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

Posted by Sean Pitman

Early morning of May 5, 2011
.
 

On April 27, 2011 the Adventist News Network published an article detailing the thrilling exploits of Dr. Lee Grismer, an evolutionary biologist from La Sierra University, who has “discovered 80 new species of reptiles and amphibians during his 15-year career” at LSU.  The article goes on to twice describe Dr. Grismer as an “Adventist field biologist.” (Read the Article)

Notice: This article has apparently been pulled from the ANN website as of the afternoon of May 5, 2011 and is no longer available.

While there is no doubt that Dr. Grismer’s work is very exciting and thrilling indeed, I personally feel it unwise for the ANN to promote Dr. Grismer as an “Adventist field biologist” when he is one of several LSU professors who are ardently undermining the Seventh-day Adventist position on origins – in no uncertain terms.  Dr. Grismer is in fact an ardent evolutionist who believes and teaches his students at LSU that life has existed and evolved on this planet, in a Darwinian manner, over the course of hundreds of millions of years.  He teaches his students that the SDA position on origins, the literal six-day creation week in particular, is scientifically ludicrous and even morally dangerous…

In February of 2009, I gave an impromptu presentation at LSU on the topic of creation/evolution.  The very next week Drs. Lee Greer and Lee Grismer put together a presentation to challenge my talk on a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. Dr. Grismer in particular derided students who questioned his evolutionary view on origins, suggesting that those who hold outdated literal creationist beliefs are the same ones who “fly airplanes into buildings”.

Such statements are nothing new for Dr. Grismer who, according to former LSU students, really enjoys “making students and visiting professors look like fools, if they question the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution.” ( Link )

This is right in line with the public comments of long-time LSU professor, Dr. Gary Bradley, who declared that the SDA view on a literal creation week is held by the “lunatic fringe” and that he is not about to get up in front of his class and say that mainstream science is a bunch of “bs” – to quote Dr. Bradley in his interview in 2009 with Inside Higher Ed.

Such events and comments formed the basis for the rising concern over the promotion of mainstream evolutionary theories in our classrooms. This concern has increased dramatically over the past two years that this issue has gained a degree of public attention within the SDA Church at large. And yet, the ANN sees fit to present such professors as models of Adventist education?  the very same professors who have long been deliberately undermining the most basic of SDA fundamental goals and ideals in their classrooms?

Is this not equivalent of the ANN shooting itself in the foot? – promoting LSU’s science department by highlighting the truly thrilling work of one of its evolutionary biologists while failing to explain that this very same man is also boldly attacking the Church’s position on origins as a paid representative of the Church?  Does it matter how good and exciting the work may be of any pastor or teacher if this individual is, at the same time, attacking the foundational pillars of the Church?  Does the good truly outweigh the negative influence of such individuals when it comes to the primary goals and ideals of the Church as an organization? – or does the good simply act as capsule that helps one swallow the poison a bit more easily?

392 thoughts on “The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist

  1. Bill&#032Sorensen: It was not a concensus stated position of the church one way or the other. You compare apples and oranges by considering an issue that was not agreed on nor declared one way or the other, and then try to apply this to present day positions that have been clearly defined and historically accepted as what the church believes and supports.

    Bill, the article makes abundantly clear that anti-trinitism was the consensus position of the Church prior to 1890. You suggest the absence of a formal position in that era, but by 1872 the Adventist press at Battle Creek, Michigan, published a “Synopsis of our Faith” in 25 propositions. The first two propositions read:

    I. That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139:7.

    II. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father

    In these propositions, this “one God” is not referred to as a trinity, but as an individual in his own right. Christ is also referred to as a personal individual in his own right–the son of God–and is even contrasted with the eternal God. Thus, God and Jesus were referred to as separate personalities, which is more than the Holy Spirit was given credit for, and none were referred to collectively as the single entity we recognize them to be today.

    These statements were repeated in identical form in the published statements of 1874, 1878, 1889, 1905, and 1907-1914. And in each case, the propositions were preceded by a preamble stating that they were, “with great unanimity, held by [Seventh-day Adventists]“. What does “great unanimity” mean to you?

    If I’m not mistaken, the trinity doctrine was not officially voted into the beliefs of our denomination until 1980! I’m sorry if this news is upsetting to you. Obviously, a plurality of views on the very nature of God existed in our Church for a long, long time, without those on one side successfully forcing out those on the other side. Thank God there was no internet in those days!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  2. Prof Kent:

    Label me as you wish; you can get in line with David Read, Bob Ryan, Sean Pitman, and others who seem to delight in proclaiming that I’m not really an Adventist after all, and am just a cowardly liar with blind, circular reasoning who is actually a theistic evolutionist who applauds its teaching in our schools. That’s what this website seems to be all about–those who reflect the “moral image of God” telling others how wrong and dangerous and immoral useless their faith and beliefs are, and why they should just shut up and leave the Church.

    This isn’t about labelling anyone–this is about the truth and making sure it returns to our classrooms. I know you and Eddie can’t see why I and others here want to hold the members to their baptismal vows or surrender their membership, but as far as I can see this is the only way to put an end to this whole thing.

    In most of today’s society, it is all about allowing people to “be their own person” and hold their own opinions. This isn’t about opinions. This is about truth and error.

    I have no problem if you hold your own opinions on anything that doesn’t contradict our doctrines. But the doctrines are not up for discussion. They were given to us by God and we either adhere to them, or we break our baptismal vows…a position that is quite widespread among SDAs today.

    The professors who teach evolution–even theistic evolution (or perhaps especially theistic evolution because it is more dangerous as it doesn’t openly declare it is in direct opposition to God and His word when it actually is)–are taking the word of man over the word of God. To me, that is incredibly foolish, and I would expect better of educated people.

    Worse yet, these professors and teachers seem to be bent on spreading this teaching far and wide in our institutions. I reluctantly declare that the persons so deceived should not be in positions of trust or be members in good standing in our churches. I get no enjoyment from this declaration. I wish we were all of one accord. But I tend to look at things logically and to me, if someone doesn’t hold to the truths the church stands for they are in the wrong place.

    The term “theistic evolution” is an oxymoron as you can either believe in God and His creation or you can believe in evolution. The two are diametrically opposed.

    I fail to see how people who have been so highly educated cannot see this. The principles of evolution are so far away from anything God stands for, surely you must see that.

    Remember this: if we do not fall on the
    Rock and be broken, the Rock will fall on us and crush us. We can be wrong, albeit sincerely wrong and lose out on eternal life. As for the so-called evidences for evolution, remember that Ellen White said in the end times we will not be able to believe our senses. This is because Satan is allowed to use more and more of his power to deceive us as the Spirit of God is withdrawn from the earth. Don’t be fooled. Please, please, give up this nonsense and return to the fold. That is my prayer for all of you in this position. The opinion of your peers–especially the worldly ones–is certainly not worth losing out on eternal life.

    As for perfection, I don’t know anyone who claims to be perfect. I know I am not. But we have to keep trying to be. We need to follow Christ so closely we will become like Him. That is the only hope for all of us.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  3. Faith,

    During the early history of the SDA Church, up until around 1890, SDA literature was almost unanimous in opposing the eternal deity of Jesus and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Can you believe it? You can read the history of this in an article at Ministry magazine (http://bit.ly/ivX9b7). 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.”

    Is it any more necessary to expel those with divergent views today than it was prior to 1890? If the Church vigorously excercised your position early on–to expel anyone disagreeing with the official Church position–we might to this day STILL reject the trinity, and Educate Truth might have arisen to expose trinitarians at our universities rather than theistic evolutionists! Perhaps you could give this some prayerful thought.

    Regarding theistic evolution, I am thoroughly and completely in 100% agreement that it should not be taught as fact at any SDA university. I’ve always taken this position, and from what I’ve read from Eddie, he totally agrees with you as well. You’ve asked me to “return the fold,” but I’ve never strayed from it. As I’ve declared many dozens of times at this website, I’m a lifelong young-earth creationist (based to no small extent on faith in God’s word). I don’t doubt that there are some individuals who might be evangelistic in their desire to see theistic evolution established in the Church, so I share your concern. There is a way to oppose that, but I don’t think Educate Truth’s approach (public flogging and harassment, and frequent misrepresentation of science), or the continual policing of everyone’s position (enforcing a creed which E. G. White objected to, prone to arbitrariness, and highly impractical), are the best means. I think such tactics do more harm than good. I’m not a bAdventist, as some here suggest, just because I disagree with you and others on certain issues.

    I appreciate the gentleness of your communications, and the fact that you don’t distort what I say. You have a sweet spirit.

    Blessings
    PK

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  4. PK said…..

    “Fortunately, the Church did not vigorously expel those who disagreed with the early antitrinitarian views.”

    It was not a concensus stated position of the church one way or the other. You compare apples and oranges by considering an issue that was not agreed on nor declared one way or the other, and then try to apply this to present day positions that have been clearly defined and historically accepted as what the church believes and supports.

    And then use “the gospel” to defend Pluralism as a viable option. The stated positions are at least for the most part, non-negotiable.

    In one sense, “the church” has no official position on anything except one and that is this, the bible is the one infallible rule of faith and practice.

    None the less, over the years, certain concensus biblical positions are stated as accepted by the church in general, and people are expected to agree, or, at the bare minimum, show from the bible in what way any given position is in error.

    If people “distort what you say”, then qualify and re-qualify as many times as is necessary so there can be no mis-understanding as to your meaning and application.

    Even Jesus said, “Anybody can say ‘Lord, Lord’ but it has no meaning unless it is defined in its biblical context.”

    So, Jesus will say, “I never knew you.”

    What a shock to those who were sure they had a clear understanding of the issues. And even thought they were Christians.

    Not according to Jesus. But the challenge is to all of us, isn’t it? So, if you want to be defensive about what you believe, show us from the bible where you are right and those who oppose you are wrong.

    Is EGW wrong in defending and supporting moral perfection? If so, show from the bible where she is wrong. She calls for sinlessness.

    Do you suppose that after Christ gave His precious life to redeem the beings He created He would fail to give them sufficient power to enable them to overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony? He has power to save every individual. At the time of His ascension He said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” For our redemption all power is given to Him who stood at the head of humanity. For nearly six weeks the Sinless One fought a battle with the powers of darkness in the wilderness of temptation, overcoming not on His account, but on our account, thus making it possible for every son and daughter of Adam to overcome through the merit of His sinlessness. . . . {CTr 199.5}
    Only those who practice holiness in this life will see the King in His beauty. Put away all vain, trifling talk, and everything of a frivolous and sensational nature. Do not engross your mind with thoughts of worldly entertainments and pleasures. Engage in the work of saving your soul. If you should lose your soul, it would have been better for you never to have been born. But you need not lose your soul. You may use every moment of this God-given life to His name’s glory. Strengthen yourself to resist the powers of darkness, that they shall not obtain a victory over you.—Manuscript 110, 1901 (Sermons and Talks, vol. 2, pp. 174-176). {CTr 199.6}

    Those who believe on Christ and obey His commandments are not under bondage to God’s law; for to those who believe and obey, His law is not a law of bondage, but of liberty. Everyone who believes on Christ, everyone who relies on the keeping power of a risen Saviour that has suffered the penalty pronounced upon the transgressor, everyone who resists temptation and in the midst of evil copies the pattern given in the Christ life, will through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ become a partaker of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Everyone who by faith obeys God’s commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. {HP 146.5}

    Nobody believes these quotes anymore. It is not popular to teach a complete and final victory over sin. We don’t go around asking anyone if they have attained it. Such a question is not even relevant to the issue.

    Does the bible teach it is all we need to ask. Not, “Has anyone attained it?”

    God will decide that issue. But we can be certain of one clear fact, anyone who denies the possibility will never attain it. You can not do what you are convinced it is impossible to do. And even more deceptive, when you are convinced it is not even necessary.

    And it may well be that anyone who does attain it, won’t know it. But you can be sure of one thing, they won’t deny the possibility of such an experience.

    And we can be sure of one other fact, there is no “sinlessness” outside of Christ. No one is sinless in and of themselves. And we can know another certainty, neither was Adam sinless in and of himself. Nor are any of the unfallen angels sinless in and of themselves.

    This is the original lie Lucifer started in heaven and deceived a third of the angels by it. Sinlessness is by way of a relationship, not some inherent quality in a created being.

    Only God is inherently holy. Rev. 15:4

    But all believers are holy in Christ.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  5. Here are some shocking facts on the stunning divergence of views that was once tolerated by Adventists (http://bit.ly/ivX9b7):

    Though James White rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, he did believe in the three great Powers in heaven reflected in his first hymnbook.6 Though opposed to the Trinity, he did not believe that Christ was inferior to the Father. In 1877 he wrote, “The inexplicable trinity that makes the godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse.”7

    Not all agreed with James White on the equality of Father and Son. During the 1860s, Uriah Smith, long-time editor of the Review and Herald, believed that Jesus was “the first created being.”8 By 1881, he had changed to the belief that Jesus was “begotten” and not created.9

    A selective list of Adventists who either spoke against the Trinity and/ or rejected the eternal deity of Christ include J. B. Frisbie, J. N. Loughborough, R. F. Cottrell, J. N. Andrews, D. M. Canright, J. H. Waggoner, and C. W. Stone.10 W. A. Spicer at one point told A. W. Spalding that his father, after becoming a Seventh-day Adventist (he was formerly a Seventh Day Baptist minister), “grew so offended at the antitrinitarian atmosphere in Battle Creek that he ceased preaching.”11

    Should the SDA Church today be more concerned about preaching the everlasting gospel or purifying its ranks according to an inflexible creedal statement? If we insist on purifying our ranks, how do we know that we have everything figured out with more certainty today than we did in 1888?

    May I remind readers of the prelude to our Fundamental Beliefs: “These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.

    How is the Holy Spirit to lead our Church to a fuller understanding of Bible truth if we arbitrarily decide we have it all figured out now, and expel anyone who dares to think differently? Surely the Bible and our Church can withstand honest discussion of divergent viewpoints.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  6. 5-15-11

    Bill Sorensen said: (5-11-11)

    “If you read enough posts, Lydian, on all the SDA forums, you soon see how impossible it is for the “carnal mind” to perceive the word of God and its meaning.”

    ************

    Bill,

    Sorry to be so slow getting an answer back to you but we have been through several really rough times here lately. (A prime example took place a week or so ago when a real “killer” of several tornados tore through our area leaving behind many destroyed homes and businesses–and many deaths and serious injuries. Neither the home we live in nor the one our oldest daughter lives in or our oldest son lives in were damaged. (Our other two children don’t live in the area so were never in harm’s way ) None of us were injured in any way although many trees, power lines, and other devastated homes were around Kathy and her husband’s home–including those of some very dear friends. While our hearts ache for those so affected we are very grateful for our blessings.

    In some respects I do agree with you 100%! It IS impossible for the CARNAL mind to perceive the Word of God and it’s meaning. But Jesus did not come to this world to suffer and die–then return to heaven without doing anything to lift us out of the pit in which we as sinners are in. His life and death made it possible for us to be changed–He came that we might be changed into His likeness. He came that we might have a new heart and a new mind! And, with the help of the Holy Spirit, it is more than possible that we, as totally unworthy sinners, can be changed into His image and CAN have a new heart and a new mind!

    Yes, there are portions of the Bible that ARE difficult (if not impossible) to understand on our own–but there is an abundance we CAN understand and accept with the help of the Holy Spirit–even those of us who aren’t as brilliant as we wish we were! So, in the end, we really have no excuse for not knowing enough to help us understands what God expects of His children–and living up to it!. If that is not the truth, then Jesus lived and died in vain–and I don’t think that is an acceptable conclusion. (But I am really looking forward to some day–after I’ve been with Jesus and my wonderful Father–sitting at the feet of Daniel and John as they discuss the two books they wrote–as well as Moses and the rest of the authors!) I supect I’ll need all of eternity in order to grasp it all!

    But listen to what God has said, Bill::

    “And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I WILL TAKE THE STONY HEART OUT OF THEIR FLESH, AND WILL GIVE THEM AN HEART OF FLESH: THAT THEY MAY WALK IN MY STATUTES, AND KEEP MINE ORDINANCES, AND DO THEM: AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE, AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD. But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.”
    “Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
    “When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
    “Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
    “Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?
    “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
    “Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
    “For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.” Ezekiel 18:25-32 (KJV)

    “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.” Ezekiel 36:26 KJV
    (How could God have said it any plainer than this–and what excuse can we possibly have for not understanding Him?)

    It is true that these particular verses were originally given for the Israelites at that particular time when they were captives in Babylon–but the God of the Israelites is the God of all time and all flesh. He never changes so the “new spirit” and the “new heart” are ever available to any one and every one who turns to Him in faith. In our own strength we can do nothing to merit salvation–or a true understanding of the Bible–and it is very possible for us to get so wrapped up in “minors” that we ignore the “majors!”

    We are all born with “carnal minds”, Bill, but Jesus came to this world to make it possible for us to get rid of out carnal minds and have His mind!.

    He did not come to this earth to die that we may live and then return to heaven leaving us in the same state we were in before He came. He came to give us all the resources we need to shed our “carnal minds” and accept the mind of Jesus so we can understand and avail ourselves of all the help we need to obtain eternal salvation. All is available to the repentant sinner who truly seeks Him. God can and will give all the help necessary to such a one. It is our own stubborn, rebellious spirit that keeps us from understanding the way to eternal salvation. At the bar of judgment none can give any excuse for not being ready to meet Jesus when He returns–and I truly believe that time is nearer than we think.

    This website was established to call attention to a real problem in our church and to make our great concern known. This issue at LSU–and probably other schools as well–is extremely important but it is very possible for us (who, after all, are on the “sidelines”) to get so heated up and so completely sidetracked that we become simply a bunch of quarreling children. We lose track of what the issues really are, what is really important– and we get immersed in hurling opinions back and forth that are completely “off the track!” and absolutely nothing is said or done that solves any problems–or draws any of us closer to Christ. (Was it Shakespear who said, “What fools we mortals be!” If not, whoever ssid it was right on track!)

    And I am not excusing myself and just blaming others. Believe me, I do not consider myself an “example’ of what being a true Christian is all about! I mean well but I often–very often–find myself as one of the “chief of sinners” for I have learned so much, been helped in so many ways by so many wonderful Christian friends so much better and more committed than I am–yet–after all these many years–I still find myself at times doing things I know I should not do, saying thing I know I should not say, and thinking things I know I should not think! But I take courage from my Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy and struggle on. God has been wonderful to me in spite of all of my often not-so-obedient-life

    Hope all of you have had a wonderful Sabbath!

    Lydian

    PS: I hope I don’t confuse anyone by my use of the KJV. It is the Bible I grew up with and which I am most familiar. I’ve tried relearning verses in the newer versions but end up not being able to quote either one correctly. Old habits die hard!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  7. Bill Sorensen: It was not a concensus stated position of the church one way or the other. You compare apples and oranges by considering an issue that was not agreed on nor declared one way or the other, and then try to apply this to present day positions that have been clearly defined and historically accepted as what the church believes and supports.

    Bill, the article makes abundantly clear that anti-trinitism was the consensus position of the Church prior to 1890. You suggest the absence of a formal position in that era, but by 1872 the Adventist press at Battle Creek, Michigan, published a “Synopsis of our Faith” in 25 propositions. The first two propositions read:

    I. That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139:7.

    II. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father

    In these propositions, this “one God” is not referred to as a trinity, but as an individual in his own right. Christ is also referred to as a personal individual in his own right–the son of God–and is even contrasted with the eternal God. Thus, God and Jesus were referred to as separate personalities, which is more than the Holy Spirit was given credit for, and none were referred to collectively as the single entity we recognize them to be today.

    These statements were repeated in identical form in the published statements of 1874, 1878, 1889, 1905, and 1907-1914. And in each case, the propositions were preceded by a preamble stating that they were, “with great unanimity, held by [Seventh-day Adventists]“. What does “great unanimity” mean to you?

    If I’m not mistaken, the trinity doctrine was not officially voted into the beliefs of our denomination until 1980! I’m sorry if this news is upsetting to you. Obviously, a plurality of views on the very nature of God existed in our Church for a long, long time, without those on one side successfully forcing out those on the other side. Thank God there was no internet in those days!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  8. Professor Kent, I won’t bicker with you about the Trinity and its historical consideration in the church. EGW never used the word.

    Hopefully, most SDA’s believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and this is three persons that make up the Godhead.

    EGW doesn’t use the phrase “original sin” either. But she supports the concept again and again in her writings.

    Phrases are made up to convey an overall meaning so when the phrase is used, knowledgeable people will know what it means. It saves time and effort to restate and redefine a whole series of ideas that make up a single point.

    So, as SDA’s, they made up the phrase “The investigative judgment”. While all that is comprehended in the phrase is not determined or stated, none the less, it conveys an overview of the final judgment of the church that preceeds the second coming.

    Certain elements can be defined and re-defined for clarification. But the overall meaning is non-negotiable.

    Simply this, believers are judged by the law to determine who will go to heaven, and who will not. This means no one is “saved” until the final judgment decision and all are on probation waiting for the final judgment.

    This simple concept has been attacked by more than a few in the past and is being continually attacked in the present.

    But the phrase defines the basic view and reason for the existence of the SDA church. It is the one unique doctrine that defines us in contrast to other denominations.

    We should expect church members to adhere to this concept and support it. If they have carefully considered it and its meaning, implications, and application and don’t agree with it, they should in all honesty and integrity leave the church.

    If they don’t understand it, then they should take as much time as necessary to consider it carefully until they do. At least its basic overall meaning.

    From this doctrine came our view of the necessity to keep the Sabbath of the 4th commandment. Also, the state of the dead, the thousand years following Jesus’ coming is in heaven and other details concerning the second coming.

    Today, we apparently can not even find a clear concensus of the doctrine of creation and affirm God as the creator in 6 days and resting on the seventh, without challenge and attack by liberals who undermine clear biblical statements and concepts. And whether people know it or not, it came of the Dr. Ford fiasco who attack the church and the 1844 IJ.

    I suppose you already know this……

    Anyway, many don’t.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  9. Re Bill’s Quote

    “People love sensationalism. So I would suspect Dr. Camping has a rather large following. And what do you think of his presentation?”

    Hi Bill

    Yes people do.

    Regarding Dr. Camping and the relative merits of end times biblical prophecy, I have an agnostic hypothesis. The predictive aspect of my hypothesis will require observations of the state of the world on May 22, 2011 and October 22, 2011.

    I’ll elaborate further on May 22, 2011.

    Speaking of prophecy and the merits of empirical observations, is there any corroborative, empirical evidence to support the testimony of Hiram Edson, that the Investigative Judgment began on October 22, 1844?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  10. Speaking of prophecy and the merits of empirical observations, is there any corroborative, empirical evidence to support the testimony of Hiram Edson, that the Investigative Judgment began on October 22, 1844?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

    Not really, Ken.

    The bible is self validating and the real “evidence” of its claim are best supported by its prophetic declarations.

    I suppose Daniel and Revelation are classic in this area.

    Once you accept this “evidence” you are also impressed by its flowing continuity inspite of many biblical writers. They never negate the testimony of another. And this, in and of itself, is most amazing.

    If God had simply appointed one single individual to record the “whole ball of wax”, we could easily claim the continuity is because it is the product of one writer.

    What happened in 1844 by way of an historical event on earth was the confusion many had about what really happened in heaven. It was a logical mistake when it was assumed “the sanctuary” was the world. A false assumption will necessarily lead to a false conclusion.

    In the same way the people of Jesus’ day were looking for an earthly ruler and king to be the Messiah. This was so throughly ingrained in the minds of the people, even the disciples could not comprehend much of what Jesus was communicating.

    Even after His resurrection, they were slow to see the implications of His words. This was partly due to the fact the old testament makes little or no distinction of the several phases of the coming of the Messiah. So, they did not say, “At His first coming, He will do so and so…..and at His second coming He will do this or that, and then at His third coming He will finish up the whole mess and finally restore all aspects of the kingdom.”

    These phases were all run together and all the events seem to take place at one coming.

    For me personally, I find it more beneficial to still think of it as one coming divided into three phases. Instead of three comings and three events. And this is because all the phases are so inter related, they can be run together as one event. Just as the old testament does.

    Obviously, there is still a lot of confusion about the 2nd and 3rd phase of His coming. Some of us, at least, believe God raised up Adventism to make clear the events that parallel and contrast the 2nd and 3rd coming. The new testament writer still run the two phases together such as Peter’s description II Peter chapter 3. The book of Revelation does not always make a clear distinction between the 2nd and 3rd phase either. Such as Rev. 19-22.

    I am not shocked, nor amazed, nor is my faith challenged simply because those who were seeking an understand of Dan. 8:14 came to some wrong conclusions. They also came to some right conclusions, namely, a very important event was about to transpire in 1844.

    I see the perfect flowing unity in the explanation Ellen White gives of what happened and why. I also see their final conclusions are clearly revealed in the bible and so I don’t need to support the truth of the matter by EGW or anyone else.

    I never use EGW in a bible study on this subject. I do point people to the great Advent awakening in the 1840’s and tell how Miller and a host of others were seeking the meaning of the text in Dan.

    So, Ken, bible believing SDA’s don’t need EGW, we do appreciate the God given light she had on this subject as she showed from the bible its meaning. The bible speaks for itself and God creates the Christian community by way of the bible, not EGW.

    But I recommend you read the several chapters in the Great Controversy surrounding this subject. She laid it out so plain, that “wayfaring men, though fools, need not err therein.” Jer.

    Prophecy is the most powerful tool to vindicate the bible and its teaching. Nothing else even comes close.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  11. Prof Kent said:
    “I’m a lifelong young-earth creationist (based to no small extent on faith in God’s word). I don’t doubt that there are some individuals who might be evangelistic in their desire to see theistic evolution established in the Church, so I share your concern.”

    I am glad to hear that you believe as I do, yet I am puzzled as to some of the posts you have put up on this site if this is so. I am also puzzled as to why you would want to keep the wolves in the fold, so to speak.

    You seem to be having some difficulty seeing that Creation and belief in the Bible as God’s Holy Word are such basic beliefs in the SDA church that if either of them is not fully accepted and supported, the member is not fully committed as an SDA–or even a Christian, for that matter. Taking his name off the books is a mere formality. He has already taken himself out of the church. Whether or not he warms a pew every Sabbath, his heart is not fully surrendered to God.

    Let me make myself clear here. I am not suggesting we investigate anyone. I am referring here to those who openly declare their unbelief. Anyone who believes in evolution in its accepted forms (including theistic evolution) is basically calling God and His word a liar. In my book that constitutes blasphemy. I believe God. I believe His word. I love God, and I want to serve Him with my whole heart. James talks about a double-minded man and I think that applies quite well to the theistic evolutionist.

    Do I care about the person in error? Of course I do. I would love to see everyone on earth saved–just as I am sure God would as well. But you and I both know that is not going to be the case.

    Satan is working hard to get us all so he won’t have to burn for our sins. He knows time is short and he is working overtime to ensnare us. And he can use what God cannot–deception. I know that there must be some pretty convincing deceptions out there for SDA professors to be so deeply convinced. As far as I am concerned, anything or anyone that contradicts God and His word is immediately rejected. We are to test things by the scriptures–not by so-called scientific information. If the professors had done this in the first place, this whole mess wouldn’t have come about.

    It is very similar to Eve questioning God’s word at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Satan told her that God wasn’t telling the truth. Instead of contradicting him with what she knew of the Lord, she questioned if it may not be so. Isn’t it ironic that Satan has gained entrance to the church yet again through the pursuit of knowledge?

    BTW, I do know the church went through growing pains. But I also know that God cleared it all up for them in time. Don’t forget that these people all came from other denominations and sometimes had to unlearn what they were taught all their lives before they could learn the truth. Many times God is gentle with us when we encounter drastic change in our lives.

    I do have a bit of a problem with your date of 1980, however. I was taught from a child about the Trinity…and, trust me, that was long before 1980. (Perhaps that was a typo?) Perhaps it was only that it was adopted then formally to clarify things because someone started to question our belief. Wouldn’t surprise me. In any case, I believe that the term “Trinity” was the issue as the founding pioneers did not want people to become confused with the Catholic definition of trinity which is really wierd.

    In conclusion, I pray we will all fully surrender ourselves to God for there is no other way to be saved.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  12. Re Bill’s Quote

    “What happened in 1844 by way of an historical event on earth was the confusion many had about what really happened in heaven. It was a logical mistake when it was assumed “the sanctuary” was the world. A false assumption will necessarily lead to a false conclusion.”

    Hi Bill

    Thank you for your thorough reply.

    Good point about well meaning religious folks making honest mistakes.

    Here is a sample problem that emphasizes Dr. Pitman’s position that biblical truth be supported by empirical evidence: how can one empirically decide between the commencement of the investigative judgment in 1844 vs. siding with Desmond Ford’s position, vs. siding with Dr, Camping’s eschatology?

    Well, by October 22, 2011 we will all be able, or not!, clearly witness the evidence regarding Dr. Camping’s prophecy.

    I use this example not to deride your faith, Adventist faith or religious faith in general. As you have commented well meaning, God fearing people make mistakes. No doubt William Miller did. We will soon find out about Dr. Camping.

    I use this example to point out that what Dr. Pitman is trying to do – support biblical creation and the Noachian flood with science – has merit. He is trying to bridge the gap between prophetic utterance and observable, testable reality. He is testing his Adventist hypothesis. He is using the drawbridge of intelligent design to breach the moat between the biblical God and a mindless mechanistic universe. He is trying to put empirical flesh on the Adventist bones of faith so the form becomes more viable.

    Although I admire what he is doing I am concerned that his objectivity is steeped in the Adventist teapot of faith. Dawkins dunks himself in atheist brew. Why not sample all the drinks without bias?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  13. Faith: We are to test things by the scriptures–not by so-called scientific information.

    Dealing with divergent views is not an easy thing. Sean Pitman, for example, makes no apologies in rejecting your requirement. He not only subscribes to testing things by scientific information, but he calls for the dismissal of any employee who refuses to do so! Yet he is widely regarded as an exemplary SDA, and a hero of the Church. To be consistent, you’d call for his dismissal if he was an employee of the Church. I don’t think that is necessary, because he sincerely believes he is right and remains supportive of the vast majority of SDA beliefs. The Church will survive his heterodox views, just as it has many other heterodox ideas over the decades.

    Merikay Mcleod openly defied the Church. Eventually, the Church fought her in court against three branches of the U.S. government–and the Church lost. Was she wrong to work against the Church? To defy the leadership? Because of her, the Church was forced–yes, forced by law–to pay women the same salaries as men get for doing the same work.

    There are many who have divergent views who are steadfast, faithful members of the SDA Church. If they are going to work openly against the Church, especially after they are told to cease doing so, then yes, they should be fired. I agree with you. If they are willing to conform and no longer work against the Church, then God can still make good use of them.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  14. @Professor Kent: I would agree with Faith’s statement, and I think Sean would to; however, what Sean is addressing is how do you bring someone to that point where they believe the Bible to be their ultimate standard.

    For someone who does not believe in the Bible, telling them that they must simply test everything by the Bible begs the question of why they should trust it in the first place.

    It is abundently clear from Scripture and Ellen White that God always gives us sufficient evidence on which to base our faith. In fact I believe he calls us to make our decisions based on the weight of evidence. Obviously the weight of evidence will be relative to each person, because each require varying amounts of evidence to be convinced.

    Some need to see the evidence in nature, some are convinced merely through the evidence of experience. Ellen White says this is an evidence available to all.

    We should know for ourselves what constitutes Christianity, what is truth, what is the faith that we have received, what are the Bible rules–the rules given us from the highest authority. There are many who believe, without a reason on which to base their faith, without sufficient evidence as to the truth of the matter. If an idea is presented that harmonizes with their own preconceived opinions, they are all ready to accept it. They do not reason from cause to effect. Their faith has no genuine foundation, and in the time of trial they will find that they have built upon the sand. Mind, Character, and Personality 536)

    If we don’t have a reason for our faith in God’s word, we’re in danger of losing our faith because it has no firm foundation. Ultimately we should put our trust in God’s Word, but Sean is speaking from the standpoint that precedes that decision.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  15. @Professor Kent: Even Abraham, when commanded by God to sacrifice his only son, relied on his faith in God’s Word, which was based on evidence.

    Abraham was tempted to think he had been deceived regarding the command to sacrifice his son. Abraham was tempted to believe that he might be under a delusion.

    In his doubt and anguish he bowed upon the earth, and prayed, as he had never prayed before, for some confirmation of the command if he must perform this terrible duty. (PP 148)

    After two days of traveling, God gives him evidence that it was God who had spoken to him the command:

    As they were about to begin the journey of the third day, the patriarch, looking northward, saw the promised sign, a cloud of glory hovering over Mount Moriah, and he knew that the voice which had spoken to him was from heaven. (PP 151)

    Afterward, he reflected on the evidence God had given him in the past to strengthen his soul.

    Even now he did not murmur against God, but strengthened his soul by dwelling upon the evidences of the Lord’s goodness and faithfulness.

    No he didn’t understand why God had asked him to sacrifice his son, but God gave him what he needed, the evidence he required, to rest his faith on in order to be obedient to God.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  16. Ken said…..

    “I use this example to point out that what Dr. Pitman is trying to do – support biblical creation and the Noachian flood with science – has merit. He is trying to bridge the gap between prophetic utterance and observable, testable reality.”

    And we see clearly that such is impossible, just like you can not prove the SDA interpretation of 1844 by scientific evidence.

    No one can “prove” that God created anything. Just as you can not prove nor explain how a miracle happened by “scientific evidence”.

    You either believe the bible that states there is a God that created by the means of a miracle, (He spoke it into existence apart from any scientific procedure), or, you don’t.

    Science proves nothing when trying to find out the “first cause”.

    Now we know that as we study nature, there are certain proveable concepts about nature itself and we use what we know for our benefit. And the complexity of it all lends itself to considering an ID as being a viable possibility. Even a reasonable and rational possibility. But after all is said and done, no one can “prove” it was by an ID.

    We must necessarily take God’s word for it. Just as Lucifer and all the angels of heaven did. No one saw God create. Apparently, He does not allow it for reasons we don’t know and don’t need to know.

    “The just shall live by faith”, and this includes all the unfallen angels and unfallen worlds.

    Just as a side note. How can you “prove” that Jesus’ death on the cross is adequate for the basis of God’s forgiveness? You can’t. We simply accept it by faith and rejoice that God claims it is and affirms it by way of the prophets and new testament writers.

    There is no “falsifyable proof” for God or anything He claims or says. And this is exactly why Satan can and will persuade billions to reject the scripture testimony concerning its testimony of God and everything He claims about Himself.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  17. Bill Sorensen: just like you can not prove the SDA interpretation of 1844 by scientific evidence

    Sean is aware you can’t prove anything, but I think we can all agree that God provides us plenty of evidence on which to rest our faith. Our interpretation of what happened in 1844 largely depends on the historical accuracy of the Bible. God has provided an abundance of evidence that the historical facts in the Bible are indeed accurate. Archeology and other ancient manuscripts attest to the veracity of the Bible’s claims about history. If there were absolutely no evidence of what happened in the past, we would be hard pressed to come up with 1844 as the start of the judgement. We might be able to come up with the fact that a judgement was going to start, but there would be no way of knowing when.

    Bill Sorensen: No one can “prove” that God created anything. Just as you can not prove nor explain how a miracle happened by “scientific evidence”.

    I’ve already addressed this idea of proof. Neither Sean or I believe you can prove anything to be true. We don’t believe the miracles are true because we can recreate them, but because of other evidence. Obviously not all claims in the Bible can be verified through science, that should go without saying. The point is God gives us enough evidence on which to rest our faith to believe the testimony the biblical writers when they speak about miracles.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  18. Ken: Here is a sample problem that emphasizes Dr. Pitman’s position that biblical truth be supported by empirical evidence: how can one empirically decide between the commencement of the investigative judgment in 1844 vs. siding with Desmond Ford’s position, vs. siding with Dr, Camping’s eschatology?

    I have never stated that testing the validity of the 1844 judgment is a matter of sensory experience.

    To my knowledge Sean has never stated that the 1844 Investigative Judgment is a matter of sensory experience or perception.

    Do you have a quote from him making that claim?

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  19. Professor Kent: During the early history of the SDA Church, up until around 1890, SDA literature was almost unanimous in opposing the eternal deity of Jesus and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Can you believe it? You can read the history of this in an article at Ministry magazine (http://bit.ly/ivX9b7). 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.”

    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”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  20. ken: Speaking of prophecy and the merits of empirical observations, is there any corroborative, empirical evidence to support the testimony of Hiram Edson, that the Investigative Judgment began on October 22, 1844?

    No – events in heaven often take place without having a corresponding impact on nature around us at the time that those events take place in heaven.

    But when the Bible makes a claim about events on earth – that take place IN NATURE – well then the empirical model applies — with the result that there is no possibility of marrying the Bible to evolutionism (for example).

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  21. BobRyan: Thus this latest canard you are trying fails as do the ones you have offerred prior to this one – “in the details”.

    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.”

    By the way, you’re very talented at ridicule. It’s a well-honed skill you have that everyone recognizes. Everyone. Two questions:

    1. Is it an SDA-endorsed tactic that you employ?

    2. Is it an inherited or culturally-developed behavior on your part?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  22. Shane said……

    “Sean is aware you can’t prove anything, but I think we can all agree that God provides us plenty of evidence on which to rest our faith. Our interpretation of what happened in 1844 largely depends on the historical accuracy of the Bible.”

    Well, Shane, apparently some people are not picking up on your point concerning Sean’s position.

    I for one, agree with the idea of evidence, but not conclusive evidence. People can be convicted of a crime by “circumstancial evidence”. And it is assumed that such limited evidence is adequate for a conviction.

    So, “evidence” has various meanings and applications. I agree that there is some evidence to support the ID idea. For some, the evidence is powerful and may be conclusive for them. Still, it is not “proof” beyond falsifiction.

    We don’t even have a human eye-witness to testify of its validity except by way of a vision from God or other God ordained method of communication. In which case, we have God’s word for it, but still no real eye-witness to the actual event while it was happening.

    And all this discussion on “evidence” by way of natural law is peanuts compared to bible prophecy. The words of Peter carry more weight in reasoning than any other “evidence”, in which he states,…

    “We have also, a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well to take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place.”

    Even after Peter’s eye-witness account, he then states that prophecy is a more reliable source of “proof” than his eye-witness account. And then exhorts us to heed prophecy and prove his testimony by it.

    Certainly nature is some evidence and the bible affirms this reality.

    “The heavens declare the glory of God……..” But the heavens can declare the glory of God only if we accept the fact the God created them.

    And we accept the fact that God created them because He said so.

    And because He can declare the end from the beginning (prophecy) we can believe the testimony about Himself as the creator.

    And yes, we can “prove” prophecy by examining history and comparing it with the bible declarations.

    But you can not examine nature and prove God created it. Nature does not tell us how it began. Not a single clue of the “first cause” can be found in nature.

    Once we accept the fact that God created nature, then we can examine nature and learn something about God.

    If Sean is confessing that you can not prove creation by nature and that nature is only some evidence of the possibility of ID, even a rational and reasonable possibility, then I know I have no disagreement with him.

    I don’t know how others would view this conclusion.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  23. Shane Hilde: Even Abraham, when commanded by God to sacrifice his only son, relied on his faith in God’s Word, which was based on evidence.

    Of course there was evidence; but the evidence God asks his people (including Abraham) to dwell on is not that obtained through potentially falsifiable repeatable empirical data derived from the scientific process that appeals to the rational candid mind (which Sean Pitman insists we cannot form a useful faith without), but from personal experience with the Creator himself. God desires us to test his word by communing with him, and applying our experience to what we can learn from God’s word. Re-read what Ellen White said about the “evidence” Abraham took to heart: it was evidence from…none other than…God’s word (fancy that). And it came in the strict context of his personal relationship with God.

    God’s desire is for us to evaluate all evidence in the context of a personal relationship with him, which transcends anything that can be measured by mass spectrometers, Geiger counters, and gene sequencers. If we can but experience Jesus, what evidence could be more powerful, meaningful, or beneficial?

    Why label the evidence of a personal relationship as “useless as faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?” Sean once retorted to me something to the effect that I can’t speak face to face with Jesus. Right.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  24. 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

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  25. Shane Hilde: I suggest the history of our church regarding its belief in the God Head stop here. The two of you may correspond privately about it if you wish

    Shane – I just saw that comment.

    Please consider the fact that the accusation being made against accepting our fundamental beliefs based on the false claim that we ever had a fundamental belief against the trinity – is totally lacking historic support in fact.

    Not one single summary statement of beliefs published in the 1800’s or 1900’s for the Adventist church – ever argued against the trinity.

    But IF there were such a thing – then those who want to argue for “error may still be found in our statement of Beliefs today” would have at least a historic argument support their ideas.

    Since the facts in this case strongly support our present position that the Fundamental Beliefs are binding – and that they are not in error, it would be a shame to exclude this element from the discussion.

    Just as some people have been snookered into thinking evolution is a fact of sciencce – so a great many have been mislead to suppose that the Adventist church had a published set of beliefs in the 1800’s that denied the Trinity.

    No such denial of the Trinity was ever published in the 1800’s as part of a Fundamental Beliefs statement.

    And yes we did have a published FB statement in the 1800’s starting in 1872 and it did not deny the Trinity.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  26. Fritz Guy has based a lot of his argument for finding error in our Fundamental Beliefs on this false accusation that our published statements of belief in the 1800 were in error on the Trinity.

    It is more helpful to expose the flaw in his false accusation than to avoid it.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  27. BobRyan: 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).

    The ARTICLE, in the magazine called MINISTRY, published by the SDA CHURCH itself, makes abundantly clear that early Church leaders, including James White himself, were staunchly anti-trinitarian. I didn’t make things up; I actually quoted the article and the formal statements of beliefs. Not until 1980, a mere 31 years ago, did a single formally voted statement of beliefs even mention the concept of the trinity.

    I’m NOT arguing that error exists in the Church today; you’re twisting and manipulating my position once again. I’m merely pointing out that those on one side or the other of the trinity divide did not succeed in kicking the other side out of the Church prior to 1890.

    If you’re going to insist there is no fact in the quotes from the article, and that I’m making up those quotes which leave no room for doubt in the candid, rational mind, ask Shane for my email address and send me your objections privately. He asked us to drop the topic here. I’m going to respect that.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  28. Faith: Eddie asked: “Should every church member sign an oath affirming their acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs? If so, what happens if they change their mind? Should the oath be signed every year?”

    The answer to that is basically Yes…it is called the Baptismal vow all SDAs take. I know it would be lovely to have everyone saved, but that is not the reality. This is serious stuff. You only get one lifetime to figure it all out and sometimes that is cut short, courtesy of the devil.

    Faith, I just dug up my certificate of baptism from the 1970s and on the back it lists only 13 “baptismal vows.” Not one mentions a belief in a literal six-day creation week only 6000 years ago. In fact, none of the vows even mentions belief in a creator!

    The 27 fundamental beliefs weren’t adopted until 1980 and the 28th was added in 2005. Personally I have never disagreed with any of the current 28 SDA beliefs. However, I believe it would be unwise for the SDA church to police its members to make sure every member agrees with all 28 beliefs as explicitly stated. It would simply cause too much dissension. And apparently the church agrees with me, because the church itself does not make strict adherence to all 28 beliefs a criterion for membership.

    I do agree that anybody who teaches a doctrine explicitly contrary to any of the 28 fundamental beliefs should not be employed by the church, and that the church should discipline any teacher, professor or pastor who undermines church policies. However, I have no problems with them remaining as church members if they wish, as long as they are not intentionally seeking to disrupt and divide the church.

    I happen to know an agnostic who for many years has faithfully attended a SDA church each Sabbath with his wife, who is SDA. He wants to support her, even though he does not share her beliefs. He is not interested in becoming a member of the SDA church (but who knows, maybe one day he will). Like our agnostic friend Ken, he is fascinated by SDA beliefs, and is very courteous and respectful. Do you think he should be barred from attending church because he may be planting seeds of doubt among church members?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  29. Re Eddie’s Quote

    “Like our agnostic friend Ken, he is fascinated by SDA beliefs, and is very courteous and respectful.”

    Dear Eddie

    I am honoured by your compliment.

    I hope I am of some use to my Adventist friends, if only as the proverbial ‘straw man’.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  30. Faith: Eddie asked: “Should every church member sign an oath affirming their acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs? If so, what happens if they change their mind? Should the oath be signed every year?”

    The answer to that is basically Yes…it is called the Baptismal vow all SDAs take. I know it would be lovely to have everyone saved, but that is not the reality. This is serious stuff. You only get one lifetime to figure it all out and sometimes that is cut short, courtesy of the devil.

    Faith, I just dug up my certificate of baptism from the 1970s and on the back it lists only 13 “baptismal vows.” Not one mentions a belief in a literal six-day creation week only 6000 years ago. In fact, none of the vows even mentions belief in a creator!

    The 27 fundamental beliefs weren’t adopted until 1980 and the 28th was added in 2005. Personally I have never disagreed with any of the current 28 SDA beliefs. However, I believe it would be unwise for the SDA church to police its members to make sure every member agrees with all 28 beliefs as explicitly stated. It would simply cause too much dissension. And apparently the church agrees with me, because the church itself does not make strict adherence to all 28 beliefs a criterion for membership.

    I do agree that anybody who teaches a doctrine explicitly contrary to any of the 28 fundamental beliefs should not be employed by the church, and that the church should discipline any teacher, professor or pastor who undermines church policies. However, I have no problems with them remaining as church members if they wish, as long as they are not intentionally seeking to disrupt and divide the church.

    I happen to know an agnostic who for many years has faithfully attended a SDA church each Sabbath with his wife, who is SDA. He wants to support her, even though he does not share her beliefs. He is not interested in becoming a member of the SDA church (but who knows, maybe one day he will). Like our agnostic friend Ken, he is fascinated by SDA beliefs, and is very courteous and respectful. Do you think he should be barred from attending church because he may be planting seeds of doubt among church members?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  31. For those who are curious to know what the 13 baptismal vows on the back of my Certificate of Baptism from the 1970s state, here they are:

    1. I believe in God the Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit.

    2. I accept the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary as an atoning sacrifice for my sins, and believe that through faith in His shed blood men are saved from sin and its penalty.

    3. I renounce the world and its sinful ways, and have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour, and believe that God, for Christs’s sake, has forgiven my sins and given me a new heart.

    4. I accept by faith the righteousness of Christ, recognizing Him as my Intercessor in the heavenly sanctuary, and claim His promise to strengthen me by His indwelling Spirit so that I may receive power to do His will.

    5. I believe that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, and that it constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian.

    6. Loving the Lord with all my heart, it is my purpose, by the power of the indwelling Christ, to keep God’s law of Ten Commandments, including the fourth, which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord.

    7. I believe that my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and that I am to honor God by caring for my body in abstaining from such things as alcoholic beverages, tobacco in all its forms, and from unclean foods.

    8. I accept the doctrine of spiritual gifts, and believe that the Spirit of Prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church.

    9. I believe in the soon coming of Jesus as the blessed hope, and it is my settled determination to prepare to meet Him in peace, as well as to help others to get ready for His glorious appearing.

    10. I believe in church organization, and it is my purpose to support the church by my tithes and offerings, and by my personal effort and influence.

    11. I accept the New Testament teaching of baptism by immersion, and desire to be so baptized as a public expression of my faith in Christ and in His forgiveness of my sins.

    12. Knowing and understanding the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, it is my purpose by the grace of God to order my life in harmony with these principles.

    13. I believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church constitues God’s remnant people, and rejoice to be accepted into its membership.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  32. Eddie: Faith, I just dug up my certificate of baptism from the 1970s and on the back it lists only 13 “baptismal vows.” Not one mentions a belief in a literal six-day creation week only 6000 years ago. In fact, none of the vows even mentions belief in a creator!
    The 27 fundamental beliefs weren’t adopted until 1980 and the 28th was added in 2005. Personally I have never disagreed with any of the current 28 SDA beliefs. However, I believe it would be unwise for the SDA church to police its members to make sure every member agrees with all 28 beliefs as explicitly stated. It would simply cause too much dissension. And apparently the church agrees with me, because the church itself does not make strict adherence to all 28 beliefs a criterion for membership.

    Any Baptismal list of beliefs that ignore belief in the Creator needs to be seriously re-thought.

    In the Church manual our Fundamental Beliefs are listed in the back and the section on church discipline cites the first reason as being rejection of the cardinal doctrines of the church.

    QoD also states this on p 44-45.

    Our Fundamental beliefs were first published in 1872. 25 Beliefs.

    They were included in the 1889 year book.

    They were also published a number of times in the early 1900’s until 1931 when we had 22 Fundamental Beliefs.

    (The numbering and content changed over time but no beliefs were ever dropped or denied).

    In 1980 the official list of 22 beliefs, published in 1931, was changed to 27 and voted by the GC in session.

    In one of your examples you reference a case where a non-Christian spouse attends church with his believing SDA wife.

    At no point have we ever discussed the idea of excluding non-SDAs from our church services.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  33. Re Eddie’s Quote

    “Like our agnostic friend Ken, he is fascinated by SDA beliefs, and is very courteous and respectful.”

    Dear Eddie

    I am honoured by your compliment.

    I hope I am of some use to my Adventist friends, if only as the proverbial ‘straw man’.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  34. Never, ever has the SDA Church endorsed a statement that requires us to accept or teach a literal 6-day creation on the basis of the “weight of evidence.”

    The Church leadership recognizes that it is accepted largely as a matter of faith. I don’t believe Pitman or anyone else will ever succeed in changing this.

    By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Heb. 11:3).

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  35. Eddie: Faith, I just dug up my certificate of baptism from the 1970s and on the back it lists only 13 “baptismal vows.” Not one mentions a belief in a literal six-day creation week only 6000 years ago. In fact, none of the vows even mentions belief in a creator!
    The 27 fundamental beliefs weren’t adopted until 1980 and the 28th was added in 2005. Personally I have never disagreed with any of the current 28 SDA beliefs. However, I believe it would be unwise for the SDA church to police its members to make sure every member agrees with all 28 beliefs as explicitly stated. It would simply cause too much dissension. And apparently the church agrees with me, because the church itself does not make strict adherence to all 28 beliefs a criterion for membership.

    Any Baptismal list of beliefs that ignore belief in the Creator needs to be seriously re-thought.

    In the Church manual our Fundamental Beliefs are listed in the back and the section on church discipline cites the first reason as being rejection of the cardinal doctrines of the church.

    QoD also states this on p 44-45.

    Our Fundamental beliefs were first published in 1872. 25 Beliefs.

    They were included in the 1889 year book.

    They were also published a number of times in the early 1900’s until 1931 when we had 22 Fundamental Beliefs.

    (The numbering and content changed over time but no beliefs were ever dropped or denied).

    In 1980 the official list of 22 beliefs, published in 1931, was changed to 27 and voted by the GC in session.

    In one of your examples you reference a case where a non-Christian spouse attends church with his believing SDA wife.

    At no point have we ever discussed the idea of excluding non-SDAs from our church services.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  36. @Ken: Thanks, useful friend. We’ve become accustomed to your face. Look forward to seeing it.

    But is Adventism — alas you know only the declamations you’ve witnessed here — of any use to YOU? I mean besides bemusement and the chance to offer exemplarily courteous one-upsmanship? Well, what more can anyone ask, in this collapsing world. There IS more to ask for.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  37. Re Wes’s Quote

    “But is Adventism — alas you know only the declamations you’ve witnessed here — of any use to YOU? I mean besides bemusement and the chance to offer exemplarily courteous one-upsmanship? ”

    Hi Wes

    The answer lies in Dr. Pitman’s attempt to bridge the gap between faith and empirical reality.

    Understand or has final judgment been rendered? 🙂

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  38. Never, ever has the SDA Church endorsed a statement that requires us to accept or teach a literal 6-day creation on the basis of the “weight of evidence.”

    The Church leadership recognizes that it is accepted largely as a matter of faith. I don’t believe Pitman or anyone else will ever succeed in changing this.

    “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Heb. 11:3).

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  39. @ken: Ken, interesting thread, our present one, which, as I follow it, is: First, you again expressed your hope that, as the very winsome and gentlemanly agnostic we know you to be, “I am of some use to my Adventist friends.”

    So, presuming to speak I behalf of your Adventist friends, I asked you, “Is ADVENTISM…of any use to YOU”?

    I assume this was the question you answered by saying, “The answer lies in Dr. Pitman’s attempt to bridge the gap between faith and empirical reality.”

    I didn’t expect that. Hmmm. Are you saying that your use for Adventism is focused on one individual lay Adventist, Dr. Pittman, his own focus epitomizing an Adventism you find attractive, and not simply on the brouhaha besetting him? If so you’re on to something, something big.

    Regards, Wes

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  40. Professor Kent: Never, ever has the SDA Church endorsed a statement that requires us to accept or teach a literal 6-day creation on the basis of the “weight of evidence.”

    Never has the SDA church endorsed or supported the idea that 3SG 90-91 is wrong when it says that belief in evolutionism destroys faith in the Bible as the accurate trustworthy – Word of God.

    Never has the SDA church endorsed the idea that Paul is wrong in Romans 1 when he says that observations regarding the “things that have been made” leave even the godless pagans “without excuse” in regard to the “invisible attributes of God clearly seen IN the things that have been made”.

    Never has the SDA church endorsed the idea that Paul is wrong in Romans 10 when he declares that “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” where that “Word of God” is the “voice of God heard in nature”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  41. wesley kime: I assume this was the question you answered by saying, “The answer lies in Dr. Pitman’s attempt to bridge the gap between faith and empirical reality.”
    I didn’t expect that. Hmmm. Are you saying that your use for Adventism is focused on one individual lay Adventist, Dr. Pittman, his own focus epitomizing an Adventism you find attractive, and not simply on the brouhaha besetting him? If so you’re on to something, something big

    Ken’s response is consistent with Romans 1 where we find that all mankind are without excuse simply due to the evidence in nature alone.

    Ken’s response is consistent with logic in that the “common ground” between atheism(or its agnostic form) and Christianity is — observations in nature.

    Even in the case of the appeal to Daniel’s prophetic evidence declaring the Bible to be supernatural and inspired – where over 2000 years of human history is “predicted” — we see that it is true based on our “observations in real life” – the events of actual history.

    Even the argument for ID is based on “observations in nature” as we see in the case of the “Life of the cell”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  42. Dear Wes and Bob

    Perhaps a better question than why is Adventism of use to Ken, is why would an agnostic want to be of assistance to Adventism?

    I suspect Sean knows this answer.

    It is not so much what Adventists think, but why they think it, that is of great interest to me.

    My intuitive friend Wes, who is by far one of the best at ferreting out motives, suggests that he thinks I am on to ‘something something big’. Perhaps so. But Wes, do you think it is something bigger than Adventism.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  43. @Ken: “But Wes, do you think it is something bigger than Adventism?”

    What a no-brainer! What a set-up, Ken, of whom no one is better by far for either one-ups or set-ups! Something bigger? Yes, of course, by far, good grief yes: God. You are on to something big, Ken, our good friend; something big and exciting, a helluva lot more exciting than even blog quibbling, by far. But don’t even think about taking it on faith, which I don’t think you ever would, would you?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  44. Re Wes’s Quote

    “You are on to something big, Ken, our good friend; something big and exciting, a helluva lot more exciting than even blog quibbling, by far.”

    Dear Wes

    I hope you are right! Perhaps you see that far clearer than I can.

    Guilty as charged on the use of the rhetorical arsenal. Answer a question with a question – Socrates best dialectical tool. Not done in a mean spirit though, my cross examining friend.

    Ever take things on faith? Hard to predict the future unless one is Dr Camping. I do however watch for classic, Adventist, eschatological markers which may yet provide the support for the bridge between faith and empirical reality.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  45. @Ken: Ken, may I speak to that? Do I “ever take things on faith?” Never. Not faith alone, anyway.

    I take things on both faith and evidence working together in sync, one validating and empowering the other, like I use both my brain and heart, both my sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems, one kicking in stronger than the other as the occasion demands, like when a fire alarm sounds my sympathetic kicks in, and when I see, salivate over, bit into, taste, digest lasagna (and finally, after duly processing it, dispose of it) my parasympathetic kicks in, as God engineered it – and only He could come up with a system like that!

    As to “anseeing a kvestion vith a kvestion,” as good Israelites, Socrates, all good practitioners of maieutics, and all good medical school professors on teaching rounds, are wont to do, how could I object? How could I when I used to pelt my interns and residents with questions. I learned that from Dr. George Thorn, chief of internal medicine, Peter Bent Brigham (Harvard) hospital, when I was a junior assistant resident there. The trick is not to get carried away with the joy of questioning, and to make the questions have a point. I remember (60 years ago exactly) as a junior medical student on rounds, and the professor asked, “What do you think of pain in the abdomen?” I still don’t know what to think.

    But the ultimate such questioner is our greatest example, Christ Himself. The most startling, and frankly rhetorical, of His questions, I think, was on the morning of His resurrection, near the tomb, and Mary Magdalene came there to grieve, and saw Him, but somehow didn’t recognize Him. ““Woman,” He asked her, whom He knew so well, “why are you crying? Who might you be looking for?” John 20:14 (paraphrased)

    Your colleague in askings, WK

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  46. Ken: Dear Wes and Bob
    Perhaps a better question than why is Adventism of use to Ken, is why would an agnostic want to be of assistance to Adventism?
    I suspect Sean knows this answer.
    It is not so much what Adventists think, but why they think it, that is of great interest to me

    Step One is to accurately understand the beliefs themselves.

    Step Two is to accurately understand just how SDAs claim to have arrived at those beliefs.

    But when you get sidetracked by theistic evolutionism’s attempts to marry the Bible to evolutionism or by Kent’s attempts to declare belief in the Bible to be totally at odds with science (in his “faith not science” themes) – you are vacating your stated mission above.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  47. Dear Wes

    That’s right Wes, when it comes to investigations of reality all questions should have a point. Although we may seem playful there is some serious business at hand here isn’t there?

    Why people believe what they believe is insightful to the advance of human knowledge. Conclusions, and most certainly those of science , are mere fence posts along the infinite road to better understanding. What does it mean if everyone’s faith is at least slightly different, or some are guided more by their sympathetic nervous systems. Are laws of gravity fueled by adrenalin? Would those laws be different if Newton had been an Adventist? Probably not if gravity wasn’t part of the current FB#28.

    So when it comes to dramatis personae in our Adventist play our very good Dr. Pitman plays a great heroic, or quixotic role. Time will tell prioviding there is enough time. And that to all us should be of profound interest because often dramatic turns in the advance of human knowledge come through iconic individuals.

    The rest of us have our roles as well and yours, at least partially, is to call out the friendly neughbourhoid agnostic into the Adventist lion’s den. And you do it well Dr. Kime, no ironic flattery intended. Nothing like a challenge to bring out the best, or the worst, in a man/woman.

    And my role. That of the dialectic foil in the great play, or maybe … more like Touchstone, or perhaps more liklly the muschevious Puck! Every fool has his role.

    Alas Dr. Kime I don’t think the something something big is about the salvation of this fool’s soul. Can’t that cloud the agnostic gameplan, the pointed questions.

    I hope that assists you and our Adventust friends in bringing me further out if the agnostic closet. You all deserved the honest explanation lest I be mistaken for a devil in a blue dress. Just an agnostic Puck I’m afraid.

    Ontological cheers!
    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  48. Re spelling errors

    Sorry about those in the previous passage. I wasn’t drinking…really, just using an iPhone with a small screen. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. 🙂

    Cheers
    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  49. If anyone wants to see how “creation” can be gobbledegooked into oblivion, read Harold Weiss’ article “Creation in the Bible” over on Adventist Spectrum.

    Is this guy for real? Even many at Spectrum can’t fathom what he is really saying. He even admits he isn’t talking about the “biblical doctrine of creation” in one of his comments below the article!

    I say again–is he to be taken seriously?
    Is Spectrum to be taken seriously?!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  50. Eddie said:
    Faith, I just dug up my certificate of baptism from the 1970s and on the back it lists only 13 “baptismal vows.” Not one mentions a belief in a literal six-day creation week only 6000 years ago. In fact, none of the vows even mentions belief in a creator!

    I beg to differ with you, Eddie.

    Let’s look at #5 and #6–

    5. I believe that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, and that it constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian.

    6. Loving the Lord with all my heart, it is my purpose, by the power of the indwelling Christ, to keep God’s law of Ten Commandments, including the fourth, which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord.

    I realize that in this present day of doubt and unbelief some people may think I am being nit-picky here, but I believe the Bible–the whole Bible–beginning with Genesis 1:1. Evolution in any of its ugly forms refutes the Bible as a collection of fairytales at best, and lies at worst.
    Therefore, to believe in evolution is to reject the Bible as the Truth.

    The Sabbath is based on the fact that God rested on the 7th day (from Creation, remember) and hallowed it for a memorial of Creation forever. If you believe in evolution that is all out the window. Yet–and this is extremely important–the Sabbath is the dividing line between the saved and the lost. Because by keeping the Sabbath we acknowledge the Lord as our Creator.

    So you see, Eddie, those two precepts are violated when the member begins to believe in Evolution as the truth. So, yes, the member then has broken his vows.

    I am not saying that we should bar people from attending church if they are quietly and agreeably behaving themselves, whether or not they are members. However, we are told that those that break their vows are to be disfellowshiped–their names removed from the books.

    I can’t see why this is such a big deal. Think about it. Having your name removed from the earthly books is nothing compared to what is happening in the heavenly books. You can tap dance around this issue all you want, but you aren’t fooling God with all your fancy stepping. He is the one that ultimately makes the decision as to who is and who is not His.

    Anyone who openly believes in evolution brings disgrace upon God. They are ultimately saying, “God didn’t mean what He said in His Holy Word (that He miraculously preserved all these years, by the way). Its a fairytale and not to be taken seriously. We now know (courtesy of a non-Christian man’s total imagination) that God’s story is all a myth and anyone who believes it is just plain uneducated.”

    Does that sound like loyalty to God? God says if you (the generic you) don’t acknowledge Him here on earth, He won’t acknowledge you before His Father in Heaven.

    Kind of serious stuff, don’t you think?

    Personally, I take great joy in acknowledging God as my Creator and I don’t care a fig if that makes me look like an uneducated moron to the world. The world isn’t my guideline at all. And I am sorry for anyone who even considers what the world says as more important than what God says. That is what evolutionists are doing. All their attempts at trying to marry truth and error will not avail them of salvation. And all their education isn’t going to save them in the end, either.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  51. Ron Stone M.D.: If anyone wants to see how “creation” can be gobbledegooked into oblivion, read Harold Weiss’ article “Creation in the Bible” over on Adventist Spectrum.

    I believe Harold also spun that story over at Spectrum as well.

    In the “big tent model” of Spectrum all views are welcomed – err um… except for “some views”.

    😉

    And that my friends is more than a little instructive to the unbiased objective reader.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  52. BobRyan: I believe Harold also spun that story over at Spectrum as well.In the “big tent model” of Spectrum all views are welcomed – err um… except for “some views”. And that my friends is more than a little instructive to the unbiased objective reader.in Christ,Bob

    If you think Weiss is “off his rocker” as I do, then please read T.Joe Willey’s article about the LSU problem. Willey, as I remember him from my medical school days, is a neurophysiologist who is probably retired by now (I hope!).

    According to Willey, the Board’s Committee “misinterpreted” the student data. He also says those of us here who support ET have a “curse of the cult of certainty” because we actually believe what the bible actually says! And, we should quit our “constant nagging” and leave LSU alone.

    Willey also states that the biologists should continue their “naturalistic” teaching methods (meaning “keep on truckin” with evolution as fact).

    Is it any wonder why, with guys like Weiss and Willey, our SDA institutions are being flushed down the toilet bowl?!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  53. BTW, in a response to Willey’s article over at Spectrum, Jeffrey Kent says, “things have absolutely changed” (over at LSU) so I guess we all should just “close shop?!”

    He also says,”Everyone loses so long as Educate Truth remains online.”

    How about it Shane? Is Kent correct? Are things all A-OK over at LSU?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  54. Things are much better, Ron, at LSU. I have a source with unimpeachable inside knowledge who assures me of this.

    Your attitude sounds a bit like you don’t want things to improve. I hope that’s not the case.

    One of the biggest problems that EducateTruth is contributing to is the crisis of decreasing quality applicants for the increasing number of job openings in our biology programs. Don’t believe me? ASK ANY BIOLOGY CHAIRPERSON IF THEY CAN CONFIRM THIS CONCERN. Tell me how you think EducateTruth is improving this situation by creating an atmosphere in which every biologist at our universities is regarded with suspicion, and every applicant knows they are at risk of public judgment, ridicule, and harrassment.

    Do you want our biology programs stocked with faculty who lack PhDs?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  55. Professor Kent: Things are much better, Ron, at LSU. I have a source with unimpeachable inside knowledge who assures me of this.Your attitude sounds a bit like you don’t want things to improve. I hope that’s not the case.One of the biggest problems that EducateTruth is contributing to is the crisis of decreasing quality applicants for the increasing number of job openings in our biology programs. Don’t believe me? ASK ANY BIOLOGY CHAIRPERSON IF THEY CAN CONFIRM THIS CONCERN. Tell me how you think EducateTruth is improving this situation by creating an atmosphere in which every biologist at our universities is regarded with suspicion, and every applicant knows they are at risk of public judgment, ridicule, and harrassment.Do you want our biology programs stocked with faculty who lack PhDs?

    Who’s this “source”: Wisbey? Fritz Guy? How about a real NAME that we can identify with and question ourselves as to their so-called “unimpeachable” reputation?

    Your vague “all is A-OK at LSU” is pure pollyannaism. Let’s see some real facts, and not more of your “knock it off” philosophy.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  56. Prof Kent:

    How do you figure that this site keeps biology profs with integrity out of LSU? Any professor that is following the Bible, supporting creation, and the SDA church has nothing to hide and nothing to fear.

    When you say “quality” applicants, just how do you judge their credentials?

    As far as I am concerned, it is far more important that these professors have a firm grasp on the teachings of creation and the teachings of the Bible than any credentials the world can offer. If that had been the criteria used as a guideline for hiring, we wouldn’t be in this mess now. And that goes for all our SDA institutions.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  57. I agree. This site has absolutely no control over the hiring practices of any university. Sean and I are essentially nobodies.

    If schools have become more aware of who they are hiring as a result of the website, then that’s a good thing.

    Jeff acts as if creationist biologists are having a difficult time getting hired because of Educate Truth. I would hope the opposite is true, and it doesn’t logically follow that creationists would.

    Our schools should be much pickier then they are with hiring biology professors. I think it’s a good thing if evolutionary biologists are having difficulty getting jobs at our schools. I don’t even know why they would want to apply.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  58. Faith: Prof Kent:How do you figure that this site keeps biology profs with integrity out of LSU? Any professor that is following the Bible, supporting creation, and the SDA church has nothing to hide and nothing to fear.When you say “quality” applicants, just how do you judge their credentials?As far as I am concerned, it is far more important that these professors have a firm grasp on the teachings of creation and the teachings of the Bible than any credentials the world can offer. If that had been the criteria used as a guideline for hiring, we wouldn’t be in this mess now. And that goes for all our SDA institutions.

    I agree, Faith. However, the type of leadership (Guy,Geraty,and Wisbey)LSU has had over the past two decades shows why we have evolutionists teaching “evolution as fact” at LSU and those supporting any type of creationism being intimidated, both students, and I would suspect faculty as well.

    Does the LSU Board even care about this deterioration in our biblical beliefs. Well, their inaction, ineptitude, and apathy in finding any solutions tell me they don’t, at least the majority who control the Board.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  59. Shane Hilde: I agree. This site has absolutely no control over the hiring practices of any university. Sean and I are essentially nobodies.If schools have become more aware of who they are hiring as a result of the website, then that’s a good thing. Jeff acts as if creationist biologists are having a difficult time getting hired because of Educate Truth. I would hope the opposite is true, and it doesn’t logically follow that creationists would.Our schools should be much pickier then they are with hiring biology professors. I think it’s a good thing if evolutionary biologists are having difficulty getting jobs at our schools. I don’t even know why they would want to apply.

    Shane, If enough of us “nobodies” stepped up and demanded some accountability, I think something would be done.

    But, look at even this site. Only a few dozen individuals are posting on any regular basis! I have asked many others why they don’t participate. Their answers mainly fall into two camps.

    “I don’t really care that much about it to get involved” (mainly “nobody” church members)

    Don’t want to get my name involved. (mostly Church workers).

    Apathy and “fear” keep people from doing the “right thing.”

    Is it any wonder why this generation is called “Laodecea?” It’s enough to make me vomit,too!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  60. Faith: When you say “quality” applicants, just how do you judge their credentials?

    An e-mail arrived this morning that provides exactly what I mean by “quality” applicants. I’m told there is nothing particularly secretive about this, so I’ll tell it like it is. Southern Adventist University, the flagship institution for creationism, was unable to locate two suitable “creationists” a year ago. How did they fare this year? The few suitable PhDs in the Church applied and got hired elsewhere. In the end, they had little choice but to hire an MD who was the spouse of one of the current faculty members, and an individual who has just now graduated with an MS in biology.

    Sorry, Shane, but I think you’re making an uninformed assumption that evolutionary biologists are applying for these positions. The problem is the LACK OF APPLICANTS. Why aren’t they flocking to these much-heralded positions? Because they are, in fact, much-ridiculed positions–and largely because of your website.

    By the way, the individual hired with the MS got their degree at a place D Fender tells us “has just as many issues as LSU does:” Loma Linda University.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  61. Ron Stone M.D.: Does the LSU Board even care about this deterioration in our biblical beliefs. Well, their inaction, ineptitude, and apathy in finding any solutions tell me they don’t, at least the majority who control the Board.

    A former biology professor is allegedly (according to several second-hand informants) unhappy with the administration forcing him into retirement, which he blames on his support for theistic evolution.

    Recently the LSU biology profs met with colleagues from other SDA campuses who present evidence supporting the church’s view of creationism and integrate faith and science in the classroom. Hopefully LSU’s profs will begin to do the same in the classroom.

    Doesn’t LSU’s administration deserve at least a little bit of credit?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  62. Professor Kent: Sorry, Shane, but I think you’re making an uninformed assumption that evolutionary biologists are applying for these positions.

    I don’t think so. I didn’t say they were applying, I said if:

    Shane Hilde: I think it’s a good thing if evolutionary biologists are having difficulty getting jobs at our schools. I don’t even know why they would want to apply.

    Professor Kent: The problem is the LACK OF APPLICANTS.

    I seriously doubt Educate Truth has anything to do with the lack of applicants. That’s very speculative. I’d prefer to see biology departments disappear than compromise by hiring professors who are not supportive of the biblical creation.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  63. Shane Hilde: I seriously doubt Educate Truth has anything to do with the lack of applicants. That’s very speculative.

    No, it’s not speculative. I’m hearing from those in the trenches who know firsthand the applicants, their concerns, and their general mood.

    I expect you to be oblivious to all of this because these individuals know that dialogue with those who are judgmental, fault-finding, and devoid of charity (i.e. EducateTruthers) is a fruitless endeavor. They are not inclined to go online and make accusations about other people and declare, from scant knowledge, that they can divine the heart, beliefs, and convictions of others.

    You need to accept some responsibility for what this website has created. Do you seriously believe that the average faithful SDA biologist would want to be employed by a denomination that assumes you are a heretic until proven otherwise, and will engage in unfettered and reckless character assasination at the slightest opportunity?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  64. Professor Kent: I expect you to be oblivious to all of this because these individuals know that dialogue with those who are judgmental, fault-finding, and devoid of charity (i.e. EducateTruthers) is a fruitless endeavor.

    You can blame Educate Truth all you want, but the reality is you’re just pointing the finger at the site who blew the whistle on the institution with a problem. This would never have happened had it not been for LSU undermining the church in its classrooms.

    La Sierra has created an atmosphere of suspicion amongst all our biology departments. They’ve effectively ruined their reputation in the Adventist church, and cast doubt on other institutions.

    Professor Kent: Do you seriously believe that the average faithful SDA biologist would want to be employed by a denomination that assumes you are a heretic until proven otherwise, and will engage in unfettered and reckless character assasination at the slightest opportunity?

    These biologists at LSU assassinated their own character by remaining at an institution they were undermining. They were being dishonest and essentially stealing from parents who thought their kids were receiving an Adventist education. They robbed us, and the administration is party to it.

    Your ludicrous accusations are the equivalent to blaming the shopper who identified a store employee slipping cash into their pocket from the register for all the problems the employee is going through.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  65. Shane said:

    “These biologists at LSU assassinated their own character by remaining at an institution they were undermining. They were being dishonest and essentially stealing from parents who thought their kids were receiving an Adventist education. They robbed us, and the administration is party to it.

    Your ludicrous accusations are the equivalent to blaming the shopper who identified a store employee slipping cash into their pocket from the register for all the problems the employee is going through.”

    Sorry, Prof Kent, but I totally agree with Shane. This website has done an invaluable service to the church by letting the members know what is going on in our church-sponsored institutions. Something we all have every right to know. Shane and Sean did not make this situation, they merely reported it. This situation has been going on for 25-30 years now and Educate Truth has not been around for more than a couple of years to the best of my knowledge. So how could this site possibly be responsible for any of this? It’s entirely illogical.

    My guess is that any Professor who wants to teach truth is avoiding LSU (and perhaps other like institutions) because they know that the faculty is corrupt, the program is corrupt, and those who try to do the right thing are often persecuted for their efforts.

    You may have noticed I am anxious for action on this rather than just rhetoric.

    I sincerely thank Educate Truth for dragging this stinking carcass out into the open so it can be dealt with for once and for all. I pray someone who has the courage will do this very soon to stop the bleed.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  66. Professor Kent: I expect you to be oblivious to all of this because these individuals know that dialogue with those who are judgmental, fault-finding, and devoid of charity (i.e. EducateTruthers) is a fruitless endeavor. They are not inclined to go online and make accusations about other people and declare, from scant knowledge, that they can divine the heart, beliefs, and convictions of others.
    You need to accept some responsibility for what this website has created. Do you seriously believe that the average faithful SDA biologist would want to be employed by a denomination that assumes you are a heretic until proven otherwise, and will engage in unfettered and reckless character assasination at the slightest opportunity?

    I am pretty sure the response to that was already addressed at this post.

    http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/la-sierra-university-granted-window-to-show-its-faithfulness-to-church%e2%80%99s-creation-belief/comment-page-1/#comment-30417

    From that link – it appears that more accusations (apart from fact) against those who post here is not the compelling solution some have imagined.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  67. Professor Kent: Sorry, Shane, but I think you’re making an uninformed assumption that evolutionary biologists are applying for these positions. The problem is the LACK OF APPLICANTS. Why aren’t they flocking to these much-heralded positions? Because they are, in fact, much-ridiculed positions–and largely because of your website

    A bevy of false charges “again” but not much fact to back them up (as usual).

    SAU has gotten no bad press at all at this web site. In fact (to the contrary) this site promoted a statement by SAU saying that they strongly affirmed the denomination’s position on origins.

    Hint – the SDA position on origins “is no secret”. If the argument is that evolutionist storytelling is the only “popular form of biology” today – then your argument is not going to be challenged. But if the argument is that without some kind of fiction “about birds coming from reptiles – then we cannot observe basic biology in class” – then you are sorely mistaken.

    Give me an MD that knows something about critical thinking and science – over an evolutionist who thinks that birds come from reptiles (no matter the evidence gained through observations in nature “to the contrary”) — any day.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  68. Eddie: A former biology professor is allegedly (according to several second-hand informants) unhappy with the administration forcing him into retirement, which he blames on his support for theistic evolution.
    Recently the LSU biology profs met with colleagues from other SDA campuses who present evidence supporting the church’s view of creationism and integrate faith and science in the classroom. Hopefully LSU’s profs will begin to do the same in the classroom.
    Doesn’t LSU’s administration deserve at least a little bit of credit

    A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

    Did the LSU T.E. profs “learn something” about biology and science that they did not know before or did they simply find a way to be less radical in their evangelism of T.E in class?

    Did the LSU religion and biology departments simply “fail” to step up to the plate when Veith came to their campus?

    Hint – the Chemistry and Physics departments had no problem at all offering extra-credit incentives to their students who attended Veith’s presentations.

    How “odd” that the biology profs were so anxious to “claim” they had no compatible Biology solution for the SDA doctrine on origins – and YET – when a biology prof comes to campus WITH THAT SOLULTION as a talking point – all they can do is whine and complain in closed door sessions with him – while not even setting up the same standard of open interest as the Chemistry and Physics depts.

    This is much more “telling” than they apparently imagine.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  69. BobRyan: [Professor Kent wrote] Sorry, Shane, but I think you’re making an uninformed assumption that evolutionary biologists are applying for these positions. The problem is the LACK OF APPLICANTS. Why aren’t they flocking to these much-heralded positions? Because they are, in fact, much-ridiculed positions–and largely because of your website

    A bevy of false charges “again” but not much fact to back them up (as usual).

    Sorry Bob, but you yourself don’t have the facts to know whether my charges are false or not.

    Here is how to find out (if you can figure out how):

    1. Call up the biology department chairperson and ask if they experienced a lack of applicants.

    2. Communicate with someone who actually knows the few job applicants personally.

    Until you acquire such knowledge, you simply have no basis for charging me with lying.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  70. Kent – that is yet another amusing spin on one of my posts. In my post above I point out that EducateTruth did nothing to hamper SAU efforts to draw faculty.

    In fact Educate Truth has a section dedicated to promoting the work that SAU has done in regard to their support of creation.

    Your endless spinning that seeks to position EducateTruths promotion of SAU’s work as somehow damaging their ability to draw faculty remains in the factless category.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  71. BobRyan: Kent – that is yet another amusing spin on one of my posts. In my post above I point out that EducateTruth did nothing to hamper SAU efforts to draw faculty.In fact Educate Truth has a section dedicated to promoting the work that SAU has done in regard to their support of creation.Your endless spinning that seeks to position EducateTruths promotion of SAU’s work as somehow damaging their ability to draw faculty remains in the factless category.in Christ,Bob

    Bob, Kent is the biggest fraud I’ve seen on this website. He pretends he’s “with us” but brags over on Spectrum that he’s our greatest antagonist!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  72. Faith: This situation has been going on for 25-30 years now

    Slightly less than 21 years. It began in the fall of 1990 after the biology graduate program, under the direction of Dr. Leonard Brand, moved from the recently divorced La Sierra campus to the Loma Linda campus of Loma Linda University. And it gained steam with some subsequent hires. And more recently it has slowed down with some subsequent retirements.

    I wonder if those who voted for the divorce between the two campuses ever imagined what would transpire?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  73. Faith: How do you figure that this site keeps biology profs with integrity out of LSU? Any professor that is following the Bible, supporting creation, and the SDA church has nothing to hide and nothing to fear.

    I could (but won’t) name some faithful SDA biology profs who have no desire to work at an institution whose biology department is mired in controversy, even if they were paid more than what their current SDA institution pays them.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  74. I would consider applying to LSU if it were not for the ugly politics that surround this issue.

    Among other things, if I was employed there, I would resent folks declaring me to be a theistic evolutionist without even asking me what I believe.

    And frankly, given the way I and others have been treated here, it’s pointless even to respond to such questions because I would be declared a liar. Sorry, but few people would want to work in such an environment.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  75. Ron Stone M.D.: Bob, Kent is the biggest fraud I’ve seen on this website. He pretends he’s “with us” but brags over on Spectrum that he’s our greatest antagonist!

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

    That group does not claim to be TE themselves while at the same time they also claim to have no inclination at all to work on any solution in favor the creationist model (As Kent has also stated). In fact they appear to only have time and energy and interest in upholding every loose wind of speculation offerred by well known TEs inresponse to creationism.

    Notice how they quickly resort to places like the big-left-tent and to TalkOrigins for their “research”?

    Nothing pleases them more than to complain if someone should happen to claim that their arguments show them to be TE – since this is the one point they will adamantly and consistently claim they do not hold – no matter how self-conflicted that claim when compared to their “actions”.

    It makes for a wonderful sticking point when trying to trip up creationists.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  76. Ron Stone M.D.: Bob, Kent is the biggest fraud I’ve seen on this website. He pretends he’s “with us” but brags over on Spectrum that he’s our greatest antagonist!

    So here is what I wrote at Spectrum:

    Professor Kent – Sat, 05/14/2011 – 18:47
    Anyone who has visited Educate Truth must surely recognize that I am their chief antagonist. I oppose them vehemently, though it is more their method and tactics that I object to than their basic mission. Nevertheless, I personally feel as though I have some balance on these issues, so I will share a few thoughts for what they are worth:

    1. There is no question in my mind that some individual biology faculty at LSU were teaching theistic evolution as fact, and belittling, to some degree at least, the faith of students who chose to accept the SDA Church’s official teaching.

    I was defending the chief claim of Educate Truth, and for that I was labelled a fraud?

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

    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.

    Ron and Bob continue to accuse me of spin. And because I don’t just give up and say, “Oh, by the way, you guys weren’t lying about my beliefs all along, we get this from the arbiter of truth:

    BobRyan: Nothing pleases them more than to complain if someone should happen to claim that their arguments show them to be TE – since this is the one point they will adamantly and consistently claim they do not hold – no matter how self-conflicted that claim when compared to their “actions”.

    The truth is, Bob, I do think it’s good that you reveal your character to others. I do want people to understand your tactics. Keep it up.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  77. Professor Kent: I would consider applying to LSU if it were not for the ugly politics that surround this issue.Among other things, if I was employed there, I would resent folks declaring me to be a theistic evolutionist without even asking me what I believe.And frankly, given the way I and others have been treated here, it’s pointless even to respond to such questions because I would be declared a liar. Sorry, but few people would want to work in such an environment.

    Quite true–now that LSU has been exposed for what it really is, fewer “evolutionists” should be applying, since they cannot count on the LSU administration and the Board to “look the other way” as they expound their “evolution as fact” fallacies.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  78. Ron Stone M.D.: Quite true–now that LSU has been exposed for what it really is, fewer “evolutionists” should be applying, since they cannot count on the LSU administration and the Board to “look the other way” as they expound their “evolution as fact” fallacies.

    What of the faithful creationists? Do you think they will be more or less likely to apply for future openings given the current climate at LSU (and within the Church)?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  79. 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

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  80. The administration should have required the professors to respect all student viewpoints on religion and origins, including the official SDA positions.

    Just stating the obvious, as I have done many dozens of times (but without mention of 3SG 90-91, which makes clear that higher reasoning dictates that theistic evolution and the Bible cannot be married, which means that millions of Christians lack critical reasoning).

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  81. 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

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  82. BobRyan: Since when is “being civil” is the only standard for ‘value added’ in SDA teaching?

    No one has suggested this other than you.

    BobRyan: What did I miss?

    Geez…where do we begin?

    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.

    Just stating the obvious. How many times do we have to go over this?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  83. 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

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  84. BobRyan: given your argument that our positioin on origins should not make appeals to confirming evidence observed in nature

    Your position on my position is an imposition on my position that improperly repositions my position.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  85. Professor Kent: What of the faithful creationists? Do you think they will be more or less likely to apply for future openings given the current climate at LSU (and within the Church)?

    Why wouldn’t they apply, unless to not be associated with such an apostate institution, or fearing futher backlash from the evolutionists at LSU, the evolution supportive adminstration, such as Wisbey, or even to not be associated with the lackadaisical Pacific Union Conference leadership, which has shown no ability to monitor their own territory?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  86. well nothing about when the earth really came about is truly fact other than as a Christian I believe it was created by God. Now with that being said that doesn’t in itself rule out evolution as a way of looking at how everything in the world came to be. Now I think that logically we could have started from the big bang which was an event created by God and then after millions of years with God creating life in other places in our vast universe then God got to Earth and made man and other animals this would not detract at all from really what the Bible has to say because it is not a science book that describes in detail the story creation.

    secondly don’t qoute EGW because you don’t have anything from the Bible to support your view

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  87. To say that salvation is hinging on the belief in a 6 day creation in and of itself is completely ridiculous. Everyone’s salvation comes down to accepting God’s grace that was given through the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ, period. There is nothing I can do to earn salvation, other than the saving grace that has been given to everyone which has nothing to do with what version of creation I believe in.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  88. Also I really hate the discussion about other people having to accept SDA beliefs, we need to focus on showing God’s character to others not trying to change their religion. If we show the true nature of God then it is hard for others to deny the truth.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  89. LSU Alum: If we show the true nature of God then it is hard for others to deny the truth.

    Sad that this is so often hard to see in us. We sometimes fail to portray God as loving, nurturing, and redemptive.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  90. I agree with you Prof. Kent, it would be great if trying to be an example of God’s grace was our focus as a church instead of worrying about who is right about creation. To pour more resources to feeding those in need and loving those who society shuns. There would be no need for debate, just the need to express God’s love to his people through our actions.

      (Quote)

    View Comment

Leave a Reply to BobRyan Cancel reply