Kent your “spin doctoring” may be subtle at time – …

Comment on The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist by BobRyan.

Kent your “spin doctoring” may be subtle at time – but possible not as subtle as you may have at first imagined.

In this quote – you say

Kent said
Fortunately, the Church did not vigorously expel those who disagreed with the early antitrinitarian views. Eventually, the Church adopted its current position, which embraces the trinity, and is a part of “present truth.”

Thus positioning the subject in the 1800’s context “AS IF” they were talking about a voted or published Fundamental Belief of the church against the Trinity – and demonstrating the idea that nobody was really asked to believe those beliefs to the point of declaring them to be “expelled” from the church for not believing them.

(A reference to your idea of including evolutionism in the church today).

You craft the statement to lead the reader to “suppose” that one of the real published statements of beliefs for the church in the 1800’s actually said there was no trinity or that Christ was created or that Christ was begotten (came into being) before his incarnation instead of being eternally self-existant etc etc.

So I simply exposed that flaw in your spin doctored revisionist history.

BobRyan: Hint – NO statement of beliefs published by the Adventists in the 1800′s (and yes those published statements go back to the 1870′s and even before that) ever made any statement against the Trinity.

Not a single one stated that Christ was created and not a single one stated that the Holy Spirit was not a person or not the Third Person of the Godhead or that the Godhead did not consist of three persons.
Thus this latest canard you are trying fails as do the ones you have offerred prior to this one – “in the details”.

Professor Kent: If you don’t believe the Church at one time sanctioned anti-trinitarian views, I suggest you read the details for yourself (http://bit.ly/ivX9b7) and pick an argument with the author of the very well referenced Ministry magazine article, rather than with me. You can quarrel with them over the semantics of “pre-existant,” “begotten,” and “created.”

Your own link exposes the flaw in your argument. Instead of the claim that our published set of beliefs in the 1800’s stated that we did not accept the trinity or stated that Adventists claimed that Christ was created – we have this.

Up to 1890: Antitrinitarian period
Until near the turn of the twentieth century, Seventh-day Adventist literature was almost unanimous in opposing the eternal deity of Jesus and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. During the earlier years, some even held the view that Christ was created. It is very important to understand that Adventist views were not homogeneous. Theological tension within Adventism began during the Millerite movement and is illustrated by the two principal leaders, William Miller and Joshua V. Himes.

Miller, being a Baptist, was a trinitarian. He wrote, “I believe in one living and true God, and that there are three persons in the Godhead. . . . The three persons of the Triune God are connected.”

So while there were opinions among various members on a great many different subjects, the actual stated set of beliefs for the entire group was under the management of God himself.

Hence – this bit of inconvenient history for the story you are trying to tell.

A summary of our “25 Beliefs” was first published in 1872.

No mention of Christ being created. No mention of anything against the Trinity.

That holds true in the 1889 year book summary and in all other summary statements – to this very day.

Your implied accusation that the prior statements of our Fundamental beliefs were in error, were not binding, or evolved from error to truth (etc) is not supported in historic fact (no not even in your own linked source).

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist
In this statement we have Kent’s reminder that the LSU profs were instructed to finally – at last — be civil towards SDA students.

BobRyan: Professor Kent: The administration should have required the professors to respect all student viewpoints on religion and origins, including the official SDA positions.

And so that begs the obvious question –

BobRyan: Since when is “being civil” the only for ‘value added’ benefit in SDA teaching?

Value added for SDA schools is supposed to be much higher than just “respecting the religion of the students as if the SDA church is some other religion that you must tolerate with civility”.

I thought everyone here was on the same page with that point.

What did I miss?

Those defending LSU make it appear to be some large achievement when it happens in their religion and Biology classes.

Kent “steps up his game” a bit by saying that he supports 3SG 90-94 and would insist that the TE position not be promoted at LSU (not just that the LSU profs need to be civil toward their SDA students while they teach evolution).

Professor Kent: 3SG 90-91 makes abundantly clear that SDA schools must not allow the teaching of theistic evolution. LSU cannot be teaching butterflies to birds as fact.

That is as good as I have seen it get coming from Kent.

Is this a new day or what??

in Christ,

Bob


The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist

Professor Kent: The administration should have required the professors to respect all student viewpoints on religion and origins, including the official SDA positions.

Since when is “being civil” is the only standard for ‘value added’ in SDA teaching?

Value added for SDA schools is supposed to be much higher than just “respecting the religion of the students as if the SDA church is some other religion that you must tolerate with civility”.

I thought everyone here was on the same page with that point.

What did I miss?

Those defending LSU make it appear to be some large achievement when it happens in their religion and Biology classes.

in Christ,

Bob


The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist

BobRyan: Kent represents a significant group opposed to the idea of exposing and fully dealing with the TE problem.

Kent then puts on his creationist hat as follows.

Kent said:

Excuse me. I also wrote this:

2. The university and regional Church leadership should have dealt much sooner and much better with the situation than they chose to do so. They should never have let the situation reach the point that it has.

Given your actual arguments stating that the creationists arguments are not good science, that evolutionism is to be “big left tented” into Adventism because after all “TEs exist”, and given your argument that our positioin on origins should not make appeals to confirming evidence observed in nature, on what “basis” would you then be suggesting that the LSU problem “be dealt with sooner”??

Just what kind of “solution” where you proposing??

in Christ,

Bob


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?

Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?

Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.

“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)

Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.

(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)

By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
Gentlemen,

What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.

An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.

1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..

2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.

3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.

4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).

In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.

Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??

Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.

hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.

The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis

Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind