Darwin” when HE SAID that HE could find no harmony at all between the Bible and his views of origins demanded by his belief in evolutionism. I “believe Darwin” when HE SAID that after trying for years to imagine some way that both Christianity and his precious darwinism could be true – he finally rejected Christianity because he knew enough about evolutionism to know that they simply do not fit together.

    I believe that when God confirmed that very point to Ellen White – that BOTH sources were in that tiny instance – on the same page.

    So “yes” I do agree with you that there is a lesson to be learned from Darwin.

    And “I believe you” when you say you are using Darwin as your model.

    Your method seem to be to go from one level of error to the next resulting in even more “inconvenient details” stand in in the way of your goals.

    At some point Ron, it pays to throw away the shovel.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  54. Ron:
    I am glad you are so sincere. The Bible is quite clear on creation without need to pull in traditions of the church if you choose to see it but if not that is okay for you.

    You describe a God of belief to me that you love and worship. He sounds like a big teddy bear in the sky. “Whatever you little children want down there, that’s okay with me.” That is not what the Bible describes in my reading. A lot of people pick and chose. Your God is well and good but the Bible’s God is in charge and does things His way. He as a set of rules–set in stone–for us and the universe. These were broken and cost His life to make them right again. In one of these it said the world was made in 6 days. His scientific laws are predictable as well but somehow we put these above Him–how is that? Unless we don’t believe in Him but someone else or a pushover. Read Job–to paraphrase–“who’s in charge Job? You or me (God is saying this)?” That was the question of Job and the question for us. Sounds like you want a God that is just happy with you being in charge and doing your own thing and is big enough to just let you do, say and think whatever you want.

    It would be a little harder to explain if many bad things had happened to you and your world was falling apart. Where would God be? Job says that God blesses the just and unjust more that they deserve so that if there is something bad that happens, it is not a curse but the normal and we should realize how many blessings we have been under from before. Also, Job implies that God is in charge and we can question and ask but we cannot dictate policy.

    I am sure that nothing I can say will change your mind. You seem sincere. I find now there is nothing further to discuss or ask as you are willing to apply negative actions to Paul and Nehemiah both of whom I believe did those things under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.




    0
    View Comment
  55. Shannon,
    Thank you for your graciousness. You also seem sincere to me.

    Because I believe that God gave Adam and Eve two legitimate choices, does not mean that I think God is a Teddy Bear. I believe that evil is truely evil, and that our choice of Knowledge of Good and Evil, truely cost God, the death of his son. What I am saying is that God willingly and freely chose to pay the price. God and Christ both talked about it before they chose to create the world, and even in the face of all the tragedy of all the ages, God decided that it was worth it. God didn’t give Adam and Eve the choices blindly and he isn’t threatened. God was reconciled to all the evil we would create even before Christ ever started creating.

    Adam and Eve could have chosen innocence and life without death and they never would have known evil, but neither would they have known the Goodness of God’s mercy. There would have remained a huge part of God’s character that would never have been revealed. Like the Angels in heaven, we would never have known God’s mercy, or his justice (remember the angels has no idea of God’s law until he spelled it out to man), his patience, his selflessness, his courage, or compassion. We never would have seen God’s love that wins our hearts at the cross. What’s more, Man’s character would never have become what it is. We never would have seen the patience of Job, the faith of Abraham, the courage of David, the faithfulness of Daniel, the joy of the Samaritan woman, the repentance of Peter, the boldness of the thief on the cross. None of those virtues could have been developed in the garden. Was it Mother Theresa that said, “Yes, I see the world filled with evil, but I also see the overcoming of evil.”? Christ has overcome the world. We don’t even need faith to know that. We see it every day, all around us. Good is overcoming evil.

    The real choice God gave man was the choice between a simple good, innocence without death, or a larger and more complex good, death with wisdom (the ability to distinguish between good and evil). It is impossible to obtain wisdom without paying the terrible price of also knowing evil. Of course God could never have advised man to choose something so devastating, but the choice is still a valid choice, given to us by a loving God who just happens to have all the character traits we need to learn and develop in order to come out of the valley of the shaddow of death, on the other side victorious with a deeper knowledge of God’s character than would ever have been possible other wise.

    Before the fall, God walked with man in the garden. After the fall, man has become a partaker of the divine nature. Before the fall, the Spirit moved on the face of the waters, after the fall the spirit lives in the heart of man. Yes, we all experience death, but we also experience rebirth, and resurection. God the creator, continues to create. Not just in nature, but also in the hearts and souls of men.

    I am not immune, my heart also has been crushed and I know that I will die, but I am OK with that. Like God I am reconciled. I am thankful for the gift God has given. I for one think the risk was worth it. I am happy with the choice Adam and Eve made. I like the fact that the Holy Spirit lives in my heart and that I can partake of the very nature of God and sit with Christ on his throne.




    0
    View Comment
  56. Bob,
    1. You are confusing two issues. One is the issue of whether the Bible is the ONLY source of truth. The other is the issue of whether God continues to create through a process that we recognize as evolution. Please don’t mix your arguments.

    2. Regarding Sola Scriptura, as you said above, the Bible is the sole authority for doctrine. Science is not doctrine. Doctrine is not science. According to Mrs. White they are both books from God, but they are separate.

    3. Your famous quote says nothing about evolution. Mrs. White is talking about using long chronology from GEOLOGY, not BIOLOGY, to undermine faith in God. Of course that is the worst of infidelities, because it corrupts the messages of both of God’s books, both science and the Bible. If you corrupt both, then you really do have a problem. How is God going to speak to you? Her problem isn’t with the science. Her problem is with people using science to undermine faith in the Bible.

    4. As I recall, the fourth comandment commands us to work 6 days, and it points to God’s example in creation as the reason. It does NOT say that God did not resume working again on Sunday. In fact, Jesus specifically says in John 5:15 that God is working still. I am not aware of any place in the Bible that states that God ceased to be the creator when Adam and Eve sinned. In fact, I think that the Third Angels Message specifically says that we are to REMEMBER that God is the CREATOR. Yes, God created the world in 6 days, but that does not imply that he stopped. He is still the creator, now, 6000 years later.

    5. The Bible does teach evolution. True, not a slow evolution like the modern evolutionists are teaching, but actually a very rapid evolution of large carnivors from the time of Adam to the time of Noah. Noah was afraid to leave the ark because of them. Again, in the story of Jonah, God created a new creature specifically for the task at hand. A very rapid evolution if you will.

    6. RE: Nehemiah, I am not impuning Nehemiah’s work. All I am doing is following the outworking of the principles he initiated through the Bible history and what I see is that it didn’t work out so good. And yes, according to the standards that Nehemiah set, Jesus did in fact break the Sabbath law. Jesus himself said that he did it. John 5:17 “My father is working still, and I am working”. Jesus did it intentionally and for the very purpose of attacking one of their Fundamental Beliefs.

    In Mark 3:1-6. Jesus here again breaks that Sabbath commandment according to the principles initiated by Nehemiah. Given your arguments for Sola Scriptura, I am suprised that you don’t see this point. This seems to be a major issue for Jesus. Mark 3:5 even says that it made Jesus “angry and sore distressed”. In fact breaking the law was exactly Christ’s intent, to show how wrong their fundamental beliefs about the Sabbath were.

    7. Again, Sola Scriptura, Mark 3:1-6 addresses exactly what this web site is proposing. Like the Pharisees you are the accussor. You are going out and “holding counsel against him”. Jesus rebukes the “accussor of the bretheren”.




    0
    View Comment
  57. As God told Ellen White – “to remain neutral or do nothing in a time of spiritual crisis” is regarded by God as the worst kind of hostility against God. And yet you appear to even advocate it!

    I don’t see how you can accuse me of advocating neutrality. I am decidedly NOT neutral. I oppose the purpose of this web site vehemently with all the power I can. I believe it is the very work of the devil within the Adventist Church. As I have argued before the spirit of coersion undermines everything that we as Adventists stand for. In my opinion Mrs. White would be in decided opposition to you.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.