@Shayne: Keep in mind that the “fundementals” back in the …

Comment on Notice of constituency meeting of the NCC by BobRyan.


Keep in mind that the “fundementals” back in the day, the old paths as it were, were not 28 long, there just a handful of expected doctrines such as the sanctuary, the sabbath, and the state of the dead, unclean foods etc; but many of our exegetical positions have never been fully flushed out such as Dan 11-12 and many aspects of Rev.

You are right that the “list” was smaller back then – and it is grown over the years. But given the “GC session shall have authority even when GC Administrators do not have authority” position even in the 1800’s, we have a basis for indicating church approval for doctrines that have been validated “sola scriptura”, and continue to be validated by that method.

As for Dan 11-12. I don’t find that listed in our 28 FB voted doctrinal statements. Thus we have a lot of speculation on what they might be – and there is no problem with that. Let each one study it out for themselves.

Evolution and it’s enlightenment based philIsophical counterparts are obviously based in the French revolution and not in Protestantism, this issue truly is the egyptian counterpart of Babylon, it is the fruit of the king of the south, an aspect of the many parts of the omega apostacy.

Be that as it may – the clash between the atheist-centric doctrines on origins found in evolutionism – vs the doctrines on origins found in the Bible are easily apparent to the objective unbiased reader. Thus it is no surprise that 3SG 90-91 described TE as “the worst kind of infidelity”.

The question is whether or not church administration will be content to “be neutral in a spiritual crisis” vs taking immediate and decided action.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

Notice of constituency meeting of the NCC

@Kevin Paulson:

The prophetic voice is the prophetic voice, whether in the 66 books of the canon or otherwise. The Bible is full of non-canonical prophets, some of whom even wrote prophetic books (see I Chron. 29:29; II Chron. 12:15). Therefore it makes no sense to say “the Bible and the Bible only” as a means of excluding the very prophetic gift affirmed in the Bible itself. The only writings or testimonies excluded by the sola scriptura principle are those out of harmony with prior revelation.

Though I agree with much of what you say – in this case there is a detail that needs to be stressed.

The “Sola Scriptura” principle that we endorse and that Ellen White strongly promoted is literally limiting ourselves to the “Bible alone” in terms of testing BOTH doctrine and the writings of Ellen White. If either one fails – then they are in error. In the case of our doctrines – our 28FB – we point all to the Bible test and support of them.

In the case of Ellen White – it means that anything she wrote on doctrine is up for placing under the magnifying lense of scripture to see if it is affirmed or condemned by scripture. But more than that – anything she wrote with the associated claim “God showed me” or “told me” etc – also places her ministry under the lense of scripture such that she is either being confirmed as a true prophet or is being condemned as a false prophet.

Clearly in the case of 3SG 90-91 matching perfectly with Ex 20:8-11 and Genesis 1-2:3 we have a wonderful example of perfect harmony. We also have an example of inspired writing that evolutionists are very motivated to undermine/bend/wrench so that the plain reading of the text will not so directly controvert the doctrines on origins found in evolutionism.

And when we look at the “sola scriptura” teaching in scripture on the subject of prophets in general – we find 1Cor 14 and 1Thess 5 telling us to listen carefully to genuine prophets so as not to quench the Spirit. After all – that IS a work of the Holy Spirit according to 1Cor 12 and Numbers 12.

in Christ,


Notice of constituency meeting of the NCC

Bob, I am amazed and mystified at the way you can take statements from Mrs. White that explicity state her belief in the illegitimacy of central church authority and turn them into statements of support.

To argue “The Bible and the Bible only”, and then appeal to Mrs. White for support is irrational. Those are mutually exclusive positions. (Mrs. White agrees with that by the way.)

I suppose you are referring to my comments here


And here –


It is left as an exercise for the reader to see if those comments are faithful to the text – I have given the references and so far it appears that the “point remains”.

As for “the bible alone” — when you take the Bible alone – you find that in 1Thess 5 we are instructed to listen closely to prophetic statements – and Ellen White comments on that same chapter saying that we “quench the Spirit” when we ignore messages that God gives through His Prophets.

Our sola scriptura position is in regard to testing our doctrine. As I already pointed out – there is NO evolutionist arguement here appealing to scripture as the source for the doctrine on evolutionism. Contrast that to the stated of the dead, or the law, or the Gospel or the nature of God or any other doctrine that we hold. In all of those cases we are ALSO making “sola scriptura” arguments but those who oppose them at least “try” to counter with a Bible argument. Not so with the false doctrines on origins found in evolutionism.

in that case – those who oppose the SDA doctrine go after BOTH the Bible AND Ellen White trying to make their case.

Ron said –
I cannot remember of any instance where Mrs. White tried to expell anyone from the church. It seems to me that she always used logic and persuasion. I can’t imagine her ever threatening anyone. She didn’t advocate firing Dr. Kellogg who advocated pantheism and she didn’t do it with Elder Butler when he rejected Righteousness by Faith.

Very little of what I have said here deals with removing anyone from church membership. I have focused almost exclusively on not paying people to teach Bible destroying doctrines in our schools or pulpits.

in Christ,


Notice of constituency meeting of the NCC

At times, when a small group of men entrusted with the general management of the work have, in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out unwise
plans and to restrict God’s work, I have said that I could no longer regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as the voice of God.

The context is — who has authority. Ellen White is saying that a small group of leaders at the top of the administration does not have the level of authority that she used to attribute to them when she had more confidence in them.

by contrast –

But this is not saying that the decisions of a General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed, representative men from all parts of the field should not be respected. God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. {9T 260.2

This is in direct contras to the authority that she deemed the leaders to have at one time – but no longer considered them to have as a matter of having lost confidence in them to that degree.

So the point is that the GC session does have authority – at the same time we continue to test all doctrine “sola scriptura”.

Lest we forget the context of our own discussion here –

In the case of the Evolution vs Creation debate – Evolutionist don’t make a “I have a better exegetical position on scripture” argument — rather they make a “scripture is not trustworthy as compared to the science of guessing about origins” argument.

BTW – I am not accusing you of trying to tear down the fundamentals of the faith – I think your questions are legit in regard to creed vs FB and a lot of people have asked about that.

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

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

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

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

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

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

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

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

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

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

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

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